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.
Who should the Red Sox extend in 2022?
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 2, 2022 14:57:57 GMT -5
A lot of guys with either expiring contracts, player options coming up, or arbitration years ending. Please vote for your two highest priorities to get done now. Listed contract terms are only this reporter's estimates of free-market value.
All but Raffy are coming up at the end of this season and many have (predictably) stated that they won't negotiate during the regular season (an almost automatic negotiating tool in itself -- it's not like they spend late nights one-on-one haggling with the GM). Just about all of them have publicly stated a desire to remain in Boston (another common negotiating stance).
Raffy has also publicly stated that he doesn't like his salary being calculated in arbitration by comparisons to other 3B -- he wants to be compared with other MVP candidates at any position.
Xander, the closest thing to the face of the franchise, has publicly stated that he wants to be paid like a top SS, coming off several relatively team-friendly years. He has also been conspicuously out of the lineup the last two days -- might he, his agent, and the club be finalizing something?
Nathan Eovaldi has publicly stated that he and his wife love everything about living in suburban Boston (Weston) and plan to stay past his playing days. Might he be more willing to negotiate in-season or accept a "creative" contract?
Enrique Hernandez is a great clubhouse glue guy and is a demonstrably better player than Chris Taylor, who just got 4/60.
Julio Martinez's market just doubled in size and he is well-known as a de facto hitting coach for his teammates.
Christian Vazquez is a better big-league catcher than anyone else currently under team control for 2023. If not him, they'll be shopping for a starting backstop.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 2, 2022 15:03:25 GMT -5
Eh at those prices listed the only one I'd say would be Devers. I love eovaldi but I'm not giving him a 4 year deal with his injury history. Xander I hate to say it the writing is on the wall with Story signing. JD has been great here but I don't want anymore long term high dollar DHs. Maybe Hernandez if he replicates last year, I don't think that'd be a crazy offer looking at what Chris Taylor got. Vazquez if he'd sign that deal would be a good deal but doubt he would.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Apr 2, 2022 16:00:51 GMT -5
I think Xander is coming back, but I think that partly because I believe his contract will be closer to $200 million than $300 million.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 2, 2022 16:04:46 GMT -5
I think Xander is coming back, but I think that partly because I believe his contract will be closer to $200 million than $300 million. Certainly not signing him until age 39.
|
|
|
Post by carl4sox on Apr 2, 2022 16:38:46 GMT -5
1. Raffy, at 8 years 2. Nate, at 3 years 3. Christian, at 2 years
Too much for Xander and JD, though I love both.
|
|
|
Post by carl4sox on Apr 2, 2022 16:39:24 GMT -5
Oh, and Kiké at 3 years
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,684
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 2, 2022 16:52:15 GMT -5
I'm a softy, so I'd make a lousy GM.
I'd prioritize Devers, 9 years, 270 million.
I'd bring back Xander for 7 years 200 million.
I'd extend Eovaldi for 4 years 92 million.
If Vazquez looks more like his 2019 - 2020 self I'd offer him 3 years 33 million. If he is 2021 or worse I'd either let him go or sign him for 2 years 12 million, as I think, like Eovaldi, he really wants to stay.
I'd explore extending Kiké Hernandez but he would have to be 2nd half Hernandez. If he were, then 4 years 60 million.
I'll miss JDM who has no chance of being extended. If Casas and Dalbec can co-exist on the same team, one will have to DH.
So Devers is a must while Xander and Eovaldi are the next level.
Vazquez and Hernandez are lower priorities and JDM would not be extended.
My guess is Chaim extends either Devers or X, not both, and finds a deal with Eovaldi, and waits on Hernandez and Vazquez and extends Vazquez if he performs well. JDM is a goner.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Apr 2, 2022 16:58:26 GMT -5
Definitely extend Devers. Anything else is unforgivable. Really should extend X at almost any cost.
Eovaldi… certainly negotiate, but with real care. I love him, but he is a risk.
CVaz…. I have a hard time seeing it unless it is a pretty short term contract at a bargain price. It isn’t like age will help him.
JDM? I don’t think so.
Kiké… it might be risky, but I’d like to see a half season.
