No, you thought what you thought and that’s ok. Ascribing your thoughts to Bloom is disingenuous and is a valueless way of trying to add worth to that.
Thank you for your permission to think my own thoughts I ascribed my thoughts based on where contract negotiations are currently, on what I have seen from Bloom over the last few years and based on the resources the Sox are going to have in terms of money and prospect capital going forward. Just like most of the post on this thread. If you believe that Bloom is going to push hard to get both signed long term, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. If you are going to just be demeaning and arrogant on an internet forum, because you feel small and insignificant in real life then I have no use for you.No, you thought what you thought and that’s ok. Ascribing your thoughts to Bloom is disingenuous and is a valueless way of trying to add worth to that.
I agree 100%. Ganthem's post is not only reasonable, it's well thought out and well reasoned. We have some Lurkers who may deserve a bit of snark, but as far as I can tell, Ganthem is not one of those.Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
I think linking Bogie and Devers, somehow making it a competition of who first accepts a team-friendly offer to play 3B, is not reasonable. Rather, the two negotiations will stand on their own with different ages, skill sets, and future use of the two players.Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
Yes they were good acquisitions, and they did contribute. I'm just so disappointed when you lose these great home grown players. Didn't mean to go off the deep end. And it's too early in his tenure to let Bloom go. He has still has plenty of time to make good moves.Were you happy with the contributions from Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, Schwarber and Pivetta last season? Verdugo seems to be doing OK. Trevor Story's had a very nice career to date. These are all guys that Bloom brought in, yes? Now let's shift to the work ahead. With an eye to next year and beyond, I'm guessing you want to see Devers extended as we all do, but he's not coming cheap. Who's the starting catcher next year? Vaz and Plawecki are both FAs after this season as are 2 of your 3 starting outfielders. Martinez's bat is leaving and Sale, Eovaldi, Paxton, Wacha and Hill may leave as many as 3 holes to fill in the starting rotation. How much do you want to lay out for a guy who fully intends to explore free agency when you already have a more than capable replacement in house at a time when 4 other bats are leaving your starting line up and there's no one in your rotation behind Houck and Pivetta?
Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
I agree with all 3 of you. @Ganthem is pretty much saying what I have said previously. MLB likes to think we don’t have a salary cap. We do. It’s just not called a salary cap. The punishments for going over the CBT are pretty much a cap. People here and elsewhere complain that the sox don't spend money. They did spend money, In FA/ the draft, and the international FA . Both the MLB draft and INT FA market have had hard caps since the 2017 CBA, when that was not the case in prior CBA's. (and the sox did spend an absurd amount of money in those two markets when they could spend to their hearts desire and not get punished for doing so)...I agree 100%. Ganthem's post is not only reasonable, it's well thought out and well reasoned. We have some Lurkers who may deserve a bit of snark, but as far as I can tell, Ganthem is not one of those.
And Ganthem is no longer a lurker, Welcome!!
And if Bogaerts has a similarly good, if not better season than Story, where does that leave things? I think Story's presence certainly would soften a Bogaerts departure from an on-field perspective, but I don't think it gives Bloom any kind of negotiating leverage. Bogaerts' value is what it is, and Bloom is likely to offer exactly what he thinks that is regardless of Story.I believe another key factor is the on-field play of one Trevor Story and MiLB development and readiness of Jeter Downs. If, say, Story has a season like one of his 3 MVP-votes received seasons, with a 120 or more OPS+, and his arm is recovered, Chaim has a negotiation position that likely moves his maximum package for Xander down several $M and years. Would he offer as much as 5 years, $125? I cannot imagine he'd go any higher than that if Story can easily slip into the SS role in '23 for a few years until Marcelo is ready.
This is pretty much where I'm and if I might add...Bogaerts currently has an opinion on what his value/worth is as does Chaim. Those values will differ depending on the positions of either side. They may also change as the season progresses and certainly at it's conclusion depending on Bogaerts' 2022 performance as well as how other teams may value him at that point. While I do think Story may influence the sense of urgency regarding the resigning of Xander, I don't think it precludes it. Bloom will enter the FA period with a firm idea of what he will be willing to spend and I don't expect that there will be a lot of movement from that amount. The only leverage the Story signing might hold is if Bogaerts desperately wants to remain in Boston which does not seem to be the case.And if Bogaerts has a similarly good, if not better season than Story, where does that leave things? I think Story's presence certainly would soften a Bogaerts departure from an on-field perspective, but I don't think it gives Bloom any kind of negotiating leverage. Bogaerts' value is what it is, and Bloom is likely to offer exactly what he thinks that is regardless of Story.
