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.
2016-2017 Red Sox Offseason (Non-Manager) Discussion
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 1, 2016 2:50:49 GMT -5
They're both old enough to suffer complete collapse at any point so that's one way you could go wrong with them. Beltran at 40 is especially scary... True, but that's the benefit of a 1+1 (PA-vesting option) on Holliday. As long as they keep Shaw, they have their bases covered. At worst, then, it only $10-15M or so (and less if they could unload him for a small return at the deadline). I still contend that they don't "need" offense, because it's a reasonable bet that their pitching is substantially better, and that Benintendi adds a fair amount of offense/defense over last year's LF production. Exactly. Getting a guy to DH is more like a luxury depth move. All the DH type players that are free agents are old sluggers. So give my the guys that don't cost a draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 1, 2016 3:00:12 GMT -5
I'm sick of hearing about "appealing" 35+ year old ballplayers myself. JD Martinez is getting traded this off-season. He's clearly the best target if he doesn't cost the Sox a top 5 prospect (top 100 prospects). He's in his prime and would probably be open to playing first base since he can't run around in the outfield anymore. If not, then he's the full-time Dh and part time LF in Fenway. He shouldn't cost THAT much in terms of trade because he's a one year rental. The first thing I'm doing if I'm Dombrowski is that I'm calling up my old team in the Tigers avnd seeing what the cost for Martinez is. Dombrowski loves bringing in players he's familiar with (Price, Holaday), he should be able to think of this and go for this. You've made your desire for Martinez clear. But it's not happening without including one of the players you don't want to trade. Look at the deal for Beltran, for a half-season. It might cost marginally less in the offseason, but they're not getting a 50% discount. Repeating a non-feasible option does not make it feasible. Yes, Martinez would be great, but not at what the cost is likely to be. They're better off just using $ to plug what really isn't a critical hole to begin with. While the Yankees did get a good enough prospect, they didn't get a clear cut top 100 prospect either. They got a top 10 draft pick, but that doesn't really mean much if that same prospect really struggled out of the gate and his value dropped. What are we talking here? A Owens, Basabe, Elias, and something else kind of a deal? That isn't much considering Basabe is up for the rule 5 draft next off-season, Owens is a former top 50 prospect, and Elias is a roster bubble guy. I mean that's more value than the Beltran deal and it still doesn't really hurt the Sox that much. The Sox could sign minor league starting pitchers to fill the void and lose a top 10 prospect. Edit- This will be the last time I wish for Martinez and bring it up since I probably made it pretty clear. Just tell me what the actual "bad value" is, all I want to know is the price before someone tells me it's a overpay. You could get a draft pick for offering Martinez the QO the year after too. Martinez is only making 11 million next year. You could use this type of contract and maybe use the money spent for a old DH and use it to overpay for a "need" like Holland instead.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 1, 2016 3:03:11 GMT -5
Beltran is still to be rumored to be seeking a 2 year deal, Napoli is said to be seeking 3 years. Holliday is the only guy you can make a case for that might be looking for a one year "pillow" type of contract.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2016 8:42:08 GMT -5
I don't really understand why Holliday would be interested in a pillow contract. Even with a very good year he's not in an Adrian Beltre situation where he can parlay it into a long-term deal. He'll be 38 heading into 2018, and his best-case scenario would be a three year track record of hurt, mediocre, good. He's almost certainly going to be looking to maximize his earnings in this contract, rather than trying to find a situation to boost his value for the next one. That said, I have no idea what the market would be for him. The upside there in 2017 is at least a 130 wRC+, so he's worth kicking the tires on. If someone gives him a three-year deal then I'm staying away. If it's something like one and a vesting option? Yeah, I'm interested in that. The luxury tax threshold did not go up for 2017 as much as I anticipated either, so that's going to play some into the offseason strategy. I mean, he did fall off the rails entirely down the stretch, but he was hitting .266/.351/.530 as late as August 15. I think you're being a little harsh here, especially given that you could DH him a fairly significant amount and that it's not like you'd be breaking the bank (FG numbers have him at about 2/20). (EDIT: Wasn't clear from the way I quoted this, but it was talking about Napoli.)I'm probably being a tad harsh, but he's coming off two straight 1.0 bWAR seasons (FG is even more bearish, at 0.7, 1.0). I'll grant that 150 games last year was probably pushing him too hard and ideally you'd see him between 125-135 games. Still, even at $10M AAV you're paying for about a 1.3-1.5 WAR player and I just don't know that Napoli is that anymore. There are better options out there. I've been a big Napoli fan for a long time now but he's in a place where his reputation is too far ahead of his production. And, unlike Beltran or Holliday I don't see a ton of reward there to make the risk worthwhile. Again, both of those two have a real shot to put up a 125 wRC+. And if I can't get either of them or make a trade I start thinking of Chris Carter for 1/4 the money of Napoli.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2016 10:45:06 GMT -5
I'll be curious to see how much ownership decides to spend this offseason. In the past, they've happily spent up to or over the luxury tax limit. But with that limit increasing only slightly next year (to $195M) and the penalties for exceeding the limit becoming somewhat stiffer, how much will they be willing to spend this year? Based on Speier's numbers from this article (which I spot checked and seems reasonably accurate), for luxury tax purposes, the they're at approximately $159M from guaranteed contracts and arbitration projections. Add pre-arb players (approx. $10M) and the mandatory medical benefits pool contribution ($13.5M) and they're at approximately $182.5M already-- just $12.5M below next year's luxury tax threshold. If they want to keep any flexibility for extensions and in-season moves, they will pretty much have to cut salary in order to spend any real money (ADD: assuming they also don't want to pay luxury taxes, which may not be a fair assumption). In light of that, I'm increasingly of the opinion that they will explore the market for Buchholz this offseason. By the way, none of the above includes Castillo and Craig's salary (a combined $22M in 2017), which doesn't count against the luxury tax limit but nonetheless represents a considerable chunk of change.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 1, 2016 10:53:06 GMT -5
