Red Sox Offseason discussion

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If Xander is signed long term to eventually move to 3B, why sign Devers to be a 1B with Casas in line to be that guy? It seems more likely that we have another few years with Devers and Xander, then we are looking at a Casas/Yorke/Mayer core, maybe Duran in CF if he pans out. Devers has been a great but not transcendent offensive player. He is an alright 3B but not particularly good at it.
If the Sox are going to sign someone to an extensive contract to play 3B, would you rather bet on X’s age 30 - 37 seasons or Devers’ age 26 - 34 seasons?
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,764
Portland
If the Sox are going to sign someone to an extensive contract to play 3B, would you rather bet on X’s age 30 - 37 seasons or Devers’ age 26 - 34 seasons?
I'd go plan B. There's still a chance Devers improves defensively if he can get his arm accuracy and footwork down well before his range declines. If this is who he is then I'd probably still lean towards him.

I'd much prefer a plan C though. I hate long and possibly immovable contracts.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,425
If the Sox are going to sign someone to an extensive contract to play 3B, would you rather bet on X’s age 30 - 37 seasons or Devers’ age 26 - 34 seasons?
I imagine Xander's contract would be cheaper due to his age and not as long. So it would be Devers' age 26-36 seasons. Xander is a mediocre SS but could potentially be a good defensive 3B. He is also a team leader, consistently in good shape, and less prone to make mental mistakes. Xander could probably still play 3B at 37, are we sure Devers will be able to do that? I don't think either choice is unreasonable, maybe I am just being a Xander fanboy.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,647
It won’t be 8-year deals for both, at the same AAV though. Devers is probably going to ask for 12 years with several opt outs, I’d guess. Bogaerts will be after length, with it being his last deal. I’d guess something like 12/400 for Devers and 8/240 for X? Neither seem very appealing, but neither does Jonathan Arauz at SS and who knows at 3b.

I think you just play it out and hope that Mayer shows promise and Jordan, Downs etc. continue to develop.

Maybe you explore dealing either or both as well? I dunno, feel like it’s impossible to k ow what Bloom or ownership is thinking with regards to either of these guys.
 
Dec 28, 2015
114
It won’t be 8-year deals for both, at the same AAV though. Devers is probably going to ask for 12 years with several opt outs, I’d guess. Bogaerts will be after length, with it being his last deal. I’d guess something like 12/400 for Devers and 8/240 for X? Neither seem very appealing, but neither does Jonathan Arauz at SS and who knows at 3b.

I think you just play it out and hope that Mayer shows promise and Jordan, Downs etc. continue to develop.

Maybe you explore dealing either or both as well? I dunno, feel like it’s impossible to k ow what Bloom or ownership is thinking with regards to either of these guys.
I see Bogaerts moving to second in a year or two rather than third. If Devers is still here after a putative post 2026 opt out, then Bogaerts and Devers could occupy some combination of 3B, 1B, DH or OF while Mayer and Yorke, hopefully, hold down SS and 2B.
 
Dec 28, 2015
114
Of course *you'd* like him at 8/200. That's a no brainer from the team's standpoint. I can't fathom any scenario where that is entertained as a serious offer. Maybe he doesn't get 10 year's like Seager, but I think he gets 8/280 or somewhere in that range.
I think Semien, rather than the 27 year old Seager, is the comparable here. Bogaerts will be 30 when he opts out. Semien is getting 25 mill/year for his age 31-37 seasons. I don't see Xander getting 35 million per for his age 30-37 seasons.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It won’t be 8-year deals for both, at the same AAV though. Devers is probably going to ask for 12 years with several opt outs, I’d guess. Bogaerts will be after length, with it being his last deal. I’d guess something like 12/400 for Devers and 8/240 for X? Neither seem very appealing, but neither does Jonathan Arauz at SS and who knows at 3b.

I think you just play it out and hope that Mayer shows promise and Jordan, Downs etc. continue to develop.

