Infinite trade speculation

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
1,289
Seattle
My understanding is that only players on the 40-man roster count towards the tax. For example, if the Sox DFA Panda and Craig, that'd reduce their payroll by $28.6 million in 2017. Of course, they'd still have to pay them.
That is not correct. A player has to be eligible to be removed from the 40 man roster like Craig was. If they release Panda, and he clears waivers, his entire salary will count toward the luxury tax cap. If they trade him and pick up a portion of his salary, that money will count against their luxury tax cap.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,197
I love BROCKHOLT, but I don't think it's sustainable to have him be the starting LF, especially when we don't have another outfielder on the roster who can reliably hit right-handed pitching.

We could try to add depth. Three options there: a) hope Swihart/Hernandez takes to the position defensively and hits enough to be worth it, b) hope Benintendi is ready to be our Michael Conforto this year, c) find a cheap bench OF somewhere. But you're still left worrying that Holt's offense will fall off a cliff again, you're still playing a BB gun hitter at a Howitzer defensive position (in a lineup where you're not exactly overstocked with power), and you're still missing Holt's versatility as a Swiss Army knife bench player.

So, yeah, it would be nice to have another front-line starter, but the real hole on this team is remarkably Josh Reddick-shaped, isn't it?
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Would it be rude of me to suggest that we don't actually need to make a trade?

Let's assume that Price turns back into an ace. Porcello should have convinced everyone he's a #2. I imagine Wright is going to see his ERA go up but between him and Eduardo Rodriguez I think we've got a pretty good three and four. That's a playoff rotation.
You may be correct.

On the other hand, trading for a quality SP would help the Red Sox deal with various contingencies, some unforeseen and some more predictable. For example, Buchholz is the Red Sox 5th starter but he might not be good enough to stay in the rotation. Alternatively, there is a good chance that Buchholz gets hurt. In the latter scenario, Joe Kelly takes over the 5th spot, but how good is he? Henry Owens can't throw strikes on a consistent basis; Elias is having all kinds of problems in AAA; Brian Johnson has injury concerns. Thus, upgrading the 5th spot in the rotation with a #2 would add tremendous depth to the starting pitching, while putting the Red Sox in a better position to deal with an unforeseen negative development: an injury to one of the Red Sox's top 4 starters.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
So, yeah, it would be nice to have another front-line starter, but the real hole on this team is remarkably Josh Reddick-shaped, isn't it?
What is Reddick going to cost? He's a plus RF with an OPS+ of 115 over the last 2+ years, and he's only 29, so I can't see Oakland not extending the QO. So you have to beat that. Does Brian Johnson get you 3 months of Josh Reddick? Would the Sox do it? It's not like Holt is a disaster, and you'd still be playing Young ahead of Reddick vs LHP.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,257
Maine
My understanding is that only players on the 40-man roster count towards the tax. For example, if the Sox DFA Panda and Craig, that'd reduce their payroll by $28.6 million in 2017. Of course, they'd still have to pay them.
Players not on the 40-man but still in the organization don't count toward payroll for luxury tax purposes, but players released outright and paid in full still do. As does any cash sent along to offset a player's salary when he's traded (and the receiving team gets a credit for that amount).

For example, the cash sent to the Dodgers in the Punto deal counted against the Sox luxury tax in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 ($3.9M per season). The Angels have about $26M counted on their taxable books this year for Josh Hamilton while he only counts for about $2M against the Rangers payroll. Speaking of the Rangers, they're only taxed on $18M of Prince Fielder's $24M salary...Detroit gets hit for the rest. I could go on.

The only way a team can be 100% unburdened of luxury tax obligations for a player's salary is if they trade the player with the receiving team assuming 100% of the remaining contract.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
10,772
Michigan
Players not on the 40-man but still in the organization don't count toward payroll for luxury tax purposes, but players released outright and paid in full still do. As does any cash sent along to offset a player's salary when he's traded (and the receiving team gets a credit for that amount).

For example, the cash sent to the Dodgers in the Punto deal counted against the Sox luxury tax in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 ($3.9M per season). The Angels have about $26M counted on their taxable books this year for Josh Hamilton while he only counts for about $2M against the Rangers payroll. Speaking of the Rangers, they're only taxed on $18M of Prince Fielder's $24M salary...Detroit gets hit for the rest. I could go on.