Thing about the last four is if things go South, I’d consider trading them, too.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Apr 2, 2022 17:40:28 GMT -5
Raffy and X probably would have opt outs after a couple years. Most big contracts seem that way now. I am leery about big long term contracts to most pitchers FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 2, 2022 18:39:33 GMT -5
As always, it depends on the price.
As a fan, I'd be happy with a Devers deal that was bad WAR/$ value. And I'd be upset with a Vazquez deal that was great value.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Apr 2, 2022 19:23:13 GMT -5
Who the heck is Julio Devers above all we can’t let him go.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Apr 3, 2022 12:39:54 GMT -5
They should extend all those guys if they all agree to reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. They shouldn't extend any of them if none are willing to take reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. It's really that simple.
At the numbers listed, the only one that's an easy yes for me is Vaz at those low dollars. I'd think about Eovaldi at 4 years/$80M because a front of the rotation starter is a necessity and I don't see how we're going to get one any cheaper than that. None of our farm system guys project to be aces.
Hard no on Devers and X. Red Sox Stats did a deep-dive on X a few months back and, as I recall, estimated about 6 years and $150 million or so. That's as high as I'd go. Why would they even consider going to $33.3 million a year for a guy who's likely to move off a premium position to a position where his offensive production is not extraordinary?
Carlos Correa got about that same AAV for only three years. He's younger, coming off a significantly better year than X, and will play SS for the length of the contract.
As I posted before, factor in even a modest drop in X's production, put him in LF and you have Michael Brantley going into his 2021 season. Brantley got two years and $32 million.
The thing with Raffy is that while it's fun watching him play, his defense is so bad that it brings down his overall value. He was 3.5 b-Ref WAR last year and under 2 on a pro-rated basis in 2020. That's not a $30 million-a-year player, or even a $20 million-a-year player.
Raffy's best position is DH and I think CB looks forward to not having to pay big $$$ to that position starting in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 3, 2022 12:54:05 GMT -5
They should extend all those guys if they all agree to reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. They shouldn't extend any of them if none are willing to take reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. It's really that simple. At the numbers listed, the only one that's an easy yes for me is Vaz at those low dollars. I'd think about Eovaldi at 4 years/$80M because a front of the rotation starter is a necessity and I don't see how we're going to get one any cheaper than that. None of our farm system guys project to be aces. Hard no on Devers and X. Red Sox Stats did a deep-dive on X a few months back and, as I recall, estimated about 6 years and $150 million or so. That's as high as I'd go. Why would they even consider going to $33.3 million a year for a guy who's likely to move off a premium position to a position where his offensive production is not extraordinary? Carlos Correa got about that same AAV for only three years. He's younger, coming off a significantly better year than X, and will play SS for the length of the contract. As I posted before, factor in even a modest drop in X's production, put him in LF and you have Michael Brantley going into his 2021 season. Brantley got two years and $32 million. The thing with Raffy is that while it's fun watching him play, his defense is so bad that it brings down his overall value. He was 3.5 b-Ref WAR last year and under 2 on a pro-rated basis in 2020. That's not a $30 million-a-year player, or even a $20 million-a-year player.
Raffy's best position is DH and I think CB looks forward to not having to pay big $$$ to that position starting in 2023. Are you really arguing Devers is only a 2 WAR player? That doesn't pass the laugh test. If he's as little as a 2.5 WAR player, that's worth $20 million/year. At 3.5 WAR he gets close to $30 million/year. You wouldn't normally want to give that much to a free agent because they're older and figure to decline from that level. But Devers is only 25. He should have quite a few peak-level years ahead of him.
In any case, I think even 3.5 WAR is a ludicrously low estimate of his value. He's been worth 10.8 aWAR since the start of 2019, so even without accommodating the weirdness of the covid season at all, that's 4.4 WAR/150 in his age 22-24 seasons, or 3.9 bWAR if you're all in on his worst defensive metrics.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 3, 2022 16:00:48 GMT -5
Eovaldi four years and Devers 9 years with an opt out after 4. While I'd gladly sign on for the deals above, my guess is the money both will get will be more than what's above.