Maybe you explore dealing either or both as well? I dunno, feel like it’s impossible to k ow what Bloom or ownership is thinking with regards to either of these guys.
12/400? I love Devers unconditionally, but there is no way in hell he is going to get 10% more than Mookie, and he isn't even a free agent. And he's a suspect fielder. I would guess closer to 12/300, which is still a shitload, but I'd consider it.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,647
12/400? I love Devers unconditionally, but there is no way in hell he is going to get 10% more than Mookie, and he isn't even a free agent. And he's a suspect fielder. I would guess closer to 12/300, which is still a shitload, but I'd consider it.
Yeah, you may be right. Maybe you could get Devers to sign 12/300 now, buying out two arb years. I’m sure there’d be an opt out after year 4, and probably more after that. Regardless it seems like the cost to extend both guys has gone up significantly and doing it, or not doing it, will be painful.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,764
Portland
Hard pass on any contract over 10 years unless it's a Wander situation. Just because they can afford to doesn't mean they should.

Devers is quite the lesser player Rendon was when he signed, much lesser than Arenado who is being paid 35mill per. I would hope the Sox don't pay Raffy like he's a top 5 shortstop. I don't see him in the same tier as guys who are signing mega contracts.

He's a 4 to 5 bWAR guy who needs to improve his defense a lot to approach a mega deal IMO.

I'd offer something like 7/$190 at most with opt outs after the 3rd season. I don't think that gets it done which I'd be ok with.

That Seager deal is absurd. He's not even a standout fielder by most metrics.
 
Last edited:

BravesField

lurker
Oct 27, 2021
11
I'd go plan B. There's still a chance Devers improves defensively if he can get his arm accuracy and footwork down well before his range declines. If this is who he is then I'd probably still lean towards him.

I'd much prefer a plan C though. I hate long and possibly immovable contracts.
I think the only way Devers can improve defensively is that he drops weight, a lot. He's what 6'0 and 240?. That's a lot of bulk.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
228
I think the only way Devers can improve defensively is that he drops weight, a lot. He's what 6'0 and 240?. That's a lot of bulk.
Devers is broadly understood to have acceptable range for an MLB third baseman. Most of the concern regarding his fielding involves his throws. According to the Globe, 10 of his 22 errors last season came on throws—most among 3B and fourth in baseball. So no, dropping a lot of weight is certainly not the only path to Devers improving his defense. In fact, while shedding pounds might benefit him and his game in other ways, it may not do much at all to improve his defensive performance.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,328
I'm not saying the Red Sox are going to sign Correa, but everything that has happened so far this off-season is exactly what you would expect to happen if they were going to sign Correa:
-- Detroit went for Baez. Seattle bought an expensive pitcher and are linked to Chris Taylor. The Yankees are rumored to be looking at Kiner-Falafa from Texas.
-- The Sox haven't extended Bogaerts or Devers and, in fact, were involved on some level with Baez, perhaps indicating that they may spend big on an infielder not currently on the roster.
-- They not only didn't sign Ray or Gausman, they appeared to have had little interest in making significant offers for any big-time starting pitcher.
-- Nor have they tried to close the deal with Schwarber yet. And they're nowhere to be found on Taylor.
-- In fact, outside of being mentioned on Baez, it kind of looks like they aren't really playing in free agency at all right now, despite having somewhere in the neighborhood of 30M floating free before they hit the luxury tax threshold (and, of course, they don't need to mind it at all this year).

If they non-tender Renfroe today, that'll be another log on that fire.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,791
Bangkok
But since Correa didn’t sign for the Rangers, he must already have an offer for more than $325m. So we’re talking something like jon mentioned, maybe 11/$375m. That would be expensive and long.

We should use some of that payroll room to extend Devers, and when Casas graduates give him a Wander-equivalent for a 1B (10/$120m?). If Houck and Whitlock look good as starters then use some of the payroll space to extend them to 33/34 as well. Free agents have gotten really expensive all of a sudden.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,993
They're not signing Correa. The market is massively player friendly right now and I have no problem with them sitting it out. I expect they will be opportunistic and get up near the tax threshold with short term deals.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,647
I think they are checking in on a lot of guys but aren’t making many offers because they don’t see any value. My guess is they are going to wait until the money dries up, see who is left, and try to make some short term signings that provide value. They are flexible with their needs, at least for this year, to do that. The risk is the market has permanently changed and the Sox got caught off guard; but that would really only manifest itself next year when the team has a ton of positions to fill.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,328
Haven't reports linked them more to Stroman to begin with?
Those reports just make so little sense, I keep assuming they're a feint. If you're going to spend nine figures on a starting pitcher, why do it on the guy most likely to suffer because of the team's horrible infield defense? Unless you're also planning on a significant upgrade to the team's infield defense.......
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
26,675
But since Correa didn’t sign for the Rangers, he must already have an offer for more than $325m. So we’re talking something like jon mentioned, maybe 11/$375m. That would be expensive and long.

