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.
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Mar 7, 2024 8:46:49 GMT -5
In a complete shocker, the details are coming out slower than expected. So unlike this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Mar 7, 2024 9:07:12 GMT -5
In the context of an extension “worth it” is also relative to what the team otherwise would have paid him for the 5 years of control they already have. Two pre-arb then three escalating arb years. $8-$10m per WAR is the going rate in free agency, but that’s not what they would pay Bello for the next few years, so for the contract to be a value it has to come in under that number. The value should come from the club options for FA years, and I really hope it is multiple options.
|
|
|
Post by abrinker on Mar 7, 2024 9:08:58 GMT -5
In the context of an extension “worth it” is also relative to what the team otherwise would have paid him for the 5 years of control they already have. Two pre-arb then three escalating arb years. $8-$10m per WAR is the going rate in free agency, but that’s not what they would pay Bello for the next few years, so for the contract to be a value it has to come in under that number. Only a year ago, Spencer Strider was extended for 6/75, with a club option that could make it 7/97. This included 2 pre-arb years at $1M apiece, 3/46 for his arb years, $22M for his first FA season, and a club option for another FA season at $22M or a $5M buyout. Bello obviously doesn't have the same track record as Strider, but using Strider's deal as a benchmark and adjusting for performance differential, I'd guess a fair market deal would give him $2M 2024-25, 3/36 for arb years, $18M for first FA season and additional club option at $20M or a $4M buyout. That would value the deal at 6/60 with the potential to rise to 7/76, including 2 FA years, running through his age 31 season. For perspective, Cease and Gallen received ~$6M for their first arb year last year, Burnes and Gallen both got $10M for Arb2, and Burnes received just under $16M for Arb3 this year. Cumulatively, that would amount to 3/32 for three arbs years if you went year to year and were the caliber of pitcher they are. Bello falls below these pitchers in performance track record, so 3/36 may even be a little generous (if he was valued at, say, 85% of those benchmarks, his arb years would be $27M, but with inflation maybe you make it $30M), but maybe what it takes to induce an extension that buys out FA years.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Mar 7, 2024 9:12:39 GMT -5
It's much riskier to do these deals with pitchers, of course, but right now Bello is a kid who signed for ~30k who is worth 10s of millions of dollars. A system he had no say in designing allows billionaires to prevent him from gaining access to those millions except on the billionaire's terms. I'm not going to be "disappointed" or "worried" or "concerned" that he is getting a piece of those millions even if it is very unlikely to ever be a huge surplus value win like Ronald Acuna's deal and there is a very real chance he blows out his arm and it's a waste of money.
I don't understand how anyone can root for players and be upset about this deal even with the risk it involves.
Yes, I understand that in the future the Sox owners may reduce spending on additional talent because Bello is ~15M of dead money in 2029 (or whatever the details turn out to be).
But I also understand that the Sox current owners are underspending on additional talent while Bello is making ~800k. To be blunt, the Sox don't need a reason to underspend on talent and it's kind of gross that fans have anxiety that this deal might give them one in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Mar 7, 2024 9:40:28 GMT -5
Anyone think the timing on this extension is interesting, coming after the Giolito news yesterday?
I realize I'm implying something by posing the question and after the way the offseason has unfolded I really don't have any idea how much they value the fans' feelings right now, but I'm sure the PR teams would love it if they could get something done.
Not saying it wouldn't have happened otherwise. There were reports that they were already engaged in talks. But maybe yesterday put the process into a heckuvarush.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Mar 7, 2024 9:47:42 GMT -5
Casas's signing bonus - 2.5M Bello's signing bonus - 28k (I think?)
It shouldn't be a surprise that it's easier to sign international signees who often sign for 10s of thousands of dollars than draftees that might have signed for millions of dollars.
The biggest surplus value deals of this type tend to be international players who signed for much less up front (eg Acuna, Albies, Freddy Peralta, Sal Perez's first deal).
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2024 9:50:50 GMT -5
Why do we have to treat everything the team does as if they're playing to win a news cycle or something? It's very self-flattering to think that the team makes all its decisions out of concern for our reactions (and also that we're savvy enough to see through it), but this is totally straightforward - Bello was saying they were "more or less" close to an extension well before Giolito got hurt. Much like the team was actively trying to sign Devers a year before they actually did, and public stating that it was a high priority - which hasn't stopped people from arguing *to this day* that it was just a PR move following the loss of Bogaerts. (By the way, where would this roster be right now if Devers had walked in free agency? They pretty much to do that extension for baseball reasons; no secret craven motivations required.)
