Gitter done, Theo: let's put all our dumb I mean brilliant trade suggestions in this thread

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Both Hanniger and Nimmo have massive injury concerns. The upside of Hanniger is he will cost less years and dollars then Nimmo. And who knows maybe a few more injuries and he will be willing to move to DH. The last of course is speculation on my part.
That's the problem with this year's market: too many guys with injury concerns. Given that we're missing a RF, I'd rather have Haniger there as long as he's able to play the field (or a youngster is ready). In any case, I'd rather have Haniger than Nimmo, as well.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,356
Haniger is a perfect fit; they really need a guy who mashes lefties and he’s a career 277/353/500 against southpaws. Think they still need another 1b/of/dh type even if they land him, but it will be disappointing if they don’t sign Mitch.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Yes and there are other options beyond bringing in a slightly above average bat who may not be able to play in the field.
There's no reason to believe that he won't be able to play the field this year. Sure, there are other directions in which we can go, most of which will cost more money. Other than Bassitt, there's no one in this batch who really excites me.

Anyway, because I don't believe we are very close to going to the WS next year, I would be fine with going into next year with the lineup we have (bringing back Bogaerts) and wait to see who among our prospects can blossom into starters. Most of the fanbase isn't that patient, though.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
There's no reason to believe that he won't be able to play the field this year. Sure, there are other directions in which we can go, most of which will cost more money. Other than Bassitt, there's no one in this batch who really excites me.

Anyway, because I don't believe we are very close to going to the WS next year, I would be fine with going into next year with the lineup we have (bringing back Bogaerts) and wait to see who among our prospects can blossom into starters. Most of the fanbase isn't that patient, though.
Please go back and read the post that I responded to. The one that suggested that if more injuries piled up Haniger might be agreeable to a DH. Why TF do you seek out a player on a multi year deal to fill a hole with the mind set that in another year you might be looking to fill the same hole? As for the DH slot I think we're seeing a trend of moving from the tradition all bat, no glove player unless that bat is an exceptional one. In the era of short benches you need flexibility throughout your team and a player who can only swing a bat limits a team. See Martinez, JD 2022. A four man bench essentially becomes a five man bench if all of your players can play defense. You are better able to rotate players in and out of the line up by using the DH depending on pitching matchups as well as using the slot to give players partial days off and to get more ABs for certain players as to keep them sharp at the plate. Of course to maximize this you must have the right personnel. Skilled, multi positional players like Hernandez, Arroyo and Refsnyder are a great start and there is going to be room on this roster for at least one and possibly two more players who can carry two different gloves.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Please go back and read the post that I responded to. The one that suggested that if more injuries piled up Haniger might be agreeable to a DH. Why TF do you seek out a player on a multi year deal to fill a hole with the mind set that in another year you might be looking to fill the same hole? As for the DH slot I think we're seeing a trend of moving from the tradition all bat, no glove player unless that bat is an exceptional one. In the era of short benches you need flexibility throughout your team and a player who can only swing a bat limits a team. See Martinez, JD 2022. A four man bench essentially becomes a five man bench if all of your players can play defense. You are better able to rotate players in and out of the line up by using the DH depending on pitching matchups as well as using the slot to give players partial days off and to get more ABs for certain players as to keep them sharp at the plate. Of course to maximize this you must have the right personnel. Skilled, multi positional players like Hernandez, Arroyo and Refsnyder are a great start and there is going to be room on this roster for at least one and possibly two more players who can carry two different gloves.
You sign Hanniger with the expectation that he is your right fielder, but if things go wrong then you are willing to pivot and turn him into a DH to keep him healthy. I think we have established that most of the free agent outfielders the Sox could be interested in come with injury concerns. The upside of Hanniger is he is going to cost less money and years compared to someone like Nimmo. The hope is he stays relatively healthy and can play the field, but if he doesn't, you try him at DH to keep him healthy and to get value out of the deal. I am not sure why that would elicit such a negative response from you, unless you feel that when a team signs a player to play a certain position they should play that player at that position no matter what.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,558
Washington
I am not sure why that would elicit such a negative response from you, unless you feel that when a team signs a player to play a certain position they should play that player at that position no matter what.
Knock it off with the passive-aggressive nonsense.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
You sign Hanniger with the expectation that he is your right fielder, but if things go wrong then you are willing to pivot and turn him into a DH to keep him healthy. I think we have established that most of the free agent outfielders the Sox could be interested in come with injury concerns. The upside of Hanniger is he is going to cost less money and years compared to someone like Nimmo. The hope is he stays relatively healthy and can play the field, but if he doesn't, you try him at DH to keep him healthy and to get value out of the deal. I am not sure why that would elicit such a negative response from you, unless you feel that when a team signs a player to play a certain position they should play that player at that position no matter what.
The fact that I disagree doesn't make my response negative.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,042
Oregon
Guys, c'mon ... avery time this thread gets bumped, the rest of us think a deal has gone down.

