JDM is signed-5 years, 110 mil

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigPapiMPD34

New Member
Apr 9, 2006
98
Boston, MA
Finally looked at the CBA. You are substantially correct but the CBA words it differently. In short, the CBA considers each year with a qualifying player option to be a full contract year and if the option is not exercised, then the difference is credited to the year in which the option is exercised.

So the contract is structured as 2/$50MM with protection to JDM in case of non-performance but has a lower luxury tax calculation because of the option years.

The operative language is Article XXIII ("CBT"), Section (E)(5)(a)(ii), which says: "A Player Option Year shall be considered a “Guaranteed Year” if, pursuant to the Player’s right to elect or subject to his right to nullify, the terms of that year are guaranteed within the definition in Section A(8); provided, however, that a Player Option Year shall not be considered a Guaranteed Year if the payment the Player is to receive if he declines to exercise his option or nullifies the championship season is more than 50% of the Base Salary payable for that championship season." (This applies to multiple years as well.)

Section (A)(8) reads: “'Guaranteed Year' shall mean any championship season included in a Uniform Player’s Contract for which more than 50% of the Player’s Base Salary is guaranteed by the Contract in the event of termination."

Section (E)(5)(d)(i) then states: "If a Player fails to exercise or chooses to nullify a Player Option Year that is deemed a Guaranteed Year pursuant to Section E(5)(a)(ii) above, the difference between the amount paid to the Player under his Contract (including any Option Buyout payment) and the amount that has been attributed to Actual Club Payroll of a Club under that Contract shall be added to (or subtracted from) Actual Club Payroll in the Contract Year in which the Player Option Year falls."

Note that Section (E)(5)(b)(i) states that "If a Uniform Player’s Contract contains a Club Option
Year or a Player Option Year that is not deemed a Guaranteed Year pursuant to subparagraph (a)(ii) above and the Player is to receive consideration upon the non-exercise of that option
or the nullification of a championship season (“Option Buy- out”), then such Option Buyout shall be deemed a Signing Bonus."
Thanks, this helps clarify exactly how it works. It also helps explain why the Nunez buyout was exactly 2M (if I'm reading it correctly). If the buyout was 2.01M (>50% of the player option), it would have made the 2nd year "non-guaranteed" and raised the AAV up from 4M to 6.01M.

Essentially, the CBA makes sense in that it has certain thresholds to prevent AAV loopholes and also avoids having to go back and recalculate AAV.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
"Red Sox can convert both years four and five of the contract into mutual options, pursuant to the newly drawn up language."

Breaking at MLBTR
 

BigPapiMPD34

New Member
Apr 9, 2006
98
Boston, MA
The below is from MLBTradeRumors. Good summary of how years 4 and 5 could turn into mutual options in the event of a Lisfranc injury. Seems fair to both sides. The only way this contract doesn't work out for the Sox is if Martinez' Lisfranc stays healthy and he doesn't hit. That seems unlikely to happen. While losing him to the opt-out after 2-4 years isn't ideal (because it would theoretically only happen if he is mashing at the plate), at least the Sox have locked up a slugger for the short-term and can re-evaluate team needs for the long-term.

Per Drellich, should Martinez spend 60 consecutive days on the DL in year three of the contract (2020) with an injury related to his prior Lisfranc injury, the fourth year can be converted into a mutual option. Boston could also convert the fourth year to a mutual option should an injury pertaining to the prior Lisfranc issue prompt Martinez miss a combined 120 days between the second and third years of the deal (2019-20), with at least 10 of those days coming in year three. (The Boston Globe’s Nick Cafardo first tweeted that the team could render the fourth year a mutual option.)

Boston is similarly protected in the fifth season of the contract. If an injury pertaining to his previous Lisfranc issue causes Martinez to miss 60 consecutive days in the fourth year of the deal (2021) or a combined 120 days in 2020-21 (with at least 10 in year four), then the 2022 season can be converted to a mutual option. All determinations about whether a new Lisfranc injury for Martinez is related to the 2017 injury would be made by a panel of three doctors.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
One possible interpretation of the way things played out over the last couple of days is that the parties did some serious work and compromise to avoid a messy situation. The Sox probably had the ability to not go through with the contract as a result of the physical, but that would have been a real mess. Boras gave them some protection to save the contract, but to keep the union happy and to allow some face saving the Red Sox had to give something to get something, and it sounds like the give was the fourth opt out.

