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.
2018 Red Sox roster building
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2018 14:38:02 GMT -5
The Mookie news is brutal for the team. Not only will this cost them at least 13.5m over the next 3 years, but they will have to cut salary to sign JDM and stay under the 237m threshold. Reduces leverage for the team on the longshot of an extension too. Bad miscalculation by DD Holt is probably the guy the Sox will trade to shed some salary. A Eduardo Nunez resigning looks improbable now though. So as I've said, $237M isn't a hard cap by any means. If you pass it, your top draft pick moves back 10 spots. If you're a playoff team... that's not horrible. It's worse than "just money," in taxes, but it's not like losing the pick entirely. I don't think that trading Holt so that you can add $25M in salary for Martinez would make a ton of sense. That would put them right up against $237M anyway, so any midseason addition would put them over anyway. Again, $3M here wasn't going to make the difference, I don't think. The more I think about it, the only way the Sox sign Martinez and stay under $237M is trading some of Hanley's salary.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Jan 31, 2018 14:45:14 GMT -5
Very happy for Mookie's win.
|
|
dirtdog
Veteran
Posts: 1,892
Member is Online
|
Post by dirtdog on Jan 31, 2018 14:48:49 GMT -5
Mookie was 2nd in runs produced in the AL last year. Worth ever penny to a team that needs runs.
|
|
Addam603
Veteran
Posts: 3,205
Member is Online
|
Post by Addam603 on Jan 31, 2018 14:49:13 GMT -5
So if we had to trade Hanley, where would we send him? I don’t see many teams out there with a clear gap at 1B/DH. Hanley’s defensive shortcomings could arguably cut his trade options in half if you see him as a pure DH moving forward. Given his current level of play and contract, I don’t see how he gets traded without attaching a prospect or two to sweeten the deal. Would a team be willing to take him on for no prospects, and if so, how much money do we have to send their way. I think that just gets too costly, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 31, 2018 14:49:24 GMT -5
I think it may be even tougher to extend Mookie, and not because he just got more money. Everything I've read about arbitration hearings is they're a pretty contentious process and can create long-term hard feelings. Theo was very careful to avoid it because of that reason (among a few others). Time will tell, but it could be a bad play by the front office
|
|
dirtdog
Veteran
Posts: 1,892
Member is Online
|
Post by dirtdog on Jan 31, 2018 14:51:09 GMT -5
. The more I think about it, the only way the Sox sign Martinez and stay under $237M is trading some of Hanley's salary. Yep and we read early in the off season that DD was trying to do exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2018 14:57:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure they'll do it.IMO the chances are close to nil. They aren't going to overwhelm him and anything less won't get it done. This is what I'm thinking. I don't think a deal happens unless they blow him away, which I think is unlikely. But now that he's set to likely go 10/17/25 roughly in arbitration, they could be more willing to blow him away, knowing they've got these payments coming up anyways. The problem is that the luxury tax is calculated based on AAV, and any extension that Betts agrees to will certainly raise his AAV. As far as I know there's no way to structure an extension that doesn't blow an even bigger hole in the budget. IMO they should just blow past the tax anyway and worry about cleaning up the mess two years from now, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2018 14:58:08 GMT -5
I think it may be even tougher to extend Mookie, and not because he just got more money. Everything I've read about arbitration hearings is they're a pretty contentious process and can create long-term hard feelings. Theo was very careful to avoid it because of that reason (among a few others). Time will tell, but it could be a bad play by the front office Every single day that Betts hasn't signed an extension has been a bad play by the front office. And yes, just the fact that they went to an arb hearing is a very bad sign. If you were Mookie Betts, would you want to sign with this team?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 31, 2018 15:37:47 GMT -5
I think it may be even tougher to extend Mookie, and not because he just got more money. Everything I've read about arbitration hearings is they're a pretty contentious process and can create long-term hard feelings. Theo was very careful to avoid it because of that reason (among a few others). Time will tell, but it could be a bad play by the front office Every single day that Betts hasn't signed an extension has been a bad play by the front office. And yes, just the fact that they went to an arb hearing is a very bad sign. If you were Mookie Betts, would you want to sign with this team? He has said he wants to go year to year last year. And lol. “Why would you sign with this team” overreaction. Just because they went to arbitration doesn’t mean he has a grudge against this team. Sports is a business he knows that. It’s nothing personal. (Just ask Blake griffen). There have been zero indications that he doesn’t want to sign long term or stay with the team. It’s his right to go year to year if he wants.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 31, 2018 16:09:29 GMT -5
