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 terriblehondo on Jul 20, 2022 15:51:58 GMT -5
Olsen took a contract for his hometown team. If Raffy was playing for the Dominican Republic he might have played for that contract.
|
|
patford
Veteran
Posts: 2,431
Member is Online
|
Post by patford on Jul 20, 2022 19:36:27 GMT -5
I find it painfully amusing that 90% of the people commenting are being manipulated by a national media which is about as anti-Boston was any other aspect of their behavior.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jul 20, 2022 19:59:13 GMT -5
I mean look at what Boston gave Chris Sale when they had no reason to (I hated the deal at the time...) why wouldn't Raffy look at that and think he should get paaiiiddd. Different regime, but same owner cutting the checks.
Just pay him. Shut up and pay him, or just admit you dont want to win.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jul 20, 2022 20:16:41 GMT -5
I could see the Sox taking the reported 10 year 300 mil offer they made to mookie and offering rafi it. In turn if he declines it then I imagine they'd do just like they did with mookie and trade him. 10/300 seems more than fair if you ask me and if they do offer that either way I won't be upset as a fan. I agree and at the start of this season, I would have been reluctant to offer Raffy 10 years/$300M. One of my concerns was that he was Fat Raffy when the 2020 season finally began that July, making me wonder about his focus and dedication to conditioning. But his improved defense, which is a result of hard work, is assuring to me. And this is his third straight year (not counting the odd ball 2020 season) in which he has been an elite offensive performer. The Red Sox should not hand out ridiculous contracts that crush the franchise's chances of winning for years at a time, so I'd draw a hard line at 10 years and $300 million. If he turns that down, trade him. Reasonable fans will understand. I think if they find a way to keep him and Xander, being a Red Sox will become a source of pride for Raffy and a big part of his personal identity. He'll be greedy for big gaudy rings with the Red Sox logo and his name on them.
|
|
jbuttah
Veteran
Posts: 863
Member is Online
|
Post by jbuttah on Jul 20, 2022 20:19:57 GMT -5
I mean look at what Boston gave Chris Sale when they had no reason to (I hated the deal at the time...) why wouldn't Raffy look at that and think he should get paaiiiddd. Different regime, but same owner cutting the checks.Just pay him. Shut up and pay him, or just admit you dont want to win. Weird take for owners who have won 4 World Series in the past 18 years.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jul 20, 2022 20:42:41 GMT -5
I mean look at what Boston gave Chris Sale when they had no reason to (I hated the deal at the time...) why wouldn't Raffy look at that and think he should get paaiiiddd. Different regime, but same owner cutting the checks.Just pay him. Shut up and pay him, or just admit you dont want to win. How much? Pay him how much or admit you don't want to win? I want very badly for the Red Sox to keep him and X, but there has to be a ceiling. No business can survive if it lets every employee, contractor, vendor, whoever, just name a price. The Red Sox spend right to the LTT or higher every year. Not signing Raffy - or any player - is a sign that the management does want to win, but believes that meeting the player's demands would take up too much salary space for too many years and hurt the team's chances of winning. I mean it's not like the Red Sox have lowered their payroll to a Royals-like level since turning down Mookie's super-high demands. Comments like "Sign him, no matter what! He's my favorite player! He came up through the system! He's the face of the franchise!" are pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 20, 2022 21:12:13 GMT -5
I guess I don't get why everyone is hung up on how much Raffy will get. It ain't our money and it's not going to affect ticket prices. There are a lot of smart people working in that FO whose jobs it is to figure out how much they can afford to pay guys while sneaking under the CBT once every four years. Let them worry about what exactly the final deal is going to be.
For those who worry that they let Mookie go, so why not Raffy; Mookie got away because of two things: 1) the Sale and Eovaldi deals left no room for the CBT limbo, and 2) if you looked at all the big-market teams at the time (which I did), there was literally only one that had a window where they could pay Mookie and not run afoul of the CBT (wanna guess which one? Hint they were penalized 10 spots on their first rounder in this draft, so even then they weren't completely clear of it).