We should use some of that payroll room to extend Devers, and when Casas graduates give him a Wander-equivalent for a 1B (10/$120m?). If Houck and Whitlock look good as starters then use some of the payroll space to extend them to 33/34 as well. Free agents have gotten really expensive all of a sudden.
I tend to agree---just to note it, the distribution of offensive and defensive value is pretty different for Correa and Seager, so it is also possible that Rangers value those differently (or have a system that doesn't like Correa's D as much as most seem to) and weight Seager's profile more. But most likely is what was stated---Correa has bigger offers out there.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,590
Devers is broadly understood to have acceptable range for an MLB third baseman. Most of the concern regarding his fielding involves his throws. According to the Globe, 10 of his 22 errors last season came on throws—most among 3B and fourth in baseball. So no, dropping a lot of weight is certainly not the only path to Devers improving his defense. In fact, while shedding pounds might benefit him and his game in other ways, it may not do much at all to improve his defensive performance.
Eventually, carrying the extra weight will impact his knees/health which will impact his defense. He's not Pablo Sandoval, but Pablo Sandoval was fine at 3b until he wasn't It tends not to be a gradual process. I don't know if that will happen with Devers but just because he's fine at 3b at 24 doesn't mean he's going to be fine at 28 with 4 more years of wear and tear from carrying the extra weight.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
228
Eventually, carrying the extra weight will impact his knees/health which will impact his defense. He's not Pablo Sandoval, but Pablo Sandoval was fine at 3b until he wasn't It tends not to be a gradual process. I don't know if that will happen with Devers but just because he's fine at 3b at 24 doesn't mean he's going to be fine at 28 with 4 more years of wear and tear from carrying the extra weight.
I don’t disagree at all with your analysis. I was responding to the idea that the only path he has to improving his defense at third is losing weight. As I mentioned, there may well be advantages to losing weight for him and his overall game, but the primary concern with his defense heading into the ‘22 season is his throwing. He can lose 20 pounds this off-season and still struggle with his throws next year.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,495
Those reports just make so little sense, I keep assuming they're a feint. If you're going to spend nine figures on a starting pitcher, why do it on the guy most likely to suffer because of the team's horrible infield defense? Unless you're also planning on a significant upgrade to the team's infield defense.......
We’ll see how it plays out, but Stroman himself is a significant upgrade to a team’s infield defense.

I’m not sure how to assign a dollar value to a starting pitcher being +6 defensive runs saved in a season (as he was in 2019), paired with an ability to induce an elite volume of weak grounders, but I’d figure it’d be worth several million on its own, wouldn’t it?

But yes, paired with Correa (or, say, a trade with San Diego for Kim), would shore up the infield further and make even more sense.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,262
Twin Cities
Eventually, carrying the extra weight will impact his knees/health which will impact his defense. He's not Pablo Sandoval, but Pablo Sandoval was fine at 3b until he wasn't It tends not to be a gradual process. I don't know if that will happen with Devers but just because he's fine at 3b at 24 doesn't mean he's going to be fine at 28 with 4 more years of wear and tear from carrying the extra weight.
Agreed. Devers isn't a good 3Bman now, isn't likely to become one, and is highly unlikely imo to remain at 3B into his early to mid-30s. I think those are big problems for the Sox to give him a 10 year extension. He might not be interested, but I'd offer him a simple, 3 year/$55M deal. No opt outs. Buys out only 1 FA year (at about $25M). He'd hit the market for his age 28 season.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Nasty, brutish, and short
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
9,839
Boston, MA
I tend to agree---just to note it, the distribution of offensive and defensive value is pretty different for Correa and Seager, so it is also possible that Rangers value those differently (or have a system that doesn't like Correa's D as much as most seem to) and weight Seager's profile more. But most likely is what was stated---Correa has bigger offers out there.
Rangers have to overpay for premium talent because their team lost 102 games last year. I doubt Correa had any interest in joining the Rangers. He might be interested in joining Alex Cora and the Red Sox if we can get the money close.

