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 alexcorahomevideo on Dec 1, 2021 11:21:55 GMT -5
Starting to think Devers is not long for Boston and will be dealt at some point before becoming a free agent. That would surely bum me out. This would be insane. Hell, cut him a deal with an opt-out after 30. That still guarantees several more years in Boston. Between this and the radio silence on Xander, it makes me think ownership is gravitating more and more toward a Tampa model of "enjoy your time when you're here because it may not be long." Or as that article from The Athletic stated, "trade the players while they're still good to get value in return. You have to be ruthless." Ruthless, maybe but at the expense of young, all star talent? I hate it. Its an adjustment for sure. But after seeing the results of the Mookie trade its expected. If the Sox can't lock up someone for cheap in the beginning then chances are good they'll deal the player once they get expensive. Once Devers JD and Xander leave I'm guessing that this team is going to dip back to 150-170 million in payroll while waiting for the future to come up.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 1, 2021 11:26:22 GMT -5
This would be insane. Hell, cut him a deal with an opt-out after 30. That still guarantees several more years in Boston. Between this and the radio silence on Xander, it makes me think ownership is gravitating more and more toward a Tampa model of "enjoy your time when you're here because it may not be long." Or as that article from The Athletic stated, "trade the players while they're still good to get value in return. You have to be ruthless." Ruthless, maybe but at the expense of young, all star talent? I hate it. Its an adjustment for sure. But after seeing the results of the Mookie trade its expected. If the Sox can't lock up someone for cheap in the beginning then chances are good they'll deal the player once they get expensive. Once Devers JD and Xander leave I'm guessing that this team is going to dip back to 150-170 million in payroll while waiting for the future to come up. I agree with everything you wrote except for the last sentence. I think the Sox are willing to spend up to the limit, whatever it is, as long as it's spent on short-termers. They don't want to lock into huge contracts (they didn't want E-Rod to have 5 years) nor do I think they want to give out a huge annual rate (like Scherzer). I think they're very comfortable handing out a short mid-tier annual rate contracts. I think they're happy to spend much more than the average team on back end depth and complete rosters rather than front loading the dollars they give out. So yeah, they'll spend but probably not in the way that some of us would like them to. I mean, I wouldn't give 7 million for Wacha, but obviously they're quite willing to.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 1, 2021 11:33:02 GMT -5
Its an adjustment for sure. But after seeing the results of the Mookie trade its expected. If the Sox can't lock up someone for cheap in the beginning then chances are good they'll deal the player once they get expensive. Once Devers JD and Xander leave I'm guessing that this team is going to dip back to 150-170 million in payroll while waiting for the future to come up. I agree with everything you wrote except for the last sentence. I think the Sox are willing to spend up to the limit, whatever it is, as long as it's spent on short-termers. They don't want to lock into huge contracts (they didn't want E-Rod to have 5 years) nor do I think they want to give out a huge annual rate (like Scherzer). I think they're very comfortable handing out a short mid-tier annual rate contracts. I think they're happy to spend much more than the average team on back end depth and complete rosters rather than front loading the dollars they give out. So yeah, they'll spend but probably not in the way that some of us would like them to. I mean, I wouldn't give 7 million for Wacha, but obviously they're quite willing to. I was going to post saying this same thing. I see no indication that the Red sox plan to drop down to the 150-170 million range for payroll. They can still spend up to and over the luxury tax without giving out a mega contract.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 1, 2021 11:52:29 GMT -5
You either sign guys like Devers to an extension in his first year or two, otherwise it's crazy hard and likely not worth it. Nevermind the question of where Devers plays long-term. I'd just let it play out at this point.