The bottom line is that one message that comes out of all this is that the Sox and Boras seem to have a pretty decent working relationship. The last couple of months could have turned out much worse if people let ego and line-in-sand drawing overtake professionalism. Whether you love, hate or are somewhere in the middle on this deal, it wasn't a conventional deal and it had some serious wrinkles.

And, most fundamentally, it seems to be the deal that's front and center with respect to some significant questions about both the future of baseball and extended team control and MLB labor/management issues that are going to come to a head in the coming years. That the parties worked through it all, and then worked through an injury situation at the end, without destructive leaks, without negotiating unduly in the press, and in a way that put getting to the finish line as a priority over ego, is impressive and a good sign about the front office and, though it's tough to admit, Boras.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Hmph. That's relatively minimal protection for the Sox, isn't it? So if JDM has a significant re-injury to his foot related to his prior lisfranc sprain, that causes him to lose 2 months time, but isn't expected to linger long term or be degenerative, such that the team wants to control him for the following season, at the original (no discount) price, then they can. If it did threaten his future performance, we wouldn't want to keep him, but he's still guaranteed years 3-5. Right?
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
One possible interpretation of the way things played out over the last couple of days is that the parties did some serious work and compromise to avoid a messy situation. The Sox probably had the ability to not go through with the contract as a result of the physical, but that would have been a real mess. Boras gave them some protection to save the contract, but to keep the union happy and to allow some face saving the Red Sox had to give something to get something, and it sounds like the give was the fourth opt out.

The bottom line is that one message that comes out of all this is that the Sox and Boras seem to have a pretty decent working relationship. The last couple of months could have turned out much worse if people let ego and line-in-sand drawing overtake professionalism. Whether you love, hate or are somewhere in the middle on this deal, it wasn't a conventional deal and it had some serious wrinkles.

And, most fundamentally, it seems to be the deal that's front and center with respect to some significant questions about both the future of baseball and extended team control and MLB labor/management issues that are going to come to a head in the coming years. That the parties worked through it all, and then worked through an injury situation at the end, without destructive leaks, without negotiating unduly in the press, and in a way that put getting to the finish line as a priority over ego, is impressive and a good sign about the front office and, though it's tough to admit, Boras.
Agreed, and I get the sense that Boras has a lot of respect for DD. Bodes well for future free agent clients of Boras. DD played this entire negotiation period very well and I’m glad he’s the one making moves for the Red Sox. He’s certainly learned from his many other baseball positions.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Hmph. That's relatively minimal protection for the Sox, isn't it? So if JDM has a significant re-injury to his foot related to his prior lisfranc sprain, that causes him to lose 2 months time, but isn't expected to linger long term or be degenerative, such that the team wants to control him for the following season, at the original (no discount) price, then they can. If it did threaten his future performance, we wouldn't want to keep him, but he's still guaranteed years 3-5. Right?
Years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed if he loses 2 months to lisfranc related injury because Red Sox can refuse to exercise option. They just pay the buy out. Until that happens those years are considered guaranteed
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
One possible interpretation of the way things played out over the last couple of days is that the parties did some serious work and compromise to avoid a messy situation. The Sox probably had the ability to not go through with the contract as a result of the physical, but that would have been a real mess. Boras gave them some protection to save the contract, but to keep the union happy and to allow some face saving the Red Sox had to give something to get something, and it sounds like the give was the fourth opt out.

The bottom line is that one message that comes out of all this is that the Sox and Boras seem to have a pretty decent working relationship. The last couple of months could have turned out much worse if people let ego and line-in-sand drawing overtake professionalism. Whether you love, hate or are somewhere in the middle on this deal, it wasn't a conventional deal and it had some serious wrinkles.

