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.
2021-2022 Non-Red Sox Offseason Thread
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 19:25:13 GMT -5
Daniel Hudson 1/7 to the Dodgers. Pass.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2021 19:26:52 GMT -5
Daniel Hudson 1/7 to the Dodgers. Pass. Honestly I'd have preferred to spend 7 million on Hudson than Wacha.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 29, 2021 19:43:25 GMT -5
But they can’t pay all three. I don't think that's a good enough reason to not add a premium talent like Correa. The fact is that Devers is an atrocious defender at 3B. The Red Sox have a shaky infield, they need some talent there IMO. Speaking as a fan… not a number cruncher… I’d say I’d feel very betrayed if the Sox made the moves they made to get under the tax cap only to turn around and jettison even more homegrown core guys *finally* to pony up $300 million for a guy for whom I can’t even root. After all the talk about how Mookie’s contract would be budgetary malpractice, why is an older SS worth likely as much or more? Especially when we HAVE an all-star shortstop? Whatever X’s defensive liabilities, he was still a tick below 5 WAR last year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 29, 2021 19:48:48 GMT -5
Cobb to SF.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Nov 29, 2021 19:56:27 GMT -5
Starting to think maybe there's a strong expectation among the teams that the players are going to do good for themselves in the next CBA. This is a great point, worth reiterating. Personally I think the new CBA needs to fix the average salary issue by focusing more on the 23-28 year olds rather than the 29+ group, so I'm not 100% sold that a new CBA will make free agency more lucrative, but it could clearly be a bet that some teams are making. Other thoughts: - Teams believe inflation is taking off and want to lock in costs long-term knowing that they will have a lot of ability to raise ticket prices going forward - Owners got a whole lot wealthier from the stock market rising and are more willing to dole out cash
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Nov 29, 2021 20:04:15 GMT -5
I don't think that's a good enough reason to not add a premium talent like Correa. The fact is that Devers is an atrocious defender at 3B. The Red Sox have a shaky infield, they need some talent there IMO. Speaking as a fan… not a number cruncher… I’d say I’d feel very betrayed if the Sox made the moves they made to get under the tax cap only to turn around and jettison even more homegrown core guys *finally* to pony up $300 million for a guy for whom I can’t even root. After all the talk about how Mookie’s contract would be budgetary malpractice, why is an older SS worth likely as much or more? Especially when we HAVE an all-star shortstop? Whatever X’s defensive liabilities, he was still a tick below 5 WAR last year. Agreed. I'm sort of agnostic as to whether Correa is worth the contract he's going to get, but it would be an emotional gut punch to pay him after letting Mookie walk. That's before you even consider it means they're almost certainly cutting ties with Bogaerts and/or Devers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2021 20:09:15 GMT -5
Speaking as a fan… not a number cruncher… I’d say I’d feel very betrayed if the Sox made the moves they made to get under the tax cap only to turn around and jettison even more homegrown core guys *finally* to pony up $300 million for a guy for whom I can’t even root. After all the talk about how Mookie’s contract would be budgetary malpractice, why is an older SS worth likely as much or more? Especially when we HAVE an all-star shortstop? Whatever X’s defensive liabilities, he was still a tick below 5 WAR last year. Agreed. I'm sort of agnostic as to whether Correa is worth the contract he's going to get, but it would be an emotional gut punch to pay him after letting Mookie walk. That's before you even consider it means they're almost certainly cutting ties with Bogaerts and/or Devers. I wouldn't sweat it. They're not going to throw 350 million at Correa. If the Tigers don't want to pay that kind of money either they'll sign Baez instead and a team like the Dodgers might sink that kind of money into Correa, now that Scherzer is gone.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 20:16:25 GMT -5
Starting to think maybe there's a strong expectation among the teams that the players are going to do good for themselves in the next CBA. This is a great point, worth reiterating. Personally I think the new CBA needs to fix the average salary issue by focusing more on the 23-28 year olds rather than the 29+ group, so I'm not 100% sold that a new CBA will make free agency more lucrative, but it could clearly be a bet that some teams are making. Good point. Some wins for the players will have relatively little impact on the FA market (minimum salary increase), some will increase free agent salaries (raise the CBT limit) and others would actually depress free agent salaries (increase the supply of free agents).
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 29, 2021 23:44:27 GMT -5
Wow, teams other than the Yankees, Dodgers, and us are really spending aggressively. This is nuts. Well, the stock market has been going nuts since covid hit and I'm sure that most owners are deeply invested and reaping huge windfalls. LAD and MFY have some pretty big existing and upcoming commitments, which will make it difficult for them to limbo under the CBT in the next couple years (assuming that continues to be a thing). Not sure what our excuse is...
