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.
2019-20 Red Sox offseason
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 30, 2019 12:52:01 GMT -5
I'll go on the record and say that I don't think JDM opts out.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Sept 30, 2019 12:58:35 GMT -5
I don't know that Betts can be considered a generational talent. There are a pretty large number of very young players who put up incredible numbers this year. He's really good for sure. I do think the Sox should resign him even if it means basically giving away Sale (and Price) to any team that would take them. Here's the complete list of active players who are definitely better than Mookie Betts: 1. Mike Trout It's fine to have this view of Betts - I particularly don't, honestly, but it's definitely debatable. The question is if the winning bidder for his services ends up regreting the inevitable massive contract it'll take to sign him - a la Harper, Machado, and a whole host of other sluggers over the years. If/When Betts' statistical seasons start to hover around 5-6 WAR instead of the recent 8-10, the albatross label will get thrown around pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 30, 2019 12:59:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 30, 2019 13:00:33 GMT -5
Here's the complete list of active players who are definitely better than Mookie Betts: 1. Mike Trout It's fine to have this view of Betts - I particularly don't, honestly, but it's definitely debatable. The question is if the winning bidder for his services ends up regreting the inevitable massive contract it'll take to sign him - a la Harper, Machado, and a whole host of other sluggers over the years. If/When Betts' statistical seasons start to hover around 5-6 WAR instead of the recent 8-10, the albatross label will get thrown around pretty quickly. There's no amount of money that would be too much if a player's bad years turn into 5-6 win seasons. (slight sarcasm) I think you're thinking of Pujols/Prince Fielder/Cabrera deals.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 30, 2019 13:31:03 GMT -5
Here's the complete list of active players who are definitely better than Mookie Betts: 1. Mike Trout It's fine to have this view of Betts - I particularly don't, honestly, but it's definitely debatable. The question is if the winning bidder for his services ends up regreting the inevitable massive contract it'll take to sign him - a la Harper, Machado, and a whole host of other sluggers over the years. If/When Betts' statistical seasons start to hover around 5-6 WAR instead of the recent 8-10, the albatross label will get thrown around pretty quickly. I mean... are we taking it as a given that those teams regret those contracts? Both players had pretty good seasons. Also, 5-6 WAR is a fantastic player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 30, 2019 13:40:48 GMT -5
We have this very strategic plan to extricate ourselves from the situation we volunteered for less than a year ago. So strategic, just more strategy than you can believe. Too much, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 30, 2019 13:47:58 GMT -5
One thing I was wondering about was the timeframe for dropping below the first threshold. Kennedy did say that it's a goal not a mandate. That may mean they'll ratchet down over a few years. That will still require very careful budget management and some difficult choices.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Sept 30, 2019 14:06:43 GMT -5
There's 20 players in the last 150 years of baseball who have more WAR through their age-26 season. So saying Betts is only "really good" and not "generational" might be selling him a bit short.
|
|
|
Post by baseballguy350 on Sept 30, 2019 14:50:42 GMT -5
My mind cannot be swayed. I'm game-day-thread irrational angry already thinking about a Mookie trade. Does anyone have a reason to tell me that the 2020 roster will be better without Mookie Betts? Keep him, blow through the tax, reset in 2021 if it has to happen. If JDM opts out and somehow Pedroia's money goes away via retirement, I'd be less upset if it meant keeping Mookie.
If the 2020 season starts off poorly, you can still ship Mookie out. I understand that as a rental at the deadline he would have even less value than this offseason.
With that being said, would you rather take a shot at 2020 with Mookie and settle for less return if the season gets off to a bad start, or punt on 2020 without Mookie, taking a better return, and not having meaningful baseball games played in September or October.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 30, 2019 15:05:30 GMT -5
Back on ground level, Pitchers: Stank, McGrath, Wade and catcher Jhon Nunez are free agents. I'd like to see them back, playing for Pawsox in 2020.
If they are described as filler/depth, why bring in different filler each year?
Why? Because the AAA roster consists of 40-man types and free agents with MLB experience elsewhere. On opening day, 6 Pawtucket pitchers were outside the org guys. They were aged and geriatric.
They contributed 75 inn at MLB, but low quality. A. Adds little value to the club B. Not interesting
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 30, 2019 15:20:36 GMT -5
There's 20 players in the last 150 years of baseball who have more WAR through their age-26 season. So saying Betts is only "really good" and not "generational" might be selling him a bit short. For anyone who wants to guarantee an argument - i suggest using the term 'generational talent' more frequently. Definition of 'generational' below for those like myself; who enjoy taking words/phrases literally.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Sept 30, 2019 15:26:40 GMT -5
lol, ok, I retract.
