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.
2017 Red Sox Major League Spring Training Thread
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 2, 2017 11:48:25 GMT -5
And to top it off, Dombrowski has managed to piss off Betts with the terms of the contract renewal. What a black Thursday I don't see how Mookie is likely to be pissed off, they just gave the second highest ever contract to a non arbitration eligible player ($950k) where only Trout at ($1m) was higher. For me, I don't see what the technicalities of the difference is:
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 2, 2017 11:51:26 GMT -5
Yeah, the tweet I was reacting to didn't mention the amount; it's still not good news, and without knowing exactly what Mookie was asking (a cool $1 million?) it's difficult to judge. But regardless, he wasn't lowballed
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 2, 2017 11:52:03 GMT -5
I moved all the Price discussion to its own thread; let's try to keep that discussion there. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 2, 2017 12:07:58 GMT -5
Here's my understanding of what the Betts stuff means (going off memory, haven't read about this specific incident at all, not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt): pre-arb players can either "agree to terms" on a contract amount or have their contract unilaterally "renewed" by a team. In theory, it's just a semantic difference. Teams have a right to pay pre-arb players whatever they want, so whether the player "agrees to terms" or is "renewed" doesn't matter. Most players just sign on the dotted line and "agree to terms" because even if they didn't, the team would just dictate the terms to them. Pre-arb contracts are basically never negotiated (because if a team started negotiating with one player, it might have to negotiate with all players, which creates a headache). However, some players do not "agree to terms" and force the team to "renew" them to show displeasure about their contract status (generally to attempt to gain leverage in extension talks). That's probably what's happening here. Good news is, it suggests that extension talks have occurred. Bad news is, it appears that Betts and his agent aren't thrilled about the progress of those talks. Also helpful to understand: teams usually have an informal guidelines on how much pre-arb players get paid, including a salary scale tied to stuff like service time and awards (e.g., if you have one year of service time, you start off at $550K, with an extra $50K for each gold glove, silver slugger, All-Star appearance, MVP vote, etc.). That's why Betts is getting $950K (as opposed to closer to $500K for most players). I wouldn't focus too much on the exact number since it likely just reflects a pre-set formula. I'd focus on the posture by Betts and his agent that they're not being fully cooperative with the front office for whatever reason. ADD: here's MLBTR's take ( link), which is in line with my understanding (click the link to see the links in the original MLBTR post):
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 2, 2017 14:00:01 GMT -5
Hanley isn't going to the WBC. That decision was taken out of their hands when the DR decided they'd rather have healthy players with no restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 2, 2017 14:56:36 GMT -5
Listening to the Sox broadcast, not sure who the announcer is but a Devers defensive play got him drooling. Lol, by the time he was finished he had him as the next Machado.
lol, appropriately, Devers entered the game as a pinch runner for Pablo. Old time day, Heiker is in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 2, 2017 15:07:54 GMT -5
Yeah, not agreeing to terms doesn't mean they pissed him off. As Speier pointed out in the Globe today, last time this happened with Sox was 2007, with Youk and Javier Lopez. Youk signed a 4-year deal 2 years later. Howard held previous record for a renewal at $900k, and he signed multiple extensions later.
