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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 4, 2020 22:35:30 GMT -5
If the reports are true on the amount of cash the Red Sox are including with Price, I believe they'll have paid him $169m for 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 4, 2020 21:23:11 GMT -5
Allen Craig?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 30, 2020 16:06:38 GMT -5
Cole Hamels got 1/18, so there's no reason why Price should get less than that. Bumgarner's 5/85 suggests otherwise too. Now, maybe at this point in the offseason there aren't as many teams who have salary flexibility to add a guy like Price, but that's different than his actual value.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 28, 2020 20:01:39 GMT -5
I think you're most likely correct about it. Would you have given him 12 years $420 million, which is 35 million per year? I mean the number is staggering. Do you love the player that much that you think you can get a big chunk of that value with those terms? I'd think about it. Honestly, the 12 scares me more than the 420. I'm pretty confident he'll be at least a decent player for the next 5-7 years. But a 12-year deal that takes him into his late 30s? That could be a bit of a hamstringer for half a decade. I wonder if a team will ever decide they'd rather sign a player to, say, 10/400 rather than 12/400, just so that they're not exposed on the salary cap hit for as many years. Is that crazy? But the luxury tax hit is lower if you extend the years, and in 12 years ~$33.3m might get you an average #4 starter. I'd rather make the luxury tax hit lower for the next decade than care about rosters 11-12 seasons from now.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 24, 2020 19:55:34 GMT -5
Forget acquiring Mookie - what type of prospect package would it require for a team to take on Wil Myers at 3/68.5m? If you use Fangraphs prospect value chart, a package of Campusano AND Trammell or Morejon would get you close to offsetting the negative value of Myers. Now, in addition to dumping Myers, the Padres would also have to pay for a year of Mookie Betts.
There's no scenario where the Red Sox and Padres could agree on a prospect return in this trade before agreeing to how much the Padres will subsidize Myers contract..the amount directly impacts the prospect return. If the Padres pay nothing, at minimum they have to add two of their better prospects IN ADDITION to whatever they'd be paying for Mookie alone. If they pay it down to the point where Myers counts for like $4m against the luxury tax, ok, he's basically a throw in and lesser prospects can be attached to him. People are really underestimating the negative value Myers carries and how much talent it'd take to get him off the Padres books. Just think of what the Red Sox would have to include to get a team to absorb Eovaldi's deal right now, and then keep in mind Myers is about $6m more (in real dollars) per year over the next three, and remember he projects to be a much less valuable player than Eovaldi next season.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 23, 2020 21:50:04 GMT -5
So, uh, why the hell would we take on any part of Myers' contract unless the Padres were taking Price (doesn't seem to be the case here) or we're getting elite prospects also? Am I missing something here? The report is missing parts or just incorrect. There's no scenario where the Padres can acquire Mookie, take on no other bad contracts, move Myers deal, and hold onto their top 5 prospects. The surplus value of Mookie plus the negative value of Myers is not going to be bridged with a quantity package of non-top 5 guys.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 11, 2020 17:32:35 GMT -5
If Brady hits FA he'll automatically carry a $13.5m cap charge next season. If Brady re-signs before the league year starts he'll carry a $6.75m dead cap hit next year, with the remaining balance pushed into 2021. Either way, his current/expiring deal will have the $13.5m charge hit the cap. There is a window of time where they can just extend him during the legal tampering period in March I believe. They can extend him at any point, but even if they extend him tomorrow they'll have the $6.75m dead money charge next year, and another charge in 2021. The dead money is going to hit their cap no matter what they do, it's just whether they'll absorb it all next year or spread it out.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 11, 2020 16:13:52 GMT -5
If Brady hits FA he'll automatically carry a $13.5m cap charge next season. If Brady re-signs before the league year starts he'll carry a $6.75m dead cap hit next year, with the remaining balance pushed into 2021. Either way, his current/expiring deal will have the $13.5m charge hit the cap.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 5, 2020 22:48:55 GMT -5
If Brady needs multiple elite pass catchers, an elite OL, and a good running game to go along with a top 3 defense that's a problem. Nick Foles types can win a title with a great balanced roster. Brady really struggled down the stretch last season even with an elite offensive line and Gronk and Edelman healthy, but the 2nd half of the AFCCG and a SB win made people forget. They need to get better at TE and WR, but there's a vibe from a lot of Pats fans that he only should play with Pro Bowl caliber WR's, yet the Patriots have never won titles with top WR's (with respect to Jules, Branch, and Brown).