I'll be curious to see how much ownership decides to spend this offseason. In the past, they've happily spent up to or over the luxury tax limit. But with that limit increasing only slightly next year (to $195M) and the penalties for exceeding the limit becoming somewhat stiffer, how much will they be willing to spend this year? Based on Speier's numbers from this article (which I spot checked and seems reasonably accurate), for luxury tax purposes, the they're at approximately $159M from guaranteed contracts and arbitration projections. Add pre-arb players (approx. $10M) and the mandatory medical benefits pool contribution ($13.5M) and they're at approximately $182.5M already-- just $12.5M below next year's luxury tax threshold. If they want to keep any flexibility for extensions and in-season moves, they will pretty much have to cut salary in order to spend any real money. In light of that, I'm increasingly of the opinion that they will explore the market for Buchholz this offseason. By the way, none of the above includes Castillo and Craig's salary (a combined $22M in 2017), which doesn't count against the luxury tax limit but nonetheless represents a considerable chunk of change. I wonder if Sandoval doesn't cut it, they do the same thing to him that they did to Castillo and Craig and get him off the 40. Unless I'm missing something, they'd be able to as no one is going to pick up that contract
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2016 10:58:21 GMT -5
The Castillo and Craig trick only works with players with less than five years of service time. Players with 5+ years of service time like Sandoval can refuse to be outrighted, which means the Red Sox would have to release Sandoval and his full contract would count against the luxury tax threshold.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 1, 2016 11:03:20 GMT -5
The more I think about this, the more I think ownership is just going to spend over the tax threshold this year and in future years. So long as they go over by less than $40M, the penalties don't seem that bad. They would pay slightly higher tax rates than before, lose an additional 5th round pick and $500K in int'l money if they sign a QO free agent, and the draft pick they'd gain from losing a QO free agent would be in a lower round (after the fourth round, as opposed to after the first round), but none of that seems necessarily that onerous.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 1, 2016 11:31:45 GMT -5
The Castillo and Craig trick only works with players with less than five years of service time. Players with 5+ years of service time like Sandoval can refuse to be outrighted, which means the Red Sox would have to release Sandoval and his full contract would count against the luxury tax threshold. Got it. I thought there was some provision, but saw multiple people on twitter talking about it like it was an option, so I thought I was missing something
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 1, 2016 12:04:24 GMT -5
Andrew McCutchen is reportedly being "actively shopped." With the glut of outfielders on the Red Sox, he is not an obvious fit here. That is of course unless Bradley or Benintendi are sent to Pittsburgh. I really do not see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2016 12:29:16 GMT -5
In terms of need and ability to put a package together Washington, St. Louis, and Cleveland would be the obvious fits I think.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 1, 2016 13:05:05 GMT -5
In terms of need and ability to put a package together Washington, St. Louis, and Cleveland would be the obvious fits I think. Washington is supposedly in trade talks with Pittsburgh now.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 1, 2016 13:11:04 GMT -5
Yep. The hot rumor is that Robles would be the main piece, which is probably the first thing in 2016 that's made sense.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 2, 2016 3:46:54 GMT -5
Antonio Puesán @antoniopuesan 6h6 hours ago Three Lakes, FL "We all respect and admire Omar Vizquel, without him we're not going to participate on WBC" Eduardo Rodriguez LHP at @loscronistas
ADD: I moved the bulk of this post to the non-Sox thread but left the ERod quote here. General non ERod or Leon comments should go there, not here.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 2, 2016 16:10:24 GMT -5
i think based on the Cespedes deal that Bautista gets at least 4 years at $20M a year minimum, and maybe an option with buy-out for a 5th, but that's just me reading the market based on a small sample. Uhhhhh, Bautista? Or Encarnacion? I don't think either of them are worth anywhere close to Cespedes since I wouldn't want them playing the field much. I think the market is waiting for the CBA agreement. If they expand rosters, up the luxury tax and remove the loss of draft picks, then Encarnacion is going to get a lot more than anyone thought. There's no way in hell Bautista gets 4 years when it looks like he might be in severe decline at age 36. I don't expect huge bounce back seasons for 36 year olds. He might bounce back, but for 4 years? I wouldn't give him more than 1 year. Ugh I meant Encarnacion.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 2, 2016 16:11:26 GMT -5
i think based on the Cespedes deal that Bautista gets at least 4 years at $20M a year minimum, and maybe an option with buy-out for a 5th, but that's just me reading the market based on a small sample. ...wtf? Bautista is 36 and coming off a 1.4 WAR season. He's not remotely comparable to Cespedes, who's 5 years younger and just had 3.2 WAR. Meant Encarnacion. All those Blue Jays, they run together for me.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 2, 2016 16:18:25 GMT -5
And to that point:
@jonheyman 8m8 minutes ago Belief is now, Encarnacion is looking for 100M deal. Makes sense. Gotta be below cespedes (110).
