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 jerrygarciaparra on Jul 19, 2022 11:05:51 GMT -5
I was just thinking. Devers is pretty much = Arenado. He signed an 8 year 260. I think Devers should take that same contract + 20 mill for inflation. That makes him a free agent at 33. He still could cash in 1 more time and the contract works for both sides. Dever's best season wouldn't be in Arenado's top 5 best seasons. Arenado is a vastly superior player. WAR makes that pretty clear, but also look at gold gloves, silver sluggers, and top 10 in MVP voting. As much as it pains me to say, people are over-rating Devers. He just hasn't accomplished what the players who have gotten $300 million contracts. Still hope they can work out a deal, but for around 200 million. If he wants 300 million, he should be some other teams mistake. it isn't just about player comps. You are talking about a premium LH bat that is very young. And he plays 3B pretty decently. The market rewards these players. And what do you do to replace him. What is the opportunity cost there ? People can go through all the metrics they want. If Rafael Devers isn't worth 8yr @ 250 mill, minimum, then there is something wrong with the market. And without a hometown discount, the market is what the Red Sox will be forced to pay to retain his services.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jul 19, 2022 12:14:21 GMT -5
According to a major league source familiar with the talks, the Red Sox identified Matt Olson’s eight-year, $168 million extension with Atlanta as a basis for discussions — citing the likelihood that Devers would spend much of the contract either at first base or designated hitter. Devers aimed much higher, convinced in his ability to stay at third for the immediate future (an outlook that has been validated by his solid glove work this year) while making the case that his offense would make him immensely valuable even if he eventually moves to first or DH. The canyon-sized gap between the sides — Jeff Passan of ESPN reported it was in excess of $100 million — made clear that there was little common ground. www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/18/sports/rafael-devers-red-sox-future/$168M… jeez. If they’re not going to pay him, who are they going to pay? Devers is a known quantity, plays well here, and will likely be the team’s only homegrown star after Xander leaves, at least unless/until Casas or Mayer breaks out. He’s also one of the most talented hitters in the game. And even if the last few years of the deal are underwater, is it that big a deal? We won 119 games in 2018 carrying the $40M bloated corpses of Pablo and Hanley, not to mention $31M for David Price. I mean, I get the reticence with his defense, but given his improvements this year, I really hope Henry, Bloom, and co rethink their numbers. If this is legit then this team has zero interest in keeping Devers and I can only imagine what they really offered Boegarts. Devers is a much better player than Olson and younger too. I really don't understand the logic in pushing players out the door that actually want to play in this market and have thrived over a couple of bucks. Maybe they are just playing the PR game. Even before the season this was a slap in the face.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,592
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 19, 2022 12:21:09 GMT -5
$168M… jeez. If they’re not going to pay him, who are they going to pay? Devers is a known quantity, plays well here, and will likely be the team’s only homegrown star after Xander leaves, at least unless/until Casas or Mayer breaks out. He’s also one of the most talented hitters in the game. And even if the last few years of the deal are underwater, is it that big a deal? We won 119 games in 2018 carrying the $40M bloated corpses of Pablo and Hanley, not to mention $31M for David Price. I mean, I get the reticence with his defense, but given his improvements this year, I really hope Henry, Bloom, and co rethink their numbers. If this is legit then this team has zero interest in keeping Devers and I can only imagine what they really offered Boegarts. Devers is a much better player than Olson and younger too. I really don't understand the logic in pushing players out the door that actually want to play in this market and have thrived over a couple of bucks. Maybe they are just playing the PR game. Even before the season this was a slap in the face. Call me crazy but if true I really don't find the sox offering something in the line of the Olson extension all that far fetched. Certainly not as a starting point since it is a negotiation after all. Like the article points out there were serious doubts that he can stay at 3rd. Probably still is fair to have those doubts. If 8 years 168 was their line in the sand number they won't cross and was their final offer then yes I'll agree its too little but I also don't find it insanely low.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 19, 2022 12:38:15 GMT -5
The Olson deal as a negotiating starting point this offseason seems totally reasonable to me. At this point I think the Arenado deal would be fair, maybe tack on a couple more years at ~$30M AAV. A lot of people have thrown out 10/300 and I think as a ball park that's about right, and I hope they do it, although if they're choosing between he and Xander (at a less expensive deal) I might now prefer Xander.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jul 19, 2022 12:54:26 GMT -5
The Olson deal as a negotiating starting point this offseason seems totally reasonable to me. At this point I think the Arenado deal would be fair, maybe tack on a couple more years at ~$30M AAV. A lot of people have thrown out 10/300 and I think as a ball park that's about right, and I hope they do it, although if they're choosing between he and Xander (at a less expensive deal) I might now prefer Xander. I feel like the Xander ship has sailed. You can't lose both and claim that you're legitimately trying to win a title. You can still get in the wild card game but you're probably not going to win.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 19, 2022 13:03:18 GMT -5
Devers demands in ST seem like they were assuming that he was in the running for best player in the league, and he had never really got quite to that level.
