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.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 23, 2019 12:58:25 GMT -5
Your comment made me start to think about the history of the Sox home grown talent and losing players to free agency. Other than Luchino screwing up the negotiation for Lester I can't think of one player where the Sox screwed up. Look at Ellsbury in NY. But the fact is the Sox over the past 30 years have not developed that many of their own draft picks into all stars. The ones that did were traded. Of course Roger is a different story but I have always contended that Duquette pissed him off and that is when he started working a lot harder in the gym with the help of roids at some point. I think it is safe to say that as far as developing home grown guys the Sox have been more successful over the past 5 years than at any other time since the late sixties early seventies. !975 with Rice and Lynn as rookies was a magical year, the Fisk hr. What memories, that was the year the Sox hooked me for life. The next 2 that I hope/expect to step up to star level are Benny and Devers, Benny is just about there and this could be the year RD explodes. Lots of upside with those 2. DD has some serious work to do when the season ends. Damon, like Sale, wasn't homegrown, but letting him go was a huge mistake. A case could be made, too, that they screwed up letting Derek Lowe go. If they let Xander go, that could be a significant screw-up. I like Lin, but he would be a #9 hitter, and he's a better replacement for Holt or Nuñez. I have zero faith that Chatham can make that jump or be a better SS than Lin at the MLB level, but both are huge steps down from Xander. Ultimately Damon wasn't too much of a mistake. He couldn't play in CF anymore. If he could have it would have made sense, but they had Manny in LF and Damon didn't have the arm to play RF. He had 2 more years left in CF. As it was the Sox had Ellsbury in CF by the 2007 World Series so they made due with Coco Crisp's great defense in 2006 and most of 2007. And I say this as a guy who liked and still likes Johnny Damon.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2019 20:35:39 GMT -5
Mookie’s averaged 8.0 fWAR/yr the past three years. That’s a transformational player; replace a slightly below-avg to avg OF (1-2 WAR player; could be COF *or* CF, which has premium value) with Mookie, and a .500 team is instantly a strong WC contender. He’d likely return substantially more than Machado did at the deadline, whether he was traded pre-season or in July. For a team on a stretch drive, he’d be adding 3 wins...which is a ton over 60-70 games. Also, if he’s going to FA, I can guarantee you that just about every team in baseball will be interested, because he IS that transformational player. Teams are going to line up to get an early “in” with him to make their pitch. Because he can play any OF spot, he’ll have a broad range of suitors. He’s almost certain to start a bidding war. They’ll get plenty back, but no matter what it is it’ll never make up for losing Mookie. Nothing beyond hurt feelings to trade him and then sign him in free agency, maybe with a nod and a wink. Honestly, this might be the best idea, if he’s really wedded to trying FA. I’d hate to see him leave at all (Mookie is really someone I’d love seeing as a career Red Sox), but if they’re going to have to pay no matter what, this is where the best bet is...excepting the fact that losing him is a huge hit to a playoff run. But if the cards fall a certain way, this is probably the advisable route. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, and their arb settlement this year portends a “fair value” extension.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2019 20:40:26 GMT -5
