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 manfred on Feb 20, 2021 17:52:15 GMT -5
Which would you pick to be in Fenway by age 20/21? You are arguing a totally separate matter. Go back to the start. I said what is the point of creating financial room if it means letting almost all your stars go when no one is *immediately* lined up to replace them. Well... we are part way in, and no one has been immediately in line. The issue at hand is Xander. If he opts out... do they use the savings from losing Mookie, JBJ, Beni to keep him? Or do they decide to save yet again? If the latter... why? Because... drum roll: they do NOT have a replacement on the horizon. So even if you think Bonaci is the next star, you are still looking at gap time. Which means either spending a lot on someone ELSE’S home grown guy or — again — getting a step-back replacement. How many cost saving moves can we endure? Best chance? Nick Yorke. Again it's not saving money, yet planning future payrolls and what you value guys at. They made Betts big offers, he wanted more, so they moved on. They didn't just move on to cut payroll. Did I miss something or don't we have Bogaerts for two more years? Your talking about a SS in 2023 and I've never bought into the farm system is to replace every player at every position. I'm certainly not taking a SS just to have a guy in case Bogaerts leaves. I'm taking the best player available. You literally can't have this conversation till the end of 2022 when you know who will be available and what Xander's plans are. You did catch I think he stays right? You kinda make it sound like I picked a fight with you at the end there. Au contraire. Sure, yeah. It’s all been a big cost saving maneuver because Nick Yorke is gunna swoop in and be the next number retiree. I certainly hope so. My position: show Xander the money. Show Raffy the money.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 20, 2021 18:04:25 GMT -5
Best chance? Nick Yorke. Again it's not saving money, yet planning future payrolls and what you value guys at. They made Betts big offers, he wanted more, so they moved on. They didn't just move on to cut payroll. Did I miss something or don't we have Bogaerts for two more years? Your talking about a SS in 2023 and I've never bought into the farm system is to replace every player at every position. I'm certainly not taking a SS just to have a guy in case Bogaerts leaves. I'm taking the best player available. You literally can't have this conversation till the end of 2022 when you know who will be available and what Xander's plans are. You did catch I think he stays right? You kinda make it sound like I picked a fight with you at the end there. Au contraire. Sure, yeah. It’s all been a big cost saving maneuver because Nick Yorke is gunna swoop in and be the next number retiree. I certainly hope so. My position: show Xander the money. Show Raffy the money. You did reply to my post, not the other way around. Where is this cost savings you keep harping about? Last I checked they had the second highest payroll. You just don't like how they are spending the money, it's not that they are cutting money from the payroll. We all know your position, you'd have close to a 100 million per season locked up in three players for the next decade. Then add in Bradley, then Benintendi, etc. Then what do you do?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 18:17:56 GMT -5
You kinda make it sound like I picked a fight with you at the end there. Au contraire. Sure, yeah. It’s all been a big cost saving maneuver because Nick Yorke is gunna swoop in and be the next number retiree. I certainly hope so. My position: show Xander the money. Show Raffy the money. You did reply to my post, not the other way around. Where is this cost savings you keep harping about? Last I checked they had the second highest payroll. You just don't like how they are spending the money, it's not that they are cutting money from the payroll. We all know your position, you'd have close to a 100 million per season locked up in three players for the next decade. Then add in Bradley, then Benintendi, etc. Then what do you do? Didn’t pay Mookie, traded Price, traded Beni because he was near a payday, aren’t signing JBJ. Now the talk is hypothetically letting X go. I didn’t say effective cost cutting, necessarily. But are you saying my calling the last two years an effort to cut costs is a controversial statement? Regardless of how one *likes* moves, I don’t think anyone disagrees that cost cutting is the goal. Now, you can say I’d have x locked up on Mookie or Beni or whomever... but I also would gave let Eovaldi walk, and I would have traded JDM. So the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Who knows? Maybe Mookie walks, and those three moves have me rolling in dough.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Feb 20, 2021 20:06:27 GMT -5
Xander signed his extension against agent wishes. Boras wasn’t his agent then. You don’t sign boras as an agent because you want to settle. And boras doesn’t settle when it comes to 30 years old and one last big contract IF said player is playing at an elite all star level.
I see us building exactly like dodgers did. Nobody was elite and they built through their draft. Casas will be one potential star. And the dodgers until betts didn’t have a true star outside Cody bellinger. Kershaw was picked up in draft. Bellinger never was a star coming up through.
