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.
Who to extend and who not to extend in the future?
|
Post by kungfuizzy on Dec 20, 2016 16:21:51 GMT -5
If they keep DD as GM then the clear answer is no one. The reason is clear if you look at the Tigers roster. He's going to give out $30 million a year extensions like Oprah gives away cars. Fire him and beg Ben to come back and rebuild the farm. Might have to end up blowing it up in 2-3 years but that would be worth it. Have the top farm again.
|
|
|
Post by Costigan on Dec 20, 2016 17:22:27 GMT -5
If they keep DD as GM then the clear answer is no one. The reason is clear if you look at the Tigers roster. He's going to give out $30 million a year extensions like Oprah gives away cars. Fire him and beg Ben to come back and rebuild the farm. Might have to end up blowing it up in 2-3 years but that would be worth it. Have the top farm again. I consider myself a pretty conservative prospect hugger but my gosh dude you gotta relax with this hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 20, 2016 18:25:56 GMT -5
Sometimes a guy's value is the fact that his deal isn't another 5 years. Extending a guy like Pomeranz wouldn't enhance his value unless you can get him to sign some crazy below market deal. In which case, you'd probably want to keep him since team friendly contracts that out weigh production are kind of the thing teams seek out. No reason to extend Wright. He's already "older" and you have him u set control for a long time. He's not a guy you want to buy out free agent years. He's a guy you want to let get to free agency or close to it in his mid 30s Edit: they have Wright for 4 more years and he's about to play his age 32 season. So he will be a free agent for the first time at age 36.... why are we extending a guy like that who's technically relatively unproven. If he's anything close to what he was before the injury last year just take the 4 years of below market production and evaluate when he's 36. Look at the deal Miley signed, that's roughly where Pomeranz is at. It doesn't have to be ridiculously team-friendly to enhance trade value. But having a player on a 3-4 year contract where the last 2-3 years are somewhat below market, and the bought out arb year is cheap, is a benefit in trades. At least, as long is there is some expected excess value. When starters are getting market 5/75 deals as number 5s, a shorter contract at a slightly lower rate is obviously preferable. And the added benefit, as you said, is that the team can keep that player if their other options (paying 7/$250M for Sale) are unpalatable.
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Dec 20, 2016 21:17:06 GMT -5
You're an idiot if you extend Beni when he's under team control for next 6 years. He's going to earn league minimum for next 3 years. We are pushed up vs the luxury tax limit right now. Why complicate things. Xander, Bradley Jr, Sale, Porcello, then Betts and Bradly must be addressed before Beni.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 20, 2016 21:26:41 GMT -5
You're an idiot if you extend Beni when he's under team control for next 6 years. He's going to earn league minimum for next 3 years. We are pushed up vs the luxury tax limit right now. Why complicate things. Xander, Bradley Jr, Sale, Porcello, then Betts and Bradly must be addressed before Beni. Not if you want him for more than 6 years and try and get him for cheaper than what you'll have to pay him in 6+ years.
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Dec 20, 2016 21:55:50 GMT -5
Ok Smarty......make me an offer...
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 20, 2016 22:13:08 GMT -5
Ok Smarty......make me an offer... Evan Longoria's deal? McCutcheon? It sounds like you don't understand how these early-career extensions work. Players are paid roughly (usually slightly less than) what they would make in pre-arb and then arbitration, with FA buy-out years at less than current market (which, in 5 years, is substantially less than market) for their projected performance. Before you start snidely referring to other posters as "smarty," or insulting them and calling them "idiots," or you probably want to, you know, make sure you don't sound like one yourself.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 21, 2016 18:27:19 GMT -5
I actually brought this subject up early last year. You do not extend players after 1 good season as that is absurd and taking on more risk than is warranted for a team. If a player can show success for 2 straight years then you consider it if you believe in their future.