I would offer $5M more a year to Xander (i.e. $25M AAV) for four years with some achievable incentives to bump it to possibly $10M extra a year.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Apr 3, 2022 16:44:17 GMT -5
They should extend all those guys if they all agree to reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. They shouldn't extend any of them if none are willing to take reasonable deals that improve the team's chances of sustained success. It's really that simple. At the numbers listed, the only one that's an easy yes for me is Vaz at those low dollars. I'd think about Eovaldi at 4 years/$80M because a front of the rotation starter is a necessity and I don't see how we're going to get one any cheaper than that. None of our farm system guys project to be aces. Hard no on Devers and X. Red Sox Stats did a deep-dive on X a few months back and, as I recall, estimated about 6 years and $150 million or so. That's as high as I'd go. Why would they even consider going to $33.3 million a year for a guy who's likely to move off a premium position to a position where his offensive production is not extraordinary? Carlos Correa got about that same AAV for only three years. He's younger, coming off a significantly better year than X, and will play SS for the length of the contract. As I posted before, factor in even a modest drop in X's production, put him in LF and you have Michael Brantley going into his 2021 season. Brantley got two years and $32 million. The thing with Raffy is that while it's fun watching him play, his defense is so bad that it brings down his overall value. He was 3.5 b-Ref WAR last year and under 2 on a pro-rated basis in 2020. That's not a $30 million-a-year player, or even a $20 million-a-year player.
Raffy's best position is DH and I think CB looks forward to not having to pay big $$$ to that position starting in 2023. Are you really arguing Devers is only a 2 WAR player? That doesn't pass the laugh test. If he's as little as a 2.5 WAR player, that's worth $20 million/year. At 3.5 WAR he gets close to $30 million/year. You wouldn't normally want to give that much to a free agent because they're older and figure to decline from that level. But Devers is only 25. He should have quite a few peak-level years ahead of him.
In any case, I think even 3.5 WAR is a ludicrously low estimate of his value. He's been worth 10.8 aWAR since the start of 2019, so even without accommodating the weirdness of the covid season at all, that's 4.4 WAR/150 in his age 22-24 seasons, or 3.9 bWAR if you're all in on his worst defensive metrics.
A few points: 1. No, I didn't argue he's a 2-win player. I pointed out his 2020 WAR. If it's on the back of his baseball card, it's fair game. And yes, 2020 was the weirdest season we've seen. One reason it was particularly weird for Raffy is that he came back from the break noticeably out of shape. That's on him, not on anyone else. 2. I'm sorry, dollars-per-WAR calculations are a waste of time. They are useless when it comes to weighing which players to sign. If a 2.5 WAR player is worth $20 million, as you say, that's $8 million per WAR. To get to 90 wins (which would not have gotten the RS a playoff spot in 2021), you'd need a payroll of about $340 million. The goal is to be more efficient than the market. The top six players for the 2018 World Champs put up 26.2 WAR for $34.8 million, about $1.3 per WAR. For the 2013 World Champs, the top six cost just over $2M per WAR. 3. I'm not "all in" on his worst defensive metrics. The fact is Raffy is a bad fielder, regardless of which metric you use. His UZR/150 the past three years has been 2.4, -10.6 and -5.8. By fielding runs above average/1,200 innings, he's been -9, -33, and -20.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Apr 3, 2022 16:58:55 GMT -5
I really feel like they have to extend at least one of Devers or Bogearts because otherwise the 2023-2024 Sox will be pretty bad with JDM, Bogey and Devers leaving. If they do that, you are looking at just waiting for the Casas/Yorke/Mayer era, assuming all 3 are legit, and 2023-2024 is too early for those 3 to contribute anything meaningful. I would love for them to extend both Devers and Bogey, but if you can only pick one, I think you have to pick Devers. Aside from him being younger and in my opinion having a higher ceiling, you are looking at potentially having Devers' age 27, 28 and 29 seasons right when Casas, Yorke and Mayer are coming into their own in 2024, 2025, and 2026. If those 3 guys can be the guys we think they can be, that is a formidable foundation to build a lineup around.
