The Red Sox Payroll Poll

[OCD SS]

A good deal of the conflict this offseason stems from the team's spending, and that they have identified areas where they could improve (starting pitching, more starting pitching, RHH power, RHH balance to the OF, and even more pitching) but are not really spending. They are well below the first CBT threshold, and it would not even be possible for them to spend enough to reach more serious penalties. Most reports have them coming up short for the free agents they're looking at, to the point that many factions of the industry are wondering what they're doing and why they aren't spending like the third most valuable franchise in the sport. As the quote goes, they are looking at the available players rationally and coming in third...

Following Dombrowski the team looked to cut payroll and the only Sox result of note in 2020 was getting under the threshold and resetting the CBT. After 2021's improbably run they were looking at adding to try to make the playoffs or cutting salary in 2022 and Bloom's indecision shot them in the foot. And then they at least reset the tax again last season after another last place finish, but the "keeping the powder dry for X free agent" has turned out to not result in that expected big splash. We've looked at the history and this is not a team that traditionally goes head to head with other teams to land a player; their big contracts have come as extensions.

So comparing Red Sox spending to CBT limits, what do you think they can and should spend on payroll? Is it worth it to overpay in the short-term to solve problems, or is it better to reduce spending, even if the on-field product takes a step back?

 

[the1andonly3003]

I never thought Boston was a small market team. Why be less willing to spend as much as the early aughts?

 

[Nacl]

Ideally the team establishes a pattern where they take one massive (8-10 years) free agent contract about every 3 years, one large free agent contract (4-6 years) every year, have a development system has a reasonably consistent stream of cost controlled talent, trade from areas of redundancy and grout the holes with the mid-bottom tier free agency market (where cost efficiency can be found). Spend to just below the limit every year so you have the flexibility to both take on cost and not hang yourself with the draft impacting penalties. This should allow for reasonable cash to come off the ledger every year and not hamstring yourself with lots of bad over lapping contracts. At the end of the day there is a ton of uncontrollable performance risk variance to any team, all a team can do is put themself in a position to mitigate the variance and capitalize when most of the pieces line up.

 

[CR67dream]

Well it looks like we've found the thing that really unites us all, at least so far. Thanks for this poll, OCD.

There is no reason on earth this team should not be spending at the levels of option two every single year, and if it is a year that has some real promise, and the right guy (s) is (are) there, shoot for the moon and go option one. Anything less than that, absent an extreme situation (such as the pandemic), and there's no spin that I want to hear from them.

 

[Salem's Lot]

I never thought Boston was a small market team. Why be less willing to spend as much as the early aughts?

There are different parties with minority stakes in FSG than there were in the early 2000s. The limited partners back then were focused on having a winning team year in and year out. Redbird Capital is focused on ROI.

 

[snowmanny]

Well there are “let’s see if we get lucky” years and “let’s win the whole thing” years.

But the fans invest a lot of money in this team.

So my answer is NEVER under $220M*
Sign one-year deals to get there.

Be a top 4 payroll with some regularity.

*Edit - I’ll amend that to $200M.

 

[EdRalphRomero]

I appreciate the poll, and it is interesting to see the consistency in responses, at least as of this writing. I suspect we are in a realignment of the realities of free agency where free agent money is just not going to be able to buy you the caliber of player that it could previously. I will admit to not being steeped enough in the realities of the new CBA, but a variety of factors (bottom-tier teams spending more, pressure to lock up young stars earlier, decreased effectiveness of older players) seem to be depleting the free agent marketplace. That, in turn, puts more pressure on player development. I don't think you can incur the draft penalty, at least not regularly, without likely starting a spiral that will be very difficult to recover from.

At least in 2023, the correlation between spending and results was as weak as I can ever recall seeing. Here is a list of team payrolls and winning percentages. You see lots of big payroll teams with records at or below .500. And you see teams like the Orioles and Rays at the other end of that.

So I want the Red Sox to spend money up until the point where it hurts drafting and player development. If there is a player that adds value and the only cost is money (including monetary CBT penalties) because it isn't my money. But I increasingly think you can't fix the team via free agency any more.

