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 notstarboard on Apr 13, 2022 20:40:46 GMT -5
No you don't have to over pay just because the team has money, THAT'S THE WRONG WAY. There's always other players to fill in and the true Red Sox fans will understand that's better to have a team that is constantly on top and with the flexiablity to improve, BECAUSE THEY DON'T end up with albatroz contracts. In a way I agree with what you're saying but I also disagree. Flexibility is good, but at some point you do have to spend. In a way that's like saying I never want to get married or have a girlfriend because there's so many women on this planet and I want to keep my options open. But at some point, it doesn't become about being the most efficient team but being the winning-est team you can be. It's not about wins/$ but rather the most wins. It's great to have flexibility but there are going to be years that you don't get to fill in the blanks as desired and you wind up with a lesser player because the perfect short-term fit isn't available. It doesn't have to be Devers or Betts but at some point you might have to overpay for talent. I can almost imagine this conversation from 75 years ago if free agency had been around....well Ted Williams isn't much of a fielder, can't run, is temperamental...wants huge bucks, is he really worth overpaying for his declining years, especially when the guy is pretty much a DH now, let alone then? More efficiency pretty much equals more wins, though. If we treat Henry's checkbook as finite, because it is, the more effectively that money is allocated, the more wins the team can have. Team-controlled young players are simply more cost effective than free agents. A team will not be successful if they rely too heavily on FA signings, and the more FAs you overpay for, the less benefit you can get overall from FAs.
Knowingly overpaying is general managerial malpractice as far as I'm concerned. It's totally fine to value a player more highly than the talking heads' consensus and "overpay" for them because of it, but don't intentionally spend more money on a player than you think they're worth. Come up with a number, and if the guy wants more than that number, don't bring him back. Simple as that. I would rather cut weight and trade for prospects than knowingly take on an albatross deal. Even in a weak FA class, those assets can then be flipped for other, more fairly-priced players.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 13, 2022 20:47:00 GMT -5
Sigh. I'd say maybe the move would be to trade Devers (which I would hate so, so much) and extend Xander and move him to third, but Xander seems to think he's a $30 million/year guy too. (Also I think people might be a little underwhelmed at what they could even get in a trade return for one year of Devers.) I love them both but they're not really on the level of any of the guys who have signed $300 million contracts. As for the free agent market, it really does look pretty bleak. Next offseason has a big SS class, with Turner, Correa, Bogaerts, Anderson, and Swanson, but beyond that there is like nothing for the next two seasons on the position player side. Some big pitching names might be available, but I'll believe Bloom is willing to sign a pitcher to a long-term deal when I see it. Heyman, who is a pipeline to Boras, X’s agent: nypost.com/2022/04/13/red-sox-far-apart-in-xander-bogaerts-rafael-devers-contract-talks/Excerpt: Boston and star shortstop Bogaerts were even further apart in concept, and in reality. Bogaerts, a three-time All-Star and four-time Silver Slugger winner who has an opt-out after the season on the deal that pays him $20 million annually through 2024, received an offer from Boston to simply add one year to the three he has his left on his deal. Sources suggest it was for about $30 million in that extra year, bringing his potential total to about $90 million.I trust Heyman as much as I trust my neighbors dog not to poop on my lawn. Heyman also said we were fully in on freeman. |
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Apr 13, 2022 21:05:45 GMT -5
There are not always other players to replace a 4-6 win player. The scarcity of those types of players are exactly why you pay them $30+ million rather than spending it on 4 1.5 WAR players. You overpay for guys like Devers and it's the right decision. At this point in Devers' career, he still has a lot of upside and not that much downside. It's not like Machado or Seager or even Mookie, who looked to already be receding from their peaks when they signed their $300M deals. If he cleans up his errors, he'll change from a below average (but not terrible) defensive 3B into an above average one. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. If he stops chasing, he has shown he can be the best hitter in baseball. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. There is his upside. He has so far remained healthy (knock on wood). His downside is that he is the same player he is now for years which isn't a bad thing at all. I sign Devers to any price. Devers has plenty of potential downside. I believe that his defense can rebound, but he has non-negligible DH risk. He's been under 10th percentile in OAA all but one year. If he doesn't stay on top of his conditioning, his weight could also start hurting his production. None of the guys you mentioned were showing signs of decline when they signed their deals.
