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.
Red Sox FA Target: Garrett Richards (Signed)
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2021 12:53:23 GMT -5
Bradley bwar the last three years 6.2, Hernandez is 6.5 and Hernandez has had the better overall season. I don't get being upset by this because it wasn't Bradley on a bigger longer deal. The rumored Bradley deal has a much better chance of being an anchor in the future. We'll see what the finishing touches are, yet it's starting to come together and make sense. I wrote elsewhere about how suspect Hernandez’s bWAR is: most obviously, for one thing, more than half the total came from one season, three years ago. And in the next season, where his bWAR dropped by a 1/3, it was 2.2 total, but 1.6 dWAR (a number JBJ has been consistently shafted on, by the way). So if you think Hernandez is worth it as a *defense* upgrade over JBJ, those stats support that rather dubious case. But over the course of a career running roughly the same span, JBJ has nearly doubled him in bWAR, and he has been a far more predictably productive player. If you want to talk savings etc, fine. But this is the kind of blather that is setting my hair on fire this off season: don’t pretend replacing JBJ with Kiké is a talent upgrade — or even push. That move might make them cheaper, which might have positive results in the future, but it also makes them worse. So you discount Hernandez because his best season was 3 years ago, yet are pumping up Bradley for seasons 4 plus years ago? Were paying for future seasons, Hernandez age 29 and 30, Bradley would be 31-33. OF defense usually starts to decline into your thirties. The real reason I like the move is it's a cheap two year deal for a younger player that can offer us position flexibility. He's played above average D at CF, LF, RF, 2B and SS for his career. Nevermind in his limited games at 2B looks to be close to a GG guy there. If you value Bradley's D, why do you have an issue with Hernandez? The savings allows you to get more guys like Richards.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,329
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 23, 2021 12:56:26 GMT -5
Richards probably signs for 1yr/$8m or 2yr/$16m(something like that). I doubt anyone would give him a 3rd year. So he doesn’t break the bank or limit their future in any way. I guess I don’t understand all the sentimentality over someone like JBJ? This was a “beloved player”? A great glove with a below league-average bat? You haven’t seen enough of that by now? I’m ready to move on. I definitely agree on Devers, but the next couple years are about clearing the books(Price, JDM, Pedroia, Eovaldi) and retooling. Devers should be part of that plan. I guess the flip side is: why on the one hand be praying to clear the books of Eovaldi but pursuing a guy who is a very similar pitcher... while also stripping yourself for parts? I’m looking at this in the context of the post-2018 glow. In that time, they’ve overspent on Eovaldi, decided to dump stars they can’t afford, BUT taken on money that seems pointless. Let’s put it this way: let’s assume you get 5 wins out of Kiké and Richards... so now you are, what, an 87-88 win team? But that is $15 million that doesn’t do anything for a long term goal either. It’d rather it were dedicated to year one of Devers’ extension so we know he is locked in for 6-7 years as an example. Add: because I don’t want them to sign the Andrieses, Hernandezes, and Richardses, and then as Devers approaches FA, have them wring their hands and say “we’re close to the penalty and don’t want to pay it.” We’ve been there already. It takes two to tango, maybe Devers doesn't want to talk extension right now, a lot of players don't when they're still so far from free agency. Hes not eligible to be a free agent until 2024. I really fail to see how signing guys to one or two year deals is going to have any effect on whether they sign Devers long term. Also am 87-88 win team is fighting for a playoff spot at the cost of 15 million. To me that's easily worth it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2021 12:58:29 GMT -5
Richards probably signs for 1yr/$8m or 2yr/$16m(something like that). I doubt anyone would give him a 3rd year. So he doesn’t break the bank or limit their future in any way. I guess I don’t understand all the sentimentality over someone like JBJ? This was a “beloved player”? A great glove with a below league-average bat? You haven’t seen enough of that by now? I’m ready to move on. I definitely agree on Devers, but the next couple years are about clearing the books(Price, JDM, Pedroia, Eovaldi) and retooling. Devers should be part of that plan. I guess the flip side is: why on the one hand be praying to clear the books of Eovaldi but pursuing a guy who is a very similar pitcher... while also stripping yourself for parts? I’m looking at this in the context of the post-2018 glow. In that time, they’ve overspent on Eovaldi, decided to dump stars they can’t afford, BUT taken on money that seems pointless. Let’s put it this way: let’s assume you get 5 wins out of Kiké and Richards... so now you are, what, an 87-88 win team? But that is $15 million that doesn’t do anything for a long term goal either. It’d rather it were dedicated to year one of Devers’ extension so we know he is locked in for 6-7 years as an example. Add: because I don’t want them to sign the Andrieses, Hernandezes, and Richardses, and then as Devers approaches FA, have them wring their hands and say “we’re close to the penalty and don’t want to pay it.” We’ve been there already. This just makes zero sense. The reason you do these deals is to try and win without mortgaging the future. They won't even be on the books when you need to pay Dever's. Yet you want Bradley for more money and more years. Color me confused, you see to be all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2021 13:10:17 GMT -5
