SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Oct 29, 2014 22:09:05 GMT -5
Pablo just turned 28 in August. I'd hold off on declaring him over 30 for a few more years. Fielder and Mo Vaugh didn't break down until they were 31-32 years old. Don't see the problem with giving Pablo a 4-5 year deal if the contract will end when he's 33. Sounds like a perfect time to give someone of his stature a contact. I like the idea of signing him with the possibility of moving him to first after next season.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2014 22:13:27 GMT -5
Just because you can move someone to a less demanding defensive position doesn't mean it's a good idea. Moving Sandoval to first base makes him an average regular and thus wildly overpaid for the contract he's going to get.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Oct 30, 2014 10:40:27 GMT -5
There's really no justification for Panda. There is very little chance he outperforms his contract as he's been pretty consistent the last few years, and there's huge downside because of his body type. Three years is the most I would possibly go and that won't happen. I really hope we don't go after him.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 30, 2014 12:20:11 GMT -5
Heyman suggested that the Royals were going to decline Billy Butler's $12M option for next season. I'm not sure where his power went, but if the Sox decide to trade Napoli this offseason, Butler might represent a good replacement.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 30, 2014 17:13:13 GMT -5
The only hope I have of this not getting the coverage A-Rod got is that A-Rod was easily one of the top 5 baseball players at the time. The last thing I want in a game 7 is having to hear what is going to happen to Joe Maddon. Yeah because that's all that was on anyone's mind in the bottom of the ninth last night. I don't think I could care about the timing of the Maddon hiring if I tried, and I'm not going to try.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Oct 30, 2014 18:41:51 GMT -5
Just because you can move someone to a less demanding defensive position doesn't mean it's a good idea. Moving Sandoval to first base makes him an average regular and thus wildly overpaid for the contract he's going to get. I guess it depends on your expectations for the position and for Sandoval. I'd expect his offense to tick up a little based on the lineup and the park, which I think would be pretty close to Napoli's numbers the past two years. Granted, that's projecting a bit, fair enough if you don't agree. Regardless, I'd love to see a bone fide thumper at 1B, but I don't see many options on the horizon. I'd settle for a consistent presence with a good glove to help take a little pressure of younger bats.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 30, 2014 20:04:16 GMT -5
Just because you can move someone to a less demanding defensive position doesn't mean it's a good idea. Moving Sandoval to first base makes him an average regular and thus wildly overpaid for the contract he's going to get. I guess it depends on your expectations for the position and for Sandoval. I'd expect his offense to tick up a little based on the lineup and the park, which I think would be pretty close to Napoli's numbers the past two years. Granted, that's projecting a bit, fair enough if you don't agree. That would take more projection than I'm comfortable with. By wRC+, a league- and park-adjusted stat, Napoli has been at 124 and 129 the last two years, while Sandoval has been at 111, 116, and 118 the last three years.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 31, 2014 9:12:40 GMT -5
I'm also up for Scherzer on a six year deal with an opt out after 3. He's a max money guy. He'd exercise the opt out if he's healthy. And I am more confident in him completing 3 years at a high level over Shields who I think is a shoulder injury waiting to happen. I would take Lester for 5 with no opt out but I think he'll get six.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 31, 2014 9:36:32 GMT -5
Why are you wanting to give people opt-outs? I think that is the second time you've proposed that in the last couple of days.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 31, 2014 9:41:11 GMT -5
I'm also up for Scherzer on a six year deal with an opt out after 3. He's a max money guy. He'd exercise the opt out if he's healthy. And I am more confident in him completing 3 years at a high level over Shields who I think is a shoulder injury waiting to happen. I would take Lester for 5 with no opt out but I think he'll get six. Numbers between Shields and lester are big. Shields has 2600 Professional IP, Lester 2100. Shields 1900MLB IP and Lester 1600 IP. What is worrying to me, is lester's drop in velocity of velocity during the 2014 season to 91.8, nearly a fullmph over 2013 from 92.7. Shields has actually been improving the last several seasons and even 2y older, was 92.4 during 2014. lester is more of a power pitcher than Shields also. Not sure what to think of Lester without his cutter and both are 200+ inning guys over the last 7 years (Lester close 1y). They both are scary at 5y really, though do realize one will be targeted by the FO and both preferable to dealing with Boras over Scherzer.