Back to shortstop though. Let’s see how Xander performs. And 2nd will be what he asks for. Even if it’s $25 million over 7 years. I don’t see that happening. Next year could determine as I could see Red Sox entering the market for one of elite shortstops
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 20:41:51 GMT -5
Xander signed his extension against agent wishes. Boras wasn’t his agent then. You don’t sign boras as an agent because you want to settle. And boras doesn’t settle when it comes to 30 years old and one last big contract IF said player is playing at an elite all star level. I see us building exactly like dodgers did. Nobody was elite and they built through their draft. Casas will be one potential star. And the dodgers until betts didn’t have a true star outside Cody bellinger. Kershaw was picked up in draft. Bellinger never was a star coming up through. Back to shortstop though. Let’s see how Xander performs. And 2nd will be what he asks for. Even if it’s $25 million over 7 years. I don’t see that happening. Next year could determine as I could see Red Sox entering the market for one of elite shortstops The Dodgers produced Kershaw, Buehler, May, Seager, and Bellinger. Joc Pedersen. Verdugo. Maybe not all stars all, but most of those guys would be a #1 prospect for the Sox. I’m not sure the point. We aren’t even close to that. We all agree we would like to be, but that is years. Doesn’t even count the Lux guys to come. So looking at conditions as they are... we do have two young stars in X and Raffy. We do not have the Dodger assembly line. I’d definitely do 7/$175 million for X. What do you want to do, put Kiké there? Then have yet another position where you need to find O to make up for the loss? Or get someone for a “discount” who is not as good a player? How many oositions can you do that at before you are just not that good a team?
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,162
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 20, 2021 20:45:06 GMT -5
Xander signed his extension against agent wishes. Boras wasn’t his agent then. You don’t sign boras as an agent because you want to settle. And boras doesn’t settle when it comes to 30 years old and one last big contract IF said player is playing at an elite all star level. I see us building exactly like dodgers did. Nobody was elite and they built through their draft. Casas will be one potential star. And the dodgers until betts didn’t have a true star outside Cody bellinger. Kershaw was picked up in draft. Bellinger never was a star coming up through. Back to shortstop though. Let’s see how Xander performs. And 2nd will be what he asks for. Even if it’s $25 million over 7 years. I don’t see that happening. Next year could determine as I could see Red Sox entering the market for one of elite shortstops The Dodgers produced Kershaw, Buehler, May, Seager, and Bellinger. Joc Pedersen. Verdugo. Maybe not all stars all, but most of those guys would be a #1 prospect for the Sox. I’m not sure the point. We aren’t even close to that. We all agree we would like to be, but that is years. Doesn’t even count the Lux guys to come. So looking at conditions as they are... we do have two young stars in X and Raffy. We do not have the Dodger assembly line. I’d definitely do 7/$175 million for X. What do you want to do, put Kiké there? Then have yet another position where you need to find O to make up for the loss? Or get someone for a “discount” who is not as good a player? How many oositions can you do that at before you are just not that good a team? 7 175 would be fine for xandy but do you really think hed take that? I don't. Even if he did I'm not signing him to that deal without the understanding he move off of SS if his range gets any worse.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 20, 2021 20:53:15 GMT -5
The Dodgers produced Kershaw, Buehler, May, Seager, and Bellinger. Joc Pedersen. Verdugo. Maybe not all stars all, but most of those guys would be a #1 prospect for the Sox. I’m not sure the point. We aren’t even close to that. We all agree we would like to be, but that is years. Doesn’t even count the Lux guys to come. So looking at conditions as they are... we do have two young stars in X and Raffy. We do not have the Dodger assembly line. I’d definitely do 7/$175 million for X. What do you want to do, put Kiké there? Then have yet another position where you need to find O to make up for the loss? Or get someone for a “discount” who is not as good a player? How many oositions can you do that at before you are just not that good a team? 7 175 would be fine for xandy but do you really think hed take that? I don't. Even if he did I'm not signing him to that deal without the understanding he move off of SS if his range gets any worse. I was just responding to the hypothetical, as I understood it. I have zero idea what numbers would be. But if that was on the table, I’d be thrilled. Of course, once X is signed, he does what he is asked to do. Eventually, he moves of ss. Problems for another year.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,162
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 20, 2021 21:06:51 GMT -5
