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 pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 1:19:24 GMT -5
Well Mookie makes the league minimum and is under control for 4 more years. There's plenty of time for that. His point was that they need to think about extending him, among others. Ohh I know. Just my line of thinking is that they are going to be expensive extensions, so why not take advantage of the one cheap arbitration year and one last rookie minimum contract next year? Mookie's value isn't going to be any higher than what it is right now with him coming off a 30+ homerun season, so extending him to a Mike Trout contract at this moment seems a little early for me.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 1:23:14 GMT -5
Ohh and I would trade Clay for a AAA/major league starter with major league options available. He should be able to get a pitcher like this with his value. His spot in the bullpen takes up a roster spot and if you're worried about depth, well this kind of trade would solve it if Owens and Johnson don't progress next year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 14, 2016 2:27:58 GMT -5
Ohh and I would trade Clay for a AAA/major league starter with major league options available. He should be able to get a pitcher like this with his value. His spot in the bullpen takes up a roster spot and if you're worried about depth, well this kind of trade would solve it if Owens and Johnson don't progress next year. Depends on when you do that trade. If it's offseason/ST, then you risk Owens/Johnson not proving ready, a major league starter breaking down, and/or the new guy not being ready/adequate. That's why I advocate holding on the Clay. With Holt, they can carry twelve pitchers no problem. Clay also is reasonably effective as a 'pen option. Basically, I don't think you're going to replace Clay with a position player who has remotely his upside, or versatility, or mid-season trade value. We saw this year with Elias how risky the type of acquisition you're talking about can be, particularly if nobody else steps up. I say keep the depth until you're pretty sure you don't need it. I'm not convinced that Clay would bring back a reliable enough young pitcher at this point. Plus, the longer they hold Clay, the more tradeable he becomes (less salary obligation), unless he's truly atrocious again. And even then, he probably won't lose *much* value. But he could gain quite a bit of value. Or he could make a huge contribution.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 3:33:57 GMT -5
Ohh and I would trade Clay for a AAA/major league starter with major league options available. He should be able to get a pitcher like this with his value. His spot in the bullpen takes up a roster spot and if you're worried about depth, well this kind of trade would solve it if Owens and Johnson don't progress next year. Depends on when you do that trade. If it's offseason/ST, then you risk Owens/Johnson not proving ready, a major league starter breaking down, and/or the new guy not being ready/adequate. That's why I advocate holding on the Clay. With Holt, they can carry twelve pitchers no problem. Clay also is reasonably effective as a 'pen option. Basically, I don't think you're going to replace Clay with a position player who has remotely his upside, or versatility, or mid-season trade value. We saw this year with Elias how risky the type of acquisition you're talking about can be, particularly if nobody else steps up. I say keep the depth until you're pretty sure you don't need it. I'm not convinced that Clay would bring back a reliable enough young pitcher at this point. Plus, the longer they hold Clay, the more tradeable he becomes (less salary obligation), unless he's truly atrocious again. And even then, he probably won't lose *much* value. But he could gain quite a bit of value. Or he could make a huge contribution. I just think when talking about resources and seeing how people are taking issue with a EE contract, I don't see a EE contract as a problem. He's a proven impact slugger that would help the team immensely. The problem with the payroll is when the Sox start dishing out 13.5 million a year on a swingman like Clay Buchholz. 12 million a year on a fifth outfielder like a Rusney Castillo. Take on a finished player with a bad contract like a Allen Craig. That's what 30+ million you could of spent on actual impact player. Swingman relief pitchers who can fill in and start games shouldn't be making that much. The Vance Worley types of the world (who will make a lot less than Buchholz next year). It's just a bad waste of resources imo. If the Sox plan on picking up Buchholz' option, I hope they do so with the idea they are trading him in a terrible market for starting pitching. Remember, Buchholz doesn't exactly have a pitchers body and can break down at any moment. Too much risk with Buchholz as a swingman. Ohh and Elias was just really a throw in when the Sox acquired him. I hope the Sox find a starter that isn't already in his late 20's like a Elias if they do trade Buchholz. That would give the Sox some upside (although I expect it to be limited upside considering Buchholz' value right now).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2016 8:23:55 GMT -5
His point was that they need to think about extending him, among others. Ohh I know. Just my line of thinking is that they are going to be expensive extensions, so why not take advantage of the one cheap arbitration year and one last rookie minimum contract next year? Mookie's value isn't going to be any higher than what it is right now with him coming off a 30+ homerun season, so extending him to a Mike Trout contract at this moment seems a little early for me. The reason to do it now is to reduce the AAV of the contract. For each additional year of control you use up before signing, it will be significantly higher.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 9:17:38 GMT -5
Ohh I know. Just my line of thinking is that they are going to be expensive extensions, so why not take advantage of the one cheap arbitration year and one last rookie minimum contract next year? Mookie's value isn't going to be any higher than what it is right now with him coming off a 30+ homerun season, so extending him to a Mike Trout contract at this moment seems a little early for me. The reason to do it now is to reduce the AAV of the contract. For each additional year of control you use up before signing, it will be significantly higher. I mean either way you're paying..minus well get the cheap years out of the way and let the large contracts of Hanley and Sandoval get closer to their expiration dates before paying through the nose. Plus you don't want to extend and pay during peak years. I mean it's not out of the realm of possibility that Mookie could hit 30 homeruns again, but I wouldn't expect it too often. I would rather wait 2 years and then pay when it comes to Mookie.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Oct 14, 2016 10:41:05 GMT -5
I do not think the Red Sox will sign a bat that carries a QO. The draft looks stronger and deeper currently. With that in mind, I could see Beltran signing a 1 year contract with an option. He can bring offense from the left side along with Shaw and Panda until Devers and or Moncada are hopefully ready. I think it'll take 2 years for Devers to be ready.
