Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

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

    Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    Guaranteed deals

    John Lackey, $16.5 million

    Ryan Dempster $13.25 million

    David Ortiz, $13 million

    Mike Napoli, $13 million

    Shane Victorino, $13 million

    Stephen Drew $9.5 million

    Clay Buchholz, $7.4 million

    Dustin Pedroia, $6.80 million

    Jon Lester, $6 million

    Jonny Gomes, $5 million

    Koji Uehara $4.25 million

    David Ross, $3.1 million

    Jose Iglesias, $2.1 million

    TOTAL GUARANTEED: APPROX $113 MILLION

    Arbitration eligible

    Jacoby Ellsbury

    Joel Hanrahan

    Jarrod Saltalamacchia

    Andrew Bailey

    Alfredo Aceves

    Craig Breslow

    Andrew Miller

    Daniel Bard

    Franklin Morales

    PROJECTED TOTAL: APPROXIMATELY $35 MILLION-$40 MILLION

    Pre-arbitration eligible

    Junichi Tazawa

    Felix Doubront

    Ryan Kalish

    Daniel Nava

    Will Middlebrooks

    Clayton Mortensen

    Pedro Ciriaco

    PROJECTED TOTAL: APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION

    Other costs

    Medical, 40-man roster, etc. $12 million

    Dodger subsidy $3.9 million

    APPROXIMATELY $16 MILLION

    ESTIMATED 2013 TOTAL COMMITMENTS: $169-174 MILLION

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    Thanks for the numbers.

    We may end up dealing Salty and/or Bailey which may or may not save us money depending on who we get back in return.

    We really do not have much wiggle room for the trade deadline, if we need a high-priced player to fill a gap and make us 2013 contenders.

    We are basically very close to where we were last winter, but the shorter term deals give us more flexibility over the next 2-3 years.

    It's quite shocking to me that we spent this much on a weak FA class, are near the luxury tax limit, and are nowhere near true ring contention.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    Some ridiculous waste of money on that list.

    Johnny Gomes at $5 million is absurd.

    $13 million each for Victorino and Dempster is beyond silly.

    That's over $30 million wasted right there.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

     

    Wow, John Lackey is the highest paid Red Sox.  WTF?!?   LOL

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Some ridiculous waste of money on that list.

    Johnny Gomes at $5 million is absurd.

    $13 million each for Victorino and Dempster is beyond silly.

    That's over $30 million wasted right there.

    [/QUOTE]

    2013 season didn't even started.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Wow, John Lackey is the highest paid Red Sox.  WTF?!?   LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    Look at the bright side.  Sox hold $500K vesting option for Lackey in 2015 because he missed significant time due to elbow injury.  LOL We just hope that he turns things around and returns to hid old form when he used to win 19 games in AL.  

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    $175 million sure doesn't go as far as it used to.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $175 million sure doesn't go as far as it used to.

    [/QUOTE]

    Imagine what the Rays could do with just $125M.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $175 million sure doesn't go as far as it used to.

    [/QUOTE]

    Imagine what the Rays could do with just $125M.

    [/QUOTE]

    Too much money might ruin them, like it did us.

    J/K

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    Yeah, I wish we still had CC leading off, Punto at SS, and Beckett every 5 days. Just so we could watch AGon lead us nowhere all over again.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    $175 million sure doesn't go as far as it used to.

    [/QUOTE]

    Imagine what the Rays could do with just $125M.

    [/QUOTE]

    thought:

    Are players happier playing for far less money and a chance to win a division or title

    or

    are they happier making 5, 10, 15 times the league minimums or league averages and not have much of a chance?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox 2013 payroll for luxury tax purposes

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Three regulars have all in a sudden removed their normal hats and replaced them with new ones. Pessimists have become optimists and vice versa.

    Zillagod

    Ike

    Moonslav

    [/QUOTE]

    I have not changed hats. I have always been a realist. I have always been critical when I felt something was wrong. The only thing that has changed is that there has been more to be critical of recently.

    Last winter, many here felt we were one of the best teams in MLB based on us being the best for 4 months of 2011. I said then that unless we got a quality 1/2 slot starter we would not win a ring. I said expecting our big 3 starters to all put up healthy and prodective seasons for the first time ever, was unrealistic and wishful thinking. 

    I certainly didn't expect all 3 to not reach expectations, but I did say the odds were about even that all 3 would not as compared to all 3 reaching them.

    Now, I see no improvement of our starting rotation again. My "hat" is the same now as ever. Unless we get an ace type starter, we are not serious contenders. I've said this for years.

    Our team on paper is worse than our team on paper was at this time last year. Would I be true to my realistic nature to put on pink glasses and say we have a legitimate chance this year? That would be a big lie, and although dishonesty might be softy's game, it is not mine.

    We have virtually no chance at winning it all unless we get a solid starter and a guy like Upton. At this point in the winter, I do not see that happening. Until it does, I will remain true to my beliefs.

     

Share