Please take it to PM's
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Please go back and read the post that I responded to. The one that suggested that if more injuries piled up Haniger might be agreeable to a DH. Why TF do you seek out a player on a multi year deal to fill a hole with the mind set that in another year you might be looking to fill the same hole? As for the DH slot I think we're seeing a trend of moving from the tradition all bat, no glove player unless that bat is an exceptional one. In the era of short benches you need flexibility throughout your team and a player who can only swing a bat limits a team. See Martinez, JD 2022. A four man bench essentially becomes a five man bench if all of your players can play defense. You are better able to rotate players in and out of the line up by using the DH depending on pitching matchups as well as using the slot to give players partial days off and to get more ABs for certain players as to keep them sharp at the plate. Of course to maximize this you must have the right personnel. Skilled, multi positional players like Hernandez, Arroyo and Refsnyder are a great start and there is going to be room on this roster for at least one and possibly two more players who can carry two different gloves.
Ok, so the question is expectations. I don't want to sign Haniger for any more than 4 years. In that time, I don't expect him to be limited to DH before year 4. I'm much more concerned about his probability of his missing a year to a significant injury, as I pointed out above. And, no, you don't need to lecture me about how short benches have become with 13-man pitching staffs. I'm well-aware of that, thank you. As for Hernandez and Arroyo, I don't trust Hernandez to hit over .220, and from what I've seen, Arroyo is a disaster in the OF. I do like Refsnyder, but you realize that he's a guy who has a lot to prove, as his highest OPS before last year was .663. In any case, yes, I am familiar with the concept of a utility player.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
17,515
Guys, c'mon ... avery time this thread gets bumped, the rest of us think a deal has gone down.

Please take it to PM's
I hope people don't come to the hypothetical trades thread for breaking news.

But yeah, I think every argument post should include one.

So...

Tatis/Suarez

for

Devers/Duran/Downs/Dalbec
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,709
I hope people don't come to the hypothetical trades thread for breaking news.
I was going to say this too, if you're going to be a scold, at least be an accurate one. :)

But I will say again, we could all do with holding ourselves to a higher standard than we've got on the Main Board currently, me included. Thanks.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Ok, so the question is expectations. I don't want to sign Haniger for any more than 4 years. In that time, I don't expect him to be limited to DH before year 4. I'm much more concerned about his probability of his missing a year to a significant injury, as I pointed out above. And, no, you don't need to lecture me about how short benches have become with 13-man pitching staffs. I'm well-aware of that, thank you. As for Hernandez and Arroyo, I don't trust Hernandez to hit over .220, and from what I've seen, Arroyo is a disaster in the OF. I do like Refsnyder, but you realize that he's a guy who has a lot to prove, as his highest OPS before last year was .663. In any case, yes, I am familiar with the concept of a utility player.
Thanks, that's a bit more to work with than "Well... we need do a DH, too." As for the "lecture"...It was a POV, the way that I see to best utilize the role. I don't believe that it was condescending and certainly hope it wasn't taken that way. FWIW I've zero interest in seeing Arroyo play the in outfield and never suggested that he should play there.
 
Last edited:

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,699
Besides extending Devers, here’s my wish list at this point, in order of importance:
- Sign Bogaerts or Correa (I probably prefer Correa at 9/$275 over Bogaerts at 7/$200 but happy with either)
- Sign Senga, Eovaldi or Kluber
- Sign Haniger (2/$30)
- Sign Kenley Jansen (2/$24)
- Sign Hill (1/$6)
- Sign Pierce Johnson (1/$4)

I also want to trade for both Max Kepler (Pivetta?) and Rhys Hoskins (Dalbec and Duran?).