I guess the flip side is: why on the one hand be praying to clear the books of Eovaldi but pursuing a guy who is a very similar pitcher... while also stripping yourself for parts? I’m looking at this in the context of the post-2018 glow. In that time, they’ve overspent on Eovaldi, decided to dump stars they can’t afford, BUT taken on money that seems pointless. Let’s put it this way: let’s assume you get 5 wins out of Kiké and Richards... so now you are, what, an 87-88 win team? But that is $15 million that doesn’t do anything for a long term goal either. It’d rather it were dedicated to year one of Devers’ extension so we know he is locked in for 6-7 years as an example. Add: because I don’t want them to sign the Andrieses, Hernandezes, and Richardses, and then as Devers approaches FA, have them wring their hands and say “we’re close to the penalty and don’t want to pay it.” We’ve been there already. This just makes zero sense. The reason you do these deals is to try and win without mortgaging the future. They won't even be on the books when you need to pay Dever's. Yet you want Bradley for more money and more years. Color me confused, you see to be all over the place. I don’t really see these as trying to win... that’s the issue. They are treading water. I am not arguing they *must* resign JBJ... if you want to pocket the money and wait it out, fine. But if you are spending the money, I’d rather it was on a homegrown guy who, frankly, I think makes them better this year than Kiké+Richards. But let’s say a team, call it team X, is coming off a season in which they win, say, 40% of their games, or 65 in a 162-game schedule. Oh, and at the end of that season, they traded their closer and another oft-used reliever. Then they let their starting CFer walk. If team X signs a middling reliever, a platoon outfielder, a utility guy, and a guy who has pitched under 200 innings in 5 years, does that actually look like trying to win? Cause to me it looks like looking busy to no practical effect. But if the Richards contract is 2 years — like Kiké’s — it means less money *next* off season, too. THAT is my beef. If they sign Richards to a real one-year deal, I think it is pointless but painless — but for the fact that they seem not to want to pay homegrown talent in quite the profligate way they’ll sign the Eovaldis, Hernandezes etc.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,329
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 23, 2021 13:18:23 GMT -5
This just makes zero sense. The reason you do these deals is to try and win without mortgaging the future. They won't even be on the books when you need to pay Dever's. Yet you want Bradley for more money and more years. Color me confused, you see to be all over the place. I don’t really see these as trying to win... that’s the issue. They are treading water. I am not arguing they *must* resign JBJ... if you want to pocket the money and wait it out, fine. But if you are spending the money, I’d rather it was on a homegrown guy who, frankly, I think makes them better this year than Kiké+Richards. But let’s say a team, call it team X, is coming off a season in which they win, say, 40% of their games, or 65 in a 162-game schedule. Oh, and at the end of that season, they traded their closer and another oft-used reliever. Then they let their starting CFer walk. If team X signs a middling reliever, a platoon outfielder, a utility guy, and a guy who has pitched under 200 innings in 5 years, does that actually look like trying to win? Cause to me it looks like looking busy to no practical effect. But if the Richards contract is 2 years — like Kiké’s — it means less money *next* off season, too. THAT is my beef. If they sign Richards to a real one-year deal, I think it is pointless but painless — but for the fact that they seem not to want to pay homegrown talent in quite the profligate way they’ll sign the Eovaldis, Hernandezes etc. Why are you using Eovaldi as an example? This front office didn't sign him to that deal. DD signing Eovaldi to a four year deal isn't comparable to Bloom signing Hernandez to a 2 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2021 13:23:24 GMT -5
I don’t really see these as trying to win... that’s the issue. They are treading water. I am not arguing they *must* resign JBJ... if you want to pocket the money and wait it out, fine. But if you are spending the money, I’d rather it was on a homegrown guy who, frankly, I think makes them better this year than Kiké+Richards. But let’s say a team, call it team X, is coming off a season in which they win, say, 40% of their games, or 65 in a 162-game schedule. Oh, and at the end of that season, they traded their closer and another oft-used reliever. Then they let their starting CFer walk. If team X signs a middling reliever, a platoon outfielder, a utility guy, and a guy who has pitched under 200 innings in 5 years, does that actually look like trying to win? Cause to me it looks like looking busy to no practical effect. But if the Richards contract is 2 years — like Kiké’s — it means less money *next* off season, too. THAT is my beef. If they sign Richards to a real one-year deal, I think it is pointless but painless — but for the fact that they seem not to want to pay homegrown talent in quite the profligate way they’ll sign the Eovaldis, Hernandezes etc. Why are you using Eovaldi as an example? This front office didn't sign him to that deal. DD signing Eovaldi to a four year deal isn't comparable to Bloom signing Hernandez to a 2 year deal. It is not Bloom’s doing, no, and I didn’t attribute anything to Bloom. I don’t care who is doing it... the fact is, we can go back a long way through multiple front offices and see them let homegrown guys walk and turn around and spend on guys who don’t make up for the loss. Eovaldi and Kiké are both on the books for the next two years. I’m not directly equating them (if Eovaldi is healthy, he’s far more valuable), but both will be limiting factors on next off-season’s spending if the Sox are now budget conscious.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,329