Leon is our starting catcher.
We need to sign Ziggy at RP. We hopefully will also sign a top RP, or at least one of the average RP's available. Our mid-season RP trade deadline move will be getting Smith back.
I think health will determine the rest of our roster.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 14, 2016 13:45:48 GMT -5
The reason to do it now is to reduce the AAV of the contract. For each additional year of control you use up before signing, it will be significantly higher. I mean either way you're paying..minus well get the cheap years out of the way and let the large contracts of Hanley and Sandoval get closer to their expiration dates before paying through the nose. Plus you don't want to extend and pay during peak years. I mean it's not out of the realm of possibility that Mookie could hit 30 homeruns again, but I wouldn't expect it too often. I would rather wait 2 years and then pay when it comes to Mookie. Signing Betts to an extension that includes his years of team control wouldn't suddenly pay him a $20M AAV or something. consider, for example, the 6/$144.5M deal Mike Trout signed, which was structured as follows and covered his three arb seasons and the three seasons following: 2015: $5.25M 2016: $15.25M 2017: $19.25M 2018-20: $33.25M Yeah, his AAV the first few years is higher than what you're paying him, but it's still a bargain for the production you're getting, and on the back end, you've got a much smaller CBT hit than what you're paying him. So you lock him up past team control, create goodwill, can finagle the CBT numbers a bit... I don't see the point in waiting. Also, I really don't want to be that guy... But... "minus well?" Really? Please tell me that's autocorrect betraying you! 😁
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 14, 2016 13:52:48 GMT -5
I see jimed's point, though-- if you have extra luxury tax space this year, it may make sense to use some of it on a Betts/Bogaerts/etc. extension rather than overpaying for guys you don't need. MLB isn't like the NFL where you can carryover unused cap space.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 15:11:36 GMT -5
I mean either way you're paying..minus well get the cheap years out of the way and let the large contracts of Hanley and Sandoval get closer to their expiration dates before paying through the nose. Plus you don't want to extend and pay during peak years. I mean it's not out of the realm of possibility that Mookie could hit 30 homeruns again, but I wouldn't expect it too often. I would rather wait 2 years and then pay when it comes to Mookie. Signing Betts to an extension that includes his years of team control wouldn't suddenly pay him a $20M AAV or something. consider, for example, the 6/$144.5M deal Mike Trout signed, which was structured as follows and covered his three arb seasons and the three seasons following: 2015: $5.25M 2016: $15.25M 2017: $19.25M 2018-20: $33.25M Yeah, his AAV the first few years is higher than what you're paying him, but it's still a bargain for the production you're getting, and on the back end, you've got a much smaller CBT hit than what you're paying him. So you lock him up past team control, create goodwill, can finagle the CBT numbers a bit... I don't see the point in waiting. Also, I really don't want to be that guy... But... "minus well?" Really? Please tell me that's autocorrect betraying you! 😁 Hahaha yeah spell check is a pain. I don't see a huge rush to extend yet. Plus, we all don't know how Mookie and his agent feels about this. Maybe they do feel this is the right time to cash in after a career year. Or maybe they feel if they put a couple more years like the one he just had and try to go get more money later. I just felt the Sox missed their chance at extending Mookie when he looked like a guaranteed rising superstar a year or two ago. A year ago, the Sox could of offered a Yellich kind of extension. Now the Sox have to go to Mike Trout land extension area. The Sox already waited too late to extend him and look smart. Now they're going to pay either way, the only thing you're getting is years really. If Mookie loves Boston enough he will listen to offers two years from now. I don't think Mookie will be offended that the Sox want to see a track record the next two years and establish what kind of player is value wise before the Sox throw money around. There's one thing I can agree here with everyone is that the Sox need to keep Mookie as long as possible. I just don't mind seeing the Sox pay a little more later in order to save up and spend now in this 2-3 year window of winning the Sox have provided for themselves. Two years from now, yes throw the house at him and make sure he's the guy your building around payroll with but right now is a good time to save imo.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 14, 2016 15:20:28 GMT -5
Is it just me, or is the Boston Globe rubbing off on Alex Speier lately? I feel like arguing with a lot of his newsletters in the last few weeks. The point he made about Koji today was ridiculous- as if he would have little value over a 162 game season because of how Andrew Miller and Jansen have been used in a few playoff games.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 14, 2016 15:23:51 GMT -5
The Sox already put themselves in this predicament by making win now moves the past two years with Price and Kimbrel. Spending a little more now on a extra free agent that clearly makes you better is really in the best interests of winning right now.
