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.
Chaim Bloom and the Red Sox Rebuild
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 19, 2021 22:00:26 GMT -5
AGon was your second best full-time hitter and the reason you pulled off that trade because the Dodgers valued him so highly. Lester and Beckett both had massive down year, Beckett bam was a different player once traded and Lester also bounced back big time with a new coach. Ben made moves, they just made us worse like Reddick for Bailey trade. Sure Crawford did, so did Lackey while injured. Yet Lackey bounced back and a couple of bad deals won't sink the Red Sox. Valentine might be the worst coach in our history, yeah that had a big effect. It didn't help that Ben picked the wrong prospects in that deal either. I'd love to hear the logic with the fried chicken and beer team hiring Valentine. It's frankly not surprising at all. OK, so you're on record as being the only Red Sox fan on the planet that thought they were in great shape for team building in 2011 and the only problem was Bobby Valentine. Here's a clue. They hired Valentine because they knew it was going to be a disaster of a season no matter who they hired. They knew they had to tear it down and didn't want to do it to someone worth a damn. Do you even believe that? You remember that 2011 team right? 83-52 then went 7-20 in the last month. They topped out at 72-43, 29 games over .500. Yet they hire Valentine because they know it will be a disaster? You make Reddick for Bailey trade because it's a lost season?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 19, 2021 22:03:19 GMT -5
OK, so you're on record as being the only Red Sox fan on the planet that thought they were in great shape for team building in 2011 and the only problem was Bobby Valentine. Here's a clue. They hired Valentine because they knew it was going to be a disaster of a season no matter who they hired. They knew they had to tear it down and didn't want to do it to someone worth a damn. Do you even believe that? You remember that 2011 team right? 83-52 then went 7-20 in the last month. They topped out at 72-43, 29 games over .500. Yet they hire Valentine because they know it will be a disaster? You make Reddick for Bailey trade because it's a lost season? I said it when the hire was announced.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 20, 2021 8:57:32 GMT -5
Do you even believe that? You remember that 2011 team right? 83-52 then went 7-20 in the last month. They topped out at 72-43, 29 games over .500. Yet they hire Valentine because they know it will be a disaster? You make Reddick for Bailey trade because it's a lost season? I said it when the hire was announced. You weren't a member, so you didn't say it here. So our GM hired Valentine because AGon, Beckett and Crawford were so bad? Beckett was coming off a 5.8 bwar season and AGon was coming off a 6.9 bwar season. Your take makes zero sense, you are just using hindsight. Explain why he trades a prospect to pay Andrew Bailey 4 million then? A horrible move that greatly hurt that 2012 team and would play a huge role in him chasing veteran OF in the Lester and Lackey trades. If Ben was thinking the way you claim with the Valentine hire, why make the Bailey trade? Why not unload AGon and Beckett coming off a combined 12.7 bwar season? He could have gotten massive trade packages, much more than he did. Let me guess you also predicted Ellsbury would go from 8.3 bwar to .9 also? Lester would go from 4.3 bwar to .2? When most of the team turns into pumpkins and bounce back after no Valentine yeah I'm blaming the coach.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 20, 2021 9:04:15 GMT -5
I said it when the hire was announced. You weren't a member, so you didn't say it here. So our GM hired Valentine because AGon, Beckett and Crawford were so bad? Beckett was coming off a 5.8 bwar season and AGon was coming off a 6.9 bwar season. Your take makes zero sense, you are just using hindsight. Explain why he trades a prospect to pay Andrew Bailey 4 million then? A horrible move that greatly hurt that 2012 team and would play a huge role in him chasing veteran OF in the Lester and Lackey trades. If Ben was thinking the way you claim with the Valentine hire, why make the Bailey trade? Why not unload AGon and Beckett coming off a combined 12.7 bwar season? He could have gotten massive trade packages, much more than he did. Let me guess you also predicted Ellsbury would go from 8.3 bwar to .9 also? Lester would go from 4.3 bwar to .2? When most of the team turns into pumpkins and bounce back after no Valentine yeah I'm blaming the coach. I didn’t realize Bloom’s finger prints were all over this…
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 20, 2021 18:02:36 GMT -5