Now this year he is playing at that level and his ST demands seem more reasonable. Rationally you might expect his demands to go way up, but psychologically he might feel like nothing has changed and will be satisfied with the Red Sox recognizing the value he knew he had.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 19, 2022 14:01:40 GMT -5
$168M… jeez. If they’re not going to pay him, who are they going to pay? Devers is a known quantity, plays well here, and will likely be the team’s only homegrown star after Xander leaves, at least unless/until Casas or Mayer breaks out. He’s also one of the most talented hitters in the game. And even if the last few years of the deal are underwater, is it that big a deal? We won 119 games in 2018 carrying the $40M bloated corpses of Pablo and Hanley, not to mention $31M for David Price. I mean, I get the reticence with his defense, but given his improvements this year, I really hope Henry, Bloom, and co rethink their numbers. If this is legit then this team has zero interest in keeping Devers and I can only imagine what they really offered Boegarts. Devers is a much better player than Olson and younger too. I really don't understand the logic in pushing players out the door that actually want to play in this market and have thrived over a couple of bucks. Maybe they are just playing the PR game. Even before the season this was a slap in the face. It's negotiating, not a final take it or leave it offer. Teams don't hand out blank checks without a deadline to sign as much as we joke about that. He isn't gone until he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jul 19, 2022 14:06:31 GMT -5
Unless I'm forgetting someone, only homegrown stars this ownership has extended have been Lester, pedroia, and buchholz. And only because those extensions were very team friendly. Any that have not taken discounts have left via trade or free agency.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 19, 2022 14:07:37 GMT -5
Unless I'm forgetting someone, only homegrown stars this ownership has extended have been Lester, pedroia, and buchholz. And only because those extensions were very team friendly. Any that have not taken discounts have left via trade or free agency. Bogaerts
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jul 19, 2022 14:12:40 GMT -5
Unless I'm forgetting someone, only homegrown stars this ownership has extended have been Lester, pedroia, and buchholz. And only because those extensions were very team friendly. Any that have not taken discounts have left via trade or free agency. Bogaerts Jeez I'm dumb lol, but logic still applies. Unless they take a discount they leave.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,592
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 19, 2022 14:15:04 GMT -5
Jeez I'm dumb lol, but logic still applies. Unless they take a discount they leave. In fairness how many homegrown stars have they really developed that were worthy of extending? The list isn't particularly long.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 19, 2022 14:20:53 GMT -5
Unless I'm forgetting someone, only homegrown stars this ownership has extended have been Lester, pedroia, and buchholz. And only because those extensions were very team friendly. Any that have not taken discounts have left via trade or free agency. Bogaerts Who else should they have extended that they failed to? There's Mookie, but no need to have that conversation again. Everyone brings up Lester in 2014 like Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler - it's the only historical reference anyone knows. But were there any other big misses in terms of homegrown guys they failed to extend? I'm not really sorry they let Ellsbury go to the Yankees when they did...
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jul 19, 2022 14:33:08 GMT -5
Who else should they have extended that they failed to? There's Mookie, but no need to have that conversation again. Everyone brings up Lester in 2014 like Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler - it's the only historical reference anyone knows. But were there any other big misses in terms of homegrown guys they failed to extend? I'm not really sorry they let Ellsbury go to the Yankees when they did...