And, most fundamentally, it seems to be the deal that's front and center with respect to some significant questions about both the future of baseball and extended team control and MLB labor/management issues that are going to come to a head in the coming years. That the parties worked through it all, and then worked through an injury situation at the end, without destructive leaks, without negotiating unduly in the press, and in a way that put getting to the finish line as a priority over ego, is impressive and a good sign about the front office and, though it's tough to admit, Boras.
I think Boras scripted all this two weeks ago. :confused:
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
If 2016 Hanley shows up we root for him to get the 497, right?
Yes, because it definitely increases the chances of winning the division this year, and if the option vests, next year Hanley is in a definite contract year and will be fully motivated.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
If 2016 Hanley shows up we root for him to get the 497, right?
No, since our LT situation is still probably going to suck heading in to 2019, and even in the very best case of scenarios 2016 Hanley isn't getting near JDM per/year money on an open market next winter.

I'm rooting for 2016 Hanley to show up, and for Moreland to stay healthy and provide offense that's passable enough where the difference isn't really making or breaking us in the small amount of time needed to get us beyond the threat of the option vesting. After getting to that point sure, go full time Hanley.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
No, since our LT situation is still probably going to suck heading in to 2019, and even in the very best case of scenarios 2016 Hanley isn't getting near JDM per/year money on an open market next winter.

I'm rooting for 2016 Hanley to show up, and for Moreland to stay healthy and provide offense that's passable enough where the difference isn't really making or breaking us in the small amount of time needed to get us beyond the threat of the option vesting. After getting to that point sure, go full time Hanley.
What if they win?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
What if they win?
Then they win, and we still don't go in to next winter with Hanley at such an overpay rate on next year's books.

I mean even in the hypothetical event Hanley did replicate 2016 in 480 PA and we were ultimately left wanting to resign him....you are still left with the option of doing that too. The market on 860ops firstbasemen, especially an older one, isn't exactly booming nowadays.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Then they win, and we still don't go in to next winter with Hanley at such an overpay rate on next year's books.

I mean even in the hypothetical event Hanley did replicate 2016 in 480 PA and we were ultimately left wanting to resign him....you are still left with the option of doing that too. The market on 35yo 860ops firstbaseman isn't exactly booming nowadays.
You are missing the point. The Red Sox need to make playing time decisions with regard to Hanley with winning games being priorities 1, 2 and 3. Anything else driving their decisions would be pretty dumb.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
You are missing the point. The Red Sox need to make playing time decisions with regard to Hanley with winning games being priorities 1, 2 and 3. Anything else driving their decisions would be pretty dumb.
I'm not missing the point as much as I am acknowledging the fact where that initial decision there has already been made anyway. At least to start the season. Hanley isn't beating out Moreland for his spot any time soon, and especially before the season even starts.

So by the time that type of re-evaluation decision is back on the table, yeah, the surrounding appeal of avoiding the option is certainly going to come into play imo. Even if the early season "you play to win the game" stuff gets a little grey on the exact when it should ideally happen aspect.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Hanley isn't beating out Moreland for his spot any time soon, and especially before the season even starts.
I tend to agree with you, but calling it "his spot" is kind of begging the question. A lot of people around here (and, I would guess, elsewhere) think it's Hanley's spot and it's a question of Moreland beating him out for it.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
I think Boras scripted all this two weeks ago. :confused:
It's more likely that Dombrowski did, in all honesty. "You know, Scott, we could give JD an extra $10 million or so on the deal if you'll help us hold the AAV down slightly with a convoluted series of opt-outs and post-physical medical clauses..."
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
I wonder if DD let Boras sit in at the press conference as part of a side deal with Boras. I`m not saying if I`m being sarcastic or not.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I'm not missing the point as much as I am acknowledging the fact where that initial decision there has already been made anyway. At least to start the season. Hanley isn't beating out Moreland for his spot any time soon, and especially before the season even starts.

So by the time that type of re-evaluation decision is back on the table, yeah, the surrounding appeal of avoiding the option is certainly going to come into play imo. Even if the early season "you play to win the game" stuff gets a little grey on the exact when it should ideally happen aspect.
No. They will open the season making decisions with winning games right now as their top priority and they will continue that all year. You don't get cute with a player option after pushing all of your chips onto the table.

They will start the player they believe will give them the best chance to win. Period. The end.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
No. They will open the season making decisions with winning games right now as their top priority and they will continue that all year. You don't get cute with a player option after pushing all of your chips onto the table.

