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 alexcorahomevideo on Jul 21, 2022 15:19:03 GMT -5
Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. Trea Turner, Syndergaard, Abreu, Jansen, Kiermaier, Clevinger, Kiké. There, it took me about a minute to spend up to the CBT and field a pennant contender. So Trea Turner is going to take a short term deal? Thor will probably get longer and there's no chance of this organization rolling the dice on his health with Paxton and Sale already on the books.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 15:19:37 GMT -5
Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. Trea Turner, Syndergaard, Abreu, Jansen, Kiermaier, Clevinger, Kiké. There, it took me about a minute to spend up to the CBT and field a pennant contender. That is a lot more than $70 million. I say that not to debate the larger issue… but that’s not happening at that price.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 21, 2022 15:20:22 GMT -5
I have no idea how you got to the end of this thought process and concluded, "yep, that checks out." The free agent class is not great, but Bloom is not going to, like, forget to spend $70 million or whatever. If anything there's more of the kind of value he covets - mid-range type FAs that can be had on short term deals. Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. Looking at the listing of 2023 FAs and mind you I'm not saying they have to be 1 year deals but mid tier guys who could help. JD, Brandon belt, , Brantley, bell, manea, Contreras, Mancini, haniger, profar, Pederson. Then there's the tier of guys up higher like abreu, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Nimmo and obviously Xander(who I'm not writing off till he's signed somewhere else). I find it farfetched to believe they're just gonna let everyone go and then just sign minimum salary guys or just call up the Worcester roster.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 15:22:07 GMT -5
Trea Turner, Syndergaard, Abreu, Jansen, Kiermaier, Clevinger, Kiké. There, it took me about a minute to spend up to the CBT and field a pennant contender. That is a lot more than $70 million. I say that not to debate the larger issue… but that’s not happening at that price. It's what they could get for the difference between the money they have on the books next season and the CBT, which is more like $140 million (ish?) than $70 million.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 15:23:39 GMT -5
That is a lot more than $70 million. I say that not to debate the larger issue… but that’s not happening at that price. It's what they could get for the difference between the money they have on the books next season and the CBT, which is more like $140 million (ish?) than $70 million. Ah. Still might be close. But maybe. But this would be after letting X, Devers, Eovaldi, and JDM go? I don’t see that as a better team.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 21, 2022 15:24:53 GMT -5
I have no idea how you got to the end of this thought process and concluded, "yep, that checks out." The free agent class is not great, but Bloom is not going to, like, forget to spend $70 million or whatever. If anything there's more of the kind of value he covets - mid-range type FAs that can be had on short term deals. Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. First of all, why do they have to overpay any FA? Second, here are some free agents that might fit from a quick glance at MLBTR's list: C - Vazquez, Contreras 1B - Bell, Belt, Muncy, Santana, Mancini 2B/SS - Xander, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Iglesias OF - Benintendi, Pederson, K. Hernandez, Nimmo, Gallo, JD Martinez SP - Eovaldi, Hill, Archer, Kluber, Manaea, Musgrove, Perez, Rodon, Syndergaard, Wacha (and probably many more options here) RP - Too many choices to name I could see them signing someone in each group I mentioned, I don't think there's any evidence that they won't fill out the payroll. Whether that is short term deals or if they mix in a mega deal, we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jul 21, 2022 15:25:12 GMT -5
Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. Looking at the listing of 2023 FAs and mind you I'm not saying they have to be 1 year deals but mid tier guys who could help. JD, Brandon belt, , Brantley, bell, manea, Contreras, Mancini, haniger, profar, Pederson. Then there's the tier of guys up higher like abreu, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Nimmo and obviously Xander(who I'm not writing off till he's signed somewhere else). I find it farfetched to believe they're just gonna let everyone go and then just sign minimum salary guys or just call up the Worcester roster. Problem with the SS position that you mentioned is that the Sox already have one in Story and all of those players are going to get paid this offseason. Swanson is having a crazy season and will get 5-7 years. Love the player though. I just can't see this team letting go of JD Xander Nate etc and then replacing them with players of equal pay. Its shuffling the chairs on a boat deck. If they let Xander go its going to be a bridge year. Just because I feel they're going to be at 160-170 doesn't mean they'll be a garbage team. I just don't see who they'll overpay for a year or 2. If you go any longer with some of the names you're mentioning they become an albatross