BOS is not in that situation anymore. They can afford to pay both X and Raffy (and still successfully limbo when Sale's contract expires) and I believe that they will, with X's payday likely to be much more creative than Raffy's (maybe something like Correa's -- by the time it's over, Marcelo & Mikey might both be ready).
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Jul 20, 2022 21:32:34 GMT -5
It’s almost like you guys don’t get it. I’m not trying to be rude but Blooms job is to sign him as cheap as possible. If Devers takes that deal in the offseason he gets a 10 mill raise this year and b 7+ mil next season. Jose Ramirez just signed for 7-141. Yes he’s younger but it’s called negotiating. You don’t come out with your best offer as your first offer. We offer 160. He wants 300. If we meet in the middle that’s a win. It wasn’t necessary to sign him last offseason. He’s already top 5 in the MLB in errors and i hope that helps drive his price down a little but if he wants to be here like he says you hope he takes a little discount at least. Are you sure that is what he wants? Could be closer to what Soto wants.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jul 20, 2022 22:13:13 GMT -5
It’s almost like you guys don’t get it. I’m not trying to be rude but Blooms job is to sign him as cheap as possible. If Devers takes that deal in the offseason he gets a 10 mill raise this year and b 7+ mil next season. Jose Ramirez just signed for 7-141. Yes he’s younger but it’s called negotiating. You don’t come out with your best offer as your first offer. We offer 160. He wants 300. If we meet in the middle that’s a win. It wasn’t necessary to sign him last offseason. He’s already top 5 in the MLB in errors and i hope that helps drive his price down a little but if he wants to be here like he says you hope he takes a little discount at least. Are you sure that is what he wants? Could be closer to what Soto wants. Soto was offered 440 for 15 years and turned it down due to wanting to win from what I read. Thats still 29 per year. They should really set a bar when it comes to years on contracts like the NBA does. 5 years should be the max 40 million per year should be the max. That would imo make baseball a little more interesting and not let these players be so damn greedy. These players are going to want 15 year 1,000,000,000 deals in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by wkdbigsoxfan on Jul 20, 2022 22:14:13 GMT -5
Count me in the boat that doesn’t think the Olson starting point was crazy.
I’m wondering if the season Raffy has had doesn’t help the negotiations. Seems clear that Devers values himself much higher than the $168m, so let’s say it’s around $300-$350m. Do we think his valuation of himself has changed that much based on this year? I doubt it, he had always viewed himself as this type of player based on his reaction to the offer. But, I imagine the Sox valuation of him has changed dramatically, the offense has leveled up, and he’s shown he’s more likely to stick at third this year. So my thinking is this performance has closed that gap (question is how much) from the Sox side, while Raffys valuation of himself likely hasn’t. Idk if that makes sense, just thinking out loud here. I continue to think a deal gets done. There’s a much different tone around this negotiation than Betts and even Bogaerts, although this weekends quotes def out a damper on that
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 20, 2022 23:11:10 GMT -5
I think some need to put this into perspective. We're talking about the Olsen-type offer made to Devers before this season, which has been his best season by far, when there were far more questions than answers about whether he would remain at 3B. Now that he has had this incredible half season and has proven that he can handle 3B adequately, then yes his value has gone up significantly, which the Red Sox also obviously realize. Maybe Devers knew he was going to have this season, but it would be crazy for the Red Sox or anyone else to assume he would and make an offer that assumes he'll be an 8 WAR player for the next 5 years. Agree with your point, but I don't think the defensive question has been answered. This is an up season for him defensively and it's still -3 DRS and -1 OAA. He will likely only slow down as time goes on, especially if weight becomes an issue for him. Offensively, though, yes, this is a new gear. I was against giving him the $300 million he wanted before this season because his bat would have needed to take a jump forward like this for there to be upside in it. Now that it has, I'm on team "pay the man". But fairly.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 20, 2022 23:17:37 GMT -5