I would really hate to see Bogey go though. He has been as consistent as any player I've seen wear a Red Sox uni. I think he's gonna have a really good shot at the HOF when all is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Apr 3, 2022 18:05:25 GMT -5
Are you really arguing Devers is only a 2 WAR player? That doesn't pass the laugh test. If he's as little as a 2.5 WAR player, that's worth $20 million/year. At 3.5 WAR he gets close to $30 million/year. You wouldn't normally want to give that much to a free agent because they're older and figure to decline from that level. But Devers is only 25. He should have quite a few peak-level years ahead of him. In any case, I think even 3.5 WAR is a ludicrously low estimate of his value. He's been worth 10.8 aWAR since the start of 2019, so even without accommodating the weirdness of the covid season at all, that's 4.4 WAR/150 in his age 22-24 seasons, or 3.9 bWAR if you're all in on his worst defensive metrics.
A few points: 1. No, I didn't argue he's a 2-win player. I pointed out his 2020 WAR. If it's on the back of his baseball card, it's fair game. And yes, 2020 was the weirdest season we've seen. One reason it was particularly weird for Raffy is that he came back from the break noticeably out of shape. That's on him, not on anyone else. 2. I'm sorry, dollars-per-WAR calculations are a waste of time. They are useless when it comes to weighing which players to sign. If a 2.5 WAR player is worth $20 million, as you say, that's $8 million per WAR. To get to 90 wins (which would not have gotten the RS a playoff spot in 2021), you'd need a payroll of about $340 million. The goal is to be more efficient than the market. The top six players for the 2018 World Champs put up 26.2 WAR for $34.8 million, about $1.3 per WAR. For the 2013 World Champs, the top six cost just over $2M per WAR. 3. I'm not "all in" on his worst defensive metrics. The fact is Raffy is a bad fielder, regardless of which metric you use. His UZR/150 the past three years has been 2.4, -10.6 and -5.8. By fielding runs above average/1,200 innings, he's been -9, -33, and -20. Couple comments on your math that might get you more comfortable with paying Devers: - Replacement level is not 0 wins, so a 90 win team isn't equivalent to 90 WAR. There's only 1000 WAR to go around each year, looking back at fWAR from 2010-2019 elite teams have more than 50 WAR (~10%), good teams have between 40-50 WAR (~20%), and awful teams have less than 20 WAR (~10%). - Also, the 8 million per WAR metric is for free agents only. Overall the cost per WAR is 5M but that's a weighted average between free agents at 8M and cost-controlled players at or close to 1M or less. So when dealing with free agents, it needs to be thought of as 8M per WAR. But to your point, successful teams need to generate a lot of WAR from cost-controlled players. Broadly speaking, my opinion is that for Bloom to show success in free agency he needs to win with the cohort of 8 or so players that he's going to give 10M+ per-year contracts to. Let's say 160M of contracts for simplicity, if he gets 20+ WAR from them per year it's a success. So my rough rule of thumb is to get half your WAR (20+) for your contract elites and half your WAR (20+) from your development system and you've got a sustainable system.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 3, 2022 18:39:02 GMT -5
To expand on foreverred's math
Fangraphs defines WAR such that there is 1000 each year. So an average 81 team has 1000/30 = 33.33. And a 91 win team has 43 and so on. It doesn't match up exactly to real win totals because of teams outperforming their run differential etc.
A team that spends up to the first luxury tax limit with average free agent market efficiency will get 205/8 = 25 WAR = 73 win team. The luxury tax limit is 230, but like 25 is non salary expenses
So you need find about 12 surplus wins to be solidly in the wild card hunt, and 25 makes you a top tier contender.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 3, 2022 19:45:27 GMT -5
Keep in mind when you're doing off-the-cuff calculations of $/WAR, 8mil is far too low. This off-season fangraphs was estimating 8.5mil/fWAR before the lockout, but my off-the-cuff estimates I had it between 9 and 9.5 $mil/fWAR (as of a couple of weeks ago). This would put payments back in line with 2019 fangraphs estimate of 9.5mil/fWAR.
