Red Sox in season discussion

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Well I was definitely wrong about the SS market being too small to accommodate big contracts this off-season.
That said, I hope they do just stay with X at SS until Mayer is ready.
Maybe then he’s best in LF or 3B (with maybe Devers in LF?). Also I think Arroyo is fine at 2B until Yorke is ready. The lack of long term corner outfield bats is a concern. It would make sense to get Blaze some time out there, no?
I’d like to see a good utility infielder that could start at any position in case of injury- Turner seems like a good fit for that but his price tag doesn’t make sense if Sox are still interested in Schwarber and/or Suzuki and plan to add BP arms, extend Devers and/or X.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I doubt the Sox are really doing anything more than kicking the tires on Story, but there's nothing in the Bogaerts report that doesn't make perfect sense & isn't totally believable.

If the way X can maximize his value is to include positional flexibility, why not do that? If his stance is I'm a shortstop I only play shortstop, when I die bury me at shortstop, that significantly lowers his value with any team that values defense, is rich enough to pay lots of $ for multiple top end SS, and/or has a SS in the pipeline (e.g. Mayer).

If a team wants X to play SS for the next 10 years & values him more to do that than other teams do to have him with some expected flexibility, that's fine, too, but it's unlikely to be the case.

See, I think it's the opposite of the bolded. Hinting at "positional flexibility" is fine, but if he's seeking maximum contract value, he's doing that as a shortstop not as a SS/3B/2B. Seager and Lindor didn't get their contracts because they're flexible defensively, they got those contracts because they're shortstops and that's the premium position that players get paid out the ass for. And it's for that reason that I believe there's no chance that when he acknowledged he might be willing to change position, he meant it for 2022. His best chance at getting paid next winter is if he's an elite shortstop, not an elite 2B (or 3B).

 

[nvalvo]

I get that he isn't a great defender, but "can't really play SS" is absolutely not true. Are we letting this narrative spin out of control here? He's a bit below average and we would all love a gold glove SS, but it's hardly the case that his defense prevented the Sox from advancing to the World Series. It costs the team some runs here and there. In the meantime, he's the best offensive shortstop in the AL and is rated a 5-win player. The idea that he isn't perfect so let's start moving things around, making him uncomfortable, and basically running him out of town despite the fact that he's been an ideal Red Sock for 8 years is unacceptable to me. WE DON'T NEED A SHORTSTOP. If he sticks around long term and would move to 2B later, OK, but forcing a change now and putting his status as a franchise cornerstone in jeopardy is nuts.

We had the worst defensive efficiency in baseball, though. That isn't some advanced stat of dubious accuracy that can be messed up by shifts and such. The team, as constructed, defends terribly.

I think it's fair to suggest that, for that reason, that we can keep one of Bogaerts or Devers on the left side of the infield.

If we have a heart-to-heart with Bogaerts and learn that he wants to set the franchise games played record at SS, but thereafter is willing to be a 2B/3B/LF/SS/whatever, then cool. Give him a raise and an extension that keeps him in Boston throughout his career, and maybe we can make things work with Devers at 3B. (If we're choosing one of these guys to extend, I'm choosing Bogaerts — the complete package IMO.) Perhaps we can arrange an extension with Devers on the basis of an understanding that he is a future DH.

The team knows more than we do about the state of those conversations. But on the basis of public information and without imputing some desire to give a hometown discount to Xander or Raphael, given the situation of the team (Eovaldi and JDM are pending FA, Sale is still in his early 30s) and the presence right now of roster-changing SS options in FA, the championship-chances-optimizing move IMO is to sign Correa or Story, put them at SS, shift Bogaerts to 2B or LF, and sort out his opt out later. We'll duck back under the CBT after 2022.

That gives us a season of:

Sale
Eovaldi
Hill
Houck
Wacha

DL Paxton

C Vazquez RH
C Plawecki RH

1B Dalbec RH
2B Bogaerts RH
3B Devers LH
SS Story RH
UI Arroyo RH

OF/IF Hernandez RH
OF Verdugo LH
OF Duran LH
OF Bradley LH
OF/DH Martínez RH

And the best left-handed or switch-hitting multi-positionalist we can bring in on a short term deal (Casas is coming...). Schwarber? Cordero? Arauz?

I'm not bothering to think about the 'pen for this post.

Line it up something like this:

CF Hernández RH
2B Bogaerts RH
3B Devers LH
DH Martínez RH
SS Story RH
LF Verdugo LH
1B Dalbec RH
C Vazquez RH
RF Duran LH

Plawecki
Bradley
Arroyo
LHH

Then after 2022, we lose Price ($16m), Eovaldi ($17m), JDM ($21m), and perhaps Bogaerts ($20m) or even Sale ($25m). That gets us back under, and we're able to supplement the 1B/3B/DH situation with Triston Casas and the MI with (*fingers crossed*) Jeter Downs. But we could also bring Bogaerts back, especially if Paxton has panned out and we have a cheap good SP.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Well, nobody can sign anybody until the lockout is over. But you know what teams can do? Hire a manager. The Red Sox don’t need one, but their bench coach, as maybe was expected(?), is a candidate for the Oakland job:

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Britt_Ghiroli/status/1467992650557145096


He has been a finalist for a few jobs, so I assume it’s a matter of time before he gets one, especially now with a high-profile bench coach job on his CV. So maybe we’ll get to talk about the new bench coach instead of going around in circles about Story? Maybe?

 

[chrisfont9]

This is just a way of saying Story's best offensive season was slightly worse than Devers best offensive season. Most of that is attributed to park factors I imagine, considering Story had a .917 OPS/120 OPS+ while Devers had a .916 OPS/132 OPS+. I don't really want to sign Story either but Story has a great track record as a hitter and is generally a useful defensive player.

Well, Story is 29, and isn't likely to top that by much if at all, while Devers might be just getting started. Story's a good hitter but might be about to get paid as if he were a great one, which I hope the Sox won't bite on. His OPS+ of 103 this past season might be a preview of things to come.

 

[JM3]

See, I think it's the opposite of the bolded. Hinting at "positional flexibility" is fine, but if he's seeking maximum contract value, he's doing that as a shortstop not as a SS/3B/2B. Seager and Lindor didn't get their contracts because they're flexible defensively, they got those contracts because they're shortstops and that's the premium position that players get paid out the ass for. And it's for that reason that I believe there's no chance that when he acknowledged he might be willing to change position, he meant it for 2022. His best chance at getting paid next winter is if he's an elite shortstop, not an elite 2B (or 3B).

If a team wants to pay him as an elite shortstop, they will pay him as an elite shortstop, & play him there.

No matter what position X plays in '22, teams know what he can do defensively as a shortstop. There is a very significant sample size.

If teams are going to hand out a huge long-term contract, they better have some idea wtf they're going to be doing with the player toward the end of it. Seager certainly won't be a shortstop into his mid 30s (at least I would hope not). & the Rangers certainly should have some sort of idea what they'll do later.

This is a bit of a tangent from my initial point, which is there is 0 downside to future flexibility because even if you have less value at other positions, that doesn't lower your value to a team that is comfortable playing you at shortstop for the length of your contract.

But...I'm also not sure if the shortstop needs to be paid a ton because it's a valuable position archetype is smart modern baseball.

Last year, shortstops as a collective had an OPS of .754 & WAR of 85.9 (all these #s are from Fangraphs).

3B had an OPS of .746 & WAR of 66.5.
2B had an OPS of .723 & WAR of 54.6.

