McAdam: Red Sox owners have met with Xander Bogaerts more than once in recent weeks to kickstart contract negotiations.

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,698
Thank you, was coming to post this, as it is important context I think.

I understand people’s concerns with extending out past 4-5 years for a 30-year old shortstop, but that is just the cost of doing business in free agency. Yes, we are going to overpay in years or dollars to keep him from leaving. Yes, we will likely be *stuck* with 2-3 years on the back end of a declining player. Yes, we will likely be overpaying a 3B or LF at some point after 3 years if we sign him.

To me, that can all be understood and still have it be a great signing. You get to lock up an all-time great Red Sox and ensure he retires here, you get another 3-4 elite years out of him hopefully, and you are able to fortunately absorb the “overpay” of not signing the perfect contract or having the perfectly efficient salary-to-position-to-value ratio at the end of the deal because you are a big market team who a $30m contract in 2027-2029 is not going to hamper from doing what you need to do.

It won’t be a “win” for the Red Sox as a contract, but it still feels like a no-brainer to sign him to me.
I think this is where I am. They can balance one or two end of FA contract "overpays," as long as they also have some "underpays," in the form of good players under team control. That's where they've been with Devers so far. And maybe will be with (to name a few) Casas, Whitlock, Hauck and, to a lesser extent, Verdugo. And where they hoped they'd be with Duran.
I'm not going to complain if they agree on a 6year deal.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,305
Twin Cities
I think this is where I am. They can balance one or two end of FA contract "overpays," as long as they also have some "underpays," in the form of good players under team control. That's where they've been with Devers so far. And maybe will be with (to name a few) Casas, Whitlock, Hauck and, to a lesser extent, Verdugo. And where they hoped they'd be with Duran.
I'm not going to complain if they agree on a 6year deal.
Agreed. They’re not giving him a 10/$300M deal; the “overpay” will be manageable. 6/$150 would be a fine compromise deal, maybe with a player option for year 7. And throw in a couple of bonuses for SS or ASG, etc.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Agreed. They’re not giving him a 10/$300M deal; the “overpay” will be manageable. 6/$150 would be a fine compromise deal, maybe with a player option for year 7. And throw in a couple of bonuses for SS or ASG, etc.
There should be some more money coming off the books next year, yes? Whatever the the offer turns out to be might it be wise to front load it a bit so the potential "decline" years have less of a financial impact in the last couple years of the contract.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
There should be some more money coming off the books next year, yes? Whatever the the offer turns out to be might it be wise to front load it a bit so the potential "decline" years have less of a financial impact in the last couple years of the contract.
About 10 mil each from Kike and Barnes, plus any one year deals/QOs they end up with this offseason. And Devers, if they don't extend him. After that, Sale comes off the books after 2024.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,952
Portland
I'm not going to lie. I'm extremely wary of the Sox brass' sudden eagerness to re-sign Xander long-term. I worry that it will the big Pedroia contract all over again. Beloved homegrown middle infielder with offensive numbers boosted by Fenway entering the decline phase of his career. Signs big deal with Sox with presumed hometown discount. Contract becomes an albatross in a few years (and, to be fair to Pedroia, he was less to blame for the rapid decline than Manny Machado and his contract extension was much less egregious because it was struck before he could become a free agent).

Xander OPS by year (Overall/Home/Road)

2019: .939 / 1.001 / .877
2020: .867 / .799 / .936 (only 225 PA and 56 games played)
2021: .863 / .937 / .796
2022: .833 / .886 / .779

Xander SLG by year (Overall/Home/Road)

2019: .555 / .592 / .518
2020: .502 / .451 / .555
2021: .493 / .553 / .438
2022: .456 / .504 / .407

Xander Exit Velocity by year

2019: 91.1
2020: 89.0
2021: 89.6
2022: 88.1

Xander Hard Hit % by year

2019: 47.3%
2020: 37.0%
2021: 43.1%
2022: 39.6%

Is a 30 year old future 3B/LF with progressively-declining offensive numbers really worth a long-term deal with an AAV of $25-30 million?
25 mill is the going rate for a an above average regular these days, something X clears with ease. 30 may seem to be on the high end, but if you consider Corey Seager being paid 32.5 through his age 37, and Correa also being paid more and both being inferior in their prime, 30 seems very reasonable and something a team with a payroll advantage over most of the league needs to take. . . advantage of.

Is he worth it? Per fangraphs, since his 2015 season he has averaged 36.5 mill in value. He may not quite "earn" something like 6/180 because of positional change, but there is quite a bit of built in cushion and the Red Sox have to spend their money somewhere. I've come around to locking him up because he puts so much effort into improving holes in his game and I think that makes his decline more gentle.
 
Last edited:

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Seager and Semien deals were albatrosses the second they were signed, and also arguably got Daniels canned, so if you're setting them up as some kind of baseline, everyone involved is doomed to poor result. Likewise, having money come off the books doesn't make it a great idea to throw extra $ at X. You're ultimately still taking up roster/ payroll space by paying more for declining production.