Worth noting too that during the Epstein era, they were much better about extending players early. Youk, Lester, Buchholz, and Pedroia all were extended well in advance of free agency, all of which worked out great from a team perspective. Even as frustrating as Buchholz was, no one ever really wanted to trade him, because that contract was so good. Some of that's just circumstance, but it does kind of seem like in recent years either haven't quite nailed some of their internal evaluations, or haven't had the conviction to act on them. Maybe they tried to extend Mookie early and he was just never interested, but it seems like if you'd really gone hard after him early on you could have gotten something done. Or Rich Hill, for a much smaller example. There's a ton of hindsight there but still, if there was one team that should have known what they had there, it should have been the one that identified it in the first place. Which, by the way, right about now would be a great time to lock up Devers, BEFORE the breakout. Or even Beni, who's only a few gusts of wind away from his own MVP campaign, really. Agreed, wholeheartedly. I’ve had a similar gestalt approach impression re: the current FO and extensions. Seems like a lot of wait-and-see. Funny, Devers is getting a lot of love out there (https://fantasy.fangraphs.com/2019-bold-predictions/), and I’m fully onboard with getting him paid before he goes nuts.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 24, 2019 21:15:06 GMT -5
I understand that's a very simple blanket statement. But I was just thinking about the last time the Sox actually signed a homegrown all star to an extension? aside from Dustin Pedroia I can't think of anyone else in recent history. I would like to think if they're serious about keeping some of these guys then the time to get serious would be now. Your comment made me start to think about the history of the Sox home grown talent and losing players to free agency. Other than Luchino screwing up the negotiation for Lester I can't think of one player where the Sox screwed up. Look at Ellsbury in NY. But the fact is the Sox over the past 30 years have not developed that many of their own draft picks into all stars. The ones that did were traded. Of course Roger is a different story but I have always contended that Duquette pissed him off and that is when he started working a lot harder in the gym with the help of roids at some point. I think it is safe to say that as far as developing home grown guys the Sox have been more successful over the past 5 years than at any other time since the late sixties early seventies. !975 with Rice and Lynn as rookies was a magical year, the Fisk hr. What memories, that was the year the Sox hooked me for life. The next 2 that I hope/expect to step up to star level are Benny and Devers, Benny is just about there and this could be the year RD explodes. Lots of upside with those 2. DD has some serious work to do when the season ends. Idk...that’s maybe true with pitching (which is also notoriously tough anyway, so I’m not sure I’d ding them too badly there), but i don’t think it’s that true with hitters. Some major success stories (past 30 yr): Ellis Burks (on the cusp of 30 yr; his departure was much more a product of poor evaluation at the MLB level after one down year) Mo Vaughn Nomar Youk Pedroia Ellsbury All were perennial All-Stars, if not superstars (Nomar was a true superstar, as was Vaughn; Nomar probably would've been a HOFer if not for that Cabrera FB to his wrist) Some minor successes: Greenwell (also at that 30-yr cusp) Trot Nixon (who never reached his dreamed-on level as a 7th pick but who was still very good for a long time) Travis Shaw Recent successes, as you noted, include Mookie, Bogey, Beni, JBJ to an extent, probably Devers. I’m still holding out hope for Swihart. Lester’s the lone huge SP success, but they’ve had a bevy of relievers who’ve gone on to some success elsewhere (the latest being Ryan Presley, who’s become insanely good with that slider). In their defense, they’re nearly always very competitive, so they don’t get many top-10 picks, and success rate drops very quickly after 5 and again after 15. Their position player success (career WAR) has been outstanding the past 15-20 years. And, as you note, they’re on a very strong run and appear to have continued that run with Chavis, Casas, and Duran, and possibly others. We’ll see if they can mount a pitching comeback with Hernandez, Houck, and Groome.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Mar 25, 2019 3:30:19 GMT -5
Include the varied potentials of ERod, Poyner, Feltman, Lakins, Shawaryn, Reyes, Mata in that group of pitchers, and that would he quite a comeback.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 25, 2019 8:55:46 GMT -5
How about Wade Boggs??