Now I would talk to Verdugo about an extension.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Dec 1, 2021 11:54:10 GMT -5
I just think anything over 6 years for any player is insane unless they are willing to take a discount. 6 years 210 mill would be the very most I offer. If that gets turned down then he’s a goner. 8-12 deals are for shit teams in desperation to get someone good. Top tier teams shouldn’t need to go that long on a deal. We’re almost better off signing Schwarber to 4 years and moving Bobby back to 3rd and trading Devers for a #2-3 SP and top tier prospects.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 1, 2021 12:03:42 GMT -5
I just think anything over 6 years for any player is insane unless they are willing to take a discount. 6 years 210 mill would be the very most I offer. If that gets turned down then he’s a goner. 8-12 deals are for shit teams in desperation to get someone good. Top tier teams shouldn’t need to go that long on a deal. We’re almost better off signing Schwarber to 4 years and moving Bobby back to 3rd and trading Devers for a #2-3 SP and top tier prospects. Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 1, 2021 12:13:51 GMT -5
I just think anything over 6 years for any player is insane unless they are willing to take a discount. 6 years 210 mill would be the very most I offer. If that gets turned down then he’s a goner. 8-12 deals are for shit teams in desperation to get someone good. Top tier teams shouldn’t need to go that long on a deal. We’re almost better off signing Schwarber to 4 years and moving Bobby back to 3rd and trading Devers for a #2-3 SP and top tier prospects. Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. I was going to say… the results of the Mookie trade were a worse team on the field but financial flexibility. That can be a win long run. But if you then turn around and trade your next best player for another on-field loss and *more* flexibility, it starts to feel like you are moving the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Dec 1, 2021 12:14:20 GMT -5
I just think anything over 6 years for any player is insane unless they are willing to take a discount. 6 years 210 mill would be the very most I offer. If that gets turned down then he’s a goner. 8-12 deals are for shit teams in desperation to get someone good. Top tier teams shouldn’t need to go that long on a deal. We’re almost better off signing Schwarber to 4 years and moving Bobby back to 3rd and trading Devers for a #2-3 SP and top tier prospects. Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 1, 2021 12:23:48 GMT -5
Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. I was going to say… the results of the Mookie trade were a worse team on the field but financial flexibility. That can be a win long run. But if you then turn around and trade your next best player for another on-field loss and *more* flexibility, it starts to feel like you are moving the wrong way. Yep at some point "flexibility" and 2 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee or so the saying goes. Flexibility doesn't help if you're not replenishing the talent lost in other at least equal ways.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 1, 2021 12:26:03 GMT -5
Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future. Yes, the team would be worse. In this scenario you've basically taken Devers' WAR and redistributed it to two positions, Schwarber and the pitcher. That's less valuable than having that value at one position. Of course you can hope one or the other prospect turns into a Devers (though that's unlikely), but then if you trade them once they threaten to get expensive you'd never actually be able to keep star-level talent on your team.
Also the "players don't need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade" thing is silly and insulting to the players. There is no evidence that any significant number of players just stops trying once they get paid. They're almost universally competition monsters, who worked their way through many levels of play in which they were not guaranteed any substantial earnings, and they have the incentives of glory, pride, obligation to their teammates, and the sheer pleasure of being good at what they do to keep trying hard. What does happen is that they get old; that's the risk, not the possibility that they'll get fat and happy.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 1, 2021 13:22:13 GMT -5
Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future. A 27 year old with Devers' credentials is not going to take 6 years 210 million. So if that's the approach you'd employed you'd lose any and all blue chip free agents. I'm not saying you're wrong to not want to go beyond a certain point, but the point that you're not willing to beyond will cost you the free agent in just about all circumstances and you'll be looking for players with "warts" such as coming off an injury, or guys that are well into their 30s or guys that simply aren't as good. That's fine if that's how you want to build - Bloom is doing a lot of that, but at some point if you want to retain a talent that's toward the top of the pyramid, you're going to have to go beyond your comfort zone to get the job done. And yeah you'll regret the back end somewhat but if the front end is worth it, then you have to consider going that far.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 1, 2021 13:24:59 GMT -5
I don't know why a player or a team would want to try to negotiate an extension before the CBA is finished, unless one side or the other makes ridiculous or stupid concessions to get it done. Red Sox don't operate that way and it sounds like Devers has a good agent so this isn't even news at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 1, 2021 14:53:34 GMT -5
I agree with everything you wrote except for the last sentence. I think the Sox are willing to spend up to the limit, whatever it is, as long as it's spent on short-termers. They don't want to lock into huge contracts (they didn't want E-Rod to have 5 years) nor do I think they want to give out a huge annual rate (like Scherzer). I think they're very comfortable handing out a short mid-tier annual rate contracts. I think they're happy to spend much more than the average team on back end depth and complete rosters rather than front loading the dollars they give out. So yeah, they'll spend but probably not in the way that some of us would like them to. I mean, I wouldn't give 7 million for Wacha, but obviously they're quite willing to. I was going to post saying this same thing. I see no indication that the Red sox plan to drop down to the 150-170 million range for payroll. They can still spend up to and over the luxury tax without giving out a mega contract. Agree. Which is also nuts because the current penalties are relatively inconsequential for the first two years. I think we'd all agree we don't want them over the tax for three or more years (unless we were talking 3 more or more WS appearances). But hard capping stuff when you have the opportunity to extend or acquire generational talent is ridiculous. One more note - Xander will opt out next year and he will be doing so with several significant advantages: - The CBA will be settled - There will only be one other elite SS on the market (Trea Turner) - The free agent class is thin The Red Sox have no ready replacement (Meyers, if he even pans out, is 3-4 years away), and JD is walking out the door, too. This means they'll be taking two significant offensive hits without legit replacements. They will also have to pay market rates on any replacements unless they want to trade blue-chip prospects and and they'll be looking at losing Devers the next year. That's a whole lot to lose. If they were a second division cellar-dweller then I'd say, fine, it's all part of the tank. Yet, this was one of the best teams in baseball last season. As always, I await the execution of "the plan," but all of this (and a bit more) is why I am not a "Trust in Chiam guy" as yet. Especially with other contenders out there getting better.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 1, 2021 14:58:16 GMT -5
