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 philsbosoxfan on Jan 28, 2016 1:45:18 GMT -5
People usually assume that the point of Pedroia's contract is that he should be the starting 2B right through the end. But look at these facts about that extension: His age: going into his age 30 season His average value at ages 28 and 29: $33M a year The total value of the contract: $110M If the news of the $110M figure had broken first, there would have been a debate here as to whether it was 5 x $22M, or 4 x $27.5M. Most folks would argue for the former, I think, knowing he'd take a hometown discount, but that it was actually a 6 or 7 year deal would seem very questionable. 8 years? Crazy. Except it's not. I think it's Pedroia and his agent taking a 5/$110 deal and him saying, I want to play three more years if I can, essentially for free. If there's room on the roster for him, everybody wins, even if he's just a backup 2B and occasional fill-in elsewhere. Remember that his clubhouse presence is so huge. (And I think MLB rosters are likely to expand by then, in fact.) The upshot of this is that I think the Sox projected Pedroia as the starting 2B only through about 2018. I think there's a scenario where Moncada plays 3B for a couple of years and then moves back to 2B, with Devers taking over at 3B. Or where he plays OF for a couple of years. The general point is that there may be an opportunity at 2B for Moncada by the time he's, say, 24. Or Betts with Moncada staying at 3rd. A dream infield for the ages, Moncada 3B, Xander SS, Mookie 2B, Devers 1B. 2019, Book it. Pedroia DH & utilty, can still play everyday. |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 28, 2016 21:17:17 GMT -5
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202 
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 28, 2016 21:55:58 GMT -5
People usually assume that the point of Pedroia's contract is that he should be the starting 2B right through the end. But look at these facts about that extension: His age: going into his age 30 season His average value at ages 28 and 29: $33M a year The total value of the contract: $110M If the news of the $110M figure had broken first, there would have been a debate here as to whether it was 5 x $22M, or 4 x $27.5M. Most folks would argue for the former, I think, knowing he'd take a hometown discount, but that it was actually a 6 or 7 year deal would seem very questionable. 8 years? Crazy. Except it's not. I think it's Pedroia and his agent taking a 5/$110 deal and him saying, I want to play three more years if I can, essentially for free. If there's room on the roster for him, everybody wins, even if he's just a backup 2B and occasional fill-in elsewhere. Remember that his clubhouse presence is so huge. (And I think MLB rosters are likely to expand by then, in fact.) The upshot of this is that I think the Sox projected Pedroia as the starting 2B only through about 2018. I think there's a scenario where Moncada plays 3B for a couple of years and then moves back to 2B, with Devers taking over at 3B. Or where he plays OF for a couple of years. The general point is that there may be an opportunity at 2B for Moncada by the time he's, say, 24. Yeah, Pedroia seems like the kind of mellow, easy-going guy who who will calmly accept a diminished role after he turns 32. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 28, 2016 23:18:12 GMT -5
People usually assume that the point of Pedroia's contract is that he should be the starting 2B right through the end. But look at these facts about that extension: His age: going into his age 30 season His average value at ages 28 and 29: $33M a year The total value of the contract: $110M If the news of the $110M figure had broken first, there would have been a debate here as to whether it was 5 x $22M, or 4 x $27.5M. Most folks would argue for the former, I think, knowing he'd take a hometown discount, but that it was actually a 6 or 7 year deal would seem very questionable. 8 years? Crazy. Except it's not. I think it's Pedroia and his agent taking a 5/$110 deal and him saying, I want to play three more years if I can, essentially for free. If there's room on the roster for him, everybody wins, even if he's just a backup 2B and occasional fill-in elsewhere. Remember that his clubhouse presence is so huge. (And I think MLB rosters are likely to expand by then, in fact.) The upshot of this is that I think the Sox projected Pedroia as the starting 2B only through about 2018. I think there's a scenario where Moncada plays 3B for a couple of years and then moves back to 2B, with Devers taking over at 3B. Or where he plays OF for a couple of years. The general point is that there may be an opportunity at 2B for Moncada by the time he's, say, 24.Yeah, Pedroia seems like the kind of mellow, easy-going guy who who will calmly accept a diminished role after he turns 32. What are you talking about? Pedroia turned 32 last August. He's going into his "age 32 season" right now. My argument is that the only way to make sense of Pedroia's contract is if he would rather have a highly probable diminished role at ages 35 to 37 then a high likelihood of no role at all (especially at 36 and 37). So they took five years of money and spread it out over an extra three. Pedroia will be an old 35 when Moncada is a young 24 (May birthday). Yeah, Pedroia seems like the kind of selfish, personal-stats oriented player who would prefer that the team start him at age 35 (and a bit of 36) over Yoan Moncada at (a bit of 23) and 24, even if it costs the team wins. Yes, a lot of Pedroia's success is due to his unshatterable self-confidence, but it's not delusional. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 28, 2016 23:40:51 GMT -5
Good stuff. NY badly misread Hastings.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 28, 2016 23:48:09 GMT -5
"The story might have started with the most unique of pursuits last winter, but has morphed into something just as challenging for the guy who's previous primary stresses revolved around tax season."