If the team were stupid enough to build their roster with short-term news coverage in mind the obvious reactive move after the Giolito injury would have been a Montgomery signing. But the evidently didn't rush to do that.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 7, 2024 9:58:59 GMT -5
It's much riskier to do these deals with pitchers, of course, but right now Bello is a kid who signed for ~30k who is worth 10s of millions of dollars. A system he had no say in designing allows billionaires to prevent him from gaining access to those millions except on the billionaire's terms. I'm not going to be "disappointed" or "worried" or "concerned" that he is getting a piece of those millions even if it is very unlikely to ever be a huge surplus value win like Ronald Acuna's deal and there is a very real chance he blows out his arm and it's a waste of money. I don't understand how anyone can root for players and be upset about this deal even with the risk it involves. Yes, I understand that in the future the Sox owners may reduce spending on additional talent because Bello is ~15M of dead money in 2029 (or whatever the details turn out to be). But I also understand that the Sox current owners are underspending on additional talent while Bello is making ~800k. To be blunt, the Sox don't need a reason to underspend on talent and it's kind of gross that fans have anxiety that this deal might give them one in the future.This is the first post I've seen worried about a Bello extension on the grounds that it will prevent the team from spending in the future. Strange logic too, since the point of this deal is to save the team money in the future (in exchange for a little bit of risk).
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 7, 2024 10:11:47 GMT -5
Why do we have to treat everything the team does as if they're playing to win a news cycle or something? It's very self-flattering to think that the team makes all its decisions out of concern for our reactions (and also that we're savvy enough to see through it), but this is totally straightforward - Bello was saying they were "more or less" close to an extension well before Giolito got hurt. Much like the team was actively trying to sign Devers a year before they actually did, and public stating that it was a high priority - which hasn't stopped people from arguing *to this day* that it was just a PR move following the loss of Bogaerts. (By the way, where would this roster be right now if Devers had walked in free agency? They pretty much to do that extension for baseball reasons; no secret craven motivations required.) If the team were stupid enough to build their roster with short-term news coverage in mind the obvious reactive move after the Giolito injury would have been a Montgomery signing. But the evidently didn't rush to do that. To be fair, it does kinda seem like they are timing this to create a big Dominican Red Sox Baseball party this weekend, which is a different kind of PR/news cycle concern
|
|
|
Post by strike23 on Mar 7, 2024 10:25:25 GMT -5
If Giolito is related it seems way more likely to be related to trying to have a firmer handle on budget (ex extension starting 2024 vs 2025) so they can decide if/how to address that rather than some "PR" angle. As has been pointed out the talks have been going on for a while
|
|
|
Post by puzzler on Mar 7, 2024 10:26:41 GMT -5
Why do we have to treat everything the team does as if they're playing to win a news cycle or something? It's very self-flattering to think that the team makes all its decisions out of concern for our reactions (and also that we're savvy enough to see through it), but this is totally straightforward - Bello was saying they were "more or less" close to an extension well before Giolito got hurt. Much like the team was actively trying to sign Devers a year before they actually did, and public stating that it was a high priority - which hasn't stopped people from arguing *to this day* that it was just a PR move following the loss of Bogaerts. (By the way, where would this roster be right now if Devers had walked in free agency? They pretty much to do that extension for baseball reasons; no secret craven motivations required.) If the team were stupid enough to build their roster with short-term news coverage in mind the obvious reactive move after the Giolito injury would have been a Montgomery signing. But the evidently didn't rush to do that. To be fair, it does kinda seem like they are timing this to create a big Dominican Red Sox Baseball party this weekend, which is a different kind of PR/news cycle concern Every team wants good PR all the time. In this case however, it's the kind of PR that is good for everyone. It's good for the team, it's good for Bello, it's good for baseball and it's good for the Dominican Republic. It's frustrating that there is a negative angle to everything Red Sox related - when something like this should be something happy.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 7, 2024 10:41:51 GMT -5