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 21, 2022 15:25:57 GMT -5
It's what they could get for the difference between the money they have on the books next season and the CBT, which is more like $140 million (ish?) than $70 million. Ah. Still might be close. But maybe. But this would be after letting X, Devers, Eovaldi, and JDM go? I don’t see that as a better team. Devers is still under contract for 2023.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jul 21, 2022 15:29:26 GMT -5
Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. First of all, why do they have to overpay any FA? Second, here are some free agents that might fit from a quick glance at MLBTR's list: C - Vazquez, Contreras 1B - Bell, Belt, Muncy, Santana, Mancini 2B/SS - Xander, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Iglesias OF - Benintendi, Pederson, K. Hernandez, Nimmo, Gallo, JD Martinez SP - Eovaldi, Hill, Archer, Kluber, Manaea, Musgrove, Perez, Rodon, Syndergaard, Wacha (and probably many more options here) RP - Too many choices to name I could see them signing someone in each group I mentioned, I don't think there's any evidence that they won't fill out the payroll. Whether that is short term deals or if they mix in a mega deal, we'll see. Take less term for more money. Look at the list you put up. Some of those names are going to get paid this offseason with a fairly long term. If you let Xander go then why consider Turner? If you let JD go why consider Gallo? Etc... it just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 21, 2022 15:31:40 GMT -5
Looking at the listing of 2023 FAs and mind you I'm not saying they have to be 1 year deals but mid tier guys who could help. JD, Brandon belt, , Brantley, bell, manea, Contreras, Mancini, haniger, profar, Pederson. Then there's the tier of guys up higher like abreu, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Nimmo and obviously Xander(who I'm not writing off till he's signed somewhere else). I find it farfetched to believe they're just gonna let everyone go and then just sign minimum salary guys or just call up the Worcester roster. Problem with the SS position that you mentioned is that the Sox already have one in Story and all of those players are going to get paid this offseason. Swanson is having a crazy season and will get 5-7 years. Love the player though. I just can't see this team letting go of JD Xander Nate etc and then replacing them with players of equal pay. Its shuffling the chairs on a boat deck. If they let Xander go its going to be a bridge year. Just because I feel they're going to be at 160-170 doesn't mean they'll be a garbage team. I just don't see who they'll overpay for a year or 2. If you go any longer with some of the names you're mentioning they become an albatross For sure, much of those names I wouldn't go longer than 2 years. I do like Nimmo a lot and think he's a prime target to play CF for the Sox next year. If they go elsewhere with their money than signing a SS then you fill in the rest of the roster and spend the money on other players. JD probably isn't getting more than a year so bring him back. Sign a guy like Belt to play first base until Casas is ready. Pitching is a little harder to figure out I will say that. I guess I'm just not seeing the sox locking up their vault of money and basically saying we're going on vacation cya in 2024.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Jul 21, 2022 15:32:52 GMT -5
Buying high on Swanson seems like a bad risk to take IMO
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 15:33:11 GMT -5
It's what they could get for the difference between the money they have on the books next season and the CBT, which is more like $140 million (ish?) than $70 million. Ah. Still might be close. But maybe. But this would be after letting X, Devers, Eovaldi, and JDM go? I don’t see that as a better team. I don't know why JDM and Eovaldi keep getting corralled into this conversation. Those guys are not on discount deals right now; they're eminently replaceable.
Devers will presumably still be on the team next season! So it really just comes down to how they're going to replace Xander, who is giving them a ton of bang for the buck. But one way to look at it is: the Red Sox are paying him + Price $36 million this season. Next year all that money is off the books. They could put that money into... extending Bogaerts. Or signing Turner or Correa. Or... who knows. The point is, they have a TON of resources to work with, and my list was literally put together in less than one minute, so please don't take it as an outer limit of what's possible.