|
|
|
Post by thankumrboggs on Oct 31, 2014 9:42:35 GMT -5
How about we keep the picks and only get FA who are not tied to compensation? We sign Lester, Maeda and if everyone is so intent on trading Cespedes then how about Cespedes for some sort of Profar+ return to fix the gap at SS and then we can move Boegarts back to 3B and that completes all the holes we would have? Profar is locked in with Odor, and Andrus and doesn't necessarily have a place. We have a rotation of Lester, Maeda, Buch, Kelly and we got to get something out of Webster/Ranaud/RDLR/Barnes and possibly Owens or Johnson being called up mid year. We would also have an OF with Betts,Castillo,Victorino, and Nava would play super UT OF and 1b and JBJ would be a defensive replacement/starter, similar to what I just saw with Dyson on the Royals.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 31, 2014 9:53:46 GMT -5
How about we keep the picks and only get FA who are not tied to compensation? We sign Lester, Maeda and if everyone is so intent on trading Cespedes then how about Cespedes for some sort of Profar+ return to fix the gap at SS and then we can move Boegarts back to 3B and that completes all the holes we would have? Profar is locked in with Odor, and Andrus and doesn't necessarily have a place. We have a rotation of Lester, Maeda, Buch, Kelly and we got to get something out of Webster/Ranaud/RDLR/Barnes and possibly Owens or Johnson being called up mid year. We would also have an OF with Betts,Castillo,Victorino, and Nava would play super UT OF and 1b and JBJ would be a defensive replacement/starter, similar to what I just saw with Dyson on the Royals. Maeda is projected to be a 4 starter and why are you so intent on keeping a 2nd round pick? You would never get Profar for Cespedes, and that rotation is terrible
|
|
|
Post by thankumrboggs on Oct 31, 2014 12:06:16 GMT -5
So are you saying if the Red Sox had a unprotected pick say #28 would you be ok trading it?
The reason I am intent on keeping a 2nd round pick is because the loss of the pick coincides with signing Sandoval for 9 figures, maybe Scherzer for almost 200 Million or worse yet BG James for something similar to the contract Lester gets and he does the exact opposite of Lester in the playoffs. I don't see the extra-premium money and the loss of a very early 2nd round pick as equating to signing FAs that cost money and that is all. BTW Iwakuma was a projected 4, Tanaka was a projected 2 and Dice-K was projected to be the best international signing ever as I watched him come out of the bullpen for the mets last year.
Would you take an Iwakuma type performance instead of paying a premium and losing a draft pick?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 31, 2014 13:15:56 GMT -5
Why are you wanting to give people opt-outs? I think that is the second time you've proposed that in the last couple of days. Because when you sign higher profile free agents there's inherent risk. If you say, "OK, we'll accept that risk for certain players building in their decline with salary inflation" (i.e. it's a given) the opt-out can help you mitigate that risk before it accelerates as they age. For example if it's a max money guy like Scherzer, Panda and a few others, it is highly likely he will exercise the opt out in 3 years if he is still playing well. If Scherzer can walk at age 32 because he was still at his peak/near peak and his agent was sure he could get him an extra $5M a year and maybe another year, he'll do it. I say great, go with God. You get 3 good years performance at near top dollar and then let some other team deal with the decline. Sabathia exercised his but the Yankees resigned. Barring an injury, Grienke will exercise his this year and I bet LA lets him walk. The construct is dependent on assuming the full risk up front (which means you're ostensibly committed to the down years gambling they won't be disasters and somewhat mitigated by market inflation (John Lackey). The opt-out certainly contains the willingness to potentially lose the player when he is still performing at a high level, but there is a chance of savings if you believe you can replace that production down the road at or near the same price (or even less if the replacement production homegrown). Basically I'm saying we should gamble on one of these guys but build in a hedge if possible as a percentage chance to walk away from the deal sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 31, 2014 14:29:47 GMT -5
OK, I think the issue here, is that when most people say talk about an "opt out," they're referring to a clause in a contract in which the player can decide to terminate the contract.
