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 redsox04071318champs on Nov 29, 2021 11:04:23 GMT -5
Joel Sherman reports that the Mets offer to Scherzer is 3 years $129 million.
Absolutely ridiculous.
I thought 3 years 100 million (or even 105 million) would be more in line with a reasonable expectation.
But the Mets, spurned by everybody, is so desperate to make a splash, they're actually going to pay Scherzer 43 million per year.
It's not like the Mets are a championship caliber club needing to be put over the top, so the presence of Scherzer on that team doesn't make as much sense as it would for him to be on the Dodgers.
But this is a 39 year old pitcher. If he gets hurt, you're talking about 43 million sitting on the IL.
I get that it's only short-term (although if Scherzer loses is suddenly or gets hurt, 3 years will feel like an eternity), but now 36 million/year thing has been shattered, so it's a matter of time before a pitcher who's younger and coming off a couple of Cy Young seasons will be looking for a 45 million per year contract over a much longer term.
Now, I'm not saying I feel bad for owners because I don't. They probably can afford it, but wow, the disparity between the free agents and the young players not making the huge money yet...wow.
My gut feel is that the Mets are really going to regret what they're about to do - unless their plan is to have a 250 - 300 million payroll, and even that won't guarantee any championships.
Just such a Mets thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by vokuhila on Nov 29, 2021 11:11:16 GMT -5
IIRC Scherzer vetoed both NY teams at the deadline. But leaving 43 per on the table is certainly hard.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 29, 2021 11:43:29 GMT -5
I can see now that Bloom’s rotation plan is to let everyone else buy all the good and very good pitchers leaving the Sox to pick through the crap. Brilliant Which starter who signed already or is rumored to be signing would you really have wanted at the price they received? I'm all set on paying gausman, Verlander, Syndergaard and most definitely scherzer what they got or are going to get. Erod is the only decent deal on a starter I've seen so far. I wanted ERod and I would've offered Thor two years. I would've been OK with Gausman. Once Ray is gone (Stroman is not a fit for the Sox unless they upgrade the IF), I believe the rest is dreck, except for a couple relievers. Winning in the AL is in large part all about having quality pitching and good defense. Right now the Sox have taken a big hit backward. I can't believe Bloom/Henry going all-in on Correa, who would instantly upgrade the offense and the defense. I'd love it, but I can't believe it has more than a 1% chance of happening right now. If they are going to upgrade on the mound, we may be looking at a trade for one of the Oakland starters. That means some blue-chip prospects will be going out the door. Or did we think that Billy Beane wants Red Sox trash? End of the day, I'd rather buy pitching and trade blue-chip prospects, unless you're getting a blue-chip MLB starter back with at least 3 years of control.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Nov 29, 2021 12:49:35 GMT -5
Wow 3 years $130 for Scherzer
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 12:54:16 GMT -5
Heyman acting like 3/130 is done.
If Scherzer has three full healthy seasons at his established level of play then the Mets will end up getting a very average amount of value for their money. And uh, there's a pretty good chance that the 39 year old pitcher gives you less than that.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 29, 2021 12:54:24 GMT -5
Joel Sherman reports that the Mets offer to Scherzer is 3 years $129 million. Absolutely ridiculous. I thought 3 years 100 million (or even 105 million) would be more in line with a reasonable expectation. But the Mets, spurned by everybody, is so desperate to make a splash, they're actually going to pay Scherzer 43 million per year. It's not like the Mets are a championship caliber club needing to be put over the top, so the presence of Scherzer on that team doesn't make as much sense as it would for him to be on the Dodgers. But this is a 39 year old pitcher. If he gets hurt, you're talking about 43 million sitting on the IL. I get that it's only short-term (although if Scherzer loses is suddenly or gets hurt, 3 years will feel like an eternity), but now 36 million/year thing has been shattered, so it's a matter of time before a pitcher who's younger and coming off a couple of Cy Young seasons will be looking for a 45 million per year contract over a much longer term. Now, I'm not saying I feel bad for owners because I don't. They probably can afford it, but wow, the disparity between the free agents and the young players not making the huge money yet...wow. My gut feel is that the Mets are really going to regret what they're about to do - unless their plan is to have a 250 - 300 million payroll, and even that won't guarantee any championships. Just such a Mets thing to do. I think Cohen is in it to win it, pretty obviously. I don't see this as being a bad move. He is a very rich man and this is nothing to him. Flexing financial muscle is a good thing when it comes to stout starting pitching. There really isn't anything in Scherzer's history that would lead someone to believe he is an above average injury risk. Yes, age and innings pitched is a concern, but he has always taken the ball. You would have to be Nostradamus to really bet on that occurring.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 29, 2021 12:58:47 GMT -5
Heyman acting like 3/130 is done. If Scherzer has three full healthy seasons at his established level of play then the Mets will end up getting a very average amount of value for their money. And uh, there's a pretty good chance that the 39 year old pitcher gives you less than that. With respect, i don't think you can always look at roster decisions with just value as the primary context. This is a great pitcher. He still is Top 10 in the majors. The circumstances for Cohen may be different than they are for Henry et al., as far as the luxury tax. Age is just a number. it may be more consequential as ballplayers get older, that is for sure. Some guys are gonna be outliers though, and that is what the Mets are hoping for here. I think it was a good decision.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 29, 2021 12:59:08 GMT -5
Wow 3 years $130 for Scherzer Also gets an opt-out after the 2nd year, plus a full no-trade clause. Sounds like the deal is done.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Nov 29, 2021 13:09:15 GMT -5
Star right-hander Max Scherzer and the New York Mets have agreed to a three-year, $130 million contract, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN's Jeff Passan. Scherzer has the ability to opt out of the contract after the second season of the deal, the sources said. The $43.33 million average annual salary of the deal sets a record, surpassing the $36 million New York Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole is averaging after signing a nine-year, $324 million contract in 2019. www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32745735/sources-new-york-mets-max-scherzer-finalizing-3-year-deal
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 29, 2021 13:09:27 GMT -5
I’ll say it: I’d do it.
