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 soxfan1615 on Oct 31, 2014 21:00:38 GMT -5
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. You're right, and this applies to every team, so every team will be willing to pay more for the FA's without a QO attached to them. The Red Sox will lose not only a lower draft pick, but also lower slot money than most other teams. Therefore, losing a pick from a QO hurts them much less than any other team without a protected pick, and we should be going after them, since they will not get a boost in salary from not having a QO. This is not even mentioning that 90% of these draft picks will never have any season as valuable as the season we would most likely get next year from a QO free agent.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 31, 2014 21:24:31 GMT -5
The player's agent normally pushes for the opt out right? It's a plus for the player. I think Guidas has a point on it not necessarily being bad for the team also though, if they are like the Redsox and generally averse to long term contracts. The sox may also consider such things to be an incentive for the player to actually try after signing that long term contract.
The opt out means nothing if the player doesn't try. A lot of business models involve incentivizing employees.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 31, 2014 21:27:21 GMT -5
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.[/b] Pittsburgh is possibly mulling 2 QO this winter with Liriano and Martin. If I were them I go for it with both. They have revenue sharing and they are contenders. It may well back fire but it's worth the risk to me. Both guys are going to want multiyear deals.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 1, 2014 0:08:44 GMT -5
If Liriano were to accept a QO his salary would be roughly 20% of the team's payroll. That's a lot for a guy who isn't a star.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 1, 2014 1:36:11 GMT -5
Burnet and Philly each declined the mutual option. Any chance cherrington gives Burnett a sniff?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 1, 2014 10:54:03 GMT -5
Burnet and Philly each declined the mutual option. Any chance cherrington gives Burnett a sniff? Absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 10:59:41 GMT -5
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Nov 1, 2014 11:47:32 GMT -5
It's interesting that he doesn't have Headley on his top 10 list. He must think Headley will get less than the 4 years/$52 million he predicts for Russell Martin, his No.10 guy.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Nov 1, 2014 11:57:32 GMT -5
"One NL official went as far as to say he thought [Hanley] Ramirez might take a one-year deal in an offensive-friendly place such as Fenway Park to rebuild his value for a long-term pact."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 13:05:43 GMT -5
It's interesting that he doesn't have Headley on his top 10 list. He must think Headley will get less than the 4 years/$52 million he predicts for Russell Martin, his No.10 guy. Under the Sandoval section, he suggests that Headley might get three or four years at $13-15m. I think it'll take something like 4/$60m, which I'd be willing to give him.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 13:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 14:22:59 GMT -5
Here are a few buy-low bullpen arms that have piqued my interest at a casual glance: Sergio Santos, Matt Belisle, Kyuji Fujikawa, Jose Veras, Jamey Wright, Ronald Belisario, Casey Janssen.
Unfortunately, the crop of lefties is pretty meh after Miller. The likes of Joe Thatcher, Neal Cotts, Tom Gorzelanny, and Zach Duke are decent enough, but they're more LOOGY-types than lefty setup men. Maybe they can get Breslow on a minor league/league-minimum deal.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2014 14:51:33 GMT -5
I don't necessarily think a lefty set-up man is that important. Having two solid set-up men in Tazawa and Mujica means they can go cheap on a handy-but-flawed lefty reliever. Someone like Gorzelanny, who is average-ish against righties and excellent against lefties would be a pretty ok get. I wouldn't let him face an elite righty like Trout with the game on the line, but I'd trust him either to get through the soft part of a lineup or retire a key lefty.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 1, 2014 20:47:40 GMT -5
Here are a few buy-low bullpen arms that have piqued my interest at a casual glance: Sergio Santos, Matt Belisle, Kyuji Fujikawa, Jose Veras, Jamey Wright, Ronald Belisario, Casey Janssen. Unfortunately, the crop of lefties is pretty meh after Miller. The likes of Joe Thatcher, Neal Cotts, Tom Gorzelanny, and Zach Duke are decent enough, but they're more LOOGY-types than lefty setup men. Maybe they can get Breslow on a minor league/league-minimum deal. Hochevar as a reliever? I like him for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 1, 2014 21:18:56 GMT -5
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. Or, if he holds his relative performance and you factor in inflation, he's worth more than his salary. Watch what happens with Grienke next fall. And, yes, at least one and prob three or more teams will be desperate enough to act irrationally. It happens virtually every year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 1, 2014 21:33:49 GMT -5
I don't put much stock into that kind of piece by Sherman but even at face value I don't know how anyone can be all in on Shields for four years at &100M but think 6 years for Lester at $140M is too much or too long. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't want. Shields on the Sox if they have to sign him for more than 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 21:45:21 GMT -5