Another option, probably an alternative to Haniger or Hill signings: Would it make sense to offer to bail Miami out of their Avisail Garcia deal in exchange for Trevor Rogers (FA 2027)? I wouldn't be thrilled with Garcia in right, but he's a decent fielder and there's a moderate chance of a rebound at the plate, and they probably want to move Bryan De La Cruz to right field.

Say we import Haniger, Kepler and Hoskins, we could then do something like Verdugo, Hosmer and Wong to Miami for Garcia, Rogers and Stallings. It would require Hosmer signing off on that, but he's from Miami, after all.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,356
How do you fit all those players on the roster? I think they have room for another starter and reliever, but I am struggling to see how you could fit Rich Hill. The players below seem like close to locks to make the team if healthy.

Bello, Paxton, Pivetta, Sale, Whitlock
Barnes, Brasier, Houck, Taylor, Rodriguez, Martin, Schreiber
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,474
How do you fit all those players on the roster? I think they have room for another starter and reliever, but I am struggling to see how you could fit Rich Hill. The players below seem like close to locks to make the team if healthy.

Bello, Paxton, Pivetta, Sale, Whitlock
Barnes, Brasier, Houck, Taylor, Rodriguez, Martin, Schreiber
There's a lot of IFs in that starting rotation, though there's also a lot of talent.

The pen isn't half bad either. Unfortunately the other half kinda is.

My wish list:

- Sign Devers long-term
- Sign X to a huge, but short-term, deal - bigger dollars per year than he ever could have imagined, but a short enough deal (3 years) such that he can still get another FA deal after this. I know I'm not going to get my wish here but I'm asking nicely Santa.
- Sign Senga. That shores up the rotation big-time.
- Sign Haniger.
- Sign Jansen. I can't believe I'm saying this because I've never been a fan - don't know how he does it only throwing 93 mph, but he does. Having that guy at the back end of the bullpen would make it all go so much better.

There you go. That's the list.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,699
How do you fit all those players on the roster? I think they have room for another starter and reliever, but I am struggling to see how you could fit Rich Hill. The players below seem like close to locks to make the team if healthy.

Bello, Paxton, Pivetta, Sale, Whitlock
Barnes, Brasier, Houck, Taylor, Rodriguez, Martin, Schreiber
Some of the moves would exclude the others, but in that plan I'm deliberately looking to make Pivetta expendable for a trade. Hill seems like he could be in a spot where it's Boston or bust, and maybe he's fine being a long reliever/bulk guy if the pen is otherwise full. This is shaping up to be the one of the most volatile high risk/high reward staffs I've seen on the Sox in a long time, and we need rotation depth if we're going to hope to have healthy starters in October.

The full flush of moves (including a Verdugo trade) up top would produce this 40-man roster:

Bogaerts - SS
Devers - 3B
Hoskins - DH (1B)
Story - 2B
Casas - 1B
Haniger - LF (DH)
Kepler - RF
Hernández - CF
McGuire - C

Bench: Arroyo (2B/3B/SS), Stallings (C), Refsnyder (OF/DH), Garcia (OF) (40-man minors: Park, Valdez, Rafaela, Hamilton, Abreu)

Hoskins plays plenty of first base, especially against tough lefties, which opens up the DH spot for Refsnyder and Haniger, whose outfield duties Garcia can help cover. Kepler can also play center field.

Sale, Kluber, Bello, Whitlock, Rogers, Paxton
Jansen, Schreiber, Martin, Houck, Barnes, Rodriguez, Brasier, Hill (40-man minors: Taylor, Kelly, Crawford, German, Winckowski, Walter, Murphy, Mata)
Traded: Dalbec, Duran, Pivetta, Verdugo, Wong, Hosmer
Traded/DFA'd/Outrighted: D. Hernández, Ort, Seabold, Downs
(That's a 27-man roster but certainly someone will be on the IL)

Anyway, I'm eager to see what happens this week. Crunch time.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Some of the moves would exclude the others, but in that plan I'm deliberately looking to make Pivetta expendable for a trade. Hill seems like he could be in a spot where it's Boston or bust, and maybe he's fine being a long reliever/bulk guy if the pen is otherwise full. This is shaping up to be the one of the most volatile high risk/high reward staffs I've seen on the Sox in a long time, and we need rotation depth if we're going to hope to have healthy starters in October.

