|
Post by bosoxnation on Feb 22, 2024 17:48:05 GMT -5
This is not needed. Casas makes sense to me Bello no.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 22, 2024 18:04:43 GMT -5
Personally, to me it is annoying hearing the Sox (especially this off-season) offering deals that are "low ball" or whatever, but while it'd be nice to get a couple of extensions, really don't care until they have at least 3 years of service. At that point the clock starts to feel like it's ticking and you have a better idea as to what they are as a player. Offer Bello and Casas a dollar over a decade for all I care. Until he's in year 3 or 4 of service there's really nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by itinerantherb on Feb 22, 2024 18:40:51 GMT -5
Personally, to me it is annoying hearing the Sox (especially this off-season) offering deals that are "low ball" or whatever, but while it'd be nice to get a couple of extensions, really don't care until they have at least 3 years of service. At that point the clock starts to feel like it's ticking and you have a better idea as to what they are as a player. Offer Bello and Casas a dollar over a decade for all I care. Until he's in year 3 or 4 of service there's really nothing to worry about. The decision to sign an early extension is more nuanced than this for both parties. The player gives up the higher end of his earning potential for whatever arb and FA years are covered in exchange for certainty. The team takes on the risk of injury and/or underperformance for a presumptively lower total salary. Early extensions can make sense if the parties' priorities align.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Feb 23, 2024 7:09:12 GMT -5
I mean let's be honest, why should we trust WEEI. It's not like the Sox have a history of low balling their home grown stars...Lester, Xander....oh wait. I'm old enough to remember the first Xander extension Even more pertinent to this thread how about when Lester signed a 5/$30m deal with a $13m club option that went through his age 30 season? And that one was after his 3rd season in which he won 16 games with 210 IP and a 144 ERA+... I hope we're at least exchanging frameworks with Bello, and Casas, and Grissom, but Bello should have more incentive to lock something in than the hitters do at this point so I'd hope we're trying to lock in one or two more club option years than he wants. I don't even know what people expect to hear, if he was happy with the terms offered he'd be signing it not taking questions about the negotiations, good news to me to hear they're talking.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Feb 23, 2024 8:20:21 GMT -5
I'm old enough to remember the first Xander extension Even more pertinent to this thread how about when Lester signed a 5/$30m deal with a $13m club option that went through his age 30 season? And that one was after his 3rd season in which he won 16 games with 210 IP and a 144 ERA+... I hope we're at least exchanging frameworks with Bello, and Casas, and Grissom, but Bello should have more incentive to lock something in than the hitters do at this point so I'd hope we're trying to lock in one or two more club option years than he wants. I don't even know what people expect to hear, if he was happy with the terms offered he'd be signing it not taking questions about the negotiations, good news to me to hear they're talking. Didn't Lester also still have two years of team control, and we are factoring in over a decade of inflation at this point. I always get weary of matching up other contracts because it's never truly apples to apples when ages, time of signing, years of control etc all vary greatly. But I agree that I hope they're exchanging frameworks, teams need to be willing to pay these guys more money to buy out their prime years and players need to forgoe the possibility of a big pay day at year 7 to sign up for the pay day today and forgeo the performance/injury risk over the next 3-5 years.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Feb 23, 2024 8:27:29 GMT -5
Even more pertinent to this thread how about when Lester signed a 5/$30m deal with a $13m club option that went through his age 30 season? And that one was after his 3rd season in which he won 16 games with 210 IP and a 144 ERA+... I hope we're at least exchanging frameworks with Bello, and Casas, and Grissom, but Bello should have more incentive to lock something in than the hitters do at this point so I'd hope we're trying to lock in one or two more club option years than he wants. I don't even know what people expect to hear, if he was happy with the terms offered he'd be signing it not taking questions about the negotiations, good news to me to hear they're talking. Didn't Lester also still have two years of team control, and we are factoring in over a decade of inflation at this point. I always get weary of matching up other contracts because it's never truly apples to apples when ages, time of signing, years of control etc all vary greatly. But I agree that I hope they're exchanging frameworks, teams need to be willing to pay these guys more money to buy out their prime years and players need to forgoe the possibility of a big pay day at year 7 to sign up for the pay day today and forgeo the performance/injury risk over the next 3-5 years. Semi related to a Bello extension but how I wish the MLB and the players could come to some sort of agreement that would pay players more early on in their careers and nip some of these mega contracts in the bud. The likelihood of that happening are probably slim to none but more and more the game is slanting younger and these studs come up making league minimum or close to it for years and makes you feel kind of bad for them but then on the flipside you have Ohtani signing for 700M which I know deferred money but that is still what he is going to make and there goes any thought of feeling bad for players. To me both sides are bad for the game, paying young studs way below market rate and paying aging superstars into their late 30s and sometimes 40s way more than they're worth anymore. I don't know just feels like there has to be a better solution than what it is now.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Feb 23, 2024 12:16:27 GMT -5