 

[HfxBob]

I appreciate the poll, and it is interesting to see the consistency in responses, at least as of this writing. I suspect we are in a realignment of the realities of free agency where free agent money is just not going to be able to buy you the caliber of player that it could previously. I will admit to not being steeped enough in the realities of the new CBA, but a variety of factors (bottom-tier teams spending more, pressure to lock up young stars earlier, decreased effectiveness of older players) seem to be depleting the free agent marketplace. That, in turn, puts more pressure on player development. I don't think you can incur the draft penalty, at least not regularly, without likely starting a spiral that will be very difficult to recover from.

At least in 2023, the correlation between spending and results was as week as I can ever recall seeing. Here is a list of team payrolls and winning percentages. You see lots of big payroll teams with records at or below .500. And you see teams like the Orioles and Rays at the other end of that.

So I want the Red Sox to spend money up until the point where it hurts drafting and player development, because it isn't my money. But I increasingly think you can't fix the team via free agency any more.

Right now the Rays are the only team in baseball that has been able to maintain a consistent winner for an extended period on a small payroll. The Orioles have a ways to go before they can claim that.

 

[buckner's_ankles]

I voted for "Up to $265M," but I want to point out that getting up to that range by signing mediocre players to long-term deals is a really bad approach. This year, it looks very unlikely that we have a real shot at contending, so I'd rather see a $230M payroll with a lot of expiring deals than a $265M payroll that includes questionable future spending.

Maybe this seems obvious, but I've seen a lot of recent posts pushing for an offseason approach that feels really shortsighted and counterproductive. Sure, if it's clear by opening day that the Sox have roughly the same talent level as last year, it probably won't be a fun season for fans, but if that's the price of focusing on building a team to contend in 2025 and beyond, I'm okay with that. Or, at least, I'm prepared for that and ready to be entertained by watching the kids develop and rooting for us to acquire more high-ceiling young players.

 

[StuckOnYouk]

When do you start getting the penalties the Yankees just received (having your draft slot drop 10)? Also when do you start losing IFA money?

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I voted to spend to the maximum because I am a fan and my concern with stakeholder profits ends at their minimum expected return. And if they want to lose money to pursue winning, I am here for that too.

That said, this poll is tough because we simply don't have a full picture of the team's finances. I suspect people's answers would change as a function of the team's profitability. FSG may be at the efficient frontier for sustainable payroll given all of their revenue streams or ownership may be earning a hefty return while trying to sell people on their measured approach. We simply don't know.

The last thing to add is that if FSG cannot spend much more than this sustainably, we need to consider bigger picture changes like a new ballpark or even a new ownership group. However we can't even have that discussion without a lot more information.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I appreciate the poll, and it is interesting to see the consistency in responses, at least as of this writing. I suspect we are in a realignment of the realities of free agency where free agent money is just not going to be able to buy you the caliber of player that it could previously. I will admit to not being steeped enough in the realities of the new CBA, but a variety of factors (bottom-tier teams spending more, pressure to lock up young stars earlier, decreased effectiveness of older players) seem to be depleting the free agent marketplace. That, in turn, puts more pressure on player development. I don't think you can incur the draft penalty, at least not regularly, without likely starting a spiral that will be very difficult to recover from.

At least in 2023, the correlation between spending and results was as weak as I can ever recall seeing. Here is a list of team payrolls and winning percentages. You see lots of big payroll teams with records at or below .500. And you see teams like the Orioles and Rays at the other end of that.

So I want the Red Sox to spend money up until the point where it hurts drafting and player development. If there is a player that adds value and the only cost is money (including monetary CBT penalties) because it isn't my money. But I increasingly think you can't fix the team via free agency any more.

This. As a fan I want them to win; meaning to field a team that's capable of competing for a very long cycle as opposed to a boom or bust year.

To focus on what they're spending, instead of how and why and when, puts the cart before the horse.