Look, Scherzer should be awesome for another year or two. In those years, you might be slightly overpaying, but such is life. Then you hope he is at least ok in the backend.
But let’s say the Sox did it: next year they have Scherzer, Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Houck. Keep Whitlock as a lockdown guy in the pen. That is sick. You can let Eovaldi walk at the end of his contract, shift Whitlock to the rotation, save about half of Scherzer’s contract.
You go over for the tax threshold (assuming all stays as is) next year or two, but you can anticipate cycling a few cheaper guys in (Casas at first, for example) and letting a few expensive guys go (Eovaldi, JDM).
I know… there are a lot of buts… but I don’t think this is crazy.
And for the Mets… with Lindor, they’ve already partly committed to winning now… you may as well go all-in. And as I’ve said before, the Mets have a NY inferiority issue. Mets, Islanders, Jets… these are the also-ran teams in NY that need to make noise to compete for attention.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 13:10:06 GMT -5
Wow 3 years $130 for Scherzer Also gets an opt-out after the 2nd year, plus a full no-trade clause. My goodness. Scott Boras is legend.
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 29, 2021 13:41:12 GMT -5
Mets have a payroll higher than 4 MLB teams and they're not done yet.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Nov 29, 2021 13:48:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by threeifbaerga on Nov 29, 2021 13:49:28 GMT -5
Honestly I totally get this for the Mets - It's just money and gives them the best 1-2 in the league. The Braves won that division with 88 wins last year and then won the World Series. Yes everyone else in the division is getting better but I don't think any of them improved in the way the Mets did. We've all spent all offseason preaching about "higher AAV, lower years" and the Mets did just that for one of the best in the game.
Unless I'm mistaken they will have gained picks for Conforto and Syndergaard, gotten substantially better, can blow past the luxury tax line for the next three years (at which point they'll lose $42mil worth of payroll on one roster spot) and have only lost Steve Cohen's money.
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Nov 29, 2021 13:52:36 GMT -5
Nov. 29: Ray set to meet with Angels; deal not close (source)
Ray is said to be seeking a five-year deal worth at least $125 million,
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 13:54:31 GMT -5
Spending an extra $43 million a year is going to make your team better, no doubt. The issue is that Max Scherzer and that's it is a lousy way to spend $43 million. This isn't entirely fair, but $43 million a year could have bought then Kevin Gausman, Kyle Schwarber and Kendall Graveman instead.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 29, 2021 14:00:59 GMT -5
Spending an extra $43 million a year is going to make your team better, no doubt. The issue is that Max Scherzer and that's it is a lousy way to spend $43 million. This isn't entirely fair, but $43 million a year could have bought then Kevin Gausman, Kyle Schwarber and Kendall Graveman instead. But the whole point is that they're not cost-constrained. There's functionally no opportunity cost - it didn't stop them from spending another $30 million on other free agents just this weekend!
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Nov 29, 2021 14:01:52 GMT -5
The Marlins are extending right-hander Sandy Alcantara with a five-year, $56 million contract
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 29, 2021 14:03:01 GMT -5
Of course they're cost constrained. Why isn't Marcus Semien their second baseman?
|
|
|
Post by baseball3 on Nov 29, 2021 14:07:50 GMT -5
Of course they're cost constrained. Why isn't Marcus Semien their second baseman? LOL well they're still in on Baez to answer that question. Don't think they land him, but Cohen is breaking all sorts of records lately and I won't doubt him anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Nov 29, 2021 14:38:30 GMT -5
Scherzer, deGrom, and Lindor will be paid $113.4m in 2022, which is obviously more than the entire payrolls of about a dozen teams.
Oh, by the way, Robinson Cano is still under contract with the Mets and will get $24m.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 29, 2021 14:39:12 GMT -5
Spending an extra $43 million a year is going to make your team better, no doubt. The issue is that Max Scherzer and that's it is a lousy way to spend $43 million. This isn't entirely fair, but $43 million a year could have bought then Kevin Gausman, Kyle Schwarber and Kendall Graveman instead. I am not sure signing those guys is *better* — Scherzer was a 6 WAR #1 starter. Gausman could easily turn into a pumpkin again. And this ignores the fact that not one of those signings is the front of the Post and Daily News sports page. Scherzer will put butts in seats. (Think of how many indie movies you can make for the cost of the Avengers!)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 29, 2021 14:48:09 GMT -5
Spending an extra $43 million a year is going to make your team better, no doubt. The issue is that Max Scherzer and that's it is a lousy way to spend $43 million. This isn't entirely fair, but $43 million a year could have bought then Kevin Gausman, Kyle Schwarber and Kendall Graveman instead. I am not sure signing those guys is *better* — Scherzer was a 6 WAR #1 starter. Gausman could easily turn into a pumpkin again. And this ignores the fact that not one of those signings is the front of the Post and Daily News sports page. Scherzer will put butts in seats. (Think of how many indie movies you can make for the cost of the Avengers!) 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.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Nov 29, 2021 15:18:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 29, 2021 15:21:46 GMT -5
Of course they're cost constrained. Why isn't Marcus Semien their second baseman? Probably because he required a 7-year deal? And to your example of Gausman, et al., those guys required 5-year deals, and so on. They're not cost-controlled *now* but that doesn't mean they want to have a dozen albatross contracts on the books in 2025.
|
|
|