How about "one of the few best in a generation (or roughly 30 year period)."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 30, 2019 15:32:07 GMT -5
I'd more comfortably say "Consistently one of the best 5 players in baseball" until he has another 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 30, 2019 15:38:01 GMT -5
Should we crowd-source the arb estimates for next year? I'll throw out the names, and you all can give me your best guess and from that either the average or mabye the median (if there are too many out-liars!) will be the value. I can stuff that into my budget spreadsheet and we can start to get an idea of how tight this is going to be for the Sox. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 30, 2019 16:19:24 GMT -5
One thing I was wondering about was the timeframe for dropping below the first threshold. Kennedy did say that it's a goal not a mandate. That may mean they'll ratchet down over a few years. That will still require very careful budget management and some difficult choices. Personally I think “goal not a mandate” is spin/damage control as they are already taking a lot of pushback for saying their gaol was to reset - esp when fans and sportswriters realized that meant one or both of Mookie and JDM will be gone. You’re not only talking your two most recognizable and productive offensive players, they are probably the two most popular players on the team.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Sept 30, 2019 16:24:47 GMT -5
It's fine to have this view of Betts - I particularly don't, honestly, but it's definitely debatable. The question is if the winning bidder for his services ends up regreting the inevitable massive contract it'll take to sign him - a la Harper, Machado, and a whole host of other sluggers over the years. If/When Betts' statistical seasons start to hover around 5-6 WAR instead of the recent 8-10, the albatross label will get thrown around pretty quickly. I mean... are we taking it as a given that those teams regret those contracts? Both players had pretty good seasons. Also, 5-6 WAR is a fantastic player. I would definitely say the Philadelphia fans (and the front office) thought they'd get more than .500 baseball with the Bryce Harper signing.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 30, 2019 16:45:21 GMT -5
Just my opinion, and we’ve been spoiled with these owners, but I have to believe that being businessmen, at heart they want a payroll somewhere between that of the Rays and the As but still want to charge the highest ticket and concession prices in the game.That said, the team with it’s ancillary parts (NESN et al) are a cash cow even with the lux tax nonsense. If it wasn’t these guys would sell.
I still think playing it out with this team til the end of te 2020 season makes more sense, unless they truly don’t care about one more chance at the WS next year (my assumption is they don’t). After 2020 the CBA will be renegotiated and that will be a better opportunity for potential reset move. It could produce both a higher luxury tax level (Compared to the NFL’s annual cap adjustment, this tax does almost nothing to reward the players with potential higher salaries tied to league success) and perhaps a DH in both leagues, which would then provide more markets for JDM’s services (if he doesn’t opt out this year). End of 2020 season also gets you clarity on Mookie and JBJ, and gives you another off-season where Price/Eovaldi may be healthy and hence more attractive as trade candidates (which mean less in the way of underwriting).
Or maybe they are getting ready to sell and they want to make this look more profitable upfront.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Sept 30, 2019 17:34:07 GMT -5
Isn't this technically tanking? I mean they obviously aren't going to be a top 5 pick but they are actively and purposefully making the team worse in order to save money? I know tanking has generally been associated with attempting to be the worst team in the league for a draft pick but really I feel like this is an applicable use of the term too. There's no argument to be made the team could be more competitive next year without Mookie and JD.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Sept 30, 2019 18:47:27 GMT -5
Isn't this technically tanking? I mean they obviously aren't going to be a top 5 pick but they are actively and purposefully making the team worse in order to save money? I know tanking has generally been associated with attempting to be the worst team in the league for a draft pick but really I feel like this is an applicable use of the term too. There's no argument to be made the team could be more competitive next year without Mookie and JD. No. It's called having a budget. At a time when faced with difficult budgetary issues. Every franchise makes their " team worse in order to save money. "
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Sept 30, 2019 21:45:46 GMT -5
If the Fenway Sports Group told then denizens of Anfield that Liverpool had to sell one of the best young players in the game, who they developed and came through their academy, because they didn't want to pay him the money (and might not qualify for the Champions League for a few seasons as they financially "reset") they would be run out of the Merseyside on the first boat...
