A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I don't think my offer even gets it done but I'm not willing to go higher. My point is that the guy is probably worth a lot. Only actual scouts and player personell people know the details so of course I'm just guessing so if they pass on it so be it. I would go up to that point which I think is a very agreesive move. He is asking for $17 mil AAV ( average ammual value ) which would be $119 over 7 years. If you add in the $20 mil signing fee we are looking at $20.86 AAV in reality with no optional buyouts and such, which I'm all for but for the purposes of discussion trying to keep it simple. That's a lot of moolah over 7 years for a guy who has never thrown a mlb pitch. but even that probably doesn't get it done from many indications. The Yankees might well do anything to sign this guy considering their situation.

    I'm not risk averse but I'm also not stupid. We shouldn't offer him anything he wants. He is a young, hot pitcher currently right in his prime and with a tremendous track record and a mature ability to pitch. That kind of guy wins chamopionships. Even 2 years of that is potentially enough of a difference to maybe win a championship. Which is why you make a deal like this.

    They are talking about $300 mil for Kershaw. Would you guys prefer that?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Boom, I know Tanaka has a lot of IP'd for a 25 year old, but I'd go very strong.

    I agree though, I'd trust my scouts and talent evaluaters to place the proper cost valuation on him. The value should increase due to no lost draft pick. It should be higher due to his age vs the normal age of a quality free agent SP on the open market. It should take into account the issues you raised about locking players up now, before the rapidly increasing revenue streams shoot player salaries through the roof. This may be the last winter to make a move like this. Who else is out there that a lost draft pick is not attached to? Garza? No, thank you.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    MLBTR reports:

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    MLBTR reports:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree moon, at this point the Sox probably won't do anything but sign Drew if they can and possibly find more help in CF.  Victorino could move over to help the kid but who knows how many games Shane might play.  If things don't work out as planned early on next season they will probably be forced to make a trade. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to craze4sox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    MLBTR reports:

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree moon, at this point the Sox probably won't do anything but sign Drew if they can and possibly find more help in CF.  Victorino could move over to help the kid but who knows how many games Shane might play.  If things don't work out as planned early on next season they will probably be forced to make a trade. 

    [/QUOTE]

    If we sign Drew, we are over the luxury, so we'd have to deal a SP.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They are talking about $300 mil for Kershaw. Would you guys prefer that?

    [/QUOTE]

    The $300 mil figure for Kershaw is absurd when you think about it. $175 mil is the biggest contract a pitcher has received (King Felix). 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They are talking about $300 mil for Kershaw. Would you guys prefer that?



    The $300 mil figure for Kershaw is absurd when you think about it. $175 mil is the biggest contract a pitcher has received (King Felix). 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That was $175M/7, Kershaw's would be $300M/10, still a huge increase, but the market outlook has changed just since February 2013.

    I would not pay any player close to 1/6th of the entire player payroll budget (and he's not 25).

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 808soxfan. Show 808soxfan's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    This is probably far from "realistic", so maybe it should not be mentioned on this thread, but here is one extreme idea:

    Trade: Peavy ($14.5M), Dempster ($13.25M) and Gomes ($5M) for prospects*

    Sign: Tanaka (~$20M x 6) and Drew (~$9M x 1)

    Trade: Middlebrooks, Bradley, Lavarnway, Betts, Linares,  de la Rosa and prospects*

    For G. Stanton & S Cishek

    2014 Sox:

    1) Victorino CF

    2) Pedroia 2B

    3) Ortiz  DH

    4) Stanton RF

    5) Napoli 1B

    6) Nava/Carp LF

    7) Bogaerts 3B

    8) Drew SS

    9) Pierzynski C

    Bench: (one: Carp/Nava), Herrera, Ross, one: Holt, Snyder, Hassan, Brentz

     

    SP: Lester, Buchholz, Tanaka, Lackey, Doubront, (Workman & others AAA)

    RP: Uehara, Cishek, Mujica, Breslow, Tazawa, Miller, Badenhop



    Moon, I would like to see this as a potential scenario. I would certainly be happy going into 2014 and beyond with this team. GS would be our DH of the future, and a true DH at that. In NL parks, he could still play an OF position. Under these terms, I could see signing Drew short term and waiting a year for Cecchini to appear at 3rd. I am in favor of actually having SS-quality defenders at 3rd and SS as it helps with infield defense during shifts. RS could do all sorts of things with Bogey at 3rd and Drew at SS including keeping Drew in place or shaded to 3rd in a shift and moving Bogey to the 2nd base hole.