The enormous difference would be if you overlaid the organization's farm system ranking with the win totals. That's not everything but "Dombrowski won a lot too" kind of ignores the complete point being made, no? From 2003 to 2011, a total of 9 drafts, the Red Sox made 23 first round and supplemental first round picks. Nevermind the different rule during the draft money wise and the international market. Kinda hard to compare farm system rankings under a total different system no? It got to the point that Theo was trading for guys at the deadline with the plan to just get the two draft picks. You had a year with five picks, two more years with four picks each, 7 out of 9 years you had extra picks. It was brilliant, yet it gave him a massive advantage that doesn't exist right now. I'm not saying compare the farm systems. I'm saying compare the rankings. That's a relative measure of the farm's strength compared to the other MLB teams that were operating under the same rules at the given time. The Epstein Red Sox were getting extra picks in a system that also gave other teams extra picks, so no, it wasn't a huge advantage.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2021 11:38:34 GMT -5
From 2003 to 2011, a total of 9 drafts, the Red Sox made 23 first round and supplemental first round picks. Nevermind the different rule during the draft money wise and the international market. Kinda hard to compare farm system rankings under a total different system no? It got to the point that Theo was trading for guys at the deadline with the plan to just get the two draft picks. You had a year with five picks, two more years with four picks each, 7 out of 9 years you had extra picks. It was brilliant, yet it gave him a massive advantage that doesn't exist right now. I'm not saying compare the farm systems. I'm saying compare the rankings. That's a relative measure of the farm's strength compared to the other MLB teams that were operating under the same rules at the given time. The Epstein Red Sox were getting extra picks in a system that also gave other teams extra picks, so no, it wasn't a huge advantage. If every team averaged 3 first round and supplemental first round picks, you'd have 90 per draft over that period. The average was 48.8, with the high being 64 in 2007. So Theo had just about double the average and that's with him losing a bunch of firsts from signing free agents. It was a massive advantage for him compared to the rest of the league.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 21, 2021 16:28:34 GMT -5
This piece from The Atletic will confirm much of what's been said about Bloom's approach and style (and, by extension, what Henry is looking for). It makes me believe that, unless Devers takes a significant (i.e. Xander level) hometown discount, he's not getting extended or picked up as a free agent. You can draw your own conclusions but here are a few excerpts: The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported...But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.“Definitely, a better philosophy (in Boston). Definitely, it’s all about asset value,” Bloom’s former colleague said. “It went from about being about the most short-term certainty of big-name players … to being willing to take more chances based on value. And it’s a story that most people would find very boring. Finance type of thing.”I think those two statements sum up the gist of the article. Get used to more Franchy Corredro/Hunter Renfroe/Danny Santana/Marwin Gonzalez/Nick Pivetta/Martin Perez/Yakisel Rios/John Schrieber types of pick-ups. Meanwhile, my hopes of them picking up Kris Bryant, Correa, Seager, Thor or Robbie Ray are completely dashed. On the flip-side, expect Vazquez's option to be picked up and a 2-year deal for Jose Iglesias is well within almost certain reality.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 21, 2021 17:06:40 GMT -5
This piece from The Atletic will confirm much of what's been said about Bloom's approach and style (and, by extension, what Henry is looking for). It makes me believe that, unless Devers takes a significant (i.e. Xander level) hometown discount, he's not getting extended or picked up as a free agent. You can draw your own conclusions but here are a few excerpts: The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported...But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.“Definitely, a better philosophy (in Boston). Definitely, it’s all about asset value,” Bloom’s former colleague said. “It went from about being about the most short-term certainty of big-name players … to being willing to take more chances based on value. And it’s a story that most people would find very boring. Finance type of thing.”I think those two statements sum up the gist of the article. Get used to more Franchy Corredro/Hunter Renfroe/Danny Santana/Marwin Gonzalez/Nick Pivetta/Martin Perez/Yakisel Rios/John Schrieber types of pick-ups. Meanwhile, my hopes of them picking up Kris Bryant, Correa, Seager, Thor or Robbie Ray are completely dashed. On the flip-side, expect Vazquez's option to be picked up and a 2-year deal for Jose Iglesias is well within almost certain reality. Even if you DO believe those statements to be true, that they'll never give out a big contract again, while I absolutely do not (I feel like people should learn by now these guys aren't just going to give away their hand so easily)... you understand there's a huge amount of space in between the two levels of contracts you listed, right? Like, HUGE.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 21, 2021 17:13:45 GMT -5
I disagree with the notion that if there’s anyone you’d give a mega contract to its Mookie. No disrespect to him but I never wanted to give him a massive 10+ year deal. I don’t think he’s going to hold up physically.
