The offseason heading into 2018
- Thread starter Devizier
- Start date
Trade: Bradley/Holt for Encarnacion/Salazar
Trade: ERod for Santana
Sign: Nunez
DH: EEncarnacion
LF: DSantana
#4: DSalazar
SU: ENunez
Assuming Nunez signs for in the neighborhood of 2/$12M this represents in increase of about $18M for the 2018 payroll or about $7M less than what was offered to JDM.....This also means Hanley is still in a bench role, grabbing time at DH/1B.
Trade: ERod for Santana
Sign: Nunez
DH: EEncarnacion
LF: DSantana
#4: DSalazar
SU: ENunez
Assuming Nunez signs for in the neighborhood of 2/$12M this represents in increase of about $18M for the 2018 payroll or about $7M less than what was offered to JDM.....This also means Hanley is still in a bench role, grabbing time at DH/1B.
Yeah, the timing and the fact it didn't even get leaked until now is just too suspect.
Although combining that trade with a signing of Jay Bruce would would of gone down as a more ideal winter in my book then either of the 2 scenarios I'm currently expecting to happen.
It's actually EE/Bruce and Hanley at 1B against JDM/Bradley and re-signing Moreland (while releasing Hanley I guess?).
But for this Red Sox team in the here and now? Yes. I always liked the shorter term commitments and lengthen the lineup approach more then going longer/bigger on the one lineup upgrade in JDM.
Spitballing -- what about JBJ and a subsidized Hanley (about half-price?) for Encarnacion/modest prospect.
Getting Hanley off the roster clears a more obvious role for EE, and the size of the subsidy helps mitigate the value difference between JBJ and EE. Cleveland gets some power to replace Encarnacion at DH.
Of course the big risk for the Tribe would be what if Hanley's 2019 option vests...
Edit: I really suck at this, as I'm sure I'll learn shortly.
Getting Hanley off the roster clears a more obvious role for EE, and the size of the subsidy helps mitigate the value difference between JBJ and EE. Cleveland gets some power to replace Encarnacion at DH.
Of course the big risk for the Tribe would be what if Hanley's 2019 option vests...
Edit: I really suck at this, as I'm sure I'll learn shortly.
That's plausible, but still a good deal for the Tribe, I think.
Basically Bradley has three years left (2018, 2019, 2020), during which he's conservatively projected to produce something like 10 WAR ($80 of value), but will only get paid something like $30m through his remaining arb seasons (he was a super 2, so it's arb2-arb4). That's $50m in surplus value, give or take $10m depending on how you project him and how his arb hearings go. And if he gets back to his All Star level, he could rack up that kind of surplus value in a single season.
Encarnacion is owed $40m over 2 years, plus an option/buyout for a 3rd that makes it really a minimum of $45m. He was worth 2.5 fWAR after years after averaging 4-ish fWAR for years. So let's say he produces 6 wins over the next two — at his age, that's pretty optimistic. That's worth $48m! It's a fair deal, but there's not a lot of surplus value there: a projected $48m of value for $45m. Bradley is *way* more valuable.
Hanley's tough to project: his deal is worth somewhere between -$10m and -$40m. So that puts a considerable dent in the difference between JBJ and EE, but they'd definitely have to take the whole deal, and even so it's a good deal for them, as they get most of the upside. If we do that deal, and Bradley breaks again...
When it comes to contract termination options, we make the easy difficult.
A player under contract is guaranteed to receive the terms and conditions (T&C) as negotiated and executed, and the team bears the downside risk which in some instances can be mitigated by insurance policy.
The player decision to exercise the termination option, or not, is simple: what action provides him maximum value?
Neither continued contract execution nor termination harm either party; they agreed to the T&C and are simply in compliance.
The value of player performance is independent of the existence or execution of a termination option.
In the event of performance value exceeding contract cost, the team is the beneficiary of that excess value, and is free to compete in market to reach a new agreement. The player is also advantaged, as he has opportunity to reenter the market and improve his position.
A player under contract is guaranteed to receive the terms and conditions (T&C) as negotiated and executed, and the team bears the downside risk which in some instances can be mitigated by insurance policy.
The player decision to exercise the termination option, or not, is simple: what action provides him maximum value?
Neither continued contract execution nor termination harm either party; they agreed to the T&C and are simply in compliance.
The value of player performance is independent of the existence or execution of a termination option.
In the event of performance value exceeding contract cost, the team is the beneficiary of that excess value, and is free to compete in market to reach a new agreement. The player is also advantaged, as he has opportunity to reenter the market and improve his position.
So we consider acquiring EE via trade for his age 35-36 seasons yet dont want to pay JDM past 34. Got it.
Well, you'd have to factor in the commitment length aspect as well. If all you care about is the offense and your projections have EE being the only visible/attainable alternative that is somewhat close to JDM there next year, keeping it at cheaper 2 years (even on an older guy) has it's surface appeal.
Again though, barring some miraculous development with the Hanley commitment that doesn't involve benching or releasing him I just can't see the current fit.
If we had 100% certainty that JDM would still be a >130 wRC+ hitter at ages 33 and 34, I think the Sox would pull a hamstring running to the bank to cough up for his age 35-36 seasons at an AAV of just over $20M.
One way you could up the players' share of operating revenue is by raising minimum salaries and forcing teams to pay higher wages for "team control" seasons. This would have the secondary effect of unfreezing the free agent market.
Sure, but there is no reason the league would re-open a collective bargaining agreement they just finished a little more than a year ago and make major changes to it just because some not incredible free agents aren't signing their $100 million offers. I think Tony Clark realizes he messed up, and so do the agents for these not exactly elite free agents, but the overwhelming majority of players aren't affected, and teams certainly aren't complaining. There are lots of ways we can make the distribution of wealth between controlled players, free agents, and teams more "fairly", but we have years before it will actually be something that happens, and the reality may be different then after more years under this system.