Even more pertinent to this thread how about when Lester signed a 5/$30m deal with a $13m club option that went through his age 30 season? And that one was after his 3rd season in which he won 16 games with 210 IP and a 144 ERA+... I hope we're at least exchanging frameworks with Bello, and Casas, and Grissom, but Bello should have more incentive to lock something in than the hitters do at this point so I'd hope we're trying to lock in one or two more club option years than he wants. I don't even know what people expect to hear, if he was happy with the terms offered he'd be signing it not taking questions about the negotiations, good news to me to hear they're talking. Didn't Lester also still have two years of team control, and we are factoring in over a decade of inflation at this point. I always get weary of matching up other contracts because it's never truly apples to apples when ages, time of signing, years of control etc all vary greatly. But I agree that I hope they're exchanging frameworks, teams need to be willing to pay these guys more money to buy out their prime years and players need to forgoe the possibility of a big pay day at year 7 to sign up for the pay day today and forgeo the performance/injury risk over the next 3-5 years. Yes inflation has happened in both the real economy and baseball salaries, the absolute number isn't any sort of guideline 15 years later. Can't find all the salaries then without more digging or subscribing to spotrac, but for context John Lackey signed in FA a year later for 5/$82.5 while Lester (who was closer to FA and coming off a much better season than Bello is now - and I like Bello!) agreed to give up multiple FA years and even include a $13m club option as late as his age 30 season (and one he ended up 4th in Cy Young voting in, even while being traded midseason.)
Assuming some sort of structure like $1m/$3m/$6m/$10m guaranteed for his 3rd-6th seasons I would absolutely be targeting the chance to lock in surplus value with club options from 2028-2030 even if at $15m-$20m, and really not worried about the downside of a severe injury. Worst case is carrying an injured pitcher for $10m? Cool, we've seem to have one of those every year be it Corey Kluber, Chris Sale, it was the going rate for a year of James Paxton who is a walking injury risk, etc. But I have no idea where the sticking point is, I hope it's more about structure and eventual length than some penny pinching by a million here or there in those first 4 years because we should still have budget room to add an extra million or two now and that's probably worth a few million or more on the back end from Bello given his lack of earnings so far.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 23, 2024 12:39:01 GMT -5
Personally, to me it is annoying hearing the Sox (especially this off-season) offering deals that are "low ball" or whatever, but while it'd be nice to get a couple of extensions, really don't care until they have at least 3 years of service. At that point the clock starts to feel like it's ticking and you have a better idea as to what they are as a player. Offer Bello and Casas a dollar over a decade for all I care. Until he's in year 3 or 4 of service there's really nothing to worry about. The decision to sign an early extension is more nuanced than this for both parties. The player gives up the higher end of his earning potential for whatever arb and FA years are covered in exchange for certainty. The team takes on the risk of injury and/or underperformance for a presumptively lower total salary. Early extensions can make sense if the parties' priorities align. I agree that it adds security for the player and gives the team an extra year or two of term with certainty in salary, but the larger point is still that I don't mind the lack of extensions until year 3 or 4. You'll pay more money, but it's not like they can't get a deal done. So I don't really worry about it until then. Plus, Bello or Casas can have serious regression and now you're on the hook. I kind of prefer to pay more for more certainty.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 6, 2024 13:34:23 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Mar 6, 2024 13:43:44 GMT -5
I like doing this before he truly breaks out. Hopefully the Breslow bunch feel confident they can get him to the next level. I would think that is the case based on this. Seeing what backend starters get these days, I’m not too worried about the downside.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 13:44:38 GMT -5
Buying out at least one year of FA is the only way an extension made sense to me so I would be glad to see them get one done if that is indeed the case.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 6, 2024 13:46:00 GMT -5
That report makes me think something is coming real soon, like later today.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 13:49:00 GMT -5
That report makes me think something is coming real soon, like later today. Same, if Speier is writing about them being deep in talks and had specifics about it lasting past 2028 you can almost bank on it getting done. Speier is one of, if not the main authorities in the media of people to listen to when it comes to the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 6, 2024 14:57:50 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years?