There are of course selection reasons behind this, but that should not really be relevant to a big market team.

If Player X (lol) is a league average defensive shortstop & above-average to way above average at 2B or 3B, & Team B (lol) can afford him & another high-paid infielder, wouldn't it make sense for that other infielder to be a good defensive SS & to play Player X at a position where he is better defensively & provides even more surplus value offensively?

I think there's more of a case for that being Correa than Story, & I would 100% talk to X 1st, & I don't think it's going to happen anyway, but I don't think it's all as linear as one has traditionally been led to believe.

In the surplus value era, it's really not as simple as SS good, other positions bad.

Would it be fun to have 140 games of Devers at 3B, 140 games of Correa at SS, & X playing 100/20/20 at 2B/SS/3B? It would to me.

& again, if SS really is X's highest value position, the market will dictate that regardless of anything else. With the only potential downside being the human aspect. But if he's getting paid at his peak value point, regardless of position, & that's how he could both get paid & win championships, I would hope his ego would be just fine, especially with full & open dialog.

 

[grimshaw]

There is some evidence that Bogaerts being moved off of his position affected his performance on the field. If memory serves, he wasn't happy about his move to 3b in 2014 and you could argue that it stunted his growth a bit (he had a replacement level season). I'm sure a large chunk of it was due to him being a rookie taking his lumps, but it caught him by surprise and anecdotally at least hurt his confidence. Pulling the rug out from him again may hurt his value even more.

X is also not falling off a cliff defensively. By dWAR (which seems to use better metrics)from bRef he has been between -.1 and .3 -ironically the latter being last season. There is no sign of decline which is typical of someone at a physically demanding position after the age of 25. DRS is the stat the kids are using, and one that I love, but it is just one stat. As long as he stays healthy, I think he should more or less be the same guy for the next few seasons.

In terms of signing Story, he picked a bad season for defensive decline, injury or not, when his offense has very likely already peaked. I do think locking him vs Bogaerts up would be a net improvement. I am openly an unsentimental bastard when it comes to sports to the point of uncomfortable dinner conversations with my dad, but it seems like too much of a gamble, and one where Bloom may want to just find value at other positions instead.

All that said, I would be all in for Correa for a contract with opt outs in 3 or 4 years. When you have someone that good on defense, you don't need to totally avoid signing pitchers who make hitters pound the ball into the ground. The Sox last season, didn't want any part of that. The trickle down effect from improving defensive efficiency is something they badly need.

 

[RedOctober3829]

We had the worst defensive efficiency in baseball, though. That isn't some advanced stat of dubious accuracy that can be messed up by shifts and such. The team, as constructed, defends terribly.

I think it's fair to suggest that, for that reason, that we can keep one of Bogaerts or Devers on the left side of the infield.

If we have a heart-to-heart with Bogaerts and learn that he wants to set the franchise games played record at SS, but thereafter is willing to be a 2B/3B/LF/SS/whatever, then cool. Give him a raise and an extension that keeps him in Boston throughout his career, and maybe we can make things work with Devers at 3B. (If we're choosing one of these guys to extend, I'm choosing Bogaerts — the complete package IMO.) Perhaps we can arrange an extension with Devers on the basis of an understanding that he is a future DH.

The team knows more than we do about the state of those conversations. But on the basis of public information and without imputing some desire to give a hometown discount to Xander or Raphael, given the situation of the team (Eovaldi and JDM are pending FA, Sale is still in his early 30s) and the presence right now of roster-changing SS options in FA, the championship-chances-optimizing move IMO is to sign Correa or Story, put them at SS, shift Bogaerts to 2B or LF, and sort out his opt out later. We'll duck back under the CBT after 2022.

That gives us a season of:

Sale
Eovaldi
Hill
Houck
Wacha

DL Paxton

C Vazquez RH
C Plawecki RH

1B Dalbec RH
2B Bogaerts RH
3B Devers LH
SS Story RH
UI Arroyo RH

OF/IF Hernandez RH
OF Verdugo LH
OF Duran LH
OF Bradley LH
OF/DH Martínez RH

And the best left-handed or switch-hitting multi-positionalist we can bring in on a short term deal (Casas is coming...). Schwarber? Cordero? Arauz?

I'm not bothering to think about the 'pen for this post.

Line it up something like this:

CF Hernández RH
2B Bogaerts RH
3B Devers LH
DH Martínez RH
SS Story RH
LF Verdugo LH
1B Dalbec RH
C Vazquez RH
RF Duran LH

Plawecki
Bradley
Arroyo
LHH

Then after 2022, we lose Price ($16m), Eovaldi ($17m), JDM ($21m), and perhaps Bogaerts ($20m) or even Sale ($25m). That gets us back under, and we're able to supplement the 1B/3B/DH situation with Triston Casas and the MI with (*fingers crossed*) Jeter Downs. But we could also bring Bogaerts back, especially if Paxton has panned out and we have a cheap good SP.

I really like this. The only other way it gets better is if you really go for it. Sign Story, Suzuki, and Schwarber and trade Martinez. Take a look at this lineup and tell me whose lineup in the AL is better. With the possibility of adding Casas mid-season at 1B as well.

CF Hernandez R
DH Schwarber L
2B Bogaerts R
3B Devers L
SS Story R
LF Verdugo L
RF Suzuki R
1B Dalbec R
C Vazquez R

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Sure it’s a great lineup. But adding Suzuki, Schwarber, and Story and losing Martinez is gonna equate to a $250M+ payroll….and then needing to deal with all the FA’s the year after which would lift payroll even higher: Is that realistic? Possible the team decides to GFIN after the CBA is figured out, but seems somewhat unlikely, to me at least.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I really like this. The only other way it gets better is if you really go for it. Sign Story, Suzuki, and Schwarber and trade Martinez. Take a look at this lineup and tell me whose lineup in the AL is better. With the possibility of adding Casas mid-season at 1B as well.

How about signing Suzuki or Schwarber (or both and trade Martinez), and sign Andrelton Simmons? Then extend Bogaerts like a top tier SS and move him to 2B, with his blessing.

The Sox are fine on offense and have no need to add Story or Correa on a long contract. They were 5th in runs and 3rd in OPS last year.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Sure it’s a great lineup. But adding Suzuki, Schwarber, and Story and losing Martinez is gonna equate to a $250M+ payroll….and then needing to deal with all the FA’s the year after which would lift payroll even higher: Is that realistic? Possible the team decides to GFIN after the CBA is figured out, but seems somewhat unlikely, to me at least.

As nvalvo says, you do lose a lot of payroll next year. If Duran is ready, he could take over in CF. If Paxton returns to form, there's a cheaper starter. Hopefully one or two minor league arms are ready to contribute in 22 or 23(Seabold, Bello, Mata, Groome, Winckowski) to get some cost-controlled pitching. We'll see--my idea was more of taking advantage of a soft market after the lockout with Schwarber.

 

[ponch73]

A side note to the Nomar story is that he was offered a new deal (extension I think) of 60 M for 4 years in 2003 which he and his agent refused. It's neither here nor there when it comes to Bogaerts, but does add a bit more detail to the Nomar saga.

I was told second-hand in 2002 that Red Sox ownership considered Nomar to be a malcontent, and the most troublesome ego to deal with. As it was relayed to me, he was the only guy on the team who would pointedly refuse to sign a jersey or baseball that was being auctioned off for the Jimmy Fund or to make time to visit with a sick kid. Ownership was also very well aware of how beloved Nomar was by the fan base.