 

[CR67dream]

I voted for "Up to $265M," but I want to point out that getting up to that range by signing mediocre players to long-term deals is a really bad approach. This year, it looks very unlikely that we have a real shot at contending, so I'd rather see a $230M payroll with a lot of expiring deals than a $265M payroll that includes questionable future spending.

I tend to agree with the bolded, and that was my vote too. I probably should have been more nuanced in my own initial response. It's probably more accurate for me to say that I want them to be genuinely willing to spend like that every year, but I understand there will be rare exceptions that it may not make sense. I also think those exceptions should be very, very, very rare.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

i mentioned this in the other thread but cap space is an asset and they should use it as such. Taking on bad contracts for young players; signing guys to short-term deals who can be flipped; etc. - they used their finances to build winners in the padt and they should find innovative ways ro do so again.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

I tend to agree with the bolded, and that was my vote too. I probably should have been more nuanced in my own initial response. It's probably more accurate for me to say that I want them to be genuinely willing to spend like that every year, but I understand there will be rare exceptions that it may not make sense. I also think those exceptions should be very, very, very rare.

I agree with this and that is why I voted the same way. It would be a pretty rare situation in which I’d like to see them take the tax hit AND suffer in the draft. I don’t see a reason why we can’t afford up to $265M but I don’t want them to do so foolishly.

 

[OCD SS]

To focus on what they're spending, instead of how and why and when, puts the cart before the horse.

Just to this point, if team payroll has been set at around $225M as has been reported, then that cap is similarly arbitrary, and is likely affecting how competitive the team is in 2024.

I don’t think anyone here is saying just spend to spend. I am not. It comes down to the assessment of ways to improve the team (look at the list in the first post), and then figuring out how to do that. It’s a very different exercise to say improve these areas of the team, and also make sure the payroll doesn’t go over $225M.

This is especially true if we think that the team’s young prospect core is the key to future long term, sustainable success. Why should we trade these players when a comparable solution is available for money?

 

[AB in DC]

The whole point in going under the first CBT threshold in 2023 is to go over it in 2024. Reset, then spend.

 

[CR67dream]

Why should we trade these players when a comparable solution is available for money?

I agree with the gist of this 100%, but I think the bolded is where it gets tricky. Someone has to determine what that comparable solution is, and if it's even available. The key to me is parting with the right prospects to fill needs that don't have an obvious solution in free agency. We can't keep them all, nor should we, so use the capital wisely. That's definitely a minefield Breslow will have to to navigate

 

[HfxBob]

The whole point in going under the first CBT threshold in 2023 is to go over it in 2024. Reset, then spend.

It sure feels like a litmus test for the state of our ownership's intentions-to see if they stay under the first tax threshold two years in a row or not.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I don’t think anyone here is saying just spend to spend. I am not.

I think some others have been very clear that they are. Several people are irate, for example ,that Teoscar Hernandez was not signed, even though that might have meant using a significant amount their budget margin and perhaps saddling the team with a bad contract 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.

Stances like that suggest people who are unable to disentangle their disappointment about what happened in 2022 and 2023 from what might be the best plan going forward. . .from, say, the moment Breslow took over. They want *something* to be done, but are unwilling to consider the particulars of each discrete something.

It's entirely possible that given their plan, the FAs the Sox did not sign either were not interested in playing here or didn't make sense.

Perhaps a case-in-point:

It sure feels like a litmus test for the state of our ownership's intentions-to see if they stay under the first tax threshold two years in a row or not.

If they went over and fielded a shitty team and hamstrung the roster with overpriced FA's they'd have to staple to young talent to clear. . .would you be unreflectively approving?

If they stayed under and fielded a competitive 2024 team that was in the mix for the post-season, would you condemn them?

I think there are some here who are in a "No/Yes" combo.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Just to this point, if team payroll has been set at around $225M as has been reported, then that cap is similarly arbitrary, and is likely affecting how competitive the team is in 2024.

I don’t think anyone here is saying just spend to spend. I am not. It comes down to the assessment of ways to improve the team (look at the list in the first post), and then figuring out how to do that. It’s a very different exercise to say improve these areas of the team, and also make sure the payroll doesn’t go over $225M.

