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.
|
Joey Votto
Oct 19, 2016 21:45:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by brendan98 on Oct 19, 2016 21:45:54 GMT -5
The only way the Sox should consider a deal for Votto and his remaining contract, is if Cincinnati takes back some money in the deal. Offer Sandoval, Castillo and Shaw and see what the Reds say, it isn't fair value for the quality of player that Votto is, but the 7 years $179m remaining on that contract for Votto's 33-40 seasons is as bad a contract as you will see. The Reds wouldn't get any salary relief over the next 3 years while paying Sandoval and Castillo, but would save $14m in year 4 and $25m in years 5, 6 & 7. Sandoval could be better getting out of Boston and back to the NL, while Castillo and Shaw represent young(ish) players with some possible upside. On the Sox side, Votto would be a no brainer in yrs 1-4 with his money basically canceled out by what would have been owed to Pablo and Rusney, the downside would be in years 5, 6 & 7 when Votto will be owed $84m including his buyout, for his ages 37-40 seasons. I think I would do this deal if I were the Sox, and I might do it if I were the Reds, though I might also ask for something better than Shaw if taking on both Sandoval and Castillo's contracts.
|
|
|
Post by scarr0214 on Oct 20, 2016 1:52:25 GMT -5
There is no way Votto comes cheap. It's really a shame because his bat is wasted in Cincinnati. I love him as a hitter, but before I'd give up a package starting with Devers and/or Kopech for him I'd call Arizona about Goldschmidt. You can't give up Moncada, Groome, or Benintendi but if a package centered around JBJ and Devers could start a conversation I'd add in 3 more significant prospects to get him to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 20, 2016 8:03:35 GMT -5
I'd be hard pressed to take Votto just for the awful contract, never mind giving up a decent prospect package.
The only scenario that makes sense is that the reds only want to dump him for salary relief. Even that doesn't make sense when you have options that don't require the the contract length that Votto's contract carries.
Say no to Votto.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Oct 20, 2016 12:46:49 GMT -5
The more I think about it, forget Votto. He will be 35 in 2 years, we got to witness the exception in Big Papi producing at an elite level til 40, not the rule which is that as players get into their mid to late 30’s their bats slow down and their production either declines or falls off a cliff. Votto’s contract gets worse with each passing year, as 1 more of his elite seasons is gone, and he is one year closer to his potential decline.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2016 1:31:38 GMT -5
If I had a choice between Votto and EE, I choose Votto. If they would take Sandoval and what his 60 million, that makes Votto contract look a lot better.
I'm just not going to give up a massive amount of top prospects. If they were really high on guys like Travis, Dubon and Hernandez maybe we could make a deal. That's the best I would offer, salary relief and some B level prospects. Maybe Shaw or Henry Owens who I think would do a lot better outside the AL East and there teams that like to take walks. I don't think they'll do that, but I would love Votto to replace Big Papi. I mean that's like a Dream scenario.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 7, 2016 20:33:20 GMT -5
If I had a choice between Votto and EE, I choose Votto. If they would take Sandoval and what his 60 million, that makes Votto contract look a lot better. I'm just not going to give up a massive amount of top prospects. If they were really high on guys like Travis, Dubon and Hernandez maybe we could make a deal. That's the best I would offer, salary relief and some B level prospects. Maybe Shaw or Henry Owens who I think would do a lot better outside the AL East and there teams that like to take walks. I don't think they'll do that, but I would love Votto to replace Big Papi. I mean that's like a Dream scenario. The only deal that makes sense is if the Reds took both Castillo AND Sandoval. Even then it's still iffy. The Sox would be saving in the short term and the Reds save for the long term. I wouldn't trade anything substantial to get him either. Maybe a Sam Travis. I just don't see this trade happening.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2016 21:44:26 GMT -5
If I had a choice between Votto and EE, I choose Votto. If they would take Sandoval and what his 60 million, that makes Votto contract look a lot better. I'm just not going to give up a massive amount of top prospects. If they were really high on guys like Travis, Dubon and Hernandez maybe we could make a deal. That's the best I would offer, salary relief and some B level prospects. Maybe Shaw or Henry Owens who I think would do a lot better outside the AL East and there teams that like to take walks. I don't think they'll do that, but I would love Votto to replace Big Papi. I mean that's like a Dream scenario. The only deal that makes sense is if the Reds took both Castillo AND Sandoval. Even then it's still iffy. The Sox would be saving in the short term and the Reds save for the long term. I wouldn't trade anything substantial to get him either. Maybe a Sam Travis. I just don't see this trade happening. My trade idea is a long shot, yours just makes no sense and will never even have a slight chance of happening. 7 years and 119 million for Votto isn't crazy. 