I would of liked to think if Theo Epstein had stayed, he would of wanted to extend Mookie years ago like he did with Rizzo but unfortunately Theo left and is doing his thing in Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 14, 2016 20:37:26 GMT -5
Depends on when you do that trade. If it's offseason/ST, then you risk Owens/Johnson not proving ready, a major league starter breaking down, and/or the new guy not being ready/adequate. That's why I advocate holding on the Clay. With Holt, they can carry twelve pitchers no problem. Clay also is reasonably effective as a 'pen option. Basically, I don't think you're going to replace Clay with a position player who has remotely his upside, or versatility, or mid-season trade value. We saw this year with Elias how risky the type of acquisition you're talking about can be, particularly if nobody else steps up. I say keep the depth until you're pretty sure you don't need it. I'm not convinced that Clay would bring back a reliable enough young pitcher at this point. Plus, the longer they hold Clay, the more tradeable he becomes (less salary obligation), unless he's truly atrocious again. And even then, he probably won't lose *much* value. But he could gain quite a bit of value. Or he could make a huge contribution. I just think when talking about resources and seeing how people are taking issue with a EE contract, I don't see a EE contract as a problem. He's a proven impact slugger that would help the team immensely.
The problem with the payroll is when the Sox start dishing out 13.5 million a year on a swingman like Clay Buchholz. 12 million a year on a fifth outfielder like a Rusney Castillo. Take on a finished player with a bad contract like a Allen Craig. That's what 30+ million you could of spent on actual impact player. Swingman relief pitchers who can fill in and start games shouldn't be making that much. The Vance Worley types of the world (who will make a lot less than Buchholz next year). It's just a bad waste of resources imo. If the Sox plan on picking up Buchholz' option, I hope they do so with the idea they are trading him in a terrible market for starting pitching. Remember, Buchholz doesn't exactly have a pitchers body and can break down at any moment. Too much risk with Buchholz as a swingman. Ohh and Elias was just really a throw in when the Sox acquired him. I hope the Sox find a starter that isn't already in his late 20's like a Elias if they do trade Buchholz. That would give the Sox some upside (although I expect it to be limited upside considering Buchholz' value right now). I don’t want EE. I’m hopeful DD resists the temptation for some of the reason’s listed below. Its not one reason but it’s the compilation of them all. EE is old. When you’re old there is a better chance that you are on a decline. Why pay over $20m for a player on a decline when right off the bat we’ve already got 5 good hitters (and Bradley hits well vs righties)? More than likely the team is set for several years, why risk so much money on an aging player that can’t play much defense? We are so young too- why look to get an older player that is so expensive rather than being patient and find a younger player to grow with the team?
IMO the Red Sox have 4 holes in varying degrees. Either 1b or DH. Also 3b. Also catcher and I’m not a fan of Kimbrel. Kimbrel is not bad but I think he was a huge concern going into the playoffs. Why not try to improve at that position (or as may of the others along with this position or any combo- we can keep Kimbrel but try to get "more than juts 1 position.) then trade Kimbrel? We have imo 4 holes and if you pay so much money for one player, you can’t sufficiently fill the other holes. IMO the front five is star-driven (in terms of hitting) . As Theo said once “avoid the temptation of building a super team.” After the front 5 hitters (Beni probably is- JBJ isn’t.), none of the other projected starters can hit lefties well and we only have one bench guy that can- Young. So one major point in which I don’t like EE is that I believe a team is better off having more hitters throughout a lineup or improve the pitching so you don’t need so many sluggers. So if we get EE- after the 1st 6 hitters you don't have anybody that can hit lefties unless you sub Young for Bradley vs lefties. I'd prefer to keep Bradley in as much as possible though. So give me someone late that can lock down the game making Bradley's defense more valuable.