I guess I don't get why everyone is hung up on how much Raffy will get. It ain't our money and it's not going to affect ticket prices. There are a lot of smart people working in that FO whose jobs it is to figure out how much they can afford to pay guys while sneaking under the CBT once every four years. Let them worry about what exactly the final deal is going to be. For those who worry that they let Mookie go, so why not Raffy; Mookie got away because of two things: 1) the Sale and Eovaldi deals left no room for the CBT limbo, and 2) if you looked at all the big-market teams at the time (which I did), there was literally only one that had a window where they could pay Mookie and not run afoul of the CBT (wanna guess which one? Hint they were penalized 10 spots on their first rounder in this draft, so even then they weren't completely clear of it). BOS is not in that situation anymore. They can afford to pay both X and Raffy (and still successfully limbo when Sale's contract expires) and I believe that they will, with X's payday likely to be much more creative than Raffy's (maybe something like Correa's -- by the time it's over, Marcelo & Mikey might both be ready). Overpaying a player means less money available to fill out the roster. This means the team will win less. If you want the Red Sox to win, you should not want them to overpay Devers.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 20, 2022 23:29:38 GMT -5
Are you sure that is what he wants? Could be closer to what Soto wants. Soto was offered 440 for 15 years and turned it down due to wanting to win from what I read. Thats still 29 per year. They should really set a bar when it comes to years on contracts like the NBA does. 5 years should be the max 40 million per year should be the max. That would imo make baseball a little more interesting and not let these players be so damn greedy. These players are going to want 15 year 1,000,000,000 deals in a few years. Ask yourself how much more money the owners would rake in with Soto under contract for 15/440. He's worth substantially more than that and I see no reason to blame Soto for wanting his team's billionnaire owner to pay him a fair market rate for his services.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 21, 2022 10:25:33 GMT -5
You know what aggravates me , all the signings DD did when he was here why didn’t he sign Devers early buy out his arbitration and get a free agent year or two. They knew he could hit . His bonus was 1.5 million.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 10:28:37 GMT -5
You know what aggravates me , all the signings DD did when he was here why didn’t he sign Devers early buy out his arbitration and get a free agent year or two. They knew he could hit . His bonus was 1.5 million. Devers was 22. How long and how much would you have done at that point?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 10:35:43 GMT -5
I guess I don't get why everyone is hung up on how much Raffy will get. It ain't our money and it's not going to affect ticket prices. There are a lot of smart people working in that FO whose jobs it is to figure out how much they can afford to pay guys while sneaking under the CBT once every four years. Let them worry about what exactly the final deal is going to be. For those who worry that they let Mookie go, so why not Raffy; Mookie got away because of two things: 1) the Sale and Eovaldi deals left no room for the CBT limbo, and 2) if you looked at all the big-market teams at the time (which I did), there was literally only one that had a window where they could pay Mookie and not run afoul of the CBT (wanna guess which one? Hint they were penalized 10 spots on their first rounder in this draft, so even then they weren't completely clear of it). BOS is not in that situation anymore. They can afford to pay both X and Raffy (and still successfully limbo when Sale's contract expires) and I believe that they will, with X's payday likely to be much more creative than Raffy's (maybe something like Correa's -- by the time it's over, Marcelo & Mikey might both be ready). Overpaying a player means less money available to fill out the roster. This means the team will win less. If you want the Red Sox to win, you should not want them to overpay Devers. Agreed, overpaying is bad. But it can be argued that any long-term, $30m+ AAV deal will ultimately be an overpay. So you have to decide whether you're willing to do that for anyone. Even Tampa just handed out a 9-figure deal but it's considered to be team-friendly (and not a deal that Devers would sign).