Machado had just finished his age 25 season when he was signed to his deal. He had been on a 6-8 bWAR pace in three of the prior four seasons. His bat had been similarly good to Devers, but he could also defend.
Mookie was in the middle of his age 27 season coming off four consecutive GG seasons with top-8 finishes in the MVP voting. In his five full seasons with Boston before being traded he had put up a ludicrous 40 bWAR.
Seager had just finished his age 27 season and was coming off two seasons with a 145 and 150 OPS+ with decent enough defense at short. This deal is an overpay in my opinion given Seager's injury history, but I'd rather give Seager that kind of money than Devers.
Devers is not nearly as valuable as any of these players. He has had two really good years so far: 2019 at ~6 WAR and 2021 at ~4 WAR. His defense has potential, but in every season but 2019 it has been atrocious. His bat is very good, but he's also topped out at 132 OPS+ so far. That's not good enough to throw down $300+ million for, especially if the defense continues to be a liability. If he just reprises 2021 through his prime and then starts a normal decline, his contract will not have been worth it even if he stays healthy throughout the deal, which is a big if. He needs to get better for this contract to make sense, and I don't think it makes much sense to pay $300+ million dollars on the hope that a guy will reach another tier. There seems like a ton of albatross risk there and very little upside at that price tag.
I like Raffy, but I like watching a good baseball team more. If he won't come down from $300+ million, barring a breakout season that could help justify a mega deal like that, I hope he gets traded.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 13, 2022 21:49:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 13, 2022 22:47:14 GMT -5
There are not always other players to replace a 4-6 win player. The scarcity of those types of players are exactly why you pay them $30+ million rather than spending it on 4 1.5 WAR players. You overpay for guys like Devers and it's the right decision. At this point in Devers' career, he still has a lot of upside and not that much downside. It's not like Machado or Seager or even Mookie, who looked to already be receding from their peaks when they signed their $300M deals. If he cleans up his errors, he'll change from a below average (but not terrible) defensive 3B into an above average one. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. If he stops chasing, he has shown he can be the best hitter in baseball. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. There is his upside. He has so far remained healthy (knock on wood). His downside is that he is the same player he is now for years which isn't a bad thing at all. I sign Devers to any price. Devers has plenty of potential downside. I believe that his defense can rebound, but he has non-negligible DH risk. He's been under 10th percentile in OAA all but one year. If he doesn't stay on top of his conditioning, his weight could also start hurting his production. None of the guys you mentioned were showing signs of decline when they signed their deals.
Machado had just finished his age 25 season when he was signed to his deal. He had been on a 6-8 bWAR pace in three of the prior four seasons. His bat had been similarly good to Devers, but he could also defend.
Mookie was in the middle of his age 27 season coming off four consecutive GG seasons with top-8 finishes in the MVP voting. In his five full seasons with Boston before being traded he had put up a ludicrous 40 bWAR.
Seager had just finished his age 27 season and was coming off two seasons with a 145 and 150 OPS+ with decent enough defense at short. This deal is an overpay in my opinion given Seager's injury history, but I'd rather give Seager that kind of money than Devers.
Devers is not nearly as valuable as any of these players. He has had two really good years so far: 2019 at ~6 WAR and 2021 at ~4 WAR. His defense has potential, but in every season but 2019 it has been atrocious. His bat is very good, but he's also topped out at 132 OPS+ so far. That's not good enough to throw down $300+ million for, especially if the defense continues to be a liability. If he just reprises 2021 through his prime and then starts a normal decline, his contract will not have been worth it even if he stays healthy throughout the deal, which is a big if. He needs to get better for this contract to make sense, and I don't think it makes much sense to pay $300+ million dollars on the hope that a guy will reach another tier. There seems like a ton of albatross risk there and very little upside at that price tag.
I like Raffy, but I like watching a good baseball team more. If he won't come down from $300+ million, barring a breakout season that could help justify a mega deal like that, I hope he gets traded.