I want more players not just one guy. I want to get closer to the 4 upgrades I'd like to see. EE’s cost will be too much to get that.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 14, 2016 20:49:43 GMT -5
The Sox already put themselves in this predicament by making win now moves the past two years with Price and Kimbrel. Spending a little more now on a extra free agent that clearly makes you better is really in the best interests of winning right now.
I would of liked to think if Theo Epstein had stayed, he would of wanted to extend Mookie years ago like he did with Rizzo but unfortunately Theo left and is doing his thing in Chicago. I think they've already done a fine job of "winning now." More than likely they'll be favored to win the division again this upcoming season and have some very good farm players coming up. You don't need to try so hard to rush to get so old. We should still be a force next year and the playoffs are a crapshoot. We don't "need" this rush to get old. We have way too many talented young players that will sustain being a top tier team.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 14, 2016 22:50:45 GMT -5
It looks like the QO is here to stay for another year, at least according to MLB trade rumors. Sounds like the only tweak is that a player cannot be QO for two consecutive seasons meaning if you give up a draft pick for a free agent to sign a pillow contract and then you offer him the QO to try to pick up a draft pick to make up for signing the player in the first place you won't be able to make that QO.
With all that, it makes it very clear to me that the Sox shouldn't sign Edwin Encarnacion as I would hate to see the Sox part with a draft pick.
I'd prefer they sign Carlos Beltran for a year instead, although there's a possibility he could see a two year deal. If he can only get one, the Red Sox should throw the money at him.
At first I thought that Encarnacion would block Devers but really he would more likely block Sam Travis and I think Devers would only be blocked if Hanley plays for the Sox beyond 2018.
I've been looking at what the Sox lineup looks like for the rest of the decade and it's murky to start the 2017 season. Travis and Moncada are likely second half additions, particularly if Sandoval struggles again.
The outfield is set with the 3 Bs and assuming Bogaerts can remain viable at SS for the rest of the decade and that Pedroia is still Pedroia, that means that Hanley can DH in 2018, possibly 2019, while he stays at 1b for 2017 and Beltran would DH.
By the end of 2017, I can see Moncada at 3b and Sam Travis grabbing the 1b job in 2018.
I would think Devers would be ready by 2019 and could wind up at 1b or DH depending upon if Travis is a viable regular or Hanley triggers his option.
If the Sox do sign Encarnacion then I'd think Sam Travis doesn't have a future with the Red Sox. I would assume that Encarnacion would DH for thru 2020, Hanley would be the 1b thru 2018 with Devers taking over in 2019.
I, personally, would start with Leon as the catcher next year and Vazquez backing him up, but I'd be making sure that Swihart gets needed defensive experience behind the plate and hope that he'd be up by the second half to take the catching job and platoon with Leon behind the plate. Either that or platoon with Vazquez and deal Leon instead of Vazquez. Either way I think Swihart should be the starting catcher eventually.
The Red Sox could make it work with Encarnacion, but I'd prefer they don't spend the draft pick and not allocate the resources. Sam Travis won't be Encarnacion but I think in the future he can be a good player for the Sox and the Sox can save the money for pitching, particularly to replace Pomeranz in the rotation for the 2019 season.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 14, 2016 23:19:15 GMT -5
I hope these numbers will put an end to the argument that it might be a good idea to improve at 1B or DH, which is to say, upgrade Shaw (or Sandoval).
The question that needs to be asked is: how strong is MLB right now at each position? If you feel you're weak at a position, but most everyone else is, then an upgrade is both less important and will cost more. You are actually not as weak as it looks like you are, and teams that do have someone good will be that much more reluctant to part with what they have, and hence ask for more than the player is worth, while FAs will get unnaturally large contracts.
So, I sorted everyone in MLB by the position they played the most, and took the 30 players with the most PA at each (15 at DH). I calculated the average number of PA for these "regulars," and found the median WAR/650 PA, the average WAR prorated to 650 PA, and the standard deviation of WAR (weighted by PA, if you care). Catcher WAR includes pitch framing.