When it's team-side, typically it's referred to as a "buy out," because there's some sum of money that the team must pay the player in order to terminate the contract. Is that what you're referring to?
Wait, no, you definitely mean opt-out. Your argument makes no sense. When you give a player an opt-out, he's going to exercise it if he's worth more (in other words, his contract was a good value) and he's going to stay if he's not worth more (in other words, if you're overpaying him). That does nothing to mitigate risk at all. You're either giving a player the chance to walk when you're paying him less than what he's worth, or you're stuck with him if he's a poor value. That does nothing to help the org at all. That's something the player is going to ask for in negotiations in exchange for some concession like fewer years or less money.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Oct 31, 2014 14:42:19 GMT -5
Too bad there's no place for Billy Butler to play in this town. Always liked his bat. Looking over his stats for the last four years, the numbers are impressive as well as his durability. Who knows whether the 2014 season was the start of a decline (he wont't turn 29 until April), but he looked good in the WS, though without the HRs. I doubt the Rs will pick up his option so he'll go somewhere and make a team happy.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 31, 2014 14:47:32 GMT -5
OK, I think the issue here, is that when most people say talk about an "opt out," they're referring to a clause in a contract in which the player can decide to terminate the contract.
When it's team-side, typically it's referred to as a "buy out," because there's some sum of money that the team must pay the player in order to terminate the contract. Is that what you're referring to?Wait, no, you definitely mean opt-out. Your argument makes no sense. When you give a player an opt-out, he's going to exercise it if he's worth more (in other words, his contract was a good value) and he's going to stay if he's not worth more (in other words, if you're overpaying him). That does nothing to mitigate risk at all. You're either giving a player the chance to walk when you're paying him less than what he's worth, or you're stuck with him if he's a poor value. That does nothing to help the org at all. That's something the player is going to ask for in negotiations in exchange for some concession like fewer years or less money. The only way an early termination clause or opt-out makes any sense is if 1.) you count on the player optimizing his earning potential (i.e., being greedy) over all other considerations, 2.) the market being willing to pay more for the following years after the opt out, and, 3.) that a team holding the contract would be happy to get rid of the player, at least over the entirety of the remaining contract years. It is a "have your cake and eat it too" approach to managing free agent contracts. In order to work out for the team (the original team), it requires that the player has been performing at a high enough level before the opt out to garner a new contract for better money, but then breaks down to the point where the original contract (not the new one) would be an overpay for the last years of the contract. A true gambler's approach to free agent contracts.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 31, 2014 15:38:49 GMT -5
Don't know what you guys are talking about. An opt-out always works-out well for the club, just ask the Yankees...
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 31, 2014 17:48:27 GMT -5
OK, I think the issue here, is that when most people say talk about an "opt out," they're referring to a clause in a contract in which the player can decide to terminate the contract.
When it's team-side, typically it's referred to as a "buy out," because there's some sum of money that the team must pay the player in order to terminate the contract. Is that what you're referring to?Wait, no, you definitely mean opt-out. Your argument makes no sense. When you give a player an opt-out, he's going to exercise it if he's worth more (in other words, his contract was a good value) and he's going to stay if he's not worth more (in other words, if you're overpaying him). That does nothing to mitigate risk at all. You're either giving a player the chance to walk when you're paying him less than what he's worth, or you're stuck with him if he's a poor value. That does nothing to help the org at all. That's something the player is going to ask for in negotiations in exchange for some concession like fewer years or less money. If they give Scherzer $23M a year and in three years he still pitching loke a 1/1A he'll be worth more than that (inflation/demand) and will opt out. That's the philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 31, 2014 17:50:38 GMT -5