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 23, 2021 13:30:05 GMT -5
Why are you using Eovaldi as an example? This front office didn't sign him to that deal. DD signing Eovaldi to a four year deal isn't comparable to Bloom signing Hernandez to a 2 year deal. It is not Bloom’s doing, no, and I didn’t attribute anything to Bloom. I don’t care who is doing it... the fact is, we can go back a long way through multiple front offices and see them let homegrown guys walk and turn around and spend on guys who don’t make up for the loss. Eovaldi and Kiké are both on the books for the next two years. I’m not directly equating them (if Eovaldi is healthy, he’s far more valuable), but both will be limiting factors on next off-season’s spending if the Sox are now budget conscious. Okay fair enough, I can see your point. Don't necessarily agree with it so we'll have to agree to disagree on Hernandez and possibly Richards signing. I agree wholeheartedly that I don't want to see Devers go anywhere though. That's the good thing about this message board. Folks can discuss what's going on with the team and get different view points on it.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,031
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Jan 23, 2021 13:32:29 GMT -5
There’s a difference between being “budget conscious” and not wanting to violate the luxury tax threshold in a year where they’re not competing.
Them paying Kiké 7 wont prevent them from doing anything they really need to do. I don’t know where this notion that they’re going to be like the A’s or similar small market teams comes from- is it because they didn’t want to take a huge penalty last year? Is that it? Is it because they’re not giving out a ridiculous contract while surrendering a high 2nd round pick in a year they won’t compete??
Idk, seems unreasonable to me
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 23, 2021 13:33:46 GMT -5
This just makes zero sense. The reason you do these deals is to try and win without mortgaging the future. They won't even be on the books when you need to pay Dever's. Yet you want Bradley for more money and more years. Color me confused, you see to be all over the place. I don’t really see these as trying to win... that’s the issue. They are treading water. I am not arguing they *must* resign JBJ... if you want to pocket the money and wait it out, fine. But if you are spending the money, I’d rather it was on a homegrown guy who, frankly, I think makes them better this year than Kiké+Richards. But let’s say a team, call it team X, is coming off a season in which they win, say, 40% of their games, or 65 in a 162-game schedule. Oh, and at the end of that season, they traded their closer and another oft-used reliever. Then they let their starting CFer walk. If team X signs a middling reliever, a platoon outfielder, a utility guy, and a guy who has pitched under 200 innings in 5 years, does that actually look like trying to win? Cause to me it looks like looking busy to no practical effect. But if the Richards contract is 2 years — like Kiké’s — it means less money *next* off season, too. THAT is my beef. If they sign Richards to a real one-year deal, I think it is pointless but painless — but for the fact that they seem not to want to pay homegrown talent in quite the profligate way they’ll sign the Eovaldis, Hernandezes etc. What if you added a #1 pitcher, a #2 pitcher and an elite bat? That's what Sale, ERod and Martinez could be compared to last year. So our GM is filling holes and creating depth which killed us last year. He's doing that with low cost signings and let's not act like our owners won't spend big money when it makes sense. You know they will because they have many times. I'd also expect Richards gets a team option if it's two years or one that kicks in by reaching certain goals. Did you see stat casts report on Richards stuff? He's now we'll over a year back from TJ surgery, his stuff is back, he just needs the feel. If that happens that could be a great signing. Bloom is really starting to hit my list for this year, two starters, one with mid rotation upside, a guy for 2nd base, an OF. Now a few relievers and another OF to finish it off. They were never going to give out big deal that were long-term unless they were a steal. So far the only money for next year is 7 million
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 23, 2021 13:52:27 GMT -5
I think Incandenza made some great points about why Richards (high risk/high reward) makes a lot of sense for a Red Sox team close enough to contention. I also think his profile is a good one for this team considering we suddenly have some significant upside among our SP depth this year. Consider that if Sale, Rodriguez, Eovaldi, Richards, and Perez are all healthy at any point this year (unlikely I know), then our 6-10 pitchers become some order of Pivetta, Houck, Whitlock, Mata, Seabold depending on the time of the year. Thats not even taking into account guys like Andriese, Gossett, Matta, and Weber who may admittedly be above some of those guys on the SP depth chart to begin the year.