They will start the player they believe will give them the best chance to win. Period. The end.
Well I guess it's also possible that people are giving DD too much credit here for being some master market player, and in reality the JDM signing had more to do with it being an unexpected at the time and too good to pass up opportunity the Sox ultimately found themselves tripping over coming down the home stretch. With the media loving the fit from the start just being par for the basically every offseason course when it comes to predicting us being "in" on big targets until they sign elsewhere.

But I am at least trying to give DD more credit then that atm. Otherwise beyond what again is a great Herm Edwards soundbite there, DD didn't overpay Mitch Moreland on a 2 year deal under any potential belief that he was going to then turn around and see Hanley be this team's full time starter at 1B to start the season. Period. The end.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
No, since our LT situation is still probably going to suck heading in to 2019, and even in the very best case of scenarios 2016 Hanley isn't getting near JDM per/year money on an open market next winter.

I'm rooting for 2016 Hanley to show up, and for Moreland to stay healthy and provide offense that's passable enough where the difference isn't really making or breaking us in the small amount of time needed to get us beyond the threat of the option vesting. After getting to that point sure, go full time Hanley.
Wouldn’t 2016 Hanley be worth 22 mil (or very close) on a one year deal, and thus movable for 2019?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Wouldn’t 2016 Hanley be worth 22 mil (or very close) on a one year deal, and thus movable for 2019?
Heck no.

Hanley would probably be somewhat fortunate to walk out of open FA with half of that. The competitive market on his comp type just isn't there anymore.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Heck no.

Hanley would probably be somewhat fortunate to walk out of open FA with half of that. The competitive market on his comp type just isn't there anymore.
This is true. Logan Morrison's 2017 is a pretty good comp for Hanley's 2016, and look what he just got. True, Hanley has more of an established track record of hitting like that, but then he's also older.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
Well I guess it's also possible that people are giving DD too much credit here for being some master market player, and in reality the JDM signing had more to do with it being an unexpected at the time and too good to pass up opportunity the Sox ultimately found themselves tripping over coming down the home stretch...
This is an absurdly off-base characterization of the JDM saga. Your anti-DD bias (as displayed ad nauseam all offseason) is once again coloring your viewpoints.

Dear God, can we please get back to the scintillating debate and enlightening discourse on the opts outs? Thank you.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
But I am at least trying to give DD more credit then that atm. Otherwise beyond what again is a great Herm Edwards soundbite there, DD didn't overpay Mitch Moreland on a 2 year deal under any potential belief that he was going to then turn around and see Hanley be this team's full time starter at 1B to start the season. Period. The end.
1 - Your assumption that Moreland is overpaid is not a given.

2 - Assuming that Moreland being paid less than a third of Ramirez in each of the next two seasons means he can't possibly be the the bench guy is... not logical.

They will play the best player (whomever they deem that to be), not play games with the option. And no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
This is an absurdly off-base characterization of the JDM saga. Your anti-DD bias (as displayed ad nauseam all offseason) is once again coloring your viewpoints.

Dear God, can we please get back to the scintillating debate and enlightening discourse on the opts outs? Thank you.
Heh, *my* bias coloring things.

I'm not the one here trying to have something both ways. I'm also currently defending DD more then anything else atm.

1 - Your assumption that Moreland is overpaid is not a given.

2 - Assuming that Moreland being paid less than a third of Ramirez in each of the next two seasons means he can't possibly be the the bench guy is... not logical.

They will play the best player (whomever they deem that to be), not play games with the option. And no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
So logical to you, especially given the surrounding LT situation and potential opportunity cost, is paying out that money on a backup defensive 1B?

Better late then never if you are starting to find yourself questioning the overall logic on the decision to re-sign Moreland though. Line starts behind me btw.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
This is true. Logan Morrison's 2017 is a pretty good comp for Hanley's 2016, and look what he just got. True, Hanley has more of an established track record of hitting like that, but then he's also older.
"More of an established track record" is a massive understatement. Maybe 22 mil is a big on the high side for 2016 Hanley, but for a one year commitment, it's not off by much. If that's what we get this year, and the Sox have to pay 3 mil for someone to take him in 2019, they come out ahead.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
so logical to you, especially given the surrounding LT situation and potential opportunity cost, is paying out that money on a backup defensive 1B?