7 175 would be fine for xandy but do you really think hed take that? I don't. Even if he did I'm not signing him to that deal without the understanding he move off of SS if his range gets any worse. I was just responding to the hypothetical, as I understood it. I have zero idea what numbers would be. But if that was on the table, I’d be thrilled. Of course, once X is signed, he does what he is asked to do. Eventually, he moves of ss. Problems for another year. Or he acts like Jeter and refuses to move off the position and is a detriment to the team defensively. It's a conversation that needs to happen before I'd be happy with giving him a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Feb 20, 2021 21:30:27 GMT -5
Xander signed his extension against agent wishes. Boras wasn’t his agent then. You don’t sign boras as an agent because you want to settle. And boras doesn’t settle when it comes to 30 years old and one last big contract IF said player is playing at an elite all star level. I see us building exactly like dodgers did. Nobody was elite and they built through their draft. Casas will be one potential star. And the dodgers until betts didn’t have a true star outside Cody bellinger. Kershaw was picked up in draft. Bellinger never was a star coming up through. Back to shortstop though. Let’s see how Xander performs. And 2nd will be what he asks for. Even if it’s $25 million over 7 years. I don’t see that happening. Next year could determine as I could see Red Sox entering the market for one of elite shortstops Yeah he was, so...this post kind of makes the opposite point you intended. Bogaerts could have cashed in big by hitting the free agent market heading into his age 27 season, but he told Boras to make a deal because he wanted to stay in Boston. I don't know why some people are talking as if that's a player who's as good as gone in a couple of years just because he has an opt-out in his contract. Keep the man happy, throw some extra money and years his way when the time comes, and I see no reason why Xander shouldn't be a Red Sox lifer.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Feb 20, 2021 22:08:36 GMT -5
With baseball economics, I'm guessing pretty much nobody is going to opt out any time soon. We'll have Xander for the length of his contract which is a good thing. Before 2018 I said JD Martinez would be with the Red Sox the whole five years ($19.35 million per year the last two years of the contract is way more than any Pure DH would be offered). I meant he would not opt-out. Ivan see the Red Sox trading him at the deadline, but the $19.35 million for next year is a problem as I still do not see him exercising the opt-out. With JD gone after 2021 or 2022, I see Devers or Bogaerts (if a SS is signed, traded for, or Downs emerges) moving to DH.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 20, 2021 22:37:35 GMT -5
With baseball economics, I'm guessing pretty much nobody is going to opt out any time soon. We'll have Xander for the length of his contract which is a good thing. Before 2018 I said JD Martinez would be with the Red Sox the whole five years ($19.35 million per year the last two years of the contract is way more than any Pure DH would be offered). I meant he would not opt-out. Ivan see the Red Sox trading him at the deadline, but the $19.35 million for next year is a problem as I still do not see him exercising the opt-out. With JD gone after 2021 or 2022, I see Devers or Bogaerts (if a SS is signed, traded for, or Downs emerges) moving to DH. If JD hits like the 2015-2019 Jd 19.35$M is just fine. It’s a lot of money but not realy overpaying. It’s 10M$ les than Stanton. And reasonable for an Elite hitter. It’s worth noting MLb.com still rates JD as a too 100 player in all of baseball. On top of that the Sox got a fair bit of surplus value those first couple years. It’s posible Devers moves to DH but I’d say unlikely. He is only 24 years old. Although he makes a fair amount of mistakes he is hardly a butcher at 3B. I’d say he is 2 poor seasons at 3B ( by witch time he may be more than adequate. Don’t forget In 2019’he was a good fielder ) before even considering a move. And that would probably be to 1B. The is zero chance Boegarts is moved to full time DH in the foreseeable future. Baring some type of injury he will be in the field for many years. Maybe not at SS. But in the field.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 21, 2021 0:05:07 GMT -5
You did reply to my post, not the other way around. Where is this cost savings you keep harping about? Last I checked they had the second highest payroll. You just don't like how they are spending the money, it's not that they are cutting money from the payroll. We all know your position, you'd have close to a 100 million per season locked up in three players for the next decade. Then add in Bradley, then Benintendi, etc. Then what do you do? Didn’t pay Mookie, traded Price, traded Beni because he was near a payday, aren’t signing JBJ. Now the talk is hypothetically letting X go. I didn’t say effective cost cutting, necessarily. But are you saying my calling the last two years an effort to cut costs is a controversial statement? Regardless of how one *likes* moves, I don’t think anyone disagrees that cost cutting is the goal. Now, you can say I’d have x locked up on Mookie or Beni or whomever... but I also would gave let Eovaldi walk, and I would have traded JDM. So the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Who knows? Maybe Mookie walks, and