Red sox and Devers discussing a 7 year deal?

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,405
I’m going to choose to believe Pujols over Catillo on this one given the sourcing
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,605
Was gonna say, 7 years would be great for the Sox……but not sure why Raffy would want a deal of that length.
It's probably not worth parsing this tweet too finely, but while "at least 7 years" doesn't mean "only 7 years".
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
42,643
A Dominican journalist with El Caribe. He's popular with a lot of the Latin players. He did the Acuna interview where he sort of ripped Freeman.

Here's the actual Devers article that just posted (spanish). https://www.elcaribe.com.do/deportes/boston-inicia-plan-para-quedarse-con-devers/

He was also the first to break the Wander Franco contract extension.
Translation
The Boston Red Sox have taken the initial steps in a negotiation to secure Rafael Devers in the long term.

Sources told ElCaribe that a Red Sox executive is in the country leading those conversations and the team wants to keep him for at least seven seasons.


Devers, who last season hit .295 with 27 home runs, 88 towed races, a percentage of .358, one of slugging of .521, one of PAHO of .879 and one of OPS+ of .141, will be a free agent in 2024 and apparently Boston does not want to risk being available to the highest bidder.

Sources confirmed the reports that an initial proposal had already been rejected last year, so it is expected that Boston will significantly increase the supply this time to keep one of the best offensive pre-year-up to the business.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,391
Gallows Hill
Of course nothing good could happen tonight. Why do I even bother. Shit if Devers or Pastrnak signed, fuck it. Nothing good every happens.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,918
CT
Devers on a 7 year deal with a couple of options has to be an absolute best case scenario.

Sox lock him up for the majority of his prime and protect themselves from the possibility of him becoming a complete defensive liability later in his career or his body breaking down.

Wonder if Devers is a domino that makes it more likely for Xander to return.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,994
Bangkok
Devers on a 7 year deal with a couple of options has to be an absolute best case scenario.

Sox lock him up for the majority of his prime and protect themselves from the possibility of him becoming a complete defensive liability later in his career or his body breaking down.

Wonder if Devers is a domino that makes it more likely for Xander to return.
It's reported to be, at minimum, a 7 year extension, which means 8 total years (age 26-34 seasons) given he's already under contract for next year.

If this happens, I would bet that it ends up being an 8 year extension (age 26-35 seasons), with an opt out after age 29.

Hoping we get on the deferred payment scheme like other teams which will lower the AAV hit, which is all that really matters for roster construction.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,665
I imagine he’d either demand a long- 10-12 year guaranteed contract or yeah…. Something where he can opt-out before he hits 31 but with another 3-4 years where he can opt-in
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,441
Mobile, AL
Devers is the most "likable" position player of the current Red Sox (barring a X return) and should be the face of the team in the way that Nomar/Papi/Pedroia/Mookie were. Xander is the quiet leader type (Raffy is to Papi as X is to Tek?) and just as valuable to the team, but I'm in the "back up the truck for Raffy" camp and let the team build around him.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,789
I'm one of the holdouts that thinks opt-outs -- depending on the design -- can still be a good thing for the club, so long as they are very disciplined and won't overspend to keep a guy who opts out just to avoid 48 hours of bad publicity. So I'm not going to preemptively panic if say, there's an opt out after 3 years.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,918
CT
I'm one of the holdouts that thinks opt-outs -- depending on the design -- can still be a good thing for the club, so long as they are very disciplined and won't overspend to keep a guy who opts out just to avoid 48 hours of bad publicity. So I'm not going to preemptively panic if say, there's an opt out after 3 years.
I don’t really see any instance where an opt-out isn’t advantageous for the player.

If they’re performing at or above their expected level, they’re going to opt out and get some of that inevitable market inflation.

If they’re underperforming, they aren’t opting out because they’re already getting paid at or above their current market value and the team is stuck with an over paid, under performing player.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,789
I don’t really see any instance where an opt-out isn’t advantageous for the player.

If they’re performing at or above their expected level, they’re going to opt out and get some of that inevitable market inflation.

If they’re underperforming, they aren’t opting out because they’re already getting paid at or above their current market value and the team is stuck with an over paid, under performing player.

