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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 29, 2024 1:15:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 12:42:08 GMT -5
Kennedy says 'once you know you have someone who is capable of success in Boston I think it's important that you ferociously go after them'. I can't imagine Grissom would qualify at this point, but that may be trying too hard to read the tea leaves.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 12:37:22 GMT -5
I suppose when laid out that way it makes some added sense but honestly to me I wouldn't give Crawford an extension at all. Just go year to year with him, I don't think he's proven enough at this point. His pitching motion looks to me like it will lend itself to increased injury risk and he's had one solid year at this point but to me is still an unknown. Not everyone needs to or should be extended and I know you aren't saying that is this case but that's just my two cents on Crawford and extensions in general. I certainly wouldn't be upset at a Crawford extension but also just don't see the point since to me it seems unlikely to me the upside of savings down the road when he is 33-34 years old with an extra year outweighs the very cheap contract he is going to have for the next several years. This is fair and likely illustrates part of the issue. For Crawford, he should be expecting to make-back a number close to what he would get through arbitration, but for the Red Sox, losing the ability to simply cut him and pay him nothing (if he gets hurt or regresses) is a large risk. Perhaps a shorter deal like 12mil/3yr - this would give Crawford some piece of mind, push about half of his expected 2026 contract into 2024 (for CBT) and leave the Red Sox with essentially team options (arbitration) for his age 31 and 32 seasons. As long as his innings aren't an issue (career high is 143.2 in 2018) I'm very optimistic in Crawford becoming a mid-rotation starter - especially due to his 3.25 xERA from 2023 and low walk numbers from spring training.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:50:41 GMT -5
That is basically what they gave Bello, I'm not giving Crawford anything approaching what Bello got on an extension. Also as you point out, he's not going to be an FA until he's 33. He's a guy who I like, I think he will be a good pitcher to have for his controllable years but I'm not really seeing the point in extending him at this point in time. It may seem similar to the Bello contract, but you're substituting an arb-4 year for a league minimum year - in my mind that's ~14mil in savings. An apples-to-apples comparison would be 41mil/6yr; so would you be willing to give him 75% of what Bello is getting? If yes, then 54mil would be a ~1mil savings (I'm also assuming a lower team-option; maybe 15mil). The motivation for the team would be to use up some of the CBT dollars this year while lowering his AAV for years 4-6. If he takes less that would be great, but they are almost out of time, so they don't have a great deal of leverage.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:38:30 GMT -5
Problem with Rafaela is that players with defense-first profiles don't do well in arbitration. Unless the Red Sox are convinced his offense will come around, I don't see a way to make it work. Doesn't that just mean that he'd be looking at a smaller number? Yes, but it makes it harder to come to an agreement as the Red Sox know he'll likely be cheap through arbitration. Hard to imagine Rafaela's camp agrees to an extension based on the premise his bat doesn't develop.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:34:44 GMT -5
If Dalbec struggles, I wonder if Jamie Westbrook could get a look (assuming they don't want 6 outfielders).
Experience at 2B, 3B, RF, LF (1 game each at SS and 1B), but has never had a big league regular season at-bat. Hit .286/.405/.486 with 6bb and 8k in 41 PA in spring training. Last year hit .294/.400/.496 with 67bb and 81k in AAA.
Only 5'7", seems similar to chase Meidroth (although he's 28). Not on the 40-man, which makes it a bit tougher. I always enjoy seeing guys like him who have played well enough to earn a chance get a few big league at bats, even though it typically doesn't work out long term.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 28, 2024 11:20:34 GMT -5
If they get an extension done before opening pitch, so they can add it to the 2024 CBT, it would make me feel far more positive about the offseason.
Crawford seems like the easiest call. Has proven he's a solid big league pitcher and will be 33 for his first free agent season, so he may be motivated to take the money now. Perhaps 54mil/6years with a team option gets it done (the super 2 status skews the numbers a bit).
Problem with Rafaela is that players with defense-first profiles don't do well in arbitration. Unless the Red Sox are convinced his offense will come around, I don't see a way to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2024 11:09:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 20, 2024 10:37:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 19:08:59 GMT -5
Did Cora change his mind? Rafaela being the starting CFer but also getting a few reps in the middle infield to stay fresh at those positions is not inconsistent. They were set to have a meeting regarding Ceddanne's future this weekend, my assumption is that they had it early on Friday, in which case this shows a change of plans by Cora as a result. It's possible I'm wrong and they haven't had the meeting yet, in which case it would be very odd for Cora to announce a change (he had played exclusively CF during the spring) right before a meeting regarding his future. So I'm making the assumption that the meeting occurred and this was part of the decision they made. You're making the assumption that the 2B/SS time is simply to 'stay fresh' at those positions. My assumptions are based off the posts/articles by Brown over the past two days, have you read/heard anything that adds to this?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 17:00:03 GMT -5
To break up the Rafaela service time talk and since I didn't see it posted yet. Cora said Rafaela would play some 2nd and SS next week. I don't think it'd be in his best interest to break camp as a utility guy since he needs everyday ABs but it's at least possible. And just like that Cora changes his mind - likely due to the organizational meeting previously mentioned by Ian Brown. This opens up more space for Refsnyder (assuming Rafaela makes the roster) as having 6 OF-only (aside from Refsnyder at 1B) guys didn't make sense from a long-term roster construction standpoint. It also may mean that Vaughn Grissom will be out past opening day.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 15:36:01 GMT -5
Cora has been pretty clear that if Rafaela makes the team then he's the starting CFer. So it would likely cut into the playing time of the Abreu/Duran/O'Neil trio.