17 million per would actually be a value, the 7 years is too long sure, but he's an elite hitter. You really can't complain about 119 million if you want us to sign EE for big money, while giving up a draft pick. Castillo has no value, it's massively negative. To get them to take Sandoval is one thing, you can make a good case of him bouncing back and providing them value. I mean who does a salary dump and doesn't save much money and gets nothing for an elite bat? Sandoval and 3-4 B level prospects might tempt them. They would save almost 120 million and add some good depth to farm system. They might be one of the teams that think Dubon can start at SS in majors or Sam Travis is the next Sean Casey. Think about if they aren't saving much money, they could just eat half his contract and then a bunch of teams would most likely be interested and give up better prospects.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 7, 2016 22:24:44 GMT -5
The only deal that makes sense is if the Reds took both Castillo AND Sandoval. Even then it's still iffy. The Sox would be saving in the short term and the Reds save for the long term. I wouldn't trade anything substantial to get him either. Maybe a Sam Travis. I just don't see this trade happening. My trade idea is a long shot, yours just makes no sense and will never even have a slight chance of happening. 7 years and 119 million for Votto isn't crazy. 17 million per would actually be a value, the 7 years is too long sure, but he's an elite hitter. You really can't complain about 119 million if you want us to sign EE for big money, while giving up a draft pick. Castillo has no value, it's massively negative. To get them to take Sandoval is one thing, you can make a good case of him bouncing back and providing them value. I mean who does a salary dump and doesn't save much money and gets nothing for an elite bat? Sandoval and 3-4 B level prospects might tempt them. They would save almost 120 million and add some good depth to farm system. They might be one of the teams that think Dubon can start at SS in majors or Sam Travis is the next Sean Casey. Think about if they aren't saving much money, they could just eat half his contract and then a bunch of teams would most likely be interested and give up better prospects. That would be nice if Votto was owed 119 million like you like to believe. The math doesn't add up however. 7 times 24 equals 168 million. He's owed more money than you are led to believe.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2016 22:31:10 GMT -5
My trade idea is a long shot, yours just makes no sense and will never even have a slight chance of happening. 7 years and 119 million for Votto isn't crazy. 17 million per would actually be a value, the 7 years is too long sure, but he's an elite hitter. You really can't complain about 119 million if you want us to sign EE for big money, while giving up a draft pick. Castillo has no value, it's massively negative. To get them to take Sandoval is one thing, you can make a good case of him bouncing back and providing them value. I mean who does a salary dump and doesn't save much money and gets nothing for an elite bat? Sandoval and 3-4 B level prospects might tempt them. They would save almost 120 million and add some good depth to farm system. They might be one of the teams that think Dubon can start at SS in majors or Sam Travis is the next Sean Casey. Think about if they aren't saving much money, they could just eat half his contract and then a bunch of teams would most likely be interested and give up better prospects. That would be nice if Votto was owed 119 million like you like to believe. The math doesn't add up however. 7 times 24 equals 168 million. He's owed more money than you are led to believe. I simple took the saving of 60 million left on Sandoval's contract and took it off Votto's. You would be on the hook for about 119 million over 7 years of new money. Which like I said is very close to what EE is going to make.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 8, 2016 0:36:24 GMT -5
That would be nice if Votto was owed 119 million like you like to believe. The math doesn't add up however. 7 times 24 equals 168 million. He's owed more money than you are led to believe. I simple took the saving of 60 million left on Sandoval's contract and took it off Votto's. You would be on the hook for about 119 million over 7 years of new money. Which like I said is very close to what EE is going to make. Yeah except you don't know the actual final number of EE and it would be a 4 or 5 year deal maximum with EE, which is 1-3 years shorter than Votto's deal. You're stuck with 24 million a year for a extra 1-3 years. That's pretty horrible still.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 8, 2016 0:43:08 GMT -5