This is especially true if we think that the team’s young prospect core is the key to future long term, sustainable success. Why should we trade these players when a comparable solution is available for money?

This matches my thoughts. They are seemingly limiting what they can do if they are using a $225M or so budget. There is no reason to do that this year other than to improve the 2024 P&L. If they don’t think the 2024 team is worth being aggressive for, fine, but I would definitely expect more spending next offseason with some intriguing guys available and the top 3 prospects (hopefully) close to their MLB debuts.

There are still guys available who can help. Snell and Montgomery. We’ll see what they ultimately sign for but if the Sox don’t land either, then it would be hard to see how Breslow would have materially improved the team despite having financial flexibility. And if ownership won’t let him spend more than CBT, then that’s on them.

 

[orr4num]

Recognizing that Spotrac may not be up-to-date, they list us at a max payroll value of 185.6 million (I think I saw a number from a different source just north of 200 million in another thread). For arguments sake, would anyone actually think the payroll is even that high based on the results attained recently?? To me, before we spend mega-bucks on the latest shiny toy, I'd rather see a more concerted effort scouting and drafting the good cost-controlled talent, then, when evaluating any shortfalls (ideally there wouldn't be any!) you see what's available and go get them. The last part of Rovin Romine largely reflects my thinking:

If they went over and fielded a shitty team and hamstrung the roster with overpriced FA's they'd have to staple to young talent to clear. . .would you be unreflectively approving?

If they stayed under and fielded a competitive 2024 team that was in the mix for the post-season, would you condemn them?

I think there are some here who are in a "No/Yes" combo.

 

[grepal]

i mentioned this in the other thread but cap space is an asset and they should use it as such. Taking on bad contracts for young players; signing guys to short-term deals who can be flipped; etc. - they used their finances to build winners in the padt and they should find innovative ways ro do so again.

I voted for up to 265, simply the realization thar drafting good players gives more trade or development stock

 

[BigSoxFan]

Recognizing that Spotrac may not be up-to-date, they list us at a max payroll value of 185.6 million (I think I saw a number from a different source just north of 200 million in another thread). For arguments sake, would anyone actually think the payroll is even that high based on the results attained recently?? To me, before we spend mega-bucks on the latest shiny toy, I'd rather see a more concerted effort scouting and drafting the good cost-controlled talent, then, when evaluating any shortfalls (ideally there wouldn't be any!) you see what's available and go get them. The last part of Rovin Romine largely reflects my thinking:

But they did make a concerted effort to focus on the farm. They built up the farm under Chaim and haven’t really dealt anyone of even remote consequence. The farm is unquestionably better now than it was a few years ago. What exactly are you looking for when you say, “more concerted effort scouting and drafting good cost-controlled talent”? What concrete metrics are you using to judge them on this progress?

Nobody wants indiscriminate spending but this isn’t like the NFL where you can roll over cap space. So far this offseason, they’ve swapped out Sale for Giolito and picked up a potential young piece in Grissom. They’ve traded Verdugo for some prospect flyers, another move I support.

But they haven’t done much beyond this. So, it’s hard for me to get too excited about where this roster currently sits. I’m sure they’ll spend more but I’ll be curious to see where Snell/Montgomery land and at what price or whether or not they can send some money with Jansen/Martin to buy additional prospects.

It’s possible that they’ve identified next offseason as the one where they get more aggressive but we just have to wait and see. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be on either side of this debate.

 

[OCD SS]

I agree with the gist of this 100%, but I think the bolded is where it gets tricky. Someone has to determine what that comparable solution is, and if it's even available. The key to me is parting with the right prospects to fill needs that don't have an obvious solution in free agency. We can't keep them all, nor should we, so use the capital wisely. That's definitely a minefield Breslow will have to to navigate

I agree that this is the tricky part, especially because the assumption is that we can get a young player with more prime/ control years if we trade for them. But that’s also the area where we’re giving up talent, and since our biggest need is pitching, that is an area where you can stack talent on the roster: only one position player is going to be the primary at SS or C, but having 2 good pitchers is just the top of the rotation.