The only way a team can be 100% unburdened of luxury tax obligations for a player's salary is if they trade the player with the receiving team assuming 100% of the remaining contract.
Thanks for the explanation. (Thanks to DGreenwood too.) Doesn't this all get renegotiated in the next CBA?
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Thanks for the explanation. (Thanks to DGreenwood too.) Doesn't this all get renegotiated in the next CBA?
IMO, this is one of the sections of the CBA least likely to be renegotiated.

- It's good for the players, because FA players keep getting paid a guaranteed contract regardless.

- It's good for the small-market owners, because it neutralizes some of the big-market teams' financial advantage.

- It's only bad for the big-market owners like the MFY's, Dodgers, Angels, and of course Red Sox.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,971
Seattle, WA
I'm not pitching a trade for Trout. Someone else did that. I just offered my opinion that Betts, Swihart, Moncada, Marrero and one minor league pitcher for Trout would not be too much for the Sox to offer for the best offensive player in baseball who's still only 24-years-old.
Stop the madness. You don't trade 4 or more future major leaguers for one guy...unless he's superhuman and guarantees he will never be on the DL or need surgery. You know anyone like that?

{Jeez, might as well throw Benintendi into the mix as long as the team has to rebuild its system from scratch}
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Would anyone take Trout and 100% of Pujols for nothing? Purely theoretical since Pujols has a full no trade. But I think probably no. It's like a 300 kol commitment for 4 years of Trout and whatever you think Pujols has left? Maybe NY, since they are losing a ton of dead payroll the next couple of seasons, and they can just write off Pujols if need be?
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,552
The Eastern Suburbs
In a world where there were teams who could afford that deal then every single one of them would make that deal.

You're all weird about this Trout thing.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
In a world where there were teams who could afford that deal then every single one of them would make that deal.

You're all weird about this Trout thing.
The value remaining on both of their deals (as of opening day for simplicity sake) is 327 million (plus 10 mil for a personal services contract for Pujols, which I'm not including). How much is the rest of Pujols' career worth? Tough to say -- fangraphs says he was still worth 16 mil last year, but he's been in a pretty sharp decline, and pretty poor this year, so age continuing to take its toll seems like a safe bet. Just to pick a round number, let's say 50 million. That leaves 277 million dollars for 5 years of Mike Trout (again, assuming you get all of this year). Just over 55 million per year. You think teams would make that deal? Not in some hypothetical world, the real one, where budgets matter. Even if I say Pujols is worth 70 mil the rest of the way, that's still 50 mil per year for Trout. I mean, I suppose its not 100% impossible someone would do that, for the sake of a shorter term deal. But it couldn't possibly be more than two or three, and I'm skeptical that any at all would do it.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Nasty, brutish, and short
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
9,269
Boston, MA
The value remaining on both of their deals (as of opening day for simplicity sake) is 327 million (plus 10 mil for a personal services contract for Pujols, which I'm not including). How much is the rest of Pujols' career worth? Tough to say -- fangraphs says he was still worth 16 mil last year, but he's been in a pretty sharp decline, and pretty poor this year, so age continuing to take its toll seems like a safe bet. Just to pick a round number, let's say 50 million. That leaves 277 million dollars for 5 years of Mike Trout (again, assuming you get all of this year). Just over 55 million per year. You think teams would make that deal? Not in some hypothetical world, the real one, where budgets matter. Even if I say Pujols is worth 70 mil the rest of the way, that's still 50 mil per year for Trout. I mean, I suppose its not 100% impossible someone would do that, for the sake of a shorter term deal. But it couldn't possibly be more than two or three, and I'm skeptical that any at all would do it.
Trout was worth $72 million last year. Every sabermetrically oriented team would be happy to pay him $50m per year.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
10,772
Michigan
Trout was worth $72 million last year. Every sabermetrically oriented team would be happy to pay him $50m per year.
Also, that $50m per year estimate includes taking on Pujols's contract. The trades being speculated upon include sending Panda to LAA so that'd mitigate some of the Pujols "bad money."

To redo the math, Trout and Pujols have $327m remaining on their contracts, Sandoval has $61m. So keeping Prometheus Wakefield's assumption that Pujols is worth $50m, that leaves $216m for five years of Mike Trout... or $43m-a-year.