Better late then never if you are starting to find yourself questioning the overall logic on the decision to re-sign Moreland though.
Line starts behind me btw.
What? How did you take THAT away from my post? If you are going to twist my words so badly as to completely reverse my meaning I'm done wasting my time here.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
Heh, *my* bias coloring things. I'm not the one here trying to have something both ways.
I have no idea who you are referring to here. Me? Another poster? The voices in your head? Frankly, I don't want to know.

I'm also currently defending DD more then anything else atm.
Should I ever find myself in need of a defender. I'll know whom to call.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
I have no idea who you are referring to here. Me? Another poster? The voices in your head? Frankly, I don't want to know.
I was indeed referring to you (especially if you are going to conveniently leave out the latter part of that post where I stated I was trying to give DD more credit then that), and anybody else who can't stop getting overly defensive over their own chosen narrative long enough to understand that my stating DD didn't sign Moreland to be a 2 year backup was actually a supporting compliment towards him.

I get this is a really touchy concept to grasp in the heat of defensive posting at times, but people can actually disagree with a GM decision here without always chalking it up to absolute stupidity on every level. I may hate the Moreland signing in itself (though for the current record less so after Hanley made it known he was completely cool with a backup role), but on the other hand I don't believe DD was essentially being intentionally reckless with the payroll in the process of handing it out. Which is basically what a lot of this Hanley is the 1B starter stuff is indirectly implying atm/imo.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
"More of an established track record" is a massive understatement. Maybe 22 mil is a big on the high side for 2016 Hanley, but for a one year commitment, it's not off by much. If that's what we get this year, and the Sox have to pay 3 mil for someone to take him in 2019, they come out ahead.
Ehh, even with another 2016 season Hanley's established track record there of being good has gotten pretty spotty as a whole since 2010. Plus he'd still have his advanced age working against him.

Being tradable in a scenario where we were picking up a notable chunk of the tab is one thing, but I just don't see $19m at face value being all that realistic.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
So logical to you, especially given the surrounding LT situation and potential opportunity cost, is paying out that money on a backup defensive 1B?

Better late then never if you are starting to find yourself questioning the overall logic on the decision to re-sign Moreland though. Line starts behind me btw.
This is asinine.

Moreland is roughly as valuable to the 2018 team as Chris Young after 2015. Like JBJ and Rusney were then, now Hanley is the guy DDski can’t be quite sure he can count on for productivity, even if the reasons are different, so he needs to hedge his bets with a high quality backup.

But it’s not like DDski can just dump the downside risk Hanley presents while gaining similar offensive upside. Not within a reasonable budget, at least, as he’s obliged to also honor the top dollar contracts for Panda and Price and Porcello and Kimbrel (plus simultaneously having emptied the farm system of tradable assets).

So yeah, Moreland is roughly as valuable to the current team as Young was back when he got signed, which helps explain why they both got the same money.

And given the volatility of relief free agent pitchers, then investing in a backup 1B who is good enough to start if needed, but willing to accept a backup role anyway, seems a pretty good place to start.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
This is asinine.

Moreland is roughly as valuable to the 2018 team as Chris Young after 2015. Like JBJ and Rusney were then, now Hanley is the guy DDski can’t be quite sure he can count on for productivity, even if the reasons are different, so he needs to hedge his bets with a high quality backup.

But it’s not like DDski can just dump the downside risk Hanley presents while gaining similar offensive upside. Not within a reasonable budget, at least, as he’s obliged to also honor the top dollar contracts for Panda and Price and Porcello and Kimbrel (plus simultaneously having emptied the farm system of tradable assets).

So yeah, Moreland is roughly as valuable to the current team as Young was back when he got signed, which helps explain why they both got the same money.

And given the volatility of relief free agent pitchers, then investing in a backup 1B who is good enough to start if needed, but willing to accept a backup role anyway, seems a pretty good place to start.
Personally, asinine to me is any implied notion that you would actually be sitting here right now making that same exact argument the event DD hasn't re-signed Moreland yet.

