Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,176
I’m sure we can pretty much all agree that Bogaerts isn’t “worth” what he got, but how do you replace that production in a market where no one seems to be worth what they are getting, and when you don’t have a ton of expendable prospects / trade bait?

As of now, the Sox have subtracted

Bogaerts -6.1 fWAR
Vazquez -1.7 fWAR
JD -1.0 fWAR
Hill -1.8 fWAR
Wacha -1.5 fWAR
Eovaldi -1.0 fWAR

Now, they’ve added Martin who is +1.6 fWAR (although only projected at 0.5 this year), Jansen (+1.5 fWAR, projected at 0.5), and Yoshida, who must seem to see as a 2-3 win player?

Shit ton of work to do here. Replacing a 6 win player isn’t easy.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
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.
Thankfully, the Red Sox have a LOT of eggs in their farm system. Which is kind of the point of what Chaim is trying to do, I think.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Unless the Sox are willing to start negotiations with Devers at what Judge got, they need to trade him. Letting him walk next off season and just getting draft pick compensation is not the best move in my opinion.
 

gkelly53

New Member
Aug 6, 2019
23
More empty words from Chaim... Wheres Sam? Hes been quiet this morning. is he still eating his turkey???
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,978
Boston, MA
Unless the Sox are willing to start negotiations with Devers at what Judge got, they need to trade him. Letting him walk next off season and just getting draft pick compensation is not the best move in my opinion.
They get a year of Devers' prime on the field for the Boston Red Sox, which is worth quite a bit. Trading away current assets for lottery tickets just because they get to leave as a free agent is a terrible idea for anyone who wants to watch a good baseball team today.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,201
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.
While I agree that he's probably going to be an OF in about 3 years, is $25m for a .780OPS left fielder that "bad" a thing? That would have been by far our best OF last year and somewhere around 125OPS+ player (last season Gurriel Jr was a .743OPS / 113OPS+ and Arozarena was .773OPS for a 124OPS+). So if Mayer turns out to be awesome, great, you move the .780OPS player to the OF and are good at two spots. If he busts, you at least have a competent SS (possibly below average, but competent).

I'm not saying I would have gone to 11/$280m but would I have at least put 8/$200m on the table or even 9/$225m, yes. With the understanding that he'd probably be an OF down the road.
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
4,356
Upstate NY
That’s what he should be saying, so good that he said it. Delivering is a different thing, of course. He’s got a lot of work to do for 2023 to be markedly better than 2022.
That's why I thought it was best to post his comments in the rumors thread. Feels like I saw the same Tweet when Mookie was traded.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
They get a year of Devers' prime on the field for the Boston Red Sox, which is worth quite a bit. Trading away current assets for lottery tickets just because they get to leave as a free agent is a terrible idea for anyone who wants to watch a good baseball team today.
I think depending on the return trading Devers is not synonymous with a bad baseball team. Depending on what level the prospects are playing at, they come with a bit more certainity then a random lottery ticket draft pick. It is kind of obvious how much Devers is going to get and since I think it is unlikely they are willing to pay that, it is time for Devers to go.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,408
Pioneer Valley
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. .
This is what I've wanted all along. If the Sox are outbid on him, I would pass on Correa, b/c of the back issues. I would still give them a chance if they got Iggy or someone like that. Iggy was wonderful at 2nd base for the last month of'21. I wonder how the team is feeling about Story's arm strength. That is crucial. If he can go back to SS and Arroyo could only stay healthy, the infield might do very well.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,978
Boston, MA
I think depending on the return trading Devers is not synonymous with a bad baseball team. Depending on what level the prospects are playing at, they come with a bit more certainity then a random lottery ticket draft pick. It is kind of obvious how much Devers is going to get and since I think it is unlikely they are willing to pay that, it is time for Devers to go.
But why? This has been repeated over and over about both Xander and Devers, trying to trade them a year before they become free agents if the team isn't willing to pay a fortune for their decline years. This year and next year have value, too. If you control the services of star players in their prime right now, trading that away for some chance at future value is a bad deal unless you know the team is going to be terrible no matter what.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,815
The back of your computer
They should do both.
They won't do either of those.

They get a year of Devers' prime on the field for the Boston Red Sox, which is worth quite a bit. Trading away current assets for lottery tickets just because they get to leave as a free agent is a terrible idea for anyone who wants to watch a good baseball team today.
What is it worth to watch Devers next season in a Red Sox uniform, versus what they could trade for him (1) now, (2) in ST, (3) at the trade deadline?
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,282
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
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.?
Don't know that he's vastly inferior to Tatis who can't stay on the field and might not be as good without the roids. I do know I'd much rather pay Kim's salary until Mayer is ready, even though I concede Mayer may not pan out to anything more than hype. If SD wants to sent a ton of money to offset Tatis' salary, sure I'd take a flyer on him.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,282
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
If the front office isn't looking to upgrade the team significantly with the money that Xander could've gotten and they're unable to lock down Devers long term by say Christmas, I see no point in not trading him now at his peak value (compared to ST or the trade deadline). He should net some serious prospects that we can, hopefully, lock down with Mayer, Bello, Casas, and others a la the Rays and Braves. Yes, the interim will suck, but I'd be willing to have a year or two of subpar if it likely nets us a decade of consistent contention.