There's not a perfect answer (it varies greatly depending on the sample and forecasting methodology) but the range of 8.5 and 9.5 seems the most reasonable.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Apr 3, 2022 19:48:49 GMT -5
I understand the points forever9 and julyanmorley are making and, in fact, was already aware of them. Before I posted, I thought I recalled reading that an all-replacement level team would win about 48 games. I searched and found this article, which seems to confirm that: www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/12/26/18155292/correlation-war-wins-pythagorean-expectation-second-order-wins-third-order-winsIt says, "A replacement-level team, rather, is projected to post a .294 winning percentage. Over the course of a 162-game season, this team would win 47.628 games. Thus, for every single WAR above this, a team should be worth WAR + 47.628." So, getting to 90 wins at $8M per would get your payroll to $336 million (42 x $8M). If I understand julyanmorley's post, it says the same thing. Getting to 81 wins requires a 33-WAR roster. You get 48 for being replacement level and need another 33. I'm also aware that the high-end cost per WAR that gets quoted is for FAs. The lesson I take from that is that it's best to avoid big FA contracts when you can. They are an inefficient and super high-risk way to add talent. If you feel your team in nearly complete, but you just need another piece or two to go on a run that could bring one or more titles, then go ahead and overpay. Three years of paying David Price to pitch in LA is painful, but he was integral to the 2018 championship, so I'm Ok with it. There's also the issue of downside risk. The question the thread poses is whether we would pay Raffy $300 million for nine years. That's $33.3 million/year. If his career were to go the way of, let's say, Nomar's, the RS would have a massive sunk cost on their hands. Nomie put up 2.4 WAR from his age 30 to 33 seasons. Starting a nine-year Raffy contract now (in other words buying out his last two arb years) would take him through his age 33 season. Mo Vaughn is another example. Mo put up 3.6 WAR in his age 31 to 33 seasons while drawing checks from the Angels. I'll grant you that Mo's lifestyle probably didn't help. The VIP lounge at the Foxy Lady and buffet restaurants aren't known as great training facilities. He let himself go when it came to conditioning. Nomar and Mo are probably extreme examples of guys who fell of a cliff. But I think we all agree that the second halves of these massive contracts are usually disasters. In general, I'm extremely wary of massive long-term contracts, as I guess you can tell.
|
|
larrycook
Veteran
Posts: 2,471
Member is Online
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 3, 2022 21:39:36 GMT -5
I would like to see Vazquez resigned, provided we limit his innings a bit and not burn him out.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 3, 2022 21:48:10 GMT -5
I understand the points forever9 and julyanmorley are making and, in fact, was already aware of them. Before I posted, I thought I recalled reading that an all-replacement level team would win about 48 games. I searched and found this article, which seems to confirm that: www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/12/26/18155292/correlation-war-wins-pythagorean-expectation-second-order-wins-third-order-winsIt says, "A replacement-level team, rather, is projected to post a .294 winning percentage. Over the course of a 162-game season, this team would win 47.628 games. Thus, for every single WAR above this, a team should be worth WAR + 47.628." So, getting to 90 wins at $8M per would get your payroll to $336 million (42 x $8M). If I understand julyanmorley's post, it says the same thing. Getting to 81 wins requires a 33-WAR roster. You get 48 for being replacement level and need another 33. I'm also aware that the high-end cost per WAR that gets quoted is for FAs. The lesson I take from that is that it's best to avoid big FA contracts when you can. They are an inefficient and super high-risk way to add talent. If you feel your team in nearly complete, but you just need another piece or two to go on a run that could bring one or more titles, then go ahead and overpay. Three years of paying David Price to pitch in LA is painful, but he was integral to the 2018 championship, so I'm Ok with it. There's also the issue of downside risk. The question the thread poses is whether we would pay Raffy $300 million for nine years. That's $33.3 million/year. If his career were to go the way of, let's say, Nomar's, the RS would have a massive sunk cost on their hands. Nomie put up 2.4 WAR from his age 30 to 33 seasons. Starting a nine-year Raffy contract now (in other words buying out his last two arb years) would take him through his age 33 season. Mo Vaughn is another example. Mo put up 3.6 WAR in his age 31 to 33 seasons while drawing checks from the Angels. I'll grant you that Mo's lifestyle probably didn't help. The VIP lounge at the Foxy Lady and buffet restaurants aren't known as great training facilities. He let himself go when it came to conditioning. Nomar and Mo are probably extreme examples of guys who fell of a cliff. But I think we all agree that the second halves of these massive contracts are usually disasters. In general, I'm extremely wary of massive long-term contracts, as I guess you can tell. I'm mostly with you on the massive contracts but at the same time the sox have money and basically nobody signed very long term so they can afford one maybe two? I don't want a team full of them obviously but theoretically Devers at 10 for 300-350 mil would be fine with me since he's still so young and Bloom seems to be building a good farm that would allow them to have a massive contract or two on the books and still have a well rounded team.