If you look at what I said it was in reference to how good the past 5 years was to the previous 30, which could be more like 40. Yes their was some hits along the way but the Sox have hit on more lately especially if you include the guys on the cusp. Just look at the faces of the guys on the top of the SP page.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 25, 2019 8:58:17 GMT -5
NM - don't know if what I'm trying to say connects well enough to the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2019 13:56:04 GMT -5
How about Wade Boggs?? If you look at what I said it was in reference to how good the past 5 years was to the previous 30, which could be more like 40. Yes their was some hits along the way but the Sox have hit on more lately especially if you include the guys on the cusp. Just look at the faces of the guys on the top of the SP page. Yeah, I skipped Boggs and Clemens since they came up before the 30-yr limit. And I skipped Clay, because he was just so maddening...but he’s still had a fine career as that maddening #1 through 5 starter. He’s a “success” because he was pretty solid, sometimes fantastic, for a long time, as an S1 pick (somewhere around 36 overall I think?). I agree that the Sox have been especially good at developing position players, particularly recently. In fact, they’ve been terrific recently, even with the game-wide improvement in PD/evaluation as a normalizing factor. Lol, I was just thinking today about Carson Fullmer, who I liked a good bit. At draft time, I was a fan of Benintendi once I’d read up on him (I’m a huge sucker for hit tool), but I was torn between him and Fullmer. VERY clearly, the Sox made the right move. I know people lament the Sox’s apparent inability to draft/sign amateur pitchers and develop them to potential, but I’m actually pretty sanguine about that (not that you are saying that here, it’s just a frequent complaint on the board). Pitcher “success” rates are just around half that of hitters in HS, I think around 60%? for college, particularly when comparing to OF/3b/SS types (2b is very low, similar to pitchers). I don’t have a link but I can look a few up if necessary. I think the team’s approach recently has been to target “high-success” positional players, and their all-homegrown OF and stupidly impressive organizational 3b depth reflect that. So I’m of the mind that their philosophy is to seek out BPA *among positions with highest likelihood of success*, and to fill tougher-to-develop positions like SP via trade/FA. I think it’s a great approach and it’s working very well for them, Sale’s acquisition and extension being the perfect example. Why draft a pitcher if there’s a similarly talented CF who, historically speaking, is *twice* as likely to be good?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2019 14:32:04 GMT -5
How about Wade Boggs?? If you look at what I said it was in reference to how good the past 5 years was to the previous 30, which could be more like 40. Yes their was some hits along the way but the Sox have hit on more lately especially if you include the guys on the cusp. Just look at the faces of the guys on the top of the SP page. But yes, I think I originally missed the gist of what you were saying, and we’re probably in complete agreement. Their scouting combined with team-building philosophy and excellent PD system has really, at least for positional players, seen Theo’s quote: "We’re going to turn the Red Sox into a scouting and player machine. The sky’s the limit. I’ll say it again: we’re gonna become a scouting and player development machine," become reality. And tbh, that’s one of the biggest reasons I’m so excited about Antoni Flores, Jarren Duran, Triston Casas, and even Bobby Dalbec (whose whiff rate terrifies me). The tremendous development success of the past 8 years, from 2011 on, gives me a lot more faith in their young players *outperforming CW* than I would otherwise have. Dalbec, for example, is a guy Id normally “meh” about, because of the huge questions I have about his hit tool. I’m not wowed at all by big power...it’s useless if a player can’t make contact. Jason Place, where are you now? But because of the PD system the Sox have, and the quality, strength, of their player assessment and coaching (love that Dalbec’s become an excellent defensive player, for instance)...I often find myself second-guessing my own concerns. Like, “they’ll get him to figure it out.” Then suddenly Bobby Dalbec, AAAA masher, becomes BOBBY DALBEC, .250/.350/.550 3b with shades of Graig Nettles. I love it, having so much faith in their system. A 7th-rounder like Duran (who’s getting love from the fg guys and others now) who was a low-likelihood success slap-hitting 2b is now a high-floor (4th OF) CF with a potential plus hit tool and sneaky power. And as depleted as the system looked last year, now I’m seeing multiple pop-up top-100 guys in that group (Casa, Duran, Flores). And beyond even that, I like the use of the IFA system: avoiding big money signs in large part and going volume, resulting in players like Darwinzon and Mata bursting on the scene. Seems like a great way to mine for pitching, since the generally low success rate means volume is largely the key there. And IFA is the perfect place to do that. Save higher-end draft picks largely for the most likely successes, since those picks are allotted and limited. Use IFA and later rounds to mine for pitching in volume. And if you’re gonna take a pitcher (Houck, Feltman) go collegiate where success rates are much higher than HS. Just a lot to like about how they’re running the business these days.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 25, 2019 14:40:58 GMT -5