The full flush of moves (including a Verdugo trade) up top would produce this 40-man roster:

Bogaerts - SS
Devers - 3B
Hoskins - DH (1B)
Story - 2B
Casas - 1B
Haniger - LF (DH)
Kepler - RF
Hernández - CF
McGuire - C

Bench: Arroyo (2B/3B/SS), Stallings (C), Refsnyder (OF/DH), Garcia (OF) (40-man minors: Park, Valdez, Rafaela, Hamilton, Abreu)

Hoskins plays plenty of first base, especially against tough lefties, which opens up the DH spot for Refsnyder and Haniger, whose outfield duties Garcia can help cover. Kepler can also play center field.

Sale, Kluber, Bello, Whitlock, Rogers, Paxton
Jansen, Schreiber, Martin, Houck, Barnes, Rodriguez, Brasier, Hill (40-man minors: Taylor, Kelly, Crawford, German, Winckowski, Walter, Murphy, Mata)
Traded: Dalbec, Duran, Pivetta, Verdugo, Wong, Hosmer
Traded/DFA'd/Outrighted: D. Hernández, Ort, Seabold, Downs
(That's a 27-man roster but certainly someone will be on the IL)

Anyway, I'm eager to see what happens this week. Crunch time.
I'm intrigued with the idea of acquiring both Haniger and Kepler. A four man rotation including Verdugo and Hernandez with RFsnyder as your 5th OF allows for some flexibility in the field as well as in the batting order. One concern that I do have is that Haniger and Kepler have nearly no LF experience. Obviously there are other personnel decisions to be made regarding SS and the second part of the 1B equation, but I think the starting lineup and bench presented here aren't far fetched.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,270
Town
One thing that I have not seen discussed as much with regards to our OF plans - including a potential DH job share - is our positional depth at CF. Though I know Reyfsnyder had some limited exposure there a bit last year, I'm not sure he's more than a spot reserve at that position. The depth chart in CF is something like K. Hernandez, Duran, Reyfsnyder, and I suppose Rafaela (who has all of 71 games above A ball).

It seems unlikely to me that the Red Sox would emerge from this winter without 1 more viable CF option available for their roster, either by trade or free agency, not only due to health uncertainties from Kike Hernandez (or even needing a fallback in case he doesn't return to a certain baseline performance), but also that Kike is, at this point, an important depth chart option at 2B and SS. A higher quality OF who can cover CF would unlock Kike's contribution to roster flexibility. Coupled with the particular challenges in Fenway's RF, I don't see how they get away with poor defensive corner OF free agent signings without a corresponding shuffle to obtain a better OF (even a 4th OF). Signing Nimmo to play RF and cover CF is one path, but seems less likely. Kepler is interesting because he is so strong defensively (and even graded out as above average in CF when he was younger and played there more regularly), but most corner OF options would seem to require a trade for another CF.

Duran was one among several players last year whose performance has painted the Red Sox into a corner, to the point where his defensive shortcomings are pressing the OF/CF depth question, which might also constrain what they can do with OF/1B/DH options, especially continuing to carry Hosmer. I wonder if Laureano with Oakland might be a potential maneuver where they could bundle a couple of change-of-scenery players (including Duran) to find a better roster fit at a reasonable cost (Crawford or Seabold and Duran for Laureano+?). Are there other potential targets?

I think the front office's hands have been tied by the pile of players who they were counting on to take a step forward in 2022 to pave the path to the future, or at least give them solid trade chips. Instead so many evaporated or treaded water (especially Dalbec and Duran, but also Winckowski, Seabold, Crawford, Downs, a pile of Worcester relievers like Ort or Darwinzon, and even Arroyo and Verdugo).
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Thanks, that's a bit more to work with than "Well... we need do a DH, too." As for the "lecture"...It was a POV, the way that I see to best utilize the role. I don't believe that it was condescending and certainly hope it wasn't taken that way. FWIW I've zero interest in seeing Arroyo play the in outfield and never suggested that he should play there.
Fair enough. And thanks for clarifying.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
888
Maryland
Besides extending Devers, here’s my wish list at this point, in order of importance:
- Sign Bogaerts or Correa (I probably prefer Correa at 9/$275 over Bogaerts at 7/$200 but happy with either)
- Sign Senga, Eovaldi or Kluber
- Sign Haniger (2/$30)
- Sign Kenley Jansen (2/$24)
- Sign Hill (1/$6)
- Sign Pierce Johnson (1/$4)

I also want to trade for both Max Kepler (Pivetta?) and Rhys Hoskins (Dalbec and Duran?).