The subject has come up in other discussions of championship teams being those on which an FO was able to assemble multiple 5-10 WAR players in the same year. So when you "overpay" a guy like Devers, you're hoping to at least get some big-time seasons out of him before he declines to a production level that does not match his salary. $30m is not an overpay in a year he puts up 7 WAR but it is when he's a 35-year-old DH putting up 2 WAR. When you sign the deal, you hope that he produces enough 7-WAR seasons to justify the 2-WAR seasons.
Also, "overpaying" only restricts your ability to fill out the roster in years when you need to get under the CBT, so one out of four years. Ideally, you're developing homegrown players who cost very little and who can fill out the roster even in those tax-limbo years. The CBT essentially prevents teams from putting a $30m+ AAV guy at every position and every spot in the rotation but it still allows you to have three or four players with big, long-term contracts. (Cue the new "Blow up the CBT" thread....)
So the question ultimately is "Does Devers merit one of the 3-4 such contracts that the Sox can afford and if not, who should get one instead?" Looking around the league, there aren't a ton of available guys I'd pick over Raffy. If you agree with that, then fretting over a couple million AAV because it might affect what the 2025-CBT-limbo team looks like (and the 2029 team) is penny wise and pound foolish, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 10:36:45 GMT -5
You know what aggravates me , all the signings DD did when he was here why didn’t he sign Devers early buy out his arbitration and get a free agent year or two. They knew he could hit . His bonus was 1.5 million. Devers was 22. How long and how much would you have done at that point? Wander Franco?
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 21, 2022 10:53:04 GMT -5
You know what aggravates me , all the signings DD did when he was here why didn’t he sign Devers early buy out his arbitration and get a free agent year or two. They knew he could hit . His bonus was 1.5 million. Devers was 22. How long and how much would you have done at that point? Manfred I just said buy out arbitration maybe one or two years free agent. At that time we knew he had a stick. I know the defense wasn’t tightened up yet. Remember when Devers got called up. He hit Chapman tied the game against the MFY’S. I knew he had something. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Jul 21, 2022 10:56:39 GMT -5
I tell you one thing Devers doesn’t know that there is a give and take. I mean he is mad they used the Olson deal. You have give and take.
Thank god we don’t have the Soto nightmare
I never get mad about the Betts deal. The return is another story because we had to get rid of Price too. Betts keep saying I want to change the market . He was a pain in the ass.
You know I wonder if Devers is low key mad at the FO about the Xman situation. I’m trying to think like him . He lets his feelings out.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 11:40:48 GMT -5
I tell you one thing Devers doesn’t know that there is a give and take. I mean he is mad they used the Olson deal. You have give and take. Thank god we don’t have the Soto nightmare I never get mad about the Betts deal. The return is another story because we had to get rid of Price too. Betts keep saying I want to change the market . He was a pain in the ass. You know I wonder if Devers is low key mad at the FO about the Xman situation. I’m trying to think like him . He lets his feelings out. Why isn’t “I want to change the market” part of the give and take? I repeat: there is too much speculation when we get into these negotiations. And it tends to be players who speak and owners who stay quiet or try to rationalize in the vaguest terms. So it is often easier to attack players personally and organizations in some abstract way. Devers, like anyone, wants as much as he can get. Whether he has a realistic view of it or not, time will tell. But it is hard to begrudge him that.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Jul 21, 2022 11:51:42 GMT -5
Wonder how the Scherzer contract is affecting Soto and Rafi. 37 year old guy getting 3yrs and $130 mil. Still can`t believe it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 12:25:37 GMT -5
Wonder how the Scherzer contract is affecting Soto and Rafi. 37 year old guy getting 3yrs and $130 mil. Still can`t believe it. I would have done it. Guy was awesome until oblique injury, which sucks but shouldn’t diminish him when he returns. He’s a machine.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 21, 2022 12:30:42 GMT -5
Overpaying a player means less money available to fill out the roster. This means the team will win less. If you want the Red Sox to win, you should not want them to overpay Devers. Agreed, overpaying is bad. But it can be argued that any long-term, $30m+ AAV deal will ultimately be an overpay. So you have to decide whether you're willing to do that for anyone. Even Tampa just handed out a 9-figure deal but it's considered to be team-friendly (and not a deal that Devers would sign).