Pos PA Med Ave wSD 3B 573 3.3 3.7 2.0 2B 551 3.4 3.6 2.0 CF 512 2.8 3.0 2.6 SS 564 3.0 3.0 2.0 RF 536 2.2 2.5 1.9 C 413 2.2 2.4 3.1 1B 546 1.8 2.2 2.0 DH 508 1.4 2.1 2.1 LF 502 1.7 2.0 1.9 The three positions at the left end of the defensive spectrum are easily the weakest in baseball. A replacement-level LF or DH is just 1 standard deviation below average; a replacement-level 1B isn't much worse.
Folks who fear that Shaw will decline from his 2.7 bWAR/650 to the neighborhood of 2.0 as a 1B (if he plays there) ... well, that would make him average (right between the median and the mean).
We expect that Yoan Moncada will take over 3B at some point next season. At that point, we will be able to upgrade 1B from Shaw or Sandoval to whoever is best among Sandoval, Shaw, and Sam Travis. That guy is likely to be better than the position average. And that guy is just a one-year stopgap to Rafael Devers.
Do I have to say more? Many teams in baseball would kill to be looking at a choice among three solid options with upside at 1B ... as a stopgap to an absolutely elite prospect with a mid-2018 ETA. They would laugh hilariously at the thought of signing EE or trading for Freddie Freeman, given how many teams who actually have nothing at the position will be after those resources. The only reason those ideas sound good is because David Ortiz is retiring.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 14, 2016 23:44:16 GMT -5
I would think Devers would be ready by 2019 and could wind up at 1b or DH depending upon if Travis is a viable regular or Hanley triggers his option. Yoan Moncada hit .310 / .415 / .500 in Salem in 262 PA after the 2015 ASB, with a .212 K rate. He performed the next year as expected, and the consensus on his ETA is another half year. Rafael Devers hit .333 / .375 / .557 in 264 PA in Salem this year starting July 1, with a .186 K rate. That's pretty much just as promising. Note that Andrew Benintendi hit .341 / .413 / .563 in Salem in 155 PA this year, with an .059 K rate. He was in MLB in less than 2 months. It's very clear from a scouting perspective as well that lower K rates mean a faster path to MLB. Devers had a better K rate than Moncada at Salem, especially given his higher Iso. That pretty much offsets the lesser IsoD and puts him on as fast a track. Guys who can dominate high-A pitching, as a rule of thumb, don't take another full 2 years. They show up some time between the start of May and the end of July of the second following year. That's Devers' ETA.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 15, 2016 1:17:21 GMT -5
The Sox already put themselves in this predicament by making win now moves the past two years with Price and Kimbrel. Spending a little more now on a extra free agent that clearly makes you better is really in the best interests of winning right now. I would of liked to think if Theo Epstein had stayed, he would of wanted to extend Mookie years ago like he did with Rizzo but unfortunately Theo left and is doing his thing in Chicago. I love how you compare Betts and Rizzo like there is anything to compare. Rizzo struggled out of the gate and Betts has played at all star level since he got to the bigs. Rizzo first three years in bigs -.4, 2.2 and 2.6 bwar, Betts was 2.1, 6.0 and 9.6. You were never going to get Betts to sign a contract anything like Rizzo 9 year deal that tops out at 73 million and that's only if he wins MVP or gets two top 5 finishes and has all options years picked up. It was a standard 7 year 41 million dollar deal. Even after Betts first 51 games and 2.1 bwar you were looking at closer to a Mike Trout deal than a Rizzo deal. You want a deal, lock up Swihart to a long term extension, he might sign a Rizzo deal and be just a big of a steal as Rizzo. I get people think Theo is a god, but he was never going to work a magic deal for Betts like he did for Rizzo.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Oct 15, 2016 1:39:44 GMT -5
I just think when talking about resources and seeing how people are taking issue with a EE contract, I don't see a EE contract as a problem. He's a proven impact slugger that would help the team immensely.
The problem with the payroll is when the Sox start dishing out 13.5 million a year on a swingman like Clay Buchholz. 12 million a year on a fifth outfielder like a Rusney Castillo. Take on a finished player with a bad contract like a Allen Craig. That's what 30+ million you could of spent on actual impact player. Swingman relief pitchers who can fill in and start games shouldn't be making that much. The Vance Worley types of the world (who will make a lot less than Buchholz next year). It's just a bad waste of resources imo. If the Sox plan on picking up Buchholz' option, I hope they do so with the idea they are trading him in a terrible market for starting pitching. Remember, Buchholz doesn't exactly have a pitchers body and can break down at any moment. Too much risk with Buchholz as a swingman. Ohh and Elias was just really a throw in when the Sox acquired him. I hope the Sox find a starter that isn't already in his late 20's like a Elias if they do trade Buchholz. That would give the Sox some upside (although I expect it to be limited upside considering Buchholz' value right now). I don’t want EE. I’m hopeful DD resists the temptation for some of the reason’s listed below. Its not one reason but it’s the compilation of them all. EE is old. When you’re old there is a better chance that you are on a decline. Why pay over $20m for a player on a decline when right off the bat we’ve already got 5 good hitters (and Bradley hits well vs righties)? More than likely the team is set for several years, why risk so much money on an aging player that can’t play much defense? We are so young too- why look to get an older player that is so expensive rather than being patient and find a younger player to grow with the team?