Well, there's one reason -- a strike.
Clark may have fucked up but it's not like the players lose all their leverage. They can renegotiate the CBA.
The players can't go on strike until the CBA expires - if they tried to before that, it'd be an unfair labor practice and they'd probably end up owing damages to the owners. So pretty much zero chance of a strike before then.
But there are certainly circumstances under which parties to a CBA entertain changes to the agreement during its term, before it expires, when they deem it to be in their mutual interest to do so. Here, if they were not talking about more money going to the players overall, but just making changes to shift how it's distributed between players under team control and those eligible for free agency, then maybe the owners would consider changes to help keep the peace. Or it could be that there are enough teams that are unhappy with the current system, and the constraints it places on them, that they would consider making broader changes before the current agreement expires. But it's a complicated system, with a lot of interconnected provisions, so it's not really amenable to minor tweaks here or there. I think it's unlikely that there'd be an agreement to "reopen" the CBA, but there could be some behind-the-scene discussions about changes, and if agreement could be reached then those could be implemented before the current agreement expires. This might be a way to keep tensions from building until a strike or lockout becomes a real possibility at the end of the CBA.
For as slowly as the FA hitter market has moved, the better relievers are all but gone. Would like to see them add Watson. A Kimbrel/Smith/Kelly/Watson back end is a playoff bullpen. Coupled with what hopes to be a top-notch rotation, they should be near the best in the league in the pitching department.
Watson is fine, but that's because he isn't terrible against righties unlike Scott last year.
Scott really has been unhittable in the LOOGY role so far though .138/.227/.295.
I just don't see the point of spending that much on the next to last guy out of the pen.
Scott really has been unhittable in the LOOGY role so far though .138/.227/.295.
I just don't see the point of spending that much on the next to last guy out of the pen.
Ian Browne suggesting something could be close with the Sox and Nunez.
http://rotoworld.com/player/mlb/4433/eduardo-nunez
"MLB.com's Ian Browne reports that the Red Sox and free agent Eduardo Nunez are talking and could be close to a new deal."
http://rotoworld.com/player/mlb/4433/eduardo-nunez
"MLB.com's Ian Browne reports that the Red Sox and free agent Eduardo Nunez are talking and could be close to a new deal."
Robert MurrayVerified account @RobertMurrayFRS 2m2 minutes agoSource: #RedSox signing INF Eduardo Nunez, pending physical. One-year deal with an option for a second year.
If they sign JDM, I would prefer a bench of Holt, Leon, Swihart and Moreland (Nunez starting at 2B and Ramirez/Moreland timeshare at 1B). Marrero gets bumped as they have plenty of IF depth (Nunez, Holt, Hernandez, Lin). Brentz also isn't needed for LF as Holt/Swihart can cover LF, as well as JDM when he doesn't DH.
If they don't sign JDM, then Brentz would probably take the last bench spot.
Happy news finally. I think it's the end for Holt if JDM comes in. Otherwise maybe Leon ? Hard to see keeping Swihart in this scenario unless he catches.
A 2-year deal signals to me that Pedroia’s knee is not where the team hoped it would be.
It's a one year plus an option. Very likely it's a player option, which doesn't really scream Pedroia insurance for 2019.
With the resigning of Nunez all the Red Sox have to do to make this a successful offseason is by signing Tony Watson and aggressively try to lock up our outfield, ace, and closer. If our hitting bounces back and Price is healthy I would take that team over the MFY, I know that’s a lot of ifs but not totally unreasonable to expect.
I think Hanley is right - if he hits, he plays. Even if they sign JD (not a given), if he's hitting he'll get his ABs, and I seriously doubt it would be a platoon. When healthy and "on", he's a better hitter than Moreland, so I'd expect him to be in the lineup at 1B more often than not - they can always bring Moreland in for late-inning defense. And he'd get some time at DH on days when JD is in LF when one of the OFs sit.
I think the chances they trade JBJ are slim to none.
I think the chances they trade JBJ are slim to none.
As bad as I think the Moreland signing was, I don't think they did it with the intention of using him for late inning defense. And they knew JDM was a strong possibility.
gotta say, that's the best looking shape Hanley's been in since he's been on the Sox. Doesn't look like a meathead lifter.
I didn't mean to suggest that Moreland would only be used for late inning defense - only that, if he hits, Hanley would be the starter at 1B more days than Moreland on days when JD is DHing (assuming a JD deal is forthcoming).
Depends on what you want an athlete that no longer runs much as part of his sport to look like. "In shape" is a shifting goal depending on what you want to do athletically.
I suppose. I thought his bulk wasn't a great help to a baseball swing. He looks more like a supple leopard for sure though. If you get the reference.
Pete Abraham's spring training report from today:
"Rafael Devers has improved markedly at third base based on the work he has done early in camp. He’s moving better laterally and playing the intermediate hop more smoothly."
"There was no change with any of the players rehabbing their injuries. But in general, the Sox are building up slower than in previous years. With the pitchers in particular, there’s a clear effort being made to cut down on needless throwing with the aim of being fresher late in the season."
It's probably just the typical spring training chatter and optimism, but I like the sounds of both of these paragraphs.
"Rafael Devers has improved markedly at third base based on the work he has done early in camp. He’s moving better laterally and playing the intermediate hop more smoothly."
"There was no change with any of the players rehabbing their injuries. But in general, the Sox are building up slower than in previous years. With the pitchers in particular, there’s a clear effort being made to cut down on needless throwing with the aim of being fresher late in the season."
It's probably just the typical spring training chatter and optimism, but I like the sounds of both of these paragraphs.