The subject has come up in other discussions of championship teams being those on which an FO was able to assemble multiple 5-10 WAR players in the same year. So when you "overpay" a guy like Devers, you're hoping to at least get some big-time seasons out of him before he declines to a production level that does not match his salary. $30m is not an overpay in a year he puts up 7 WAR but it is when he's a 35-year-old DH putting up 2 WAR. When you sign the deal, you hope that he produces enough 7-WAR seasons to justify the 2-WAR seasons.
Also, "overpaying" only restricts your ability to fill out the roster in years when you need to get under the CBT, so one out of four years. Ideally, you're developing homegrown players who cost very little and who can fill out the roster even in those tax-limbo years. The CBT essentially prevents teams from putting a $30m+ AAV guy at every position and every spot in the rotation but it still allows you to have three or four players with big, long-term contracts. (Cue the new "Blow up the CBT" thread....)
So the question ultimately is "Does Devers merit one of the 3-4 such contracts that the Sox can afford and if not, who should get one instead?" Looking around the league, there aren't a ton of available guys I'd pick over Raffy. If you agree with that, then fretting over a couple million AAV because it might affect what the 2025-CBT-limbo team looks like (and the 2029 team) is penny wise and pound foolish, IMO.
Well, there are a few ways of defining an "overpay" on a hypothetical Devers deal. One would be to compare it to deals his peers got, but I think that's a bad metric since those could be horribly skewed one way or the other (e.g. Ramirez, Rendon). One reasonable way would be to look at $ per projected WAR and compare it to other FA deals. By this metric, I agree, it's possible that nearly all mega deals could be seen as overpays. I haven't done the math, but my hunch is that most do not turn out very well. I'm sure the Sox FO has a much better system when evaluating their own potential signings, but I digress.
If these long-term $30m+ AAV deals are consistently providing worse value by whatever our FO's metrics of choice are, then they should be avoiding these deals if at all possible. If that means extending young players early, so be it. It that means shorter-term deals at huge AAV, so be it. If that means sharing the wealth and getting many good players instead of a few great ones, so be it. Whichever cocktail of these is most feasible in terms of providing value to the team. As far as I'm concerned, the only real excuse for knowingly overpaying a player, or otherwise accepting a less valuable contract structure, is that it would be unlikely to have a chance at spending the money more effectively elsewhere. For example, let's imagine that you're a small or medium market team, the next 3 free agent classes are terrible, your team has a bottom-five payroll, and your top prospects are finally in the high minors. Your window of contention is opening now, and it's not waiting for the FA classes to get better. So, even if competition drives the prices of FAs into overpay territory, you might still make a deal happen.
Given that the Sox are explicitly trying not to boom and bust, though, it's hard to figure how a decade-long, knowingly-too-rich deal would not hurt the team. Like, even if the next FA class is terrible and prices get inflated, if the goal is not to boom and bust, you'd rather have a lean payroll next year, or a couple of Correa-style short-term high-AAV deals than to take on a ten-year megadeal that will probably hurt the team from ~2028-2032.
I don't think it's reasonable to say overpaying only hurts you in years you're trying to get under the CBT, especially if you're signing guys to long-term deals. If your roster is constructed inefficiently and the CBT is a factor for ownership (which it is), you're going to have to do mini teardowns every couple of years to get under the CBT and the team is going to be right back into a boom and bust cycle. The team also isn't going to spend wildly above and beyond the CBT even in years they go over, so keeping your spending efficient is still important. Not everyone is Steve Cohen.