Clearly there's no player available this offseason who would be a bigger upgrade than Correa. I feel much more confident signing him to a long term deal than I do Bogaerts.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
383
Boston
Eventually, carrying the extra weight will impact his knees/health which will impact his defense. He's not Pablo Sandoval, but Pablo Sandoval was fine at 3b until he wasn't It tends not to be a gradual process. I don't know if that will happen with Devers but just because he's fine at 3b at 24 doesn't mean he's going to be fine at 28 with 4 more years of wear and tear from carrying the extra weight.
You say hes not Sandoval but then compare him to Sandoval? Sandoval was fat and completely out of shape - he was that way at 25 and much worse at 28. For a comparison: Devers is 6'1" 240; Sandoval was 5'10" 260 and ballooned above 280 by his late 20s. Hell, his nickname was Panda because he had a huge belly.

Devers might not age well (I personally think he'll age fine - he has very quick feet and looked leaner this past year), but Sandoval is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Physically he looks a hell of a lot more like a larger version of Beltre (broad shoulders and huge legs) than Sandoval (who looked like the last time he spent time in a weight room was in high school). Obviously hes no where near the defender or athlete Beltre was, but the body types are much more similar than a guy like Sandoval (who if you didnt recognize him youd never think he was an athlete) and people made the same arguments about Beltre aging poorly due to his size and it just never happened.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,590
You say hes not Sandoval but then compare him to Sandoval? Sandoval was fat and completely out of shape - he was that way at 25 and much worse at 28. For a comparison: Devers is 6'1" 240; Sandoval was 5'10" 260 and ballooned above 280 by his late 20s. Hell, his nickname was Panda because he had a huge belly.

Devers might not age well (I personally think he'll age fine - he has very quick feet and looked leaner this past year), but Sandoval is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Physically he looks a hell of a lot more like a larger version of Beltre (broad shoulders and huge legs) than Sandoval (who looked like the last time he spent time in a weight room was in high school). Obviously hes no where near the defender or athlete Beltre was, but the body types are much more similar than a guy like Sandoval (who if you didnt recognize him youd never think he was an athlete) and people made the same arguments about Beltre aging poorly due to his size and it just never happened.
I just picked a fat guy. Pick any fat guy. They don't age well. What I'm saying isn't exactly rocket science or new aged thinking. Being chubby isn't doing him any favors.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,492
Boston, MA
Rangers have to overpay for premium talent because their team lost 102 games last year. I doubt Correa had any interest in joining the Rangers. He might be interested in joining Alex Cora and the Red Sox if we can get the money close.

Clearly there's no player available this offseason who would be a bigger upgrade than Correa. I feel much more confident signing him to a long term deal than I do Bogaerts.
The questions there are whether Xander could play a good third, Devers could play first, and if either of them will pout about being moved down the defensive spectrum. If they could both do it fairly well, it would be a huge upgrade for the infield defense. Then you could flip Dalbec for a bullpen piece if anyone is interested.

