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 21, 2022 13:26:39 GMT -5
You don't need a metric, man To know how far Devers homers go.
The Sox screwed up again. Now, they will lose him. Gonna be great to see him hit bombs against us to RF at MFY stadium from 2024-2032
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jul 21, 2022 13:45:49 GMT -5
You don't need a metric, man To know how far Devers homers go. The Sox screwed up again. Now, they will lose him. Gonna be great to see him hit bombs against us to RF at MFY stadium from 2024-2032 Just wondering how many pages of doomer crap repeating the same things, this thread is going to go on for. May shatter a SP record for most pages with the least amount of substance
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,517
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 21, 2022 14:09:03 GMT -5
You don't need a metric, man To know how far Devers homers go. The Sox screwed up again. Now, they will lose him. Gonna be great to see him hit bombs against us to RF at MFY stadium from 2024-2032 So now we're guaranteeing that Devers is leaving and on top of that he's going to NY(who have their own Devers situation with judge BTW)? My goodness, step back from the ledge and relax.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 21, 2022 14:13:58 GMT -5
You don't need a metric, man To know how far Devers homers go. The Sox screwed up again. Now, they will lose him. Gonna be great to see him hit bombs against us to RF at MFY stadium from 2024-2032 Just wondering how many pages of doomer crap repeating the same things, this thread is going to go on for. May shatter a SP record for most pages with the least amount of substance are you asking me specifically ?
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 21, 2022 14:16:53 GMT -5
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. Why did they do it in the NBA? The owners realized they needed to be saved from themselves after many teams were ruined with bad contracts, and the players agreed to it by getting a bigger piece of the revenue pie. Top-shelf players guaranteed they'd get less than free market value but the 2nd tier and 3rd tier stars benefitted. I imagine shoe money helps soften the blow, whereas baseball NIL type money isn't as beefy.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 21, 2022 14:19:45 GMT -5
You don't need a metric, man To know how far Devers homers go. The Sox screwed up again. Now, they will lose him. Gonna be great to see him hit bombs against us to RF at MFY stadium from 2024-2032 So now we're guaranteeing that Devers is leaving and on top of that he's going to NY(who have their own Devers situation with judge BTW)? My goodness, step back from the ledge and relax. It is just a statement of a pejorative nature. I am totally relaxed.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 21, 2022 14:35:31 GMT -5
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.
Then again, have you seen the inflation numbers lately? $30M AAV could be a deal, given how long historically it takes inflation to abate.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2022 14:52:50 GMT -5
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.
Then again, have you seen the inflation numbers lately? $30M AAV could be a deal, given how long historically it takes inflation to abate. I don't think inflation for baseball revenues is going to happen at the same rate as gas, food and rent. Probably the opposite, since people have to spend that much more to live. Then again, the vast majority of people have already been priced out.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 14:58:23 GMT -5
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.
Then again, have you seen the inflation numbers lately? $30M AAV could be a deal, given how long historically it takes inflation to abate. But inflation in MLB salaries is constrained by the CBT, which is not rising at anywhere near the level of inflation.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 21, 2022 15:19:02 GMT -5
Then again, have you seen the inflation numbers lately? $30M AAV could be a deal, given how long historically it takes inflation to abate. But inflation in MLB salaries is constrained by the CBT, which is not rising at anywhere near the level of inflation. Well, at some point inflation might make a team not sweat the repeater penalties...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2022 16:06:20 GMT -5
But inflation in MLB salaries is constrained by the CBT, which is not rising at anywhere near the level of inflation. Well, at some point inflation might make a team not sweat the repeater penalties... The non-financial penalties are the issue. Losing 10 draft spots on your first round pick, losing international bonus money, etc. Small market teams will never agree to lessen those.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jul 21, 2022 18:42:47 GMT -5
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.
I'm okay with limited upside if the downside is also limited. My hope is just that Raffy is signed for a number that's fair to both parties as opposed to paying him whatever he demands because the Sox can afford it. If that "fair" number results in a contract of average value, that's just fine by me, and also how things should work on average.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 21:28:07 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.
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.
I mean, there's a lot of hypotheticals in there about small or medium market teams and booming and busting. I'm talking about the Boston Red Sox and Raffy Devers. I can't name 5 available players I'd want to lock up more.
I would like to think that the FO will learn from the mistake of signing Eovaldi and Sale to large deals when you knew you had Mookie coming up. Knowing that you can carry only 3-4 big contracts and still get under the bar once every four years, it shouldn't be rocket science to line things up. If you extend X and Raffy in consecutive years, right after signing Story to a slightly more modest pact, you probably aren't going to add another big ticket guy for a few more years. It is what it is.