All this Trout stuff, to me, is just idle speculation. The Sox don't need Mike Trout. The need starting pitching.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
All this Trout stuff, to me, is just idle speculation. The Sox don't need Mike Trout. The need starting pitching.
Mike Trout has been the best player in baseball for the last 4 years. He's 24. By the end of this year, he will probably have more WAR than David Ortiz has in his entire career. He may be the best baseball player any of us ever see in our lifetimes. He's 24. You don't not get Willie Mays or Micky Mantle or Ken Griffey at age 24 if there's any possible way to get them. It would be like not getting Pedro Martinez because you have a bad outfield. If you have any opportunity to get a transcendent player, you get them.

It's definitely idle speculation.
 
Last edited:

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,552
The Eastern Suburbs
The value remaining on both of their deals (as of opening day for simplicity sake) is 327 million (plus 10 mil for a personal services contract for Pujols, which I'm not including). How much is the rest of Pujols' career worth? Tough to say -- fangraphs says he was still worth 16 mil last year, but he's been in a pretty sharp decline, and pretty poor this year, so age continuing to take its toll seems like a safe bet. Just to pick a round number, let's say 50 million. That leaves 277 million dollars for 5 years of Mike Trout (again, assuming you get all of this year). Just over 55 million per year. You think teams would make that deal? Not in some hypothetical world, the real one, where budgets matter. Even if I say Pujols is worth 70 mil the rest of the way, that's still 50 mil per year for Trout. I mean, I suppose its not 100% impossible someone would do that, for the sake of a shorter term deal. But it couldn't possibly be more than two or three, and I'm skeptical that any at all would do it.
You posed the hypothetical, guy. It's your hypothetical question. Which makes your eagerness to challenge it as a stupid hypothetical question so funny.

Moondog: Hey you guys, hey you guys... would you do this hypothetical question?
Everybody: Yes.
Moondog: No, I mean, not hyporthetically, I mean really do it.
Everbody: We would do it.
Moondog: The answer is no, by the way. I'm skeptical you'd do it.
Everybody: We would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, you don't understand. Here, let me re-phrase my hypothetical question, because you wouldn't. Would you do it?
Everybody: Yes. Also you don't know how to spell sceptical.
Moondog: No... no one would do it. Not in the real world.
Everybody: Yes we would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone would do it.
Everybody: This is stupid.
Moondog: I'm not crazy.
Everybody: Whatever guy.
Moondog: It says "Choo-choo-choose" and it has a picture of a train on it.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
You posed the hypothetical, guy. It's your hypothetical question. Which makes your eagerness to challenge it as a stupid hypothetical question so funny.

Moondog: Hey you guys, hey you guys... would you do this hypothetical question?
Everybody: Yes.
Moondog: No, I mean, not hyporthetically, I mean really do it.
Everbody: We would do it.
Moondog: The answer is no, by the way. I'm skeptical you'd do it.
Everybody: We would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, you don't understand. Here, let me re-phrase my hypothetical question, because you wouldn't. Would you do it?
Everybody: Yes. Also you don't know how to spell sceptical.
Moondog: No... no one would do it. Not in the real world.
Everybody: Yes we would. /Reasons.
Moondog: No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone would do it.
Everybody: This is stupid.
Moondog: I'm not crazy.
Everybody: Whatever guy.
Moondog: It says "Choo-choo-choose" and it has a picture of a train on it.
I get that we have different views on Trout's trade value. That's cool. What I don't get is why everyone else can discuss reasonably and not you.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,417
Stop the madness. You don't trade 4 or more future major leaguers for one guy...unless he's superhuman and guarantees he will never be on the DL or need surgery. You know anyone like that?

{Jeez, might as well throw Benintendi into the mix as long as the team has to rebuild its system from scratch}
And yet, would anyone be shocked if Dave Dombrowski comes close to trading away that much talent for Mike Trout, given his history of aggressive dealmaking? I wouldn't be.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,460
Portland
Blame Dave Cameron and MLB.com - they're the ones posting articles about it. It's just fodder for this thread until June when anything happens anyhow.

Also - from his chat today.

"Leo: After your article last week, you are probably with crazy Trout trades, but I figured I’d send mine as well: Moncada, Devers, Benintendi, Bradley Jr. for Trout? Maybe even swap Pujols and Hanley contracts or add a pitching prospect if that is too light. This may be crazy in either direction. My feeble brain can’t handle what an actual Trout trade would look like."