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 29, 2021 23:48:48 GMT -5
I don't think that's a good enough reason to not add a premium talent like Correa. The fact is that Devers is an atrocious defender at 3B. The Red Sox have a shaky infield, they need some talent there IMO. Speaking as a fan… not a number cruncher… I’d say I’d feel very betrayed if the Sox made the moves they made to get under the tax cap only to turn around and jettison even more homegrown core guys *finally* to pony up $300 million for a guy for whom I can’t even root. After all the talk about how Mookie’s contract would be budgetary malpractice, why is an older SS worth likely as much or more? Especially when we HAVE an all-star shortstop? Whatever X’s defensive liabilities, he was still a tick below 5 WAR last year. Exactly my feeling. Correa is a petulant, unrepentant brat, while Xander is one of the few true gentlemen in the game and not exactly chopped liver between the lines. I hope he retires as a lifelong Red Sox but I wouldn't mind moving him to 2B or 3B in the next year or two.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 29, 2021 23:57:37 GMT -5
Daniel Hudson 1/7 to the Dodgers. Pass. Honestly I'd have preferred to spend 7 million on Hudson than Wacha. Multiple TJs and 35 years old but is renowned for his clubhouse presence. Was a huge part of the Nats' 2019 WS run.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 0:11:59 GMT -5
Also, consider that, according to FanGraphs, 2019 Scherzer was worth $52M and 2021 Scherzer worth $42M. If one thinks he can maintain 2021 levels this is only a slight overpay. I think it was 1 year too long, but if the Sox did it I would not be complaining, esp with the amount of cash they have coming off the books next year. There is not a chance he maintains 2021 levels for three years imo. I would be pissed if the Sox made this deal unless they're intending to go full Cohen and just treat their cash like Monopoly money. For me, if you do that deal (granted, 3/$130m is pretty insane but still not my money and not affecting next CBT reset) and you get one WS ring out of it, it's worth it. You've got a window with Sale, Eovaldi, Xander, Devers, JDM, and a pretty nice supporting cast of role players and youngsters. Add Scherzer to that and you have to like your chances for at least one ring in that window (assuming you can fix the bullpen).
That said, 3/$130m is still pretty insane and you hope that a similar amount will be used constructively on other players that will produce more than 5-6 combined WAR per year.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 0:22:15 GMT -5
I don't think that's a good enough reason to not add a premium talent like Correa. The fact is that Devers is an atrocious defender at 3B. The Red Sox have a shaky infield, they need some talent there IMO. Money is a pretty good reason not to add a premium talent, honestly. What other reason even is there? I'm all for improving the infield defense and have been banging that drum myself, but you don't need to sign Correa to do that. Baez is a similar caliber defender with good offensive upside (albeit with some bust potential) and will probably cost like 1/4 of what Correa will. The Sox could also go the affordable route and pick up an Iglesias or Simmons type.
I'd like to bring back Iglesias.
Maybe if it's a guy who's already part of the team, it'll make it easier for X to move to 2B.
Simmons seriously can't hit anymore - .274 SLG in 2021 - but he can still pick it. It'll be interesting to see if someone signs him, maybe as a UT or a bottom-feeder who hopes they can move him at the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 30, 2021 2:04:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 30, 2021 2:05:34 GMT -5
So many bad contracts being Given out by bad teams.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 8:56:14 GMT -5
There is not a chance he maintains 2021 levels for three years imo. I would be pissed if the Sox made this deal unless they're intending to go full Cohen and just treat their cash like Monopoly money. For me, if you do that deal (granted, 3/$130m is pretty insane but still not my money and not affecting next CBT reset) and you get one WS ring out of it, it's worth it. You've got a window with Sale, Eovaldi, Xander, Devers, JDM, and a pretty nice supporting cast of role players and youngsters. Add Scherzer to that and you have to like your chances for at least one ring in that window (assuming you can fix the bullpen).
That said, 3/$130m is still pretty insane and you hope that a similar amount will be used constructively on other players that will produce more than 5-6 combined WAR per year.