My one complaint would be not trusting themselves enough to lock up those players earlier in their careers, since even an average player (particularly a young one with upside) has a good amount of value, traded or retained, with control years at relatively low cost.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 25, 2019 16:19:16 GMT -5
My one complaint would be not trusting themselves enough to lock up those players earlier in their careers, since even an average player (particularly a young one with upside) has a good amount of value, traded or retained, with control years at relatively low cost. It takes two sides to sign a deal. We have absolutely zero idea of why they haven't done it. Maybe Mookie has convinced everyone else on the team that signing team friendly extensions is the worst move to make. Maybe the Red Sox just prefer to work this way. We do not know.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 25, 2019 16:26:42 GMT -5
Maybe we are saving our pennies in case Martinez opts out!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 25, 2019 16:47:09 GMT -5
My one complaint would be not trusting themselves enough to lock up those players earlier in their careers, since even an average player (particularly a young one with upside) has a good amount of value, traded or retained, with control years at relatively low cost. It takes two sides to sign a deal. We have absolutely zero idea of why they haven't done it. Maybe Mookie has convinced everyone else on the team that signing team friendly extensions is the worst move to make. Maybe the Red Sox just prefer to work this way. We do not know. We don't know for sure, but given where the Red Sox are with their payroll and their desire not to cross the highest threshold it makes more sense for them to pay Benintendi and Devers (and I guess you can say E-Rod even though he can get arbitration) the lower $ figures instead of trying to lock them up which requires upfront money (say $6 million/year instead of $750K or whatever it is). If they were to lock them up they probably save money over the long-term but for the short-term that would add another 10 plus million to the payroll putting the Sox where they don't want to be, so it wouldn't surprise me, given the expensive high end talent on the roster (and the Sandoval and now finally gone Hanley money) that the Red Sox were probably passive when it comes to extensions for the least experienced players.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 25, 2019 17:01:14 GMT -5
How about Wade Boggs?? If you look at what I said it was in reference to how good the past 5 years was to the previous 30, which could be more like 40. Yes their was some hits along the way but the Sox have hit on more lately especially if you include the guys on the cusp. Just look at the faces of the guys on the top of the SP page. Yeah, I skipped Boggs and Clemens since they came up before the 30-yr limit. And I skipped Clay, because he was just so maddening...but he’s still had a fine career as that maddening #1 through 5 starter. He’s a “success” because he was pretty solid, sometimes fantastic, for a long time, as an S1 pick (somewhere around 36 overall I think?). I agree that the Sox have been especially good at developing position players, particularly recently. In fact, they’ve been terrific recently, even with the game-wide improvement in PD/evaluation as a normalizing factor. Lol, I was just thinking today about Carson Fullmer, who I liked a good bit. At draft time, I was a fan of Benintendi once I’d read up on him (I’m a huge sucker for hit tool), but I was torn between him and Fullmer. VERY clearly, the Sox made the right move. I know people lament the Sox’s apparent inability to draft/sign amateur pitchers and develop them to potential, but I’m actually pretty sanguine about that (not that you are saying that here, it’s just a frequent complaint on the board). Pitcher “success” rates are just around half that of hitters in HS, I think around 60%? for college, particularly when comparing to OF/3b/SS types (2b is very low, similar to pitchers). I don’t have a link but I can look a few up if necessary. I think the team’s approach recently has been to target “high-success” positional players, and their all-homegrown OF and