Another option, probably an alternative to Haniger or Hill signings: Would it make sense to offer to bail Miami out of their Avisail Garcia deal in exchange for Trevor Rogers (FA 2027)? I wouldn't be thrilled with Garcia in right, but he's a decent fielder and there's a moderate chance of a rebound at the plate, and they probably want to move Bryan De La Cruz to right field.

Say we import Haniger, Kepler and Hoskins, we could then do something like Verdugo, Hosmer and Wong to Miami for Garcia, Rogers and Stallings. It would require Hosmer signing off on that, but he's from Miami, after all.
I'm ok with this general plan, but I suspect that Correa is going to go for something like 10/325 rather than 9/275 - would he still be your preference at that price over X at 7/200?

And I think you may have to go 3 years to get Haniger, given how little is available on the FA OF market.
 

gkelly53

New Member
Aug 6, 2019
23
Andy McCullough

@ByMcCullough



Thing about Dodgers is that while they are “in” on just about every elite FA, Andrew Friedman tends to wait for market to break his way. Landed Betts in February, Bauer in February, Freeman in March. Will be interesting to see if that pattern changes, given clear needs.

I thought this was interesting. Its the Dodger model that Bloom is following.I just dont think he is as good at it as Friedman is
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,474
Andy McCullough
@ByMcCullough



Thing about Dodgers is that while they are “in” on just about every elite FA, Andrew Friedman tends to wait for market to break his way. Landed Betts in February, Bauer in February, Freeman in March. Will be interesting to see if that pattern changes, given clear needs.

I thought this was interesting. Its the Dodger model that Bloom is following.I just dont think he is as good at it as Friedman is
He might be as good at it if the Red Sox were willing to go over $325 million (according to Spotrac, LA was at $327 this year).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,603
Maine
Andy McCullough
@ByMcCullough



Thing about Dodgers is that while they are “in” on just about every elite FA, Andrew Friedman tends to wait for market to break his way. Landed Betts in February, Bauer in February, Freeman in March. Will be interesting to see if that pattern changes, given clear needs.

I thought this was interesting. Its the Dodger model that Bloom is following.I just dont think he is as good at it as Friedman is
Friedman certainly has a longer track record (and looser pursestrings), but I'm not sure there's yet enough evidence one way or the other regarding Bloom's effectiveness in this regard. If signing/acquiring players in Feb/March is the yardstick by which we're measuring, Bloom signed Kike in Feb 21 and Story in March 22. Those both follow the model of waiting out the market for favorable deals, and were (so far anyway) solid acquisitions.

It's kinda debatable if Friedman really "won" with those examples of late off-season acquisitions as a result of patience though. Bauer was a monster contract (high AAV though short years) that nearly immediately went down the tubes because Bauer is a piece of shit. The Betts trade cost an awful lot of money, both for the extension Betts eventually signed (potentially only a bargain vs expectations because of COVID) and the money they were forced to take on in the form of David Price. Freeman I expect is a deal that might have been done sooner if not for the lockout (of course the same could be said of Story), so might not truly fall into the "patience is rewarded" category.

I do think the key takeaway is that being the most active and aggressive in November/December isn't necessary to having success in the off-season.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Besides extending Devers, here’s my wish list at this point, in order of importance:
- Sign Bogaerts or Correa (I probably prefer Correa at 9/$275 over Bogaerts at 7/$200 but happy with either)
- Sign Senga, Eovaldi or Kluber
- Sign Haniger (2/$30)
- Sign Kenley Jansen (2/$24)
- Sign Hill (1/$6)
- Sign Pierce Johnson (1/$4)

I also want to trade for both Max Kepler (Pivetta?) and Rhys Hoskins (Dalbec and Duran?).

Another option, probably an alternative to Haniger or Hill signings: Would it make sense to offer to bail Miami out of their Avisail Garcia deal in exchange for Trevor Rogers (FA 2027)? I wouldn't be thrilled with Garcia in right, but he's a decent fielder and there's a moderate chance of a rebound at the plate, and they probably want to move Bryan De La Cruz to right field.