If Bogaerts desperately wanted to stay, he could simply not opt out. So yeah, not a lot of leverage gained from Story being in the fold. If there's anything Bogaerts desperately wants, it's to get paid his max value. He'll stay if there's overlap between what he wants and what Bloom (and Henry) wants to give. It's as simple as that.This is pretty much where I'm and if I might add...Bogaerts currently has an opinion on what his value/worth is as does Chaim. Those values will differ depending on the positions of either side. They may also change as the season progresses and certainly at it's conclusion depending on Bogaerts' 2022 performance as well as how other teams may value him at that point. While I do think Story may influence the sense of urgency regarding the resigning of Xander, I don't think it precludes it. Bloom will enter the FA period with a firm idea of what he will be willing to spend and I don't expect that there will be a lot of movement from that amount. The only leverage the Story signing might hold is if Bogaerts desperately wants to remain in Boston which does not seem to be the case.
Yeah, I meant in the sense of extending, if he really wants to stay and get a pay bump. Bloom would be foolish to prematurely up the ante for this particular player who is under contract. Let this season play out to determine his worth.If Bogaerts desperately wanted to stay, he could simply not opt out. So yeah, not a lot of leverage gained from Story being in the fold. If there's anything Bogaerts desperately wants, it's to get paid his max value. He'll stay if there's overlap between what he wants and what Bloom (and Henry) wants to give. It's as simple as that.
Can't think of any off the top of my head. I can only think of two examples of a player opting out and returning to his original team, let alone working a new extension out of them before the opt-out: A-Rod and Stephen Strasburg. I think you're right though, teams probably don't see an urgency to go too far with negotiations because they already have a contract, typically a team friendly one. Why commit to paying more before they have to?I’m wondering if there is some reluctance from teams to renegotiate with players who have an opt out, before they’ve exercised it. Was certainly an issue with the Yankees and A-Rod back in the day, right? Are there examples of teams who have extended a player before they have officially opted out?
Possible that some teams would think this way, but it doesn’t seem like a big impediment to me. The team gave the player this option/leverage. It’s all still negotiation, including wishes, risk assessment, and valuation. And if there’s a hometown discount to be had, it’s more likely before bigger contract numbers start actually coming in.I’m wondering if there is some reluctance from teams to renegotiate with players who have an opt out, before they’ve exercised it. Was certainly an issue with the Yankees and A-Rod back in the day, right? Are there examples of teams who have extended a player before they have officially opted out?
Of course there are. He could get injured, or have a down year.I understand the handwringing about Xander not getting extended now but is there a scenario in which he doesn’t opt out because he’s either injured or has a down year that could affect his future value?
The Yankees added 1/30 onto CC's deal in exchange for him declining his opt out (made a 4/92 option into 5/122), but that was agreed to right before the opt-out date. I dont see any reason a team would be less likely to negotiate with a player with an opt out after the season whose deal has significant surplus value to the team than a player who will be a free agent - if anything it should be easier as you have already bought some of the long term injury risk of a market deal (in this case say $60M of $175M rather than 0 of $175M for a free agent to be Xander) in the off chance he doesnt opt out.Can't think of any off the top of my head. I can only think of two examples of a player opting out and returning to his original team, let alone working a new extension out of them before the opt-out: A-Rod and Stephen Strasburg. I think you're right though, teams probably don't see an urgency to go too far with negotiations because they already have a contract, typically a team friendly one. Why commit to paying more before they have to?
I think I brought this up earlier, but this strikes me as a bit similar to the Sale extension. People have a beef with them having done that "too soon" rather than letting the season play out because maybe they get out of extending an injured/frail player by waiting. Should the team not take that stance here? Doubly so since they're already on the hook for another 3-4 years if he ultimately decides to not opt-out (say he gets seriously hurt in August or something). There's nothing stopping the team from giving Bogaerts exactly what he wants in November after he opts out. All the posturing right now from Boras is just that, posturing.
All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.Possible that some teams would think this way, but it doesn’t seem like a big impediment to me. The team gave the player this option/leverage. It’s all still negotiation, including wishes, risk assessment, and valuation. And if there’s a hometown discount to be had, it’s more likely before bigger contract numbers start actually coming in.