I definitely agree that 2022 makes sense as a year to spend, but I'm not enough of a believer in Scherzer at this age to put all of my eggs in that basket. I don't really like the "flags fly forever" argument; the way to win titles is more about getting to the playoffs consistently than it is about having the best overall team, since even the most dominant teams are at the mercy of small sample sizes and hot teams. As a fan, I would also rather make the playoffs every year rather than ball out one year, maybe win a WS or maybe not, and then be crappy for a couple years due to the bad contracts we took on gunning for that WS. 100% agree with your last paragraph. I see this deal as enough of an overpay that I'd just as soon spread that money over multiple players who should bring as much or more value. Definitely do want us to spend over the LT threshold, though, assuming similar CBA rules.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 30, 2021 9:23:17 GMT -5
I don't understand why you wouldn't want Scherzer on a short-term deal. Over the past three seasons, he has the lowest FIP in baseball, 2.84. Only Cole (2.93), Morton (3.03), and Wheeler (3.05) are within .35 of him among qualified guys. Yes, age will catch up with him eventually, but he's baseball's best pitcher and they only have to commit three years to him. And this isn't about building a super team, it's about making the team good enough to compete in the short term. He doesn't even have compensation attached, there's no consequence, and it's impossible for me to argue that those other free agents a) are likely to be better for 2022-2024, or b) are likely to have excess value in 2025 and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 30, 2021 9:28:41 GMT -5
So many bad contracts being Given out by bad teams. Bullet dodged. Glad they didn't spend money on Baez (and 6, that's SIX years)!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 30, 2021 9:36:42 GMT -5
The Tigers were pretty solid last year after an awful first six weeks or so, and they did it while getting a .201/.275/.321 line from their shortstops. That is a very decent short term upgrade. They remain my 2022 sleeper. However, six-year deals for dudes with a .307 career OBP are a bad idea.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,419
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 30, 2021 10:29:48 GMT -5
If the tigers young pitchers progress and perform as well as their pedigree and erod pitches as well as he's shown in the past which I think he will being in a better pitchers environment that rotation could be a dark horse top 10 type of staff. Baez solid fielding should help them as well. I'd say they still need some more hitting but its still early enough for them to continue to add good pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 11:03:10 GMT -5
So many bad contracts being Given out by bad teams. Bullet dodged. Glad they didn't spend money on Baez (and 6, that's SIX years)! Speaking of bullets, I really don't want Correa but that's the team that everyone though would sign Correa, so for Don and Guidas and others, this has to be good news.
I think he ends up back in HOU for a bit of a hometown haircut, though.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 30, 2021 11:15:34 GMT -5
For me, if you do that deal (granted, 3/$130m is pretty insane but still not my money and not affecting next CBT reset) and you get one WS ring out of it, it's worth it. You've got a window with Sale, Eovaldi, Xander, Devers, JDM, and a pretty nice supporting cast of role players and youngsters. Add Scherzer to that and you have to like your chances for at least one ring in that window (assuming you can fix the bullpen).
That said, 3/$130m is still pretty insane and you hope that a similar amount will be used constructively on other players that will produce more than 5-6 combined WAR per year.
I definitely agree that 2022 makes sense as a year to spend, but I'm not enough of a believer in Scherzer at this age to put all of my eggs in that basket. I don't really like the "flags fly forever" argument; the way to win titles is more about getting to the playoffs consistently than it is about having the best overall team, since even the most dominant teams are at the mercy of small sample sizes and hot teams. As a fan, I would also rather make the playoffs every year rather than ball out one year, maybe win a WS or maybe not, and then be crappy for a couple years due to the bad contracts we took on gunning for that WS. 100% agree with your last paragraph. I see this deal as enough of an overpay that I'd just as soon spread that money over multiple players who should bring as much or more value. Definitely do want us to spend over the LT threshold, though, assuming similar CBA rules. As a fan of a team that has four rings in this century and at least three last-place finishes, I think I'm happier than the MFY fans who make the playoffs every year but haven't won a best-of-seven series in 12 years. My neighbor is a big LAD fan and he's been pretty frustrated during their recent stretch, with the small consolation of winning a fake ring in 2020. (Sorry Nacho, but a two-month regular season playing against only a fraction of the league is not a championship season.)
I, too, want to root for sustained excellence but I also see that no one has won back-to-back rings in >20 years, so the realist in me says that when you come as close as we did last year, you should do what you can to get through that window just once. If you manage that, you can look at what's left and try again but you can't win multiple championships without winning that first one.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 30, 2021 11:23:58 GMT -5
I definitely agree that 2022 makes sense as a year to spend, but I'm not enough of a believer in Scherzer at this age to put all of my eggs in that basket. I don't really like the "flags fly forever" argument; the way to win titles is more about getting to the playoffs consistently than it is about having the best overall team, since even the most dominant teams are at the mercy of small sample sizes and hot teams. As a fan, I would also rather make the playoffs every year rather than ball out one year, maybe win a WS or maybe not, and then be crappy for a couple years due to the bad contracts we took on gunning for that WS. 100% agree with your last paragraph. I see this deal as enough of an overpay that I'd just as soon spread that money over multiple players who should bring as much or more value. Definitely do want us to spend over the LT threshold, though, assuming similar CBA rules. As a fan of a team that has four rings in this century and at least three last-place finishes, I think I'm happier than the MFY fans who make the playoffs every year but haven't won a best-of-seven series in 12 years. My neighbor is a big LAD fan and he's been pretty frustrated during their recent stretch, with the small consolation of winning a fake ring in 2020. (Sorry Nacho, but a two-month regular season playing against only a fraction of the league is not a championship season.)