Say we import Haniger, Kepler and Hoskins, we could then do something like Verdugo, Hosmer and Wong to Miami for Garcia, Rogers and Stallings. It would require Hosmer signing off on that, but he's from Miami, after all.
This looks like the making of a promising strategy, but I do have a few notes. I'd put Bassitt with Senga, instead of Eovaldi or Kluber. Nate has too many injury issues, and I think it's time to part company with him. I'm not sure about Jansen. He's a definite "maybe," but I'd rather move Pivetta to the bullpen, where his velocity should play up. I'm not interested in Kepler; but I'm with you on Haniger. I doubt you'll get Hoskins for Dalbec and Duran, but, hey, if the Phillies bite, I'd be all in.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,866
I think the front office's hands have been tied by the pile of players who they were counting on to take a step forward in 2022 to pave the path to the future, or at least give them solid trade chips. Instead so many evaporated or treaded water (especially Dalbec and Duran, but also Winckowski, Seabold, Crawford, Downs, a pile of Worcester relievers like Ort or Darwinzon, and even Arroyo and Verdugo).
I think you're correct about Dalbec and Duran. Bloom had some expectations that they were going to be meaningful contributors to the "next great Red Sox core" from 22' onward. Dalbec last season and Duran maybe after ASB last season. I don't think any of the other guys, bolded above, were keys to Bloom's vision. Possibly Downs but I think that fell apart even before last season started. Anything that the Sox get/got from that crew is bonus points. They're counted on to be deep depth, possible bullpen (non-elite) arms. I think Seabold has a future (not in Boston) despite his struggles. He K's a lot of batters and doesn't walk guys. Crawford has potential to be a very good bullpen arm. Darwinzon was always fungible depth.
I'm not sure about Verdugo... after a terrible start, he was possibly their best offensive player from June to the end of the season. He's underrated here because he is the only piece returned from Mookie... but guys that are about as good as him are being talked about as keys to the outfield here going forward for $15-$20M AAV.....

The guys that I think Bloom is "counting" on in the mL's now are, IMO, Casas, Bello, Cedanne. That's it. I think Mayer is another year away from finding himself in that group. It'd be a huge disappointment if he busts, but he's still far enough out that year to year changes make me at least feel he's not being counted on.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
I think you're correct about Dalbec and Duran. Bloom had some expectations that they were going to be meaningful contributors to the "next great Red Sox core" from 22' onward. Dalbec last season and Duran maybe after ASB last season. I don't think any of the other guys, bolded above, were keys to Bloom's vision. Possibly Downs but I think that fell apart even before last season started. Anything that the Sox get/got from that crew is bonus points. They're counted on to be deep depth, possible bullpen (non-elite) arms. I think Seabold has a future (not in Boston) despite his struggles. He K's a lot of batters and doesn't walk guys. Crawford has potential to be a very good bullpen arm. Darwinzon was always fungible depth.
I'm not sure about Verdugo... after a terrible start, he was possibly their best offensive player from June to the end of the season. He's underrated here because he is the only piece returned from Mookie... but guys that are about as good as him are being talked about as keys to the outfield here going forward for $15-$20M AAV.....

The guys that I think Bloom is "counting" on in the mL's now are, IMO, Casas, Bello, Cedanne. That's it. I think Mayer is another year away from finding himself in that group. It'd be a huge disappointment if he busts, but he's still far enough out that year to year changes make me at least feel he's not being counted on.
I don't know about what Bloom is thinking, but I would definitely add Mata to that list. Sox Prospects has his ceiling as that of an "Impact Everyday Player," and he performed very well coming off of TJ surgery last year.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
888
Maryland
What do we think Devers ask is, now? 14/400?
14 seems like a stretch. He can ask, but I doubt someone is willing to pay him that much until he's 40 - he doesn't bring the same package of skills and positional versatility as someone like Turner. But I think 12/360 is a possible outcome. I think 10/300 is probably the floor for an extension. If he gets to FA a year from now, who knows? A lot would depend on his '23 performance and what the market looks like then - but prices for FAs rarely come down (absent collusion, of course).
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,866
I don't know about what Bloom is thinking, but I would definitely add Mata to that list. Sox Prospects has his ceiling as that of an "Impact Everyday Player," and he performed very well coming off of TJ surgery last year.
Yes I think Mata is as well but maybe a ring down. Graduating 1-2 everyday cost-controlled impact players every year is impressive and really a goal for most clubs. Ideal is 3. And getting them on the team in any possible way- trades, rule 5, etc…
21 saw Houck and Whitlock (Pivetta)
22 saw Bello and Casas*
23 should see Mata and Cedanne at some point

* I actually think Bello and Casas were both “impact expectations time” in ‘23 and were forced up early, Bello more so, as Casas is rookie eligible for ‘23.
Having Dalbec and Duran flop hurt… but there really wasn’t any other prospects ready to make the jump.