Now the guy I’d keep my eye on to possibly dish out a mega deal to is Vlad, Jr in a couple years. Broke in a couple years earlier so he will be 25 when he’s up for that contract assuming he’s a free agent.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,659
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2021 17:15:20 GMT -5
This piece from The Atletic will confirm much of what's been said about Bloom's approach and style (and, by extension, what Henry is looking for). It makes me believe that, unless Devers takes a significant (i.e. Xander level) hometown discount, he's not getting extended or picked up as a free agent. You can draw your own conclusions but here are a few excerpts: The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported...But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.“Definitely, a better philosophy (in Boston). Definitely, it’s all about asset value,” Bloom’s former colleague said. “It went from about being about the most short-term certainty of big-name players … to being willing to take more chances based on value. And it’s a story that most people would find very boring. Finance type of thing.”I think those two statements sum up the gist of the article. Get used to more Franchy Corredro/Hunter Renfroe/Danny Santana/Marwin Gonzalez/Nick Pivetta/Martin Perez/Yakisel Rios/John Schrieber types of pick-ups. Meanwhile, my hopes of them picking up Kris Bryant, Correa, Seager, Thor or Robbie Ray are completely dashed. On the flip-side, expect Vazquez's option to be picked up and a 2-year deal for Jose Iglesias is well within almost certain reality. Even if you DO believe those statements to be true, that they'll never give out a big contract again, while I absolutely do not (I feel like people should learn by now these guys aren't just going to give away their hand so easily)... you understand there's a huge amount of space in between the two levels of contracts you listed, right? Like, HUGE. There is but the huge question is if Devers or to a lesser extent Bogaerts want to he paid near or at market level, would they make that kind of market offer? Perhaps X opts out but is willing to sign for a good deal below market value. According to his twin brother he really badly wants to stay. But if he's looking for Lindor money, he's probably gone. I think Devers looks for Rendon/Arronado money. I dont think he'd be treated as a DH by all pursuing teams. I think he could get 300 plus million and if so and if X stays I wouldnt be surprised if he were traded like Mookie was. None of the above is a commentary on what they should do or not do, but rather what I think is a possibility. They'll spend money. My guess is they re-sign E-Rod.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 21, 2021 17:18:24 GMT -5
I just read the article and didn't completely get the same vibe. Yes ownership said they would like to avoid those contracts but they also said they will keep the salary budget where it has been, in certain words. Given that so many of these long deals don't work out so well I don't know if that is terrible. I also don't think it is a mandate that couldn't bend based on the guy getting the long deal being on the young side.