Agree with every word of this until the last paragraph; I think I like watching Raffy more than I like watching a good baseball team.
It's at least close.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Apr 13, 2022 23:07:40 GMT -5
There are not always other players to replace a 4-6 win player. The scarcity of those types of players are exactly why you pay them $30+ million rather than spending it on 4 1.5 WAR players. You overpay for guys like Devers and it's the right decision. At this point in Devers' career, he still has a lot of upside and not that much downside. It's not like Machado or Seager or even Mookie, who looked to already be receding from their peaks when they signed their $300M deals. If he cleans up his errors, he'll change from a below average (but not terrible) defensive 3B into an above average one. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. If he stops chasing, he has shown he can be the best hitter in baseball. He has the ability and we've seen it many times. There is his upside. He has so far remained healthy (knock on wood). His downside is that he is the same player he is now for years which isn't a bad thing at all. I sign Devers to any price. Devers has plenty of potential downside. I believe that his defense can rebound, but he has non-negligible DH risk. He's been under 10th percentile in OAA all but one year. If he doesn't stay on top of his conditioning, his weight could also start hurting his production. None of the guys you mentioned were showing signs of decline when they signed their deals.
Machado had just finished his age 25 season when he was signed to his deal. He had been on a 6-8 bWAR pace in three of the prior four seasons. His bat had been similarly good to Devers, but he could also defend.
Mookie was in the middle of his age 27 season coming off four consecutive GG seasons with top-8 finishes in the MVP voting. In his five full seasons with Boston before being traded he had put up a ludicrous 40 bWAR.
Seager had just finished his age 27 season and was coming off two seasons with a 145 and 150 OPS+ with decent enough defense at short. This deal is an overpay in my opinion given Seager's injury history, but I'd rather give Seager that kind of money than Devers.
Devers is not nearly as valuable as any of these players. He has had two really good years so far: 2019 at ~6 WAR and 2021 at ~4 WAR. His defense has potential, but in every season but 2019 it has been atrocious. His bat is very good, but he's also topped out at 132 OPS+ so far. That's not good enough to throw down $300+ million for, especially if the defense continues to be a liability. If he just reprises 2021 through his prime and then starts a normal decline, his contract will not have been worth it even if he stays healthy throughout the deal, which is a big if. He needs to get better for this contract to make sense, and I don't think it makes much sense to pay $300+ million dollars on the hope that a guy will reach another tier. There seems like a ton of albatross risk there and very little upside at that price tag.
I like Raffy, but I like watching a good baseball team more. If he won't come down from $300+ million, barring a breakout season that could help justify a mega deal like that, I hope he gets traded.
I’ve never seen something i’ve agreed with more. Personally i’d rather pay Bogaerts who took a pay cut on his last deal has been one of the most consistent Sox of all time and try’s to help recruit other players. Not saying i would go 300 mill but i would do 190 for 6.. Dudes been top 20 MVP the last 4 seasons and is someone who is great on/off the field. Seems like most fans don’t appreciate him and are willing to let him walk. |
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Apr 14, 2022 0:19:02 GMT -5
Devers has plenty of potential downside. I believe that his defense can rebound, but he has non-negligible DH risk. He's been under 10th percentile in OAA all but one year. If he doesn't stay on top of his conditioning, his weight could also start hurting his production. None of the guys you mentioned were showing signs of decline when they signed their deals.
Machado had just finished his age 25 season when he was signed to his deal. He had been on a 6-8 bWAR pace in three of the prior four seasons. His bat had been similarly good to Devers, but he could also defend.
Mookie was in the middle of his age 27 season coming off four consecutive GG seasons with top-8 finishes in the MVP voting. In his five full seasons with Boston before being traded he had put up a ludicrous 40 bWAR.
Seager had just finished his age 27 season and was coming off two seasons with a 145 and 150 OPS+ with decent enough defense at short. This deal is an overpay in my opinion given Seager's injury history, but I'd rather give Seager that kind of money than Devers.