12:07
Dave Cameron: Not enough."
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,582
From baseball prospectus ("who could trade only prospects for Trout?"):
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=29153

Boston Red Sox
My offer
: Yoan Moncada, Rafael Devers, Anderson Espinoza and Andrew Benintendi.
I am tired of you saying no and I will not be shot down again. Say no to this. You’ve got your top-five prospect in Moncada, you’ve got your potential top of the rotation starter in Espinoza. You’ve got one of the best hitting prospects in all of baseball in Devers, and you’ve got a guy who can do a remotely decent Trout imitation in Benintendi. This sort of breaks my rule of destroying my system, but I wanna see you say no to that.

The response
: “You hit everything I want, and yet, it’s still no. Moncada is gonna be a star, so is Benintendi, and I really like Devers and Espinoza. It’s still Mike flippin’ Trout. I can’t say yes to this and watch him hit 50 homers over the Green Monster.”

In 1982 or so, lacking the $$ to actually buy the ticket from the guy in the dorm, I traded a slightly scratched Trout Mask Replica and an album to be named later for a ticket to see Frank Zappa.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Let's hope the "unnamed executive" is right about his ratings of the Sox prospects!
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
Are you counting yourself in the reasonably basket?
If you're saying it's not reasonable to think that Pujols' contract is so bad that even Trout isn't enough of a sweetener to get someone to take it, just explain why. Because I broke down my logic pretty clearly and your argument was "YOU'RE A STUPIDHEAD".

Put another way; you think any team in the league would pay 277 mil for 5 years of Trout, and this is so obvious that to suggest otherwise is heresy?
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
919
Quincy
So just when I started to miss the endless trade speculation around Giancarlo Stanton, we get endless speculation 2.0 in the form of Mike Trout! C'mon people, can we keep just one thread dedicated to things that could possibly happen??
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,663
I'm coming down on Moondog's side here. I understand that Trout's the current version of Willie Mays, but the acquisition price, combined with the reality that the Angels are going to demand that whoever makes that deal eat Pujols puts me on the nay side of the equation (unless Larry Eliison decides that he just has to own Fenway Sports Group and decides to ignore the luxury taxes).

It's not about the prospect hording (because I'm more than willing to see them use them for more reasonable acquisitions), but the reality that the Angels are going to want the top of the system plus Boston's future stars on the MLB level. I'd much rather hold onto Benintendi and chase after a top of the rotation pitcher.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,167
I'm coming down on Moondog's side here. I understand that Trout's the current version of Willie Mays, but the acquisition price, combined with the reality that the Angels are going to demand that whoever makes that deal eat Pujols puts me on the nay side of the equation (unless Larry Eliison decides that he just has to own Fenway Sports Group and decides to ignore the luxury taxes).

It's not about the prospect hording (because I'm more than willing to see them use them for more reasonable acquisitions), but the reality that the Angels are going to want the top of the system plus Boston's future stars on the MLB level. I'd much rather hold onto Benintendi and chase after a top of the rotation pitcher.
Might want to go back and read what moondog's side is before saying you're on it.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,792
Put another way; you think any team in the league would pay 277 mil for 5 years of Trout, and this is so obvious that to suggest otherwise is heresy?
I think what he's saying is that some folks are giving you answers you disagree with to a question that you posed, and you seem to be calling them heretics for possibly thinking differently than you.

I think.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
10,772
Michigan
One way of looking at Trout's and Pujol's contracts is that together they cost the Angels $61 million per year for five years, 2016-2020 (with one free year of Pujols in 2021.) Assuming Trout averages 8 WAR over five years and Pujols averages, say, zero, that's $7.7 million/WAR.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
12,190
Somewhere
Mike Trout has been the best player in baseball for the last 4 years. He's 24. By the end of this year, he will probably have more WAR than David Ortiz has in his entire career. He may be the best baseball player any of us ever see in our lifetimes. He's 24. You don't not get Willie Mays or Micky Mantle or Ken Griffey at age 24 if there's any possible way to get them. It would be like not getting Pedro Martinez because you have a bad outfield. If you have any opportunity to get a transcendent player, you get them.

It's definitely idle speculation.
well, continuing the analogy..

Pedro was a win not just because of who he was as a player but because the Sox didn't even have to trade an elite prospect (e.g. Nomar) for him. I would probably still do that deal, for what it's worth, but it's not so clear.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
I think what he's saying is that some folks are giving you answers you disagree with to a question that you posed, and you seem to be calling them heretics for possibly thinking differently than you.