stupidly impressive organizational 3b depth reflect that. So I’m of the mind that their philosophy is to seek out BPA *among positions with highest likelihood of success*, and to fill tougher-to-develop positions like SP via trade/FA. I think it’s a great approach and it’s working very well for them, Sale’s acquisition and extension being the perfect example. Why draft a pitcher if there’s a similarly talented CF who, historically speaking, is *twice* as likely to be good? It would definitely make sense to draft more hitters based on percentages of success but on the other hand you need affordable pitching or their is a price to pay. Glad Sale likes it here and signed, hope he stays healthy and earns the contract +, but he cost what could be 2 all stars+. I hope we get lucky with Darwinson, an heralded guy like that out of the blue is deserved. Still waiting/expecting Erod to have a monster year. And I do think the Sox will luck out with Barnes as he will prove to be a good closer. Pitching is so hard to predict, after all these years I have to temper expectations on the young guys. Man Bucholtz was something else coming up thru and then throwing a no hitter real early on, I think he lacked the brain because he had the stuff.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 25, 2019 17:14:42 GMT -5
Go back 10 years to 2009 and look at the top 20 prospects. Interesting turn out from that group.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 25, 2019 17:48:52 GMT -5
It takes two sides to sign a deal. We have absolutely zero idea of why they haven't done it. Maybe Mookie has convinced everyone else on the team that signing team friendly extensions is the worst move to make. Maybe the Red Sox just prefer to work this way. We do not know. We don't know for sure, but given where the Red Sox are with their payroll and their desire not to cross the highest threshold it makes more sense for them to pay Benintendi and Devers (and I guess you can say E-Rod even though he can get arbitration) the lower $ figures instead of trying to lock them up which requires upfront money (say $6 million/year instead of $750K or whatever it is). If they were to lock them up they probably save money over the long-term but for the short-term that would add another 10 plus million to the payroll putting the Sox where they don't want to be, so it wouldn't surprise me, given the expensive high end talent on the roster (and the Sandoval and now finally gone Hanley money) that the Red Sox were probably passive when it comes to extensions for the least experienced players. Again, it takes two sides to sign a deal and we don't know which side is to blame for a deal not getting worked out. Yeah, I want team friendly deals for all our players so they can use the extra money to fill other needs. But that may not be what the players want.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 25, 2019 19:46:03 GMT -5
We don't know for sure, but given where the Red Sox are with their payroll and their desire not to cross the highest threshold it makes more sense for them to pay Benintendi and Devers (and I guess you can say E-Rod even though he can get arbitration) the lower $ figures instead of trying to lock them up which requires upfront money (say $6 million/year instead of $750K or whatever it is). If they were to lock them up they probably save money over the long-term but for the short-term that would add another 10 plus million to the payroll putting the Sox where they don't want to be, so it wouldn't surprise me, given the expensive high end talent on the roster (and the Sandoval and now finally gone Hanley money) that the Red Sox were probably passive when it comes to extensions for the least experienced players. Again, it takes two sides to sign a deal and we don't know which side is to blame for a deal not getting worked out. Yeah, I want team friendly deals for all our players so they can use the extra money to fill other needs. But that may not be what the players want. That's not what I was saying, though. I'm saying it might not be advantageous from a short-term Red Sox POV to "lock up" a Benintendi or Devers because their $700K or whatever they're making could wind up 5 or 6 million/year or whatever and put them over the highest threshold of the luxury tax. If they were nowhere near it I'm sure they'd probably want to try to lock up their pre-arbitration eligible players and if it did or didn't happen would be because the player did or didn't want it to happen, but given that they're treading the line, they probably don't want to do it at this time, so this might not be a case of the players saying, "No I don't want to be locked up". The Sox might at this point not want to do it. It's quite possible the players haven't even been approached and have no say in the matter either way.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2019 21:52:16 GMT -5