That would be nice if Votto was owed 119 million like you like to believe. The math doesn't add up however. 7 times 24 equals 168 million. He's owed more money than you are led to believe. I simple took the saving of 60 million left on Sandoval's contract and took it off Votto's. You would be on the hook for about 119 million over 7 years of new money. Which like I said is very close to what EE is going to make. Yeah, while I'd prefer that they stick to a 1-year or 2-year stopgap, tops, this make a lot of sense. Sandoval is getting $19M a year, so this math is pretty much correct: Votto has 2017 at $22M, and then 2018 through 2023 at $25M per year, with a team 2024 option for $20M/$7M buyout. So the Sox would be on the hook for a minimum of $172M plus the $7M buyout, or $179M. If the Reds took Sandoval, it would be $179M-$57M=$122M over 7 years. Votto and Encarnacion are the same age. Votto is less of a power threat (though he still has plus to plus-plus power) but a much, much better hitter, and he's a lefty. While I like Encarnacion's power potential in Fenway (he hits enough flies that I think his HR totals wouldn't be hurt by the wall, and might be helped, in a much milder Esasky/Ross effect), I'd prefer that they not get too right-handed, especially with their best hitters. Votto's high-OBP/high BA skillset tends to age better than does the power-heavy approach of Encarnacion. Votto would actually approximate Ortiz's production in the near term (fewer HR, but higher OBPs, and he would probably be helped some by using the opposite field) and could hit in Ortiz's lineup spot. Pedroia-Benintendi-Betts-Votto-Hanley-JBJ is a stupidly good front 6. Maybe someone has the granular batted-ball info for Votto? I'd be curious to see how it looked in Fenway. Encarnacion will probably command 5/$110 or somewhere in that range, maybe even a little more. So the Sox would get two (or three) extra years (when Votto would probably, admittedly, be well into decline), for essentially the same overall cost. The effective AAV would drop though, in the short term (first three years), and be less of a cap hit. They'd be paying the full $25M AAV in three years, but at that point Hanley's contract will be up, and hopefully Moncada and Devers would be contributing. They should have sufficient salary flexibility at that point (Porcello will be off the books, too) to extend their young guys, provided the next wave (Moncada, Devers, Kopech, +/- Groome, +/- Raudes) is producing enough to warrant starting. Essentially, then, about $100M would be effectively "deferred" three years, when they're paying only the $3-6M a year difference from Votto to Sandoval (total $15M over the three years). That's cheaper than signing a DH in FA. And that also means that the bulk 4-5 years ($M), although it comes when Votto will probably be in decline, is being paid at a time when it can be expected to be less exhorbitant, since salaries are very likely to keep inflating. With the money slightly deferred, the efffective cost would come even closer to even with Encarnacion: for a better hitter over a longer period of time. And if Votto doesn't decline severely, that his contract may be tradeable (for example, Carlos Beltran this year) provided a team has a need, or the Sox don't expect much back (or they provide partial salary relief). It all depends on what the Reds would want back. Votto is an elite hitter, and he's really perfect for the Sox lineup (LH, extremely high OBP, very good power). He's a better bet to age well than most hitters. He's not a good defensive 1B at all, but neither is Encarnacion, and Votto and Hanley could split 1b/DH duties which would help reduce wear and tear on both. Since Votto is a better player than Encarncacion, and would have similar overall cost given the deferred money (and the possibility that they get under the cap the next three years by not spending on a DH and shedding Sandoval), if the Sox don't have to give up much more than the equivalent of the 26th pick (Encarnacion compensation) along with Sandoval, it's not a bad idea. My guess, though, is that the Reds want more than that back, because Votto is their franchise. Worth inquiring about though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 8, 2016 1:50:47 GMT -5
I simple took the saving of 60 million left on Sandoval's contract and took it off Votto's. You would be on the hook for about 119 million over 7 years of new money. Which like I said is very close to what EE is going to make. Yeah except you don't know the actual final number of EE and it would be a 4 or 5 year deal maximum with EE, which is 1-3 years shorter than Votto's deal. You're stuck with 24 million a year for a extra 1-3 years. That's pretty horrible still. Sure in real dollars and for salary cap, you would have 2-3 more years at 25 million. However in actual cash outlay it's going to be very close. The kicker is that Votto is just a better hitter and player. He's also a year younger. You would also free up money for the next 3 years, Pablo plus EE compared to Votto. That's going to be close to 15 million a year for 3 years. You also get to keep your draft pick to offset the prospects it would take in a trade. With the new draft rules, losing a first round pick really hurts your draft pool dollars and limits your options later in Draft for over slot guys. If DD is dead set on getting an elite bat, I would much rather gamble on Votto compared to EE.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 8, 2016 1:57:18 GMT -5
If I was GM I would go after a Beltran type player. I only bring up the Votto option if DD is dead set on getting an elite bat to replace Ortiz. There are other options other than EE. Guys that are better players. If your going to lock the team into a long term deal, Votto is just a better bet than EE in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2016 8:23:39 GMT -5
FWIW, Dombrowski is saying that he doesn't really want to tie up the DH spot long-term. It sounds like he's being pretty reasonably here and wants to fill it either in-house or more likely with a short-term solution such as a Carlos Beltran whom Jon Heyman has written the Sox are looking at to DH for 2017.