Devers is not nearly as valuable as any of these players. He has had two really good years so far: 2019 at ~6 WAR and 2021 at ~4 WAR. His defense has potential, but in every season but 2019 it has been atrocious. His bat is very good, but he's also topped out at 132 OPS+ so far. That's not good enough to throw down $300+ million for, especially if the defense continues to be a liability. If he just reprises 2021 through his prime and then starts a normal decline, his contract will not have been worth it even if he stays healthy throughout the deal, which is a big if. He needs to get better for this contract to make sense, and I don't think it makes much sense to pay $300+ million dollars on the hope that a guy will reach another tier. There seems like a ton of albatross risk there and very little upside at that price tag.
I like Raffy, but I like watching a good baseball team more. If he won't come down from $300+ million, barring a breakout season that could help justify a mega deal like that, I hope he gets traded.
I’ve never seen something i’ve agreed with more. Personally i’d rather pay Bogaerts who took a pay cut on his last deal has been one of the most consistent Sox of all time and try’s to help recruit other players. Not saying i would go 300 mill but i would do 190 for 6.. Dudes been top 20 MVP the last 4 seasons and is someone who is great on/off the field. Seems like most fans don’t appreciate him and are willing to let him walk. Your 6yr/$190m seems like a good deal. And that’s just the problem with it. Boras probably won’t settle for less than 8 years. And I wouldn’t trust anyone heading into their 30’s on a deal that long. It’s likely that the Sox have already gotten the best years of Bogaerts’ career(and for relatively short money). Why overpay for his inevitable decline years? As for Devers, if he really thinks he should get a $300m deal, he’s a goner, too. He’s great, but a little too one dimensional to be worthy of that kind of money. And I hate deals that are longer than 6 years anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 14, 2022 2:18:04 GMT -5
I’ve never seen something i’ve agreed with more. Personally i’d rather pay Bogaerts who took a pay cut on his last deal has been one of the most consistent Sox of all time and try’s to help recruit other players. Not saying i would go 300 mill but i would do 190 for 6.. Dudes been top 20 MVP the last 4 seasons and is someone who is great on/off the field. Seems like most fans don’t appreciate him and are willing to let him walk. Your 6yr/$190m seems like a good deal. And that’s just the problem with it. Boras probably won’t settle for less than 8 years. And I wouldn’t trust anyone heading into their 30’s on a deal that long. It’s likely that the Sox have already gotten the best years of Bogaerts’ career(and for relatively short money). Why overpay for his inevitable decline years? As for Devers, if he really thinks he should get a $300m deal, he’s a goner, too. He’s great, but a little too one dimensional to be worthy of that kind of money. And I hate deals that are longer than 6 years anyway. If they had extended Devers back in 2020 like many of us were saying, they could've given him 10 years with less risk and probably gotten a significant discount. But 2020 was an aberrant year for everything. I thin 2021 was the last year to lock Devers up unless they wanted to pay full market value. He's walking now. The only question is if Bloom will trade him or play it out. Tough call from Bloom's perspective, esp without the QO, as Raffi's one of the best hitters in the game and should be for at least the next 5 years. Trading him would send an awful signal to the team. Yet another reason I'd grab Turner for 5-6 yrs in the O.S. if they let Xander go. |
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Apr 14, 2022 3:32:19 GMT -5
I'm all for spending...IN THE RIGHT PLAYERS.
I bet my neck that Raffy will not be a 3rd base in 5 years from now, some people here don't realize the amount of analytics that are been used tohelp make todays decissions and based in that the odds are against a $30 Million DH in very short time.
I think that the JBJ trade for Binellas tells us that they realize that Raffy wouldn't be the solution at 3rd, plus Dalbec may be able to play some 3rd, X if they can ressign him and who knows what in their mind.