 

[nvalvo]

I really like this. The only other way it gets better is if you really go for it. Sign Story, Suzuki, and Schwarber and trade Martinez. Take a look at this lineup and tell me whose lineup in the AL is better. With the possibility of adding Casas mid-season at 1B as well.

CF Hernandez R
DH Schwarber L
2B Bogaerts R
3B Devers L
SS Story R
LF Verdugo L
RF Suzuki R
1B Dalbec R
C Vazquez R

I have to say, I like Suzuki as an addition better than Schwarber. I think I'm trying to get us to a 2023 roster with Casas at 1B and Devers/Dalbec handling the 3B/DH duties.

And let's say Suzuki ends up getting like 5/$60m, which is extremely high for a post-Matsuzaka Japanese player (he's more likely to get like 3/$20m), while Story gets something like 10/$270, give or take $50m.

That only takes our CBT to like $225m. The CBT threshold is currently $210, although the CBA makes this all TBD.

As nvalvo says, you do lose a lot of payroll next year. If Duran is ready, he could take over in CF. If Paxton returns to form, there's a cheaper starter. Hopefully one or two minor league arms are ready to contribute in 22 or 23(Seabold, Bello, Mata, Groome, Winckowski) to get some cost-controlled pitching. We'll see--my idea was more of taking advantage of a soft market after the lockout with Schwarber.

So better numbers:

After 2022, we are are out of contracts with Bogaerts (20 AAV; player opt out expected to be used) JD Martinez (19.375), Eovaldi (17), Price (16), Kiké (8), Vazquez (7), Wacha (7), Hill (5), Bradley (3 = 11m "coming off" minus his buyout), Plawecki (2.25). Hell, Sale (24) has an opt out after 2022, not that anyone expects him to exercise it.

So somewhere in the $100m range in money is coming off in 2022, perhaps as much as ~$125m if everybody opts out. Devers and Barnes are the main potential departures after 2023. Now, with the exception of David Price, those guys' contributions also need to be replaced. But we have at least the potential of replacing several of these departing FAs with rookies and pre-arb players, i.e. Martínez can leave and be replaced by Dalbec with Casas at 1B — that sort of thing.

So if we take the payroll to $225m or even $250m this year, even if the CBT stays around $210, we should be able to get back under either after 2022 or 2023 without doing anything drastic at all.

Sprowl said earlier this offseason that it probably made sense to add to this flawed team for another go round in 2022, and then really transition the roster before 2023. I think he's probably right.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

About as small of an offseason move as a team can make... https://985thesportshub.com/2021/12/08/red-sox-make-two-selections-in-minor-league-rule-5-draft/

Edit- minor league Rule 5. Sox took a Yankee. Can't imagine anything at all developing out of either of these two.

 

[Pegleg]

I hope we don't get Story. His Road stats are poor. https://www.statmuse.com/mlb/player/trevor-story-58265/splits

 

[YTF]

I hope we don't get Story. His Road stats are poor. https://www.statmuse.com/mlb/player/trevor-story-58265/splits

Are they? There's a clear drop in Avg and OBP, but he still produces. He's played the equivalent of 2 1/4 FULL seasons on the road with an average of 28 HR and 78 RBI per 162 games on the road. On the flip side Bogaerts per 162 games on the road had 18 HR and 76 RBI while hitting 27 points higher in AVG (.268-.241), 23 points higher in OBP (.333-.310) and each having identical SLG of .422.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I hope we don't get Story. His Road stats are poor. https://www.statmuse.com/mlb/player/trevor-story-58265/splits

Haven't there been studies that suggest former Rockies players tend to do better on the "road" once they leave the Rockies?

Plus, those are hardly "poor." They are "average." .243/.310/.442. As a league, shortstops hit .260/.323/.413 this year. Whether he'd be worth the money or not is another matter.

edit: Also what YTF said. Most players hit better at home.

At home, the league hit .248/.324/.419.
Road teams hit .240/.310/.403.

 

[Max Power]

Haven't there been studies that suggest former Rockies players tend to do better on the "road" once they leave the Rockies?

Yes, Rockies players tend to have their road numbers suppressed more than your average player's home-road split, even taking into account park effects in Denver. Playing half their games in a park where pitches don't move as much gets them out of practice for hitting at sea level. When they move to a different team, their road numbers will usually bounce back.

 

[OCD SS]

I was told second-hand in 2002 that Red Sox ownership considered Nomar to be a malcontent, and the most troublesome ego to deal with. As it was relayed to me, he was the only guy on the team who would pointedly refuse to sign a jersey or baseball that was being auctioned off for the Jimmy Fund or to make time to visit with a sick kid. Ownership was also very well aware of how beloved Nomar was by the fan base.

Another detail I recall from the time is that Sox made a contract proposal, and then rescinded it and came back with a smaller deal citing the market correction of the Tejada deal... that certainly didn't help.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

With more than 50% of LHH's being shifted on last year, the definition of "shortstop" has certainly evolved. I wish I could determine defensive ratings of shortstops playing 2B versus SS and see if that impacts those ratings.

I'm not saying Bogaerts (or Devers) are elite defenseman, but those shifts have somewhat re-defined the positions (as well as 2B/Short Fielder). I expect Devers to improve (why wouldn't he?). For me, the most critical defensive option for the Red Sox in 2022 is First Base - someone who can handle bad/late throws and turn errors into outs. Wouldn't a GG 1B improve all the infield stats? Is that worth giving up some hitting to gain some defensive runs saved?

In short, I don't foresee the left side of the infield changing (and why should it - given its overall rating as the best in the League). The Red Sox benefited from McAlphabet and Moreland playing 1B. Perhaps it's time to trade Dalbec and go all-defense at that position (along with extending Bogaerts and Devers). Revisit the position in 2023 with Casas.

 

[chawson]

Well, Story is 29, and isn't likely to top that by much if at all, while Devers might be just getting started. Story's a good hitter but might be about to get paid as if he were a great one, which I hope the Sox won't bite on. His OPS+ of 103 this past season might be a preview of things to come.

Story played through an elbow injury for the first half of the year and hit .237/.311/.394 (77 wRC+) through June 13. He hit .259/.340/.518 (114 wRC+) afterward, including a 132 wRC+ in his last 30 games.

It’s almost an inverse of Bogaerts’ season. Bogaerts put up a 145 wRC+ until his wrist injury on July 7, was pretty bad for a month (80 wRC+ from 7/9 to 8/7) and rebounded the rest of the way (126 wRC+).

And again, Story would have hit 39 home runs last year — a big jump over the 24 he recorded — had he played all his games in Fenway, according to Statcast.

That only takes our CBT to like $225m. The CBT threshold is currently $210, although the CBA makes this all TBD.

So better numbers:

After 2022, we are are out of contracts with Bogaerts (20 AAV; player opt out expected to be used) JD Martinez (19.375), Eovaldi (17), Price (16), Kiké (8), Vazquez (7), Wacha (7), Hill (5), Bradley (3 = 11m "coming off" minus his buyout), Plawecki (2.25). Hell, Sale (24) has an opt out after 2022, not that anyone expects him to exercise it.

So if we take the payroll to $225m or even $250m this year, even if the CBT stays around $210, we should be able to get back under either after 2022 or 2023 without doing anything drastic at all.

To add a little perspective to these future payroll commitments relative to the league, Boston has $68M in committed payroll in 2023 if you count Bogaerts on his current salary, which is 15th of 30 MLB teams. If you don’t count Bogaerts, they have $48M on the books, which is 20th of 30. (If Sale and Bogaerts both happen to opt out, the 2023 Sox are 25th, down with Cleveland, Oakland and Tampa with the lowest payroll commitments in baseball).