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Apr 3, 2022 22:18:01 GMT -5
I understand the points forever9 and julyanmorley are making and, in fact, was already aware of them. Before I posted, I thought I recalled reading that an all-replacement level team would win about 48 games. I searched and found this article, which seems to confirm that: www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/12/26/18155292/correlation-war-wins-pythagorean-expectation-second-order-wins-third-order-winsIt says, "A replacement-level team, rather, is projected to post a .294 winning percentage. Over the course of a 162-game season, this team would win 47.628 games. Thus, for every single WAR above this, a team should be worth WAR + 47.628." So, getting to 90 wins at $8M per would get your payroll to $336 million (42 x $8M). If I understand julyanmorley's post, it says the same thing. Getting to 81 wins requires a 33-WAR roster. You get 48 for being replacement level and need another 33. I'm also aware that the high-end cost per WAR that gets quoted is for FAs. The lesson I take from that is that it's best to avoid big FA contracts when you can. They are an inefficient and super high-risk way to add talent. If you feel your team in nearly complete, but you just need another piece or two to go on a run that could bring one or more titles, then go ahead and overpay. Three years of paying David Price to pitch in LA is painful, but he was integral to the 2018 championship, so I'm Ok with it. There's also the issue of downside risk. The question the thread poses is whether we would pay Raffy $300 million for nine years. That's $33.3 million/year. If his career were to go the way of, let's say, Nomar's, the RS would have a massive sunk cost on their hands. Nomie put up 2.4 WAR from his age 30 to 33 seasons. Starting a nine-year Raffy contract now (in other words buying out his last two arb years) would take him through his age 33 season. Mo Vaughn is another example. Mo put up 3.6 WAR in his age 31 to 33 seasons while drawing checks from the Angels. I'll grant you that Mo's lifestyle probably didn't help. The VIP lounge at the Foxy Lady and buffet restaurants aren't known as great training facilities. He let himself go when it came to conditioning. Nomar and Mo are probably extreme examples of guys who fell of a cliff. But I think we all agree that the second halves of these massive contracts are usually disasters. In general, I'm extremely wary of massive long-term contracts, as I guess you can tell. I used to sort of feel the same way and was against the Red Sox signing large contracts. But I have since flipped my stance, because if you take that to its logical conclusion you end up operating like a small market club - just make small deals and focus on the farm system. I honestly don't care if the Red Sox overpay for a free agent or a player. In fact, they should be overpaying for free agents because they can afford to. The goal of a team is not to maximize WAR/$. It's to win a world series, and high end free agents will help you do that, even if they technically aren't worth the money toward the end of their contracts. And besides, after Crawford, Beckett and Price, the Red Sox have shown there are plenty of ways of getting out from under bad money. More important than anything is that the organization has a strong farm system that is consistently graduating major league regulars. That is how you can afford to overpay for free agents. It was because of Mookie, Xander, JBJ, Benintendi and Devers that Pablo and Hanley were absolutely dead money and yet did nothing to stop them from winning the division 3x in a row and a world series in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Apr 3, 2022 22:51:25 GMT -5