The question is not if the Sox can afford to pay Devers. The question is whether signing Devers would make the team better over the duration of the contract than allocating that money differently. I would love to extend Devers, but I have no idea what he would agree to sign for. I trust that Bloom and Co will weigh his contract demands against the benefits of spending that money another way. If they feel the team is likely to win more without Devers, they should trade him. If not, or if it's a toss up, they should try to extend him.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 12:45:41 GMT -5
Agreed, overpaying is bad. But it can be argued that any long-term, $30m+ AAV deal will ultimately be an overpay. So you have to decide whether you're willing to do that for anyone. Even Tampa just handed out a 9-figure deal but it's considered to be team-friendly (and not a deal that Devers would sign).
The subject has come up in other discussions of championship teams being those on which an FO was able to assemble multiple 5-10 WAR players in the same year. So when you "overpay" a guy like Devers, you're hoping to at least get some big-time seasons out of him before he declines to a production level that does not match his salary. $30m is not an overpay in a year he puts up 7 WAR but it is when he's a 35-year-old DH putting up 2 WAR. When you sign the deal, you hope that he produces enough 7-WAR seasons to justify the 2-WAR seasons.
Also, "overpaying" only restricts your ability to fill out the roster in years when you need to get under the CBT, so one out of four years. Ideally, you're developing homegrown players who cost very little and who can fill out the roster even in those tax-limbo years. The CBT essentially prevents teams from putting a $30m+ AAV guy at every position and every spot in the rotation but it still allows you to have three or four players with big, long-term contracts. (Cue the new "Blow up the CBT" thread....)
So the question ultimately is "Does Devers merit one of the 3-4 such contracts that the Sox can afford and if not, who should get one instead?" Looking around the league, there aren't a ton of available guys I'd pick over Raffy. If you agree with that, then fretting over a couple million AAV because it might affect what the 2025-CBT-limbo team looks like (and the 2029 team) is penny wise and pound foolish, IMO.
Well, there are a few ways of defining an "overpay" on a hypothetical Devers deal. One would be to compare it to deals his peers got, but I think that's a bad metric since those could be horribly skewed one way or the other (e.g. Ramirez, Rendon). One reasonable way would be to look at $ per projected WAR and compare it to other FA deals. By this metric, I agree, it's possible that nearly all mega deals could be seen as overpays. I haven't done the math, but my hunch is that most do not turn out very well. I'm sure the Sox FO has a much better system when evaluating their own potential signings, but I digress.
...
I looked into this once and the long and short of it was that it's definitely not the case that all megadeals turn out badly. IIRC, among the ten most expensive contracts or whatever a slight majority were at least worth it for the signing team. And when it does go real bad it''s usually because the player was signed into their late 30s or 40s when they're replacement level or worse, like the Cabrera and Pujols deals.
All in all signing a player to a big deal for, say, their age 26-36 seasons (to pick a randon number...) has a pretty good chance of turning out okay. But it's also hard to get much surplus value out of a guy who's signed for $30 million/year.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 21, 2022 12:57:48 GMT -5
Are you sure that is what he wants? Could be closer to what Soto wants. Soto was offered 440 for 15 years and turned it down due to wanting to win from what I read. Thats still 29 per year. They should really set a bar when it comes to years on contracts like the NBA does. 5 years should be the max 40 million per year should be the max. That would imo make baseball a little more interesting and not let these players be so damn greedy. These players are going to want 15 year 1,000,000,000 deals in a few years. Why should they do that? If the owners are willing to offer it and players are willing to take it why would we give them less bargaining power? If a team is willing to offer $1B deals to players they should absolutely be allowed to. The Braves made a >$100M profit last year, how much do you think the Yankees or Red Sox make? I don't think it's a fun discussion to say "the team should sign everyone because I don't care about John Henry's wallet" because they obviously have spending limits, but to try and protect the owners from making bad investments that they are freely choosing to make is silly to me.
|
|
|