I admit that I don't have a good short term solution for SS next year, when it looks like the FO wants to go all in on competing (short of some sort of miracle where Swanson escapes Atlanta and is willing to sign a 4 year deal). I expect the back end of whatever deal they sign to look pretty bad...
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
Chris Young has been GM of the Rangers since 2020, no? Semien (for sure) and Seagar deals will most certainly be used as comps for Bogaerts. That’s fine if you think they are bad deals, but the deal X signs is probably going to be a bad one. If the Sox want to bring him back and especially if they wan to do it quickly, it seems very likely to be a deal they won’t feel that great about.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,952
Portland
Unlike Seager, Semien, Correa, Swanson etc. though Xander is the consistently better player. Swanson is having a career year at the right time, but doesn't have close to his track record. He's not going to just take a huge pay cut because some of his peers aren't living up to expectations. He can make less (and I think he will because the Rangers seemed to be outbidding themselves) but 30 per is not an unreasonable ask given his track record. Give him a large raise from 20 to 27 per, and see if they can wait him out.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
25 mill is the going rate for a an above average regular these days, something X clears with ease. 30 may seem to be on the high end, but if you consider Corey Seager being paid 32.5 through his age 37, and Correa also being paid more and both being inferior in their prime, 30 seems very reasonable and something a team with a payroll advantage over most of the league needs to take. . . advantage of.

Is he worth it? Per fangraphs, since his 2015 season he has averaged 36.5 mill in value. He may not quite "earn" something like 6/180 because of positional change, but there is quite a bit of built in cushion and the Red Sox have to spend their money somewhere. I've come around to locking him up because he puts so much effort into improving holes in his game and I think that makes his decline more gentle.
How do you figure X's prime was better than Correa's? What are you talking about? What metric are you using? The I'm a Red Sox fan metric?

2015 WAR totals: X 4.3 Correa 4.8
2016 X 3.8, Correa 7.0
2017 X 2.3, Correa 6.7
2018 X 4.9, Correa 3.1
2019 X 6.3, Correa 3.7
2020 X 1.6, Correa 1.7
2021 X 4.9 Correa 7.2
20222 X 5.7, Correa 5.4


I guess you could make the argument X hit FA at a better time. He definitely didn't have a better peak. Not even close. How can you even make that argument? He matches up a little better with Seager anyway.

2015: 5.4
2016: 6.7
2018: 1.1
2019: 3.2
2020: 1.1
2021: 2.2
2022: DNP

Let's hope Bogaerts isn't Seager because Seager fell off a cliff at age 30. The same age X will be. Correa is also 2 years younger than X, despite starting their careers at roughly the same time. Correa debuted a year later.

Again though, in no planet was X's prime better than Correa's. He may arguably be just as good since 2020, I guess.
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,952
Portland
How do you figure X's prime was better than Correa's? What are you talking about? What metric are you using? The I'm a Red Sox fan metric?

2015 WAR totals: X 4.3 Correa 4.8
2016 X 3.8, Correa 7.0
2017 X 2.3, Correa 6.7
2018 X 4.9, Correa 3.1
2019 X 6.3, Correa 3.7
2020 X 1.6, Correa 1.7
2021 X 4.9 Correa 7.2
20222 X 5.7, Correa 5.4


I guess you could make the argument X hit FA at a better time. He definitely didn't have a better peak. Not even close. How can you even make that argument?
I dunno maybe the past 4 seasons metric? He's a different player than he was in 2016-17
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2022&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2018-01-01&enddate=2022-12-31
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I mean, maybe. He was spectacular in 2021 and just as good as X this year.

Even the last 4 years has Correa at 18.0 WAR and X at 18.4. I mean, so much better! You also specifically said peak. I'd take the guy who is 2 years younger and the better defender but to each their own.

Over the last 3 years, Correa has been better. 2019 was an off year for Correa and a career year for X.

edit: I guess Fangraphs likes X a little more but I like Baseball reference more than Fan Graphs. Consider fan graphs changed their WAR totals this year because their numbers were off defensively and are now more in line with BBref, I will continue to favor BBref.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I think this is where I am. They can balance one or two end of FA contract "overpays," as long as they also have some "underpays," in the form of good players under team control. That's where they've been with Devers so far. And maybe will be with (to name a few) Casas, Whitlock, Hauck and, to a lesser extent, Verdugo. And where they hoped they'd be with Duran.
I'm not going to complain if they agree on a 6year deal.
Same. Unless you're a draft/development machine, you're going to have to give out one or two of these deals to stay in the conversation. The best you can do is for your long term commitments to not be completely outrageous and for the player involved to be the kind of guy who will do everything he can to protect his longevity. Bogaerts is a high character guy by all accounts. Chances are he'll still be good at something in six years.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The only reason X is "better" over the last 4 seasons is that Correa missed half a season in 2019
And that.