I understand the points forever9 and julyanmorley are making and, in fact, was already aware of them. Before I posted, I thought I recalled reading that an all-replacement level team would win about 48 games. I searched and found this article, which seems to confirm that: www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2018/12/26/18155292/correlation-war-wins-pythagorean-expectation-second-order-wins-third-order-winsIt says, "A replacement-level team, rather, is projected to post a .294 winning percentage. Over the course of a 162-game season, this team would win 47.628 games. Thus, for every single WAR above this, a team should be worth WAR + 47.628." So, getting to 90 wins at $8M per would get your payroll to $336 million (42 x $8M). If I understand julyanmorley's post, it says the same thing. Getting to 81 wins requires a 33-WAR roster. You get 48 for being replacement level and need another 33. I'm also aware that the high-end cost per WAR that gets quoted is for FAs. The lesson I take from that is that it's best to avoid big FA contracts when you can. They are an inefficient and super high-risk way to add talent. If you feel your team in nearly complete, but you just need another piece or two to go on a run that could bring one or more titles, then go ahead and overpay. Three years of paying David Price to pitch in LA is painful, but he was integral to the 2018 championship, so I'm Ok with it. There's also the issue of downside risk. The question the thread poses is whether we would pay Raffy $300 million for nine years. That's $33.3 million/year. If his career were to go the way of, let's say, Nomar's, the RS would have a massive sunk cost on their hands. Nomie put up 2.4 WAR from his age 30 to 33 seasons. Starting a nine-year Raffy contract now (in other words buying out his last two arb years) would take him through his age 33 season. Mo Vaughn is another example. Mo put up 3.6 WAR in his age 31 to 33 seasons while drawing checks from the Angels. I'll grant you that Mo's lifestyle probably didn't help. The VIP lounge at the Foxy Lady and buffet restaurants aren't known as great training facilities. He let himself go when it came to conditioning. Nomar and Mo are probably extreme examples of guys who fell of a cliff. But I think we all agree that the second halves of these massive contracts are usually disasters. In general, I'm extremely wary of massive long-term contracts, as I guess you can tell. I used to sort of feel the same way and was against the Red Sox signing large contracts. But I have since flipped my stance, because if you take that to its logical conclusion you end up operating like a small market club - just make small deals and focus on the farm system. I honestly don't care if the Red Sox overpay for a free agent or a player. In fact, they should be overpaying for free agents because they can afford to. The goal of a team is not to maximize WAR/$. It's to win a world series, and high end free agents will help you do that, even if they technically aren't worth the money toward the end of their contracts. And besides, after Crawford, Beckett and Price, the Red Sox have shown there are plenty of ways of getting out from under bad money. More important than anything is that the organization has a strong farm system that is consistently graduating major league regulars. That is how you can afford to overpay for free agents. It was because of Mookie, Xander, JBJ, Benintendi and Devers that Pablo and Hanley were absolutely dead money and yet did nothing to stop them from winning the division 3x in a row and a world series in 2018. I'm also in this camp, for the most part. I mean, it's not my money...
It reminds me of the immediate aftermath of the Price signing. A buddy and I were debating what results would justify the signing and I wound up settling on a team-based metric rather than anything to do with $/WAR. If Price was a significant contributor to more than one ring, the signing was a 10. If he was a significant contributor to one ring, it was a 9. If he was a significant contributor to getting the team to a ring but wasn't a significant post-season contributor, it was an 8. If he was a significant contributor to getting the team to the playoffs multiple years but they never won a ring, it was a 7. And it goes down from there. So by this metric, his signing was a 9 and I stand by that. I'm not interested in the minutiae of how many WAR he produced or how paying him to pitch for LAD (out of the bullpen, LOL -- I love how his HOF chances have completely evaporated with his move to the bullpen, in complete contrast with Eck's) affects the current team. FFF.
At the same time, you want to be smart about it. Fortunately, I'm pretty confident that Chaim is. And yes, part of that is building a farm system that produces cheap players who allow you to spend more on established players.
@ematz also alluded to an important point, that after 2024 the only big contract on the books is Story's. Up to then, the only CBT penalties will be monetary. To me, that swings the vault open for multiple long-term extensions or free agent signings, as long as you can dip under whatever the threshold will be in 2025. With many of the system's top prospects possibly ready for primetime by then, not to mention current young contributors still arb eligible at that time, there should be enough flexibility for both Raffy and Xander, along with Nate and Enrique on shorter term deals, especially if Nate is willing to take something creative that lowers his AAV (albeit longer term).
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,163
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Apr 4, 2022 8:08:36 GMT -5
Devers. Have to re-sign Devers.
If they keep him here he’ll be a top 3 hitter in team history
|
|
|