those three moves have me rolling in dough. You really believe that? That trading Betts was just cost cutting? Paying 15 million of Price's salary was just cost cutting? That the Benintendi trade was about cost cutting? It wasn't I'm not giving Betts 10 plus years, so instead of getting nothing I get a good return? That signing Richards and Perez will give you more for 30 million than Price? That they weren't high on Benintendi and liked the return more? You're talking about cost cutting as the team has increased payroll from last year. If Betts accepted their offer they weren't trading him to save money. Creating flexibility to spend on more small pieces isn't cost cutting. The yearly cost of a player isn't really the issue, contract length is. It kills future flexibility. Go plan out a team if you lock up those three for say eight years at around a 100 million. Then keep paying your homegrown players you don't want to watch walk away. You have to have limits. It sucks not having Betts, yet it's not because our owner is cheap. He's gone because he wanted to be a record setter, help the union and get the most money he could on the open market. You can't blame an owner for taking a very good package over losing Betts for nothing because some team goes nuclear. Unless you could predict a global pandemic was going to happen. Even then we still don't know if Betts would have resigned. In your plan if Betts leaves would you rather extra money or Verdugo, Downs and Wong?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 21, 2021 0:14:51 GMT -5
Didn’t pay Mookie, traded Price, traded Beni because he was near a payday, aren’t signing JBJ. Now the talk is hypothetically letting X go. I didn’t say effective cost cutting, necessarily. But are you saying my calling the last two years an effort to cut costs is a controversial statement? Regardless of how one *likes* moves, I don’t think anyone disagrees that cost cutting is the goal. Now, you can say I’d have x locked up on Mookie or Beni or whomever... but I also would gave let Eovaldi walk, and I would have traded JDM. So the lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Who knows? Maybe Mookie walks, and those three moves have me rolling in dough. You really believe that? That trading Betts was just cost cutting? Paying 15 million of Price's salary was just cost cutting? That the Benintendi trade was about cost cutting? It wasn't I'm not giving Betts 10 plus years, so instead of getting nothing I get a good return? That signing Richards and Perez will give you more for 30 million than Price? That they weren't high on Benintendi and liked the return more? You're talking about cost cutting as the team has increased payroll from last year. If Betts accepted their offer they weren't trading him to save money. Creating flexibility to spend on more small pieces isn't cost cutting. The yearly cost of a player isn't really the issue, contract length is. It kills future flexibility. Go plan out a team if you lock up those three for say eight years at around a 100 million. Then keep paying your homegrown players you don't want to watch walk away. You have to have limits. It sucks not having Betts, yet it's not because our owner is cheap. He's gone because he wanted to be a record setter, help the union and get the most money he could on the open market. You can't blame an owner for taking a very good package over losing Betts for nothing because some team goes nuclear. Unless you could predict a global pandemic was going to happen. Even then we still don't know if Betts would have resigned. In your plan if Betts leaves would you rather extra money or Verdugo, Downs and Wong? So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,162
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 21, 2021 0:23:09 GMT -5
You really believe that? That trading Betts was just cost cutting? Paying 15 million of Price's salary was just cost cutting? That the Benintendi trade was about cost cutting? It wasn't I'm not giving Betts 10 plus years, so instead of getting nothing I get a good return? That signing Richards and Perez will give you more for 30 million than Price? That they weren't high on Benintendi and liked the return more? You're talking about cost cutting as the team has increased payroll from last year. If Betts accepted their offer they weren't trading him to save money. Creating flexibility to spend on more small pieces isn't cost cutting. The yearly cost of a player isn't really the issue, contract length is. It kills future flexibility. Go plan out a team if you lock up those three for say eight years at around a 100 million. Then keep paying your homegrown players you don't want to watch walk away. You have to have limits. It sucks not having Betts, yet it's not because our owner is cheap. He's gone because he wanted to be a record setter, help the union and get the most money he could on the open market. You can't blame an owner for taking a very good package over losing Betts for nothing because some team goes nuclear. Unless you could predict a global pandemic was going to happen. Even then we still don't know if Betts would have resigned. In your plan if Betts leaves would you rather extra money or Verdugo, Downs and Wong? So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check. If they were cost cutting they wouldn't have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and wouldn't have signed anyone this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 21, 2021 0:28:21 GMT -5