I think it reinforces what I have said all along which is a blend of TBay strategy with a big market budget. It is doing things in a manor in which you weigh short term cost and value along with long term. Sometimes you might jab and counter, then you come in with an overhand right. Remain flexible.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 21, 2021 17:49:08 GMT -5
This piece from The Atletic will confirm much of what's been said about Bloom's approach and style (and, by extension, what Henry is looking for). It makes me believe that, unless Devers takes a significant (i.e. Xander level) hometown discount, he's not getting extended or picked up as a free agent. You can draw your own conclusions but here are a few excerpts: The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported...But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.“Definitely, a better philosophy (in Boston). Definitely, it’s all about asset value,” Bloom’s former colleague said. “It went from about being about the most short-term certainty of big-name players … to being willing to take more chances based on value. And it’s a story that most people would find very boring. Finance type of thing.”I think those two statements sum up the gist of the article. Get used to more Franchy Corredro/Hunter Renfroe/Danny Santana/Marwin Gonzalez/Nick Pivetta/Martin Perez/Yakisel Rios/John Schrieber types of pick-ups. Meanwhile, my hopes of them picking up Kris Bryant, Correa, Seager, Thor or Robbie Ray are completely dashed. On the flip-side, expect Vazquez's option to be picked up and a 2-year deal for Jose Iglesias is well within almost certain reality. Even if you DO believe those statements to be true, that they'll never give out a big contract again, while I absolutely do not (I feel like people should learn by now these guys aren't just going to give away their hand so easily)... you understand there's a huge amount of space in between the two levels of contracts you listed, right? Like, HUGE. And you understand that Devers will want a minimum of a Mookie deal, right? I can’t see that happening with this GM unless ownership overrules him. If the case is the former, they should try to extend him after this season and if they can’t they should trade him, sign Correa and move X to 3rd or sign Schwarber or Bryant to a four-year deal and move Dalbec and then pick-up a SS the following year when X opts out that can get you to Meyers (if it looks like he’ll make it to MLB). That would all be a Rays play, albeit on a bigger budget but still below luxury tax.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2021 18:10:34 GMT -5
Even if you DO believe those statements to be true, that they'll never give out a big contract again, while I absolutely do not (I feel like people should learn by now these guys aren't just going to give away their hand so easily)... you understand there's a huge amount of space in between the two levels of contracts you listed, right? Like, HUGE. And you understand that Devers will want a minimum of a Mookie deal, right? I can’t see that happening with this GM unless ownership overrules him. If the case is the former, they should try to extend him after this season and if they can’t they should trade him, sign Correa and move X to 3rd or sign Schwarber or Bryant to a four-year deal and move Dalbec and then pick-up a SS the following year when X opts out that can get you to Meyers (if it looks like he’ll make it to MLB). That would all be a Rays play, albeit on a bigger budget but still below luxury tax. Devers can want whatever he wants, Betts had a season equal Devers whole career bwar total up to this point. Right now he likely struggles to get half of what Betts got.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2021 18:42:40 GMT -5
I disagree with the notion that if there’s anyone you’d give a mega contract to its Mookie. No disrespect to him but I never wanted to give him a massive 10+ year deal. I don’t think he’s going to hold up physically. Now the guy I’d keep my eye on to possibly dish out a mega deal to is Vlad, Jr in a couple years. Broke in a couple years earlier so he will be 25 when he’s up for that contract assuming he’s a free agent. “Prince” Vlad Jr? Why do you think he will hold up better than Mookie? Mookie does so many things that will still be valuable as his athleticism declines: he fields, he throws, he runs the baes smartly, he makes contact. Vlad has had weight issues and is a more limited guy. Anyway, Devers and Vlad are likely a closer comp. i don’t see how Devers can ask for more or as much as Mookie. Gold glove? Uhhh.. no. MVP? Not yet. Best player in baseball? I’m not sure he has ever been demonstrably the best player on the *team.* I love Devers, and I say give him a whopper — but that won’t be a Mookie deal.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 21, 2021 18:48:00 GMT -5
I'm not saying compare the farm systems. I'm saying compare the rankings. That's a relative measure of the farm's strength compared to the other MLB teams that were operating under the same rules at the given time. The Epstein Red Sox were getting extra picks in a system that also gave other teams extra picks, so no, it wasn't a huge advantage. If every team averaged 3 first round and supplemental first round picks, you'd have 90 per draft over that period. The average was 48.8, with the high being 64 in 2007. So Theo had just about double the average and that's with him losing a bunch of firsts from signing free agents. It was a massive advantage for him compared to the rest of the league. I always thought it was an advantage for the Red Sox, too, and I was sorry to see the system change. In the pre-qualifying offer days, the big-market (good) teams were more likely to have decent veteran players who were desired by other teams. That gave the RS picks. Once the QO-era began, that was also an advantage for the RS and other big-market teams. They had more ability to gamble and make QOs than small-market teams.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 21, 2021 18:59:00 GMT -5
As long as ownership always spends to the tax, and exceeds it when practical, I prefer they'd spend more evenly than a stars and scrubs approach would call for. Paying big money in terms of AAV for shorter term deals is different than guaranteeing a decade of pay at that rate. There are always exceptions, short term deals can bust and long term deals can prove bargains, but the ability to quickly reset and have flexibility to meaningfully change the roster year to year is so valuable to a big market team - as we've seen, the Red Sox can reload fast.