    GS is worth a number of players and prospects. If at all possible, I would want to keep Bradley but the Marlins would want him for the same reasons; however, with the RS having Victorino (especially in CF) and Stanton (in RF), the 4th OF will see a lot of time. Bradley would be important defensively. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario where Bradley and Bogey are not included in a package for GS? The Marlins would be a good landing spot for Lavarnway was well. Marlins catching was not good offensively last year.

    Tanaka would probably cost more in years, but you have built a WS-class pitching staff. Extending Lester, Doubront, Buch, and Tanaka (long-term contract) means that the RS have places for one further SP and a back-up. Lackey is not leaving until after 2015 as it is. Given the RS farm even after your proposed trade, I would keep the SP 5 and possibly 6 slots open to allow high AAA pitching prospects a route to MLB. Also, keeps costs down for the end of the rotation. If you give Tanaka $20M, RS will give Lester something similar.

    Papi Stanton Naps Nava/Carp and Bogey is a heck of a line-up.

    Most of all, your trade addresses the deep RS farm. We have to make a trade like this because we cannot keep all of our prospects forever. Potential value of prospects is still value, and it is interesting how that sometimes exceeds "actual" value that a MLB player has shown on the MLB stage.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    What happens in an era of increased parity? Will the difference between two teams be one dominant pitcher? Hasn't this been true throughout baseball history; i.e. Bob Gibson in 1967. Wouldn't that impact increase in an era of $50 mil of revenue sharing for the small market teams, few overslot draft signings,  limits on international signings...etc. Top teams can't stockpile hitters "Murderers Row" type lineups as much.  

    I contend that access to top pitching becomes even more important. 2-3 top pitchers probably is the key to getting into the playoffs and winning when you get there. More than ever in 2-3 years.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Look at the TV deals of the Dodgers, NYC, Rangers, Angels and Seattle as compared to the rest of the league. Is it any wonder they are spending like drunken sailors?

    Consider that the Redsox just won the World Series and Henry/Werner...etc. also happen to own a lot of NESN. They are probably pocketing a ton of money each year. They Redsox get the $60 mil from the TV deal plus some owners get the net profits from a big chunck of NESN.

    Team RSN Avg. Annual Rights Fee Equity Stake Expiration Year Arizona Diamonbacks FS Arizona $31 million   2015 Atlanta Braves FS Sports South/Sports South $20-$30 million   2031 Baltimore Orioles MASN $29 million 87% N/A Boston Red Sox NESN $60 million 80% N/A Chicago Cubs CSN Chicago/WGN $50 million (combined) 20% CSN Chicago WGN: 2014/CSN: 2019 Chicago White Sox CSN Chicago $45.5 million 40% N/A Cincinnati Reds FS Ohio $30 million   2016 Cleveland Indians FS Ohio $40 million   2022 Colorado Rockies Root Rocky Mountain $20 million   2014 Detroit Tigers FS Detroit $40 million   2017 Houston Astros CSN Houston $80 million 45% 2032 Kansas City Royals FS Kansas City $20 million   2019 Los Angeles Angels FS West $150 million 25% 2032 Los Angeles Dodgers SportsNet LA $340 million   2038 Miami Marlins FS Florida $18 million   N/A Milwaukee Brewers FS Wisconsin $20 million   2019 Minnesota Twins FS North $29 million   N/A New York Mets SNY $65 million (inc. over time) 65% 2030 New York Yankees YES $90 million (inc. over time) 34% 2042 Oakland A’s CSN California $43-$48 million   2029 (opt-out after 2023) Philadelphia Phillies CSN Philadelphia $35 million   2015 Pittsburgh Pirates Root Pittsburgh $18 million   2019 San Diego Padres FS San Diego $60 million 20% 2031 San Francisco Giants CSN Bay Area $30 million 35% 2032 Seattle Mariners Root Northwest $115 million more than 50% 2030 St. Louis Cardinals FS Midwest $25-28 million   2019 Tampa Bay Rays SunSports $20 million   2016 Texas Rangers FS Southwest $150 million 10% 2034 Toronto Blue Jays Rogers Sportsnet $36 million   N/A Washington Nationals MASN $29 million 13% N/A

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Look at the TV deals of the Dodgers, NYC, Rangers, Angels and Seattle as compared to the rest of the league. Is it any wonder they are spending like drunken sailors?

    Consider that the Redsox just won the World Series and Henry/Werner...etc. also happen to own a lot of NESN. They are probably pocketing a ton of money each year. They Redsox get the $60 mil from the TV deal plus some owners get the net profits from a big chunck of NESN.