Why do we have to treat everything the team does as if they're playing to win a news cycle or something? It's very self-flattering to think that the team makes all its decisions out of concern for our reactions (and also that we're savvy enough to see through it), but this is totally straightforward - Bello was saying they were "more or less" close to an extension well before Giolito got hurt. Much like the team was actively trying to sign Devers a year before they actually did, and public stating that it was a high priority - which hasn't stopped people from arguing *to this day* that it was just a PR move following the loss of Bogaerts. (By the way, where would this roster be right now if Devers had walked in free agency? They pretty much to do that extension for baseball reasons; no secret craven motivations required.) If the team were stupid enough to build their roster with short-term news coverage in mind the obvious reactive move after the Giolito injury would have been a Montgomery signing. But the evidently didn't rush to do that. To be fair, it does kinda seem like they are timing this to create a big Dominican Red Sox Baseball party this weekend, which is a different kind of PR/news cycle concern It's dispiriting to have the threads buried in pop-psychology paranoia. That seems to happen over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Mar 7, 2024 11:11:19 GMT -5
It's much riskier to do these deals with pitchers, of course, but right now Bello is a kid who signed for ~30k who is worth 10s of millions of dollars. A system he had no say in designing allows billionaires to prevent him from gaining access to those millions except on the billionaire's terms. I'm not going to be "disappointed" or "worried" or "concerned" that he is getting a piece of those millions even if it is very unlikely to ever be a huge surplus value win like Ronald Acuna's deal and there is a very real chance he blows out his arm and it's a waste of money. I don't understand how anyone can root for players and be upset about this deal even with the risk it involves. Yes, I understand that in the future the Sox owners may reduce spending on additional talent because Bello is ~15M of dead money in 2029 (or whatever the details turn out to be). But I also understand that the Sox current owners are underspending on additional talent while Bello is making ~800k. To be blunt, the Sox don't need a reason to underspend on talent and it's kind of gross that fans have anxiety that this deal might give them one in the future.This is the first post I've seen worried about a Bello extension on the grounds that it will prevent the team from spending in the future. Strange logic too, since the point of this deal is to save the team money in the future (in exchange for a little bit of risk). What do you think posters mean when they don't think it's a good enough deal for the Red Sox? Yes, the logic is that it might help them save money in the future, but the reason that people have different subjective opinions is because they rate the future surplus value against the risk and come to the conclusion that's it not worth the risk. Go find any julyanmorley posts in this very thread to see examples. And what is the problem when risks don't pan out? See for examples the Sale extension of the Gilioto deal. It's a big chunk of dead money on the payroll and the acceptance that the Sox will punt a season because that will prevent the Sox from spending that money more productively. You think - I don't like the deal, it's a bad risk, but it will have no effect on future Sox spending - is the non strange logic?
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 7, 2024 11:27:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 7, 2024 11:37:52 GMT -5
This is the first post I've seen worried about a Bello extension on the grounds that it will prevent the team from spending in the future. Strange logic too, since the point of this deal is to save the team money in the future (in exchange for a little bit of risk). What do you think posters mean when they don't think it's a good enough deal for the Red Sox? Yes, the logic is that it might help them save money in the future, but the reason that people have different subjective opinions is because they rate the future surplus value against the risk and come to the conclusion that's it not worth the risk. Go find any julyanmorley posts in this very thread to see examples. And what is the problem when risks don't pan out? See for examples the Sale extension of the Gilioto deal. It's a big chunk of dead money on the payroll and the acceptance that the Sox will punt a season because that will prevent the Sox from spending that money more productively. You think - I don't like the deal, it's a bad risk, but it will have no effect on future Sox spending - is the non strange logic? I don’t really understand your point. What people mean by “it’s not a good enough deal for the Sox” is that they are already guaranteed to have him at a very modest rate over the next five years. The point of signing the extension is to reduce the AAV of his age ~29-31 seasons by moving some of that money forward (mostly in an accounting sense). If the way they’re accomplishing that is by tacking on two years at a high salary—one that he has not yet proven himself worthy of—then that doesn’t really accomplish anything for the Red Sox. They might as well just go year to year. It’s not like Bello is going to sign for 7/45 or something, because that also doesn’t accomplish anything for him. Might as well bet on himself and go year to year if that’s the best the team is offering. It’s the same exact thing, just from the opposite perspective. In order for these pre-arb extensions to come together, team and player both need to compromise to come up with something that’s mutually beneficial, otherwise a deal won’t get signed. I don’t see what’s “gross” about discussing the potential parameters of an extension within that framework. It’s just the reality of it. This is a multi-billion dollar business.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Mar 7, 2024 12:35:44 GMT -5