I think.
I have zero issue with people thinking differently and the notion that I might be wrong. It's certainly possible, I even said so myself. I never called anyone anything, explicitly or implicitly, except for one person who responded with a nuclear bomb of hostility. Am I really the intolerant one here?
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,167
His side is "No". Our reasons for "No" may differ somewhat, but I am on the no side of the question.
His hypothetical was no on Trout and Pujols for nothing in return. You're talking about prospect hoarding which means you still haven't read his original proposal.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,663
His hypothetical was no on Trout and Pujols for nothing in return. You're talking about prospect hoarding which means you still haven't read his original proposal.
That was one of his posts, and I wasn't bothering with that part. I was more commenting on his numerous posts against any possible trade.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Should these discussions be based on need? I think that we can agree that this is a pretty solid team defensively. Let's look at the offense. Right now they look unstoppable, but that won't last forever. That said there is a really nice blend of power and speed and the youngsters appear to be maturing in their approach to hitting. Patience and the sudden ability of everyone being able to go opposite field seems to be a concerted effort rather than good fortune. Perhaps LF is the one position that you might want to upgrade and there is Ortiz's retirement to consider, but given everything else that is going right, at what cost? You have to look at the current roster, then look at your minor league talent and determine who has value, who is redundant, and who is expendable. As much as I would love to see Trout in a Sox uni, what is that going to take? Top prospects as well as talent off the Major League roster and the Pujols contract? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather look to bolster the rotation at a much lesser cost for this season and look to do something to fill the Ortiz void in the off season.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
I'd rather look to bolster the rotation at a much lesser cost for this season and look to do something to fill the Ortiz void in the off season.
Upgrading the rotation through trade is essential when you consider that (1) the upcoming free agent market for SPs is very thin. (2) The Red Sox don't have a future high upside major league starter in the farm system until we get to Espinoza, who is a few years away. (3) The Red Sox would increase their chances of making the playoffs in 2016 and winning in the playoffs as well.

I think Sandoval is Ortiz's replacement (in a way). The Red Sox can't trade Sandoval without paying off the contract and so I think it makes sense to keep Sandoval and hope for a John Lackey type of turnaround in 2017. To be sure, the Red Sox will miss Ortiz's bat, but Betts and Bogaerts should continue to get better as offensive players, thus compensating for Ortiz's loss. I see Benintendi as the starting LF next year, keeping the Red Sox out of the free agent market i.e., no Reddick or Rasmus.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
well, continuing the analogy..

Pedro was a win not just because of who he was as a player but because the Sox didn't even have to trade an elite prospect (e.g. Nomar) for him. I would probably still do that deal, for what it's worth, but it's not so clear.
Carl Pavano was the #9 overall prospect at the time. Tony Armas topped out at #27. Even if they'd been great, it still would have been worth it. Sometimes even top/elite prospects don't work out as well as you'd think.

There's a ludicrous point where a trade is silly, but I think it's a general rule of thumb that just highlights the fact that HoFers are really, really good and it's a bad idea to trade them away for just about anything. There aren't a ton of examples, but I would guess that nearly every team that has traded away an inner circle HoF level player as they were entering their prime years has regretted it.
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,190
Rogers Park
It looks like Oakland is falling out of things, insofar as they seem lack a pitching staff. I'm sure it's not really as bad as looked this week, but it's pretty bad.

So what kind of trade package would Beane need to see for Reddick? The A's could QO Reddick, while a team he was traded to could not. I want Holt back in his best role: playing half time, staying fresh, being a versatile low-split LHH off the bench. I think a LHH corner outfielder is what's indicated.

R Betts RF
L Bradley CF
R Bogaerts SS
L Ortiz DH
R Pedroia 2B
L Reddick LF
R Ramirez 1B
L Shaw 3B
R Vazquez C

L Holt IF/OF
R Young OF
R Hannigan C
R Rutledge IF
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,429
So what kind of trade package would Beane need to see for Reddick?
What's the best recent comp (2 month rental where the team loses the compensation pick)? I was thinking Cespedes last year, but he had that clause in his contract where he couldn't get the QO, so the Tigers had less incentive to hang onto him. Johnny Cueto? I feel like he had a bit more value than Reddick does now, and he got the Reds a guy who was the Royals' 5th best prospect per Keith Law (and not in the overall top 100), and two guys who Law didn't have in the Royals top 15. So Brian Johnson or Michael Kopech, and two lesser pieces?
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
So what kind of trade package would Beane need to see for Reddick?
He will want a top prospect for him. I'm not willing to give that up for a rental. I'd rather go with a Holt/Young platoon. The Red Sox need to promote Benintendi to AA in order to get a better feel for how ready he is.