You really believe that? That trading Betts was just cost cutting? Paying 15 million of Price's salary was just cost cutting? That the Benintendi trade was about cost cutting? It wasn't I'm not giving Betts 10 plus years, so instead of getting nothing I get a good return? That signing Richards and Perez will give you more for 30 million than Price? That they weren't high on Benintendi and liked the return more? You're talking about cost cutting as the team has increased payroll from last year. If Betts accepted their offer they weren't trading him to save money. Creating flexibility to spend on more small pieces isn't cost cutting. The yearly cost of a player isn't really the issue, contract length is. It kills future flexibility. Go plan out a team if you lock up those three for say eight years at around a 100 million. Then keep paying your homegrown players you don't want to watch walk away. You have to have limits. It sucks not having Betts, yet it's not because our owner is cheap. He's gone because he wanted to be a record setter, help the union and get the most money he could on the open market. You can't blame an owner for taking a very good package over losing Betts for nothing because some team goes nuclear. Unless you could predict a global pandemic was going to happen. Even then we still don't know if Betts would have resigned. In your plan if Betts leaves would you rather extra money or Verdugo, Downs and Wong? So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check. I’m not sure how you can say the owners are cheap. Sox spend to or above the tax limit every year. Are in the top 3 in payroll most every year. As far as cost cutting. I guess you can say that. All business cost cut. To not cost cut is not viable. The fact of the matter is the Sox played all there chips at once. It gave us the 2018 banner. But it was at the expense of potential low $ talent such as moncada. Price was never a great fit. He helped in 2018 but I’m fine with him gone. It’s a shame how bennys last 2 years went. But they are what they are. If the FO had any confidence in Benny they wouldn’t have traded him. They obviously feel they are gaining on the trade. Not signing JBJ is (and hard for some) the right move. Betts is the big one. If you can believe rumours they tried to sign him and couldn’t. You can’t say the return was bad. If you didn’t think you could sign him, the trade was the Correct move, as much as we all wish he was still here.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 21, 2021 0:42:19 GMT -5
So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check. If they were cost cutting they wouldn't have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and wouldn't have signed anyone this offseason. That’s just silly. That they have a high payroll, including years old contracts like JDM, Sale, Eovaldi, Pedroia, part of Price etc. doesn’t mean they can’t be expensive and also be cutting costs. And signing bodies — few of whom cost that much — doesn’t mean they can’t be cutting costs. Were they supposed to play with one outfielder? I don’t think this is controversial. They wanted to be under the tax limit last year. They appear to want to be under again. To accomplish that — in light of the money they must pay (see above) they have chosen to limit spending wherever possible. I did not say they want to be the Marlins, so your notion that they would not sign *anyone* is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum. Further: not only did they not commit huge sums, but the contracts were short. So they’ll mostly be off the books in a year or two. It is irrelevant where they are vis-a-vis the league. What matters is the arrow of spending.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 21, 2021 0:44:51 GMT -5
So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check. I’m not sure how you can say the owners are cheap. Sox spend to or above the tax limit every year. Are in the top 3 in payroll most every year. As far as cost cutting. I guess you can say that. All business cost cut. To not cost cut is not viable. The fact of the matter is the Sox played all there chips at once. It gave us the 2018 banner. But it was at the expense of potential low $ talent such as moncada. Price was never a great fit. He helped in 2018 but I’m fine with him gone. It’s a shame how bennys last 2 years went. But they are what they are. If the FO had any confidence in Benny they wouldn’t have traded him. They obviously feel they are gaining on the trade. Not signing JBJ is (and hard for some) the right move. Betts is the big one. If you can believe rumours they tried to sign him and couldn’t. You can’t say the return was bad. If you didn’t think you could sign him, the trade was the Correct move, as much as we all wish he was still here. Are you suggesting I called them cheap? I did not to my recollection. I said they were cutting costs. Others used the term cheap. Cutting cost is demonstrable. Cheap is subjective. Add: anyway, it is beside the point. I’ll rephrase to spare people their vapors: why go through a year (two) of reset if you then don’t pay Xander if he opts out? When does passing on the home grown guys stop?
