Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

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

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of? : I agree totally. I have argued that I understand why the Sox would want to reset the Luxury Tax by being under this year, but it looks like even without signing a Bonfide starter like Oswalt, they may break through the Cap anyway this year, with Potentially big Arb awards for Ortiz and Ellsbury.....and then the fact that at some point during the season you always have to add some piece or another. If they may break the cap anyway, even if only by 1MM.....then the reset doesnt happen and now it is only costing you $ for this year to go over....and this ownership should not be quibbling about the difference between a $171MM and a $180MM dollar payroll cost. Not if that difference is what keeps you competetive against your main rivals and not when you own a team that has about 300MM in revenue.
    Posted by tomnev

    Good points, but one major reason for not going over this year is to lessen instead of increasing the tax rate for 2013 and beyond. The rate goes down if we stay under and goes up if we go over. The differential is significant if we plan on going over the limit by a lot at some point in the near future. Many see 2013 as the best FA class in recent memory. It would be nice to not have to pay a 50% tax on any dollars we spend on a big ticket player. It's one thing to pay matt cain $18M/yr; it's another to essentially pay him $27M/yr. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of? : Trade Scoot and who plays shortstop, Manny !!
    Posted by Hetchinspete


    A combination of Aviles, Punto, and Iggy.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of? : Good points, but one major reason for not going over this year is to lessen instead of increasing the tax rate for 2013 and beyond. The rate goes down if we stay under and goes up if we go over. The differential is significant if we plan on going over the limit by a lot at some point in the near future. Many see 2013 as the best FA class in recent memory. It would be nice to not have to pay a 50% tax on any dollars we spend on a big ticket player. It's one thing to pay matt cain $18M/yr; it's another to essentially pay him $27M/yr. 
    Posted by moonslav59


    Moon,

    That was my point.....I agree with their desire to stay under the Cap to reset it back to 22.5% next year, rather than the 40% it is this year and the 40% it will be next year if they go over for a 4th straight year. It makes good business sense to get the lower rate because as you said it gives you the flexibility to go over a little more in a future year. But the Tax rate doesnt reset unless you stay under the Cap....if they exceed this year by $100,000, the rate will stay at 40% for next year....and the way the payroll is now it is a good chance they will not be able to stay under the cap, even if they stay very close to it.....so if you are going to go over....there is less impact other than additional tax dollars this year in signing an Oswalt, because his deal will be a 1 year deal and he doesnt huirt you in your weffort to get under next year if that is what they choose to do
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bunts. Show Bunts's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    paying 4 million for being 10 million over the Luxury Tax threshold can be covered by the money the Sox saved by not rehiring Francona and letting Theo walk....

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

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    paying 4 million for being 10 million over the Luxury Tax threshold can be covered by the money the Sox saved by not rehiring Francona and letting Theo walk....
    Posted by Bunts


    Is that the secret 75 man roster that is classified information?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of? : Moon, That was my point.....I agree with their desire to stay under the Cap to reset it back to 22.5% next year, rather than the 40% it is this year and the 40% it will be next year if they go over for a 4th straight year. It makes good business sense to get the lower rate because as you said it gives you the flexibility to go over a little more in a future year. But the Tax rate doesnt reset unless you stay under the Cap....if they exceed this year by $100,000, the rate will stay at 40% for next year....and the way the payroll is now it is a good chance they will not be able to stay under the cap, even if they stay very close to it.....so if you are going to go over....there is less impact other than additional tax dollars this year in signing an Oswalt, because his deal will be a 1 year deal and he doesnt huirt you in your weffort to get under next year if that is what they choose to do
    Posted by tomnev

    The tax is figured at year end. Yes, we could be under now, but end up over if we get someone at the deadline. (We could also trade some salary to even it back up as well.) We may also gain about $2.7M from the Lackey injury clause making his deal an extra year long at min salary.

    We will be much better off next winter, so signing Oswalt to one year is huge for thsi tyear's cap number, but next year we stand to lose:
    (Dollar amount is avg anual salary + bonus, etc...)
    Papi ($12-14M)
    Dice-K ($8.7M)
    Scutaro ($6M)
    Jenks ($6M)
    Shopp ($1.5M)
    (Option on Youk: pay $1M to let him walk or $13M to keep him here.)
    That's about $35M to spend to replace players that are not huge parts of the 2012 team. We'll have Lackey back in 2013 as well. $35M to spend on...

    SP
    DH (Lava/Youk?)
    SS (Iggy/Aviles/Punto?)
    RF (Sweeney/Kalish/others?)
    RP

    We can tarhet the money on pretty much 2-3 positions and improve bigtime without going over the limit again!

    This year is different. We already spent this year's money on AGon, Buch, and a few other minor raises and pick-ups.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    Papi ($12-14M)
    Dice-K ($8.7M)
    Scutaro ($6M)
    Dice-K ($6M)
    Shopp ($1.5M)

    I think you meant Jenks as the $6M man.  Anyway, we're in good shape going into next years FA class barring any long term extensions to any of Ells/Bard/Aceves (as unlikely as it would be to extend a Boras client).  Any extensions would also have to take no sooner than November 2012 in order to avoid the tax hit for the 2012 season.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    I will repeat what i just wrote in another related thread...