Good lord. Bradford is a fine reporter but his writing is abominable.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jan 29, 2016 0:44:06 GMT -5
Ah yes, I can imagine the shock of foreign nationals to this great country's absurd tax policies. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2016 7:27:45 GMT -5
Maybe it's time to start talking extension with Moncada. I kid...
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 29, 2016 7:49:00 GMT -5
Yeah, Pedroia seems like the kind of mellow, easy-going guy who who will calmly accept a diminished role after he turns 32. What are you talking about? Pedroia turned 32 last August. He's going into his "age 32 season" right now. [...] Right, I was confused by your backwards glance at his signing "going into his age 30 season" Same comment applies in his mid-thirties, |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 29, 2016 7:55:17 GMT -5
...Ah yes, I can imagine the shock of foreign nationals to this great country's absurd tax policies. You don't want to go there unless you're willing to talk about the other great countries where everyone gets health care, as one example. By wife won $7,000 at a casino and we gladly gave $2,000 of that back so that we could drive home on well-paved freeways, with the snow plowed and those roads sanded, to a place where we have a well maintained public water system and good schools. The only thing that's absurd about it is the failure of a large number of wealthy corporations to pay much at all to the place that made them rich. The effective tax rate for many of those companies is paltry. They're the ones who make sure that the parts of the tax code that favor them stay absurd. Like I said, you may not want to go there. I'm glad Hastings and his wife have taken this on. Miami would be a powerful sink for all the cash coming his way. We don't have to look any further than Puig to figure out what that might mean for his social skills, either. |
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 30, 2016 7:00:36 GMT -5
People usually assume that the point of Pedroia's contract is that he should be the starting 2B right through the end. But look at these facts about that extension: His age: going into his age 30 season His average value at ages 28 and 29: $33M a year The total value of the contract: $110M If the news of the $110M figure had broken first, there would have been a debate here as to whether it was 5 x $22M, or 4 x $27.5M. Most folks would argue for the former, I think, knowing he'd take a hometown discount, but that it was actually a 6 or 7 year deal would seem very questionable. 8 years? Crazy. Except it's not. I think it's Pedroia and his agent taking a 5/$110 deal and him saying, I want to play three more years if I can, essentially for free. If there's room on the roster for him, everybody wins, even if he's just a backup 2B and occasional fill-in elsewhere. Remember that his clubhouse presence is so huge. (And I think MLB rosters are likely to expand by then, in fact.) The upshot of this is that I think the Sox projected Pedroia as the starting 2B only through about 2018. I think there's a scenario where Moncada plays 3B for a couple of years and then moves back to 2B, with Devers taking over at 3B. Or where he plays OF for a couple of years. The general point is that there may be an opportunity at 2B for Moncada by the time he's, say, 24.
Not sure where the disagreement is coming from, to be quite honest, unless disingenuousness, as your points are very clear and quite frankly, piece together nicely the cost side and timing....
With regard to potential conflict as might be alleged about the length of Pedrioa contract and how that might theoretically block a prospect.....not sure I understand that....
Look, is Pedroia perfect and cheap? Hey no? But might be (we don't know answer)....
Is whats his name perfect and cheap?
Ohhh yeah Moncada, silly me, that's his name...is he perfect at 2d and cheap?
So we have paid USD63mil up front (?) for someone who might or might not happen at 2d base (hope he does), but with a bit of jiiggling, happens at 3rd base (yes or no, I don't know, but hope so), with a bit more work, if conflict with Devers, who might or might not make the transition from 3rd to 1b, or wherever intelligent people feel to put him (hope so)...
And there is a problem/conflict accommodating a possible perennial Gold Glove hard working guy and possible silver slugger at 2d base with highly paid and possibly snotty guy possibly complaining about paying US taxes, possibly with language and possibly a myriad of other issues, who knows what happens to 20 year olds?
The only point which I might feel differently about your comments, sir, is that I feel both Sox and Dustin have some language to explain the Sox quality of contract.....
Think ahead, sir......
Pedroia does not sign that seemingly favourable (as bad as protractors hammering you) contract unless he is the guy......
