Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding
- Thread starter jcormjmac
- Start date
What a goddamned roller coaster this day has been. Damn damn damn damn damn.
They should just do it. 12/$340M, a $28.3M AAV. By the time that contract is half done the luxury tax threshold will be roughly $300M anyway.
It's been covered elsewhere, but there's a chance the Padres want to play Tatís in the outfield to mitigate injury risk. Xander would certainly be an upgrade over Kim. They may lose Machado next year, too, which opens up 3rd for Xander. Doesn't fit as neatly as some of the other teams listed, but it's certainly an option.
Kind of what I am wondering. Maybe X and the contract was the straw that broke the camels back. Perhaps the team is more attractive to buyers without too many long term commitments.
This Tweet seems more suspect and doomsayerish than most ChatGPT output. Or at least more suspect.
To the extent RSS is saying you can’t be a contender without an “elite player on a massive contract” - I’m not sure there’s any real evidence to support that.
The Astros have been the cream of the crop in the AL the last 5+ years largely by NOT entering into such contracts, with the exception of Altuve. They’ve drafted well, spread the money around, and signed some players like Verlander for high dollars but low years.
That is the model I want the Sox to follow, not mindlessly shelling out big contracts because they feel the need to have an “elite player.”
Put another way, it’s virtually impossible to win consistently in the modern MLB without developing cheap talent, whereas it’s definitely possible to win in the modern MLB without a bunch of huge contracts.
The Astros have been the cream of the crop in the AL the last 5+ years largely by NOT entering into such contracts, with the exception of Altuve. They’ve drafted well, spread the money around, and signed some players like Verlander for high dollars but low years.
That is the model I want the Sox to follow, not mindlessly shelling out big contracts because they feel the need to have an “elite player.”
Put another way, it’s virtually impossible to win consistently in the modern MLB without developing cheap talent, whereas it’s definitely possible to win in the modern MLB without a bunch of huge contracts.
I think I'd rather see Swanson come here. Good RH bat, solid defensive player and durable. Played 162 games last season and 160 the year before and isn't going to command the price that Correa will. .
Kike to SS and add Reynolds or Nimmo in the OF keeps the franchise afloat so long as Devers stays.
Yoshida seems best suited to DH
Yoshida seems best suited to DH
Last edited:
Barring a free agent signing, isn't it most likely that Story moves to SS?
Not necessarily. I think it was telling that whenever they needed a non-Bogaerts shortstop this season, and Story was healthy and available, they used Arroyo and Kike and Arauz and Downs and Chang and even Dalbec, but not Story. I don't think that rules out Story as a possibility, but I think it does indicate he's not choice #1.
Story having an 8th percentile arm leads me to believe he's sticking at 2nd...
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/trevor-story-596115?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/trevor-story-596115?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb
I will go a step further and say that MLB is moving towards being a game for younger players as the average age of prime performance seems to be coming down. So those players are usually in their cheap years team control when they're putting up their best numbers.
The flip side is that if you want to extend them, you have to make it lucrative enough and sign them early enough. Whitlock is a good example. Taking this long to extend Devers makes it pointless as he's already got enough money, so he can deal with 1 year of risk to test the market. I'm also fine with adding the opt outs since they're likely necessary to get the deal signed in the first place, and the team can be get years that are more likely to high value (they are a way for disciplined teams to avoid the decline phase, although it will aggrieve the fanbase in the short term).
While I don't disagree at all with the notion of it being a "young players" game, and understand the hesitancy to enter in to long term deals with players over 30 - both of which make sense - my questions are:
Relative to Bogaerts specifically, why not move him at the deadline then. If you believe those things, and know you aren't going to meet the market for a player, get more prospects. At least then you have the chance of two or three prospects becoming part of that long term core vs where we are now - losing the player for nothing.
Not for nothing, but at the price it will cost, I don't particularly want Correa. He's played 150 games once in his career and he isn't even 30 yet. That is not the type of "durability" profile I want to bet on for someone that will likely command a minimum of 8 years and $240m - and that is probably on the low side.
Relative to Bogaerts specifically, why not move him at the deadline then. If you believe those things, and know you aren't going to meet the market for a player, get more prospects. At least then you have the chance of two or three prospects becoming part of that long term core vs where we are now - losing the player for nothing.
Not for nothing, but at the price it will cost, I don't particularly want Correa. He's played 150 games once in his career and he isn't even 30 yet. That is not the type of "durability" profile I want to bet on for someone that will likely command a minimum of 8 years and $240m - and that is probably on the low side.
Before we start talking about a dozen years for Corea, don't we allegedly have the future SS in the minor league?
No one should ever assume any particular prospect works out at all. They bust all the time. Meyer is six billion miles from the major leagues. As they say in hockey, "There's many a slip between Cup and lip."
Wow wasn’t expecting to wake up to that. What are the Padres thinking? They have two excellent SS’s already. Are they getting rid of Tatis? Can we trade for him?
Thank you for saying this. I know prospects are exciting and Meyer looks like a good one, but everyone putting all the Red Sox eggs in the farm system basket are going to be disappointed.
If we traded for him, he better come with a suitcase full of cash. I'd rather the other kid, Kim, as a bridge to Mayer.
They also have another good shot-on-goal at SS with Romero. I know that he's less likely to stick at SS than is Mayer, though.