Since 2020, Correa 14.2 WAR. X 12.1
Career: 39.5 WAR in 888 career games for Correa
34.8 WAR in 1264 games for X.

I'm guessing the only period in which X is better than Correa is using 2019 in the sample.

To X's credit, he is trending the right way defensively. I wouldn't expect that to continue given his age but I didn't expect it all. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing re: the Sox though.

But to date, Correa has been a much better baseball player than X and has had the better "peak."

I can't believe there are people who would really prefer X over Correa if all things were equal.

With that said, would people give X the Correa contract? Would X take 1/35 with 2 player option years for $35 mil each? It would be more than he would make annually, though not as much in totality.

I think that sort of deal would fit in perfectly with how the Red Sox are currently built. X would play SS in 23/24 and then either exercise his option to play in the OF come 2025 or leave.

Is 1/35 with 2 player options bringing it to 3/105 comparable to or preferable to 6/150? It's hard to imagine X not being able to make an extra $45 m after his age 32 season or $80 mil after his age 31 season. But guaranteed money is guaranteed money. We see basketball players sign multi year deals for considerably less than they'd make yearly but they usually do that on the wrong side of 30.
 
Last edited:

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,952
Portland
I mean, maybe. He was spectacular in 2021 and just as good as X this year.

Even the last 4 years has Correa at 18.0 WAR and 18.4 WAR. I mean, so much better! You also specifically said peak. I'd take the guy who is 2 years younger and the better defender but to each their own.
You went from me showing zero metrics and being a fanboy, to being completely wishy-washy. And I never used the word peak. If you're going to argue, drop the snark or I'm throwing you on ignore.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
10,377
And that.

Since 2020, Correa 14.2 WAR. X 12.1
Career: 39.5 WAR in 888 career games for Correa
34.8 WAR in 1264 games for X.

I'm guessing the only period in which X is better than Correa is using 2019 in the sample.

To X's credit, he is trending the right way defensively. I wouldn't expect that continue given his age but I didn't expect it all. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing re: the Sox though.
Really the only advantage X has is that if we go back far enough he's been the much healthier player. The fewest games he's ever played in a full season is 136 whereas Correa played in 109 110 75 from 2017-2019. Not sure if those injuries are predictive of anything going forward though.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
64,751
How do you figure X's prime was better than Correa's? What are you talking about? What metric are you using? The I'm a Red Sox fan metric?

2015 WAR totals: X 4.3 Correa 4.8
2016 X 3.8, Correa 7.0
2017 X 2.3, Correa 6.7
2018 X 4.9, Correa 3.1
2019 X 6.3, Correa 3.7
2020 X 1.6, Correa 1.7
2021 X 4.9 Correa 7.2
20222 X 5.7, Correa 5.4


I guess you could make the argument X hit FA at a better time. He definitely didn't have a better peak. Not even close. How can you even make that argument? He matches up a little better with Seager anyway.

2015: 5.4
2016: 6.7
2018: 1.1
2019: 3.2
2020: 1.1
2021: 2.2
2022: DNP

Let's hope Bogaerts isn't Seager because Seager fell off a cliff at age 30. The same age X will be. Correa is also 2 years younger than X, despite starting their careers at roughly the same time. Correa debuted a year later.

Again though, in no planet was X's prime better than Correa's. He may arguably be just as good since 2020, I guess.
Corey Seager (4.1 bWAR for TEX this year), not his now-retired brother Kyle.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You went from me showing zero metrics and being a fanboy, to being completely wishy-washy. And I never used the word peak. If you're going to argue, drop the snark or I'm throwing you on ignore.
Or I edited my original post multiple times and you replied to it pre edits.

I even said "I guess if you are going over the last 4 years." And then your reply was "Over the last 4 years."

You can't admit your wrong. Go ahead and throw me on ignore, it won't hurt my feelings. You said X's peak was better than Correa's. You are flat out wrong but rather than admit it, blame snark.

Edit: Also "I dunno, maybe the last 4 years?" is what? Is that not snark? Then you are surprised I reply with snark? Yeah, ok boss.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Corey Seager (4.1 bWAR for TEX this year), not his now-retired brother Kyle.
Duh, my bad. I knew that too and I still looked up Kyle.

2015: 1.6 (27 games)
2016: 5.2
2017: 5.3
2018: 0.5 (26 games)
2019: 2.9
2020: 2.1 (52)
2021: 3.7 (97)
2022: 4.1

I'd say Corey's more comparable to X than Correa but I'd give X a decent edge over Seager, just as I'd give Correa a decent edge over X. To X's credit, he has the cleanest bill of health among the 3.