The lawyer in me says that this could just be a bit of outside-the-box positioning for down the road ("we never agreed to that number and thought he was worth more "), maybe in case they ever go to arbitration or something. (or as jmei points out, making a point in extension talks)
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 2, 2017 16:04:16 GMT -5
I'll put it in writing, the next (non-arbitration ) contract that Betts signs will be over $200m - will it be with the Red Sox?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 2, 2017 18:23:32 GMT -5
Yeah, not agreeing to terms doesn't mean they pissed him off. As Speier pointed out in the Globe today, last time this happened with Sox was 2007, with Youk and Javier Lopez. Youk signed a 4-year deal 2 years later. Howard held previous record for a renewal at $900k, and he signed multiple extensions later. The lawyer in me says that this could just be a bit of outside-the-box positioning for down the road ("we never agreed to that number and thought he was worth more "), maybe in case they ever go to arbitration or something. (or as jmei points out, making a point in extension talks) Yea, I'm not sure I buy into the hot takes from some of the writers/reporters on some of the major sites that this is somehow a significant negative. I mean they're paying him the second most any player has ever made at this point in a career, behind only a guy who had won two MVPs in Trout. Is the system broken in regards to situations like this? Yes. But it won't change, because the number of situations like this and Trout is nothing compared to the number of guys who are fortunate to be making the rising MLB minimum even if they've been terrible. Will this "situation" be brought up in arbitration discussions or extension talks? Maybe. But I am a firm believer that this is relatively meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 2, 2017 23:14:37 GMT -5
Yeah, not agreeing to terms doesn't mean they pissed him off. As Speier pointed out in the Globe today, last time this happened with Sox was 2007, with Youk and Javier Lopez. Youk signed a 4-year deal 2 years later. Howard held previous record for a renewal at $900k, and he signed multiple extensions later. The lawyer in me says that this could just be a bit of outside-the-box positioning for down the road ("we never agreed to that number and thought he was worth more "), maybe in case they ever go to arbitration or something. (or as jmei points out, making a point in extension talks) Yea, I'm not sure I buy into the hot takes from some of the writers/reporters on some of the major sites that this is somehow a significant negative. I mean they're paying him the second most any player has ever made at this point in a career, behind only a guy who had won two MVPs in Trout. Is the system broken in regards to situations like this? Yes. But it won't change, because the number of situations like this and Trout is nothing compared to the number of guys who are fortunate to be making the rising MLB minimum even if they've been terrible. Will this "situation" be brought up in arbitration discussions or extension talks? Maybe. But I am a firm believer that this is relatively meaningless. The last time I remember a contract renewal making headlines was Mike Trout, when the Angles only gave him a $20,000 raise after his rookie year. If I remember correctly Bryce Harper got a big raise and the Trout's agent ripped the Angles. Here is an article on it: www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/agent-rips-angels-after-they-renew-mike-trouts-contract/amp/Also note that Trout has since signed an extension.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 3, 2017 5:56:15 GMT -5
Man Owens might be our #8 or #9 starter with how poorly he's started spring. I normally don't like reacting to spring performance but it looks like more of the same from him. Thought it was interesting that Owens touched 94 mph on his fastball in that last game.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 3, 2017 6:45:57 GMT -5
If Price does need TJS, do the Sox take off the kid gloves on Eduardo Rodriguez and let him pitch with no innings limit restrictions this year?
That's what I want to know and is the most interesting question moving forward in the rotation for me. He's the third starter in the rotation if that's the case.
He still is only 24 but he's built like a horse. I'm not sure how the Sox view this or if they probably have no choice but to find out (probably more likely the case).
Didn't know where to post this.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Mar 3, 2017 8:34:12 GMT -5
Can't agree with yesterday's Herald writer who preached gloom and doom because the Sox lack starting pitcher depth and traded Buccholz.
If Price remains in the rotation, one of E. Rodriguez or Wright would have been demoted because of options. This gives them, along with Pomeranz, an opportunity to compete for a starting role this ST.