IMO the Red Sox have 4 holes in varying degrees. Either 1b or DH. Also 3b. Also catcher and I’m not a fan of Kimbrel. Kimbrel is not bad but I think he was a huge concern going into the playoffs. Why not try to improve at that position (or as may of the others along with this position or any combo- we can keep Kimbrel but try to get "more than juts 1 position.) then trade Kimbrel? We have imo 4 holes and if you pay so much money for one player, you can’t sufficiently fill the other holes. IMO the front five is star-driven (in terms of hitting) . As Theo said once “avoid the temptation of building a super team.” After the front 5 hitters (Beni probably is- JBJ isn’t.), none of the other projected starters can hit lefties well and we only have one bench guy that can- Young. So one major point in which I don’t like EE is that I believe a team is better off having more hitters throughout a lineup or improve the pitching so you don’t need so many sluggers. So if we get EE- after the 1st 6 hitters you don't have anybody that can hit lefties unless you sub Young for Bradley vs lefties. I'd prefer to keep Bradley in as much as possible though. So give me someone late that can lock down the game making Bradley's defense more valuable.
I want more players not just one guy. I want to get closer to the 4 upgrades I'd like to see. EE’s cost will be too much to get that.
Yeah, Encarnacion is three years older than Hanley was, and will probably command an extra year at similar AAV. All for a player who can't play defense, at one of the easiest defensive positions. They don't *need* offense. A one-year, tradeable $13M deal for Buchholz is a LOT less of an outlay than $100+M/4-5 years. Simply comparing AAV ignores the major issue with an EE contract: the downside years. Can they "afford" it? Sure, especially with Hanley and Panda coming off the books in years 2-3 of an EE deal, when his skill erosion is likely to make for a bad (and nearly untradeable) contract. But throwing away $40M just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. The Sox are in a (nearly, see Cubs) unique position of having such abundant, supreme young talent that they can remain highly competitive while shedding (substantial) salary. A short Buchholz deal is easily shed, for some useful return. The idea that they've had some bad contracts suggests, you know...not trying to accumulate more. Save the $. Extend the young players. Keep a large margin of "free" cash for Otani, Harper, or a trade salary dump (like a revived Grienke) that has real impact. I think this team needs to prioritize "need" over "want," and pick the best, most value-conscious route. They *need* SP depth. This year demonstrated that. If one believes the pitching will be 40 or so runs better next year (I do, if they keep Buchholz as the 6, and the rest pitch as reasonably expected), and Benintendi will improve LF production (and reduce runs allowed defensively) by 20-25, then their **run differential** remains unchanged. They *need* an outstanding (LH) 'pen arm. Hell, for $15M a year, sign Chapman for 4-5 years. They'll save $10M a year over EE, and they can trade Chapman much more easily, for better return. He also costs no draft pick, and is much younger. As much as I think EE will help in 2017, I think the risk of him being an albatross contract is just way too high. Use that $ on short deals, low-risk/high-reward volume, shoring up the bullpen with tradeable, high-quality arms, and/or extending the young guys. They're still going to have the best offense in the AL. Heck, sign Bautista if he'll do 2+1(vesting option). But stay away from the big-money, long deals on aging players.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 15, 2016 1:58:35 GMT -5
The Sox already put themselves in this predicament by making win now moves the past two years with Price and Kimbrel. Spending a little more now on a extra free agent that clearly makes you better is really in the best interests of winning right now. I would of liked to think if Theo Epstein had stayed, he would of wanted to extend Mookie years ago like he did with Rizzo but unfortunately Theo left and is doing his thing in Chicago. I love how you compare Betts and Rizzo like there is anything to compare. Rizzo struggled out of the gate and Betts has played at all star level since he got to the bigs. Rizzo first three years in bigs -.4, 2.2 and 2.6 bwar, Betts was 2.1, 6.0 and 9.6. You were never going to get Betts to sign a contract anything like Rizzo 9 year deal that tops out at 73 million and that's only if he wins MVP or gets two top 5 finishes and has all options years picked up. It was a standard 7 year 41 million dollar deal. Even after Betts first 51 games and 2.1 bwar you were looking at closer to a Mike Trout deal than a Rizzo deal. You want a deal, lock up Swihart to a long term extension, he might sign a Rizzo deal and be just a big of a steal as Rizzo. I get people think Theo is a god, but he was never going to work a magic deal for Betts like he did for Rizzo. I didn't compare Rizzo and Betts outside of their contract situations when they first broke out. Theo had locked up Rizzo after his first breakout year. If the Sox had Theo here, I'd would of liked to think he would of seriously pursued a extension for Betts after Betts 2015 season when he broke out. Yes you weren't going to get a great team friendly deal like Theo did with Rizzo, but the Christian Yellich type of extension could of easily been brought to the table and the Sox could of saved tens of millions of dollars possibly. That time has now passed however, and now Betts is at Mike Trout extension status. Either the Sox wait 1-2 more years to see what kind of producer Mookie is or they pay through the nose instead of saving and don't pursue any free agents besides relievers maybe.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 15, 2016 2:17:01 GMT -5