This roster was absolutely flawed with real holes (so were former SB winning rosters), but Brady should've been more productive and is/was part of the problem. He's been more productive in the past with similar or lesser options. Brady limits the type of receiver they can acquire, each receiver needs to fit Brady's system and preferences…not the other way around. Look at how much the defensive system changes on a weekly basis and consider how predictable the Patriots offense has become, it's not like Brady can adjust his game to fit his current receivers. A guy like Metcalf would struggle here.
At this point my ideal scenario would be a three year extension on team friendly terms. The real compromise would be giving Brady a contract to play until his stated goal, and in return he takes less money. If Tom wants to get paid market value and/or Belichick doesn't believe he can be an above average QB the next two seasons they should part ways now. It doesn't make sense to bring him back for 1yr at $25-30m+.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 30, 2019 14:55:26 GMT -5
Until Belichick retires I'm definitely not closing the door on more Patriots Super Bowls, and it sure feels like he's motivated to continue for the foreseeable future. There's no doubt they need to start retooling and getting younger, but I don't know why anyone would expect them to be mediocre or worse going forward as long as Bill is here.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 10, 2019 2:04:55 GMT -5
Swapping Price for Myers would shave just over $17m off the luxury tax total. The actual cash savings would be less but ownership has talked about their budget in terms of the tax, not real money. I think Price should have more trade value than Myers but it's close enough given the current luxury tax situation. Either way the Red Sox should be targeting bad contract swaps where they acquire guys with a lower AAV due to backloaded deals. Most teams aren't close to the tax and won't care about the difference in AAV, just swap contracts and game the tax a bit.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 9, 2019 16:00:00 GMT -5
The Harry nonTD should have been reviewed as it was a possible scoring play and those guys were looking at each other to make the call. Someone should have had the presence of mind to realize it but the moment was too big for them to use their heads. Flip side, GET HARRY THE BALL, stop this madness of not at least letting him compete. I hope Karras is coming back because the interior line was terrible. This team fights, ot should I say our D fights. We saw his skills running with the ball in the open field last night, he should absolutely get some designed touches. I don't care if you've got to call a jet sweep to get him the ball, just put it in his hands and see if he can create offense and give the defense another look/threat. He can't even get snaps let alone touches.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 8, 2019 19:07:41 GMT -5
The "lost" challenge was where the guy got tackled at the 39, clear as day, but they went with the original spot at the 40 because…reasons???
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 8, 2019 19:06:20 GMT -5
The spot was clearly wrong on the first challenge, the second challenge wasn't even a win since the refs stole a long return, and then they take another TD away. How do you call him out of bounds when a TD call would've been reviewable? You simply can't call him out of bounds unless you're 100% sure he was out, which of course he wasn't. The Patriots don't deserve a win here, but the refs don't deserve employment.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 8, 2019 14:43:57 GMT -5
The Jackson conversation is interesting. I love to watch Jackson, but I don't regret passing on him (even if Michel wouldn't be the hindsight pick either).
Jackson can't run the Patriots offense. Building a unique offense around the second QB is very hard, and that's why you saw Jackson struggle last year running a combo of this year's offense and the Ravens/Flacco offense. I don't blame the Patriots for believing in their offensive system, and drafting Jackson meant scrapping their system. It's not an insult to say the Ravens were an ideal landing spot and it's unlikely the Patriots could've developed Jackson as quickly or as well. The Patriots strength is their coaching, but it's hard to develop a QB if you can't give him realistic reps. At best he'd be entering year 3 of his rookie deal before he had an opportunity to play, and even his practice reps would've been running the Patriots system, or some basic hybrid system they couldn't have adequately installed.