I just think Correa is a notch above these 2 in large part due to defense. Not so much this year as X put up a 1.1 dWAR but he's usually around 0.0 while Correa is at 1.5. They're bats have been pretty similar since 2019 (X 133 OPS+, Correa 130 OPS+) so the glove is the difference maker. I guess if one really likes X defensively or doesn't put much stock at all in defensive stats, it's close.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,033
Isle of Plum
Sure, but I don’t think there’s any chance in hell he’s settling for a four year deal. If he does, his market will have collapsed and he likely won’t return to the Sox on that kind of deal. I think 6/7 is the minimum length to get a deal done. Semien (also a Boras corp client) signed a 7/175M deal which started in his age 31 season; I think that’s a reasonable comp although I’m sure Boras will argue that X is worth more.
I was thinking this as well, but what if it was 4x40? That’s some short term pain for some long term flexibility, aka Mayer.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,624
Duh, my bad. I knew that too and I still looked up Kyle.

2015: 1.6 (27 games)
2016: 5.2
2017: 5.3
2018: 0.5 (26 games)
2019: 2.9
2020: 2.1 (52)
2021: 3.7 (97)
2022: 4.1

I'd say Corey's more comparable to X than Correa but I'd give X a decent edge over Seager, just as I'd give Correa a decent edge over X. To X's credit, he has the cleanest bill of health among the 3.

I just think Correa is a notch above these 2 in large part due to defense. Not so much this year as X put up a 1.1 dWAR but he's usually around 0.0 while Correa is at 1.5. They're bats have been pretty similar since 2019 (X 133 OPS+, Correa 130 OPS+) so the glove is the difference maker. I guess if one really likes X defensively or doesn't put much stock at all in defensive stats, it's close.
I was pretty sure you looked up Bob Seager
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I was thinking this as well, but what if it was 4x40? That’s some short term pain for some long term flexibility, aka Mayer.

I don't think 4/160 makes sense. I think most people think 6/160 would be close to his asking price. Even if he sucks in years 5 and 6, they'd be "free."

It wasn't far off from my thinking with the Correa contract 1/35 with 2 player options making it 3/105. 105 probably isn't enough. 160 is too much.

3/120 would probably get him thinking.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
I don't think 4/160 makes sense. I think most people think 6/160 would be close to his asking price. Even if he sucks in years 5 and 6, they'd be "free."

It wasn't far off from my thinking with the Correa contract 1/35 with 2 player options making it 3/105. 105 probably isn't enough. 160 is too much.

3/120 would probably get him thinking.
You think the asking price for Boras client Bogaerts will be less than what Boras client Semien got? I don’t see it- Bogaerts is younger, and Boras will surely play up Xander’s “championship winning” bonafides. Maybe he has to settle for a deal like that, but he will start off asking for a lot more.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
I was thinking this as well, but what if it was 4x40? That’s some short term pain for some long term flexibility, aka Mayer.
I could see something like 8/$200 with an opt-out after 4.

maybe structure it like

30/30/30/30/20/20/20/20

These big money short term deals seem to only happen with older high profile pitchers. There’s no reason for a guy like Bogaerts to settle for 4 years, IMO.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
You think the asking price for Boras client Bogaerts will be less than what Boras client Semien got? I don’t see it- Bogaerts is younger, and Boras will surely play up Xander’s “championship winning” bonafides. Maybe he has to settle for a deal like that, but he will start off asking for a lot more.
I could see something like 8/$200 with an opt-out after 4.

maybe structure it like

30/30/30/30/20/20/20/20

These big money short term deals seem to only happen with older high profile pitchers. There’s no reason for a guy like Bogaerts to settle for 4 years, IMO.
I think Bogaerts actually wants to sign in Boston. He's already signed one discount to stay here. 4/80 is too much of a discount.

Also, do you really think Xander would take 8/200 over 4/160? I think you are glossing over that 40 million per year over 25 mil per year part. 4/160 is a ridiculous number. He'd be a FA again at 34. Unless he's completely cooked, he should be able to get more than $40 mil from that point on. Even if he doesn't, it's probably worth the gamble. That's $160 million locked up.

Do you think Bogaerts would take 8/200 over 4/180? 4/190? 4/200? People are always focused on the years but at some point, it would be stupid for the player to turn down a higher annual salary over more guaranteed money. I think 4/160 vs 8/200 is that point, but I'd like to here some arguments on the other side. If 4/160 isn't that point, what is it? 170? 175? 199?

if the 2 best offers for X are 8/200 with some player opt outs and 4/160.. I dunno. He can make $120 mil and opt out. If he's not that good, he can then chose to opt in for the next 4 years at 4/80. Or he can take 4/160, be a FA at the end of year 4 and see if he can find a contract worth more than 4/40 at the end of his age 34 season. So if he took the 8/200 path and was good/opts out, he loses out on $40 million. If he's meh, he opts in and by the end of year 6, would have made 160 million... which he would have been at 2 years ago. I guess it's possible he's absolutely terrible after 4 seasons so he loses out on $40 mil. It would be kind of hard for him not to get more than 4/40.. and again even that does happen, it's worth the gamble. Maybe at that point, he'd rather just retire than grind out 4 meh seasons to make an extra $40 mil.

