Poll: Grade the Xander to San Diego Contract

Would you have matched (or exceeded) the San Diego contract (11 years, $280M)?


  • Total voters
    464
  • Poll closed .

buttons

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
56
No question but that the price of poker is up. Way up.
If you want to play you have to pay. For the most part
teams that are constantly in the hunt have at least4
or 5 players earning anywhere from $20-30 million per
year. You can argue all you want that these long term
contracts are “wasting assets “ but that’s just the price
you have to pay to compete . I hope the Bloom gets aggressive
and comes up with some game changers.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
This site has always been sympathetic to ownership. It’s not representative. I also suspect there’s a lot of “no” votes that are still pissed off, or at least deeply disappointed and more pessimistic about the future, today.
So we’re biased en masse but you see the truth of things?
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,422
Every half-brained Red Sox fan could see the kid could rake. Two years ago, he should have been offered 10/$150M, last year 10/$200M.

Do you have any doubt that in the next Winter Meeting - some 'village idiot' is going to offer 10/$400M for a guy that is subpar defensively?

I don't.

And "that" is where Bloom (and ownership) has effed-up the core of this organization. And it's the reason why I find myself agreeing with Shank and Mazz for the first time in a decade about the direction of this franchise.

Bloom (and his bosses) deserve to get skewered. They deserve every single (!!!) criticism coming their way.

And anyone willing to defend these nerds and their algorithms - and this business approach (where the mature asset of the Boston Red Sox is funding growth for the assets to be scaled up - such as the Pittsburgh Penguins and soccer franchises) is totally off the rails and schillin' for ownership...either directly or indirectly.
100% correct

I wish signatures were allowed to be this long because this is totally sig worthy.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,422
The Bogaerts contract is not an outlier; it is a reflection that the market for free agent talent has changed.
Yes it is a reflection of a premium talent, with premium intangibles, at the premiumest of positions who is still in his prime and wants to get his last contract while he has the strongest demand for his services.

The fact that those with the gold didn't see that 1, 2, 3, 6 years ago is baffling.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,053
Unreal America
So we’re biased en masse but you see the truth of things?
I said no such thing. But I've been on SoSH for a lonnnng time and it's clearly more sympathetic to the front office POV than what I see and hear from non-SoSHers. I made no judgment on what the truth is.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,603
Maine
Yes it is a reflection of a premium talent, with premium intangibles, at the premiumest of positions who is still in his prime and wants to get his last contract while he has the strongest demand for his services.

The fact that those with the gold didn't see that 1, 2, 3, 6 years ago is baffling.
Three years ago, the Sox and Bogaerts agreed to a SIX YEAR CONTRACT. Can we stop with the "they should have done more sooner" nonsense? It's fair to criticize the team's approach since last fall when Bogaerts made it clear he intended to opt-out. Prior to that, he was still under contract (presumably happily) for at least another four years.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,422
Three years ago, the Sox and Bogaerts agreed to a SIX YEAR CONTRACT. Can we stop with the "they should have done more sooner" nonsense? It's fair to criticize the team's approach since last fall when Bogaerts made it clear he intended to opt-out. Prior to that, he was still under contract (presumably happily) for at least another four years.
Hogwash. He’s a Boras client. Of course he’s gonna opt out. How could they not see the contract was gonna end at the opt-out?

that’s not a 6 year contract, that’s a 3 year contract with a player option

when is Mass Mutual’s opt-out?
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
936
Boston
Doesn't this business model more or less depend on the Red Sox to, like, win?

Frankly, if the owners really are using the Red Sox to fund growth of other teams, it might have been a better decision to sign X - keep the Beloved Player; win 86 games; and keep the fans coming through the gates but never really compete for a championship. (I call this the "Washington Wizards" model of running a sports team.)

Foregoing established stars for lesser talent (but with more "potential excess value") has way more downside risk, which one would think the owners would forego if they weren't trying to win it all.

YMMV.
Yeah to this point, I think a lot of people really underrate the business risk of the model the Sox are pursuing. Top line revenue in sports is everything - the margins are really high across the board - even 25 years ago only 55% of revenue went to the players - that number is assuredly lower now. Grpwing ticket revenue and media ratings is the entire business.

The Red Sox are possibly the most exposed to interest downturn as (i) they own their network rather than having a guaranteed media deal so they get the upside of better ratings/market share at the cost of taking the downside risk and (ii) have incredibly high prices that are a serious restraint on ticket sales. I do well, but still dont have much interest in paying their prices to watch a shit product. Anecdotally, I am getting regular calls from their ticket people trying to sell me 4-5 game packs every other week - that never happened prior to like June of this year. I take from that they are expecting pretty weak ticket sales for 2023.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,053
Unreal America
Three years ago, the Sox and Bogaerts agreed to a SIX YEAR CONTRACT. Can we stop with the "they should have done more sooner" nonsense? It's fair to criticize the team's approach since last fall when Bogaerts made it clear he intended to opt-out. Prior to that, he was still under contract (presumably happily) for at least another four years.
The only way that was a 6 year deal was if Xander had a catastrophic injury or underperformed to an almost unimaginable degree.
 