My one complaint would be not trusting themselves enough to lock up those players earlier in their careers, since even an average player (particularly a young one with upside) has a good amount of value, traded or retained, with control years at relatively low cost. It takes two sides to sign a deal. We have absolutely zero idea of why they haven't done it. Maybe Mookie has convinced everyone else on the team that signing team friendly extensions is the worst move to make. Maybe the Red Sox just prefer to work this way. We do not know. Absolutely true; I do believe there’s an “offer they can’t refuse” line, but that may simply be too rich based on internal evaluations. Regardless, Id like to see them be a bit more aggressive there. The Sale deal (not the same as a young player, but an extension nonetheless) was a great start. It’s fair to both sides. I think there’s common ground to be found, but yes, it’s entirely possible that “I’m betting on myself” is the player mantra, which is great in the confidence sense, but ultimately probably bad for the long-term health of the team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2019 22:09:17 GMT -5
Not drafted but IFA signings being equal to would include, Devers and Bogey also. That is quite a list. Hopefully we will be adding Darwinzon to that list in the near future, it would mean an awful to the Sox to get lucky with him becoming an unheralded star. A #1/2/3 on a rookie deal would be like winning the lottery. If he can replace Porcello next year, essentially pitching to a low-end 3/high-end 4 (say, within a few tenths of 2 WAR), out of the **5** spot (figuring Sale-Price-Eovaldi-Rodriguez are in the 6-4-3-3 WAR range), it would mean a huge cost savings...essentially paying the difference on Sale’s deal ($15-16M), plus an extra $3-4M. With Sandoval’s deal off the books, that’s over $22-23M to cover arb raises, maybe a reworked JDM deal, and possibly even a bump in Bogey’s salary if he’s retained (guessing about $10M AAV raise). That would be *huge* for the short- and mid-term health of the MLB club. Especially if they can work in Chavis, allowing them to drop Nunez with no external replacement, and possibly cover Pearce’s $6.5M as well. Very important year for these two young guys, but especially Darwinzon. Still think he’s Sean Newcombe with better stuff when he comes up, which would be exactly that 3/4.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2019 22:36:18 GMT -5
It takes two sides to sign a deal. We have absolutely zero idea of why they haven't done it. Maybe Mookie has convinced everyone else on the team that signing team friendly extensions is the worst move to make. Maybe the Red Sox just prefer to work this way. We do not know. We don't know for sure, but given where the Red Sox are with their payroll and their desire not to cross the highest threshold it makes more sense for them to pay Benintendi and Devers (and I guess you can say E-Rod even though he can get arbitration) the lower $ figures instead of trying to lock them up which requires upfront money (say $6 million/year instead of $750K or whatever it is). If they were to lock them up they probably save money over the long-term but for the short-term that would add another 10 plus million to the payroll putting the Sox where they don't want to be, so it wouldn't surprise me, given the expensive high end talent on the roster (and the Sandoval and now finally gone Hanley money) that the Red Sox were probably passive when it comes to extensions for the least experienced players. Not necessarily though; a lot of these early-career extensions are structured to reflect reasonable arb figures based on projected performance. So an 8-yr extension for Beni, for example, might look like $1.5M-$4M-$7.5M-$12M-$15M-$15M-$18M-$22M. That's an 8/$95M deal, which is better than Hick’s deal (7/70), adjusted down because it’s buying out limited-income pre- and early-arb (when his earnings are limited anyway), but escalating to make up for that, with a slight discount due to years/earnings certainty. Hicks’s deal starts higher because he’s closer to FA, but tops out lower because he’ll be in decline. The going rate for OF in Beni’s production range (~3.5 WAR the past two years) has been set by Hicks/Pollock, around $12-15M AAV. So the Sox pay more at the back presuming he’s going to exceed that level (perennial 4-6 WAR vs 3-5), while not paying for decline (contract ends at 33). Maybe they enrich it to 8/100 or include a couple $25M mutual options, something like that. His “real” AAV (FA buyouts) is 4/$17.5 M, plus the slight bump guarantee in pre-and-early arb years (so closer to 4/$18-19M) which is pretty fair I think. But there’s a way to structure a deal like that where it doesn’t hurt the team at present, and as a guaranteed contract it really doesn’t matter too much to him *when* he gets paid, I’d think, so long as he’s getting paid. I think, if these guys are signed young enough, and the deals are structured this way, it’s win-win. And the cost/control certainty improves their trade value for the team, provided the back-end isn’t exhorbitant. Doing that with Beni and Devers means their salary escalation happens right when Price’s deal is up, which also gives the team some leeway in planning to rearrange the cost structure of their roster, since there’s cost certainty built in.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 27, 2019 0:55:23 GMT -5