If I’m advising X, with his 3 yr/$20M per deal plus a vesting 4th yr option in the bag, and the team has merely offered to tack on a $30M deal, I’d advise him to wait unless he REALLY just wants a longer term commitment from the team. (I’m not sure we know whether the $30M year replaces the vesting option or is added after, do we?). For comparison, if the team’s offer is just to add a $30M yr on to his remaining 3/$20M per year deal, then that’s less than what the Twins gave an older Josh Donaldson 2+ years ago. That’s not all that attractive.
It’d be better imo if the team said we want you to be here in some capacity for the rest of your career, and we’d like to add another 4 years at $25m per (inflation, after all). That’s not quite what Semien got, but it’s reasonable. Maybe tack on a reachable additional option year.
Again, imo, this is where they failed with Lester, who did seem to want to be a Sox for life. Until they low-balled him in money AND years and then traded him.
Downs has struck out 21 times in 43 PAs with Worcester so far. I understand small sample sizes and other limitations of statistics, but just that information is... not encouraging.I believe another key factor is the on-field play of one Trevor Story and MiLB development and readiness of Jeter Downs. If, say, Story has a season like one of his 3 MVP-votes received seasons, with a 120 or more OPS+, and his arm is recovered, Chaim has a negotiation position that likely moves his maximum package for Xander down several $M and years. Would he offer as much as 5 years, $125? I cannot imagine he'd go any higher than that if Story can easily slip into the SS role in '23 for a few years until Marcelo is ready.
If Mayer is up for all of '24, then he's exceeded expectations enough that I think he slots right into SS and Story (age 31 then) goes back to 2B. More likely this transition happens in '25 though, provided seniority/"veteran presence" doesn't dictate otherwise.So let's play this out, if X and Devers leave...
Early 2022: 1b Dalbec, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
Late 2022: 1b Casas, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
2023: 1b Casas, 2b Arroyo, 3b Devers, SS Story
2024: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
2025: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
I mean, there's a lot of IFs there, but IF Mayer and Yorke and Casas turn out to be what we hope and think they could be, then going from Dalbec/Story/Devers/Xander to Casas/Mayer/Yorke/Story isn't too bad, and it frees up a TON of money to use elsewhere.
I love X and Devers, don't get me wrong. But the Sox aren't in bad shape to withstand the loss of those two guys, I don't think.
I'd only add that Dalbec played 2800 innings at 3B in the minors, so he gives them additional options in these not-quite-doomsday scenarios.So let's play this out, if X and Devers leave...
Early 2022: 1b Dalbec, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
Late 2022: 1b Casas, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
2023: 1b Casas, 2b Arroyo, 3b Devers, SS Story
2024: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
2025: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
I mean, there's a lot of IFs there, but IF Mayer and Yorke and Casas turn out to be what we hope and think they could be, then going from Dalbec/Story/Devers/Xander to Casas/Mayer/Yorke/Story isn't too bad, and it frees up a TON of money to use elsewhere.
I love X and Devers, don't get me wrong. But the Sox aren't in bad shape to withstand the loss of those two guys, I don't think.
Arguing that Xander should be held to anything after 2022 is disingenuous. The deal Xander signed gives him the right to be a free agent after 2022 - ignoring that part of the deal and equating it with a football style holdout is just wrong. I cant imagine they went to him with that logic because that definitely would be insulting because its fundamentally not the economic deal Xander signed.All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.
Let's assume the offer was $30M added in place of the option year. That's 4/90, which is exactly what they are paying Trevor Story for the same time period (2023-2026). I have a hard time viewing that as a low-ball or insulting offer. It's a fair starting point.
Who is equating it to a football-style holdout? All I said is he can't find their offer insulting if he has already agreed to most of it once already.Arguing that Xander should be held to anything after 2022 is disingenuous. The deal Xander signed gives him the right to be a free agent after 2022 - ignoring that part of the deal and equating it with a football style holdout is just wrong. I cant imagine they went to him with that logic because that definitely would be insulting because its fundamentally not the economic deal Xander signed.
Another way to put it - would you see things the same way if Xander's contract was up after 2022 subject to a player option for 3/60 for 2023 through 2025? If you don't you should probably reconsider you view on the opt out as there is no substantive economic difference between that player option structure and Xander's current deal.