So are you saying if the Red Sox had a unprotected pick say #28 would you be ok trading it? The reason I am intent on keeping a 2nd round pick is because the loss of the pick coincides with signing Sandoval for 9 figures, maybe Scherzer for almost 200 Million or worse yet BG James for something similar to the contract Lester gets and he does the exact opposite of Lester in the playoffs. I don't see the extra-premium money and the loss of a very early 2nd round pick as equating to signing FAs that cost money and that is all. BTW Iwakuma was a projected 4, Tanaka was a projected 2 and Dice-K was projected to be the best international signing ever as I watched him come out of the bullpen for the mets last year. Would you take an Iwakuma type performance instead of paying a premium and losing a draft pick? I would be perfectly fine with giving up #28 if we got a premium free agent like Scherzer, Sandoval, Shields, or even a 2 starter like Liriano, not to mention our 2nd round pick is much lower than 28. The argument that we should never sign QO free agents is simply buffoonery. We know you like prospects, but it's ridiculous to act as if a premium FA isn't worth a late round 1st rounder or 2nd rounder. In fact, QO free agents are probably better for us than non QO free agents this offseason since QOs bring down the price a bit, and our pick is much lower than most teams' picks
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 31, 2014 19:18:57 GMT -5
You do realize that this season's 2nd round pick is going to be the equivalent of what the team used to get in the supplemental picks for a lost FA? Like a old 1s pick? It should be in the mid-late 30's if I understand it correctly, not a bad pick at all and as an example.. 1s picks of late have been Henry Owens (36) JBJ (40) Anthony Ranaudo (39). They have been known to select well there.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 31, 2014 19:34:30 GMT -5
You do realize that this season's 2nd round pick is going to be the equivalent of what the team used to get in the supplemental picks for a lost FA? Like a old 1s pick? It should be in the mid-late 30's if I understand it correctly, not a bad pick at all and as an example.. 1s picks of late have been Henry Owens (36) JBJ (40) Anthony Ranaudo (39). They have been known to select well there. It's actually going to be slightly worse than that, but still, I think a pitcher of Liriano's level would be much more valuable to us. Again, the argument to never sign QO players is simply ridiculous. I would rather sign a QO FA than a regular FA this year, since the QO will drive down the price, and won't hurt us nearly as much as other teams.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Oct 31, 2014 19:54:21 GMT -5
Also, you simply guaranteeing Iwakuma like performance from Maeda is insane. Maeda has been projected by scouts as a 4 or 5 starter, while Iwakuma is a 2 starter. I sure would take Iwakuma performance from Maeda, but that seems unlikely, and I would much rather sign a pitcher like Liriano, who's value may be slightly dragged down by a qualifying offer, and is a better pitcher than Maeda, even though he has a QO.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Oct 31, 2014 20:01:18 GMT -5
OK, I think the issue here, is that when most people say talk about an "opt out," they're referring to a clause in a contract in which the player can decide to terminate the contract.
When it's team-side, typically it's referred to as a "buy out," because there's some sum of money that the team must pay the player in order to terminate the contract. Is that what you're referring to?Wait, no, you definitely mean opt-out. Your argument makes no sense. When you give a player an opt-out, he's going to exercise it if he's worth more (in other words, his contract was a good value) and he's going to stay if he's not worth more (in other words, if you're overpaying him). That does nothing to mitigate risk at all. You're either giving a player the chance to walk when you're paying him less than what he's worth, or you're stuck with him if he's a poor value. That does nothing to help the org at all. That's something the player is going to ask for in negotiations in exchange for some concession like fewer years or less money. If they give Scherzer $23M a year and in three years he still pitching loke a 1/1A he'll be worth more than that (inflation/demand) and will opt out. That's the philosophy. Right. Then you no longer have a player worth more than his salary. Unless you assume other teams are irrational.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Oct 31, 2014 20:48:01 GMT -5
You do realize that this season's 2nd round pick is going to be the equivalent of what the team used to get in the supplemental picks for a lost FA? Like a old 1s pick? It should be in the mid-late 30's if I understand it correctly, not a bad pick at all and as an example.. 1s picks of late have been Henry Owens (36) JBJ (40) Anthony Ranaudo (39). They have been known to select well there. It's actually going to be slightly worse than that, but still, I think a pitcher of Liriano's level would be much more valuable to us. Again, the argument to never sign QO players is simply ridiculous. I would rather sign a QO FA than a regular FA this year, since the QO will drive down the price, and won't hurt us nearly as much as other teams. I don't think that anyone would say to never to a player with a QO. I do think that draft picks are more valuable under the new system where you lose not just the pick but the money from your draft budget as well. I don't think that Liriano will be getting a QO.
|
|
|