If Bogaerts were to opt out and not re-sign, the Sox would be one of seven MLB teams with nothing currently on the books in 2025.

 

[rockchalkredsox]

Story played through an elbow injury for the first half of the year and hit .237/.311/.394 (77 wRC+) through June 13. He hit .259/.340/.518 (114 wRC+) afterward, including a 132 wRC+ in his last 30 games.

It’s almost an inverse of Bogaerts’ season. Bogaerts put up a 145 wRC+ until his wrist injury on July 7, was pretty bad for a month (80 wRC+ from 7/9 to 8/7) and rebounded the rest of the way (126 wRC+).

And again, Story would have hit 39 home runs last year — a big jump over the 24 he recorded — had he played all his games in Fenway, according to Statcast.

Story also had a BAbip of .293 last year, which was .054 lower than his career average to that point, and was pretty even across all months except for July when he really slumped.

 

[effectivelywild]

And again, Story would have hit 39 home runs last year — a big jump over the 24 he recorded — had he played all his games in Fenway, according to Statcast.

I think it is worth pointing out, since this is not the first time I've seen this stat cited---no member of the Red Sox team played all of their games in Fenway last year. Aside from occasional London-related scheduling quirks, players play half of their games at their home park. I'm not saying that Story's numbers wouldn't improve if he joined the Sox---I think the Coors road hangover effect is real and far more significant---but even if Story had been a member of the BoSox last year and had the exact same hit chart as he did, he still would not in all likelihood have hit 39 home runs.

 

[chawson]

I think it is worth pointing out, since this is not the first time I've seen this stat cited---no member of the Red Sox team played all of their games in Fenway last year. Aside from occasional London-related scheduling quirks, players play half of their games at their home park. I'm not saying that Story's numbers wouldn't improve if he joined the Sox---I think the Coors road hangover effect is real and far more significant---but even if Story had been a member of the BoSox last year and had the exact same hit chart as he did, he still would not in all likelihood have hit 39 home runs.

You’re right - he might have hit more! Here’s how many Statcast says he would have hit in…
BAL: 42
TOR: 36
NYY: 49
TB: 33

I agree with you that this kind of thing has limited predictive value. Players are pitched differently for a lot of reasons, including park. I think it’s funny that he may have been extremely unlucky playing in Colorado last year, especially since everyone’s hardwired to think the opposite.

What kind of batted ball profile gets you 19 home runs in Coors, 39 in Fenway and 48 in Yankee Stadium? Both Story and Correa hit twice as many fly balls to RF than pulled (and look like terrific Bidet hitters), but with his launch angle I think more of Story’s fly balls go over the Monster.

 

[Pedroia's Itchy Nose]

If X requires something around market rate for an extension, we are expecting 8-10 years right? As much as I like X and as much as it would pain me to see him go (as it did Mookie), do we really want to be paying him into his age 38-40 year?

Let's look at how many batters age 36+ qualified for the batting title over the past few seasons, and of those how many put up at least 2 fWAR.

• 2021: 6 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Turner, Votto, Gurriel, Cruz)
• 2020: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR prorated (Cruz)
• 2019: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR (Cruz)
• 2018: 4 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Zobrist, Cruz, Kinsler)
• 2017: 6 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Cruz, Granderson)
• 2016: 7 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Beltran, Utley
• 2015: 8 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Rodriguez)
• 2014: 5 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Byrd)
• 2013: 9 qualified, 5 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Hunter, Beltran, Soriano, Scutaro)
• 2012: 9 qualified, 7 2+ WAR (Hunter, Jeter, Soriano, Rodriguez, Scutaro, Suzuki, Konerko)
• 2011: 9 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Jeter, Carroll)

On average over the last 11 years age 36+ players who qualified for the batting title averaged 1.68 WAR per season. Over the past 5 years, that number drops to 1.51.

That might not seem so bad, but keep in mind that this is emphasizing the best case scenario. We're looking exclusively at players who have managed to stay in baseball through their age 36 seasons.

I also looked at every player who put up at least 30 fWAR over the past 20 years to get a rough idea of X's peers. I looked at the point in each player's career after which they no longer consistently produced at least 2 fWAR per season. Most of these players never put up 2 fWAR season after their "fall off" year, but a few did sprinkle in one or two 2+ win seasons amid several sub 2 win seasons.

Among this group, there are four players that are age 36+, still active, and still producing: Nelson Cruz (41), Josh Donaldson (36), Justin Turner (36), and maybe Joey Votto (37). Interestingly 3 of those 4 were "late bloomers" that didn't really start performing at their top level until their late 20's, and the jury is out on Votto. He was good in '21 but had two crappy years before that. If his next few seasons are crappy, in hindsight his fall off year will be his age 35 season.

Of the players that are either no longer active or have already clearly reached their fall off points, the average fall off age was 34.42. Keep in mind that this stretches back to the steroid years, so there are quite a few players on the list that were aging in an era that was much friendlier to older players.

There are certainly some examples of players who were useful into their late 30's or beyond, like Big Papi, Chipper Jones, Jeter, Bonds, and A-Rod. There are many more cautionary tales of players that raked into their late 20s and fell off a cliff in their early 30s. David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, and Troy Tulowitzki all jumped out as cautionary tales. Two current players who haven't gotten old enough for me to put them on the list that raise concerns are Christian Yelich and Anthony Rendon. Yelich put up monster numbers from age 24-27 and has been mediocre in his age 28 and 29 seasons. Will he recover or will he be the next Carl Crawford? Rendon was great from ages 26-30 but last year he was way off. It's only one year, but surprisingly often great hitters just disappear in their early 30s.

Let's look at the attrition rate for 80 players who registered 30+ fWAR in the last 20 years:



Most players in this group are still productive through age 30, but then a period of sharp attrition follows until the mid 30's, where there is a brief plateau followed by a second period of sharp attrition. If a player is still productive at age 37, there's a decent chance that they will hang on for at least another year or two.

I'm sure that the Red Sox have better data than this, but I doubt that it shows a dramatically different picture. Time is brutal, even for elite players. Also keep in mind that my bar is set pretty low for productivity. Most of these guys were solid 4-6 win players for many years, so an expectation of 2 win seasons already represents significant degradation from peak performance. You do not want to be spending $30mm per year for 2 fWAR, although if you're getting 5 fWAR initially for several years it at least becomes more palatable toward the end of a deal.

But the fact of the matter is that even great players have pretty bad odds of producing at a 2 win clip into their mid to late 30's. If the Sox extend Bogaerts, there's something like a 25% chance that he won't even be producing at a 2 fWAR/year in year 3 of the extension. I'd give Devers an 8-10 year deal right now because there's a very solid chance that he's still putting up respectable results up until the very last years of that deal. Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed on Bogaerts unless he's willing to take something like 5/150 or 5/175, which I very much doubt.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

If X requires something around market rate for an extension, we are expecting 8-10 years right? As much as I like X and as much as it would pain me to see him go (as it did Mookie), do we really want to be paying him into his age 38-40 year?

Let's look at how many batters age 36+ qualified for the batting title over the past few seasons, and of those how many put up at least 2 fWAR.