I think some others have been very clear that they are. Several people are irate, for example ,that Teoscar Hernandez was not signed, even though that might have meant using a significant amount their budget margin and perhaps saddling the team with a bad contract 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.

In this regard 2024 is a problem as most of the FAs are disappointing. I wasn’t exactly enamored with TH. But at the same time I didn’t think Sale was moveable for what we got and it has turned out that the money being discussed is in no danger of hamstringing the team.

I reject the idea that 2 years at more money, or a third year of TH was going to be a problem, because it wasn’t really that much for a team with the Sox’s resources and they likely could dump him and eat a bit of money, and give Breslow a chance to pull something out of the deal.

This reasoning is more likely to be applied to the “big splash” FA, like Soto, because it’s much more restrictive to payroll, so I do worry that they have that built in excuse for not pursuing elite FA talent.

If they went over and fielded a shitty team and hamstrung the roster with overpriced FA's they'd have to staple to young talent to clear. . .would you be unreflectively approving?

There isn’t any talent (beyond my retroactive and hypothetical suggestion of how to approach YY) available this offseason where this is what we’d have to do. Even if we’re talking about Snell or Montgomery, they can just stick at the back end of the rotation; even if they’re overpaid they can eat innings, or be dealt as Sale V2.0. And again, the Red Sox only have to staple the prospects to a deal if they’re more worried about their bottom line than they are about the talent on the field.

 

[6-5 Sadler]

I think aiming for annual spending at the second competitive balance threshold ($257M for 2024) is totally reasonable. The tax penalties are modest and it gives you some flexibility to add payroll in year if you’re competitive and not incur any draft penalties. You’re also close enough to the first threshold so you could potentially reset every 3rd year (personally I don’t think this is necessary as the tax differences aren’t that significant at this level). So if you map that out for the next three years our total payroll and tax obligations would be:

2024: $257M payroll + $4M tax = $261M total
2025: $261M payroll + $6M tax = $267M total
2026: $264M payroll + $10M tax = $274M total

At that payroll level, we could add Snell or Monty ($25M-$30M), add Soler ($15M), deal Kenley (-$8M), and sign Pivetta and Casas to extensions ($15M-$20M). This is of course just one theoretical way we could spend the money but it would make us competitive for the wild card this year while setting us up nicely for the longer term (I’m with OCD SS that at our payroll level a Snell/Monty contact won’t hamstring us).

 

[HfxBob]

If they went over and fielded a shitty team and hamstrung the roster with overpriced FA's they'd have to staple to young talent to clear. . .would you be unreflectively approving?

If they stayed under and fielded a competitive 2024 team that was in the mix for the post-season, would you condemn them?

I think there are some here who are in a "No/Yes" combo.

Those questions are kind of rigged. The only sensible answers are No/No.

To me the bottom line is this team has a screamingly obvious need for a top-level starting pitcher, and for whatever reason, they haven't gotten it done yet. If they don't get it done at all, I think it'll be unacceptable. Opportunities were and are there, the payroll room is there.

 

[CR67dream]

To me the bottom line is this team has a screamingly obvious need for a top-level starting pitcher, and for whatever reason, they haven't gotten it done yet. If they don't get it done at all, I think it'll be unacceptable. Opportunities were and are there, the payroll room is there.

Do you think anyone reading here is unaware of any of this? And who has strongly disagreed with any of what you said there specifically? There's nothing objectionable or controversial there at all.

More importantly, none of it is new ground. It's been beaten to death. Everybody pretty much knows how everybody feels, and we're all in a holding pattern until the dam breaks and moves are made. That seems to leave the void to be filled by finding new ways to say the same things over and over again in different ways. And in no way am I singling you out in that, it's just a pattern we've understandably gotten caught up in here.

In other words, there's just no final resolution for any of us until things out of our control start to happen. Shitty place for any board to have to be.

 

[8slim]

I voted to spend to the maximum because I am a fan and my concern with stakeholder profits ends at their minimum expected return. And if they want to lose money to pursue winning, I am here for that too.