Taking 8/200 over 4/160 is ultra, ultra conservative for a 30 year old FA. I think 3/120 would be the more interesting number. Could he get more than 80 million after his age 33 season? I think that's far less likely than him making $40 after his age 34. 4/160 is so much money to anyone not signing the 10/300million deals.

I said 6/160 (I was personally thinking 6/150 but I made the money match the 4/160 offer). You said 8/200 with an opt out. We are both at $25 million a year. $40 million is 1.6 times that amount. To reach $200 million, they would have to only add 1 more year. Considering contracts will keep going up, X and Boras would have to be stupid ultra conservative to take 8/200 over 4/160.

edit: With that said, X isn't taking a 4 year deal because no one is going to pay him $40 mil per to do so. Correa signed for less and is younger, and got 2 opt outs in the process. The argument about who is better now probably has some merit (Correa still had the better peak. X had better WAR totals since 2018. Correa's had better WAR totals since 2020 and the last 3 years are more predictive than the last 5 years so that's a toss) but I can't see X getting much (if any) more than Correa did. 4/160 is literally double what X would get if he opted in.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,698
Chris Young has been GM of the Rangers since 2020, no? Semien (for sure) and Seagar deals will most certainly be used as comps for Bogaerts. That’s fine if you think they are bad deals, but the deal X signs is probably going to be a bad one. If the Sox want to bring him back and especially if they wan to do it quickly, it seems very likely to be a deal they won’t feel that great about.
No team feels great about any deal. The team always wants to pay less money. But if they wait for deals they feel great about, they wont make very many.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
Would he take 4/120 over 8/200? I don’t think any premium free agent actually has to make that choice. They can usually get both - the long term deal that locks in maximum security and the opt out which allows them to make even more if the market changes.

If it’s 4/160 or 8/200, I think its most likely that Boras would try to get one of the teams to at least 6/200.

Ultimately, how much do the Sox feel like they have to bring back Bogaerts? Between him, Correa, Swanson, and Turner - someone will probably be left for a better deal if you wait. Of course, that could totally backfire too depending on how the market evolves. But for a deal to get done quickly, they are probably going to have to pay way more than they want or hope that X really only wants to play here.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Would he take 4/120 over 8/200? I don’t think any premium free agent actually has to make that choice. They can usually get both - the long term deal that locks in maximum security and the opt out which allows them to make even more if the market changes.

If it’s 4/160 or 8/200, I think its most likely that Boras would try to get one of the teams to at least 6/200.

Ultimately, how much do the Sox feel like they have to bring back Bogaerts? Between him, Correa, Swanson, and Turner - someone will probably be left for a better deal if you wait. Of course, that could totally backfire too depending on how the market evolves. But for a deal to get done quickly, they are probably going to have to pay way more than they want or hope that X really only wants to play here.
I said 3/120. He definitely wouldn't take 4/120. I don't know if he'd consider that insulting necessarily but it's not a serious bid. 3/120... If the player really believes in themselves and think they have another decent contract at the end of their age 33 season... maybe? It's probably not quite enough. 4/140? They'd at least have to think about it. This is all assuming the max offer out there for him is 8/200 as well.

I don't disagree that Boras would try to get 6/200, but if it were between 4/160 and 8/200, I think they'd have to take 4/160. I would guess the odds are greatly in his favor to make considerably more than $40 million than not. Hell, if he gets the QO, he'd be half way there with 3 more seasons to go.

I'm kinda surprised more teams haven't tried the "NBA" approach. The NBA does it for different reasons, but there's no reason it still shouldn't work in the MLB. Overpay players considerably on short term deals (1 or 2 years) to fill in gaps but to also keep long term payroll flexibility/roster flexibility.

The Sox have a lot of money to spend. Would X say no to 1/50? 2/90? Maybe. But what about the players signing 4/60 year deals? Do they turn away from 1/27?

I picked a random player from this list so I'm not suggesting the Red Sox sign Josh Bell to 1/27, but would he turn it down for 4/60? He's projected to get 4/60 so he fits my example. It's not about how good Josh Bell is or whether the Sox should sign him, it's whether Josh Bell (or another player) would sign at that amount.

View: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10038697-predicting-mlb-free-agent-contracts-for-top-names-of-the-2022-23-class


At some point the "now money" has to be worth more than future guaranteed money. It's probably different for every player but is 1 year really going to change your future earnings that much, and is it worth it if they are basically paying you for 2 years?