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on Mar 3, 2017 9:27:23 GMT -5
Man Owens might be our #8 or #9 starter with how poorly he's started spring. I normally don't like reacting to spring performance but it looks like more of the same from him. Thought it was interesting that Owens touched 94 mph on his fastball in that last game. I heard that listening on the radio. Would be interesting if he can hit it consistently but not sure I believe it since stadium radar guns can be wrong pretty often
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 3, 2017 10:02:11 GMT -5
Thought it was interesting that Owens touched 94 mph on his fastball in that last game. I heard that listening on the radio. Would be interesting if he can hit it consistently but not sure I believe it since stadium radar guns can be wrong pretty often I honestly don't care if he can dial it up to 100 until he can spot his fastball.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 3, 2017 10:18:12 GMT -5
If Price does need TJS, do the Sox take off the kid gloves on Eduardo Rodriguez and let him pitch with no innings limit restrictions this year? That's what I want to know and is the most interesting question moving forward in the rotation for me. He's the third starter in the rotation if that's the case. He still is only 24 but he's built like a horse. I'm not sure how the Sox view this or if they probably have no choice but to find out (probably more likely the case). Didn't know where to post this. The question is actually can Rodriguez give them the opportunity to even think about an innings limit?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 3, 2017 10:21:32 GMT -5
I heard that listening on the radio. Would be interesting if he can hit it consistently but not sure I believe it since stadium radar guns can be wrong pretty often I honestly don't care if he can dial it up to 100 until he can spot his fastball. Come on man! You think Aroldis Chapman is the same pitcher if he's throwing 88? Nolan Ryan? A huge difference between a 90 mph fastball and a 100 mph one is the precision you need. That said, him throwing 94 for one pitch isn't especially interesting to me. If it's real and he can do it with some consistency (not sit there, mind you, but touch it a few times a game when he needs to) then it improves his outlook, sure.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 3, 2017 10:40:16 GMT -5
I honestly don't care if he can dial it up to 100 until he can spot his fastball. Come on man! You think Aroldis Chapman is the same pitcher if he's throwing 88? Nolan Ryan? A huge difference between a 90 mph fastball and a 100 mph one is the precision you need. That said, him throwing 94 for one pitch isn't especially interesting to me. If it's real and he can do it with some consistency (not sit there, mind you, but touch it a few times a game when he needs to) then it improves his outlook, sure. I think we've had him as touching at least 93 once or twice a game before. I'm fairly certain I've seen him touch 94 in Manchester, but I could be thinking of Johnson while they were both there. As you say, far more important where he sits. Dialing up 93 or 94 once or twice for the last batter of the outing isn't going to do much when he's 88-90 the whole game.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Mar 3, 2017 13:40:52 GMT -5
The #WhiteSox have requested waivers on infielder Brett Lawrie for the purpose of granting his unconditional release.
Upgrade over Rutledge?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 3, 2017 13:50:32 GMT -5
Even if he is, it isn't enough of an upgrade to risk the rest of the baggage that comes with Lawrie.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 3, 2017 19:14:37 GMT -5
i just saw Benintendi knock. I really can't believe the unchartered territory we are entering with our outfield. Sure we had Rice, Lynn and Evans back in the day....but I can't hold back the thrill of seeing these guys play in this day and age, with as much access as cable TV allows. Our outfield is so loaded. I just hope they can stay healthy, and continue to improve. It is very exciting.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2017 19:45:37 GMT -5
This outfield is one that makes you gasp in disbelief if any fly ball touches grass.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 3, 2017 21:13:44 GMT -5
To me it's the best all around outfield in baseball. Off the top of my head only the Pirates come close and even disregarding player contracts and control which favor the Sox considerably, I'd take Mookie over Cutch, JBJ over Marte and Benintendi over Polonco (although that one is close).
For me, the only question, which I consider a relatively minor question, is how much consistency JBJ's offense evolves into.
ADD: As far as being better than Rice, Lynn, Evans I'd say probably if you view it as a picture in time. I'd want to see them play together for about 3 years before I'd say that though, there's something to be said for longevity.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Mar 3, 2017 21:46:44 GMT -5
To me it's the best all around outfield in baseball. Off the top of my head only the Pirates come close and even disregarding player contracts and control which favor the Sox considerably, I'd take Mookie over Cutch, JBJ over Marte and Benintendi over Polonco (although that one is close). For me, the only question, which I consider a relatively minor question, is how much consistency JBJ's offense evolves into. ADD: As far as being better than Rice, Lynn, Evans I'd say probably if you view it as a picture in time. I'd want to see them play together for about 3 years before I'd say that though, there's something to be said for longevity. Yeah it's definitely a good argument over who has the best OF. The Pirates are clearly great in the OF, despite concerns about Cutch, and I'd also say the Marlins, Dodgers, and maybe the Cubs could be put in that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 3, 2017 22:04:48 GMT -5
ADD: As far as being better than Rice, Lynn, Evans I'd say probably if you view it as a picture in time. I'd want to see them play together for about 3 years before I'd say that though, there's something to be said for longevity. Absolutely. Rice, Lynn and Evans were the reason I became a Sox fan, having followed the Mets as a young boy (the Yankees were dead to me before I was born). Longevity will be the determining factor. If the progression remains even remotely linear, it will be very close, if not better.
|
|
|