I doubt the Sox go after Votto, and at this point I'm doubting the Sox go after Encarnacion. I might not always agree with Dombrowski, but I have to say the guy is honest and has been nothing but transparent, so I'm not overly sweating the Sox overcommitting $ and/or years to fill the DH spot. It's also apparent that Dombrowski is kind of high on Moncada, Kopech, Benintendi, Sam Travis, and (to my relief) apparently Devers (wish he had been higher on Espinoza), which doesn't mean that he won't deal any of them, but it sounds like he really has no major desire to unless he's overwhelmed. And it sounds like he's not eager to block these young prospects by committing a lot of money or years to another player.
The Red Sox need to just bridge the gap until Moncada is ready to play 3b, Sam Travis is ready to take over 1b (and yeah, he might not be good enough, or maybe Travis takes that step forward where his hitting tool really plays up?) or perhaps Devers is knocking on the door by the end of the season. Either way they just need half a season to a full season and that's where a short-termer, like Beltran who doesn't cost them a draft pick, makes sense. The only question is would Beltran require a 2 year deal? I'd hope not.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 8, 2016 15:41:04 GMT -5
In keeping with the theme of the day, I vote "no" on Vot-to. With a 20 trillion deficit, we cannot afford his inflated salary.💥
|
|
|
Post by scarr0214 on Nov 8, 2016 20:32:33 GMT -5
If Cincinnati offered Votto for Devers, Shaw, and either Panda or Castillo I'd do it and hope DHing him keeps him hitting for most of his remaining contract. If Devers turns into a beast then obviously I'm wrong, but there's no guarantee there. Votto in a good lineup is a .300 hitter with power and plate discipline. Closest thing to replacing Papi out there for a reasonable price.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 8, 2016 20:58:55 GMT -5
If Cincinnati offered Votto for Devers, Shaw, and either Panda or Castillo I'd do it and hope DHing him keeps him hitting for most of his remaining contract. If Devers turns into a beast then obviously I'm wrong, but there's no guarantee there. Votto in a good lineup is a .300 hitter with power and plate discipline. Closest thing to replacing Papi out there for a reasonable price. I wouldn't give up Devers for Votto, even if Cincy took Panda's contract. There are better options without taking that sort of long-term salary hit. I'd be very concerned that Votto only has 2-3 prime years left, meaning he will probably be declining just when they're actually paying the full $25M a year.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 9, 2016 1:37:02 GMT -5
The whole idea of Votto is to not trade major prospects.
It would mainly be a salary dump for a mid market team that is looking to get rid of a restraining contract that takes up a large percentage of their payroll for a lot of years.