• 2021: 6 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Turner, Votto, Gurriel, Cruz)
• 2020: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR prorated (Cruz)
• 2019: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR (Cruz)
• 2018: 4 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Zobrist, Cruz, Kinsler)
• 2017: 6 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Cruz, Granderson)
• 2016: 7 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Beltran, Utley
• 2015: 8 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Rodriguez)
• 2014: 5 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Byrd)
• 2013: 9 qualified, 5 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Hunter, Beltran, Soriano, Scutaro)
• 2012: 9 qualified, 7 2+ WAR (Hunter, Jeter, Soriano, Rodriguez, Scutaro, Suzuki, Konerko)
• 2011: 9 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Jeter, Carroll)

On average over the last 11 years age 36+ players who qualified for the batting title averaged 1.68 WAR per season. Over the past 5 years, that number drops to 1.51.

That might not seem so bad, but keep in mind that this is emphasizing the best case scenario. We're looking exclusively at players who have managed to stay in baseball through their age 36 seasons.

I also looked at every player who put up at least 30 fWAR over the past 20 years to get a rough idea of X's peers. I looked at the point in each player's career after which they no longer consistently produced at least 2 fWAR per season. Most of these players never put up 2 fWAR season after their "fall off" year, but a few did sprinkle in one or two 2+ win seasons amid several sub 2 win seasons.

Among this group, there are four players that are age 36+, still active, and still producing: Nelson Cruz (41), Josh Donaldson (36), Justin Turner (36), and maybe Joey Votto (37). Interestingly 3 of those 4 were "late bloomers" that didn't really start performing at their top level until their late 20's, and the jury is out on Votto. He was good in '21 but had two crappy years before that. If his next few seasons are crappy, in hindsight his fall off year will be his age 35 season.

Of the players that are either no longer active or have already clearly reached their fall off points, the average fall off age was 34.42. Keep in mind that this stretches back to the steroid years, so there are quite a few players on the list that were aging in an era that was much friendlier to older players.

There are certainly some examples of players who were useful into their late 30's or beyond, like Big Papi, Chipper Jones, Jeter, Bonds, and A-Rod. There are many more cautionary tales of players that raked into their late 20s and fell off a cliff in their early 30s. David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, and Troy Tulowitzki all jumped out as cautionary tales. Two current players who haven't gotten old enough for me to put them on the list that raise concerns are Christian Yelich and Anthony Rendon. Yelich put up monster numbers from age 24-27 and has been mediocre in his age 28 and 29 seasons. Will he recover or will he be the next Carl Crawford? Rendon was great from ages 26-30 but last year he was way off. It's only one year, but surprisingly often great hitters just disappear in their early 30s.

Let's look at the attrition rate for 80 players who registered 30+ fWAR in the last 20 years:

View attachment 47219

Most players in this group are still productive through age 30, but then a period of sharp attrition follows until the mid 30's, where there is a brief plateau followed by a second period of sharp attrition. If a player is still productive at age 37, there's a decent chance that they will hang on for at least another year or two.

I'm sure that the Red Sox have better data than this, but I doubt that it shows a dramatically different picture. Time is brutal, even for elite players. Also keep in mind that my bar is set pretty low for productivity. Most of these guys were solid 4-6 win players for many years, so an expectation of 2 win seasons already represents significant degradation from peak performance. You do not want to be spending $30mm per year for 2 fWAR, although if you're getting 5 fWAR initially for several years it at least becomes more palatable toward the end of a deal.

But the fact of the matter is that even great players have pretty bad odds of producing at a 2 win clip into their mid to late 30's. If the Sox extend Bogaerts, there's something like a 25% chance that he won't even be producing at a 2 fWAR/year in year 3 of the extension. I'd give Devers an 8-10 year deal right now because there's a very solid chance that he's still putting up respectable results up until the very last years of that deal. Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed on Bogaerts unless he's willing to take something like 5/150 or 5/175, which I very much doubt.

This is pretty good info and a little upsetting but it's likely where I think Bloom is at on Bogaerts. I suspect they will offer a contract not valued at prime SS value but somewhere in the 5/150 or 7/190 and another team will offer more and he'll walk, be a valuable producer for 2-3 years then need to be moved off SS while his offense begins a decline, making him a highly overpaid payroll drag.
I also agree that extending Devers NOW makes the most sense as he could take a 10/250 and his later years simply as a DH would likely still be undervalued considering relative value of 25M per season in 2030.

Generally in order to maximize value of the player, teams will need to lock up their young players for long term deals before they reach arb and hope they age well. Identifying long term talent and health will be difficult

 

[RG33]

If X requires something around market rate for an extension, we are expecting 8-10 years right? As much as I like X and as much as it would pain me to see him go (as it did Mookie), do we really want to be paying him into his age 38-40 year?

Let's look at how many batters age 36+ qualified for the batting title over the past few seasons, and of those how many put up at least 2 fWAR.

• 2021: 6 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Turner, Votto, Gurriel, Cruz)
• 2020: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR prorated (Cruz)
• 2019: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR (Cruz)
• 2018: 4 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Zobrist, Cruz, Kinsler)
• 2017: 6 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Cruz, Granderson)
• 2016: 7 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Beltran, Utley
• 2015: 8 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Rodriguez)
• 2014: 5 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Byrd)
• 2013: 9 qualified, 5 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Hunter, Beltran, Soriano, Scutaro)
• 2012: 9 qualified, 7 2+ WAR (Hunter, Jeter, Soriano, Rodriguez, Scutaro, Suzuki, Konerko)
• 2011: 9 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Jeter, Carroll)

On average over the last 11 years age 36+ players who qualified for the batting title averaged 1.68 WAR per season. Over the past 5 years, that number drops to 1.51.

That might not seem so bad, but keep in mind that this is emphasizing the best case scenario. We're looking exclusively at players who have managed to stay in baseball through their age 36 seasons.

I also looked at every player who put up at least 30 fWAR over the past 20 years to get a rough idea of X's peers. I looked at the point in each player's career after which they no longer consistently produced at least 2 fWAR per season. Most of these players never put up 2 fWAR season after their "fall off" year, but a few did sprinkle in one or two 2+ win seasons amid several sub 2 win seasons.

Among this group, there are four players that are age 36+, still active, and still producing: Nelson Cruz (41), Josh Donaldson (36), Justin Turner (36), and maybe Joey Votto (37). Interestingly 3 of those 4 were "late bloomers" that didn't really start performing at their top level until their late 20's, and the jury is out on Votto. He was good in '21 but had two crappy years before that. If his next few seasons are crappy, in hindsight his fall off year will be his age 35 season.

Of the players that are either no longer active or have already clearly reached their fall off points, the average fall off age was 34.42. Keep in mind that this stretches back to the steroid years, so there are quite a few players on the list that were aging in an era that was much friendlier to older players.

There are certainly some examples of players who were useful into their late 30's or beyond, like Big Papi, Chipper Jones, Jeter, Bonds, and A-Rod. There are many more cautionary tales of players that raked into their late 20s and fell off a cliff in their early 30s. David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, and Troy Tulowitzki all jumped out as cautionary tales. Two current players who haven't gotten old enough for me to put them on the list that raise concerns are Christian Yelich and Anthony Rendon. Yelich put up monster numbers from age 24-27 and has been mediocre in his age 28 and 29 seasons. Will he recover or will he be the next Carl Crawford? Rendon was great from ages 26-30 but last year he was way off. It's only one year, but surprisingly often great hitters just disappear in their early 30s.

Let's look at the attrition rate for 80 players who registered 30+ fWAR in the last 20 years:

View attachment 47219

Most players in this group are still productive through age 30, but then a period of sharp attrition follows until the mid 30's, where there is a brief plateau followed by a second period of sharp attrition. If a player is still productive at age 37, there's a decent chance that they will hang on for at least another year or two.