That said, this poll is tough because we simply don't have a full picture of the team's finances. I suspect people's answers would change as a function of the team's profitability. FSG may be at the efficient frontier for sustainable payroll given all of their revenue streams or ownership may be earning a hefty return while trying to sell people on their measured approach. We simply don't know.

The last thing to add is that if FSG cannot spend much more than this sustainably, we need to consider bigger picture changes like a new ballpark or even a new ownership group. However we can't even have that discussion without a lot more information.

I’m with ya. Absent a ton of other necessary info, theoretically I want to the Sox to spend as much as is necessary to field a championship caliber team. If that means blowing past every threshold then so be it.

The fans of this franchise are paying more than every other fanbase in the game. Ownership should be making a similar commitment financially.

I don’t think obvious caveats are necessary, but OF COURSE that doesn’t mean they should spend just to spend, or any of those associated thoughts. And OF COURSE there are some deals that just aren’t prudent to pursue (like matching X’s San Diego offer).

All that obviousness aside, we should act like who we are. That being, one of the very few biggest revenue generating franchises in all of sports.

 

[orr4num]

But they did make a concerted effort to focus on the farm. They built up the farm under Chaim and haven’t really dealt anyone of even remote consequence. The farm is unquestionably better now than it was a few years ago. What exactly are you looking for when you say, “more concerted effort scouting and drafting good cost-controlled talent”? What concrete metrics are you using to judge them on this progress?

Nobody wants indiscriminate spending but this isn’t like the NFL where you can roll over cap space. So far this offseason, they’ve swapped out Sale for Giolito and picked up a potential young piece in Grissom. They’ve traded Verdugo for some prospect flyers, another move I support.

But they haven’t done much beyond this. So, it’s hard for me to get too excited about where this roster currently sits. I’m sure they’ll spend more but I’ll be curious to see where Snell/Montgomery land and at what price or whether or not they can send some money with Jansen/Martin to buy additional prospects.

It’s possible that they’ve identified next offseason as the one where they get more aggressive but we just have to wait and see. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be on either side of this debate.

Rhetorically - is it truly a focus on the farm if we get to draft high enough to get a Mayer or Teel and the like because of how poorly we finished the previous year? I'm delighted we have them, but would be more impressed, and optimistic we've truly improved our drafting and scouting, if we drafted them after playoff or near playoff runs (I know, who wouldn't be!). I think Roman Anthony most excites me most because he was our third pick in '22 AND he's moved up the chain as fast as he has.

As to concrete metrics...I have none to offer you. As a non-concrete metric, I'd say that its what my eyes tell me after having been a player, coach, and fan (a fan of specifically these Boston RedSox) for over 50 years. Honestly, I'd like to see our guys almost tripping over each other to get to our major league roster. As it stands, it looks and sound like we'd just as soon ship them out in the next round of trade action. I think it would be pretty damn awesome if teams came calling about guys other than Mayer, Teel , and Anthony or teams would accept guys other than those three if we inquire about say Cease in Chicago or one of those Seattle kids.

At the end of the day, I'm going to be the same sometimes joyous and sometimes cantankerous sob fan regardless of what they do pretty much till the day I die.

 

[Seels]

In general, spend the max. We pay more for tickets than other franchises, pay more for beer and food, parking, and even have to pay for NESN now. The team is squeezing a wealthy fanbase for what they can get, and the favor should be returned.

But for 2024? Who cares. None of the free agents left are going to so much as get this team to .500. What difference does it really make if they're signing a Jorge Soler at this point?

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

I voted “Up to $265MM” because I’m against taking draft penalties, since that hurts long-term stability.
But my vote doesn’t mean I think they should necessarily spend up to that level. In fact, to me “spending” is not an end unto itself.
I’m more interested in team-building than spending. We’ve seen many examples of teams spending like drunken sailors (Padres last year comes to mind), being celebrated by media and fans for their boldness and spendiness, all falling flat on the field.
Many of us here on SOSH, me included at times, think of roster construction in video game terms. In real life there’s a lot more to building a team than throwing money at a bunch of guys. As The Dude would say, there’s a lot of moving parts, a lot of ins and outs, Man. And we here on the internet don’t know the half of it.
So, sure. If building the team takes up to $265MM, go for it. But don’t just spend money for the sake of spending money.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

The results of this poll surprises me. This is the Red Sox. The fans are nuts. Success will result in financial multiples. Spend and crush. If the spending fails, the draft pick penalties will not be the main reason future teams fail or succeed. It will be because the tema did not sign Soler, FFS...