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Feb 21, 2021 0:59:37 GMT -5
Best chance? Nick Yorke. Again it's not saving money, yet planning future payrolls and what you value guys at. They made Betts big offers, he wanted more, so they moved on. They didn't just move on to cut payroll. Did I miss something or don't we have Bogaerts for two more years? Your talking about a SS in 2023 and I've never bought into the farm system is to replace every player at every position. I'm certainly not taking a SS just to have a guy in case Bogaerts leaves. I'm taking the best player available. You literally can't have this conversation till the end of 2022 when you know who will be available and what Xander's plans are. You did catch I think he stays right? You kinda make it sound like I picked a fight with you at the end there. Au contraire. Sure, yeah. It’s all been a big cost saving maneuver because Nick Yorke is gunna swoop in and be the next number retiree. I certainly hope so. My position: show Xander the money. Show Raffy the money. The Red Sox showed Betts $300,000,000 and he turned them down. Free will means the player can choose to leave. Some commenters act like you the Red Sox can make players stay. Betts ask for a ridiculous $420,000,000 which no team was going to pay (He might as well have ask for $800 million). If the roster can handle two (Devers and Bogaerts) questionable defensive players after 2022, then IMO the Red Sox will try to resign both. One will probably end up at 1B and the other at DH.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Feb 21, 2021 1:06:37 GMT -5
You kinda make it sound like I picked a fight with you at the end there. Au contraire. Sure, yeah. It’s all been a big cost saving maneuver because Nick Yorke is gunna swoop in and be the next number retiree. I certainly hope so. My position: show Xander the money. Show Raffy the money. The Red Sox showed Betts $300,000,000 and he turned them down. Free will means the player can choose to leave. Some commenters act like you the Red Sox can make players stay. Betts ask for a ridiculous $420,000,000 which no team was going to pay (He might as well have ask for $800 million). If the roster can handle two (Devers and Bogaerts) questionable defensive players after 2022, then IMO the Red Sox will try to resign both. One will probably end up at 1B and the other at DH. It really depends on the roster as a whole after 2022 as to who the Red Sox try to retain. We do not know what players may have break out seasons between now and then, or who the Red Sox may sign in free agency. Bloom has signed players who play multiple positions so as not to block prospects coming up. With Casas on the way and Devers being defensively challenged how many DH / 1B do they need.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Feb 21, 2021 2:13:05 GMT -5
Just sign Trevor Story next year and end this thread.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Feb 21, 2021 4:51:01 GMT -5
So.... you don’t think they are cost cutting. Check. If they were cost cutting they wouldn't have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and wouldn't have signed anyone this offseason. Well, they have the third highest payroll and the Sox are now 50-60 million AAV behind the first place Dodgers in payroll now. They're not cheap, but they're not the cash cows the Dodgers and Mets are acting like now.
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Feb 21, 2021 6:18:48 GMT -5
Dodgers had buehler ( who was a late first round pick as a pitcher coming off Tommy John and was an overdraft at that). Kershaw ( legit) verdugo ( who wasn’t that highly rated) bellinger ( wasn’t major prospect). Lux ( hasn’t done anything yet). Smith ( another non top prospect). They relied on scouting and development while making plays for superior talent at their cost evaluations. I’m not saying Sox should or shouldn’t sign Xander. I’m simply saying boras as his agent and his production likely means bye bye Xander so I Wouldn’t be shocked to see a shortstop drafted at 4 with a shortstop heavy draft this year ( if one shows they are worthy of a top 4-6 pick).
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Feb 21, 2021 6:31:21 GMT -5
I stand corrected. Yes boras was his agent. I still don’t see an elite level Xander resigning in Boston if Boston isn’t a playoff team and his value is at $7/210 or even 7/196. But here’s the monkey in the system: what will the next collective bargaining agreement look like and 2) what type of money situation is mlb in ( or Red Sox) when his contract expires. Red Sox will spend and make sure they are able to flexibly acquire elite players each year to remain competitive. If Xander is producing at an elite level and pulling in a reasonable contract ( not ridiculous) he will be here. But the only way to protect yourself from him having leverage is to get some shortstop depth in the system. My simple point is I would not be shocked ( and if I’m a betting man) Ild guess that will start with a shortstop at 4 if one of top 2 are there or they don’t see an elite elite tool or two in another amateur player they like. Should be a fun next 6-9 months
|
|
|
Post by dyoungteach on Feb 21, 2021 7:14:16 GMT -5
Quotes from Boston herald today: “He loves Boston and certainly wanted to continue with this group of players,” Bogaerts’ agent, Scott Boras, said when the deal was signed in 2019. “But I said, ‘Three or four years from now there are some real decisions to be made on this team. We’ll have to take a look then“
Anyone reading that and understanding he signed after a World Series and an ok but not great year- who does not think Xander will opt out and want to be PAID will be greatly disappointed. Consider tatis contract and what Correa/Baez/story/lindor will get and I’ll be shocked if Xander is here for less than $30 million
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Feb 21, 2021 9:11:35 GMT -5
Why are we even having this conversation? Bogaerts is under contract for at least 2 more years. Who knows what the landscape looks like then?
|
|
|