I don't know if it would be a good way to spend the money but I'd rather they find out what they have and what they'll need before committing big money long term. Unless it's at an obvious position of need like an OF with power and average defense. Then again, long term for the Red Sox is probably 6+ years. Farm players are cheap.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,305
Twin Cities
I’m thinking the Sox will make their best offer before X declines his option and hits FA. If he hits FA, he’s likely gone. I don’t think the Sox will pay 105% of market value to outbid the most aggressive team.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
14,213
Michigan
I’m thinking the Sox will make their best offer before X declines his option and hits FA. If he hits FA, he’s likely gone. I don’t think the Sox will pay 105% of market value to outbid the most aggressive team.
This is why I think X is gone. The Sox will make their best offer before he hits free agency. Then he and Boras will use that offer as a starting point in negotiations with other teams.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,172
I mean, maybe. He was spectacular in 2021 and just as good as X this year.
There are two WAR metrics. On one X was a little bit better than CC. On the other X was much better. Citing WAR as evidence that CC was “just as good” this year as X this year is Paul Weiss level analytics.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
There are two WAR metrics. On one X was a little bit better than CC. On the other X was much better. Citing WAR as evidence that CC was “just as good” this year as X this year is Paul Weiss level analytics.
Much better over a larger sample size of games. He was also going back to 2018, I went back to 2019. BBref has the difference since 2018 at 23.3 to 21.1. So the gap is either 2.2 or 3.5.

Over the last 3 years, Fangraphs has X at 12.1 and Correa at 11.8 BBref has X at 12.1 and Correa at 14.3. If you want to argue over the last 4-5 years X has been better than Correa, it's an argument. That was not Grimshaw's initial argument. They said that Xander was superior in his prime (well that Correa and Seager were inferior), then switched the argument to "Correa is a different player than he was than in 16-17."

They completely changed their argument, were snarky about it, then made a post saying they'd block me.

How are we defining prime here? By age or best stretch? If you are doing it by age, Correa is arguably in his prime right now. Next year will be his age 28 season. Xander's best years happened to come at ages 26, 27, 28 and 29. If you are doing it by their best stretch... why does it matter if Correa was a different player than in 16/17? Besides that, Fangraphs has him at 10.6 WAR for 21/22 and 8.9 for 16/17.. so if WAR is the argument.. what? If he was using baseball reference, the argument kind of makes sense. Correa was worth 13.7 WAR in 16/17 and 12.6 in 21/22. But why are they making the argument in the first place? They said prime.

So either prime is best stretch, but let's eliminate a 2 year stretch for Correa, or it's age.. which also eliminates what should be 2 of Correa's best seasons.

If someone wants to argue X is just as good as Correa or even that their primes are, that's totally cool. At least use the same criteria for all the players. Don't switch the argument from prime to "18-22" mid argument.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
14,213
Michigan
Over the last 3 years, Fangraphs has X at 12.1 and Correa at 11.8 BBref has X at 12.1 and Correa at 14.3. If you want to argue over the last 4-5 years X has been better than Correa, it's an argument.
It doesn’t matter who was better. What matters is who will be better and for how long. Nobody want to pay for past performance.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It doesn’t matter who was better. What matters is who will be better and for how long. Nobody want to pay for past performance.
The poster specifically said that Seager and Correa were being paid more for being inferior in their primes. How are they defining primes? Obviously not by best stretch, because they want to exclude a 2 year stretch for Correa. By age? Correa is literally in the middle of his prime and according to the very metric the poster was using, was worth more in 21/22 (10.6 WAR) than he was in the 16/17 stretch the poster want's to exclude (8.9). 2023 will be his age 28 season. Using the same very metric, Xander was worth 10.5 WAR in 21/22.

So Xander is better than Correa because of his WAR total from 2018 to 2022, but Correa is a completely different player now than he was in 16/17 even though his WAR total was 10.6 during the 21/22 stretch, and 8.9 during the 16/17 stretch. His career high WAR year was also in 2021. I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to all of that. Sometimes I am way too literal a person and the argument just doesn't make sense to me. Correa is worse than Xander even though both are enjoying their best 2 year stretches according to fangraphs and have posted basically the same WAR (10.6 to 10.5) while Correa is 2 years younger and in the smack of his prime? How?

If you are going to use a specific stat to back up your claim, while ignoring that stat while you make other claims... you deserve snark. What is it? Is fangraphs WAR the end all be all? Are we talking prime or going forward?

Specifically to what you, Dhappy said, you're right. So I'm not sure why they mentioned prime performance anyway. It doesn't matter.
25 mill is the going rate for a an above average regular these days, something X clears with ease. 30 may seem to be on the high end, but if you consider Corey Seager being paid 32.5 through his age 37, and Correa also being paid more and both being inferior in their prime, 30 seems very reasonable and something a team with a payroll advantage over most of the league needs to take. . . advantage of.

Is he worth it? Per fangraphs, since his 2015 season he has averaged 36.5 mill in value. He may not quite "earn" something like 6/180 because of positional change, but there is quite a bit of built in cushion and the Red Sox have to spend their money somewhere. I've come around to locking him up because he puts so much effort into improving holes in his game and I think that makes his decline more gentle.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Or we could assess who's likely the better player over the term the Sox would sign them for?