If I was JH, I would spend to win the WS every year, but as we know is not the one that spend the most that win.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermike on Apr 14, 2022 4:31:28 GMT -5
I’ve never seen something i’ve agreed with more. Personally i’d rather pay Bogaerts who took a pay cut on his last deal has been one of the most consistent Sox of all time and try’s to help recruit other players. Not saying i would go 300 mill but i would do 190 for 6.. Dudes been top 20 MVP the last 4 seasons and is someone who is great on/off the field. Seems like most fans don’t appreciate him and are willing to let him walk. Your 6yr/$190m seems like a good deal. And that’s just the problem with it. Boras probably won’t settle for less than 8 years. And I wouldn’t trust anyone heading into their 30’s on a deal that long. It’s likely that the Sox have already gotten the best years of Bogaerts’ career(and for relatively short money). Why overpay for his inevitable decline years? As for Devers, if he really thinks he should get a $300m deal, he’s a goner, too. He’s great, but a little too one dimensional to be worthy of that kind of money. And I hate deals that are longer than 6 years anyway. side stepping about xander- i’d go out of my comfort zone for bogey to keep him. part of being a fan of the red sox (imo obv) is that we aren’t the heartless organization who kicks ALL its players to the curb when they decline. we reward them for taking team friendly deals (like pedey). he’s been so important for so many of our runs and even more- he’s been on the squad for all the bullshit years and he’s been a pro about it. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 14, 2022 5:53:17 GMT -5
The aversion to long term, expensive deals by this fan base is really quite something (deals that occur mostly in FA market, not as much pre-arb deals). It reeks of groupthink and it is really just an ownership profit making constraint that has been easily accepted by fans.
This man's market is easily 30 million a year. His ability to directly impact single games is not easily matched amongst his peers. That strength works well in playoff series. He fielding doesn't have the negative impact that people want to prescribe to his value.
With opt-outs or other creative contract language, i don't see how someone can view a 10yr/300 million dollar contract for a player (at this age) like him as being risky, in as much as there is always a certain risk with that contract. Throw in that he is home grown, plays an important position and is an offensive savant, that is a fair contract to me. If he plays hardball from there and makes a deal unapproachable, then you can make the decision to walk.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 6:01:20 GMT -5
Sox built the 2018 team the "wrong way" and won. Dodgers also won in 2020. Fairly recent championship teams who did things the "wrong way" and "overspent". The Dodgers built their team the "right way", though; they never depleted their farm and did quite a bit of building from the bottom. They've also shown willingness to spend on major FAs and trade prospects from positions they're deep in for top talent. It's basically the big market Rays model, i.e. what Bloom is trying to do in Boston. It's also been a roaring success for them. They haven't had worse than what, a low-90s win pace for the past ten seasons? Meanwhile Boston had the worst farm in the majors and filthy books after 2018 and was forced into a rebuild.
Winning the WS is a weak justification for the merits of a team building approach given how much of a crap shoot the playoffs are. The 2021 Dodgers and Giants were both similarly good to the 2018 Red Sox and they both had to watch from home as the team with the worst record in the entire playoff field took home the trophy. Outcomes like that are common. The way to win more championships in the long run is to get more bites at the cherry. With the new playoff format there will be an increase in the odds of winning for teams that finish 1st or 2nd in the league, but it's still not worth forcing a rebuild to increase your odds of finishing in those slots. A team with a payroll like Boston's should not have to rebuild.