It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future. Yes, the team would be worse. In this scenario you've basically taken Devers' WAR and redistributed it to two positions, Schwarber and the pitcher. That's less valuable than having that value at one position. Of course you can hope one or the other prospect turns into a Devers (though that's unlikely), but then if you trade them once they threaten to get expensive you'd never actually be able to keep star-level talent on your team. Also the "players don't need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade" thing is silly and insulting to the players. There is no evidence that any significant number of players just stops trying once they get paid. They're almost universally competition monsters, who worked their way through many levels of play in which they were not guaranteed any substantial earnings, and they have the incentives of glory, pride, obligation to their teammates, and the sheer pleasure of being good at what they do to keep trying hard. What does happen is that they get old; that's the risk, not the possibility that they'll get fat and happy.
Meanwhile with the "Schwarber and two top 10 prospects" you're basically replacing JD a year earlier and still betting the house on prospects. We all know enough about data to know how often even prospects become MLB average players, never mind stars. This is betting the house on mediocre hand and hoping it pans out.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 1, 2021 15:14:09 GMT -5
I don't know why a player or a team would want to try to negotiate an extension before the CBA is finished, unless one side or the other makes ridiculous or stupid concessions to get it done. Red Sox don't operate that way and it sounds like Devers has a good agent so this isn't even news at this point. It's possible there are team using inside information from the negotiations to sway their decisions. For instance - if a low-spending team has seen a salary floor in both the player's proposal AND MLB's proposal, then they may choose to spend more now as the other bottom-feeders will be looking to increase their payrolls after the new CBA is signed and it's likely the cost per WAR will greatly increase. Given the Met's spending spree, perhaps they are anticipating cost per WAR to increase after the CBA is signed OR perhaps they realize the other owners don't have as much $$ in their war-chests as usual (due to the 2020 season) and believe that if push comes to shove, the owners will allow 2022 to be played without a new CBA. In all likelihood a season without a CBA would mean a season without a competitive balance tax, so Cohen could get away with the high payroll without any additional penalties. Not just that, but Cohen is one of 30 owners and has influence in swaying the CBA or pushing to remove the lockout, so it could even be planned. (it should be noted, when this occurred in the NFL the salary cap was retroactively applied and the teams who exceeded the cap were docked the cap space - it's unknown how this would play out in MLB) I'm sure every MLB decision maker has been keeping an ear toward negotiations in order to strategically plan their moves. They may guess wrong, but they're still going to guess.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Dec 1, 2021 15:40:36 GMT -5
Not to play manfred's music, but... a winning team has to have stars. It might be worth it in $/WAR terms to trade a Mookie for a Verdugo, and a Devers for a #3 starter, etc., but you can't build the best possible roster that way. Maybe sometimes it makes sense - we don't need to re-hash the circumstances around Mookie - but you can't do it with every talented player that gets expensive. It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future. I’m fine with giving Devers 8 years. You’ve got to pay someone, and I can’t think of many free agent hitters I would rather have into their mid-30s. I see his profile aging relatively gracefully - at some point he becomes a 1B/DH. Offer him something in the range of $230M over 6-8 years. If he takes it, great. If he wants more than that, I’m fine with flipping him for future value.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Dec 1, 2021 15:48:39 GMT -5
It’s not every talented player. Its called picking your poison. You can sign Schwarber for cheaper and less years and go out and trade Devers for what we need which is a top 3 SP and some more farm talent, that we can keep or end up using in another trade. 8-12 year deals shouldn’t ever be considered as a GM of the Red Sox. Idc who you are. Players just don’t need to perform once they are guaranteed money for a decade. Are you telling me if we got Schwarber, 2 top 10 prospects and a #2 starter our team is going to be worse? It’a a game of chess. We can’t just fall in love with every all-star player we’ve groomed and give them 8-10 year deals. If 6 years at 35 mill per year isn’t enough then he needs to be traded. That’s just a fact. I love him but you have to be realistic and think about the future. I’m fine with giving Devers 8 years. You’ve got to pay someone, and I can’t think of many free agent hitters I would rather have into their mid-30s. I see his profile aging relatively gracefully - at some point he becomes a 1B/DH. Offer him something in the range of $230M over 6-8 years. If he takes it, great. If he wants more than that, I’m fine with flipping him for future value. You my friend get it! The point is to figure it out asap because next off season we have the possibility of losing half the team so the Devers thing needs to get dealt with now.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 1, 2021 16:06:16 GMT -5
I’m fine with giving Devers 8 years. You’ve got to pay someone, and I can’t think of many free agent hitters I would rather have into their mid-30s. I see his profile aging relatively gracefully - at some point he becomes a 1B/DH. Offer him something in the range of $230M over 6-8 years. If he takes it, great. If he wants more than that, I’m fine with flipping him for future value. You my friend get it! The point is to figure it out asap because next off season we have the possibility of losing half the team so the Devers thing needs to get dealt with now. Future Value has become my least favorite player. Guy never seems to get it together.