I don’t want EE. I’m hopeful DD resists the temptation for some of the reason’s listed below. Its not one reason but it’s the compilation of them all. EE is old. When you’re old there is a better chance that you are on a decline. Why pay over $20m for a player on a decline when right off the bat we’ve already got 5 good hitters (and Bradley hits well vs righties)? More than likely the team is set for several years, why risk so much money on an aging player that can’t play much defense? We are so young too- why look to get an older player that is so expensive rather than being patient and find a younger player to grow with the team?
IMO the Red Sox have 4 holes in varying degrees. Either 1b or DH. Also 3b. Also catcher and I’m not a fan of Kimbrel. Kimbrel is not bad but I think he was a huge concern going into the playoffs. Why not try to improve at that position (or as may of the others along with this position or any combo- we can keep Kimbrel but try to get "more than juts 1 position.) then trade Kimbrel? We have imo 4 holes and if you pay so much money for one player, you can’t sufficiently fill the other holes. IMO the front five is star-driven (in terms of hitting) . As Theo said once “avoid the temptation of building a super team.” After the front 5 hitters (Beni probably is- JBJ isn’t.), none of the other projected starters can hit lefties well and we only have one bench guy that can- Young. So one major point in which I don’t like EE is that I believe a team is better off having more hitters throughout a lineup or improve the pitching so you don’t need so many sluggers. So if we get EE- after the 1st 6 hitters you don't have anybody that can hit lefties unless you sub Young for Bradley vs lefties. I'd prefer to keep Bradley in as much as possible though. So give me someone late that can lock down the game making Bradley's defense more valuable.
I want more players not just one guy. I want to get closer to the 4 upgrades I'd like to see. EE’s cost will be too much to get that.
Yeah, Encarnacion is three years older than Hanley was, and will probably command an extra year at similar AAV. All for a player who can't play defense, at one of the easiest defensive positions. They don't *need* offense. A one-year, tradeable $13M deal for Buchholz is a LOT less of an outlay than $100+M/4-5 years. Simply comparing AAV ignores the major issue with an EE contract: the downside years. Can they "afford" it? Sure, especially with Hanley and Panda coming off the books in years 2-3 of an EE deal, when his skill erosion is likely to make for a bad (and nearly untradeable) contract. But throwing away $40M just because you can doesn't make it a good idea. The Sox are in a (nearly, see Cubs) unique position of having such abundant, supreme young talent that they can remain highly competitive while shedding (substantial) salary. A short Buchholz deal is easily shed, for some useful return. The idea that they've had some bad contracts suggests, you know...not trying to accumulate more. Save the $. Extend the young players. Keep a large margin of "free" cash for Otani, Harper, or a trade salary dump (like a revived Grienke) that has real impact. I think this team needs to prioritize "need" over "want," and pick the best, most value-conscious route. They *need* SP depth. This year demonstrated that. If one believes the pitching will be 40 or so runs better next year (I do, if they keep Buchholz as the 6, and the rest pitch as reasonably expected), and Benintendi will improve LF production (and reduce runs allowed defensively) by 20-25, then their **run differential** remains unchanged. They *need* an outstanding (LH) 'pen arm. Hell, for $15M a year, sign Chapman for 4-5 years. They'll save $10M a year over EE, and they can trade Chapman much more easily, for better return. He also costs no draft pick, and is much younger. As much as I think EE will help in 2017, I think the risk of him being an albatross contract is just way too high. Use that $ on short deals, low-risk/high-reward volume, shoring up the bullpen with tradeable, high-quality arms, and/or extending the young guys. They're still going to have the best offense in the AL. Heck, sign Bautista if he'll do 2+1(vesting option). But stay away from the big-money, long deals on aging players. I don't mind the idea of Chapman but he's going to be the most sought after free agent on the market this winter. I wouldn't be surprised either if Chapman's contract was approaching the EE contract, and he's only a reliever. He's going