|
|
|
Post by kwodes on Jul 21, 2022 15:33:31 GMT -5
Sure. Give me a middle tier FA that makes this team better that you would feel comfortable overpaying on a 1 year deal. Morton? Gray? Maybe Muncy if the Dodgers decline his option after his awful season. Villar I guess maybe as an option at 2nd/super utility. You could probably find some bullpen pieces to take the 1 year pillow contract. The FA market outside of the unattainable pieces (price and term) and the Sox current FAs really sucks. Trea Turner, Syndergaard, Abreu, Jansen, Kiermaier, Clevinger, Kiké. There, it took me about a minute to spend up to the CBT and field a pennant contender. Kiermaier was someone I thought would be a good trade deadline acquisition with his $13 mil club option for next year. Then I checked out his fangraphs page and realized he is pretty terrible
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 15:35:47 GMT -5
First of all, why do they have to overpay any FA? Second, here are some free agents that might fit from a quick glance at MLBTR's list: C - Vazquez, Contreras 1B - Bell, Belt, Muncy, Santana, Mancini 2B/SS - Xander, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Iglesias OF - Benintendi, Pederson, K. Hernandez, Nimmo, Gallo, JD Martinez SP - Eovaldi, Hill, Archer, Kluber, Manaea, Musgrove, Perez, Rodon, Syndergaard, Wacha (and probably many more options here) RP - Too many choices to name I could see them signing someone in each group I mentioned, I don't think there's any evidence that they won't fill out the payroll. Whether that is short term deals or if they mix in a mega deal, we'll see. Take less term for more money. Look at the list you put up. Some of those names are going to get paid this offseason with a fairly long term. If you let Xander go then why consider Turner? If you let JD go why consider Gallo? Etc... it just doesn't make sense. Well, you might let Xander go and bring in Turner because Turner is better. You might let JDM go and bring in Abreu because Abreu is better. You might let Eovaldi go and bring in one of several guys because they're just as good...
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 15:37:33 GMT -5
Trea Turner, Syndergaard, Abreu, Jansen, Kiermaier, Clevinger, Kiké. There, it took me about a minute to spend up to the CBT and field a pennant contender. Kiermaier was someone I thought would be a good trade deadline acquisition with his $13 mil club option for next year. Then I checked out his fangraphs page and realized he is pretty terrible Weird. You got me to check his fangraphs page and it turns out... he has been a lot better than I realized. Certainly not overpriced at $13 million.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jul 21, 2022 15:46:08 GMT -5
First of all, why do they have to overpay any FA? Second, here are some free agents that might fit from a quick glance at MLBTR's list: C - Vazquez, Contreras 1B - Bell, Belt, Muncy, Santana, Mancini 2B/SS - Xander, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Iglesias OF - Benintendi, Pederson, K. Hernandez, Nimmo, Gallo, JD Martinez SP - Eovaldi, Hill, Archer, Kluber, Manaea, Musgrove, Perez, Rodon, Syndergaard, Wacha (and probably many more options here) RP - Too many choices to name I could see them signing someone in each group I mentioned, I don't think there's any evidence that they won't fill out the payroll. Whether that is short term deals or if they mix in a mega deal, we'll see. Take less term for more money. Look at the list you put up. Some of those names are going to get paid this offseason with a fairly long term. If you let Xander go then why consider Turner? If you let JD go why consider Gallo? Etc... it just doesn't make sense. I'll give you Gallo, stay the heck away from him he's not good. Xander Vs Turner, maybe the Red Sox don't want to pay a guy top dollar SS money that they think is going to have to move off of SS and would rather pay that top dollar SS money to a guy in Turner who is likely going to be fine sticking at SS long term. I said it in another post, JD is likely only getting one year anyway so bring him back or sign a guy like Brantley for a year or don't sign a full time DH doesn't really matter to me. I will say I don't think Turner is likely to happen but I do believe there's plenty of avenues for them to throw some money at to bridge this team to their next core. They aren't likely to just sit there with their hands in the pocket during free agency and sit this year out.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 15:53:09 GMT -5
I guess two in the bush often appears better than one in the hand. I think if you could get good contracts on all the guys you want, this could be great. But I don’t look at a clean-the-slate, restock-in-an-offseason as an approach without massive risk.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 21, 2022 16:01:00 GMT -5