I, too, want to root for sustained excellence but I also see that no one has won back-to-back rings in >20 years, so the realist in me says that when you come as close as we did last year, you should do what you can to get through that window just once. If you manage that, you can look at what's left and try again but you can't win multiple championships without winning that first one.
If the tax is staying, good teams can stay good, but great teams will almost certainly need to have periods of decline. The 2018 Sox were built for “sustained” success: a great, young team with a homegrown core. But in a year or two, they decided they couldn’t afford a lot of midcareer stars. No tax, you might be looking at X/Devers/Mookie for a decade. If Corey Seager is getting $325 million, it is going to be almost impossible to keep a top team together for long.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Nov 30, 2021 12:07:08 GMT -5
Exactly my feeling. Correa is a petulant, unrepentant brat, while Xander is one of the few true gentlemen in the game and not exactly chopped liver between the lines. I hope he retires as a lifelong Red Sox but I wouldn't mind moving him to 2B or 3B in the next year or two. Just to clarify something, Xander is my favorite Red Sox player and has been so since he came into the league. Possibly he was my favorite prospect of all time except for Keith Couch. I like him more than I liked Mookie, and I loved Mookie! I do not and I will never advocate getting rid of him. However, I think it's pretty clear the Sox infield has two holes: defense at 3B and everything at 2B. I really think Correa fits into that. He's not a replacement for Xander, he's a teammate.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 30, 2021 12:43:45 GMT -5
I definitely agree that 2022 makes sense as a year to spend, but I'm not enough of a believer in Scherzer at this age to put all of my eggs in that basket. I don't really like the "flags fly forever" argument; the way to win titles is more about getting to the playoffs consistently than it is about having the best overall team, since even the most dominant teams are at the mercy of small sample sizes and hot teams. As a fan, I would also rather make the playoffs every year rather than ball out one year, maybe win a WS or maybe not, and then be crappy for a couple years due to the bad contracts we took on gunning for that WS. 100% agree with your last paragraph. I see this deal as enough of an overpay that I'd just as soon spread that money over multiple players who should bring as much or more value. Definitely do want us to spend over the LT threshold, though, assuming similar CBA rules. As a fan of a team that has four rings in this century and at least three last-place finishes, I think I'm happier than the MFY fans who make the playoffs every year but haven't won a best-of-seven series in 12 years. My neighbor is a big LAD fan and he's been pretty frustrated during their recent stretch, with the small consolation of winning a fake ring in 2020. (Sorry Nacho, but a two-month regular season playing against only a fraction of the league is not a championship season.)
I, too, want to root for sustained excellence but I also see that no one has won back-to-back rings in >20 years, so the realist in me says that when you come as close as we did last year, you should do what you can to get through that window just once. If you manage that, you can look at what's left and try again but you can't win multiple championships without winning that first one.
The reason why no one is winning back to back is exactly my point. The playoffs are a crap shoot. You need to sit at the table more often if you want to win rather than going all in to make your 50/50s into 60/40s. You're talking about small sample sizes here. The Red Sox are not going to win every WS they make for all eternity. Saying "scoreboard" basically ignores how much luck goes into WS wins. I would much rather stick to the Dodgers model. 9 straight playoff appearances, 3 WS appearances in the last five years, and they still have both a solid farm and a solid MLB roster. That is so much more fun as a fan than alternating between first place and last place, even when you have the ridiculous good fortune of converting 10 playoff appearances into 4 WS titles. The only Sox WS team that was clearly the best team in baseball over the course of the season was the 2018 team. The others were very good teams among a handful of other very good teams and happened to rise to the top. Only 4 of the last 20 WS (or 6, if you count ties for best record) were won by the team with the best overall record in the regular season. 7 were won by WC teams. When you consider that there are always two WC teams in the round of 8, it's more like a 3.5/20 win rate per WC slot, but that's still close to the win rate for the best overall team. Lesson: if you boom and bust, you will probably not win the WS during the boom and you will definitely bust regardless. The Sox are far from the only team following the boom and bust model. The Sox are just fortunate to have won so frequently recently. It definitely doesn't make it a better model for winning the WS than making the playoffs year after year.
|
|
|