No 2018 in that contract language....
Just a thought......
Apologies, just stating my thoughts....please nobody feel offended thanks...
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 30, 2016 11:55:06 GMT -5
I hate to bring up the international draft but it looks like that is one of the huge things Rob Manfred is pushing for in the new collective agreement this December. I'm not sure if the NL dh rule will be implemented by then, but the international draft will definitely come I think.
If that's the case then the Sox played the Moncada situation even more beautifully. Their international amateur signing penalties will only last a year and half (July 2015-December 2016). Not only that but the Sox used their last opportunity to use their big market resources to their advantage one last time before the new international rules kick in. Moncada is potentially the last premium prospect to potentially to be bought in any ameteur market (unless a new name comes out this July or something).
The only other way a big market team can use their financial muscle after this next bargaining agreement is in international free agency, the international posting system, and free agency.
Well played Red Sox. Ben this one of the things you can say you did right while teaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 30, 2016 13:24:16 GMT -5
If a draft is instituted then the teams that are on probation will just have a pick or multiple picks taken away from them. MLB is not just gonna forget that the Red Sox and Yankees penalties are supposed to run through 2017.
Still worth it, so it was a smart move, as you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 30, 2016 13:53:09 GMT -5
If a draft is instituted then the teams that are on probation will just have a pick or multiple picks taken away from them. MLB is not just gonna forget that the Red Sox and Yankees penalties are supposed to run through 2017. Still worth it, so it was a smart move, as you say. What the hel.l? Really? I didn't know that. It better not be a pick in the first three rounds because the Sox or Yankees played by the rules in the wrong year. That would seem unfair to just take picks away for that reason. Anything higher than a 5th round pick is plain stupid. That's the worst case scenario if it played out that way. Is this deflategate but even worse? The Sox actually played by the rules and they lose a pick? At least there was suspicion that the Patriots took the air out of footballs in deflategate. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 30, 2016 14:50:21 GMT -5
If a draft is instituted then the teams that are on probation will just have a pick or multiple picks taken away from them. MLB is not just gonna forget that the Red Sox and Yankees penalties are supposed to run through 2017. Still worth it, so it was a smart move, as you say. What the hel.l? Really? I didn't know that. It better not be a pick in the first three rounds because the Sox or Yankees played by the rules in the wrong year. That would seem unfair to just take picks away for that reason. Anything higher than a 5th round pick is plain stupid. That's the worst case scenario if it played out that way. Is this deflategate but even worse? The Sox actually played by the rules and they lose a pick? At least there was suspicion that the Patriots took the air out of footballs in deflategate. It was spelled out in the rules when the Red Sox and other teams went over the limit that it would cost them the first round pick should an international draft be established. No one is being bamboozled. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 30, 2016 16:18:17 GMT -5
What the hel.l? Really? I didn't know that. It better not be a pick in the first three rounds because the Sox or Yankees played by the rules in the wrong year. That would seem unfair to just take picks away for that reason. Anything higher than a 5th round pick is plain stupid. That's the worst case scenario if it played out that way. Is this deflategate but even worse? The Sox actually played by the rules and they lose a pick? At least there was suspicion that the Patriots took the air out of footballs in deflategate. It was spelled out in the rules when the Red Sox and other teams went over the limit that it would cost them the first round pick should an international draft be established. No one is being bamboozled. So going after a free agent next year makes even more sense for the Sox next off-season. Minus well go for a free agent if the first round pick is gone, which makes going after a player like Jose Bautista even more plausible. I wasn't aware of that footnote of the draft pick loss and the international draft, still trading a 20+ pick between Moncada and Espinoza (and whoever else they got in that full calender year of going over the penalty) was well worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jan 30, 2016 18:12:19 GMT -5
I actually didn't even know it was already in the rules, I was just making an assumption. But yeah, there ya go.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,202
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 30, 2016 19:56:24 GMT -5
It was spelled out in the rules when the Red Sox and other teams went over the limit that it would cost them the first round pick should an international draft be established. No one is being bamboozled. So going after a free agent next year makes even more sense for the Sox next off-season. Minus well go for a free agent if the first round pick is gone, which makes going after a player like Jose Bautista even more plausible. I wasn't aware of that footnote of the draft pick loss and the international draft, still trading a 20+ pick between Moncada and Espinoza (and whoever else they got in that full calender year of going over the penalty) was well worth it. Are you maybe conflating the traditional draft (in which you lose your first pick when you sign a top free agent) and this possible international draft (in which it looks like we would lose a first round pick)? |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 31, 2016 5:10:52 GMT -5