I guess you can get away with that jive BS on this side of the Atlantic and in this game.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 30, 2019 22:37:02 GMT -5
Just my opinion, and we’ve been spoiled with these owners, but I have to believe that being businessmen, at heart they want a payroll somewhere between that of the Rays and the As but still want to charge the highest ticket and concession prices in the game.That said, the team with it’s ancillary parts (NESN et al) are a cash cow even with the lux tax nonsense. If it wasn’t these guys would sell. I still think playing it out with this team til the end of te 2020 season makes more sense, unless they truly don’t care about one more chance at the WS next year (my assumption is they don’t). After 2020 the CBA will be renegotiated and that will be a better opportunity for potential reset move. It could produce both a higher luxury tax level (Compared to the NFL’s annual cap adjustment, this tax does almost nothing to reward the players with potential higher salaries tied to league success) and perhaps a DH in both leagues, which would then provide more markets for JDM’s services (if he doesn’t opt out this year). End of 2020 season also gets you clarity on Mookie and JBJ, and gives you another off-season where Price/Eovaldi may be healthy and hence more attractive as trade candidates (which mean less in the way of underwriting). Or maybe they are getting ready to sell and they want to make this look more profitable upfront. It’s nothing like that. You realize literally every big market team is cutting costs and not doling out large contracts anymore. That includes the Yankees and dodgers. If you want to blame anyone, blame the MLBPA For screwing themselves by allowing the owners to implement a de facto salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 30, 2019 23:50:34 GMT -5
My mind cannot be swayed. I'm game-day-thread irrational angry already thinking about a Mookie trade. Does anyone have a reason to tell me that the 2020 roster will be better without Mookie Betts? Keep him, blow through the tax, reset in 2021 if it has to happen. If JDM opts out and somehow Pedroia's money goes away via retirement, I'd be less upset if it meant keeping Mookie. If the 2020 season starts off poorly, you can still ship Mookie out. I understand that as a rental at the deadline he would have even less value than this offseason. With that being said, would you rather take a shot at 2020 with Mookie and settle for less return if the season gets off to a bad start, or punt on 2020 without Mookie, taking a better return, and not having meaningful baseball games played in September or October. If your mind can't be swayed then why bother to ask? Just kidding. But to answer-- the team can be better. I wouldn't bet it "would be." But all the starters other than ERod didn't perform well. Are you 100% certain Sale can't be much better in 2020? Same with Eovaldi who gave the team nothing? Are you 100% certain Price will miss a lot of time? This year 6 starters were pretty much "broken" vs their prior years or broken vs expectations. What if next year they are "unbroken" and performance is closer to prior years even if they aren't their absolute best? If you trade Mookie and the end result is for example you get one pretty good hitter that can play outfield and one 4/5 starter-- then based on the above if the starting pitching performs to aforementioned above then aren't we potentially better than this year's team? I have no idea though what Sox are planning. Everything they say in combination with what they've previously signed, in my view, doesn't make sense / hasn't made sense vs. what they're trying to sell us right now.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 1, 2019 0:03:10 GMT -5
nesn.com/2019/09/these-stats-illustrate-just-how-good-red-soxs-rafael-devers-was-this-season/Red Sox Notes @soxnotes · Players with .300 AVG/30 HR/100 RBI/100 R in a season before turning 23: Rafael Devers (2019) Miguel Cabrera (2005) Albert Pujols (2001-02) Alex Rodriguez (1996) Eddie Mathews (1953) Ted Williams (1939) Joe DiMaggio (1937) Hal Trosky (1934) Jimmie Foxx (1929-30) Mel Ott (1929) Red Sox Notes @soxnotes · Most XBH in a season before turning 23: 1. Joe DiMaggio – 96 (1937) 2. Alex Rodriguez – 91 (1996) 3. Rafael Devers – 90 (2019) Red Sox Notes @soxnotes · Rafael Devers has recorded the 28th 200-hit season in Red Sox history. He is the franchise’s youngest player ever to accomplish the feat. He is the 17th player since 1900 with 200+ hits in a season before turning 23 (most recent: Starlin Castro-2011, Alex Rodriguez-1996).
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 1, 2019 0:09:04 GMT -5
So, right now, despite the underachieving, the Red Sox are a middle of the pack AL team that should have been a bit better, but instead will lose some marquis players, and have no money to bring in the talent that is needed, and little help from the farm at this point - I would expect Dalbec to be the one prospect that can step in and contribute. If John Henry is so hell bent on getting below $208 million, the term "bridge year" might be a kind description of what 2020 will look like. And what sucks is, that I really don't believe, with all the revenue that they generate, that they can't afford to stay well above the luxury tax line. I won't call Henry cheap, because they do spend more than other teams, and they look around and see a team that pays the highest in the league while other teams have far lower payrolls and far more victories in 2019. I get that. They want a Moneyball GM, the modern version, so I guess we'll be seeing WAR/Win $ or whatever the stat is called rather than actual victories be the measuring stick going forward until the time they feel they're close enough to be in a position to go for it. Until their farm system improves drastically it's hard to see that day coming really soon. I don't think the Sox will really be a force in the league until after the upcoming strike settles. It is weird to me how obsessed they suddenly seem to be about getting under the luxury tax when they blew through it so deliberately in the first place. Regardless of what the nominal organizational decision tree is, the ultimate veto point on contracts like Sale's or Price's is the guy who's actually responsible for paying them. Henry signed off on all of this. Everyone also knows that all these rules are changing in a couple years anyway. So basically they're sending signals left and right about trading a generational talent because they don't want to take the luxury tax hit for another couple of years? What, do they have a play to finance? i agree with you about the odd behavior now with Betts vs Henry signing checks he should have known previously. Really odd. I don't think they are coming clean telling us the full story. With that said-- we've spoken about this in the past. No team goes over the cap anymore for 3 straight years. So for them trying to stay under for a 3rd year just as every other team has done lately is not weird. It would be weird if they bucked that trend. You might be in denial because you believe Henry makes enough but it was always "real." Every owner other than Henry has told you (shown you) that.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 1, 2019 2:19:34 GMT -5
Ryan M. Spaeder ✔ @theaceofspaeder
#RedSox Rafael Devers is the first third basemen in baseball history to have at least 200 hits, 50 doubles, and 30 home runs in a season.
|
|
|