The other unknown is how Brady would've handled the team drafting a QB in the first round, or if they could've won the SB without Michel last year. There's no doubt the ground game was key, and maybe they would've acquired a similar talent to Michel later in the draft, but that's no lock. I'm not sure Bill wanted to push Brady at that time (coming off the Eagles SB loss, his FB documentary, and reports he threatened to retire if the club traded Gronk). The relationship between the organization and Tom is more volatile than ever, and after the Malcom Butler thing it was clear Bill tried to "win back" the veteran leadership of the team. When they drafted Jimmy G it seemed to motivate Tom, but the circumstances were different at that point, as back then Brady's play appeared to be declining. At the time Jackson was drafted, Brady felt like the coach and team let him down, both in the SB and by not extending his contract, and he felt like he was at the top of his game. It was the start of Brady leaking his frustrations to the media, and it has only intensified since then.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 1, 2019 22:34:00 GMT -5
McDaniels is a complete loser. Wait, you don't like back to back 1st down dives to James White directly behind the third string center while trailing by 18 points?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 7, 2019 16:51:22 GMT -5
Agree with the above that Eric's calculations may be a bit (or quite a bit) under. I've personally been referring to the Fangraphs/Roster Resource page, which has the 2020 total estimated luxury tax payroll at about $236.3M. Now that includes everyone on the current 40-man, so JBJ and others are on that list. But the only way you're getting close to the $208 threshold if you remove a single player's salary is to remove Betts (or of course Price in a make believe land). All that said, I'm no payroll expert....so Eric, if that resource is missing something, or I'm missing something about how your plan compares to those projections, let us know. I'm no payroll expert either, but there are some differences between the Fangraphs link and the numbers floated by Alex Speier. Speier has Sale's AAV at $25.6m compared to $29m on Fangraphs, which is the biggest difference between the two. They also have different numbers for at least JDM and Pedroia, and those differences (including Sale's $3.4m difference) would save the Red Sox $5.6m if Speier's numbers are more accurate. If the club then traded or non-tendered JBJ, Leon, and Hembree, they'd cut another $15.4m using Fangraphs projected arb totals, bringing the original estimated number of $236.3m close to $215m. I believe the Fangraphs arb projections are higher than the MLBTR projections on everyone except Mookie, so there's likely at least a minor difference there as well (around $2m I believe). Finally, Fangraphs lists the pre-arb total at $9.435 while Speier has $4.99m, and Speier has the minor league 40 man guys getting $250k total less. Here's the link to the Speier article: www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/09/28/complete-explanation-red-sox-luxury-tax-and-payroll-situation/EuiO7nuDwHIPqHBABM2I8L/story.html
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 4, 2019 19:56:30 GMT -5
If the Red Sox go under the tax while otherwise trying their best to compete in 2020 and keep Mookie without an extension, they should trade prospects who can't help next year. Utilize your few future trade chips to acquire cheap players who can fill holes, or attach them to a bad contract to gain financial flexibility. It's already extremely difficult to fill all their holes while slashing payroll, but if they also plan to hold all their prospects it really limits the type of acquisitions this team can make.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 23, 2019 11:16:04 GMT -5
You could use an upgrade at WR to protect against injuries, add depth and just in case Gordon can't make it a full season. Sanu can be a #2 in a way Dorsett doesn't seem able too. Meyers, White and Watson all got more targets with Gordon out than Dorsett. Fully healthy you now have Meyers and Dorsett as your #4 and #5 WRs. If you can fix the OL you could go five WRs and see if a team has enough DBs to cover those guys. WR made sense. Yet I still think they got the wrong guy. Like Sanu can be a quality #2, but Sanders was more like a #1. He cost less in trade and likely nets a high comp pick. Now Sanders did cost like 3 million more, basically the difference if you trade Bennett. So we'll see if they plan on keeping Bennett or making another move that they needed money for. That could certainly change the way this trade looks. Yet a 2nd round pick still seems crazy for what Sanu is. Like next year you'll make Meyers and Harry, guys that are very similar to Sanu. So I don't get paying so much for an extra year. The Broncos are so bad that 5th round pick will be very high and that 4th will likely be rather low. It's like trading a 3rd and a 6th round pick, knowing you likely get back a 3rd or 4th in a year if he leaves. Is 6.5 million really a team friendly amount for Sanu? For example Golden Tate just got 4 years 37 million, just over 9 million a year. He's twice the WR Sanu is in my book, he's a #1 not a #2. Jones a very good slot CB, played great against Tate, yet Tate still made huge plays in that game. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen Sanu as that type of WR. Yet I felt Sanders was that guy. Like Edelman, it doesn't matter who defends them, they can still make plays. Solid addition, yet I thought the cost would be like a 4th for a guy like Sanu, maybe a third because of an extra year, not a 2nd though. Sanders was a #1 quality WR a few years ago but I don't think he's on that level currently or going forward. He's still probably a better player and fit than Sanu, but I'm guessing salary and durability decided this one. I do think a 2nd round pick is a clear overpay fwiw. For the record, since the 2017 season, Sanu has been just as productive. He's played more games (but he probably will moving forward as well), and he's also been in a much better passing offense with a clearly superior QB, but he's also had to play a smaller role. The numbers the last 2.5 seasons: Sanders 148-234, 63.2 catch%, 1790 yds (12.09 Y/R) Sanu 166-232, 71.6 catch %, 1854 yds (11.17 Y/R) Also, Sanders can't bring back a 3rd or 4th rd comp pick, the best case scenario would be a 2021 5th rd comp pick since he'll be a 10 year vet.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 21, 2019 12:24:49 GMT -5
I don't feel bad for the Yankees about German, because banking on all your starters being healthy and effective in October was a stupid gamble to make (especially with Severino coming back after missing almost the entire season). It could've just as easily been an injury to Paxton or a Severino setback. Last year Dombrowski added Eovaldi despite already having Sale, Price, Porcello, and Rodriguez, so when Sale struggled and had health issues they were in position to give Eovaldi a huge role and he thrived. Compare that to Cashman, who again passed on starting pitchers like Stroman this deadline, stating a guy like Stroman would be stuck in their postseason bullpen. Ironically, they got eliminated in a bullpen game because they didn't have a viable starting pitcher to throw when they absolutely needed a win.
Also, giving Happ 2/34m with a vesting option in the same offseason where Charlie Morton got 2/30 with a club option looks bad (lets not bring up the Eovaldi contract, please).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 10, 2019 20:53:03 GMT -5
They start feeding James White and score a quick TD, shocking...
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 26, 2019 21:15:26 GMT -5
If we're going to talk about past history and use it as the sole predictor for a Mookie extension, how many times has this ownership traded a core player entering his contract year for prospects? Nomar, Lester, and Manny were dealt midseason, the first two for baseball reasons (poor defense, bad team) and the latter for behavioral reasons, and they were flipped for MLB pieces not prospects. Guys like Pedro, Damon, Ellsbury, etc. were able to play out their deals and hit free agency.
What past history indicates this ownership will trade a core player in their prime for prospects before their contract year? If we're going to argue they'll buck past history and trade the player for prospects this offseason why can't they buck past history and sign Mookie to a top of the market deal, either this or more likely next offseason? I'd argue they've never had a good comparison for Mookie, because they've never had an internal free agent with his combination of age, talent, resume, and durability. They've also never struggled more for the Boston sport fans (and media) attention under John Henry's ownership than right now. I can't imagine this team flips Mookie for prospects to take a step back for a couple seasons, if they do trade him it'll be with the intention of landing other impact MLB pieces with his resources, whether through trades for big salary or FA signings. If they did trade him for prospects it'd be a first for John Henry, so predicting that while suggesting it's impossible he'll offer his first 10+ year deal seems…inconsistent
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 25, 2019 21:04:46 GMT -5
I'll focus on other aspects: make the game presentation, both on TV and in-stadium, appealing to 18-40 year olds instead of focusing solely on children and senior citizens.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 23, 2019 15:40:09 GMT -5
The problem is Theo could've acquired Chapman for a lot less than Torres only months earlier. I find it hard to believe he didn't anticipate the Cubs would be contenders that year, so the only reason he could've passed on topping a very light return by the Yankees is due to the circumstances around Chapman's off field behavior. The fact that he no longer cared about those circumstances months later and was willing to pay a lot more for even less team control is what makes this a bad deal. The Cubs could've had Chapman for longer and for less during the offseason. There's no argument that the Cubs wouldn't have still won the WS if they originally acquired him from the Reds instead of waiting for the Yankees to acquire him first to be the team who took the initial PR hit. The price for waiting was the difference between guys like Rookie Davis, Eric Jagielo, Tony Renda, and Caleb Cotham vs Gleyber Torres (and McKinney, Warren, and Rashard Crawford).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 24, 2019 15:47:32 GMT -5
If we're playing the "what if" game of how to allocate Eovaldi's money, DJ LeMahieu's current production would've been very nice. This would've added wins to the team and had money left over without committing any salary beyond next year instead of being on the hook for three more years with Eovaldi. There were players out there that could've helped the Red Sox this winter. It would've been a bad look from the Red Sox to underbid for Eovaldi after the way they used him last postseason, but are there any reports that any team was remotely close to the Red Sox offer? It felt like yet another acquisition where Dombrowski was easily the top bidder, surpassing the competition by a comfortable margin. Doing those type of deals repeatedly got them in the position of having limited flexibility to take advantage of good value buying opportunities.
|
|
|