So going after a free agent next year makes even more sense for the Sox next off-season. Minus well go for a free agent if the first round pick is gone, which makes going after a player like Jose Bautista even more plausible. I wasn't aware of that footnote of the draft pick loss and the international draft, still trading a 20+ pick between Moncada and Espinoza (and whoever else they got in that full calender year of going over the penalty) was well worth it. Are you maybe conflating the traditional draft (in which you lose your first pick when you sign a top free agent) and this possible international draft (in which it looks like we would lose a first round pick)? Well even if I'm mixing the two together, does it really matter? If the Sox are going to lose their first round pick this December per the new rules, they minus well binge a little. I doubt they would of had a protected first round pick this year anyways. The Sox look like they could have a 20+ pick this year. They really improved from last year. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 31, 2016 5:12:22 GMT -5
I actually didn't even know it was already in the rules, I was just making an assumption. But yeah, there ya go. Yeah kudos to you and the guy who actually knew the new rules in place. I wouldn't of probably found that out until after the new labor agreement was in place. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 31, 2016 8:47:58 GMT -5
Are you maybe conflating the traditional draft (in which you lose your first pick when you sign a top free agent) and this possible international draft (in which it looks like we would lose a first round pick)? Well even if I'm mixing the two together, does it really matter? If the Sox are going to lose their first round pick this December per the new rules, they minus well binge a little. I doubt they would of had a protected first round pick this year anyways. The Sox look like they could have a 20+ pick this year. They really improved from last year. I'm not so sure why you're so eager to punt the Sox' first pick of the draft in the first round and what the Sox' signing of Moncada and being unable to sign an international player for over X amount of dollars for another year or so has to do with it. The only players that are on the market that you'd really want to punt a draft pick for become free agents after the 2018 season ends and there's alot of them, and who knows what the compensation system is at that point? |
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 31, 2016 9:28:28 GMT -5
Well even if I'm mixing the two together, does it really matter? If the Sox are going to lose their first round pick this December per the new rules, they minus well binge a little. I doubt they would of had a protected first round pick this year anyways. The Sox look like they could have a 20+ pick this year. They really improved from last year. I'm not so sure why you're so eager to punt the Sox' first pick of the draft in the first round and what the Sox' signing of Moncada and being unable to sign an international player for over X amount of dollars for another year or so has to do with it. The only players that are on the market that you'd really want to punt a draft pick for become free agents after the 2018 season ends and there's alot of them, and who knows what the compensation system is at that point? Read the last 5 posts above, the Sox would be losing the first round pick either way. The Sox would be "punting" the second round pick if the new international draft rules come to fruition by next December. The Sox have no one to offer arbitration next off-season. It makes sense to go after a free agent next off-season. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 31, 2016 9:40:45 GMT -5
I'm not so sure why you're so eager to punt the Sox' first pick of the draft in the first round and what the Sox' signing of Moncada and being unable to sign an international player for over X amount of dollars for another year or so has to do with it. The only players that are on the market that you'd really want to punt a draft pick for become free agents after the 2018 season ends and there's alot of them, and who knows what the compensation system is at that point? Read the last 5 posts above, the Sox would be losing the first round pick either way. The Sox would be "punting" the second round pick if the new international draft rules come to fruition by next December. The Sox have no one to offer arbitration next off-season. It makes sense to go after a free agent next off-season. Do you realize the international draft will be a separate draft from the regular draft? And the fact that they would have already lost their first in the international draft has nothing to do with whether they should sign a free agent and give up their first in the regular draft? |
|
|
|
Post by loomerloney on Jan 31, 2016 10:03:11 GMT -5
Do you realize the international draft will be a separate draft from the regular draft? Is this guaranteed in the end? If there are concerns over teams tanking (which is of course debatable), separate international and domestic drafts just further increases that incentive. For instance, this past season Arizona would have gotten both Dansby Swanson and Yoan Moncada in such a system. A combined draft seems a more reasonable way to distribute talent. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jan 31, 2016 10:33:26 GMT -5
Do you realize the international draft will be a separate draft from the regular draft? Is this guaranteed in the end? If there are concerns over teams tanking (which is of course debatable), separate international and domestic drafts just further increases that incentive. For instance, this past season Arizona would have gotten both Dansby Swanson and Yoan Moncada in such a system. A combined draft seems a more reasonable way to distribute talent. As far as I've heard it will be two separate drafts. It would be a huge surprise if that didn't end up being the case. And much of that incentive you are referring to already exists with the IFA spending limits, though that has admittedly been reduced with teams being so willing to exceed the limits the last few years. Also, Moncada is a huge exception. Guys with his age and ability almost never come along. |
|
|