—- the Crawfords, Winckowski types are bonuses if they are anything beyond fungible depth
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,891
The back of your computer
What do we think Devers ask is, now? 14/400?
If I were Devers, I'd be asking for a minimum of 9 years (age 26-34) and a minimum of $270mm ($30mm AAV). I'd also probably want opt-outs after years 3, 4 and 5 (ages 28, 29 and 30) and a no-trade clause until my 10/5 rights kick in. If I were the Red Sox, I'd be wondering whether I could live with this deal, especially because I expect to lose Bogaerts to another team. If I couldn't, I'd be putting Devers on the block ASAP. I suspect that, once Bogaerts signs elsewhere, Devers will get his deal with the Red Sox.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
If I were Devers, I'd be asking for a minimum of 9 years (age 26-34) and a minimum of $270mm ($30mm AAV). I'd also probably want opt-outs after years 3, 4 and 5 (ages 28, 29 and 30) and a no-trade clause until my 10/5 rights kick in. If I were the Red Sox, I'd be wondering whether I could live with this deal, especially because I expect to lose Bogaerts to another team. If I couldn't, I'd be putting Devers on the block ASAP. I suspect that, once Bogaerts signs elsewhere, Devers will get his deal with the Red Sox.
I'd be willing to boost the AAV by roughly $7/M/year, in exchange for dropping the opt-outs. Honestly, I don't know why GMs put up with this garbage in the first place.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
92,042
Oregon
I'd be willing to boost the AAV by roughly $7/M/year, in exchange for dropping the opt-outs. Honestly, I don't know why GMs put up with this garbage in the first place.
Sometimes it's as simple as the player not agreeing to the deal unless the opt-outs are included.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,891
The back of your computer
I'd be willing to boost the AAV by roughly $7/M/year, in exchange for dropping the opt-outs. Honestly, I don't know why GMs put up with this garbage in the first place.
At 9 years, $333mm (37mm AAV) and no opt-outs, I believe you'd have the highest offer in the "What are your best offers to Devers and Bogaerts?" thread. Congrats.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Sometimes it's as simple as the player not agreeing to the deal unless the opt-outs are included.
I understand your reasoning, I just believe it's a bad equilibrium. I'd rather offer the player more money per year in exchange for dropping the opt-out clause. Everything has a price...Plus, agreeing to an opt-out clause really messes with your planning. You don't know if you're getting the guy for 3 years or for 9. That's a huge difference. If the player doesn't agree, then you use your own leverage (i.e., more fish in the sea) until you find someone who's more reasonable. No matter how much you like a player, at some point you have to be ready to move on.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
At 9 years, $333mm (37mm AAV) and no opt-outs, I believe you'd have the highest offer in the "What are your best offers to Devers and Bogaerts?" thread. Congrats.
I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or a genuine compliment. Either way, I'd be willing to pay more money to get rid of the stupid opt-out clause.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,603
Maine
I understand your reasoning, I just believe it's a bad equilibrium. I'd rather offer the player more money per year in exchange for dropping the opt-out clause. Everything has a price...Plus, agreeing to an opt-out clause really messes with your planning. You don't know if you're getting the guy for 3 years or for 9. That's a huge difference. If the player doesn't agree, then you use your own leverage (i.e., more fish in the sea) until you find someone who's more reasonable. No matter how much you like a player, at some point you have to be ready to move on.
Absent the luxury tax/pseudo salary cap, throwing more cash per year at a player just to have certainty might be the way to go. But your $7M/year add on to "buy out" any opt-outs could be the difference in the team's ability to add a solid role player or take on a high priced deadline acquisition if they are consistently spending to/over the cap. Certainly so if it's something they have to do with every player who wants an opt-out in their deal. The Sox alone had three guys with opt-outs this off-season (Sale, Hosmer, and Bogaerts). If people think Sale was a mistake at $30M/year, what would we be saying if they had given him $35M/year in order to skip the opt-out he ultimately didn't take anyway?
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
And that’s not even considering the 3 different opt outs JDM never used in his 5 year deal.