It's always advantageous for the player, so long as they or their representation can read market value reasonably well. But that doesn't mean it can't be advantageous for the team too. Let's say Devers signs a 10 year deal with an opt out after year 3, and he does well enough where he exercises it. Signing him for more than 7 years at that point it likely to be a bad bet, so the Sox would be more than happy with the three great years they will have gotten form him and allocate the money elsewhere. True, they could just not have an opt out and trade him at that point, but that scenario requires a ton of discipline and subjects the team to horrible PR situation. The opt out saves them from that., while serving a s a way to reduce long term risk.
 

zougwa

Member
SoSH Member
Does anyone remember what the initial April offer was for?
"Devers reportedly rejected a contract extension offer before the season, with multiple outlets citing that the two sides were very far apart. ESPN’s Jeff Passan suggested in April that the Red Sox offered north of $200 million, but Devers was seeking more than $300 million."

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/rafael-devers-has-earned-extension-from-red-sox

The Passan figure came from a WEEI interview.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,703
It's always advantageous for the player, so long as they or their representation can read market value reasonably well. But that doesn't mean it can't be advantageous for the team too. Let's say Devers signs a 10 year deal with an opt out after year 3, and he does well enough where he exercises it. Signing him for more than 7 years at that point it likely to be a bad bet, so the Sox would be more than happy with the three great years they will have gotten form him and allocate the money elsewhere. True, they could just not have an opt out and trade him at that point, but that scenario requires a ton of discipline and subjects the team to horrible PR situation. The opt out saves them from that., while serving a s a way to reduce long term risk.
In theory, sure. But isn’t this exact scenario happening right now with Bogaerts? The team and its fans don’t seem more than happy to walk away at all.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,789
In theory, sure. But isn’t this exact scenario happening right now with Bogaerts? The team and its fans don’t seem more than happy to walk away at all.
The structure of the optout matters. Xander is opting out of a 3 years -- age 30, 31, 32. It was always unlikely that he would opt out in a way that would ultimately save the club from a disaster. That said, that the inclusion of the opt-out was one of the things that got him to sign the deal in the first place, which gave the Sox 3 of his free agent years at a very team friendly price. I'm OK with that tradeoff.
 

glennhoffmania

I stand corrected... again.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,408,305
NY
The structure of the optout matters. Xander is opting out of a 3 years -- age 30, 31, 32. It was always unlikely that he would opt out in a way that would ultimately save the club from a disaster. That said, that the inclusion of the opt-out was one of the things that got him to sign the deal in the first place, which gave the Sox 3 of his free agent years at a very team friendly price. I'm OK with that tradeoff.
You're right that it can help the team in the sense that it may have been the reason that Bogaerts agreed to sign in the first place. But that also implies that the option had a lot of value. Without the opt out they would've had him locked up for a few more years and wouldn't have to start paying him more starting next year if they sign him.

You're also right that it can end up helping the team down the road, but that's only if the player misreads the market. Relying on the other side of a deal to act stupidly in order for it to work out in your favor isn't a good strategy. That doesn't mean you should never offer an opt out. But like with your first point, that's because it has a lot of value to the other side and, by definition, that means you're giving up something of value to get the deal done.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,789
You're also right that it can end up helping the team down the road, but that's only if the player misreads the market.
Nope. The catch is the market is usually stupid. A-Rod read the market well when he opted out in 2007. Somebody was going to give him a better deal than what remained on his contract. If the Yankees had let someone else give 10 years to a guy who was already 31, they could have spent that money elsewhere, and both team and player would have benefited.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,935
Newton
It's always advantageous for the player, so long as they or their representation can read market value reasonably well. But that doesn't mean it can't be advantageous for the team too. Let's say Devers signs a 10 year deal with an opt out after year 3, and he does well enough where he exercises it. Signing him for more than 7 years at that point it likely to be a bad bet, so the Sox would be more than happy with the three great years they will have gotten form him and allocate the money elsewhere. True, they could just not have an opt out and trade him at that point, but that scenario requires a ton of discipline and subjects the team to horrible PR situation. The opt out saves them from that., while serving a s a way to reduce long term risk.
Who benefits from opt-outs: an argument as old as time itself.

The JD opt-outs (to which he opted-in) turned out to be pretty good for the team. I get that maybe we'd have preferred he leave so we could sign Schwarber this last year but all in all, that contract was pretty good value.
 

glennhoffmania

I stand corrected... again.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,408,305
NY
Nope. The catch is the market is usually stupid. A-Rod read the market well when he opted out in 2007. Somebody was going to give him a better deal than what remained on his contract. If the Yankees had let someone else give 10 years to a guy who was already 31, they could have spent that money elsewhere.
That's true of any deal that ends and the team has to decide whether to try to resign the player. It's not specific to opt outs. Without the option NY would've kept him at a lower salary when he was clearly worth it. That's not helpful to a team.

