A Realistic View at 2023: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

But then someone being paid, at least $725K takes Barnes' place on the 40 man roster and cancels out that "savings." The tax budget counts only 40 man roster and IL players.

$9,250,000 Barnes- $725,000 + $725,000 (or more) for the player added to the 40, when barnes leaves, and so there is never a "savings" overall.

Leaving the tax calcs out of it, if another team signs him, it will cost the team $725 K less in actual cash than if Barnes retires.

[mvp 78]

Leaving the tax calcs out of it, if another team signs him, it will cost the team $725 K less in actual cash than if Barnes retires.

^^^

[moonslav59]

Leaving the tax calcs out of it, if another team signs him, it will cost the team $725 K less in actual cash than if Barnes retires.

I get that. Yes, we save $725K on his contract, but it's not really an overall savings to the team (not just the tax budget but the payroll budget, too), than if we kept him. His roster spot is filled by someone who will get paid $725K or more. At best, we stay even.

[Bellhorn04]

I get that. Yes, we save $725K on his contract, but it's not really an overall savings to the team (not just the tax budget but the payroll budget, too), than if we kept him. His roster spot is filled by someone who will get paid $725K or more. At best, we stay even.

Here's what I'm talking about:

Scenario A: Red Sox release Barnes. He retires.
Scenario B: Red Sox release Barnes. He signs with another team.

The Red Sox are better off cash-wise in Scenario B, True or False.

[moonslav59]

It seems like we will be about $17-20M below the tax line. I know we need to keep a buffer for call-ups and maybe deadline additions, but we seemed to leave some cash on the table.

You wonder, if it was a directive or just the way it worked out.

[Bellhorn04]

It seems like we will be about $17-20M below the tax line. I know we need to keep a buffer for call-ups and maybe deadline additions, but we seemed to leave some cash on the table.

You wonder, if it was a directive or just the way it worked out.

I suspect Bloom has this year's finances figured out to the penny. The other possibility is another signing, maybe a reliever. Hard to say.

[moonslav59]

Here's what I'm talking about:

Scenario A: Red Sox release Barnes. He retires.
Scenario B: Red Sox release Barnes. He signs with another team.

The Red Sox are better off cash-wise in Scenario B, True or False.

I understand your point, and looking at only what we are paying Barnes in a vacuum, yes. we save $725K vs if he retires and nobody pays him $725M. Yes, we pay his whole salary plus the guy who takes his spot. Yes, $725K more. I get it.

My point is, that if another team grabs him and pays the min, and we have to replace his open slot on the 40 and pay that person at least the min, it ends up being as a wash, overall. Assuming we replace him with someone making $725K, the MLB budget stays the same. The $725M is just replaced, because you have to have 40 on the roster and they all make a min salary.

Barnes is going to play somewhere and be paid the min. We save that $725K. We will replace his slot on the 40 and pay at least $725K. The 40 man budget is not affected by the switcheroo.

[moonslav59]

I suspect Bloom has this year's finances figured out to the penny. The other possibility is another signing, maybe a reliever. Hard to say.

I'm just wondering if JH set a budget priority at $%20M under, of if Bloom chose to keep the "buffer."

[moonslav59]

MLBTR Chat, Anthony Franco was asked if Barnes would be traded...

Seems unlikely but not impossible. Red Sox would have to eat virtually all the money ($9.75MM) to do it but they're going to be on the hook for it anyways if they release him, so they should be open to it.
And if Boston's paying Barnes down to like $2-3MM to salvage a lottery ticket prospect out of the deal, I'd give that serious consideration if I were another team. He still throws hard and can miss bats, and if you get him on the current contract -- again, paid most of the way down by Boston -- it comes with a 2024 club option that offers you some upside if you get him back on track
Wait until he gets released and sign him for the league minimum, and that 2024 option goes away

[notin]

Here's what I'm talking about:

Scenario A: Red Sox release Barnes. He retires.
Scenario B: Red Sox release Barnes. He signs with another team.

The Red Sox are better off cash-wise in Scenario B, True or False.

True but the savings is negligible…

[mvp 78]

True but the savings is negligible…

The savings is negligible, but it's winning the argument that matters.

[notin]

The savings is negligible, but it's winning the argument that matters.

Ignoring the addition of Duvall for a second, they’re both right but with poor timing.

1. Yes if Barnes clears waivers and another team signs him for $725,000, that lowers the Sox tax burden by $725,000.

2. It is true the Sox will eventually fill that 40 man roster spot with another player who will make a minimum of $725,000, thus negating the savings from part one. (I know this part was done already by Duvall and his $7mill commitment.)

[moonslav59]

Ignoring the addition of Duvall for a second, they’re both right but with poor timing.

1. Yes if Barnes clears waivers and another team signs him for $725,000, that lowers the Sox tax burden by $725,000.

2. It is true the Sox will eventually fill that 40 man roster spot with another player who will make a minimum of $725,000, thus negating the savings from part one. (I know this part was done already by Duvall and his $7mill commitment.)

Barnes' slot was going to always go to a 26 man roster guy, even if by attrition. He could be replaced by a minor league contract, but then a minor leaguer would have to be promoted to the 26 to take his slot, once the season begins and players get paid.

I totally get Bell's point, and he is correct, but after everything is settled, there is no true saving on the payroll budget.

[Bellhorn04]

Barnes' slot was going to always go to a 26 man roster guy, even if by attrition. He could be replaced by a minor league contract, but then a minor leaguer would have to be promoted to the 26 to take his slot, once the season begins and players get paid.

I totally get Bell's point, and he is correct, but after everything is settled, there is no true saving on the payroll budget.

But Barnes would have to replaced in either case, whether or not another team signs him.

[moonslav59]

But Barnes would have to replaced in either case, whether or not another team signs him.

I've never disagreed with your point, but yes, I'm saying any player who is DFA'd will be replaced on the roster at min wage cots, minimum, which is what another team pays, if they take the DFA'd player. It's a wash, when it comes to the payroll budget (tax and non tax.)

Yes, if nobody claims Barnes, and we don't get the $725K savings and then are forced to replace his roster slot, we end up paying at least $725K more, but if someone pays Barnes the min, our budget pretty much can not go down, overall.