I'll give you credit there for actually mounting a direct current defense though, even if I do completely disagree with the conclusion that you can comp Young and Moreland's value (both market'wise and to the team) as being the same. Or that DD would actually make a 2/$13m hedge bet, while supposedly already preferring Hanley at 1B for his offensive upside, on a 32yo backup who's a below average hitter for the position. Again, especially given the current surrounding LT factor in play and the potential flexibility issue it could present on how we might otherwise want to ideally build our MLB bench atm.

The opposing presented logic where DD signed MM because he simply projected him as being the better starting option for this team in 2018, while obviously valuing defense a lot more then I apparently did/do, just makes a lot more overall sense to me. Which on that note was actually a pretty popular narrative being written in back when I first started questioning the Moreland signing, but apparently has fell out of favor with some people since then I guess.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Moreland is roughly as valuable to the 2018 team as Chris Young after 2015. Like JBJ and Rusney were then, now Hanley is the guy DDski can’t be quite sure he can count on for productivity, even if the reasons are different, so he needs to hedge his bets with a high quality backup.
I agree with this.

Starting to think the Moreland signing was more about 2019 and 2018 — almost like the Twins with Pineda or the Cubs Smyly. As flush as the market was the first baseman this year, there’s virtually none available next.

No way Hanley gets 497 though. Gonna be a ton of moving parts next offseason and we’ll need to be flexible, plus we’ll have to replace 300 innings of elite pitching.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
You’ve got an oft injured, aging slugger who plays a passable 1B, Travis who isn’t bringing defensive competency and hasn’t shown a lot with the bat, and a guy willing to sign a relatively nothing, short term contract. The latter was on your team last year, is well liked, plays great defense, but has a below average offensive profile.

I’m not seeing why signing that guy for filler money as a hedge is crazy. It’s obviously not a great use of roster space, but they couldn’t leave themselves exposed with just the first two of those options (or Swihart, or Holt...).
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
You’ve got an oft injured, aging slugger who plays a passable 1B, Travis who isn’t bringing defensive competency and hasn’t shown a lot with the bat, and a guy willing to sign a relatively nothing, short term contract. The latter was on your team last year, is well liked, plays great defense, but has a below average offensive profile.

I’m not seeing why signing that guy for filler money as a hedge is crazy. It’s obviously not a great use of roster space, but they couldn’t leave themselves exposed with just the first two of those options (or Swihart, or Holt...).
Payroll is already at a notable record high, and that $6.5 going towards Moreland has effectively cut our current flexibility towards avoiding a 2nd tier LT hit in half. Not to mention potentially helps muddy up next year's crunch when arby figures go up and the need to replace key pitching is a more front and center concern. Choosing to simply paint that off as "nothing" or "filler" money, on a backup defensive 1B who in any reasonable projection is extremely likely still sitting out there as an unsigned FA, is quite the reach there atm/imo.

None of which is to say that digging up a better immediate back plan then Travis at 1B couldn't have been important by itself, or that having a better defensive option coming off the bench at 1B only can't have it's moments either for that matter... it just wasn't *that* important. Again, the alternative idea that DD signed MM to that contract because he thought Moreland was the better starting fit at 1B here is the far, far more likely way to read this.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
Payroll is already at a notable record high, and that $6.5 going towards Moreland has effectively cut our current flexibility towards avoiding a 2nd tier LT hit in half. Not to mention potentially helps muddy up next year's crunch when arby figures go up and the need to replace key pitching is a more front and center concern. Choosing to simply paint that off as "nothing" or "filler" money, on a backup defensive 1B who in any reasonable projection is extremely likely still sitting out there as an unsigned FA, is quite the reach there atm/imo.

None of which is to say that digging up a better immediate back plan then Travis at 1B couldn't have been important by itself, or that having a better defensive option coming off the bench at 1B only can't have it's moments either for that matter... it just wasn't *that* important. Again, the alternative idea that DD signed MM to that contract because he thought Moreland was the better starting fit at 1B here is the far, far more likely way to read this.
How much significance are you attaching to the $6.5m Moreland is being paid next year?

I'm trying, but I'm honestly having trouble following your argument, as all roads here seem to lead to the Moreland signing... and it feels like you thought it was a catastrophic mistake. I agree with you that space is critical, and I don't want the team to collapse in the future, but I'm not seeing why so much magnitude is being attached to that $6.5m.