I'm sure that the Red Sox have better data than this, but I doubt that it shows a dramatically different picture. Time is brutal, even for elite players. Also keep in mind that my bar is set pretty low for productivity. Most of these guys were solid 4-6 win players for many years, so an expectation of 2 win seasons already represents significant degradation from peak performance. You do not want to be spending $30mm per year for 2 fWAR, although if you're getting 5 fWAR initially for several years it at least becomes more palatable toward the end of a deal.

But the fact of the matter is that even great players have pretty bad odds of producing at a 2 win clip into their mid to late 30's. If the Sox extend Bogaerts, there's something like a 25% chance that he won't even be producing at a 2 fWAR/year in year 3 of the extension. I'd give Devers an 8-10 year deal right now because there's a very solid chance that he's still putting up respectable results up until the very last years of that deal. Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed on Bogaerts unless he's willing to take something like 5/150 or 5/175, which I very much doubt.

Great post. This is exactly why there is no way in hell that Chaim is giving Xander 8-10 years. I agree with you, and think it will likely be a 4-6 year offer in the $30m range, and if X wants to stick around (I think he may), great. If not, they will move on quickly.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Great post. This is exactly why there is no way in hell that Chaim is giving Xander 8-10 years. I agree with you, and think it will likely be a 4-6 year offer in the $30m range, and if X wants to stick around (I think he may), great. If not, they will move on quickly.

Does move quickly mean by the trade deadline in hopes of getting a return for a guy who will not be coming back? Or does it mean that they wait it out to the next off season to see if he will re-sign then move quickly for his replacement? The 2022 trade deadline could be very tricky if there aren't some indications of his decision and if the Sox are in contention at that point.

 

[OCD SS]

I would guess whether or not they hang onto X (under this line of thinking) would depend entirely on if they’re competitive for a playoff spot. I don’t see Ownership/ Chaim unloading X for roster value if it hinders them making the playoffs while they’re in it (starting the off-season is a different story).

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Great post. This is exactly why there is no way in hell that Chaim is giving Xander 8-10 years. I agree with you, and think it will likely be a 4-6 year offer in the $30m range, and if X wants to stick around (I think he may), great. If not, they will move on quickly.

This is basically what Houston did with Correa, right? He turned it down, but maybe X says yes, given that it’s the 2d extension the team will have offered him. He’d have to be in a Pedroia frame of mind, though…

 

[Sin Duda]

I would guess whether or not they hang onto X (under this line of thinking) would depend entirely on if they’re competitive for a playoff spot. I don’t see Ownership/ Chaim unloading X for roster value if it hinders them making the playoffs while they’re in it (starting the off-season is a different story).

Which means to me that Chaim needs to make an extension offer this winter and force him to show his hand regarding what he wants (of course, if I'm Boras, I just don't reply, and if the team pushes me, I reject it without any counteroffer).

 

[nvalvo]

This all makes a lot of sense as regards Bogaerts. But, if the plan hinges on Bogaerts signing a below-market deal next offseason, I would sign Story or Correa this offseason.

Next off-season, if Bogaerts opts out and won't accept a below-market deal, we're either signing a deal we've already decided we don't want with Bogaerts, caught in a bidding war with the Dodgers for Trea Turner — or possibly Dansby Swanson or Tim Anderson, both of whom I would expect to see extended/have options exercised by their current teams — or else handing the job to Jeter Downs and crossing our fingers that Marcelo Mayer moves faster than we have any right to expect.

I guess I'm just saying that very good shortstops are available now, quite possibly at a reasonable price. Next offseason is less clear.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This all makes a lot of sense as regards Bogaerts. But, if the plan hinges on Bogaerts signing a below-market deal next offseason, I would sign Story or Correa this offseason.

Next off-season, if Bogaerts opts out and won't accept a below-market deal, we're either signing a deal we've already decided we don't want with Bogaerts, caught in a bidding war with the Dodgers for Trea Turner — or possibly Dansby Swanson or Tim Anderson, both of whom I would expect to see extended/have options exercised by their current teams — or else handing the job to Jeter Downs and crossing our fingers that Marcelo Mayer moves faster than we have any right to expect.

I guess I'm just saying that very good shortstops are available now, quite possibly at a reasonable price. Next offseason is less clear.

I don't think there's a chance that Bogaerts does a below market deal next winter. If he was going to take that, I think he'd simply not opt-out of the 3/60 (4/80 with the option) he has left on his current deal, or negotiate something bigger but still below market this winter/spring. If he opts out next winter, market value is what he's after.

 

[RedOctober3829]

If X requires something around market rate for an extension, we are expecting 8-10 years right? As much as I like X and as much as it would pain me to see him go (as it did Mookie), do we really want to be paying him into his age 38-40 year?

Let's look at how many batters age 36+ qualified for the batting title over the past few seasons, and of those how many put up at least 2 fWAR.

• 2021: 6 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Turner, Votto, Gurriel, Cruz)
• 2020: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR prorated (Cruz)
• 2019: 4 qualified, 1 2+ WAR (Cruz)
• 2018: 4 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Zobrist, Cruz, Kinsler)
• 2017: 6 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Cruz, Granderson)
• 2016: 7 qualified, 4 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Beltran, Utley
• 2015: 8 qualified, 3 2+ WAR (Beltre, Ortiz, Rodriguez)
• 2014: 5 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Byrd)
• 2013: 9 qualified, 5 2+ WAR (Ortiz, Hunter, Beltran, Soriano, Scutaro)
• 2012: 9 qualified, 7 2+ WAR (Hunter, Jeter, Soriano, Rodriguez, Scutaro, Suzuki, Konerko)
• 2011: 9 qualified, 2 2+ WAR (Jeter, Carroll)

On average over the last 11 years age 36+ players who qualified for the batting title averaged 1.68 WAR per season. Over the past 5 years, that number drops to 1.51.

That might not seem so bad, but keep in mind that this is emphasizing the best case scenario. We're looking exclusively at players who have managed to stay in baseball through their age 36 seasons.

I also looked at every player who put up at least 30 fWAR over the past 20 years to get a rough idea of X's peers. I looked at the point in each player's career after which they no longer consistently produced at least 2 fWAR per season. Most of these players never put up 2 fWAR season after their "fall off" year, but a few did sprinkle in one or two 2+ win seasons amid several sub 2 win seasons.

Among this group, there are four players that are age 36+, still active, and still producing: Nelson Cruz (41), Josh Donaldson (36), Justin Turner (36), and maybe Joey Votto (37). Interestingly 3 of those 4 were "late bloomers" that didn't really start performing at their top level until their late 20's, and the jury is out on Votto. He was good in '21 but had two crappy years before that. If his next few seasons are crappy, in hindsight his fall off year will be his age 35 season.

Of the players that are either no longer active or have already clearly reached their fall off points, the average fall off age was 34.42. Keep in mind that this stretches back to the steroid years, so there are quite a few players on the list that were aging in an era that was much friendlier to older players.

There are certainly some examples of players who were useful into their late 30's or beyond, like Big Papi, Chipper Jones, Jeter, Bonds, and A-Rod. There are many more cautionary tales of players that raked into their late 20s and fell off a cliff in their early 30s. David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, and Troy Tulowitzki all jumped out as cautionary tales. Two current players who haven't gotten old enough for me to put them on the list that raise concerns are Christian Yelich and Anthony Rendon. Yelich put up monster numbers from age 24-27 and has been mediocre in his age 28 and 29 seasons. Will he recover or will he be the next Carl Crawford? Rendon was great from ages 26-30 but last year he was way off. It's only one year, but surprisingly often great hitters just disappear in their early 30s.