Even if the Red Sox leave Rafaela down for 51 days, he would acquire super-2 status unless kept down for an additionally 38-57 days (top 22% of service time recipients; varies based on season). There's still good value, but 4th year arb players don't typically provide huge discounts off of free agent rates.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 11:28:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 10:58:19 GMT -5
The power has really picked up for Rafaela with 2 doubles and 3 homers in his last 8 games (23 PA).
On the flip side, after compiling a very exciting 7 walks in his first 5 games (18 PA) he hasn't drawn a walk in his last 9 games (25 PA) while striking out 7 times (28%).
He also hasn't stolen a base in his past 9 games, but that's due to never reaching 1st (0 singles).
I would prefer the walks over the power, but at least the power isn't taken time to develop as it did last year.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 10:41:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 13:58:28 GMT -5
I agree on some level, but if they're trying to go for it now because of looming rebuild, why trade away Soto in the first place? I'm sure the answer is "they had to because of money" and my reply would be right back to "then why sign so many braindead way-too-big money contracts over the past couple of years"? They paid way more than they needed to for guys that it made no sense for them to sign in the first place, especially given their apparent payroll constraints, and now they can't even properly boom before they bust. At this point I think they're in serious trouble whether they go for it or they rebuild. But if they're going to go for it, one step forward two steps back is not the way to do it. If this is the best they've got, they should be rebuilding. With new ownership coming in and a rebuild somewhere down the line, it's likely Preller sees the writing on the wall. Putting the best team possible on the field within the payroll constraints, and hoping the ball bounces his way to a world series victory, is probably his best chance at retaining his job for the long term.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 11:34:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 11:26:09 GMT -5
I'm not a Preller fan, but the Padres had an owner near the end of his life who was willing to spend whatever it took to field a winning club. Many of the moves made over the past few years look foolish in hindsight, but the calculus has changed.
Solid move by the Padres here assuming the goal is to remain competitive.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 15:22:14 GMT -5
Per Ian Brown, Refsnyder out with broken toe.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 15:16:49 GMT -5
For those with more a medical/science bent, are we going to be seeing the bracing procedure become the more likely option for elbow surgeries going forward? I.e - if your elbow is only kinda screwed up you get brace, and if it’s REALLY screwed up you get TJ? My limited understanding is it’s in reference to the extent of the UCL tear, but this is also still a newish procedure? My understanding from before the bracing procedure was an option was that partial tears were often worse (e.g. more complicated for TJ surgery) than full tears as the full tear was a more simple ligament replacement procedure. The bracing procedure seems to be used (at least primarily) for partial tears. So you're likely looking at TJ for full tears and bracing for partial tears going forward, so the surgery is dependent on the type of injury, which is also why they don't disclose the surgery until after the procedure, as the doctors don't know which procedure they will perform until they open up the arm. PRP injections have had some success as well, but more often than not lead to surgery anyway. It will be interesting to see if that science progresses, cutting into the number of bracing procedures.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 11:26:08 GMT -5
Canada+Ontario income taxes for MLB players: 33%+13.16%=46.16%
US+California income taxes for MLB players: 37%+13.3%=50.3%
That said, there are more exemptions for wealthy Americans than wealthy Canadians in regards to income taxes and sales tax in Ontario is 13%, much higher than the highest California MLB city tax of 9.5% (LA).
After accounting for sales tax and exemptions it may be cheaper to play for the Dodgers than Blue Jays, but it's close enough that taxes shouldn't be a major factor between the two (unless your Canadian income comes from capital gains; which are taxed up to 50% of total tax).
On inflation rates (Feb 2024): US 3.2%, Phillipines 3.4%, Canada 2.86%. These are non-factors.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 12, 2024 13:21:50 GMT -5
I can understand if some aren't fans of Cease due to his command/control profile and fluctuating ERA, but he's been among the top pitchers in baseball over the past 3 years:
2021-2023: - fWAR (8th) 12.6 - ERA (36th) 3.54 - FIP (22nd) 3.40 - xFIP (36th) 3.76 - IP (15th) 526.2 - wOBA (23rd) .263 - xwOBA (10th) .257
The above is all despite a 3.84 BB/9, which was 98th among 104 qualified pitchers. If you include his age (28), his contract (8mil with 1 year of arb left), his fastball velocity (96.5; 8th best) and his ability to induce bad swings/swords (55 in 2023; 1st) and you have a guy with the upside of being the best pitcher in baseball if he can rein in his control - which seems to be commensurate with the reported trade requests from the White Sox (which is a bit crazy).