to get way more than 15 million a year AAV wise. He's going to break the record easily for a closer by a wide margin. All the big fish will be after him between the Nationals, Cubs, Yankees, and Dodgers. I just don't see the problem with DH types as they age. Sure they won't have a position, but sluggers have shown to bring the bat into their late 30's. Numerous examples of this between Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Ortiz, Beltran, A-Rod, Edgar Martinez. I would put EE in those class of hitters right now. He's arguably the best true slugger in the game when looking at the power and lack of strikeouts in his game. The Sox will be losing a lot of AAV by the time Otani (apparently won't be posted anytime soon as I learned), Harper, Machado become free agents. They're going to be losing the contracts of Rusney, Pablo, Porcello, Hanley, Kimbrel, and possibly Price too. That's something like 90+ million in AAV if Price doesn't opt out and 120+ million in AAV if Price does opt out. I'm all for starting pitching depth too, just not at 13.5 million like with Buchholz. That's way to much for a swingman option. Buchholz should be in fact be traded for either starting pitching depth or catching depth or both, especially in a depleted starting pitching market that offers nothing.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 15, 2016 2:22:11 GMT -5
I see jimed's point, though-- if you have extra luxury tax space this year, it may make sense to use some of it on a Betts/Bogaerts/etc. extension rather than overpaying for guys you don't need. MLB isn't like the NFL where you can carryover unused cap space. I'm starting to get very weary about approaching a Xander extension. There are serious long term questions about whether he can stick at short stop into his late 20's and early 30's and beyond. That's when he becomes a free agent (27).
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 15, 2016 3:47:31 GMT -5
One last thing, since there was a thread about EE's value, I'll put a guessed value on Chapman at about 6 years and 100-110 million. Maybe even a opt out after year 3.
I would love to bet that the most sought after commodity in the free agent market gets closer to this type of deal then the 5 years and 75 million everyone is thinking of. Circumstances are perfect for Chapman to absolutely cash in this year. He's got teams lining up, he's the best in the game (outside of maybe Britton), and he's young enough to command this type of deal (27).
Teams are going ridiculous with how they value relievers these days, between trades and everything else. It's gotten worse with setup men getting paid recently and I expect it to get really bad with the closers (especially the elite ones) getting paid really well moving forward.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 15, 2016 4:22:48 GMT -5
Ohh and I would trade Clay for a AAA/major league starter with major league options available. He should be able to get a pitcher like this with his value. His spot in the bullpen takes up a roster spot and if you're worried about depth, well this kind of trade would solve it if Owens and Johnson don't progress next year. In theory that's smart, but the problem is that since Clay has one year of control and the guy you're trading for has six, he's going to be 1/6th as good. Well, a bit more perhaps, but the point of keeping Clay is not so much to add mere depth, but elite depth. Your long man's a #3 starter, maybe a #2. The in-house option you'd be clearing a space for, once everyone is healthy, would be Heath Hembree. I'd much rather have Buchholz on the staff. If everyone is healthy once Smith is ready to come back, you can start thinking about dealing Clay, especially if Owens, Johnson abd/or Elias (if he clears waivers) have been good.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 15, 2016 4:30:00 GMT -5
Ohh and I would trade Clay for a AAA/major league starter with major league options available. He should be able to get a pitcher like this with his value. His spot in the bullpen takes up a roster spot and if you're worried about depth, well this kind of trade would solve it if Owens and Johnson don't progress next year. In theory that's smart, but the problem is that since Clay has one year of control and the guy you're trading for has six, he's going to be 1/6th as good. Well, a bit more perhaps, but the point of keeping Clay is not so much to add mere depth, but elite depth. Your long man's a #3 starter, maybe a #2. The in-house option you'd be clearing a space for, once everyone is healthy, would be Heath Hembree. I'd much rather have Buchholz on the staff. If everyone is healthy once Smith is ready to come back, you can start thinking about dealing Clay, especially if Owens, Johnson abd/or Elias (if he clears waivers) have been good. I think there's a chance that the Sox could get more than that for Buchholz in a terrible market for starting pitching this year. Buchholz is probably the best 6th starter in the big leagues but at 13.5 million, you should find a cheaper option for a 6th starter. That's really why I would like to see Buchholz gone the most. If he was making a lot less, I'd be all for keeping him.
|
|
|