At least Santana only got 3 years. That may keep Martinez at 6. I had him around 28 per.
I'd rather have Santana on that contract then JD Martinez at 6/168.
At least Santana only got 3 years. That may keep Martinez at 6. I had him around 28 per.
You keep saying they have no prospects of value, so how do you propose they trade for a middle of the order bat?Yes. Way up. Everyone was underestimating this market. Not a shot in hell JD gets under 25 million a year. Might push 30. Stay out of this market and go the trade route. Carlos Santana just got 20 million a year and is a much worse player than JD and has a QO attached.
People generally underestimate the market every winter. As well as the potential interest a team might have in spending money and trying to win more games even when they aren't viewed as paper ready to contend. It's basically an off-season tradition.Yes. Way up. Everyone was underestimating this market. Not a shot in hell JD gets under 25 million a year. Might push 30. Stay out of this market and go the trade route. Carlos Santana just got 20 million a year and is a much worse player than JD and has a QO attached.
The Phils signing Santana means they're about to trade one of Hoskins/Altherr/Herrera/Williams, all of whom are pretty valuable, for pitching. If it's true that they're talking to the D-Backs about Greinke, this affects us. They seem to think their window is opening.
Even after the Neshek, Hunter, and Santana signings, they're still only at $40M in 2018 commitments before arb payouts.
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the general notion around here that Hosmer would turn out to be as bad as Sandoval is just projection-fueled foolishness.Nervous about that Greinke-to-Philly possibility. It's starting to feel like Hosmer is going to be the only option for a FA "splash" at 1B. That's the kind of situation that led to Pablo Sandoval being a Red Sox.
The JDM thing has more variables than just money.I'd rather have Santana on that contract then JD Martinez at 6/168.
Got to get creative. Bradley could be used as a trade chip. He’s already been out there. I’d be fine dealing him for a bat like a Schwarber. I think Bradley has more value personally so there would need to be an additional piece coming back. Then go out and sign Austin Jackson for a year. Not sexy but it fills holes and gets the job done. Schwarber as an every day DH would be good. I’d hate to give up Bradley but his deal is coming up in a couple years and you can’t realistically resign everyone.You keep saying they have no prospects of value, so how do you propose they trade for a middle of the order bat?
1 year for a guy with a QO would be really foolish.So if Hosmer's market doesn't pan out the way they'd like, and he ended up sitting out there at 3/$65-70m with an opt out after one, do the Sox pull the trigger on that?
At that price, I would have been tempted to move Devers across the diamond and start him at thirdCozart to the Angels for 3 years and $38 mil. Seems incredibly low and I would have gladly taken that if it made Bogaerts a trade chip.
Agree with BMHH about 1 the one year, though at some point you have to just look at the loss of a draft pick as a dollar amount given the success rate of them as impact players. If the price is say 3-5 million lower or so a year than you had them targeted for it makes sense. I definitely wouldn't want them to make it a habit of overspending while the farm fills back up, but in the short term they need to do it. They have too many chips in.
Hosmer at 4/75 is about the most I'd want to do, but I think he's going to get around 5/110 now unless Santana is the outlier. That's a possibility since he's going to a non-contender and had a lot of teams clamoring for him. Hosmer doesn't appear to have that market as far as I know.
Wasn't that because they needed to stay below the threshold last year?Letting Encarnacion pass to the Indians at a discount last winter is looking worse all the time.
Yes but it isn't our money so we're allowed to complain.Wasn't that because they needed to stay below the threshold last year?
People fail to understand what a market for a unique commodity is (house, FA player) Its not what the average population would pay for it, its what the most interested person in that population will pay and the seller would accept. Individuals may value a property higher even if the crowd thinks otherwise.People generally underestimate the market every winter. As well as the potential interest a team might have in spending money and trying to win more games even when they aren't viewed as paper ready to contend. It's basically an off-season tradition.
I think this effects Hosmer's per/year more so then JDM. Also glad it wasn't us handing out the 3 year contract. Hopefully this doesn't lead to DD jumping the gun.
Okay. But my point is that there was a rationale behind this decision last year. At least, from what we know, there is.Yes but it isn't our money so we're allowed to complain.
The Sox need to get Big Papi on the phone. He told them to sign Encarnacion and raved about Travis Shaw. Maybe they should listen to himLetting Encarnacion pass to the Indians at a discount last winter is looking worse all the time.
We'll see. I love these types of discussions. I'm going with him making two million more a year than Santana along with the two extra years. He isn't nearly as steady either. If he averages 2.5 wins per season that puts him around 22 per. Maybe he gets a bit more.Given that he's 4 years younger than Santana and coming off a better year, I'd say that's low on Hosmer. I'd be sort of OK if the Sox did that. It's important to remember that Manny Ramirez signed his 160/8 deal 16 years ago; 20 mil isn't a ton of money anymore, not for the Red Sox anyway.
You might be right, but I’m thinking someone caves and gives him 6 years (not the Sox, I hope). He’s young enough where you can convince yourself last year was growth and not a fluke.We'll see. I love these types of discussions. I'm going with him making two million more a year than Santana along with the two extra years. He isn't nearly as steady either. If he averages 2.5 wins per season that puts him around 22 per. Maybe he gets a bit more.
Apologies if it wasn't clear but I was actually agreeing with you.Okay. But my point is that there was a rationale behind this decision last year. At least, from what we know, there is.