I don't think it's controversial to say that Correa has been the better SS on rate basis (measured by WAR) and has a better defensive reputation, but X has been more durable and likely to stay on the field over the course of their careers. You'll get Correa's age 28+ seasons on and X's age 30+ seasons. Correa (and Turner for that matter) are likely to want huge market rate deals for 7 - 8 years, and after that the Sox are looking at a downgrade at the position (even if they land Swanson as replacement, I see him as having his career year at the best time).

The Sox attempting to (re)sign X before he opts out and they have to fight the market for him makes sense, but ultimately I think Chaim has a good plan set up:
  1. Attempt to sign X at reasonable extension without bidding against the market/ themselves
  2. If X opts out and his market goes nuts, the Sox can then engage the FA class and see if anyone winds up without a chair when the music stops (ala Story last year) to get a reasonable deal signed.
  3. Shift to a short term solution and then reallocate resources to other positions (this is admittedly tricky as the only other major FA acquisition would be Judge).
If things go sideways and the Sox are looking at option 3, is anyone going to be surprised to see Kike playing SS a lot more with a trade for a CFer as the fall back?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,172
The poster specifically said that Seager and Correa were being paid more for being inferior in their primes. How are they defining primes? Obviously not by best stretch, because they want to exclude a 2 year stretch for Correa. By age? Correa is literally in the middle of his prime and according to the very metric the poster was using, was worth more in 21/22 (10.6 WAR) than he was in the 16/17 stretch the poster want's to exclude (8.9). 2023 will be his age 28 season. Using the same very metric, Xander was worth 10.5 WAR in 21/22.

So Xander is better than Correa because of his WAR total from 2018 to 2022, but Correa is a completely different player now than he was in 16/17 even though his WAR total was 10.6 during the 21/22 stretch, and 8.9 during the 16/17 stretch. His career high WAR year was also in 2021. I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to all of that. Sometimes I am way too literal a person and the argument just doesn't make sense to me. Correa is worse than Xander even though both are enjoying their best 2 year stretches according to fangraphs and have posted basically the same WAR (10.6 to 10.5) while Correa is 2 years younger and in the smack of his prime? How?

If you are going to use a specific stat to back up your claim, while ignoring that stat while you make other claims... you deserve snark. What is it? Is fangraphs WAR the end all be all? Are we talking prime or going forward?

Specifically to what you, Dhappy said, you're right. So I'm not sure why they mentioned prime performance anyway. It doesn't matter.
What is the relevance of all this? It sort of sounds as if you’d be more likely to be ok with paying whatever the going rate for Correa might be, but not ok with paying the going rate for Xander. Because you expect Correa to be better.

Would you pay appreciably more for Correa than for Xander? Historically the speculation has been that Correa would get a higher AAV and more years. Would you pay the going rate for either?

I’d much rather have Xander at 27.5 x 6 than Correa at 35 x 8. But who knows what the actual numbers will look like.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,257
I said 3/120. He definitely wouldn't take 4/120. I don't know if he'd consider that insulting necessarily but it's not a serious bid. 3/120... If the player really believes in themselves and think they have another decent contract at the end of their age 33 season... maybe? It's probably not quite enough. 4/140? They'd at least have to think about it. This is all assuming the max offer out there for him is 8/200 as well.
How do you know all this?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Or we could assess who's likely the better player over the term the Sox would sign them for?

I don't think it's controversial to say that Correa has been the better SS on rate basis (measured by WAR) and has a better defensive reputation, but X has been more durable and likely to stay on the field over the course of their careers. You'll get Correa's age 28+ seasons on and X's age 30+ seasons. Correa (and Turner for that matter) are likely to want huge market rate deals for 7 - 8 years, and after that the Sox are looking at a downgrade at the position (even if they land Swanson as replacement, I see him as having his career year at the best time).

The Sox attempting to (re)sign X before he opts out and they have to fight the market for him makes sense, but ultimately I think Chaim has a good plan set up:
  1. Attempt to sign X at reasonable extension without bidding against the market/ themselves
  2. If X opts out and his market goes nuts, the Sox can then engage the FA class and see if anyone winds up without a chair when the music stops (ala Story last year) to get a reasonable deal signed.
  3. Shift to a short term solution and then reallocate resources to other positions (this is admittedly tricky as the only other major FA acquisition would be Judge).
If things go sideways and the Sox are looking at option 3, is anyone going to be surprised to see Kike playing SS a lot more with a trade for a CFer as the fall back?
Probably not something they can do this year, but in 2024 they could decide to play Rafaela at SS until Mayer is ready. That would still require them to have a CF, but Rafaela is a pretty good SS. He's a better CF but he's good at short.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
How do you know all this?
Know all what? That he wouldn't take 4/120? I don't, but I'm guessing he wouldn't. I'd guess the minimum he'd get is 6/150 and I'm hoping that's what the Sox get him for. Do you think he'd sign 4/120?

