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.
It is time to trade Rafael Devers?
|
Post by notstarboard on Feb 15, 2024 8:42:46 GMT -5
For a laugh, I wanted to share someone's trade proposal from btv that I found amusing. It had the Cubs sending PCA, Wade Horton, and Matt Shaw to Boston for Duran, Devers, and 100 million dollars. Although btv considered it a 50 million dollar overpay, Cubs fans rejected the proposal. That looks atrocious for Boston. The Sox have their version of PCA already in Rafaela and best case for Shaw would be to eventually *most of the way* fill the massive hole created by trading Devers. Horton would be nice to get, but he's not nearly worth the downgrade at 3B and mountains of cash. For the Red Sox to consider trading a package like that away right now, the return would have to be heavily weighted towards legit SP prospects. And even if the trade were even on paper, I just think Devers is a guy you keep. The haul would have to really wow.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 15, 2024 8:43:26 GMT -5
There's maybe 5 teams give or take that might want to take on Devers full contract? Theoretically speaking I don't think you're getting much in return if someone takes the full deal so in my eyes it'd either be a salary dump or you have to pay half the contract for the next 10 years anyway to get back a halfway decent return for him. That's without getting into the negative hit the organization takes around the league from agents and players. Good luck getting anyone to want to sign in Boston if they jettison the one guy they picked out as a building block only to cut bait less than a year later.
Sure if some team wanted to trade 3-4 top 100 guys who are knocking on the door to the majors for Devers you have to entertain it but the chances of that seem slim to none. This thread seems absurd to me and that's all I'm going to say on it.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 15, 2024 8:46:35 GMT -5
NM
|
|
|
Post by iamnotluistiant on Feb 15, 2024 9:08:57 GMT -5
Yeah, if they trade Devers, ownership has gone fully Oakland A's and they should sell.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 15, 2024 10:09:16 GMT -5
There's maybe 5 teams give or take that might want to take on Devers full contract? Theoretically speaking I don't think you're getting much in return if someone takes the full deal so in my eyes it'd either be a salary dump or you have to pay half the contract for the next 10 years anyway to get back a halfway decent return for him. That's without getting into the negative hit the organization takes around the league from agents and players. Good luck getting anyone to want to sign in Boston if they jettison the one guy they picked out as a building block only to cut bait less than a year later. Sure if some team wanted to trade 3-4 top 100 guys who are knocking on the door to the majors for Devers you have to entertain it but the chances of that seem slim to none. This thread seems absurd to me and that's all I'm going to say on it. Agreed. The 5 teams that would take on that deal are true contenders. The Dodgers for example would surely be interested, however you probably aren't getting more than say Maddux Bruns in return. Devers is more valuable to the Sox than anywhere else right now.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Feb 15, 2024 10:32:19 GMT -5
NO! This is a bad idea in so many ways. It's Spring Training. Revisit in the future if you want a blockbuster trade.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Feb 15, 2024 11:06:31 GMT -5
In addition to how ridiculous this idea is, players who are signed to large contracts do not return anything of value because they are already being paid market rate. A Devers trade now would be equivalent to when the Marlins traded Giancarlo Stanton to the Yankees, who got nothing in return. The value the selling team gets back is getting out from a financial obligation, that's it. And the Red Sox don't need to be getting out from financial obligations.
The time to trade Devers was one year ago, before he signed his contract, when you could have gotten a premium package of prospects back. The Red Sox not only chose to hang onto him but also chose to sign him to the 13th largest contract in MLB history. The ship has sailed on trading him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 15, 2024 11:15:45 GMT -5
Devers is more valuable to the Sox than anywhere else right now. That's where I'm landing as well. I actually don't think the idea is absurd on its face - it's never fun for a team to trade its best player, but sometimes an overpay will jumpstart a rebuild and end up benefitting everyone. I just don't think the specifics work here. On a $$/win basis, he's probably not necessarily a great value. He's the sort of player who it makes sense a high payroll team (like Boston) to spend that extra money on. But the contract is going to limit the list of interested teams, and probably limit the return from them.