The point I want to make is that our depth has upside now, and I don't think its best to bury that depth with low-ceiling, high-probability innings eaters. It seems better to me to have high risk/reward types in the rotation, potentially likely to miss time throughout the year, but then allowing for the upside depth to emerge. In other words, I'd rather 180 innings this year go to a Richards/Houck/Mata combination this year than say the 2021 version of Rick Porcello.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jan 23, 2021 13:56:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by longgone24 on Jan 23, 2021 14:04:41 GMT -5
About 2 million more than I thought but that's a rounding error for the Sox budget. I thought it would 1 + an option. We'll probably get more details later.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,329
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 23, 2021 14:04:46 GMT -5
10 million seems a tad steep but for just 1 year I'm not going to complain. I foresee many comments questioning why they didn't sign Kluber instead though.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 23, 2021 14:05:15 GMT -5
Alex Speier reports that there is a $10 million team option year at the end, making this another Chaim Bloom special - solid value on a one year deal with a team option year that will provide a tremendous amount of surplus value if things go well.
|
|
|
Post by longgone24 on Jan 23, 2021 14:07:31 GMT -5
Down to about 13 million for 2 bullpen arms and a centerfielder
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,329
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 23, 2021 14:08:49 GMT -5
If my math is right that leaves the sox with about 13 million to the luxury tax. Need at least a reliever, probably 2 and a left handed hitting 2nd baseman or cf.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Jan 23, 2021 14:09:39 GMT -5
I think Incandenza made some great points about why Richards (high risk/high reward) makes a lot of sense for a Red Sox team close enough to contention. I also think his profile is a good one for this team considering we suddenly have some significant upside among our SP depth this year. Consider that if Sale, Rodriguez, Eovaldi, Richards, and Perez are all healthy at any point this year (unlikely I know), then our 6-10 pitchers become some order of Pivetta, Houck, Whitlock, Mata, Seabold depending on the time of the year. Thats not even taking into account guys like Andriese, Gossett, Matta, and Weber who may admittedly be above some of those guys on the SP depth chart to begin the year. The point I want to make is that our depth has upside now, and I don't think its best to bury that depth with low-ceiling, high-probability innings eaters. It seems better to me to have high risk/reward types in the rotation, potentially likely to miss time throughout the year, but then allowing for the upside depth to emerge. In other words, I'd rather 180 innings this year go to a Richards/Houck/Mata combination this year than say the 2021 version of Rick Porcello. laid out visually, to your point
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2021 14:10:49 GMT -5
One year, don’t care. Have at it.
But that means bye bye JBJ.
Add: man, it is lucrative to throw 95+. Dude is getting paid over $1,000,000 per start on average for the last five seasons. 41 starts in 5 years. Chapeau!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaymabe on Jan 23, 2021 14:11:30 GMT -5
Now I can get behind this 100%. Has an option, so if he's healthy we'll have him around for 2 years or be able to flip him at the trade deadline. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaymabe on Jan 23, 2021 14:13:34 GMT -5
With this signing of course it means a couple of roster moves to make room for Richards and Hernandez.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 23, 2021 14:13:57 GMT -5
Kluber vs. Richards will be an interesting storyline this season.
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Jan 23, 2021 14:14:41 GMT -5
One year, don’t care. Have at it. But that means bye bye JBJ. Why does this mean JBJ is gone? I’d rather spend on him than two grubby relievers. We can figure out the bullpen as we go, but elite up-the-middle defense plays every single day.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jan 23, 2021 14:15:39 GMT -5
10 million seems a tad steep but for just 1 year I'm not going to complain. I foresee many comments questioning why they didn't sign Kluber instead though. Kluber was last seen throwing 86-88 mphs and signed for 1/$11M w no option.....Richards pitched the 2020 season and was clocked at 95 mph. Sox reportedly get him for 1/$10M w/ 2020 option at $10M
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 23, 2021 14:16:02 GMT -5
One year, don’t care. Have at it. But that means bye bye JBJ. Why does this mean JBJ is gone? I’d rather spend on him than two grubby relievers. We can figure out the bullpen as we go, but elite up-the-middle defense plays every single day. I am assuming they don’t have space left in the budget. Could be wrong, sure.
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Jan 23, 2021 14:16:36 GMT -5
If my math is right that leaves the sox with about 13 million to the luxury tax. Need at least a reliever, probably 2 and a left handed hitting 2nd baseman or cf. I have to think something is going to happen with Pedroia at some point before Spring Training.
|
|
|