Or am I missing something completely?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
How much significance are you attaching to the $6.5m Moreland is being paid next year?

I'm trying, but I'm honestly having trouble following your argument, as all roads here seem to lead to the Moreland signing... and it feels like you thought it was a catastrophic mistake. I agree with you that space is critical, and I don't want the team to collapse in the future, but I'm not seeing why so much magnitude is being attached to that $6.5m.

Or am I missing something completely?
Comparatively speaking I'm not really putting any immediate significance of note there towards next year. Just pointing out that it probably wasn't going to help any, especially without the stipulation that he was doing so while adequately filling a starting hole/role.

Whether or not I thought it was a notable (catastrophic is too strong a way to put it) mistake is basically irrelevant at this point though, at least in terms of whether it changes anything in relationship to what's now going to happen in the aftermath of signing JDM. Well, other then making Swihart's (or Holt's I guess) potential future with the team more questionable then it otherwise could be.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
Comparatively speaking I'm not really putting any immediate significance of note there towards next year. Just pointing out that it probably wasn't going to help any, especially without the stipulation that he was doing so while adequately filling a starting hole/role.

Whether or not I thought it was a notable (catastrophic is too strong a way to put it) mistake is basically irrelevant at this point though, at least in terms of whether it changes anything in relationship to what's now going to happen in the aftermath of signing JDM. Well, other then making Swihart's potential future with the team more questionable then it otherwise could be.
Well, yeah, by that definition, Plato is irrelevant too. Though I respect the nod towards not wanting to fight the last war.

I'm really trying to follow the thought process though, as this CBT threshold thing is so much part of the game. I get that Moreland and Hanley are redundant, but were they redundant before the JDM signing? Because if not, couldn't Moreland be seen as insurance which, yes, sometimes you don't have to use, yeah? Since it seem like JDM signed for so much less than expected, it seems to me that they have JDM and Moreland for more than I thought JDM was going to cost.

In retrospect, Moreland's contract may be a waste--until someone gets injured anyway--but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time, does it?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
In retrospect, Moreland's contract may be a waste--until someone gets injured anyway--but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time, does it?
I feel the surrounding LT situation is tight enough where yes, it would of been the wrong call imo. Keeping payroll at $13m+ from a second tier cap hit as opposed to the current $7m, with a more flexible bench coming out the gate and better in-season acquisition flexibility, was the right play under that scenario. If that meant rolling the dice and banking on a break glass mixture of Travis/Swihart and whoever the best option was that you could sign to a minor league deal...so be it. Not to mention going in that early (at that price) on Moreland also doesn't really add up well with the accompanying notion, which I've already essentially conceded to, that DD played a fairly masterful market game this winter. I actually *want* to give him more credit then that.

But again, I don't think signing Moreland as a backup is the call that actually got made here. Regardless on whether that matches up with my or anybody else's own less then openly disagreeing opinion of what decision should have been made.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
I’ll grant that there is something very interesting about the earliness of the Moreland signing and the lateness if the JDM signing in terms of trying to understand he weirdness of how the market unfolded this year.

I wonder when who sensed what in terms of realizing there was a correction or whatever afoot.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
If Hanley hits, I don't see anyway he doesn't get his 497. I don't even think it's a question. The only question is will he actually hit?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Just a gentle reminder to keep the discussion here focused on baseball, and to take personal disagreements to PM. (Edit: This isn’t a response to the past couple of posts, but to an earlier exchange.)
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
I feel the surrounding LT situation is tight enough where yes, it would of been the wrong call imo. Keeping payroll at $13m+ from a second tier cap hit as opposed to the current $7m, with a more flexible bench coming out the gate and better in-season acquisition flexibility, was the right play under that scenario. If that meant rolling the dice and banking on a break glass mixture of Travis/Swihart and whoever the best option was that you could sign to a minor league deal...so be it. Not to mention going in that early (at that price) on Moreland also doesn't really add up well with the accompanying notion, which I've already essentially conceded to, that DD played a fairly masterful market game this winter. I actually *want* to give him more credit then that.