 

[simplicio]

Long term, I want them to have a system that consistently produces cost controlled talent so we can have a ~$225 million baseline and go over the CBT when it's warranted.

In my mind the big tangible benefit to staying under is when it comes to QOs, both in terms of offering them and, even more so, signing others through them. Losing an extra $500k for IFA signings is really significant, when you think about how Rafaela cost $10k, Bello $28k, Monegro $35k, Perales $75k. That's a lot of extra bites at the apple.

That said, I don't think going over is something to shy away from, when the present needs can be met by cash alone. And until we get to that sweet spot of the farm churning out fresh arms and bats every year, go ahead and overspend a little. Go get Montgomery, he's just going to make the team better for the next few years. You're close enough to the window that the kids will be there to step up as he declines (I would not have said this two years ago).

 

[yeahlunchbox]

I expect them to spend to the maximum before incurring penalties other than money. They charge maximum prices to go to games in a park with terrible seating and charge maximum prices for mostly mediocre concessions and merchandise while I'm in the park. I demand a return commensurate with what they're charging fans.

 

[chawson]

I voted over $270, provided we can dip back down every three years to reset (if that policy stays in place).

I think it could be legitimately difficult to have a 40-man roster heavy on prospects and pre-arb players — as ours is — and have a payroll that high. Like, we’re not gonna go out and offer this year’s Yu Chang or Handel Robles a one-year, $12 million dollar contract just to get payroll up. And there aren't a lot of premier free agents who'd accept incredibly lucrative offers of one or two years.

I’d like to see them absorb other teams’ payroll to "buy" prospects more often, but that sort of thing works better on paper. The Angels seem like the a perfect team to do that with right now — just give us Tyler Anderson and a B prospect — but I think Arte Moreno hates the Red Sox and has never made a trade of any consequence with us.

 

[TomRicardo]

It is a little late to start spending payroll as it is little late top field a competitive team this season. They can definitely get above .500 with Montgomery or Snell but they won't be contenders. As for Henry's thought about payroll it is a really weird statement to say. It is about spending money wisely. The Red Sox have a ton of dead money on the books this year and players on long term contracts that simply don't match their value.

The Red Sox have 25 million of dead money from Sale, Turner, Hosmer, and Joely Rodriquez. They have over 40 million tied to two players that combined did not 1.0 WAR in Story and Yoshida. That is 65 million of pretty much dead money. They also an under .500 team with 23.5 million tied to top end relief. They spent money really really poorly. I guess you could be a competitor under 235 million but not when ownerships continues to not pay for top talent but panic over spend on mediocre talent. This is on ownership as much as it is on Bloom. Henry should look in the mirror when he says stuff like that.

 

[simplicio]

Categorizing Story and Yoshida as "pretty much dead money" is a really strange take.

 

[sezwho]

Categorizing Story and Yoshida as "pretty much dead money" is a really strange take.

<1WAR for 65M last year isn’t dead but maybe life support?

Going forward, I’m probably in the upper range of optimism on both even here on a Sox fan (and friends !) site.

 

[simplicio]

I mean, do we expect Yoshida to not improve at all in year 2 and Story to spend most of the season recovering from another elbow surgery?

Also, spending money on relievers last winter was absolutely what they needed to do and was pretty universally lauded around here, after having the 4th worst bullpen in baseball (fWAR) in 2022.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The Red Sox have 25 million of dead money from Sale, Turner, Hosmer, and Joely Rodriquez.

In straight cash transactions, this may be true. But for CBT purposes, this is more like $21M. I'm not sure it's even that because I don't believe Turner or Rodriguez's buyouts count toward 2024's CBT payroll, they're counted in 2023.