The Rays have had lots of bites at the cherry. The Dodgers before getting Mookie had a lot of bites at the cherry. The A's had lots of bites at the cherry etc...The Dodgers needed to go all in on a trade for a star in order to win. The one franchise I would say that was completely pure in regards to homegrown, not over extending themselves was Houston. But then again we know why they won. I also wouldn't call what Bloom has done thus far as a "roaring success". Hes been good but he also got absolutely destroyed on the one major trade he had to make (granted the first attempt at the trade was far better than the 2nd) and some of his FA signings have been meh. Lets see what happens this year and evaluate after. I love what hes done with the farm system. But as far as the major league roster, it seems like thats secondary. You need to eventually keep one or two of these guys. Otherwise you're a big market team with a mid market mentality. Which is good until you take ratings and ballpark prices into consideration. Baseball is still a business and in order to run a successful business you can't be 100% risk adverse. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 6:08:17 GMT -5
The aversion to long term, expensive deals by this fan base is really quite something (deals that occur mostly in FA market, not as much pre-arb deals). It reeks of groupthink and it is really just an ownership profit making constraint that has been easily accepted by fans. This man's market is easily 30 million a year. His ability to directly impact single games is not easily matched amongst his peers. That strength works well in playoff series. He fielding doesn't have the negative impact that people want to prescribe to his value. With opt-outs or other creative contract language, i don't see how someone can view a 10yr/300 million dollar contract for a player (at this age) like him as being risky, in as much as there is always a certain risk with that contract. Throw in that he is home grown, plays an important position and is an offensive savant, that is a fair contract to me. If he plays hardball from there and makes a deal unapproachable, then you can make the decision to walk. Theo kept trying to get rid of Manny because of his contract despite winning 2 titles. Devers isn't Manny but at his best his bat is comparable to Vlad. He's young and has never had any major injuries. He's also gotten himself into better shape than what he was when he first came up. That bat is going to be very hard if not impossible to replace and its going to add more pressure on Casas to be something that he might not be. This is a 25 year old player that if they extend say 8 years hits the market again for one "final" contract. Yes its a risk to extend him but he's probably the safest bet out of anyone to give the money to even more so than Mookie. There is a difference between having a Manny Ramirez albatross contract and a Jason Heyward albatross contract. There are levels to this. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 6:22:25 GMT -5
Two years later - I wish the Sox pulled out (not necessarily kept Betts but they could have done better than what they got with relative ease) - If they had to take one of the two deals, taking Graterol was a no brainer. - This is the softest ownership towards negative perception in all of sports - The irony of Heyman being a Yankee honk while that team tried to fight to keep a sealed document under wraps. - Devers bat reminds me of another young player who won a title, had questionable defense, and ended up getting traded to Detroit and switching postions once he got expensive. Wonder what happened to him? |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 14, 2022 6:39:42 GMT -5
C'mon now. Mookie Betts was arguable the best (non-Trout) player in baseball when he was traded. Rafael Devers is not that and not close to being that, with far more warts (defense, plate discipline, weight) and far more risk. It is fine to be sentimental about a homegrown player, but that is absolutely emotion talking and not hard analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2022 7:04:25 GMT -5
The aversion to long term, expensive deals by this fan base is really quite something (deals that occur mostly in FA market, not as much pre-arb deals). It reeks of groupthink and it is really just an ownership profit making constraint that has been easily accepted by fans. This man's market is easily 30 million a year. His ability to directly impact single games is not easily matched amongst his peers. That strength works well in playoff series. He fielding doesn't have the negative impact that people want to prescribe to his value. With opt-outs or other creative contract language, i don't see how someone can view a 10yr/300 million dollar contract for a player (at this age) like him as being risky, in as much as there is always a certain risk with that contract. Throw in that he is home grown, plays an important position and is an offensive savant, that is a fair contract to me. If he plays hardball from there and makes a deal unapproachable, then you can make the decision to walk. Is he really "easily" worth 30 million AAV though? There are only three 3rd baseman at or above to 30 million mark right now (Machado,Rendon,arrenado). I'd say they were all more established difference makers at time of signing than Devers currently has shown and all proven they can stay at 3rd probably for the entirety of the contract. If Devers has to move to first/DH he's almost certainly not worth 30+ AAV. Miguel Cabrera is the only first baseman to ever get 30+ AAV and Devers is not in the same tier that Miggy was when he signed it. Freeman got 27 AAV and he's the best first baseman in the league. I'm not saying a team won't give him 30 AAV, I could certainly see it but I could also see him having to settle for closer to 25 AAV. |