First of all, why do they have to overpay any FA? Second, here are some free agents that might fit from a quick glance at MLBTR's list: C - Vazquez, Contreras 1B - Bell, Belt, Muncy, Santana, Mancini 2B/SS - Xander, Turner, Correa, Swanson, Iglesias OF - Benintendi, Pederson, K. Hernandez, Nimmo, Gallo, JD Martinez SP - Eovaldi, Hill, Archer, Kluber, Manaea, Musgrove, Perez, Rodon, Syndergaard, Wacha (and probably many more options here) RP - Too many choices to name I could see them signing someone in each group I mentioned, I don't think there's any evidence that they won't fill out the payroll. Whether that is short term deals or if they mix in a mega deal, we'll see. Take less term for more money. Look at the list you put up. Some of those names are going to get paid this offseason with a fairly long term. If you let Xander go then why consider Turner? If you let JD go why consider Gallo? Etc... it just doesn't make sense. Because maybe it's a better fit of player interests, or maybe the team believes the value is better with the other players. I'm not advocating one way or the other, but it's totally possible that for example the team projects Turner will age better than Xander for the same dollars. To your question of "take less term for more money", maybe they'll pursue that approach but that wouldn't be overpaying, it's paying more per year because there is increased flexibility and less risk. Anyways my point isn't one player vs. the other, just that there's plenty of players out there at positions of need or potential need for them to spend money on, whether or not they retain their current guys.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2022 16:08:24 GMT -5
Im not sure they did 2014-2016. But they probably did something semi close. I don't think they will next year. The honest view on this team IMO is next year they'll be at 160-170. Again, nothing like Tampa but they're not going to be the Yankees or Dodgers either and we need to accept that. I have no idea how you got to the end of this thought process and concluded, "yep, that checks out." The free agent class is not great, but Bloom is not going to, like, forget to spend $70 million or whatever. If anything there's more of the kind of value he covets - mid-range type FAs that can be had on short term deals. Meanwhile, the Yankees traded about twice the trade packages necessary last season to get teams to pay 100% of the salary to stay under the CBT cap. But the Red Sox are the cheap team.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 21, 2022 16:20:12 GMT -5
I guess two in the bush often appears better than one in the hand. I think if you could get good contracts on all the guys you want, this could be great. But I don’t look at a clean-the-slate, restock-in-an-offseason as an approach without massive risk. Well here's how I'd steelman alexcorahomvideo's point: it's probably true that Bloom doesn't want to sign a bunch of long-term free agent deals all at once; you always want to stagger those so they're not all dead money at once toward the end of the deals and so that you have flexibility for the following offseasons. But there are only so many quality guys you can sign to one- or two-year deals. It makes for an interesting challenge. With all the flexibility he'll have, I could see Bloom paying a premium to have guys on short-term deals - a guy like Abreu, say, as a JDM replacement/Casas bridge, who is on the older side but still playing at a high level, but not someone you'd want to be giving a lot of money to in 2025 and beyond.
And heck, for all the agita about them not re-signing Devers and Bogaerts, maybe that has more to do with this coming offseason being the optimal timing for that, given all the money they'll have to work with. For at least one of those guys.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 16:47:05 GMT -5
I guess two in the bush often appears better than one in the hand. I think if you could get good contracts on all the guys you want, this could be great. But I don’t look at a clean-the-slate, restock-in-an-offseason as an approach without massive risk. Well here's how I'd steelman alexcorahomvideo's point: it's probably true that Bloom doesn't want to sign a bunch of long-term free agent deals all at once; you always want to stagger those so they're not all dead money at once toward the end of the deals and so that you have flexibility for the following offseasons. But there are only so many quality guys you can sign to one- or two-year deals. It makes for an interesting challenge. With all the flexibility he'll have, I could see Bloom paying a premium to have guys on short-term deals - a guy like Abreu, say, as a JDM replacement/Casas bridge, who is on the older side but still playing at a high level, but not someone you'd want to be giving a lot of money to in 2025 and beyond.
And heck, for all the agita about them not re-signing Devers and Bogaerts, maybe that has more to do with this coming offseason being the optimal timing for that, given all the money they'll have to work with. For at least one of those guys.
Maybe. But why would Abreu take a short contract *if* presented with longer options? Older players are probably not thrilled by becoming free agents again when they are that much older. In other words, say the Sox offer 2-years at $30/year. If someone elee says 4-years at $25/year, why take the former?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 21, 2022 16:48:13 GMT -5
Is anyone giving thought to conscious rentals, if this homestand is rough and they decide to sell??