We don't know for sure, but given where the Red Sox are with their payroll and their desire not to cross the highest threshold it makes more sense for them to pay Benintendi and Devers (and I guess you can say E-Rod even though he can get arbitration) the lower $ figures instead of trying to lock them up which requires upfront money (say $6 million/year instead of $750K or whatever it is). If they were to lock them up they probably save money over the long-term but for the short-term that would add another 10 plus million to the payroll putting the Sox where they don't want to be, so it wouldn't surprise me, given the expensive high end talent on the roster (and the Sandoval and now finally gone Hanley money) that the Red Sox were probably passive when it comes to extensions for the least experienced players. Not necessarily though; a lot of these early-career extensions are structured to reflect reasonable arb figures based on projected performance. So an 8-yr extension for Beni, for example, might look like $1.5M-$4M-$7.5M-$12M-$15M-$15M-$18M-$22M. That's an 8/$95M deal, which is better than Hick’s deal (7/70), adjusted down because it’s buying out limited-income pre- and early-arb (when his earnings are limited anyway), but escalating to make up for that, with a slight discount due to years/earnings certainty. Hicks’s deal starts higher because he’s closer to FA, but tops out lower because he’ll be in decline. The going rate for OF in Beni’s production range (~3.5 WAR the past two years) has been set by Hicks/Pollock, around $12-15M AAV. So the Sox pay more at the back presuming he’s going to exceed that level (perennial 4-6 WAR vs 3-5), while not paying for decline (contract ends at 33). Maybe they enrich it to 8/100 or include a couple $25M mutual options, something like that. His “real” AAV (FA buyouts) is 4/$17.5 M, plus the slight bump guarantee in pre-and-early arb years (so closer to 4/$18-19M) which is pretty fair I think. But there’s a way to structure a deal like that where it doesn’t hurt the team at present, and as a guaranteed contract it really doesn’t matter too much to him *when* he gets paid, I’d think, so long as he’s getting paid. I think, if these guys are signed young enough, and the deals are structured this way, it’s win-win. And the cost/control certainty improves their trade value for the team, provided the back-end isn’t exhorbitant. Doing that with Beni and Devers means their salary escalation happens right when Price’s deal is up, which also gives the team some leeway in planning to rearrange the cost structure of their roster, since there’s cost certainty built in. Yes, I think deals like you mention are normally beneficial, but in the Red Sox particular situation, what are they at? Around 235 - 240 million, which includes about 700k for Benintendi and about 500k for Devers. Say the Sox locked up Benintendi for the 8 year $95 million deal you mentioned. That would be a great deal for the Sox, but the problem is that his luxury tax number would be about 12 million per year. Now suddenly instead of Benni being 700k on the books, he'd be close to $12 million, so now you have to add about 11.3 million to their 240ish million payroll, putting them above 250 million, above the highest threshold and they haven't even acquired July help for the team yet. That's why I think the Sox are probably not approaching Benni and Devers yet. They want to stay at about 240 million and try to get about 5 million of July help and try to stay under the highest limit, and to do so they need Benni and Devers really cheap.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 27, 2019 20:57:07 GMT -5
Not necessarily though; a lot of these early-career extensions are structured to reflect reasonable arb figures based on projected performance. So an 8-yr extension for Beni, for example, might look like $1.5M-$4M-$7.5M-$12M-$15M-$15M-$18M-$22M. That's an 8/$95M deal, which is better than Hick’s deal (7/70), adjusted down because it’s buying out limited-income pre- and early-arb (when his earnings are limited anyway), but escalating to make up for that, with a slight discount due to years/earnings certainty. Hicks’s deal starts higher because he’s closer to FA, but tops out lower because he’ll be in decline. The going rate for OF in Beni’s production range (~3.5 WAR the past two years) has been set by Hicks/Pollock, around $12-15M AAV. So the Sox pay more at the back presuming he’s going to exceed that level (perennial 4-6 WAR vs 3-5), while not paying for decline (contract ends at 33). Maybe they enrich it to 8/100 or include a couple $25M mutual options, something like