Last edited:
Not for nothing, but I don't particularly WANT the team to meet the cost of what Correa will likely command.
I don't disagree that he is a better defensive SS than Bogaerts, nor do I disagree he is a better offensive player than Bogaerts. He is better in both cases. I also think it's highly unlikely that someone whom has averaged 122 games per season in his age 21-27 seasons is suddenly going to be dependable to play 145plus games per season from the ages of lets say 28-38. For what it's worth, I did not include the "Covid Tournament" of 60 games, those are from his first full season in 2016 through last year, discounting a meaningless "season", averaged out.
My big complaint is not in failing to pay Bogaerts until he's 40; it's in letting him walk for nothing when you almost assuredly knew you weren't going to meet the market price all along.
I don't disagree that he is a better defensive SS than Bogaerts, nor do I disagree he is a better offensive player than Bogaerts. He is better in both cases. I also think it's highly unlikely that someone whom has averaged 122 games per season in his age 21-27 seasons is suddenly going to be dependable to play 145plus games per season from the ages of lets say 28-38. For what it's worth, I did not include the "Covid Tournament" of 60 games, those are from his first full season in 2016 through last year, discounting a meaningless "season", averaged out.
My big complaint is not in failing to pay Bogaerts until he's 40; it's in letting him walk for nothing when you almost assuredly knew you weren't going to meet the market price all along.
All the more reason to sign Correa, I think, who is still only 28. The currency is talent, not money. So if you're able to afford a star shortstop and keep the other(s) in your pocket, you can trade them down the line for what you need, and the players you trade for will be younger.
Otherwise, you'd have to spend in FA for what you need, meaning those players you acquire will be older and less likely to be in their prime.
How do you know they were sure they wouldn't meet the market rate? The offered 6/160 which is right in line with the consensus in our projected salaries thread. We all believed that to be the market rate - until everything went nuts with Turner and Bogaerts.
While I get the sentiment, I don’t think anyone can fault the Red Sox for expecting the Padres to set the market for Bogaerts at 11/280m. Everyone on this site and before the FA process began had pegged Xander to be in the 6-8 year range at $25-30m per. As others have pointed out, the Padres basicaly gave him a 5-7 year deal at $35-40m that they are amortizing over 11 years.
I think you can fault them for offering 4/90 as opposed to 6/150 last Spring — but who knows if a Boras client even takes that. There is a reason these players hire Boras —he gets max value for them, usually absurd money, most of the time.
There's now a clear pattern of how this ownership group values their homegrown talent when they get to become more expensive. Lester, Betts, and now Bogaerts were all lowballed and weren't close to being paid what they're worth here so they were traded or walked away. Why is this suddenly going to change with Rafael Devers? The only way I can see it ending with him like all the others is that he is 5 years younger than Bogaerts and Lester were when they were up for a deal. But even with Betts, he was entering his age 27 season when they traded him. So, yeah I believe that if they aren't willing to extend Devers this offseason that they should trade him.
Using Semien as a comp. He got 7/$175M last year and he's not as good of a baseball player nor as consistent as Bogaerts, and he isn't even a short stop for any point of the contract, much less the first several years. Once Bogaerts got to free agency that was pretty much the minimum to expect him to sign for, and apparently our "best" offer was fewer years for less total money. Thinking he'd sign for less than Semien seems extremely unlikely.
Had we offered the midpoint from what RG33 mentioned (sorry, I don't know how to quote you in an edit, but I'm happy to learn if someone is willing to educate) with an offer of something like 7yrs and $200m then I'd buy the argument that we thought we'd be in the market. But to make 6/$160 your best offer, and I trust Speier's reporting there, means you had either knew all along you weren't going to sign the player or dramatically misread the market. Both of which are quite damning for a baseball operations staff that I expect to be at the forefront of reading the markets.
Last edited:
Also, I don’t know Dr. Charles Steinberg, but these are the facts:
- Xander had an OPS over .800 in 5 of his 10 seasons
- Xander had a slugging % over .500 in 3 of 10 seasons
- Xander hit 20+ HRs in 4 of 10 seasons
- Xander OPS+ above 115 in 5 of 10 seasons (the last 5)
- Xander was replacement level defensively for most of his career
I really don’t mean this is a bash, I think he was a very good (not great) player, I think the Red Sox got his best years (and great value), I think there is great value in the leadership he brought to the team and the great ambassadorship he brought to Boston, and I think he would have been a fool not to take the Padres offer.
- Xander had an OPS over .800 in 5 of his 10 seasons
- Xander had a slugging % over .500 in 3 of 10 seasons
- Xander hit 20+ HRs in 4 of 10 seasons
- Xander OPS+ above 115 in 5 of 10 seasons (the last 5)
- Xander was replacement level defensively for most of his career
I really don’t mean this is a bash, I think he was a very good (not great) player, I think the Red Sox got his best years (and great value), I think there is great value in the leadership he brought to the team and the great ambassadorship he brought to Boston, and I think he would have been a fool not to take the Padres offer.
You'd want the vastly inferior player as a bridge to some guy who might end up being a vastly inferior player to Fernando Tatis Jr.?
As good as he is, I have never once thought Xander Bogaerts was in the conversation for best player in MLB and that's the way he got paid. Good for you X, no hard feelings, but I think he's about three years removed from being a .780 OPS left fielder. There's going to be a long time for San Diego to regret this move.