The "should" I guess is entirely based on relative value and the contract numbers, but assuming they signed a "team-friendly" deal, they would be for under market value. Then one could argue who would fall under homegrown "stars". I guess it just seemed like unless they take a deal that's under market value that buys out free agent years then they don't get retained. I could be entirely wrong here and maybe I have that impression simply because of the ugly PR associated with some of the negotiations. Some names that immediately come to mind are: Betts, JBJ, benintendi, erod, ellsbury, Papelbon (then again I'd have to add Barnes to the list of players they've resigned). Again, I could be totally wrong on this.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 19, 2022 14:37:19 GMT -5
I guess I'm glad they didn't sign extensions for JBJ, Benintendi, erod, Ellsbury, or Papelbon (and I wish they hadn't for Barnes). At the time I wanted them to for erod, but it's looking like a good thing that they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jul 19, 2022 14:39:23 GMT -5
I guess I'm glad they didn't sign extensions for JBJ, Benintendi, erod, Ellsbury, or Papelbon (and I wish they hadn't for Barnes). At the time I wanted them to for erod, but it's looking like a good thing that they didn't. Lollll, at the time of the Barnes extension I was so pumped. Seemed like a team-friendly deal. Then he forgot how to throw a leather sphere
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,592
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 19, 2022 14:41:35 GMT -5
And something tells me we'll be happy not to have mookie Betts signed to the contract he got sometime before that contract is up in 2032.
He's still been a very good player but he is certainly starting to show some decline the last couple seasons and has been having some injury problems.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 19, 2022 14:57:51 GMT -5
And something tells me we'll be happy not to have mookie Betts signed to the contract he got sometime before that contract is up in 2032. He's still been a very good player but he is certainly starting to show some decline the last couple seasons and has been having some injury problems. We'll see. He's put up 9.7 WAR in 1131 PAs in LA. Call it 6 WAR per season. If he declines by half a WAR per year he'll add another 32.5 WAR after 2022. In AAV terms he's got $256 million left on his deal. That works out to justs under $8 million/WAR. If that's how it goes it'll have worked out pretty darn well for the Dodgers.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,592
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 19, 2022 15:02:11 GMT -5
And something tells me we'll be happy not to have mookie Betts signed to the contract he got sometime before that contract is up in 2032. He's still been a very good player but he is certainly starting to show some decline the last couple seasons and has been having some injury problems. We'll see. He's put up 9.7 WAR in 1131 PAs in LA. Call it 6 WAR per season. If he declines by half a WAR per year he'll add another 32.5 WAR after 2022. In AAV terms he's got $256 million left on his deal. That works out to justs under $8 million/WAR. If that's how it goes it'll have worked out pretty darn well for the Dodgers. True I could see his WAR value over the course of the contract giving good value to the dodgers but either way I'm pretty sure we will be happy not to have a 38+ year old mookie Betts making 30 mil AAV but you can say the same for any of these mega long term deals.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 19, 2022 15:07:55 GMT -5
Yeah, it's built into any long-term signing that you're overpaying toward the end of the contract. But that's just *how* big-market teams have an advantage - they can afford to overpay in order to lock in the star players in the earlier years.
(I finally realized that the ever-deferred hope that the Yankees would finally sink under all their bloated contracts for aging stars was never going to come to fruition. The thing is, they can afford those bloated contracts, and can just supplement them with contracts for younger stars when the need arises. But the same applies to the Red Sox, which is part of why they were able to win in 2018 despite having Sandoval and Hanley on the books.)
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 19, 2022 18:46:59 GMT -5
Dever's best season wouldn't be in Arenado's top 5 best seasons. Arenado is a vastly superior player. WAR makes that pretty clear, but also look at gold gloves, silver sluggers, and top 10 in MVP voting. As much as it pains me to say, people are over-rating Devers. He just hasn't accomplished what the players who have gotten $300 million contracts. Still hope they can work out a deal, but for around 200 million. If he wants 300 million, he should be some other teams mistake. it isn't just about player comps. You are talking about a premium LH bat that is very young. And he plays 3B pretty decently. The market rewards these players. And what do you do to replace him. What is the opportunity cost there ? People can go through all the metrics they want. If Rafael Devers isn't worth 8yr @ 250 mill, minimum, then there is something wrong with the market. And without a hometown discount, the market is what the Red Sox will be forced to pay to retain his services. Sadly, I think the hometown discount ship sailed after they didn't make him a legit offer before the 2021 season. At that point, his agent was probably making the very strong case he should just ride it out to free agency.
|
|
|
Post by theburn on Jul 19, 2022 19:04:28 GMT -5
It's becoming increasingly clear that we're the middle of a five-year rebuild, and Raffy won't be here when it's over. See you in 2025!