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on Feb 15, 2024 12:48:15 GMT -5
In addition to how ridiculous this idea is, players who are signed to large contracts do not return anything of value because they are already being paid market rate. A Devers trade now would be equivalent to when the Marlins traded Giancarlo Stanton to the Yankees, who got nothing in return. The value the selling team gets back is getting out from a financial obligation, that's it. And the Red Sox don't need to be getting out from financial obligations. Not that I'm advocating it (I'm specifically not), but the other option would be to keep paying a big chunk of his salary which could give his contract a very large surplus value and engender a much bigger return.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Feb 15, 2024 18:54:46 GMT -5
Sox were forced into an overpay for Devers had to do it. That said his trade value is MEH. How about the opposite. Tale advantage of the remaining FA and sign a couple at presumably disscount $
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 16, 2024 7:43:26 GMT -5
Sox were forced into an overpay for Devers had to do it. That said his trade value is MEH. How about the opposite. Tale advantage of the remaining FA and sign a couple at presumably disscount $ Was it an overpay? The Sox needed a really good player to keep this team from becoming a joke. Devers would probably have gotten that contract from someone this offseason. A 27 year old who has played in big games and has a stable offensive track record is valuable. Yes his defense is meh but someone would take that contract for sure. What I don't know is his trade value, I'd assume its not high.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 20, 2024 14:38:45 GMT -5
Yes, it's time to trade him. We paid too much money for a guy who doesn't take his game seriously enough to live up to the contract. I assume he's untradeable at this point though. I certainly wouldn't pay more than $100 million of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Feb 20, 2024 14:53:29 GMT -5
Yes, it's time to trade him. We paid too much money for a guy who doesn't take his game seriously enough to live up to the contract. I assume he's untradeable at this point though. I certainly wouldn't pay more than $100 million of the contract. Even if Devers is only worth on average 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years he’ll still be worth conservatively $200m, and realistically much more than that.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Feb 20, 2024 14:55:16 GMT -5
Yes, it's time to trade him. We paid too much money for a guy who doesn't take his game seriously enough to live up to the contract. I assume he's untradeable at this point though. I certainly wouldn't pay more than $100 million of the contract. I am on record in this thread in favor of trading him, but my beef is an aesthetical one, not value. I don't like watching him play (& I like to watch Red Sox baseball). He is a poor fielding 3rd baseman who is erratic at the plate and routinely doesn't hustle. Despite that, I'm not concerned at all about his contract. It'll probably come close to being fair value for his production (he plays a lot and hits bombs). Plus, he might get better at his deficient areas. If that improvement involves increased discipline at the plate, improved focus in the field, and running out of the box, then I'll say, STOP, do not trade this fine fellow and excellent player. Doubt it, but open to surprises.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 20, 2024 15:00:36 GMT -5
This thread absolutely blows and accomplishes nothing
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 20, 2024 15:05:06 GMT -5
Yes, it's time to trade him. We paid too much money for a guy who doesn't take his game seriously enough to live up to the contract. I assume he's untradeable at this point though. I certainly wouldn't pay more than $100 million of the contract. Even if Devers is only worth on average 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years he’ll still be worth conservatively $200m, and realistically much more than that. Given the makeup of the player, you're overly optimistic if you think he averages 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years. The guy is 27 and already refuses to take any accountability for his play. What do you think he'll be like at 32?
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Feb 20, 2024 15:06:16 GMT -5
Yes, it's time to trade him. We paid too much money for a guy who doesn't take his game seriously enough to live up to the contract. I assume he's untradeable at this point though. I certainly wouldn't pay more than $100 million of the contract. Sure, let's set this org back another 5 years, after 5 years of mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 20, 2024 15:15:01 GMT -5
Even if Devers is only worth on average 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years he’ll still be worth conservatively $200m, and realistically much more than that. Given the makeup of the player, you're overly optimistic if you think he averages 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years. The guy is 27 and already refuses to take any accountability for his play. What do you think he'll be like at 32? Nahh, you're like the 2% of fans that questions his makeup. When has he refused to take accountability for his play? Like rock solid examples
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 20, 2024 15:19:11 GMT -5
Devers is like the most visibly passionate player on the team.