BravesField

New Member
Oct 27, 2021
265
Hogwash. He’s a Boras client. Of course he’s gonna opt out. How could they not see the contract was gonna end at the opt-out?

that’s not a 6 year contract, that’s a 3 year contract with a player option

when is Mass Mutual’s opt-out?
And what is Sale's contract? One got injured and anther didn't. You really think had X needed TJ surgery right now that he would still opt out?
 
Feb 26, 2002
6,708
Citifield - Queens, NY
Yeah to this point, I think a lot of people really underrate the business risk of the model the Sox are pursuing. Top line revenue in sports is everything - the margins are really high across the board - even 25 years ago only 55% of revenue went to the players - that number is assuredly lower now. Grpwing ticket revenue and media ratings is the entire business.

The Red Sox are possibly the most exposed to interest downturn as (i) they own their network rather than having a guaranteed media deal so they get the upside of better ratings/market share at the cost of taking the downside risk and (ii) have incredibly high prices that are a serious restraint on ticket sales. I do well, but still dont have much interest in paying their prices to watch a shit product. Anecdotally, I am getting regular calls from their ticket people trying to sell me 4-5 game packs every other week - that never happened prior to like June of this year. I take from that they are expecting pretty weak ticket sales for 2023.
I don't want to derail this thread...but I'd love to hear both sides of this topic.

I'm 53 years old --- and only after the purge of Lynn, Fisk and Burleson etc. have I witnessed a severe downturn in New England's interest toward the Boston Red Sox. This franchise is an institution that still has us knuckleheads talking about them on 12/8 after a last place finish.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,905
Absurd contract, owners are their own worst enemies. I know it will never happen, but there should be a max contract length of 7 years. Red Sox owners are to blame for letting it get to this point.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,053
Unreal America
I don't want to derail this thread...but I'd love to hear both sides of this topic.

I'm 53 years old --- and only after the purge of Lynn, Fisk and Burleson etc. have I witnessed a severe downturn in New England's interest toward the Boston Red Sox. This franchise is an institution that still has us knuckleheads talking about them on 12/8 after a last place finish.
The Sox aren't ever going to be the As, but the signs of slipping interest are everywhere. Regular season ticket sales have been soft-ish for a while. Last season I was able to use StubHub to get excellent field box seats for below face. When ticket holders are just looking to stem losses, as opposed to make profit, that's a bad sign. Plus, NESN ratings were down last season, and they'll likely be down again in 2023. With continued cord cutting it gets tougher and tougher to maintain TV audiences, let alone grow them.

I think the Sox can weather this storm and people will get over the loss of beloved players. But they gotta win, and win consistently for that to happen.
 

Manuel Aristides

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2009
252
I voted yes... even though I would hate it, and it is objectively extremely risky.

My thinking is really changing personally on the importance of avoiding regrettable contracts. I think it may be that in some situations (Miggy in Detroit, as a random example) you have to swallow a contract that has some unambiguous bad years in it because that's the only way to add premium talent, which is generally a prerequisite to a championship caliber team. Yes, that deal hamstrung the Tigers, but, they could easily have won 2-3 titles with their core. I think it may be that in some other situations, you can accept the risk of bad years being part of a contract because either you have the payroll flexibility to absorb it (Arguably Giancarlo Stanton is a bit of this for New York right now) and/or expect the market to grow in such a way that the bad years are less awful when they arrive than they look to be now. In both scenarios, you may have a myriad number of outs that save your ass before the cows come home; maybe the player wants to be traded (Manny), maybe they age exceptionally well, etc.

Put differently: it is a bad value contract, but, I think it's become increasingly difficult to field championship teams with no bad contracts (or "future bad contracts") anywhere on there. The Astros, maybe, have sort of done it. The Braves model of extending guys early might be a way to work around it. But I think if you want to go to the championship, you often need a Chris Sale, Mookie Betts, or a Bryce Harper on the roster, looming bad years be damned. Especially if you're a team that has financial muscle as the Red Sox obviously do.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
I said no such thing. But I've been on SoSH for a lonnnng time and it's clearly more sympathetic to the front office POV than what I see and hear from non-SoSHers. I made no judgment on what the truth is.
Ok, that I can understand if we’re comparing sosh to civilian opinion. Ive been puttering around here a while as well and would say sosh would naturally represent a more knowledgeable and nuanced perspective of what actually constrains Sox leadership. Thanks and sorry for sounding glib.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,985
The 718
No, and no for almost all such contracts, ie I wouldn't have signed Judge to those terms either. I'm categorically against them. Very few 10+ year contracts could be deemed good deals, even taking into account that you're almost by definition overpaying over the last few years so as to get the player's best years.

https://www.mlb.com/news/longest-contracts-in-baseball-history#:~:text=The longest contracts in baseball history,-9:53 PM&text=When Fernando Tatis Jr.,longest pact in MLB history.