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,880
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 19, 2022 19:14:29 GMT -5
It's becoming increasingly clear that we're the middle of a five-year rebuild, and Raffy won't be here when it's over. See you in 2025! Poor planning if true. All our high-end young pitching is ready now, or nearly now. (I don't believe your thesis, but I also question what the team looks like in 2 yrs).
|
|
|
Post by theburn on Jul 19, 2022 19:21:13 GMT -5
It's becoming increasingly clear that we're the middle of a five-year rebuild, and Raffy won't be here when it's over. See you in 2025! Poor planning if true. All our high-end young pitching is ready now, or nearly now. (I don't believe your thesis, but I also question what the team looks like in 2 yrs). I don't necessarily believe my thesis either, I just don't see much of a plan to be a playoff contending team the next two years with such huge pieces (Bogey/Devers) both out the door and not much else around them. It really seems like Chaim is taking a longer term approach here. I don't disagree with it, I just don't think ownership or the fanbase will be patient enough and we'll end up with iterations of 2015 Red Sox all over again.
|
|
patford
Veteran
Posts: 2,443
Member is Online
|
Post by patford on Jul 19, 2022 19:36:29 GMT -5
I'm fine with letting Bogaerts and Devers being traded. Bogaerts is basically Andrew Benintendi except that Bogaerts plays the premier defensive position adequately and Benintendi won a Gold Glove for some inexplicable reason. Devers is a superb hitter and an improving defender but for the kind of money he apparently expects there are better options out there. And then there is the fact teams like the Rays play at a high level year after year even after dumping their stars year after year and excelling in spite of injuries (Franco) to their best players. If a person follows baseball as a fan of a team then the person can still follow favorite players no matter where they go. The fan of an organization follows the team. The players come and go. It's foolish to become attached to them just as it would be foolish of the player to be attached to a team. The only exception I would make would be for California. It's almost beyond comprehension anyone would want to live in any place aside from California.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 19, 2022 19:48:52 GMT -5
It's becoming increasingly clear that we're the middle of a five-year rebuild, and Raffy won't be here when it's over. See you in 2025! Poor planning if true. All our high-end young pitching is ready now, or nearly now. (I don't believe your thesis, but I also question what the team looks like in 2 yrs). Hmmm. Well here are their payroll obligations for 2024:
Story - 22.5 million Verdugo - Arb 3 Pivetta - Arb 3 Arroyo - Arb 3 Franchy - Arb 4 Taylor - Arb 3 Davis - Arb 2 Dalbec - Arb 1 Schreiber - Arb 1 Barnes/Diekman buyouts - 3 million plus pre-arb for Houck, etc.
All in all, probably about $70 million? Giving Bloom about $160 million to work with. They could do something like:
C - Vazquez or some other $10 million catcher 1B - Casas 2B - $20 million free agent SS - Story 3B - Devers for $35 million LF - Xander $35 million
CF - Duran/Rafaela RF - Verdugo DH - Dalbec/rest for positional guys Bench guys - Downs, Rafaela, other cheap guys, maybe trade Arroyo... $5 million
Rotation:
$22 million free agent Pivetta - $9 million? Paxton - $13 million
Whitlock Bello Winckowski Murphy Walter Seabold Groome Crawford
Bullpen:
Houck, and then a bunch of whatever, who cares.
I think they could do all this and stay under the CBT. Honestly I feel like this would be a pretty good team? (All the cheap young pitching is what makes it work.) The trick is that Xander would have to accept fewer years at a higher AAV and be willing to move to LF. If he doesn't accept a shorter contract then there probably ends up being a lot of dead money all at once around 2028 or so - the sort of thing Bloom wants to avoid.
ADD: Oh, but I forgot the point I was trying to make, which is this: a) on the one hand, I think they can afford to keep both Xander and Devers if they want to, and I hope they do; 2) but if they don't they have $70 million a year to play with. Who knows what Bloom would do with that money, but whatever it is, there's no reason to not expect the team to be competitive in 2024 whether they keep Devers and Xander, or just one of them, or neither of them.
|
|
|