In terms of his disappointing ERA - the White Sox rank 26th in OAA, 27th in UZR and 30th in DRS over this timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 9, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5
I'm with you on this. Though they only have $23 million left under the LTT and I don't know if that's enough, assuming that's a hard limit for them this year. I also still don't think it makes sense for Montgomery to do a Chaplinger type contract; it's very unlikely he'd have more value a year from now with a QO attached. He should have just gotten the biggest contract available this offseason. But it may be that the window for getting that contract has already closed.
I agree with you that Montgomery should take the long term deal, but if the CBT (assume that's what you mean by LTT) is the issue, the Red Sox could simply push the Bello contract into the following year without the 2024 salary to free up space (assuming it isn't finalized with the league yet). Also, the number you're using, presumably from Red Sox Payroll, is about 5mil high due to the 40-man/bonuses he has plugged in. Cots has them at 30mil under the CBT currently. That said, it was reported that last year their available opening day player budget was 8mil under the CBT to allow for in-season additions, it's possible they're working under the same restraints this year.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 8, 2024 22:40:48 GMT -5
Dane Dunning isn't an ideal comp, since he hasn't been as good as Bello ever. He has had three full seasons with xERAs between 4.48 and 4.76. He hit 2.1 fWAR last year for the first time (which should result in less arb money than a guy who put up 2 WAR all three pre-arb years) purely through volume (172.2 IP). His ERA was solid (3.70), his FIP was mediocre (4.27), both his ERA and FIP outperformed his xFIP, SIERA, and xERA, so fWAR and bWAR are both going to inflate how good he actually was. With that said, you've convinced me that Bello would have to be more like a 3-WAR guy for this to save the Sox much money. However, 1) He only really needs to get to that level by the years that are being bought out, since the real advantage of this deal is getting two extra years of control over a guy who probably would sign for much longer than two years in free agency, and 2) even if they don't quite break even on dollar value, the team still gets some benefit from evening out his AAVs, including from adding that extra ~$8.2 million to the tax calculation this year when they have plenty of space under the CBT.
Dane Dunning isn't a comp for Bello, as I think we would all be disappointed if Bello didn't exceed his performance/projections and he's 1.5 years younger with a better pedigree. Dunning is the best comp I could find for what a 2-WAR pitcher looks like in terms of earning power in an arbitration year to create a 4/8/12 inflated salary projection. Whether WAR should be used to evaluate pitchers is a valid conversation, but it's not relevant to this string posts regarding whether he would out perform his contract if he's only a 2-WAR player. If Bello is a 2-WAR pitcher in years 1-5, then turns into a 3-WAR pitcher for years 6-7, he should exceed his pay, if he were to stay healthy throughout. If we are conservative with health risk and assume one missed season among six healthy seasons (which would be pretty lucky), then I think we've reached the break even point.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 8, 2024 21:07:25 GMT -5
How do you reach this conclusion? If he were to hit free agency as a consistent 2-WAR pitcher in 2029, I think he would definitely do better than 2/29. And you think he'd only be looking at HALF of that?
For comparison: Lugo just got 3/45 based on one good season as a starter at age 33. Hicks, who hasn't even been a starter, got 4/44. Wacha, with a 1.5 WAR projection, got 2/32. Maeda is 36 and has totaled 210 IP and 3 WAR over the last two seasons and he got 2/32. Take those as a conservative baseline and add in 5 years of inflation. And then also factor in the benefit to the Red Sox of adding some payroll stability to their long-term planning. ADD: Actually I don't know why I overcomplicated this. If you're saying this extension is basically paying him $29 million for his two free agent years, and we're stipulating he'd perform at 2 x 2 = 4 WAR over those two years, then of course $29 million for 4 WAR is a good deal.
I think I see the issue - you're one year off (add: as Scotty caught above). the 29mil would be for ONE year, not two, and my estimates are on the high-end and assuming greater payroll inflation than we are currently seeing. The second free agent year would be an additional 21mil, or 50mil total. You can certainly argue that a 2-war Bello gets closer to 18mil/1 or 36mil/2, but that's the high end, and still well short of what the Red Sox are paying - not accounting for any additional risk. I was already accounting for inflation, which is why I estimated 26mil through arb for the first 5 years. If they had bought out 2 free agent years (before the option), then I would certainly agree with you, but the 1 less free agent year is huge in the calculation. The payroll number may be a benefit 4-6 years from now for the CBT, but given the health risk pitchers face, price stability can backfire real quick. ADD: I'm not complaining about the deal. It's only high if he's a 2-WAR guy going forward. If he becomes a 3-WAR guy then it's a good deal.
|
|
|