At the time there was 3 young players I'd put in the catergory and still do, Xander, JBJ and Betts. AB has a lot more to prove. With the Red Sox pockets chances are we could extend all 3 but 2 is more likely. So you, divide and conquer. Do your homework and of the 3, find out who is the most risk adversive? Target that player and extend him first to a team friendly (ish) deal. Once that's accomplished you then work at the other 2 at the same time. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 22, 2016 9:39:06 GMT -5
If they keep DD as GM then the clear answer is no one. The reason is clear if you look at the Tigers roster. He's going to give out $30 million a year extensions like Oprah gives away cars. Fire him and beg Ben to come back and rebuild the farm. Might have to end up blowing it up in 2-3 years but that would be worth it. Have the top farm again. I consider myself a pretty conservative prospect hugger but my gosh dude you gotta relax with this hyperbole. I find his comments very troll like and the best way to deal with that is simply ignore it. Without attention they cease to exist.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 22, 2016 10:07:06 GMT -5
I actually brought this subject up early last year. You do not extend players after 1 good season as that is absurd and taking on more risk than is warranted for a team. If a player can show success for 2 straight years then you consider it if you believe in their future. At the time there was 3 young players I'd put in the catergory and still do, Xander, JBJ and Betts. AB has a lot more to prove. With the Red Sox pockets chances are we could extend all 3 but 2 is more likely. So you, divide and conquer. Do your homework and of the 3, find out who is the most risk adversive? Target that player and extend him first to a team friendly (ish) deal. Once that's accomplished you then work at the other 2 at the same time. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. If you want team friendly deals, the sooner you extend them the better. The closer players get to free agency the chance of you getting a team friendly deal just about goes away. The 3 players you listed are very unlikely to sign team friendly deals. It still might be worth locking them up now, but I just don't see them signing team friendly deals. Players like Benni, Swihart and Erod though might just sign very team friendly deals. It's hard to get a player to sign a team friendly deal after he's had a 5 plus war season. Edit: Both Sale and Eaton signed there deals after one good year. It was after Sale's first year starting and after Eaton's first full year in bigs. That's how you get great team friendly deals.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 22, 2016 10:16:44 GMT -5
As stated above. Evan Longoria after SIX GAMES signed a $17.5 million, six-year contract that included club options potentially making the deal worth $44 million over nine seasons.
That was one of the best deals (from a team prospective) ever signed. 17.5 million is almost no risk. While the upside was astronomical.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2016 11:39:41 GMT -5
As stated above. Evan Longoria after SIX GAMES signed a $17.5 million, six-year contract that included club options potentially making the deal worth $44 million over nine seasons. That was one of the best deals (from a team prospective) ever signed. 17.5 million is almost no risk. While the upside was astronomical. I'm definitely on board for deals like that, but will be surprised if there are many more of those types of deals signed.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 22, 2016 13:38:58 GMT -5
I actually brought this subject up early last year. You do not extend players after 1 good season as that is absurd and taking on more risk than is warranted for a team. If a player can show success for 2 straight years then you consider it if you believe in their future. At the time there was 3 young players I'd put in the catergory and still do, Xander, JBJ and Betts. AB has a lot more to prove. With the Red Sox pockets chances are we could extend all 3 but 2 is more likely. So you, divide and conquer. Do your homework and of the 3, find out who is the most risk adversive? Target that player and extend him first to a team friendly (ish) deal. Once that's accomplished you then work at the other 2 at the same time. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. If you want team friendly deals, the sooner you extend them the better. The closer players get to free agency the chance of you getting a team friendly deal just about goes away. The 3 players you listed are very unlikely to sign team friendly deals. It still might be worth locking them up now, but I just don't see them signing team friendly deals. Players like Benni, Swihart and Erod though might just sign very team friendly deals. It's hard to get a player to sign a team friendly deal after he's had a 5 plus war season. Edit: Both Sale and Eaton signed there deals after one good year. It was after Sale's first year starting and after Eaton's first full year in bigs. That's how you get great team friendly deals. I never said they all would sign team friendly deals. I'll reiterate that the team should seek out which of the 3 is the most risk adverse player. Sign that player to a team friendly(ish) deal. Now