It also underscores the value of sowng, fertilizing, and weeding your farm well. Having 3-4 positions/rotation spots covered by cheap kids goes a long way toward getting you under the bar in a reset year and allowing you to even sign a Wacha, Hill and Paxton while still watching your bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 21:34:54 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. I don't see why Raffy needs to start giving and taking 1.5 years ahead of his deadline. He's playing great, one of the MVPs on the planet, and there's no reason he should be backing down right now. The Sox also don't seem to be wavering much and they don't need to either. For all they know he could slump or get hurt or anything else. It's way too far away for giving and taking right now.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 21:40:11 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. I was clamoring for a deal like that with Scherzer but even I thought 3/$105-$110 was pushing it... Was also more than ready to work something out with Verlander that paid him much more than HOU gave him... Oh well... neither guy pitches the 9th every night, so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jul 21, 2022 21:53:47 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. I mean, sure, I'd want that too. Doesn't mean I'd get it. Just because Devers wants $400m+ (hypothetically) doesn't mean he gets it. Someone would have to give it to him. (And no, I don't think the MFYs can afford another contract like that with Cole and Stanton and DJLM and Hicks all on the books through at least 2025 -- they're not even going to be able to pay Judge, which is why Cashman tried negotiating through the media already).
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Jul 21, 2022 23:40:03 GMT -5
Are you sure that is what he wants? Could be closer to what Soto wants. I mean, sure, I'd want that too. Doesn't mean I'd get it. Just because Devers wants $400m+ (hypothetically) doesn't mean he gets it. Someone would have to give it to him. (And no, I don't think the MFYs can afford another contract like that with Cole and Stanton and DJLM and Hicks all on the books through at least 2025 -- they're not even going to be able to pay Judge, which is why Cashman tried negotiating through the media already). The Scherzer deal set the bar alot higher than I thought it would go. $43 mil a year seems way up there. I also thought the Indians were completely out of their minds when they gave Wayne Garland a 10 year contract for I think $2.3 mil total. Trouble is we see the salaries keep going up. Great that everyone is making the big bucks. It`s got to start pushing $50 mil now.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Jul 22, 2022 1:08:06 GMT -5
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. There’s a ton of positives for both sides. More players would get close to the 40 which is good for them but owners gain taking the long term aspect out of negotiations. Talent would be spread out a little more because there’s a max deal of 5-200 that multiple teams would offer the same guy and someone like Freeman would of never wore another jersey. Players would get to stay at their team longer. For instant someone like Devers and Bogaerts would get the max deal. That’s a win for them AAV wise and teams not making such long commitments. That’s just my opinion but I know it would be a good thing. Soto would get 5 years 200 mill from every team so he would have the power to pick where he would play instead of going with the highest bidder and end up on the Rangers or something….
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Aug 1, 2022 17:25:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Aug 1, 2022 17:28:10 GMT -5
Riley had an extra 2 years of team control compared to Devers. Value both of those at $30M for arguments sake. I’d say that sets the floor at around 10/$272M A lot better comp than the stupid Olsen comp they threw at him
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Aug 1, 2022 17:30:11 GMT -5
10 years 280 million. wrap it up.
|
|
|
Post by wkdbigsoxfan on Aug 1, 2022 17:40:37 GMT -5
How many times are the Braves gonna go to the well for a hometown discount? Sheesh
|
|
|
Post by soxfaninnj on Aug 2, 2022 19:10:29 GMT -5
That was a huge letdown deadline. Draft is done trade deadline is done. Go to devers agent and present him a serious offer in the neighborhood of 11/275 and get this done!
|
|
|
Post by yaz8 on Aug 3, 2022 12:35:53 GMT -5
The Sox will spend up to the luxury tax limit and in the right situation beyond, but they dont like to allocate their money to the top of the roster. They like to spread it around to the entire roster. None of those teams that just spent money should be printing playoff tickets just yet. That said, I really do hope the Sox extend Devers but I said the same thing about Mookie, who wanted top dollar. I suspect its similar with Devers. At some point they're going to have to spend on someone at top dollar. Might as well be Devers and Xander. But more likely than not we'll see a couple years of a pretty low salary number by Red Sox standards while bringing Yorke, Casas and Marcelo Mayer along. The only problem I have with Devers is that he's a chunky monkey, and guys like that are more prone to injury and shortened careers.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Aug 3, 2022 13:49:04 GMT -5
At some point they're going to have to spend on someone at top dollar. Might as well be Devers and Xander. But more likely than not we'll see a couple years of a pretty low salary number by Red Sox standards while bringing Yorke, Casas and Marcelo Mayer along. The only problem I have with Devers is that he's a chunky monkey, and guys like that are more prone to injury and shortened careers. True. Players definitely can't lose the weight especially at 26 so its a risk. The guy who just made the HOF was pretty heavy until the end and was worth every penny.
|
|
|