Who is equating it to a football-style holdout? All I said is he can't find their offer insulting if he has already agreed to most of it once already.
Of course the deal gives Bogaerts the right to be a free agent. It also gives him the right to get paid 3/60 for the next three years even if his arm falls off tomorrow and he can no longer play baseball. Until the opt-out is exercised, the contract exists and we can't just wave it away because it's convenient. The Red Sox have no obligation to negotiate at all as if the opt-out has already happened. So they're not wrong to operate as if the existing deal is a good enough place to start talks.
Now if Bogaerts contract completely expired at the end of this season and he was going to be a free agent no matter what, then it's a different story and Bloom would no doubt be taking a different approach to it. He wouldn't be starting with 4/90 as his opening offer. I'd imagine he might start with the remaining Story contract as a starting bid (5/120 or 6/145). That wouldn't be his ceiling but it absolutely can't be called a low-ball or insulting offer either.
Re: Story, it’s the same per year, but not in commitment. If X wants to stay here, it’s because he wants to stay here. So give him the years. THAT’s the issue for some of these players. 4 years are simply not enough.All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.
Let's assume the offer was $30M added in place of the option year. That's 4/90, which is exactly what they are paying Trevor Story for the same time period (2023-2026). I have a hard time viewing that as a low-ball or insulting offer. It's a fair starting point.
If that’s the case - trade him ASAPHeyman reporting he heard from a friend of X that he’s definitely leaving. This just more water carrying for Boras?
Yes. “Friend” of Xander.Heyman reporting he heard from a friend of X that he’s definitely leaving. This just more water carrying for Boras?
. He stayed for a hometown discount last time but won’t do that twice. “He’s going to leave,” one friend predicted of the Red Sox star.
Yea, I just got a Bleacher Report notification and flipped out for a sec, then saw it was HeymanYes. “Friend” of Xander.
Wow. What a source
Exactly. Is there is any evidence or indication that the Sox even bothered to make him a serious offer this offseason?As dubious as this source may be, does anyone expect anything different?
He still has a no trade clauseIf that’s the case - trade him ASAP
I'm not ready to trade him just yet, but if/when that happens, waiving his no trade clause means he's immune from any effect of the QO, so I'd expect him to do so. Or is that not a thing anymore?He still has a no trade clause
I guess it would be the world where no one else offers him elite SS money for 6-8 years either. At that point, maybe he'd be more open to talking about a Story-like contract with the Sox to play 2B and maybe LF. I'm not saying it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible.Serious question. Other than a scenario where he get's injured or winds up having a completely miserable season, in what world does anyone here see Bogaerts in a Red Sox uniform next season. He's on the record as saying that he's going to opt out after the season. He's going to want elite SS money and he likely will want it for 6-8 years. He's not going to get that here when his probable replacement was drafted last season and the guy who will bridge that gap was brought in this past off season.
Right. That's even less likely if he continues to perform like he has, but given the QO will be in play, it's possible.I guess it would be the world where no one else offers him elite SS money for 6-8 years either. At that point, maybe he'd be more open to talking about a Story-like contract with the Sox to play 2B and maybe LF. I'm not saying it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible.
You mean next winter? Trea Turner also.Bogaerts is probably going to be competing with Correa for the top SS on the market. Should be interesting to see what numbers each gets.
Bogaerts, who can opt out of the final three years of his contract after this season, has since taken the posture that business is business and he’ll see where free agency takes him.
Meanwhile, the team is playing terribly.
Sox ownership needs to correct this and make Bogaerts an offer he’ll accept or at the very least makes it clear they’re serious about keeping him. They need to change the mood around the team.
I was told at the All-Star Game last season that Bogaerts understands he’ll eventually have to move off shortstop. His bat will play anywhere and his attachment to the organization is such that a record-setting deal won’t be needed. But it must be a contract that recognizes his worth.
Do you deal Devers and move Xander to 3rd if you sign him? The defensive shortcomings of both are a concern- and X at 3rd seems like the best either/or scenario.
That the Sox didn’t come close to what his value would be on the open market led Bogaerts to shut down further negotiations until after the season.
But he backed off that stance a bit on Sunday.
“I don’t know how this would work. But if they talk to Scott behind closed doors and it’s something that’s fair, he can come to me,” Bogaerts said. “We’ll see how that goes.”