I'm not sold on Casas being someone you need to keep a seat warm for. He put up an .879 OPS in AA, food for 21st in the league. That's good, but he's not some kind of can't miss prospect.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
22,505
I just picked a fat guy. Pick any fat guy. They don't age well. What I'm saying isn't exactly rocket science or new aged thinking. Being chubby isn't doing him any favors.
“Smoky Burgess was fat. Not baseball fat like Mickey Lolich or Early Wynn. But FAT fat. Like the mailman or your Uncle Dwight. Putsy Fat. Slobby Fat. Just Plain Fat. In fact I would venture to say that Smoky Burgess was probably the fattest man ever to play professional baseball.” – The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading, and Bubble Gum Book.
“You could wake (Burgess) up at 3 a.m. on Christmas morning, with two inches of snow on the ground, throw him a curveball, and he’d hit a line drive.” – Joe Garagiola1
https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/smoky-burgess/
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,492
Boston, MA
I just picked a fat guy. Pick any fat guy. They don't age well.
I read years ago that fat guys age better than non-fat guys. I think it's selection bias. If you're good enough to get to the majors as a fat guy, you're probably a better than average player and would stick in the majors longer anyway. Pablo Sandoval may be fat, but he's still in the league.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,590
I read years ago that fat guys age better than non-fat guys. I think it's selection bias. If you're good enough to get to the majors as a fat guy, you're probably a better than average player and would stick in the majors longer anyway. Pablo Sandoval may be fat, but he's still in the league.
Yeah, I've read articles saying skinny, fast players age well and I've read articles where they don't.

Carl Crawford types and all. It's been argued here a lot.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
383
Boston
I just picked a fat guy. Pick any fat guy. They don't age well. What I'm saying isn't exactly rocket science or new aged thinking. Being chubby isn't doing him any favors.
I dont think hes fat - that was the point. And hes definitely not fat like Sandoval who was 30 pounds heavier than him in his mid 20s despite being at least 3 inches shorter. They also look nothing alike.

Adrian Beltre had similar comments (but similarly wasnt fat). Kevin Youkilis would be another (who also didnt have nearly the athletic gifts Devers has). Both of them were fine into their mid 30s. Will he have to keep his conditioning work up? Yes, of course, but I dont see the Sandoval concerns of eating himself out of the league at 28/29 (yes I understand hes still playing, but hes been god awful for 5+ years).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,590
I dont think hes fat - that was the point. And hes definitely not fat like Sandoval who was 30 pounds heavier than him in his mid 20s despite being at least 3 inches shorter. They also look nothing alike.

Adrian Beltre had similar comments (but similarly wasnt fat). Kevin Youkilis would be another (who also didnt have nearly the athletic gifts Devers has). Both of them were fine into their mid 30s. Will he have to keep his conditioning work up? Yes, of course, but I dont see the Sandoval concerns of eating himself out of the league at 28/29 (yes I understand hes still playing, but hes been god awful for 5+ years).
Youkilis fell off after his age 32 season. Adrian Beltre had some of his best years after his age 32 season. 2 very different outcomes.
 

SoxAgent25

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
6
I just picked a fat guy. Pick any fat guy. They don't age well. What I'm saying isn't exactly rocket science or new aged thinking. Being chubby isn't doing him any favors.
Fat guy here. Can confirm.

I love Raffy. He’s terrific. But he started out with that baby fat body when he was called up, and he’s still got the chunk. It’s not a bad thing. It does however put him in the category of player that you don’t want to hand out 8-10 year contracts to. He’s been great for us, but if we can’t agree on a competitive salary/low year deal, let him eat up some other team’s budget. Pun intended.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
13,580
UWS, NYC
The best time to extend Xander, Devers and Eovaldi might have passed already.
Yes... and the way the market has unfolded, perhaps the best time to extend Sale and David Price was back a couple years ago. Just those wound up not working out so well, probably.

Not disputing your point though.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
5,524
CA
I would be absolutely STUNNED if the Red Sox came anywhere close to 10 years and $325-375m for Correa.

I am completely fine with sitting out with this FA group and these terms. I would be okay with 5/125 for Stroman — but aside from him — I just don’t see a fit and would be nervous about the length/terms for most of these guys.

Let Chaim do his thing and find the Pivettas and the Renfros/Kikes — and if Xander and/or Raffy don’t want to re-up, then look at dealing them next year and spend that money on next year’s crop. I don’t think Correa or Seager are guys you go all in for.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,582
Maine
Someone has to replace Franchy in Worchester. Unless they brought Franchy back and I just wasn't paying attention. Reading up on him, he appears to have some power, while being considered a terrible defender. There's mixed opinion on his eye at the plate.

He also doesn't sparkle and can live off blood or human food.
Franchy never left. He was outrighted to Worcester after clearing DFA waivers.