It took about 5 seconds for a certain segment of the fanbase to pivot from complaining that the team never extends its home-grown stars to complaining that the one guy they did extend is overpaid. Which does not strike me as a good way to incentivize the team to extend home-grown stars.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 20, 2024 15:25:21 GMT -5
Given the makeup of the player, you're overly optimistic if you think he averages 2.5 WAR per year for the next ten years. The guy is 27 and already refuses to take any accountability for his play. What do you think he'll be like at 32? Nahh, you're like the 2% of fans that questions his makeup. When has he refused to take accountability for his play? Like rock solid examples When has he ever taken accountability for his play? When has he ever said in front of a camera, you know what, I need to play better? Are we supposed to read it off his face? He obviously has no problem blaming other people for the team's play. Can you provide a rock solid example of when he openly and verbally communicated that I need to play better. Cora's done it for him, but I have no memory of every hearing him say - you know what, I need to be a better player, a better defender and a better leader. Not one time.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 20, 2024 15:30:29 GMT -5
Guy makes a comment about the organization not doing enough to help the team while the team literally finished in last and literally reduced payroll and now he's a malcontent?
I get wanting your players to focus on what they can control, but it literally feels like people would complain about him saying nothing and not being a "leader" in the clubhouse. He's the leader of this team. He can see what's happening around him and is stating the obvious. This team will miss the playoffs 5 out of 6 years and he's not happy about it, especially when their payroll is going down after resetting the luxury and finishing in last place.
Kennedy literally announced Pedroia called him to say the exact same things.
Jansen is saying he was lied to.
Why is Devers getting so beat up?
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 20, 2024 15:32:11 GMT -5
Devers is like the most visibly passionate player on the team. It took about 5 seconds for a certain segment of the fanbase to pivot from complaining that the team never extends its home-grown stars to complaining that the one guy they did extend is overpaid. Which does not strike me as a good way to incentivize the team to extend home-grown stars. Well that's the problem, two-fold. The most negative people in the world actually believe that they should/can influence ownership to extend players. And the ownership then felt like they had no choice but to extend Devers. Both of those statements are so messed up, it's not funny. For me personally, everything turned today when Devers revealed himself to be a coward. He took a message that's already been curated for him a million times this offseason and passed it off as his own. He basically put all of the blame for the last few seasons on other people and refused to take a lick of accountability for it. Worst of all, he did it with a young team that needs desperately to build a better, stronger winning culture, irrespective of who the team does or doesn't sign. He directly contradicted his own manager (who he obviously doesn't respect) who just said the other day that the team needed to develop its own identity and build a stronger baseball culture. As the star player on that team, he could be a leader - but he refused that today. And for what? So they can sign Blake Snell or Jordan Montgomery?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 20, 2024 15:32:33 GMT -5
Nahh, you're like the 2% of fans that questions his makeup. When has he refused to take accountability for his play? Like rock solid examples When has he ever taken accountability for his play? When has he ever said in front of a camera, you know what, I need to play better? Are we supposed to read it off his face? He obviously has no problem blaming other people for the team's play. Can you provide a rock solid example of when he openly and verbally communicated that I need to play better. Cora's done it for him, but I have no memory of every hearing him say - you know what, I need to be a better player, a better defender and a better leader. Not one time. Oh word, so you don't have shit.
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Feb 20, 2024 15:34:06 GMT -5
When has he ever taken accountability for his play? When has he ever said in front of a camera, you know what, I need to play better? Are we supposed to read it off his face? He obviously has no problem blaming other people for the team's play. Can you provide a rock solid example of when he openly and verbally communicated that I need to play better. Cora's done it for him, but I have no memory of every hearing him say - you know what, I need to be a better player, a better defender and a better leader. Not one time. Oh word, so you don't have shit. Sure, so prove to me that he has taken accountability? Oh word, you don't have shit.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Feb 20, 2024 15:37:53 GMT -5
Oh word, so you don't have shit. Sure, so prove to me that he has taken accountability? Oh word, you don't have shit. You've accused him of being a "coward" and not taking accountability. I think truth social might be a better place for you.
|
|
|