It is just business. And taking your best player to arbitration is really bad business, and taking him to arbitration and losing is irresponsible and dumb business.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 31, 2018 16:15:43 GMT -5
So if we had to trade Hanley, where would we send him? I don’t see many teams out there with a clear gap at 1B/DH. Hanley’s defensive shortcomings could arguably cut his trade options in half if you see him as a pure DH moving forward. Given his current level of play and contract, I don’t see how he gets traded without attaching a prospect or two to sweeten the deal. Would a team be willing to take him on for no prospects, and if so, how much money do we have to send their way. I think that just gets too costly, but who knows. I don't think it's possible without eating almost all his salary. A possible partner would want him to be a weak side platoon 1b/DH and pinch hitter. So maybe they take only 3-5M of his salary unless the Red Sox offer prospects to sweeten the deal. The big problem is that his playing time option removed any chance at a bounce back year as whoever he plays for will prioritize keeping him below the PA threshold.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 31, 2018 16:16:54 GMT -5
It is just business. And taking your best player to arbitration is really bad business, and taking him to arbitration and losing is irresponsible and dumb business. I agree. But if there is a silver lining, Mookie winning the hearing likely reduces any ill feelings from his side.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2018 16:24:27 GMT -5
The funny thing is that if Hanley were on another team, we'd all be talking about him as a DH option for a bounce back season, though at a much lower salary.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 31, 2018 20:11:22 GMT -5
It is just business. And taking your best player to arbitration is really bad business, and taking him to arbitration and losing is irresponsible and dumb business.I' I'm still not clear what you think the Sox should have done instead. By all accounts, they tried to sign him, and he refused. What other option was available to them?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 31, 2018 20:26:38 GMT -5
It is just business. And taking your best player to arbitration is really bad business, and taking him to arbitration and losing is irresponsible and dumb business. I agree. But if there is a silver lining, Mookie winning the hearing likely reduces any ill feelings from his side. Or you could have a Jon Lester-type reaction where he says to himself, “They don’t value me. They lowballed me so they don’t respect me.” etc. It’s a complete unforced error.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 31, 2018 20:53:39 GMT -5
It is just business. And taking your best player to arbitration is really bad business, and taking him to arbitration and losing is irresponsible and dumb business.I' I'm still not clear what you think the Sox should have done instead. By all accounts, they tried to sign him, and he refused. What other option was available to them? Did they "try" to sign him though? Is 5/100 even a fair offer? He was second to Mike Trout in terms of value (WAR) in 2016 and they offered him what, 76 million less than Trout's extension after 2016?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 31, 2018 20:58:44 GMT -5
So if we had to trade Hanley, where would we send him? I don’t see many teams out there with a clear gap at 1B/DH. Hanley’s defensive shortcomings could arguably cut his trade options in half if you see him as a pure DH moving forward. Given his current level of play and contract, I don’t see how he gets traded without attaching a prospect or two to sweeten the deal. Would a team be willing to take him on for no prospects, and if so, how much money do we have to send their way. I think that just gets too costly, but who knows. I don't think it's possible without eating almost all his salary. A possible partner would want him to be a weak side platoon 1b/DH and pinch hitter. So maybe they take only 3-5M of his salary unless the Red Sox offer prospects to sweeten the deal. The big problem is that his playing time option removed any chance at a bounce back year as whoever he plays for will prioritize keeping him below the PA threshold. I think it might be wiser to sign Darvish and trade Porcello and eat 15-25% of his salary, or ERod for a very good prospect or two (general, I know but you get my meaning) and walk away from Martinez.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 31, 2018 20:59:06 GMT -5
Yes, it was a realistic offer. It was buying three years of arbitration out, which if they had sided with Boston today would be more like 8/12/18 as opposed to 10/17/25 now. Was it a stellar offer? No. But it was in exchange for guaranteed money.