Roster building isn't as black and white as these conversations get, and circumstances dictate short term strategy. I really doubt the Red Sox have ruled out all long term contracts no matter what, now and forever, it's not that dramatic. Buying high on veterans doesn't seem like a sustainable roster building strategy, just like exclusively shopping in the bargain bin isn't the way to go for a big market team either. The goal should be to combine their resources with consistently finding good value acquisitions and staying away from big long term mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 21, 2021 19:05:12 GMT -5
As long as ownership always spends to the tax, and exceeds it when practical, I prefer they'd spend more evenly than a stars and scrubs approach would call for. Paying big money in terms of AAV for shorter term deals is different than guaranteeing a decade of pay at that rate. There are always exceptions, short term deals can bust and long term deals can prove bargains, but the ability to quickly reset and have flexibility to meaningfully change the roster year to year is so valuable to a big market team - as we've seen, the Red Sox can reload fast. Roster building isn't as black and white as these conversations get, and circumstances dictate short term strategy. I really doubt the Red Sox have ruled out all long term contracts no matter what, now and forever, it's not that dramatic. Buying high on veterans doesn't seem like a sustainable roster building strategy, just like exclusively shopping in the bargain bin isn't the way to go for a big market team either. The goal should be to combine their resources with consistently finding good value acquisitions and staying away from big long term mistakes. Didn't I say the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2021 19:17:56 GMT -5
As long as ownership always spends to the tax, and exceeds it when practical, I prefer they'd spend more evenly than a stars and scrubs approach would call for. Paying big money in terms of AAV for shorter term deals is different than guaranteeing a decade of pay at that rate. There are always exceptions, short term deals can bust and long term deals can prove bargains, but the ability to quickly reset and have flexibility to meaningfully change the roster year to year is so valuable to a big market team - as we've seen, the Red Sox can reload fast. Roster building isn't as black and white as these conversations get, and circumstances dictate short term strategy. I really doubt the Red Sox have ruled out all long term contracts no matter what, now and forever, it's not that dramatic. Buying high on veterans doesn't seem like a sustainable roster building strategy, just like exclusively shopping in the bargain bin isn't the way to go for a big market team either. The goal should be to combine their resources with consistently finding good value acquisitions and staying away from big long term mistakes. But for folks who care as much or more about the guys than the laundry, turnover is a drag. Who looks back and says Adrien Beltre was his favorite Sox. Maybe his favorite player who WAS a Sox, but one year hardly makes a legend. Personally, I have never been as attached to this season’s team as previous teams, because there are so many temps. And I mean that both in the sense that they aren’t products of the system… and they won’t around long. Guys like Papi are Sox, even if they came as FAs. But a guy like Renfroe? He is making stop in a career of moves.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 21, 2021 19:24:31 GMT -5
And you understand that Devers will want a minimum of a Mookie deal, right? I can’t see that happening with this GM unless ownership overrules him. If the case is the former, they should try to extend him after this season and if they can’t they should trade him, sign Correa and move X to 3rd or sign Schwarber or Bryant to a four-year deal and move Dalbec and then pick-up a SS the following year when X opts out that can get you to Meyers (if it looks like he’ll make it to MLB). That would all be a Rays play, albeit on a bigger budget but still below luxury tax. Devers can want whatever he wants, Betts had a season equal Devers whole career bwar total up to this point. Right now he likely struggles to get half of what Betts got. I completely agree, but even if he wants $300 over 10 yrs, his agent will find someone who craves LH power and sees his age as a reason to spend big. If he switches to Boras, that’s virtually guaranteed unless the CBA drops the tax dramatically. Anyway, if they can’t sign him by the end of the 2022 season/early off season, the ruthless “Rays way” would be to trade him with 2 years left on his deal and get max return. It will be interesting to see if that becomes the Red Sox way, as well.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 21, 2021 19:29:31 GMT -5
