I thought this was interesting. From the Pitching Targets thread:
Consider: We control Bogaerts and Holt for three seasons after this one; Betts, JBJ, and Vazquez for four; Swihart, Shaw, and Rodriguez for five. Coming soon (let's say 2017-2022): six controllable seasons of Moncada, Benintendi, and Travis. Coming slightly less soon (let's say 2018-2023): six controllable seasons of Devers and Espinoza. That's an ideal core -- one that would allow us to buy complementary pieces at inflated free agent prices.
On the other hand: We already have several of those pieces. And the contracts of Price (either two or six more seasons after this one), Porcello (three), Ramirez (two, assuming his option doesn't vest), Kimbrel (two) and even, gulp, Pedroia (five), will never be more valuable than they are in 2016. Add in Sandoval (three), and that's something like $120 million locked up on contracts for players gradually making the transition from "well-paid key contributors" to "overpaid guys on the wrong side of the aging curve."
And, of course, it's our last year with Ortiz, who is certainly irreplaceable in our hearts, but will also be extremely difficult to replace in the lineup, even if we sign another aging player to another huge and risky free agent contract.
It's a weird situation: I think we're nicely set up for a window where we can reasonably expect to compete for a championship not just this year, but for the three or four after it -- and if we keep Betts/Bogaerts post-free-agency, the window could be even longer. But you could argue that the window is open the widest right now, in 2016, with Price/Porcello/Kimbrel/Pedroia at the best we'll ever have them, and Ortiz hitting cleanup instead of sitting on the beach. And if you agree with that, you could argue that it's worth compressing the window by trading some of the guys who we'd otherwise expect to contribute in 2018 and beyond for more players whose peak value is right now.
I'm not sure I agree with the argument. But I thought it was worth discussing separately from our valuations of Julio Teheran (and if not, it can be moved back into that thread).
Now, I doubt that sentimentality about it being Papi's last ride will influence the team's strategy. But is there merit to the idea that, strategically speaking, this team isn't really a team of the future, but rather a team whose best chance to win is right now?
Consider: We control Bogaerts and Holt for three seasons after this one; Betts, JBJ, and Vazquez for four; Swihart, Shaw, and Rodriguez for five. Coming soon (let's say 2017-2022): six controllable seasons of Moncada, Benintendi, and Travis. Coming slightly less soon (let's say 2018-2023): six controllable seasons of Devers and Espinoza. That's an ideal core -- one that would allow us to buy complementary pieces at inflated free agent prices.
On the other hand: We already have several of those pieces. And the contracts of Price (either two or six more seasons after this one), Porcello (three), Ramirez (two, assuming his option doesn't vest), Kimbrel (two) and even, gulp, Pedroia (five), will never be more valuable than they are in 2016. Add in Sandoval (three), and that's something like $120 million locked up on contracts for players gradually making the transition from "well-paid key contributors" to "overpaid guys on the wrong side of the aging curve."
And, of course, it's our last year with Ortiz, who is certainly irreplaceable in our hearts, but will also be extremely difficult to replace in the lineup, even if we sign another aging player to another huge and risky free agent contract.
It's a weird situation: I think we're nicely set up for a window where we can reasonably expect to compete for a championship not just this year, but for the three or four after it -- and if we keep Betts/Bogaerts post-free-agency, the window could be even longer. But you could argue that the window is open the widest right now, in 2016, with Price/Porcello/Kimbrel/Pedroia at the best we'll ever have them, and Ortiz hitting cleanup instead of sitting on the beach. And if you agree with that, you could argue that it's worth compressing the window by trading some of the guys who we'd otherwise expect to contribute in 2018 and beyond for more players whose peak value is right now.
I'm not sure I agree with the argument. But I thought it was worth discussing separately from our valuations of Julio Teheran (and if not, it can be moved back into that thread).