Trout had also posted a three year fWAR total of 28.7 (10.3, 10.5, 7.9) before his deal started in 2015. Betts meanwhile was at 7.9 in '16, and around 5.0 in '15 and '17. Betts doesn't have nearly the track record of Trout
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2018 21:10:59 GMT -5
I agree. But if there is a silver lining, Mookie winning the hearing likely reduces any ill feelings from his side. Or you could have a Jon Lester-type reaction where he says to himself, “They don’t value me. They lowballed me so they don’t respect me.” etc. It’s a complete unforced error. And then he signed the biggest offer by any team. It's at least as likely that is what he wanted all along as it is that he was insulted and pouted into signing the biggest offer by any team.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 31, 2018 21:24:16 GMT -5
Yes, it was a realistic offer. It was buying three years of arbitration out, which if they had sided with Boston today would be more like 8/12/18 as opposed to 10/17/25 now. Was it a stellar offer? No. But it was in exchange for guaranteed money. Trout had also posted a three year fWAR total of 28.7 (10.3, 10.5, 7.9) before his deal started in 2015. Betts meanwhile was at 7.9 in '16, and around 5.0 in '15 and '17. Betts doesn't have nearly the track record of Trout Agree to disagree here.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 31, 2018 22:17:48 GMT -5
Yes, it was a realistic offer. It was buying three years of arbitration out, which if they had sided with Boston today would be more like 8/12/18 as opposed to 10/17/25 now. Was it a stellar offer? No. But it was in exchange for guaranteed money. Trout had also posted a three year fWAR total of 28.7 (10.3, 10.5, 7.9) before his deal started in 2015. Betts meanwhile was at 7.9 in '16, and around 5.0 in '15 and '17. Betts doesn't have nearly the track record of Trout Agree to disagree here. What are you disagreeing with? Are you saying Mookie has been as good as Trout?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 31, 2018 22:26:44 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with? Are you saying Mookie has been as good as Trout? I'm saying the offer for Mookie wasn't on par with the offer of Mike Trout, even with the difference of talent. Mookie got 44.5 million less. Is the difference of Trout and Mookie worth almost 45 million, especially considering inflation?
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 31, 2018 22:50:04 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with? Are you saying Mookie has been as good as Trout? I'm saying the offer for Mookie wasn't on par with the offer of Mike Trout, even with the difference of talent. Mookie got 44.5 million less. Is the difference of Trout and Mookie worth almost 45 million, especially considering inflation? I think it's about the right place to be in negotiations, yes.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 31, 2018 22:52:06 GMT -5
What are you disagreeing with? Are you saying Mookie has been as good as Trout? I'm saying the offer for Mookie wasn't on par with the offer of Mike Trout, even with the difference of talent. Mookie got 44.5 million less. Is the difference of Trout and Mookie worth almost 45 million, especially considering inflation? Trout is worth about twice as much as the 2nd best player in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 31, 2018 23:37:25 GMT -5
I'm saying the offer for Mookie wasn't on par with the offer of Mike Trout, even with the difference of talent. Mookie got 44.5 million less. Is the difference of Trout and Mookie worth almost 45 million, especially considering inflation? I think it's about the right place to be in negotiations, yes. I'm not looking for a negotiation with my best player. I'm looking for a deal. 6 and 150 million dollars probably gets a Mookie extension done. He'll be worth that over the next 6 years, I guarantee that.
|
|
|