    You salamis are talking about getting rid of one of hardest working players to save 6 million in salary (Scutaro) yet fatazz Beckett, who is too important to even sit with his team on off days, is making over 2x that amount....
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    Big Snow Storm out there Hill. Get out your snow shovel.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomnev. Show tomnev's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    I agree that next year with the Salaries mentioned coming off the books, as well as the normal Luxury Tax Cap Increase to about 185MM, it should be much easier for the Sox to stay under next year. Even more so why it makes sense to sign Oswalt this year even if it puts you over the Cap. With Ells settling at 8mm and maybe a better deal on Ortiz contract, an Oswalt 10mm contract might only put us over the Cap by half that, which means it would cost the Sox an additional 2MM....not that big a burden to avoid getting a guy who would probably be a #3 on the staff.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    Papi ($12-14M) Dice-K ($8.7M) Scutaro ($6M) Dice-K ($6M) Shopp ($1.5M) I think you meant Jenks as the $6M man.  

    Yes, thanks for the correction!

    Anyway, we're in good shape going into next years FA class barring any long term extensions to any of Ells/Bard/Aceves (as unlikely as it would be to extend a Boras client).  Any extensions would also have to take no sooner than November 2012 in order to avoid the tax hit for the 2012 season.
    Posted by JB-3

    They could even announce it after the start of 2013 and not count then either.

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

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    I agree that next year with the Salaries mentioned coming off the books, as well as the normal Luxury Tax Cap Increase to about 185MM, it should be much easier for the Sox to stay under next year. Even more so why it makes sense to sign Oswalt this year even if it puts you over the Cap. With Ells settling at 8mm and maybe a better deal on Ortiz contract, an Oswalt 10mm contract might only put us over the Cap by half that, which means it would cost the Sox an additional 2MM....not that big a burden to avoid getting a guy who would probably be a #3 on the staff.
    Posted by tomnev

    I don't see it that way. I see us spending big next year and staying under the cap in 2012 and 2013, bringing our tax rate way down for 2014 and beyond and having a killer team on the field in 2013, and a pretty darn good team this year as well.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxforlife22. Show soxforlife22's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    Cain would certainly be worth asking about, but Scoot, Youk and a prospect don't get that deal done.  Posey is expected to see more time at 1B this year and one of their top prospects is a 1B (Brandon Belt).  Cain would be about as easy as Oswalt to fit into payroll with an AAV of  $9.1M (3 years / $27.25M).
    Posted by JB-3


    As far as Youk goes, he is probably a one or two year rental who will net them the same amount of picks as Cain so i do not think he would get in Brandon Belt's way. And with the Giants set on getting Lincecum back long term added to a dire need for offense, signing back Cain cannot be all that realistic. Why not give them the offense they need and give us the pitching we need.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    In Response to Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?:
    Nice to see the boston Red Sox acting like they're the Pittsburgh Pirates. I'm sure all Sox fans will be thrilled at the money saving dumpster diving, and not having to pay any luxury tax, when they're in 3rd or 4th place in August. This team has not improved one iota, and crying poormouth makes them even less likeable than last season. I wonder how long the phony attendence streak will hold up?
    Posted by GhostofTito


    The Red Sox are going to have a payroll over $170mill, which is about three times the Pirates payroll.  They’re not crying poor; they’re just not being as impulsive as many fans would like, and seem to equate with building a winning team.

    And they most certainly have improved.  While I don’t know how the rotation and depth chart is going to end up by April, this team is better in terms of starting pitching depth and won’t have to rely on a rotation featuring Andrew Miller, Kyle Weiland and Tim Wakefield all at the same time through a critical September stretch.  At the very least, Aaron Cook, Vicente Padilla and Justin Germano are a step up from the previous triumvirate at every spot.  Even if one of them is part of the opening day rotation, the starting pitching depth is vastly improved.  And if Daisuke can come back, it gets that much better. It would still be in the team’s best interest to get another starter capable of joining the rotation and keeping those three relegated to the depth roles they were signed for, but that doesn’t mean those signings are not a level of improvement.  As it stands now, they were all signed to address a significant weakness from the 2011 team – namely SP depth.

    This may not be the level of improvement fans demand, and it might not be enough to catch Tampa, but then again, it might be.  The biggest reason Tampa was able to catch up to the Sox was because the starting pitching completely collapsed in September, taking the bullpen with it.  The increase in depth should alleviate that part of the equation somewhat.  Especially since Tampa has been extremely quiet this offseason as well. (And so far the only position player lost is Reddick.  I liked him, but he was hardly indispensable.)

    But if the answer to every roster problem is spend, spend, spend, then you are actually saying the Sox are going to get out of their payroll mess the same way they got in to it.  The answer actually does lie in making more prudent offseason moves as opposed to simply through mega-contracts at every big name on the market and hoping something sticks.  They do have a lot of payroll tied up in injured players (about $30mill in Daisuke, Jenks and Lackey), but the rest of the team is still costing $140mill.  It shouldn’t be too difficult to build a contender for $140mill…

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Need to free up payroll to sign Oswalt, who do they get rid of?

    m
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share