What do you think posters mean when they don't think it's a good enough deal for the Red Sox? Yes, the logic is that it might help them save money in the future, but the reason that people have different subjective opinions is because they rate the future surplus value against the risk and come to the conclusion that's it not worth the risk. Go find any julyanmorley posts in this very thread to see examples. And what is the problem when risks don't pan out? See for examples the Sale extension of the Gilioto deal. It's a big chunk of dead money on the payroll and the acceptance that the Sox will punt a season because that will prevent the Sox from spending that money more productively. You think - I don't like the deal, it's a bad risk, but it will have no effect on future Sox spending - is the non strange logic? I don’t really understand your point. What people mean by “it’s not a good enough deal for the Sox” is that they are already guaranteed to have him at a very modest rate over the next five years. The point of signing the extension is to reduce the AAV of his age ~29-31 seasons by moving some of that money forward (mostly in an accounting sense). If the way they’re accomplishing that is by tacking on two years at a high salary—one that he has not yet proven himself worthy of—then that doesn’t really accomplish anything for the Red Sox. They might as well just go year to year. It’s not like Bello is going to sign for 7/45 or something, because that also doesn’t accomplish anything for him. Might as well bet on himself and go year to year if that’s the best the team is offering. It’s the same exact thing, just from the opposite perspective. In order for these pre-arb extensions to come together, team and player both need to compromise to come up with something that’s mutually beneficial, otherwise a deal won’t get signed. I don’t see what’s “gross” about discussing the potential parameters of an extension within that framework. It’s just the reality of it. This is a multi-billion dollar business. If you think the point of long term extensions is to reduce future AAV, then you will never understand my point. Because I think you are looking at it the wrong way. If that was truly the point, then it would be true that the Sox would be fine paying Bello exactly what he will earn over the next 6-9 years, they just want to manage the AAV, right? And the two parties are just negotiating over how soon Bello gets his money and how well the Sox manage his AAV? But if the Sox end up guaranteeing what Bello would have made anyway, that would be a terrible deal for the Sox because they will have assume a ton of risk more a small gain. The two parties are negotiating over how big a discount Bello should take to offset the Sox risk. The better the deal is for the Sox the bigger the discount Bello agrees to. That's what some people are rooting for. If you are open to considering why you are wrong, you might think about why teams like the Brewers try to sign players like Chourio to long term deals. Is it more logical to think that the point in that deal is to move around AAV due to luxury tax considerations or is it more likely the point is that the Brewers are hoping to reduce the amount of money that Chourio going year to year would make? Since the Brewers will never be near the luxury tax, then the former makes no sense. It's either the latter or something else. I'm open to "something else", but it isn't managing AAV. Are you arguing that ~10 teams look to long term deals to manage AAV, but the other 20 teams do it to pay young players less money? That makes no sense. Those 10 teams will try to do both.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 7, 2024 12:36:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by briam on Mar 7, 2024 12:37:41 GMT -5
So they locked him in for two FA years, that seems like a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 7, 2024 12:39:08 GMT -5
Further from Kiley: "The sixth year of Bello’s deal covers what would’ve been his first year of free agency, with the club option covering a potential second."
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Mar 7, 2024 12:40:01 GMT -5
So this kicks in next year and ends in 2030 with a team option for 2031? Or kick that all up a year? Either way, love to see a homegrown talent get locked in, and the bar he needs to clear to deliver surplus value on that contract is pretty low.
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Mar 7, 2024 12:40:13 GMT -5
Woj, Schefter, Jeff Passan, VermontSox.
Deal looks solid!
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Mar 7, 2024 12:40:26 GMT -5
So they locked him in for two FA years, that seems like a great deal. One with the option for a second, but yeah this is solid. Was a relief to see the first “5”
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Mar 7, 2024 12:40:32 GMT -5
I like the sounds of that extension, I'm guessing it probably starts this year. An extra year of FA bought out with a club option for a 7th if all goes as hoped. Less than 10 AAV so yea sure it's more than his AAV would have been for the next couple seasons had they gone year to year but I think it's worth it to have those two extra years of team control.
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 7, 2024 12:41:47 GMT -5
Bello will be 31 or 32 when this ends.
|
|
|
Post by briam on Mar 7, 2024 12:42:16 GMT -5
|
|
|