|
|
|
Post by nuttyredsox on Apr 14, 2022 7:27:25 GMT -5
Two years later - I wish the Sox pulled out (not necessarily kept Betts but they could have done better than what they got with relative ease) - If they had to take one of the two deals, taking Graterol was a no brainer. - This is the softest ownership towards negative perception in all of sports - The irony of Heyman being a Yankee honk while that team tried to fight to keep a sealed document under wraps. - Devers bat reminds me of another young player who won a title, had questionable defense, and ended up getting traded to Detroit and switching postions once he got expensive. Wonder what happened to him? Dude your are smoking good stuff, your are very bias in your opions(that's fine), history as proven that players with the built of Raffy will eventually have phisical limitations. Much better players than him have been paid less and the odds are that he will never reach their levels, eventually he will have to settle as a DH because I can't see him even at 1st. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 7:42:45 GMT -5
C'mon now. Mookie Betts was arguable the best (non-Trout) player in baseball when he was traded. Rafael Devers is not that and not close to being that, with far more warts (defense, plate discipline, weight) and far more risk. It is fine to be sentimental about a homegrown player, but that is absolutely emotion talking and not hard analysis. Oh I agree. But what I'm saying is a guy built like Mookie its more risky to give 10 or 12 years to than someone like Devers. He's more on the smaller side and those players do have a tendency to break down quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 7:44:25 GMT -5
Two years later - I wish the Sox pulled out (not necessarily kept Betts but they could have done better than what they got with relative ease) - If they had to take one of the two deals, taking Graterol was a no brainer. - This is the softest ownership towards negative perception in all of sports - The irony of Heyman being a Yankee honk while that team tried to fight to keep a sealed document under wraps. - Devers bat reminds me of another young player who won a title, had questionable defense, and ended up getting traded to Detroit and switching postions once he got expensive. Wonder what happened to him? Dude your are smoking good stuff, your are very bias in your opions(that's fine), history as proven that players with the built of Raffy will eventually have phisical limitations. Much better players than him have been paid less and the odds are that he will never reach their levels, eventually he will have to settle as a DH because I can't see him even at 1st. Even as a DH/1B the bat plays. He's worth the cash in this market. Period |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2022 7:50:36 GMT -5
Dude your are smoking good stuff, your are very bias in your opions(that's fine), history as proven that players with the built of Raffy will eventually have phisical limitations. Much better players than him have been paid less and the odds are that he will never reach their levels, eventually he will have to settle as a DH because I can't see him even at 1st. Even as a DH/1B the bat plays. He's worth the cash in this market. Period There has been one 1st/DH player to get 30+ mil and it was Miggy who was literally the best hitters in the league at the time. It's fair to question if Devers is worth that if you think he's going to have to move off 3rd. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 8:15:16 GMT -5
Even as a DH/1B the bat plays. He's worth the cash in this market. Period There has been one 1st/DH player to get 30+ mil and it was Miggy who was literally the best hitters in the league at the time. It's fair to question if Devers is worth that if you think he's going to have to move off 3rd. And Devers isn't one of the best in the league? You also have to consider that due to inflation if Miggy started playing in 2016 he would get closer to 40 than 30. The fact that some people believe you can replace an MVP caliber bat with value moves is off the mark. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Apr 14, 2022 8:23:11 GMT -5
There has been one 1st/DH player to get 30+ mil and it was Miggy who was literally the best hitters in the league at the time. It's fair to question if Devers is worth that if you think he's going to have to move off 3rd. You also have to consider that due to inflation if Miggy started playing in 2016 he would get closer to 40 than 30. The fact that some people believe you can replace an MVP caliber bat with value moves is off the mark. No. That seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between posters here. Some see the flashes of potential and think Devers will turn into Vlad Jr. or Soto or Miggy. Maybe he will. But so far, he has not been even close to that level in terms of actual results. He was just barely more productive than Bogaerts and JD Martinez last year. Those are two very good hitters, but nobody around here is comparing those guys to Miguel Cabrera. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Apr 14, 2022 8:33:37 GMT -5