It makes zero sense to trade any prospects of value and I think it makes zero sense to even take on the contract even if it's a pure dump based on the number of years alone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 9, 2016 8:34:14 GMT -5
Cincinati has said many times that they're not interested in trading Votto, who has a full no-trade contract which he has said that he would exercise to never leave Cincinati. I don't see the point in speculating on him.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 9, 2016 9:21:09 GMT -5
Teams rarely salary dump their home-grown stars. They almost always prefer to pick up salary and get at least one legitimate prospect in return. A rebuilding team isn't going to spend that salary space on other veteran talent anyways, and Cincinnati's ownership isn't compelled to cut salary the way the Marlins, As or Rays might be.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 9, 2016 15:21:47 GMT -5
Teams rarely salary dump their home-grown stars. They almost always prefer to pick up salary and get at least one legitimate prospect in return. A rebuilding team isn't going to spend that salary space on other veteran talent anyways, and Cincinnati's ownership isn't compelled to cut salary the way the Marlins, As or Rays might be. Which makes no sense even speculating that Votto is coming to Boston. They shouldn't trade prospects or take on that much salary.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2016 0:42:59 GMT -5
Teams rarely salary dump their home-grown stars. They almost always prefer to pick up salary and get at least one legitimate prospect in return. A rebuilding team isn't going to spend that salary space on other veteran talent anyways, and Cincinnati's ownership isn't compelled to cut salary the way the Marlins, As or Rays might be. Legitimate prospect? I think the word your looking for is top/elite prospects. Because guys like Travis and Doubon are legitimate prospects, but the Reds aren't paying salary to get players like that. Second I have seen like 3-4 reports on Votto trades in the last few weeks, because it just makes sense. He's getting older and they are rebuilding and seem years away from contending. If your the Reds owners would you rather eat 50-60 million to get a Devers type prospect or take Sandoval and 3-4 B level guys? It's really a toss up in my opinion. If Sandoval can bounce back they could get some more prospects down the road for him. Votto is an unique case, he's older, but still elite. But he has a crazy long contract, at a time when teams are looking at deals like Pujols and how bad they can turn out. It's rare that a veteran has a longer term contract then he could get as a free agent, coming off an elite year.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 10, 2016 1:53:29 GMT -5
Teams rarely salary dump their home-grown stars. They almost always prefer to pick up salary and get at least one legitimate prospect in return. A rebuilding team isn't going to spend that salary space on other veteran talent anyways, and Cincinnati's ownership isn't compelled to cut salary the way the Marlins, As or Rays might be. Legitimate prospect? I think the word your looking for is top/elite prospects. Because guys like Travis and Doubon are legitimate prospects, but the Reds aren't paying salary to get players like that. Second I have seen like 3-4 reports on Votto trades in the last few weeks, because it just makes sense. He's getting older and they are rebuilding and seem years away from contending. If your the Reds owners would you rather eat 50-60 million to get a Devers type prospect or take Sandoval and 3-4 B level guys? It's really a toss up in my opinion. If Sandoval can bounce back they could get some more prospects down the road for him. Votto is an unique case, he's older, but still elite. But he has a crazy long contract, at a time when teams are looking at deals like Pujols and how bad they can turn out. It's rare that a veteran has a longer term contract then he could get as a free agent, coming off an elite year. Are you still contemplating a unrealistic scenario in which the Owner of the Reds has already came out and said he wasn't trading Votto this off season?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2016 2:46:35 GMT -5
Legitimate prospect? I think the word your looking for is top/elite prospects. Because guys like Travis and Doubon are legitimate prospects, but the Reds aren't paying salary to get players like that. Second I have seen like 3-4 reports on Votto trades in the last few weeks, because it just makes sense. He's getting older and they are rebuilding and seem years away from contending. If your the Reds owners would you rather eat 50-60 million to get a Devers type prospect or take Sandoval and 3-4 B level guys? It's really a toss up in my opinion. If Sandoval can bounce back they could get some more prospects down the road for him. Votto is an unique case, he's older, but still elite. But he has a crazy long contract, at a time when teams are looking at deals like Pujols and how bad they can turn out. It's rare that a veteran has a longer term contract then he could get as a free agent, coming off an elite year. Are you still contemplating a unrealistic scenario in which the Owner of the Reds has already came out and said he wasn't trading Votto this off season? The articles I've seen are from the GM, not the owner. He said teams are calling, but he's not in negotiations and hasn't talked to Votto about waiving his no trade clause. He went on to say he likes Joey Votto teaching the young guys and they want to build around him. That to me is not a GM saying Votto isn't going to be traded. Sure sounds like a GM trying to get a better offer. I've also read a ton of reports listing Votto as a guy most likely to be traded. It just makes sense. What doesn't make sense is trying to build around a guy that is 33 years old when your years away from competing. Now if the owner came out and said we aren't trading Votto, I would take that seriously. A GM using the wording he used, sure sounds like he's trying to drive up the price. You know a GM saying we are trading a guy, will lose leverage.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2016 8:35:40 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale Verified account @bnightengale
The #Reds have no intention of trading Joey Votto, Reds say, citing not only his obvious talent, but his clubhouse leadership.
|
|
|