that. His “real” AAV (FA buyouts) is 4/$17.5 M, plus the slight bump guarantee in pre-and-early arb years (so closer to 4/$18-19M) which is pretty fair I think. But there’s a way to structure a deal like that where it doesn’t hurt the team at present, and as a guaranteed contract it really doesn’t matter too much to him *when* he gets paid, I’d think, so long as he’s getting paid. I think, if these guys are signed young enough, and the deals are structured this way, it’s win-win. And the cost/control certainty improves their trade value for the team, provided the back-end isn’t exhorbitant. Doing that with Beni and Devers means their salary escalation happens right when Price’s deal is up, which also gives the team some leeway in planning to rearrange the cost structure of their roster, since there’s cost certainty built in. Yes, I think deals like you mention are normally beneficial, but in the Red Sox particular situation, what are they at? Around 235 - 240 million, which includes about 700k for Benintendi and about 500k for Devers. Say the Sox locked up Benintendi for the 8 year $95 million deal you mentioned. That would be a great deal for the Sox, but the problem is that his luxury tax number would be about 12 million per year. Now suddenly instead of Benni being 700k on the books, he'd be close to $12 million, so now you have to add about 11.3 million to their 240ish million payroll, putting them above 250 million, above the highest threshold and they haven't even acquired July help for the team yet. That's why I think the Sox are probably not approaching Benni and Devers yet. They want to stay at about 240 million and try to get about 5 million of July help and try to stay under the highest limit, and to do so they need Benni and Devers really cheap. Ah, Dang...you’re right, I forgot they average AAV for lux tax purposes. Yeah, that hurts them. Then you’re talking paying overage (though do they pay overage on the actual salary or the AAV?) of 40% I think. Really good point on your part.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 27, 2019 21:40:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Mar 27, 2019 21:46:57 GMT -5
What does a "discount" mean because Gio Gonzalez has probably been better than him the last two years and got $3M guaranteed. Last 2 years: 28-24, 4.47 ERA, 4.32 FIP.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 27, 2019 21:51:52 GMT -5
Yes, I think deals like you mention are normally beneficial, but in the Red Sox particular situation, what are they at? Around 235 - 240 million, which includes about 700k for Benintendi and about 500k for Devers. Say the Sox locked up Benintendi for the 8 year $95 million deal you mentioned. That would be a great deal for the Sox, but the problem is that his luxury tax number would be about 12 million per year. Now suddenly instead of Benni being 700k on the books, he'd be close to $12 million, so now you have to add about 11.3 million to their 240ish million payroll, putting them above 250 million, above the highest threshold and they haven't even acquired July help for the team yet. That's why I think the Sox are probably not approaching Benni and Devers yet. They want to stay at about 240 million and try to get about 5 million of July help and try to stay under the highest limit, and to do so they need Benni and Devers really cheap. Ah, Dang...you’re right, I forgot they average AAV for lux tax purposes. Yeah, that hurts them. Then you’re talking paying overage (though do they pay overage on the actual salary or the AAV?) of 40% I think. Really good point on your part. Unfortunately, yeah. That's the one time it "hurts" the Sox to lock into that type of deal which is normally so beneficial for a ballclub where a player gets 1st time security albeit at less total future money if they fulfill projections but the teams get reasonable cost certainty and sometimes an extra year or two, but the Sox have so much money tied up in so much talent that they don't have the luxury of that and that's where it can be a double-edged sword. And to further complicate things when you read about how badly Porcello wants to stay and that's he's openly willing to give a discount and he makes it clear that his heart is there - it sucks that they probably aren't going to work things out. Of all their pitchers, going forward, he's probably the 5th best, and they can't keep everybody, although if they lose Xander (who I think would really love to stay, but with his agent being Boras it's less likely - no discounts there), then maybe that opens up some space for a discounted Porcello? I mean my head says that Porcello probably isn't getting better over the next 5 years, but man, this guy and I believe him, really wants to be a Red Sox, which is so much nicer than a guy going somewhere just because they're the highest bidder. I do believe that Porcello truly bleeds Red Sox red, and I have a lot of respect for him because of that. Makes it pretty easy to root for him.
|
|
|