And Devers isn't one of the best in the league? You also have to consider that due to inflation if Miggy started playing in 2016 he would get closer to 40 than 30. The fact that some people believe you can replace an MVP caliber bat with value moves is off the mark. No. That seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between posters here. Some see the flashes of potential and think Devers will turn into Vlad Jr. or Soto or Miggy. Maybe he will. But so far, he has not been even close to that level in terms of actual results. He was just barely more productive than Bogaerts and JD Martinez last year. Those are two very good hitters, but nobody around here is comparing those guys to Miguel Cabrera. Devers hasn't even hit his prime yet and he's putting up numbers. I think people look at this as paying 30 million a year 5 years ago. Players like Corey Seager are getting 30 million a year in this market. In about another few years 30 million a year is going to be the new 20. So you have to figure out how this guy is going to age once he gets paid. Vlad and Miggy certainly had similar profiles to him. I just think its crazy to let someone like this walk and expect to sign some random player to a 1 year contract and expect value. If there's an Beltre type player out there next year and they can sign him and trade Devers for elite prospects then fine. But there is not. This team won't be doing much in 2023 with a platoon of FA/Arroyo/Casas/Dalbec at 1st DH and 3rd. Just not going to work out. |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 14, 2022 9:03:19 GMT -5
No. That seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between posters here. Some see the flashes of potential and think Devers will turn into Vlad Jr. or Soto or Miggy. Maybe he will. But so far, he has not been even close to that level in terms of actual results. He was just barely more productive than Bogaerts and JD Martinez last year. Those are two very good hitters, but nobody around here is comparing those guys to Miguel Cabrera. Devers hasn't even hit his prime yet and he's putting up numbers. I think people look at this as paying 30 million a year 5 years ago. Players like Corey Seager are getting 30 million a year in this market. In about another few years 30 million a year is going to be the new 20. So you have to figure out how this guy is going to age once he gets paid. Vlad and Miggy certainly had similar profiles to him. I just think its crazy to let someone like this walk and expect to sign some random player to a 1 year contract and expect value. If there's an Beltre type player out there next year and they can sign him and trade Devers for elite prospects then fine. But there is not. This team won't be doing much in 2023 with a platoon of FA/Arroyo/Casas/Dalbec at 1st DH and 3rd. Just not going to work out. I disagree that in a few years 30 mil will be the new 20 but that is just my opinion. Going back to the Devers thing, I mean no he hasn't produced triple crown type of years that miggy did but okay if you want to say that contract was a long time ago and isn't necessarily pertinent to the argument anymore I get that. So let's look at Freddie freeman. Freeman is a better hitter than Devers and got 27 AAV to play first. If a team signs Devers wanting him to play first then I can't see why they'd want to pay him more than what freeman got. It does only take one or two teams though. I'll end my post that, I want Devers long term, I want xandy long term and I sure as heck want at least one of them back. They do have the money and flexibility to pay market rate on one if not both. If Devers costs 8-10 years at 30 AAV I'd do if if I was the sox but on the same level I can understand the hesitancy not to if they believe he's going to have to move from 3rd sooner than later and who would know that better than them? |
|
|
|
Post by jaffinator on Apr 14, 2022 9:04:10 GMT -5
No. That seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between posters here. Some see the flashes of potential and think Devers will turn into Vlad Jr. or Soto or Miggy. Maybe he will. But so far, he has not been even close to that level in terms of actual results. He was just barely more productive than Bogaerts and JD Martinez last year. Those are two very good hitters, but nobody around here is comparing those guys to Miguel Cabrera. Devers hasn't even hit his prime yet and he's putting up numbers. I think people look at this as paying 30 million a year 5 years ago. Players like Corey Seager are getting 30 million a year in this market. In about another few years 30 million a year is going to be the new 20. So you have to figure out how this guy is going to age once he gets paid. Vlad and Miggy certainly had similar profiles to him. I just think its crazy to let someone like this walk and expect to sign some random player to a 1 year contract and expect value. If there's an Beltre type player out there next year and they can sign him and trade Devers for elite prospects then fine. But there is not. This team won't be doing much in 2023 with a platoon of FA/Arroyo/Casas/Dalbec at 1st DH and 3rd. Just not going to work out. Devers has never had a hitting year close to Vlad's last year or Miggy's the year before he signed his extension. The year before Miggy signed his he lead both leagues in BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS+. Last year Vlad Jr. lead in only OBP, SLG, and OPS+. Both of those seasons are over 30 points better in OPS+ than Raffy's best ever season. They are simply not in the same class of hitter. I think it's fair to question "well what's the replacement" but the comparisons being thrown out are just silly. I don't think it's unfair to comp him to Seager necessarily, but Seager (also a bad defender at SS) has other options to move to before 1B/DH and has been a better hitter the past year and a half (COVID season being called a half). I get that Devers is still so tantalizing because his flaws seem legitimately so fixable, but he's also 25. |
|
|