    Team RSN Avg. Annual Rights Fee Equity Stake Expiration Year Arizona Diamonbacks FS Arizona $31 million   2015 Atlanta Braves FS Sports South/Sports South $20-$30 million   2031 Baltimore Orioles MASN $29 million 87% N/A Boston Red Sox NESN $60 million 80% N/A Chicago Cubs CSN Chicago/WGN $50 million (combined) 20% CSN Chicago WGN: 2014/CSN: 2019 Chicago White Sox CSN Chicago $45.5 million 40% N/A Cincinnati Reds FS Ohio $30 million   2016 Cleveland Indians FS Ohio $40 million   2022 Colorado Rockies Root Rocky Mountain $20 million   2014 Detroit Tigers FS Detroit $40 million   2017 Houston Astros CSN Houston $80 million 45% 2032 Kansas City Royals FS Kansas City $20 million   2019 Los Angeles Angels FS West $150 million 25% 2032 Los Angeles Dodgers SportsNet LA $340 million   2038 Miami Marlins FS Florida $18 million   N/A Milwaukee Brewers FS Wisconsin $20 million   2019 Minnesota Twins FS North $29 million   N/A New York Mets SNY $65 million (inc. over time) 65% 2030 New York Yankees YES $90 million (inc. over time) 34% 2042 Oakland A’s CSN California $43-$48 million   2029 (opt-out after 2023) Philadelphia Phillies CSN Philadelphia $35 million   2015 Pittsburgh Pirates Root Pittsburgh $18 million   2019 San Diego Padres FS San Diego $60 million 20% 2031 San Francisco Giants CSN Bay Area $30 million 35% 2032 Seattle Mariners Root Northwest $115 million more than 50% 2030 St. Louis Cardinals FS Midwest $25-28 million   2019 Tampa Bay Rays SunSports $20 million   2016 Texas Rangers FS Southwest $150 million 10% 2034 Toronto Blue Jays Rogers Sportsnet $36 million   N/A Washington Nationals MASN $29 million 13% N/A

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And since Henry/Werner own NESN, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. We may not have a very large TV contract, but that just means more profits for the NESN portfolio.

    We could be drunken sailors too, in fact looking at our budget compared to others, one could argue we already have been.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Let me make this clearer:

    LA DODGERS  - $340 mil per year AAV

    LA Angels - $150 mil AAV

    Redsox - $60 mil AAV

    Astros - $80 mil AAV

    Yankess - $90 mil AAV

    Seattle - $115 mil AAV

    Rangers - $150 mil AAV

    An interesting way to look at this is that the Rangers only have 10% ownership from their TV network, as compared to the Redsox 80%. If the Rangers market ( which is comparable to Boston's one would think if not even less when factored nationwide and heritage viewing impact ...etc ) is worth a little more than $150 mil per year, what would Boston's be worth?

    I would think more than $150 mil per year from Local TV deal revenues alone. I'm just speculating with very rough numbers. Philadelphia just signed a deal which is valued at $100 mil per year AAV but their viewership is off by 40% since 2012. We just won the World Series. NESN viewership should be very high. 

    We should be making over $150 mil per year from our TV rights if they were sold today.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I'd like to give our sailors a few more beers.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    There are huge revenues from revenue sharing also, from ball park attendance, concessions, stadium advertising...etc.

    At some point though there will be huge pressure to replace Fenway. Yankee stadium is a game changer in the same way the Dodgers TV deal is.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    If you look at it though, we are at the luxury tax limit ( almost ). And for the next 2 years or so we can get $25 mil or more per year in revenue sharing dollars also. I think we are going to stay under budget. But I don't see much reason not to go over budget some by 2016. Revenue sharing will no longer be an option. And there will be tremendous incentive to keep a top team in play. The Phillies used to have a top team but then lost 40% of their viewership. And that looks like it cost them about $50 mil per year in their TV deal recently. For NESN, if that happened to the Sox, that would cost the NESN ownership group over $60 mil per year.

    Factor in increased viewership during the playoffs and World Series. Factor in bonuses for participating in the playoffs from the national TV deals. Increased stadium attendance, ticket price increase options...etc.

    The Redsox have tremendous incentives to win big.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to craze4sox's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    MLBTR reports:

     

     



    I agree moon, at this point the Sox probably won't do anything but sign Drew if they can and possibly find more help in CF.  Victorino could move over to help the kid but who knows how many games Shane might play.  If things don't work out as planned early on next season they will probably be forced to make a trade. 

     

     



    If we sign Drew, we are over the luxury, so we'd have to deal a SP.

     

     



    Dempster/Dempster or Dempster are my only choices.  There is something called depth but I would  personally just give the job to Workman without ever looking back.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Boom, I know Tanaka has a lot of IP'd for a 25 year old, but I'd go very strong.

    I agree though, I'd trust my scouts and talent evaluaters to place the proper cost valuation on him. The value should increase due to no lost draft pick. It should be higher due to his age vs the normal age of a quality free agent SP on the open market. It should take into account the issues you raised about locking players up now, before the rapidly increasing revenue streams shoot player salaries through the roof. This may be the last winter to make a move like this. Who else is out there that a lost draft pick is not attached to? Garza? No, thank you.