Hosmer doesn't have the competitive market Santana did because his asking price is so much higher. If he was willing to consider an under $100m contract that ties him up in the long term I'm strongly guessing that he'd already be signed by now.Agree with BMHH about 1 the one year, though at some point you have to just look at the loss of a draft pick as a dollar amount given the success rate of them as impact players. If the price is say 3-5 million lower or so a year than you had them targeted for it makes sense. I definitely wouldn't want them to make it a habit of overspending while the farm fills back up, but in the short term they need to do it. They have too many chips in.
Hosmer at 4/75 is about the most I'd want to do, but I think he's going to get around 5/110 now unless Santana is the outlier. That's a possibility since he's going to a non-contender and had a lot of teams clamoring for him. Hosmer doesn't appear to have that market as far as I know.
I won't speak for him (although I think we are coming from the same place), but I made a similar comparison in another thread and it's not about Hosmer turning into a complete albatross that would be awful and they feel the need to release. The comparison (in my mind at least) is the mindset of "we need this position filled, who's the consensus best player? Let's sign him, damned the cost of overpay!" It seems shortsighted and it's gotten more than one GM in town into trouble before. Again, that's not to say Hosmer will be a black hole, simply that he's going to get more than he's worth and when you add in draft pick and luxury tax considerations, it seems foolish.I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the general notion around here that Hosmer would turn out to be as bad as Sandoval is just projection-fueled foolishness.
What does "beaten to the punch" mean here? Do you think the Sox were like "Let's just call him next week." Or that a FA didn't have his agent reach out to a team with $$$ that might have a need?Is there a good reason why we haven't signed a hitter yet? Besides getting beaten to the punch or out priced?
Wasn't that because they needed to stay below the threshold last year?
We are interested in Boras clients who only sign early when there is an over pay (eg Ellsbury)Is there a good reason why we haven't signed a hitter yet? Besides getting beaten to the punch or out priced?
Sorry, I whiffed on that one, like Judge swinging at a high fastball.Apologies if it wasn't clear but I was actually agreeing with you.
Someone else cited this article, does anyone have anything that’s come out in the month since it was printed that confirms it? The only other link I can find is an SB Nation article right after it that cites it as its source and basically just plagiarizes it.Santanas deal is pretty short on years. I bet he might have accepted 5/90 which would be a 18 million AAV but more guaranteed money. 3/60 is actually less than Pablos AAV adjusted for payroll inflation , and he got more years.
If that was the reason according to this we failed
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/11/13/dodgers-mlb-luxury-tax-offenders-2017-top-payrolls/857918001/
The level of foolishness there might depend on what team is making the offer.1 year for a guy with a QO would be really foolish.
In the sense of trying for a certain guy and because of that delaying a solid offer to another guy. So in a way yeah - "Let's just call him next week."What does "beaten to the punch" mean here? Do you think the Sox were like "Let's just call him next week." Or that a FA didn't have his agent reach out to a team with $$$ that might have a need?
Considering the Sox don’t fit any of those criteria, it seems kind of off the point tho doesn’t it?The level of foolishness there might depend on what team is making the offer.
To my understanding of the new CBA I'm pretty sure some teams out there would only have to sacrifice a 3rd round pick now, with the chance they get it back in the form of a post 1st as a non-LT offender if/when he opts out.
The question/my comment was in reference to the Red Sox. Would they only have to sacrifice a 3rd rounder?The level of foolishness there might depend on what team is making the offer.
Some teams only have to sacrifice a 3rd rounder.
*Edit*
I keep reading different things. As a non-LT offender it seems we should, but other places state we qualify for the 2nd/5th tier anyway for reasons I don't quite understand.The question/my comment was in reference to the Red Sox. Would they only have to sacrifice a 3rd rounder?
That's the only publication repeating that the Sox were over. A bunch of Boston writers responded that it was incorrect.Santanas deal is pretty short on years. I bet he might have accepted 5/90 which would be a 18 million AAV but more guaranteed money. 3/60 is actually less than Pablos AAV adjusted for payroll inflation , and he got more years.
If that was the reason according to this we failed
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/11/13/dodgers-mlb-luxury-tax-offenders-2017-top-payrolls/857918001/
Per mlb.com:I keep reading different things. As a non-LT offender it seems we should, but other places state we qualify for the 2nd/5th tier anyway for reasons I don't quite understand.
I don't think Hosmer (or really anyone) would be as bad as Sandoval.I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the general notion around here that Hosmer would turn out to be as bad as Sandoval is just projection-fueled foolishness.
I feel that Philly had to offer big money to Santana for him to consider signing with them. Its a mini version of the Nationals' Jayson Werth contract.
I think I'd rather they sign Moustakas and move Devers to first than Hosmer.Nervous about that Greinke-to-Philly possibility. It's starting to feel like Hosmer is going to be the only option for a FA "splash" at 1B. That's the kind of situation that led to Pablo Sandoval being a Red Sox.
This makes sense. Add JDM to DH and trade away Hanley at a major discount ($10 - $12 Million) to a team looking for DH or minimalist 1B.I think I'd rather they sign Moustakas and move Devers to first than Hosmer.
Shouldn't Devers get some experience playing first base first?I think I'd rather they sign Moustakas and move Devers to first than Hosmer.