Right. Then you no longer have a player worth more than his salary. Unless you assume other teams are irrational. Or, if he holds his relative performance and you factor in inflation, he's worth more than his salary. Watch what happens with Grienke next fall. And, yes, at least one and prob three or more teams will be desperate enough to act irrationally. It happens virtually every year. Most long-term contracts do factor in inflation. If a player holds his performance steady, he almost certainly has outperformed expectations, because non-idiot teams give free agents long-term contracts assuming that the player will decline as he enters his 30s but that inflation will ease the pain. Basically, if a player opts out, it almost certainly means you'd prefer to have him on the balance of the rest of his contract than to lose him for nothing but a QO. Greinke is going to opt-out after 2015-- do you think the Dodgers would prefer to watch him leave than to pay 3/$71m for his age 32-34 seasons? Absolutely not. It prevents a team from reaping the benefit of the tail end of the rare contract that actually does turn out well all the way through, a la Manny Ramirez or Matt Holliday. Basically, this whole idea of "opt-outs are good" comes from Sabathia busting a year after opting out and signing a massive new contract. As that situation demonstrated, it is possible for an opt-out to be good for the team, but only if (a) the player performs really well up to the date of the opt-out but (b) ends up busting almost immediately after opting out. But how often are those exact set of conditions going to exist? Remember, if the player ends up declining before the end of the opt-out, he won't opt out and now you're stuck with an albatross. And if he doesn't decline much after he opts out and signs a huge deal with someone else, well now you've screwed yourself because you otherwise would have had him under contract for those still-excellent years. The only scenarios where the team benefits from an opt-out is if the timing is absolutely perfect, which you can't count on.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Nov 1, 2014 21:48:36 GMT -5
Right. Then you no longer have a player worth more than his salary. Unless you assume other teams are irrational. Or, if he holds his relative performance and you factor in inflation, he's worth more than his salary. Watch what happens with Grienke next fall. And, yes, at least one and prob three or more teams will be desperate enough to act irrationally. It happens virtually every year. The only scenario that it benefits the team will be if the player opts out, believes his future value to be x, the team he was with thinks he is worth less than his future contract, and another team disagrees. Unless the player gave a huge discount for the opt out. So, only if you assume irrationality.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 1, 2014 22:26:56 GMT -5
I don't put much stock into that kind of piece by Sherman but even at face value I don't know how anyone can be all in on Shields for four years at &100M but think 6 years for Lester at $140M is too much or too long. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't want. Shields on the Sox if they have to sign him for more than 3 years. I don't want Shields at any price.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 22:36:31 GMT -5
You guys are not valuing the incentivizing factor at all. If a player like Grienke is given an opt out, it is almost definitely because he asked for it, but the team does get some benefit in incentivising the player to perform to the best of their ability in the years they have definite control over him. That is worth a lot in itself.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Nov 1, 2014 22:41:53 GMT -5
Here are a few buy-low bullpen arms that have piqued my interest at a casual glance: Sergio Santos, Matt Belisle, Kyuji Fujikawa, Jose Veras, Jamey Wright, Ronald Belisario, Casey Janssen. Unfortunately, the crop of lefties is pretty meh after Miller. The likes of Joe Thatcher, Neal Cotts, Tom Gorzelanny, and Zach Duke are decent enough, but they're more LOOGY-types than lefty setup men. Maybe they can get Breslow on a minor league/league-minimum deal. Hochevar as a reliever? I like him for sure. I'm intrigued as well. There is the inherent risk coming off the Tommy John but the surgery was performed in late March and the team should be able to get a definite read on how he is throwing before spring. He is an ideal buy low on a two year deal. While he is older than Andrew Miller he offers a similar profile and he was effective vs both lefties and righties but not to the degree that Miller was. He throws a four seam FB that clocked in up to 96 pre surgery with a cutter that missed bats at around 91. He adds a curve/knuckle curve and a sinker in addition. Depends on the value of the deal but he does appear to offer some upside vs other retreads. He is the type of pickup who in returning to form offers value for the dollar and is a candidate to be flipped at the deadline or in the off season for a prospect as an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 2, 2014 12:36:23 GMT -5
Right. Then you no longer have a player worth more than his salary. Unless you assume other teams are irrational. Or, if he holds his relative performance and you factor in inflation, he's worth more than his salary. Watch what happens with Grienke next fall. And, yes, at least one and prob three or more teams will be desperate enough to act irrationally. It happens virtually every year. I'm sure the Dodgers wish he didn't have an opt-out. Because he'd still be a Dodger if he wasn't worth his contract and now that he's worth more, he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 2, 2014 14:21:55 GMT -5
sooooooooo? Jay Alou ?@jaloujr 8m8 minutes ago
Yasmany Tomas worked out at the Red Sox academy. Balls were punished over trees to all fields! #smellbaseball #Power
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Nov 2, 2014 20:29:21 GMT -5
I saw that earlier was he just using the facility or were the Red Sox working him out?
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 3, 2014 11:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|