you have one of the three in the fold long term with a deal that should allow you to sign one of the other two and maybe just maybe both. Once I get the first one signed long term I work on the other 2 at the same time. They see the team is committed to winning long term and they in turn become more likely to commit to staying here. Signing a player after 1 good year is taking on to much risk. Plenty of players have had one good yr only to fall back to mediocrity afterwards. It's not about the talent at that point but the long term drive the player has and the ability to continue to adapt and improve. Thatis what separates most all-stars from mediocrity. In order to determine that you really need to see 2 seasons of doing well or at least 1 plus year, which is why I brought this subject up early last season. Lesser market teams often have to take chances that the Sox don't need to. I would not sign Benni, Swihart nor E-Rod to long term deals, I think that's foolhardy to say the least. Signing a player 3.5 years (+/- 1) before they are a free agent is when most players are signed to long term deals, for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 22, 2016 13:48:56 GMT -5
As stated above. Evan Longoria after SIX GAMES signed a $17.5 million, six-year contract that included club options potentially making the deal worth $44 million over nine seasons. That was one of the best deals (from a team prospective) ever signed. 17.5 million is almost no risk. While the upside was astronomical. You have to wonder if that is why Longoria's play dropped for the past 2 seasons inexplicably. Also I doubt you see any players sign a deal like that going forward. To find a deal like that you went back to 2008. Also you are viewing that deal through today's lense which makes the deal seem even better than it is. And several years before that contract expired they extended the deal and reworked that last few years of that deal (6 years/100M (2017-22), plus 2023 club options signed extension with Tampa Bay 11/26/12). This is not a reliable way for the Sox to forecast buying up some arb years for players such as JBJ, Xander or Betts. Edit: EL performance was down the 2 previous season not last year as he had a nice bounce back season
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 22, 2016 15:30:11 GMT -5
If you want team friendly deals, the sooner you extend them the better. The closer players get to free agency the chance of you getting a team friendly deal just about goes away. The 3 players you listed are very unlikely to sign team friendly deals. It still might be worth locking them up now, but I just don't see them signing team friendly deals. Players like Benni, Swihart and Erod though might just sign very team friendly deals. It's hard to get a player to sign a team friendly deal after he's had a 5 plus war season. Edit: Both Sale and Eaton signed there deals after one good year. It was after Sale's first year starting and after Eaton's first full year in bigs. That's how you get great team friendly deals. I never said they all would sign team friendly deals. I'll reiterate that the team should seek out which of the 3 is the most risk adverse player. Sign that player to a team friendly(ish) deal. Now you have one of the three in the fold long term with a deal that should allow you to sign one of the other two and maybe just maybe both. Once I get the first one signed long term I work on the other 2 at the same time. They see the team is committed to winning long term and they in turn become more likely to commit to staying here. Signing a player after 1 good year is taking on to much risk. Plenty of players have had one good yr only to fall back to mediocrity afterwards. It's not about the talent at that point but the long term drive the player has and the ability to continue to adapt and improve. Thatis what separates most all-stars from mediocrity. In order to determine that you really need to see 2 seasons of doing well or at least 1 plus year, which is why I brought this subject up early last season. Lesser market teams often have to take chances that the Sox don't need to. I would not sign Benni, Swihart nor E-Rod to long term deals, I think that's foolhardy to say the least. Signing a player 3.5 years (+/- 1) before they are a free agent is when most players are signed to long term deals, for a reason. Do you have examples of players the caliber of Betts, Bradley and Bogaerts signing team friendly (ish) deals right before arbitration? What's your idea of a team friendly (ish) deal for those players? I think we have different ideas on team friendly deals. Most of the team friendly deals that come to mind were signed very early in the process. After that with the caliber of players were talking about your getting closer to Mike Trout type extensions. Not that his contract is bad, it's just not what I would call a team friendly deal like Sale and Eaton. Those guys gave up free agent years for a fraction of what they would now get on open market per year. I don't think signing a player after 1 year is to much risk for team, not if he's a very good player. Look at Eaton deal, 5 years 23.5 million, with two team option years. He didn't need to be an all star for that to be a good deal. If your not willing to take a little risk your not going to get team friendly deals.
|
|
|