I'll leave this as my last comment. This topic has been discussed several times over the years and there's no reason to relitigate it. It's basic economics and the fact that it could end up working out well for the team doesn't change the analysis.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,758
I don’t really see any instance where an opt-out isn’t advantageous for the player.

If they’re performing at or above their expected level, they’re going to opt out and get some of that inevitable market inflation.

If they’re underperforming, they aren’t opting out because they’re already getting paid at or above their current market value and the team is stuck with an over paid, under-performing player.
Assuming we are not talking about recurring annual opt-outs like JDM had, one scenario that could be advantageous to the team is if the player has a down year, opts in because the "market" "saw" his down year and "thought" it might be something else, and then rebounds. I understand that this may be an exception that proves your rule is generally right.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,789
That's true of any deal that ends and the team has to decide whether to try to resign the player. It's not specific to opt outs. Without the option NY would've kept him at a lower salary when he was clearly worth it. That's not helpful to a team.

I'll leave this as my last comment. This topic has been discussed several times over the years and there's no reason to relitigate it. It's basic economics and the fact that it could end up working out well for the team doesn't change the analysis.
Actually, you are correct about the A-Rod example -- like Xander this year, he had only three years left on his deal. He was likely to maintain his value at that point. The 3-years-into-a 10-year-deal scenario I discussed earlier, that's a different animal.
 
In theory, sure. But isn’t this exact scenario happening right now with Bogaerts? The team and its fans don’t seem more than happy to walk away at all.
I hate to re-litigate the whole opt out debate again, but I think people who say that opt outs can be good for the team mostly mean something like "opt outs can work out in the team's favor."

The Bogaerts situation can't really be analyzed along this line yet because we don't know what's going to happen. At the moment the opt out is available to be exercised, the value is clearly in the hands of the player. The team now has to make a decision to commit more resources to the player or let him go, which as we are seeing now is often a difficult decision. At this moment in time it's always going to look like a disadvantage to the team. And it is a disadvantage, but it can work out to the team's benefit.

Consider a spectrum of career trajectories with Big Papi on one end of the spectrum (basically excellent output from the day he broke out to the day he retried, barring a few blips) and Carl Crawford (superstar player that turned into a pumpkin basically overnight at a surprisingly young age). At the moment an opt out is exercised, we don't know what track the rest of the player's career will take, and who actually benefits from the opt out depends on a combination of the market and the future production of the player.

Let's look at the following scenarios, comparing an opt out to a contract without an opt out:

  1. Player performs at or above the level of their contract up to the opt out, and continues to perform after the opt out
  2. Player performs at or above the level of their contract up to the opt out, but falls off significantly after the opt out
  3. Player performs under their contract up to the opt out (or suffers a clearly debilitating injury before the opt out)
In scenario 1, the opt out hurts the team as they have either lost the services of a player that continues to perform or they are forced to increase the value of the contract in order to retain those services.

In scenario 2, the opt out has helped the team if they didn't resign the player, as they have managed to extract significant value in the early phase of the contract and aren't left holding the bag later. If the team resigned the player for a higher value, then the opt out has hurt the team.

In scenario 3, the opt out is neutral when compared to a contract without an opt out. Either way the team is stuck holding the bag.

Unfortunately I think there are a lot more Carl Crawfords in baseball than there are Big Papis, and I expect scenario 2 will come up more often that one might expect. Is the opt out good for the player? Yes. Is the opt out stressful for the team and the fan base? Yes. Can it work out in the team's favor? Also yes.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
42,643
As we reported yesterday, Boston began the negotiation process with Rafael Devers. The senior executive did not go to Samaná to break a cake or sing happy birthday. A much better offer was made than the previous one, therefore the last one is this one, not the training one.
That said, nothing is certain. These are early stages, but Boston is determined to prevent practice or the start of the season from arriving without having the Dominican under contract. The intention is to make the best proposal possible. You already know.
View: https://twitter.com/YancenPujols/status/1584937742802505731


https://twitter.com/YancenPujols/status/1584937741250625536