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 14:59:57 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years? That would depend on if they are planning to sign anyone else at this point or not I suppose. I can see the rationale behind it either way.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Mar 6, 2024 15:04:08 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years? Yeah I’d think they’d want to do the opposite and front load it into their space this year and then lower their hit later on. But I don’t get paid to do this stuff so who knows.
|
|
|
Post by wamderingdude on Mar 6, 2024 15:04:47 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years? it really doesn’t seem like the Red Sox are going to add much more to the current payroll, but a great use of the rest of it would be giving Bello and Casas higher salaries this year to reduce their AAV when they actually spend again. I don’t understand the logic of kicking the can down the road at all for AAV purposes.
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 6, 2024 15:06:25 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years? That would depend on if they are planning to sign anyone else at this point or not I suppose. I can see the rationale behind it either way. They are like $48MM under the cap so plenty of room for both
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 6, 2024 15:06:56 GMT -5
Saw this and didn't understand the logic. Wouldn't it make the most sense for the Red Sox to include this season in deal considering they are so far under the CBT anyways and they would have a lower AAV in later years? Yes, there's no reason to do it the way Cotillo suggests unless you are planning to be near or above the CBT line.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 15:08:28 GMT -5
Perhaps every penny matters if this offseason was any sort of indicator of their budget restraints going forward but that being said, I highly doubt they're giving Bello a large AAV extension at this point in his controllability. It doesn't seem likely to me that doing it the way Cotillo said they may would really move his AAV when the extension kicks in all that much. I would imagine/hope the AAV of the extension comes in around 10-15M or so.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 6, 2024 15:12:22 GMT -5
That would depend on if they are planning to sign anyone else at this point or not I suppose. I can see the rationale behind it either way. They are like $48MM under the cap so plenty of room for both Still room for both but they're like $32m under the cap not $48.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,345
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 6, 2024 15:14:54 GMT -5
They are like $48MM under the cap so plenty of room for both Still room for both but they're like $32m under the cap not $48. I was about to come say yes it's closer to $32M. I have no reason to believe they're signing Montgomery but theoretically if they want to keep that option in play then they would do as Cotillo notes and start the extension for 2025 as I would guess the AAV will be somewhere in the 10-15M range. I'm still assuming a Montgomery deal costs around $25M AAV so they wouldn't necessarily have room for both a Bello extension and Montgomery signing.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 6, 2024 15:22:00 GMT -5
I don't even understand Cotillo's internal logic. Why would that be a "smart bit of business"? It doesn't save the team any money; it actually might cost them money if Bello is paid more in latter years of the deal when the team is over the LTT and has to pay the tax.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 6, 2024 15:26:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bosox904 on Mar 6, 2024 15:30:44 GMT -5
Strider's is 6 years $75 million and Greene's is 6 years $53 million for anyone curious.
|
|