But again, I don't think signing Moreland as a backup is the call that actually got made here. Regardless on whether that matches up with my or anybody else's own less then openly disagreeing opinion of what decision should have been made.
I'm on record as saying I would've liked to have seen them wait out the 1B market and sign one of the leftover options. Duda is still available, but Alonso and Morrison aren't making any less money than Moreland this year - and I'd prefer him over either of them, especially now that it's for a part-time role where he'll also potentially be a defensive replacement (hindsight, sort of). DD obviously preferred Moreland to the other guys, or there's no way he would've signed him so early. You can quibble with his evaluation of the 1B options (and I know you do), but, as we've discussed for 6 months, they're relatively interchangeable. But the Sox were signing a 1B this offseason. Also, given how long the JDM saga dragged out, the 1B shoe would've had to drop first anyway. They wouldn't have gone into ST with only Hanley (and Travis/Swihart) to fill both 1B and DH. The bolded above would be a terrible move. We saw last year what a black hole in the lineup can do. In your scenario, and even with JDM, you're 1) banking on Hanley being healthy and productive all season as a full-time 1B and 2) pretty much assuring his option vests. Without JDM, you're counting on both Hanley and ??? as the 1B and DH. Either way, that's an unacceptable hole/risk for a $220M+ payroll.

The 2 year deal to Moreland, which you've blasted, is actually important here. He was signed to be the starting 1B in 2019, and that's a perfectly fine move given next year's market and the fact that they preferred him to the other available guys this year. $6.5M for a starting position player isn't anything to get upset about, especially since the guys we lumped him with have signed for just as much or more.
2018 was still a question mark, since they didn't know yet whether they would sign JDM. By signing Moreland, they hedged their bets against JDM going elsewhere. At the same time, and in the (more likely, I think) case that JDM did end up here, they improved their lineup depth, hedged against Hanley's (and really all 4 OFers') health - while he's now not a full-time 1B, and limited the likelihood of that option vesting. So, if Moreland is nothing more than a $6.5M backup in 2018, he at least should 1) save them $22M (or $15.5M if you want to count his money against Hanley's) and 2) be a $6.5M starter in 2019. It's (shockingly - this seems to be a theme) not as black and white as he was signed to be a backup or a starter, and the $6.5M is a waste/luxury they can't afford if he's only a backup. Could DD have saved $1M or $2M this year by waiting and signing the guy left out in 1B musical chairs? Yes. Would he still have gotten a guy he values as comparable to Moreland? Unknown. Could he have saved $6.5M by not signing Moreland (or anyone else)? I think it would've been a terrible move.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
If Hanley hits, I don't see anyway he doesn't get his 497. I don't even think it's a question. The only question is will he actually hit?
Disagree.

If he somehow puts up a 1.000 OPS and JDM succumbs to a foot issue, maybe. Otherwise, there’s no way signing a 35-year-old Hanley is a good way to spend $22M, even if we didn’t have already have a first baseman and DH under contract, which we do.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Disagree.

If he somehow puts up a 1.000 OPS and JDM succumbs to a foot issue, maybe. Otherwise, there’s no way signing a 35-year-old Hanley is a good way to spend $22M, even if we didn’t have already have a first baseman and DH under contract, which we do.
If Hanley has 1.000 OPS and is healthy all year there is a 100% chance his option vests. JDM's health will have nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,315
How much actual protection to the Sox get from an "accompanying injury"? If the song about all bones connecting is accurate, say JDM hurts his knee and hits the DL for 60 days. Can we get out of the invoke the mutual options?

You could make the argument any lower body injury he gets is related to the Lisfranc injury
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
I assume if two of three independent doctors deem an injury is related, it qualifies. That's how it will be decided.
 

FredCDobbs

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2004
563
Austin
JDRedSox.jpg

I was pretty lukewarm on this signing for weeks, especially at the predicted cost, but hearing a bit of his interviews he seems very comfortable with himself and ready to play in Boston no problem. Maybe he'll even help take some of the attention off of Price, which is needed.

As a player, he seems like he's in a great point in his career and is ready to rock for as long as we have him. The contract and opt-outs will play out as they will, but I'm way more excited about the J.D era than I ever thought I would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.