Look at that list - these have been bad deals for the most part. Clubs have been stuck with underperforming, untradeable players clogging up their payrolls. Even if the player performs at an elite level you've mortgaged away your roster flexibility and your squad is necessarily built around someone pushing 40. Factor in the risk of a catastrophic injury somewhere in that decade, it's just not something I like doing.

Now maybe this is becoming non-optional for top free agents, this is just what you have to do. It might be my Grandpa Simpson moment, but I don't like it. I'm generally all about players getting paid, but the artificial scarcity of the market that creates these things is not good for the game.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,061
NH
Which is also what we should have done with Devers.

Every half-brained Red Sox fan could see the kid could rake. Two years ago, he should have been offered 10/$150M, last year 10/$200M.

Do you have any doubt that in the next Winter Meeting - some 'village idiot' is going to offer 10/$400M for a guy that is subpar defensively?

I don't.

And "that" is where Bloom (and ownership) has effed-up the core of this organization. And it's the reason why I find myself agreeing with Shank and Mazz for the first time in a decade about the direction of this franchise.

Bloom (and his bosses) deserve to get skewered. They deserve every single (!!!) criticism coming their way.

And anyone willing to defend these nerds and their algorithms - and this business approach (where the mature asset of the Boston Red Sox is funding growth for the assets to be scaled up - such as the Pittsburgh Penguins and soccer franchises) is totally off the rails and schillin' for ownership...either directly or indirectly.
Couldn't agree more with all of this. Offering Bogaerts an offer to beat the Padres is a non-sequitor - they needed to offer him a real offer 12-24 months ago to avoid this ever happening.

It puzzles me that there are people who think this isn't a trend with their homegrown talent.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,603
Maine
Couldn't agree more with all of this. Offering Bogaerts an offer to beat the Padres is a non-sequitor - they needed to offer him a real offer 12-24 months ago to avoid this ever happening.

It puzzles me that there are people who think this isn't a trend with their homegrown talent.
A "real offer" 12 months ago, okay. A "real offer" 24 months ago, when he was a year into a six year deal and still two years away from the opt-out seems like asking a lot of any front office. Not only did he have a lengthy contract already, but you're asking the front office to be able to accurately predict where the free agent market would be two years in advance without knowing what the CBA was going to look like (so no idea of lux tax caps or penalties or anything). Entirely unrealistic.
 

GlucoDoc

New Member
Dec 19, 2005
79
I voted no. I loved X, but in the world of sports these days, we have to realize that sometimes we cannot hold onto our binkies forever!! And getting tied to burdensome and ridiculous contracts is not good. (Reference: Panda!) And with Boras as the agent, would there really have been a better one accepted 12-24 months ago? Binkies are replaceable, and we learn to live with that evolution. (That is why we have a farm system.) On to the next one.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

New Member
May 30, 2014
408
They come. They go. We stay.

That Padres deal is a stupid contract, and I refuse to believe that giving out stupid contracts leads to consistent winning. Chaim will have to put up his big boy's pants and figure this one out, naysayers be damned.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,172
I voted no but really I have to see how much they give Swanson before I really decide. If they give him 8/200 then yes I might prefer the Bogaerts contract.

I mean, somebody is likely to get overpaid with money we’ve given the Red Sox. Let’s see who it is and for how much

But as Buck and others have said, problem is not locking these players up early. You wait until free agency you are likely to pay a premium.

Devers -who to me is more important - has to thinking about something like 12/360 after the Bogaerts contract. I wonder what they could have signed him for after the 2021 season.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
5,005
Voting no isn't shilling for ownership. It's just an acknowledgement that this is a bad deal within the parameters the established by ownership that the front office has to work within. If Casas/Bello were two years older and established big leaguers and if Whitlock had a season of full-time starting pitching already under his belt and if you were confident Rafaela was ready to step in to play CF, etc. I think there's an argument for matching the deal. But we're not there.

If the question is "if you were Chaim Bloom would you have matched 11/$280M" the answer is easily no.

If the question is "if you were John Henry would you have matched 11/$280M" the answer is yes.

But if I were the owner I'd have also already signed Judge to 10/$420M and Rodon to 6/$180M because I'd be treating the franchise like my play-thing and not as part of my investment portfolio.