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Dec 1, 2021 16:50:22 GMT -5
Now I would talk to Verdugo about an extension. Why? Just because you can get him cheaper than Devers? I like Verdugo well enough, but there is nothing special about him. He's basically decent at everything but excellent at nothing. Why tie him up to a long-term deal to give you 2-3 WAR a year?
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,532
|
Post by shagworthy on Dec 1, 2021 17:02:55 GMT -5
I fear the Sox waited too long for the Devers extension talks, just like they did with Mookie, and that is what will ultimately cost them his services. If my memory serves correct, they low balled Mookie out of the gate once he became arb eligible and then from that point on it seemed a foregone conclusion he was going to go. If anyone was going to give them a little discount (though not much) it's Bogey, as he already did it.
Don't get me wrong, I want Devers here long term, but he's seeing all these guys get paid, sooner or later he's going to want his share of the pie. It might be easier to add 10mil on the remaining years to keep Bogey here, as long as he's open to a position change.
|
|
|
Post by rminns10 on Dec 1, 2021 17:05:03 GMT -5
I want them to sign him, and i was out of signing Mookie for 12 years due to his age and Im also against giving Xander a 8-10 year deal now. I like the way some other teams are doing it by locking guys up sooner rather than later.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,532
|
Post by shagworthy on Dec 1, 2021 17:09:17 GMT -5
I want them to sign him, and i was out of signing Mookie for 12 years due to his age and Im also against giving Xander a 8-10 year deal now. I like the way some other teams are doing it by locking guys up sooner rather than later. Wander Franco is the model for the future. Cost wise, lock them up early, especially when you have a generational talent. Think about what if the Rays hadn't done that move, how much more Franco would get in FA if he continues on his trajectory. You can still give guys generational wealth (Franco, Tatis) but in a way that still helps team long term versus the hinderance of paying for past performance in their 30's.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 1, 2021 17:19:41 GMT -5
I want them to sign him, and i was out of signing Mookie for 12 years due to his age and Im also against giving Xander a 8-10 year deal now. I like the way some other teams are doing it by locking guys up sooner rather than later. Wander Franco is the model for the future. Cost wise, lock them up early, especially when you have a generational talent. Think about what if the Rays hadn't done that move, how much more Franco would get in FA if he continues on his trajectory. You can still give guys generational wealth (Franco, Tatis) but in a way that still helps team long term versus the hinderance of paying for past performance in their 30's. How much of a model can it be when you're talking about "generational talent"? You've got Tatis and Franco. Soto and Vlad Jr. could fit the bill. But no one else is on that tier really, including Devers. Like, how would this have applied to Devers after 2018, when he had 1.8 WAR in a little more than one full season? Do you sign him to a 9-figure deal based on that? Obviously it would've been smart in retrospect, but it would be a huge gamble to apply as a general principle. (I am told Feliz Doubront, for instance, was no his way to being an established major league pitcher at one point...)
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Dec 1, 2021 20:58:06 GMT -5
If the name of the game is to generate offense, Raffy produced 176 runs last year using the old school formula RBIs plus runs scored minus homeruns. I dont know how you let that slip away.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Dec 1, 2021 21:31:25 GMT -5
If the name of the game is to generate offense, Raffy produced 176 runs last year using the old school formula RBIs plus runs scored minus homeruns. I dont know how you let that slip away. I hope they hold on to Devers, but I REALLY hope they aren't putting any weight into that formula, which is definitely the wrong kind of old school.
|
|
|