I disagree with the notion that if there’s anyone you’d give a mega contract to its Mookie. No disrespect to him but I never wanted to give him a massive 10+ year deal. I don’t think he’s going to hold up physically. Now the guy I’d keep my eye on to possibly dish out a mega deal to is Vlad, Jr in a couple years. Broke in a couple years earlier so he will be 25 when he’s up for that contract assuming he’s a free agent. “Prince” Vlad Jr? Why do you think he will hold up better than Mookie? Mookie does so many things that will still be valuable as his athleticism declines: he fields, he throws, he runs the baes smartly, he makes contact. Vlad has had weight issues and is a more limited guy. Anyway, Devers and Vlad are likely a closer comp. i don’t see how Devers can ask for more or as much as Mookie. Gold glove? Uhhh.. no. MVP? Not yet. Best player in baseball? I’m not sure he has ever been demonstrably the best player on the *team.* I love Devers, and I say give him a whopper — but that won’t be a Mookie deal. There’s a reason I said “keep an eye on to possibly”… I’m not going to derail the thread on Mookie; time will tell but I don’t think he will age well. Leave it there.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 21, 2021 19:47:08 GMT -5
There’s a reason I said “keep an eye on to possibly”… I’m not going to derail the thread on Mookie; time will tell but I don’t think he will age well. Leave it there. Mookie had his lowest OPS-plus since 2017, lowest B-Ref WAR since his rookie year of 2014, which was a partial season for him, and lowest number of games played since '14. (I'm pro-rating his 2020 WAR and GP, of course.) He's probably heading for off-season hip surgery, not a small matter for a guy who depends on quickness and acceleration. That contract will be a disaster sooner, not later. If The Athletic story is correct and the RS really offered him $290M, then I'm disappointed in them. Mookie's desire to max out is all that saved them from another train-wreck contract.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 21, 2021 20:13:03 GMT -5
The thing is, the Dodgers got an outrageous deal with Mookie in terms of dollars per WAR. It's only 25.5 AAV with all the money deferred.
There's no guarantees, and it's possible they already regret it depending on his hip. But at the time of the signing, there's no chance in hell I would favor another GM's chances of getting more value out of $25.5 million a year spending it on mid-tier free agent contracts.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 21, 2021 22:57:21 GMT -5
Re this quote in the athletic article
“””””Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.”””””
We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford, Albert Pujols, Yoenis Cespedes, Prince Fielder....
I mean couldn’t you technically say that about the mike trout deal if he goes the length of his contract without a WS win for the angles?
What was the last big money $$$ that didn’t end in disaster?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 22, 2021 0:02:53 GMT -5
Re this quote in the athletic article “””””Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.””””” We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford, Albert Pujols, Yoenis Cespedes, Prince Fielder.... I mean couldn’t you technically say that about the mike trout deal if he goes the length of his contract without a WS win for the angles? What was the last big money $$$ that didn’t end in disaster? ARod had 54 bWAR for the Yankees, which is like $430 million in value, no? And Pedroia had 20 bWAR from 2013 forward. So in strictly dollars to WAR, neither seems disastrous. I think the question is: if you get great surplus value for the first half and overpay in the second, is that automatically bad?
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Oct 22, 2021 0:15:17 GMT -5
I have been watching Chris Taylor of the Dodgers. He is another Swiss Army Knife type with good, not overwhelming stats on the season and is a free agent this winter. Got paid about 7 mil per year on a two year contract. Seemed like he might have been available for not much more. And he plays well in CF. Could have freed up Kiké to move back to second. And would leave a big pot of money to sign free agents.
But not after three dingers tonight. Oh well, Chaim will just have to find other possibilities.
|
|
|