    [/QUOTE]

    The other top revenue teams are spending money but I guess we are too. Our payroll is clearly right up there. All that said though, it may make sense to find ways to maintain a very high level of success going forward. The Sox holding onto their picks and their farm resources appears to at least guarantee a floor of performance plus it also is just flat out cost effective.

    I'd really like to see the impact of international markets on these TV deals. Is NESN really available at all in Japan in any kind of significant way? How much will "ala Carte" purchasing options for cable operators and distributors like Roku and Apple TV result in revenue growth down the line? For example, if people can buy mlb network online, and pay a yearly fee for it, why couldn't they get at least some revenue from ala carte offerings of NESN supplementary coverage? What is the impact really from signing an international star like a Choo or a Darvish? Is it peanuts or is it more than $10 mil a year.? When the Yanks signed Matsui there seemed to be a boost of stadium advertising from it. Are product endorsement deals why Kuroda wanted to stay in NYC or LA? If a player is "known" in a large market their endorsement value is worth more as a result. 

    All these issues are part of the player acquisition equation.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    The thing I love about Workman is that he looks extremely resistent to injuries. He is a real solid workhorse type of starter.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Talk about a guy who has been under the radar forever. What doesn't workman have to do to get more street cred? He's still down around #10 on soxprospects.

    If the Sox trade Dempster to make space for Workman doesn't that say a lot?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    The thing I love about Workman is that he looks extremely resistent to injuries. He is a real solid workhorse type of starter.



    When I watch Workman he reminds me a lot of Wake outside of the knuckleball.  Concentration, poise, determination and durability.  Wake had his share of injuries late in his career but I think Workman has the chance to be around a long time.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Yeah, I was also very impressed with Workman.  It'd be a beautiful thing if he could become a full-time member of the rotation.  He seems to have those intangibles that go beyond his natural ability - mental toughness, composure, confidence etc. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Let me make this clearer:

    LA DODGERS  - $340 mil per year AAV

    LA Angels - $150 mil AAV

    Redsox - $60 mil AAV

    Astros - $80 mil AAV

    Yankess - $90 mil AAV

    Seattle - $115 mil AAV

    Rangers - $150 mil AAV

    An interesting way to look at this is that the Rangers only have 10% ownership from their TV network, as compared to the Redsox 80%. If the Rangers market ( which is comparable to Boston's one would think if not even less when factored nationwide and heritage viewing impact ...etc ) is worth a little more than $150 mil per year, what would Boston's be worth?

    I would think more than $150 mil per year from Local TV deal revenues alone. I'm just speculating with very rough numbers. Philadelphia just signed a deal which is valued at $100 mil per year AAV but their viewership is off by 40% since 2012. We just won the World Series. NESN viewership should be very high. 

    We should be making over $150 mil per year from our TV rights if they were sold today.

    [/QUOTE]


    Probably what this really means the importance that will be placed on developing young talent, as we are seeing now. Organizations like RS / Cards / Rays will be the ones that succeed. More and more teams are now able to compete w/ the Yanks for top FA's. Look at all the $ Dodgers spent, but no WS title. Just a couple of yrs ago did anyone ever think the M's would be able to steal a player like Cano away from Yanks? Texas was bankrupt a few yrs ago. Trying to build thru FA is going to be impossible, just too expensive as more teams get involved. Baseball is gettig back to its roots, building a championship team will have to start from within. A trade or key FA wll help, but the key will be cheap young controlable talent.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    I too am one of those leery of the "big contract" and never want to get handcuffed again but to your list above Moon, market change, no loss of draft choice, age, etc. you might add "he 's a pitcher" because they are the gold standard of BB, worth more than position players in every way that I can see them measured...this doesn't seem like going after Crawford (whom we didn't need anyway) for 125 mil???   Whatever we paid.  I would go hard for him too.  Assuming he is an ace, how much more is an ace worth than. all those two's we might have coming?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part I

    Yet top position players still make a lot more than top pitchers generally. For example Cano making a $240 mil deal and the top pitching deal is over $50 mil under that if I remember correctly. Part of that is the number of years covered though.

    Would you rather have Kershaw or Cano? Tough call but to me I think Kershaw has more impact in winning a world series but maybe Cano helps get you in the playoffs more.

    A team which is coming off a year where they easily made the playoffs would be better off by adding the top pitcher IMO.

    Garryhow, believe it or not I bet Moon and I would agree with this statement of yours: 

    " A trade or key FA wll help, but the key will be cheap young controlable talent."

    I think both of us think Tanaka is probably a "key FA".

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share