Let's look at the attrition rate for 80 players who registered 30+ fWAR in the last 20 years:

View attachment 47219

Most players in this group are still productive through age 30, but then a period of sharp attrition follows until the mid 30's, where there is a brief plateau followed by a second period of sharp attrition. If a player is still productive at age 37, there's a decent chance that they will hang on for at least another year or two.

I'm sure that the Red Sox have better data than this, but I doubt that it shows a dramatically different picture. Time is brutal, even for elite players. Also keep in mind that my bar is set pretty low for productivity. Most of these guys were solid 4-6 win players for many years, so an expectation of 2 win seasons already represents significant degradation from peak performance. You do not want to be spending $30mm per year for 2 fWAR, although if you're getting 5 fWAR initially for several years it at least becomes more palatable toward the end of a deal.

But the fact of the matter is that even great players have pretty bad odds of producing at a 2 win clip into their mid to late 30's. If the Sox extend Bogaerts, there's something like a 25% chance that he won't even be producing at a 2 fWAR/year in year 3 of the extension. I'd give Devers an 8-10 year deal right now because there's a very solid chance that he's still putting up respectable results up until the very last years of that deal. Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed on Bogaerts unless he's willing to take something like 5/150 or 5/175, which I very much doubt.

Awesome post and it shows the risk in giving a player that long term of a contract at the age X is. I would definitely bring a player in like Story and if X wants to opt out then the team will have insurance. If X wants to take less and play another position in that instance, then even better. I want him around, but anything longer than 5 years is just not going to happen.

 

[Pedroia's Itchy Nose]

This is pretty good info and a little upsetting but it's likely where I think Bloom is at on Bogaerts. I suspect they will offer a contract not valued at prime SS value but somewhere in the 5/150 or 7/190 and another team will offer more and he'll walk, be a valuable producer for 2-3 years then need to be moved off SS while his offense begins a decline, making him a highly overpaid payroll drag.
I also agree that extending Devers NOW makes the most sense as he could take a 10/250 and his later years simply as a DH would likely still be undervalued considering relative value of 25M per season in 2030.

Generally in order to maximize value of the player, teams will need to lock up their young players for long term deals before they reach arb and hope they age well. Identifying long term talent and health will be difficult

Totally. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the best way to flex financially is to sign young players to major extensions. It doesn't even need to be a below market deal, per se. I think even going above market would be reasonable in some cases. The key thing is locking up your best players until their early 30's and then letting them go. Overpaying for those years a little is MUCH better than paying market rate for what are likely to be bad years on the back end!

This all makes a lot of sense as regards Bogaerts. But, if the plan hinges on Bogaerts signing a below-market deal next offseason, I would sign Story or Correa this offseason.

Next off-season, if Bogaerts opts out and won't accept a below-market deal, we're either signing a deal we've already decided we don't want with Bogaerts, caught in a bidding war with the Dodgers for Trea Turner — or possibly Dansby Swanson or Tim Anderson, both of whom I would expect to see extended/have options exercised by their current teams — or else handing the job to Jeter Downs and crossing our fingers that Marcelo Mayer moves faster than we have any right to expect.

I guess I'm just saying that very good shortstops are available now, quite possibly at a reasonable price. Next offseason is less clear.

Awesome post and it shows the risk in giving a player that long term of a contract at the age X is. I would definitely bring a player in like Story and if X wants to opt out then the team will have insurance. If X wants to take less and play another position in that instance, then even better. I want him around, but anything longer than 5 years is just not going to happen.

If Correa could be had at 8-9 years I could see that being a reasonable move. I don't love it as you're still signing him into his mid 30's, but it's less bad than signing X to a similar deal. But if it's a 10+ year commitment then forget about it. Given what Seager got I'm skeptical about Correa signing for less than 10 years. Maybe Story would sign a 5-6 year deal. If so I'd be in on it, but again given the Semien and Seager contracts I'm doubtful that Story will sign for a 5-6 year deal.

Nvalvo, the second part of your post presupposes that we need a good to great shortstop. Another option would be to sign some shorter term options in the 1-2 WAR range for a couple of seasons until either Mayer is ready or a trade target is available. Elvis Andrus probably can be had cheaply. Alternately there are a lot of names available in 2024. It's very plausible that upgrades at other positions (catcher, 1b, 2b) could offset the downgrade from Bogaerts to a glove-first SS.

 

[OCD SS]

Which means to me that Chaim needs to make an extension offer this winter and force him to show his hand regarding what he wants (of course, if I'm Boras, I just don't reply, and if the team pushes me, I reject it without any counteroffer).

I see it as the opposite: X is coming of a great season, so it makes sense that he & Boras would try to get the Sox to negotiate for something close to market rates now, especially with this market. After a down year (like 2017) or an injury, $20M/ yr might look OK. Conversely it seems unlikely he would push the SS market beyond where it is now.

The only benefit the team gets from an opt out comes if they are willing to walk away, taking the performance they got in those prime seasons. Paying more for decline years becomes a luxury I’m not sure the team can afford under current financial constraints (which, granted, may change) when they have to claw wins out of the AL East.

 

[Earthbound64]

and sign Andrelton Simmons

Please no.

 

[nvalvo]

I don't think there's a chance that Bogaerts does a below market deal next winter. If he was going to take that, I think he'd simply not opt-out of the 3/60 (4/80 with the option) he has left on his current deal, or negotiate something bigger but still below market this winter/spring. If he opts out next winter, market value is what he's after.

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear: That's the premise of my post. If we've decided that a post-opt-out Bogaerts will be too old after his age-29 season to give a market rate shortstop deal to, we should instead offer a market rate shortstop deal to Correa (26) or Story (28), especially if it gives us the bonus of a contending season with a really powerful middle infield.

Nvalvo, the second part of your post presupposes that we need a good to great shortstop. Another option would be to sign some shorter term options in the 1-2 WAR range for a couple of seasons until either Mayer is ready or a trade target is available. Elvis Andrus probably can be had cheaply. Alternately there are a lot of names available in 2024. It's very plausible that upgrades at other positions (catcher, 1b, 2b) could offset the downgrade from Bogaerts to a glove-first SS.

It's true, we don't necessarily need a great shortstop. We won a title with Julio Lugo one time. If we really believe in Mayer, we could absolutely let Bogaerts leave after his opt out and handle the position internally for 2023 — Arroyo, Downs, whomever else we can scrounge up — before Mayer arrives in 2024.

But if we're trying to improve a team that just reached the ALCS, it's an avenue that might be worth pursuing.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear: That's the premise of my post. If we've decided that a post-opt-out Bogaerts will be too old after his age-29 season to give a market rate shortstop deal to, we should instead offer a market rate shortstop deal to Correa (26) or Story (28), especially if it gives us the bonus of a contending season with a really powerful middle infield.

The thing about that approach is how do they know what is going to happen in the meantime? Even if it looks like right now Bogaerts is headed for opting out and cashing in on a market rate contract, could that change in, say, March? Or May? Maybe instead of 8/240 or something next winter, he'd take 6/170 if it was offered over the all star break. Is it worth slamming the door on that possibility to sign Correa or Story? Because I think that's what happens. Signing one of those guys is effectively chasing Bogaerts out of town.