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 2, 2016 20:02:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 2, 2016 20:25:14 GMT -5
Tyson Ross non-tendered a year removed from consecutive 3+ fWAR and 2+ bWAR seasons.
Missed almost all of 2016 with a shoulder injury, which could certainly mean he's "done" being a potential top end arm, but man, his stock fell quickly
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 2, 2016 20:31:13 GMT -5
I'll be curious to see how much ownership decides to spend this offseason. In the past, they've happily spent up to or over the luxury tax limit. But with that limit increasing only slightly next year (to $195M) and the penalties for exceeding the limit becoming somewhat stiffer, how much will they be willing to spend this year? I'm increasingly of the opinion that they will explore the market for Buchholz this offseason. I don't know why the Sox picked up Clay's option unless their intent was to trade him in a weak starting pitching market. Keeping a 6th starter at 13.5 million is complete non sense especially coming off a really mediocre year. They almost have to trade Buchholz if they want to stay under the Tax threshold imo.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 2, 2016 21:29:56 GMT -5
Sox tendered everyone except Bryan Holaday.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Dec 2, 2016 23:28:01 GMT -5
Wellington Castillo got on tendered. That's actually interesting.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 2, 2016 23:56:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 3, 2016 0:23:35 GMT -5
You've made your desire for Martinez clear. But it's not happening without including one of the players you don't want to trade. Look at the deal for Beltran, for a half-season. It might cost marginally less in the offseason, but they're not getting a 50% discount. Repeating a non-feasible option does not make it feasible. Yes, Martinez would be great, but not at what the cost is likely to be. They're better off just using $ to plug what really isn't a critical hole to begin with. While the Yankees did get a good enough prospect, they didn't get a clear cut top 100 prospect either. They got a top 10 draft pick, but that doesn't really mean much if that same prospect really struggled out of the gate and his value dropped. What are we talking here? A Owens, Basabe, Elias, and something else kind of a deal? That isn't much considering Basabe is up for the rule 5 draft next off-season, Owens is a former top 50 prospect, and Elias is a roster bubble guy. I mean that's more value than the Beltran deal and it still doesn't really hurt the Sox that much. The Sox could sign minor league starting pitchers to fill the void and lose a top 10 prospect. Edit- This will be the last time I wish for Martinez and bring it up since I probably made it pretty clear. Just tell me what the actual "bad value" is, all I want to know is the price before someone tells me it's a overpay. You could get a draft pick for offering Martinez the QO the year after too. Martinez is only making 11 million next year. You could use this type of contract and maybe use the money spent for a old DH and use it to overpay for a "need" like Holland instead. The draft pick comp is a good point, although I'm not sure what the comp is now (although I know the penalty). We probably agree here...Martinez would be a great addition, it all depends on who the Tigers want in return. Almost assuredly, he'd get a QO (he's a legitimate $18M/yr player); the comp would soften the blow on the trade a bit. I'm still not convinced Owens is a loss, and I like Basabe a lot. But I'd have to strongly consider that package. OTOH, I'm not sure that keeping both and signing Holliday is that much worse of an option, performance-wise. Holliday's dropping walk rate is concerning, and his LD rate has dropped as WCsoxfan noted, but as a RH in Fenway, fly balls at high velocity are a good thing. That's wall-ball doubles country. Ideally, they'd get a LH, but you're absolutely right that Martinez is one of the best RHH out there, he's cheap, and on an offseason deal he'll be less costly than mud-season, with the significant added benefit of the draft pick comp.. Itll be interesting to see how DD approaches the team this winter.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 3, 2016 11:53:15 GMT -5
|
|
|