It is a little late to start spending payroll as it is little late top field a competitive team this season. They can definitely get above .500 with Montgomery or Snell but they won't be contenders.

I don't buy this at all. If they can get over .500 with one of those pitchers, that puts them in wildcard contention. And with the way the playoffs are set up now, a wildcard has as good a shot at getting to the World Series as a division winner.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

There’s no dead money form Hosmer, SD paid his entire contract. Turner’s buyout was paid against last year, I thought? Sale, I will give you.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

There’s no dead money form Hosmer, SD paid his entire contract. Turner’s buyout was paid against last year, I thought? Sale, I will give you.

SD paid all but the league minimum for Hosmer. Sox were still on the hook for that amount when they released him, which is a rather inconsequential $750K per year.

 

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

There’s no dead money form Hosmer, SD paid his entire contract. Turner’s buyout was paid against last year, I thought? Sale, I will give you.

Hosmer has the major league minimum count against the LT for the next 2 years. Turner counts for $4.15M against the LT this year because of his unusually large buyout on his player option.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Hosmer has the major league minimum count against the LT for the next 2 years. Turner counts for $4.15M against the LT this year because of his unusually large buyout on his player option.

But why are the Sox paying Hosmer anything, the Cubs picked him up (and then dropped him), shouldn’t they be on the hook for that major league minimum amount, no? I thought Turner’s buyout was applied to last year but perhaps I’m wrong on that.

 

[simplicio]

I think when we took Hosmer from the Padres we agreed to pay a portion of his remaining contract amounting to the minimum each year, so we're still on hook for that despite dropping him. The Cubs paying him minimum last year was a separate deal entirely.

 

[TomRicardo]

I don't buy this at all. If they can get over .500 with one of those pitchers, that puts them in wildcard contention. And with the way the playoffs are set up now, a wildcard has as good a shot at getting to the World Series as a division winner.

Wild Card you are going to need to be 87-90 win range. Right now, Red Sox are in 80-83 win range. Snell or Montgomery gets you about 82-86 win range. It is going to be really hard at this point for this team not to get 5th in the division again.

Edit - We are talking about grabbing the last wild card here as well. This team is no where near where you need to be to make a long run for the World Series.

 

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

But why are the Sox paying Hosmer anything, the Cubs picked him up (and then dropped him), shouldn’t they be on the hook for that major league minimum amount, no? I thought Turner’s buyout was applied to last year but perhaps I’m wrong on that.

The Red Sox traded for Hosmer with San Diego sending along enough money to cover his entire contract other than the major league minimum. The Sox then DFA Hosmer and no one claimed him, so they are on the hook for the rest of his contract (this year and next year at ML minimum are all that remains) just like any other player with a guaranteed contract. Hosmer's deal with the Cubs is a completely separate contract, it just happens to be for the same amount.

For Turner, his contract was set up as a 1 year plus a player option with a very large buyout, large enough to trigger an uncommon clause that locked in his 2023 AAV as it would be for the full two year deal regardless if he picked up the option. Since they only counted $10.85M against the 2023 tax but he ended up getting paid $15M for 1 year of work, they need to carry over a $4.15M hit on this year's payroll.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Got it. Thanks

 

[CR67dream]

The Red Sox traded for Hosmer with San Diego sending along enough money to cover his entire contract other than the major league minimum. The Sox then DFA Hosmer and no one claimed him, so they are on the hook for the rest of his contract (this year and next year at ML minimum are all that remains) just like any other player with a guaranteed contract. Hosmer's deal with the Cubs is a completely separate contract, it just happens to be for the same amount.

For Turner, his contract was set up as a 1 year plus a player option with a very large buyout, large enough to trigger an uncommon clause that locked in his 2023 AAV as it would be for the full two year deal regardless if he picked up the option. Since they only counted $10.85M against the 2023 tax but he ended up getting paid $15M for 1 year of work, they need to carry over a $4.15M hit on this year's payroll.

I just want to take a second to also thank those of you who take the time to break this stuff down to language that I can grasp. So Thanks!