If they're convinced he's out the door next winter (like they were with Betts), then sure, sign Correa or Story but then trade Bogaerts. If they're moving on from him, they need to make it a clean break and not drag it out over a whole season. The fantasy of a powerful middle infield combo will likely go south quick if one of them feels jilted and disgruntled.

 

[johnnywayback]

If they're convinced he's out the door next winter (like they were with Betts), then sure, sign Correa or Story but then trade Bogaerts. If they're moving on from him, they need to make it a clean break and not drag it out over a whole season. The fantasy of a powerful middle infield combo will likely go south quick if one of them feels jilted and disgruntled.

I don't think we actually know that Bogaerts will feel jilted and disgruntled. For sure, he would prefer to stay at shortstop, but watching Semien get that contract this off-season has to make him feel a little bit better about his financial prospects even if he's moved for a year. And although I can't see inside his head, everything I know about him suggests that he wants to win, and if they sign someone like Correa, some or even most of his disappointment at having to play 2B may be offset by how huge a win it would be for the team.

So, not saying he'd be thrilled, but I'm not sure he'd be a Problem about it.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't think we actually know that Bogaerts will feel jilted and disgruntled. For sure, he would prefer to stay at shortstop, but watching Semien get that contract this off-season has to make him feel a little bit better about his financial prospects even if he's moved for a year. And although I can't see inside his head, everything I know about him suggests that he wants to win, and if they sign someone like Correa, some or even most of his disappointment at having to play 2B may be offset by how huge a win it would be for the team.

So, not saying he'd be thrilled, but I'm not sure he'd be a Problem about it.

I think the Semien deal has the opposite impact that you suggest. Him opting out would be about getting himself paid, no? I'm not sure how a guy moving from SS to 2B and getting a contract that is about half the value of the biggest SS contracts is a comfort. Maybe if Semien was moving back to SS with his new team, but he's not.

Bogaerts is giving up 4/80 when he opts out. I have to think he's aiming for closer to Lindor ($34M AAV) or Seager ($32M AAV) level money rather than Semien level money ($25M AAV). If he wants that, he'll want to hit the market as an active SS rather than a guy who's spent the last year at 2B.

 

[johnnywayback]

I think the Semien deal has the opposite impact that you suggest. Him opting out would be about getting himself paid, no? I'm not sure how a guy moving from SS to 2B and getting a contract that is about half the value of the biggest SS contracts is a comfort. Maybe if Semien was moving back to SS with his new team, but he's not.

Bogaerts is giving up 4/80 when he opts out. I have to think he's aiming for closer to Lindor ($34M AAV) or Seager ($32M AAV) level money rather than Semien level money ($25M AAV). If he wants that, he'll want to hit the market as an active SS rather than a guy who's spent the last year at 2B.

Well, I would suggest that age plays as much of a role in the difference between the Lindor/Seager contracts and the Semien deal as position does.

But just taking a step back, I think everyone bidding on Bogaerts next year will be looking at the same defensive numbers and know that, if you're planning to keep him at SS long-term, he's going to be a growing liability -- and people know that whether he puts up another year of bad defense at SS or puts up a better year of defense at 2B. Either way, nobody is going to give him the deal Lindor or Seager -- younger players who can stick at SS for at least the majority of the contract -- got. What the Semien deal shows is that the floor is pretty darn high. As a slightly younger player with a better track record, Bogaerts can easily beat 7/175 even if, like Semien, he's not signing to be a shortstop. The argument is that Semien's deal lowers the financial stakes of finding a team Bogaerts can convince that he's a SS, which in turn lowers the financial stakes of staying on the position in 2022.

 

[Niastri]

<snip>

If they're convinced he's out the door next winter (like they were with Betts), then sure, sign Correa or Story but then trade Bogaerts. If they're moving on from him, they need to make it a clean break and not drag it out over a whole season. The fantasy of a powerful middle infield combo will likely go south quick if one of them feels jilted and disgruntled.

The question comes down to which you would rather have:

Massive contract for Correa + Whatever haul you could get for trading 1 year of Bogaerts

Or

Massive contract for Bogaerts

I think one year of Bogaerts and exclusive rights to negotiate an extension would be worth a "go for it now" team's top 5 (top 100 in MLB) prospect and, say, a decent reliever or utility infielder.

Is Correa likely to be better than Bogaerts next year? How about in 7? How much more would he cost because of the years difference in age?

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Please no.

So what's the plan for improving the Sox defense? I don't think there is any viable answer that doesn't involve moving Bogaerts off of SS. And I don't think there is a logistical way to add Correa/Story and keep Bogaerts long term. But adding that massive payroll and losing Bogaerts is close to a wash offensively.

Which is why I'd rather keep Bogaerts and improve the defense at SS with a lesser offensive player and use the payroll difference to add players elsewhere: sign Suzuki or Schwarber (or both and trade Martinez), sign a good defensive shortstop*, and then extend Bogaerts with a big extension and move him to 2B, with his blessing.

Would he take 6 years $150 million? $180 million? $200 million? That would take him through his age 34 season.

It is worth noting that Bogaerts has been the better offensive player than Correa over their careers (Correa is two years younger) and has played 144 or more games every year but one (when he played 136). Correa has only managed to play 144 games twice in his career and his DWAR numbers prior to 2020 weren't that good.



*How about a trade for J.P. Crawford? DiPito will be twitching to make a deal by the time the work stoppage ends.

 

[Earthbound64]

So what's the plan for improving the Sox defense? I don't think there is any viable answer that doesn't involve moving Bogaerts off of SS. And I don't think there is a logistical way to add Correa/Story and keep Bogaerts long term. But adding that massive payroll and losing Bogaerts is close to a wash offensively.

Basically anyone other than Andrelton Simmons.
It would be catastrophic to the team.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Basically anyone other than Andrelton Simmons.
It would be catastrophic to the team.

I fully understand why you object to Simmons, but "catastrophic" seems like an extreme take. From a purely baseball standpoint, he's an excellent defender and that's about it (his offense has fallen off a cliff the last three years). I want no part of him if the plan is he's the starting SS. He's a bench player at best on a team trying to contend. Add the off-field part and he's an easy no for me, but if they did sign him to a low dollar deal as depth, it would not be the end of the world or anything.

 

[Earthbound64]

Add the off-field part and he's an easy no for me, but if they did sign him to a low dollar deal as depth, it would not be the end of the world or anything.

We're not allowed to discuss that aspect on the main board, which is why I didn't elaborate.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I fully understand why you object to Simmons, but "catastrophic" seems like an extreme take. From a purely baseball standpoint, he's an excellent defender and that's about it (his offense has fallen off a cliff the last three years). I want no part of him if the plan is he's the starting SS. He's a bench player at best on a team trying to contend. Add the off-field part and he's an easy no for me, but if they did sign him to a low dollar deal as depth, it would not be the end of the world or anything.

I don’t know anything about his off field stuff…. But even his defense went downhill last year according to UZR 1.0

 

[InsideTheParker]

I don’t know anything about his off field stuff…. But even his defense went downhill last year according to UZR 1.0

Without discussion, but just for your information: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31257046/twins-ss-andrelton-simmons-declined-vaccine-positive-covid-19-test

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don’t know anything about his off field stuff…. But even his defense went downhill last year according to UZR 1.0

Per Total Zone, he was the best SS in baseball with a +14 for the season. BIS defensive runs saved had him at +15. Fielding Bible had him at +15 also. UZR seems like the outlier.