Or are you talking about the player I made up that believes in himself? I know that because I made the player up? And even then I wasn't convinced they would take 3/120 over 8/200.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
635
Boston
Know all what? That he wouldn't take 4/120? I don't, but I'm guessing he wouldn't. I'd guess the minimum he'd get is 6/150 and I'm hoping that's what the Sox get him for. Do you think he'd sign 4/120?

Or are you talking about the player I made up that believes in himself? I know that because I made the player up? And even then I wasn't convinced they would take 3/120 over 8/200.

No one can know for sure, but why would Xander take 4/120? That's a 30-40% discount to market - does anyone here willing take a 40% cut to their fair value comp for the same role?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,257
Know all what? That he wouldn't take 4/120? I don't, but I'm guessing he wouldn't. I'd guess the minimum he'd get is 6/150 and I'm hoping that's what the Sox get him for. Do you think he'd sign 4/120?

Or are you talking about the player I made up that believes in himself? I know that because I made the player up? And even then I wasn't convinced they would take 3/120 over 8/200.
Alright, man. I'm just saying, you've written nearly 3000 speculative words on this subject today alone. And you've abstracted it so far that you're spending lengthy posts explaining why you're justified in using snark in an argument that you started of negligible relevance or concern.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
What is the relevance of all this? It sort of sounds as if you’d be more likely to be ok with paying whatever the going rate for Correa might be, but not ok with paying the going rate for Xander. Because you expect Correa to be better.

Would you pay appreciably more for Correa than for Xander? Historically the speculation has been that Correa would get a higher AAV and more years. Would you pay the going rate for either?

I’d much rather have Xander at 27.5 x 6 than Correa at 35 x 8. But who knows what the actual numbers will look like.
Not really, I think signing a SS long term is a waste of resources unless the goal is to move them off the position in a few years or it's a complete bargain of deal. Like 6/150.

I'd be totally up for offering Correa a 3 year deal with an opt out every single year at $35 million. I'd be fine with X taking that too. If them or any other SS is ok with moving off the position, I'd be ok with it. Assuming the deals aren't much longer than 7 years, preferably 6. All things being equal, I'd prefer Correa over Xander.

No one would like me running the team, though. Devers is already gone. 10-12 years? For $240 million? Sure. $300+, lol. Of course, I'd probably give Devers 8/240 but they don't want 8 years and they don't want a $2 in the beginning.

If the Sox are going to give out ridiculous money long term, I'd prefer Aaron Judge. That's based mostly on the composition of the farm. "You are going to build around Mayer?" No. The team just has a bajillion infield prospects and nothing in the way of power OFs.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
35,474
Sure, but I don’t think there’s any chance in hell he’s settling for a four year deal. If he does, his market will have collapsed and he likely won’t return to the Sox on that kind of deal. I think 6/7 is the minimum length to get a deal done. Semien (also a Boras corp client) signed a 7/175M deal which started in his age 31 season; I think that’s a reasonable comp although I’m sure Boras will argue that X is worth more.
Well IMO we should let him walk then. 4-5 years for 30+ should be a no-brainer. Has any long deal that goes into a players late 30's worked well?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Well IMO we should let him walk then. 4-5 years for 30+ should be a no-brainer. Has any long deal that goes into a players late 30's worked well?
Is 5/160 that much different than 7/175 from a team building perspective? Are those last 2 years going to kill the sox, especially if the contract is front loaded? It's $15 million more total, but it's $7 million less annually.

At 5/150 I'd probably sign him, yet 5/160 gives me pause. I guess there has to be a limit, but 2 years and $15 million for a home grown talent to finish out his career in Boston seems like a nothingburger. Yet I probably wouldn't.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
35,474
Is 5/160 that much different than 7/175 from a team building perspective? Are those last 2 years going to kill the sox, especially if the contract is front loaded? It's $15 million more total, but it's $7 million less annually.

At 5/150 I'd probably sign him, yet 5/160 gives me pause. I guess there has to be a limit, but 2 years and $15 million for a home grown talent to finish out his career in Boston seems like a nothingburger. Yet I probably wouldn't.
I'm fine with 5/160. 30M vs 32M isn't that big of a deal. I'd rather X vs Correa/Turner because he's a known quantity here. I just don't want 6+ years - if he needs that, let him go and go cheap at SS for now. Bolster elsewhere. Mayer is looming.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
635
Boston
I said he wouldn't, fwiw.
No I know - I was agreeing with you - perhaps I should have quoted the post you quoted. There's no reason for him to take such an offer. Even among players that take "hometown discounts", I dont remember anyone taking one that large - sometimes you see some smaller discounts or tiebreaker type actions.