Work out an informal extension with Xander, just a mutual understanding of the ballpark $. The Sox offer will be rational and I don't see X leaving just to get more money from a bad team that is willing to overpay.
Then you do him a favor by dealing him to a contender, telling the other team that he will not sign an extension with them. And re-sign him after the season.
They could do the same thing with CV. The other pending free agents would seem to be replaceable. Note that this is the last year that playing in the AL East is a huge handicap for postseason ranking. They could be buyers, end up with the fifth best record when adjusted for strength of schedule and still miss the playoffs.
Obviously, trading all of the walking guys would add a lot of talent (including a much better draft ranking). We may look back on the insane rash of injuries and the resulting lost year as a blessing in disguise. It's a perfect storm: unfair postseason handicap and a crazy rash of injuries ... in a year where you have
scads of talent to move at the deadline, without harming the team next year.
Off topic ... a Devers extension last winter never made any sense. Why would the Sox want to pay for solid 3B defense when it might not happen? Why would Raffy want to take conversion-to-1B money when he was confident that it wouldn't happen?
Now that both parties have a good projection of his future value, it should get done easily.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jul 21, 2022 16:48:56 GMT -5
Is anyone giving thought to conscious rentals, if this homestand is rough and they decide to sell??
Work out an informal extension with Xander, just a mutual understanding of the ballpark $. The Sox offer will be rational and I don't see X leaving just to get more money from a bad team that is willing to overpay.
Then you do him a favor by dealing him to a contender, telling the other team that he will not sign an extension with them. And re-sign him after the season.
They could do the same thing with CV. The other pending free agents would seem to be replaceable. Note that this is the last year that playing in the AL East is a huge handicap for postseason ranking. They could be buyers, end up with the fifth best record when adjusted for strength of schedule and still miss the playoffs.
Obviously, trading all of the walking guys would add a lot of talent (including a much better draft ranking). We may look back on the insane rash of injuries and the resulting lost year as a blessing in disguise. It's a perfect storm: unfair postseason handicap and a crazy rash of injuries ... in a year where you have
scads of talent to move at the deadline, without harming the team next year.
Off topic ... a Devers extension last winter never made any sense. Why would the Sox want to pay for solid 3B defense when it might not happen? Why would Raffy want to take conversion-to-1B money when he was confident that it wouldn't happen?
Now that both parties have a good projection of his future value, it should get done easily.
That has to be tampering, no?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 21, 2022 17:07:02 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of the benefit of the handshake deal from the player's side. A team that would trade for Xander is a good team that needs an infielder. Who says that team wouldn't want to resign him? In fact, if they do want to keep Xander, I'd argue it's a reason not to sell because trading him might significantly reduce their odds of doing so.
Anyways if they do sell I can buy the argument that it doesn't necessarily harm the team next year and that it is a sort of perfect storm there. I'm still not there yet though, let's wait and see what the playoff odds are looking like with a few days before the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2022 17:16:08 GMT -5
Is anyone giving thought to conscious rentals, if this homestand is rough and they decide to sell??
Work out an informal extension with Xander, just a mutual understanding of the ballpark $. The Sox offer will be rational and I don't see X leaving just to get more money from a bad team that is willing to overpay.
Then you do him a favor by dealing him to a contender, telling the other team that he will not sign an extension with them. And re-sign him after the season.
They could do the same thing with CV. The other pending free agents would seem to be replaceable. Note that this is the last year that playing in the AL East is a huge handicap for postseason ranking. They could be buyers, end up with the fifth best record when adjusted for strength of schedule and still miss the playoffs.
Obviously, trading all of the walking guys would add a lot of talent (including a much better draft ranking). We may look back on the insane rash of injuries and the resulting lost year as a blessing in disguise. It's a perfect storm: unfair postseason handicap and a crazy rash of injuries ... in a year where you have
scads of talent to move at the deadline, without harming the team next year.
Off topic ... a Devers extension last winter never made any sense. Why would the Sox want to pay for solid 3B defense when it might not happen? Why would Raffy want to take conversion-to-1B money when he was confident that it wouldn't happen?
Now that both parties have a good projection of his future value, it should get done easily.
That has to be tampering, no? Why? They are under contract to the Red Sox and can talk about whatever they wish.
|
|
|