I’ll say it again: opt outs can allow the team to get out of the decline in the back end of a long term deal, if they are willing to walk away the proverbial year too early. But X isn’t highly unlikely to be looking for an opt out; he got full security to lock in generational wealth in case anything went wrong before he hit full FA in his last deal, and he can decide where he’ll spend the rest of his career with this one. He probably isn’t thinking about when age will catch up to him (what athlete ever does) but this is the contract to settle in on.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
473
Absent the luxury tax/pseudo salary cap, throwing more cash per year at a player just to have certainty might be the way to go. But your $7M/year add on to "buy out" any opt-outs could be the difference in the team's ability to add a solid role player or take on a high priced deadline acquisition if they are consistently spending to/over the cap. Certainly so if it's something they have to do with every player who wants an opt-out in their deal. The Sox alone had three guys with opt-outs this off-season (Sale, Hosmer, and Bogaerts). If people think Sale was a mistake at $30M/year, what would we be saying if they had given him $35M/year in order to skip the opt-out he ultimately didn't take anyway?
We'd be saying we wish he had an opt-out because opt-outs can benefit the team....
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,866
Opt-outs after age 30.... say in 2 years are probably in a team's favor. Likely a player has enough in him at age 32/33 season to think they could leverage it into a longer guaranteed contract.
I'd be fine right now getting a long term deal done with Devers with an opt-out after 4 seasons and letting him walk. Bogaerts in 2 years (especially with Mayer likely ready then). But yeah, X is likely looking for guaranteed years at this point with no point in opt-outs. Or if there were, I'd assume he'd be opting in. I was actually surprised that JDM opted in after '21..... he likely could have got another guaranteed 3 year deal for $60M+. At this point I think he'll be lucky to get a 1/$15M (boy that's just terrible.....)
 
Aug 31, 2006
133
South Acton, Mass.
I don't have the link, but I read on another website that his value decreased after he slumped with the Padres, and he might want to sign a one-year "prove it deal." It makes a certain amount of sense, since his power numbers were down last year, and he isn't exactly "selling high" at this point.
Well, Benj4ever, I'll be damned, but you were spot on: Josh Bell just signed what is essentially a one year deal with the Guardians.

2 years, $33 million with an opt-out after year one; he must have been looking at some three years deals at a low AAV and figured he could cash in next winter if he can go 25/100 in Cleveland.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Well, Benj4ever, I'll be damned, but you were spot on: Josh Bell just signed what is essentially a one year deal with the Guardians.

2 years, $33 million with an opt-out after year one; he must have been looking at some three years deals at a low AAV and figured he could cash in next winter if he can go 25/100 in Cleveland.
Well, not to both sides this (too much), but 2/$33 with an opt out beats the low end guess of 3/$36.

I do agree with others that the pure player opt out, especially on these shorter deals, is less than ideal for the team. I much prefer the player option at X amount or the team option at X+Y amount. That creates flexibility without shifting the risk/reward so drastically. Opt outs for players in their 30s tend to be less valuable to the player. But it’s all part of the valuation and negotiation processes.
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
Well, Benj4ever, I'll be damned, but you were spot on: Josh Bell just signed what is essentially a one year deal with the Guardians.

2 years, $33 million with an opt-out after year one; he must have been looking at some three years deals at a low AAV and figured he could cash in next winter if he can go 25/100 in Cleveland.
I can't take credit for this. It was just something I floated because I saw it on a Padres board. But, thanks anyway!
 

Benj4ever

New Member
Nov 21, 2022
409
We'd be saying we wish he had an opt-out because opt-outs can benefit the team....
This is a bad example, because the Sox should have never given the stick man an extension in the first place. Opt-outs are generally a lose-lose situation for management, because if a player underperforms, he won't take the opt-out, but if he overperforms, he opts-out. Management is screwed, either way. I believe it's worth something to avoid this scenario. It's a form of insurance against the latter scenario. Sure, one can always find exceptions to the rule, but this doesn't invalidate the rule!
 
Last edited: