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 wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 10:58:19 GMT -5
The power has really picked up for Rafaela with 2 doubles and 3 homers in his last 8 games (23 PA).
On the flip side, after compiling a very exciting 7 walks in his first 5 games (18 PA) he hasn't drawn a walk in his last 9 games (25 PA) while striking out 7 times (28%).
He also hasn't stolen a base in his past 9 games, but that's due to never reaching 1st (0 singles).
I would prefer the walks over the power, but at least the power isn't taken time to develop as it did last year.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 15, 2024 10:41:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 13:58:28 GMT -5
I agree on some level, but if they're trying to go for it now because of looming rebuild, why trade away Soto in the first place? I'm sure the answer is "they had to because of money" and my reply would be right back to "then why sign so many braindead way-too-big money contracts over the past couple of years"? They paid way more than they needed to for guys that it made no sense for them to sign in the first place, especially given their apparent payroll constraints, and now they can't even properly boom before they bust. At this point I think they're in serious trouble whether they go for it or they rebuild. But if they're going to go for it, one step forward two steps back is not the way to do it. If this is the best they've got, they should be rebuilding. With new ownership coming in and a rebuild somewhere down the line, it's likely Preller sees the writing on the wall. Putting the best team possible on the field within the payroll constraints, and hoping the ball bounces his way to a world series victory, is probably his best chance at retaining his job for the long term.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 11:34:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 14, 2024 11:26:09 GMT -5
I'm not a Preller fan, but the Padres had an owner near the end of his life who was willing to spend whatever it took to field a winning club. Many of the moves made over the past few years look foolish in hindsight, but the calculus has changed.
Solid move by the Padres here assuming the goal is to remain competitive.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 15:22:14 GMT -5
Per Ian Brown, Refsnyder out with broken toe.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 15:16:49 GMT -5
For those with more a medical/science bent, are we going to be seeing the bracing procedure become the more likely option for elbow surgeries going forward? I.e - if your elbow is only kinda screwed up you get brace, and if it’s REALLY screwed up you get TJ? My limited understanding is it’s in reference to the extent of the UCL tear, but this is also still a newish procedure? My understanding from before the bracing procedure was an option was that partial tears were often worse (e.g. more complicated for TJ surgery) than full tears as the full tear was a more simple ligament replacement procedure. The bracing procedure seems to be used (at least primarily) for partial tears. So you're likely looking at TJ for full tears and bracing for partial tears going forward, so the surgery is dependent on the type of injury, which is also why they don't disclose the surgery until after the procedure, as the doctors don't know which procedure they will perform until they open up the arm. PRP injections have had some success as well, but more often than not lead to surgery anyway. It will be interesting to see if that science progresses, cutting into the number of bracing procedures.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 13, 2024 11:26:08 GMT -5
Canada+Ontario income taxes for MLB players: 33%+13.16%=46.16%
US+California income taxes for MLB players: 37%+13.3%=50.3%
That said, there are more exemptions for wealthy Americans than wealthy Canadians in regards to income taxes and sales tax in Ontario is 13%, much higher than the highest California MLB city tax of 9.5% (LA).
After accounting for sales tax and exemptions it may be cheaper to play for the Dodgers than Blue Jays, but it's close enough that taxes shouldn't be a major factor between the two (unless your Canadian income comes from capital gains; which are taxed up to 50% of total tax).
On inflation rates (Feb 2024): US 3.2%, Phillipines 3.4%, Canada 2.86%. These are non-factors.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 12, 2024 13:21:50 GMT -5
I can understand if some aren't fans of Cease due to his command/control profile and fluctuating ERA, but he's been among the top pitchers in baseball over the past 3 years:
2021-2023: - fWAR (8th) 12.6 - ERA (36th) 3.54 - FIP (22nd) 3.40 - xFIP (36th) 3.76 - IP (15th) 526.2 - wOBA (23rd) .263 - xwOBA (10th) .257
The above is all despite a 3.84 BB/9, which was 98th among 104 qualified pitchers. If you include his age (28), his contract (8mil with 1 year of arb left), his fastball velocity (96.5; 8th best) and his ability to induce bad swings/swords (55 in 2023; 1st) and you have a guy with the upside of being the best pitcher in baseball if he can rein in his control - which seems to be commensurate with the reported trade requests from the White Sox (which is a bit crazy).
In terms of his disappointing ERA - the White Sox rank 26th in OAA, 27th in UZR and 30th in DRS over this timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 9, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5
I'm with you on this. Though they only have $23 million left under the LTT and I don't know if that's enough, assuming that's a hard limit for them this year. I also still don't think it makes sense for Montgomery to do a Chaplinger type contract; it's very unlikely he'd have more value a year from now with a QO attached. He should have just gotten the biggest contract available this offseason. But it may be that the window for getting that contract has already closed.
I agree with you that Montgomery should take the long term deal, but if the CBT (assume that's what you mean by LTT) is the issue, the Red Sox could simply push the Bello contract into the following year without the 2024 salary to free up space (assuming it isn't finalized with the league yet). Also, the number you're using, presumably from Red Sox Payroll, is about 5mil high due to the 40-man/bonuses he has plugged in. Cots has them at 30mil under the CBT currently. That said, it was reported that last year their available opening day player budget was 8mil under the CBT to allow for in-season additions, it's possible they're working under the same restraints this year.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 8, 2024 22:40:48 GMT -5
Dane Dunning isn't an ideal comp, since he hasn't been as good as Bello ever. He has had three full seasons with xERAs between 4.48 and 4.76. He hit 2.1 fWAR last year for the first time (which should result in less arb money than a guy who put up 2 WAR all three pre-arb years) purely through volume (172.2 IP). His ERA was solid (3.70), his FIP was mediocre (4.27), both his ERA and FIP outperformed his xFIP, SIERA, and xERA, so fWAR and bWAR are both going to inflate how good he actually was. With that said, you've convinced me that Bello would have to be more like a 3-WAR guy for this to save the Sox much money. However, 1) He only really needs to get to that level by the years that are being bought out, since the real advantage of this deal is getting two extra years of control over a guy who probably would sign for much longer than two years in free agency, and 2) even if they don't quite break even on dollar value, the team still gets some benefit from evening out his AAVs, including from adding that extra ~$8.2 million to the tax calculation this year when they have plenty of space under the CBT.
Dane Dunning isn't a comp for Bello, as I think we would all be disappointed if Bello didn't exceed his performance/projections and he's 1.5 years younger with a better pedigree. Dunning is the best comp I could find for what a 2-WAR pitcher looks like in terms of earning power in an arbitration year to create a 4/8/12 inflated salary projection. Whether WAR should be used to evaluate pitchers is a valid conversation, but it's not relevant to this string posts regarding whether he would out perform his contract if he's only a 2-WAR player. If Bello is a 2-WAR pitcher in years 1-5, then turns into a 3-WAR pitcher for years 6-7, he should exceed his pay, if he were to stay healthy throughout. If we are conservative with health risk and assume one missed season among six healthy seasons (which would be pretty lucky), then I think we've reached the break even point.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 8, 2024 21:07:25 GMT -5
How do you reach this conclusion? If he were to hit free agency as a consistent 2-WAR pitcher in 2029, I think he would definitely do better than 2/29. And you think he'd only be looking at HALF of that?
For comparison: Lugo just got 3/45 based on one good season as a starter at age 33. Hicks, who hasn't even been a starter, got 4/44. Wacha, with a 1.5 WAR projection, got 2/32. Maeda is 36 and has totaled 210 IP and 3 WAR over the last two seasons and he got 2/32. Take those as a conservative baseline and add in 5 years of inflation. And then also factor in the benefit to the Red Sox of adding some payroll stability to their long-term planning. ADD: Actually I don't know why I overcomplicated this. If you're saying this extension is basically paying him $29 million for his two free agent years, and we're stipulating he'd perform at 2 x 2 = 4 WAR over those two years, then of course $29 million for 4 WAR is a good deal.
I think I see the issue - you're one year off (add: as Scotty caught above). the 29mil would be for ONE year, not two, and my estimates are on the high-end and assuming greater payroll inflation than we are currently seeing. The second free agent year would be an additional 21mil, or 50mil total. You can certainly argue that a 2-war Bello gets closer to 18mil/1 or 36mil/2, but that's the high end, and still well short of what the Red Sox are paying - not accounting for any additional risk. I was already accounting for inflation, which is why I estimated 26mil through arb for the first 5 years. If they had bought out 2 free agent years (before the option), then I would certainly agree with you, but the 1 less free agent year is huge in the calculation. The payroll number may be a benefit 4-6 years from now for the CBT, but given the health risk pitchers face, price stability can backfire real quick. ADD: I'm not complaining about the deal. It's only high if he's a 2-WAR guy going forward. If he becomes a 3-WAR guy then it's a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 8, 2024 16:42:40 GMT -5
What I'd say is that this extension looks good if he turns out to be a steady 2 WAR pitcher. The degree to which he's better than that is the degree to which the extension looks better than good. Hard to imagine this contract will look good in hindsight if that's the case. Dane Dunning, for example, is coming off of a 2.1 fWAR season after compiling 3.6fWAR in 2+ seasons and he received 3.32mil in his first season of arbitration. If Bello is only a 2-war pitcher then something in the range of 1+1+4+8+12=26mil for the 5 years of team control would be on the high-end of what he could expect. That would leave 29mil guaranteed 5 years early for a 2-War pitcher, which would likely be double what he'd be looking at on the free agent market (although he would likely receive a multi-year deal). This isn't accounting for the chance of major injury either. It's slightly dated, but here's a write-up Ben Clemens at Fangraphs did a couple of years ago regarding $/WAR for arbitration eligible players: blogs.fangraphs.com/an-arbitration-compensation-update/I get that you weren't implying that Bello will only be a 2-WAR guy, but thought it was worth illustrating that the Red Sox really need him to become a 2.5-3 WAR type of pitcher for this contract to make sense. But at least they will be using (presumably) some of the CBT/AAV payroll rather than burning it. (side note: I didn't read the Fangraphs article because Jaffe has a history of deceitful writing regarding the Red Sox - really wish Fangraphs would dump him)
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 6, 2024 22:11:32 GMT -5
I think 30M is realistically more than he'll make in arb but we tend to ignore the impact of salary inflation. Burnes made ~32M and started arb in '22 Bello will start (would have started?) in '27. 5 years of MLB salaries ticking up by 5% annually would put an equivalent run through arb at 40M for Bello. We'd be really lucky for Bello to be Burnes but its something to keep in mind when comparing past contracts (or arb settlements) to future values. Edit: This is also something people are bad at understanding with deferrals like Ohtani. Its absolutely wild to me that Trea Turner signed a contract through his age 40 season at a higher annual present value than Betts is signed to through his age 40 season. It will be interesting to see if they wait to make the deal official until just before the season starts to allow for other signings before choosing to declare the contract pre, or post, opening day (for CBA calculations). If it's officially submitted (as pre-opening day) to the league right away, that would indicate that Montgomery/Snell aren't in the cards. Slight issue with your calculations above. The 5% number is correct for deferral holdings but due to a series of short-sighted agreements by the players, the increase in payroll over the past decade (2014-2023) has been just under 3% per year. I think that's a more accurate number unless you have numbers indicating that arbitration is rising at a rate higher than overall payroll.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 6, 2024 11:29:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 5, 2024 15:24:52 GMT -5
In retrospect, I wonder if the Red Sox had some concerns about his arm from the beginning.
The 1 year deal was odd given where this team is at. But a 3rd year injury-insurance team option after a 2nd year player option, on a 1 year deal, is extremely unusual (I don't think it has ever been done before).
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 5, 2024 11:30:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 29, 2024 2:06:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 27, 2024 11:10:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 26, 2024 22:04:18 GMT -5
This ground has already been covered ad nauseum AND this is the wrong thread for discussing it. Funny how you felt the need to play moderator (which you're not) after my post but not the one preceding it. Interesting. You could even say...puzzling...
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 26, 2024 11:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 24, 2024 21:00:50 GMT -5
I don’t think it’s very likely to have all 7 guys you named on the roster when the season starts. That would mean cutting Reyes, and I really doubt they’re going to give up that infield depth. I think he's an underrated defender, but not liking the idea of Dalbec as the backup SS. 6 outfielders without positional versatility (aside from Rafaela who is the fulltime CF in this scenario) is tough. Wouldn't be surprised if Refsnyder gets cut/traded if Rafaela makes the team.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 22, 2024 12:27:55 GMT -5
Not quite 'rankings' but Fangraphs released a list of 100 guys to know for 2024 (who aren't top 100 prospects). Below are the Red Sox mentioned: Strong-Side Platoon Look: Wilyer Abreu, RFGuys Who Have Been Traded: Richard Fitts, RHPGuys Who Have Been Traded: David Sandlin, RHPRule 5 Picks: Justin Slaten, RHPPitching Prospects Beginning 40-man Platform Years: Yordanny Monegro, RHPGuys Who Sit 97-plus: Luis Guerrero, RHPblogs.fangraphs.com/names-to-know-100-more-relevant-prospects/
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 22, 2024 11:30:17 GMT -5
Mitch Keller got a 5/77 extension for ages 28-32. He had 4+ years of service time but otherwise seems like a decent comp for Bello. Implications for what Bello might would get? Seems like a pretty good comp as a player. Keller just finished his 4th season. If we add his arbitration salary from this past season (2.437mil) along with two seasons on minimum-ish contracts we get ~4mil. So when you account for Bello's service it would be 8 years and 81mil.Bello's has been better at this point in his career than Keller was at the same point (looks like Keller was dealing with injuries early on) so I'd guess he gets a bit more than that, although the extra years add risk, so maybe not. Certainly a good starting point.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 21, 2024 13:33:39 GMT -5
It was Sportrac, but I cross referenced it with another site, which was probably just referencing Sportrac. That's interesting about the outstanding arbitration, but do the other teams in front not have arb guys in waiting that haven't been calculated either? Sure, the Red Sox can still add free agents, but the big rumor has been the Red Sox are shopping Jansen and Martin and that the Red Sox do not want to pay a dime on Jansen's contract. That would certainly lower the payroll again. But that's good information to know. It's slightly better, but as you mentioned, 10th with their resources is still not what you'd expect. Yeah, not taking away from your point at all. But I'm still optimistic that the Red Sox will spend the money, either on a couple of free agents or on extending their young players. Henry has always been willing to spend up-to the CBT and I haven't seen anything to show that has changed. The talk of payroll (not budget) likely being lower I think is more of a result of the Red Sox striking out in acquiring their main targets. The issue is less about the arb guys and more a combination of the pre-arb and non-roster players. As an example, the Cubs were listed at 4mil over the Red Sox (by Spotrac) in payroll (this is now 2mil as they added Hendricks) but the Red Sox actual payroll cash expenditures when I checked were more than 30mil more than the Cubs - that's a pretty extreme turn. Very few teams (if any) have half of their projected 26-man roster on pre-arb deals and willing to spend tens-of-millions to facilitate trades (like with Sale). These factors indicate a rebuilding team with financial means exploring ways to use their finances in means other than signing aging free agents. Given that Jansen seems disgruntled, and that RHRP is an area of depth for the Red Sox, trading 36yo Jansen seems like a smart move to me (depending on what they receive and how much of his contract they cover, of course). The Red Sox didn't get the free agents I wanted (in hindsight they never had a chance) but with free agency less than 80% over and the extension talks with Casas and Bello, I don't see any firm evidence that the budget constraints are any different than they have been over the past 2 decades. There's just a lot of frustration among the fans (and players) regarding the slow off-season coming off of 2 aggravating seasons. If nothing changes by the time the season starts, I'll join the 'angry at ownership' crowd, but there's still 6 weeks to go. (and I never thought John Henry cared at all about the Red Sox aside from being an investment platform, so that opinion won't be changing) Here is where Spotrac is sourcing their Red Sox data: legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/
|
|
|