Preference is making moves now and locking down Devers so we compete this year, obviously. The alternative above, however, is not a horrible 2nd option, imho.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
Agreed. The Braves are another team that looks to be doing quite well with that approach.
The only one on that short list that I'd be ok with is Bello. Mayer might be two years from the majors and we have no idea if he can truly play at the MLB level (I mean I think he probably will be able to, and hopefully at a high level, but two years is a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then). And Casas has arrived but we aren't really sure about him either. Let him get a full year under his belt at the MLB level first and then revisit this.

Bello, I'm pretty sure is the real deal, but even then, I'd wait a year before going this route.

BUT....I agree with your line of thinking.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,833
Don't know that he's vastly inferior to Tatis who can't stay on the field and might not be as good without the roids. I do know I'd much rather pay Kim's salary until Mayer is ready, even though I concede Mayer may not pan out to anything more than hype. If SD wants to sent a ton of money to offset Tatis' salary, sure I'd take a flyer on him.
Kim has a .679 OPS over 784 AB.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,282
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Kim has a .679 OPS over 784 AB.
And his salary is far better than the oft-injured steroid guy. I’m not arguing with you nor do I think Kim is the savior we’re looking for. I replied I’d prefer him to an unsubsidized Tatis, not hey Kim is the only one we should consider because Mayer is guaranteed to be great. You may prefer Tatis or 12 years to Correa or something else, that’s fine.
 

LostinNJ

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
479
Its not about the words in the statement - its how the actions back up the statement.
He says "winning baseball," but he does not say "in 2023." I am totally okay with a couple of lean years as they position themselves to be a consistently dominant team down the road. This business of alternating great years with lousy years is not fun.
 

jcormjmac

New Member
Aug 2, 2022
17
He says "winning baseball," but he does not say "in 2023." I am totally okay with a couple of lean years as they position themselves to be a consistently dominant team down the road. This business of alternating great years with lousy years is not fun.
Totally agree - I'm not against some lean.. but more so if you back up what your saying people will tend to let you speak with ought much push back
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
He says "winning baseball," but he does not say "in 2023." I am totally okay with a couple of lean years as they position themselves to be a consistently dominant team down the road. This business of alternating great years with lousy years is not fun.
They haven’t positioned themselves to be consistently dominant. This is a mediocre squad. They’re not going to bottom out. They’re clearly not contenders. How does replicating 2022 a few more times make things better?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,832
Maine
They haven’t positioned themselves to be consistently dominant. This is a mediocre squad. They’re not going to bottom out. They’re clearly not contenders. How does replicating 2022 a few more times make things better?
What if they're replicating 2021?
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,879
Unreal America
He says "winning baseball," but he does not say "in 2023." I am totally okay with a couple of lean years as they position themselves to be a consistently dominant team down the road. This business of alternating great years with lousy years is not fun.
How does one know they are positioning themselves to be "dominant"? If it were so simple as to just draft guys, develop guys, wait a few years and then voila!... dominance... well, wouldn't everyone do that?

I was OK with 2015 because the promise of our younger players was real. They were at the major league level and largely holding their own. Punting a couple seasons because a few kids in AA might be good someday seems foolish to me.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,267
from the wilds of western ma
This is an almost impossible market to do multiple lean/rebuild years in. They will be facing seriously declining attendance, relevance , ratings, and revenue if they don’t make every attempt to put an improved, interesting team on the field, for 2023. I’m glad they haven’t chased the insane overpays of the last few days, but there is good talent still out there, at positions of need. They need to go get some, and make a legit effort at extending Devers. And I do think they will attempt to do both.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,762
Michigan
Assuming they had the opportunity, I’m glad the Red Sox didn’t match or to San Diego’s 11/240 offer? Home-grown talent affections aside, I’d rather have Correa at 10/300 or Swanson at 6/150.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
Assuming they had the opportunity, I’m glad the Red Sox didn’t match or to San Diego’s 11/240 offer? Home-grown talent affections aside, I’d rather have Correa at 10/300 or Swanson at 6/150.
Dansby Swanson has a career OPS of .738. He strikes out a ton. He turns 29 in a couple months. Why is 6/150 for that more enticing? I get the shorter deal but I'd much rather just save the payroll flexibility than sign another non-foundational piece at market rates.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,287
NYC
Assuming they had the opportunity, I’m glad the Red Sox didn’t match or to San Diego’s 11/240 offer? Home-grown talent affections aside, I’d rather have Correa at 10/300 or Swanson at 6/150.
If Turner and Bogaerts are banking $300 million, why would Swanson take half of that or Correa stop there? There's no way you're getting either of those guys for less than that unless you concuss them before presenting an offer, particularly with the Giants and Dodgers still looking for shortstops, too.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,832
Maine
Dansby Swanson has a career OPS of .738. He strikes out a ton. He turns 29 in a couple months. Why is 6/150 for that more enticing? I get the shorter deal but I'd much rather just save the payroll flexibility than sign another non-foundational piece at market rates.
2022 Xander Bogaerts 5.8 WAR
2022 Dansby Swanson 5.7 WAR

Not advocating (strongly), just saying it's not like Swanson would be a gigantic step backwards. If they could get him for less than they offered Bogaerts, which seems unlikely in this market, that would be a good use of their payroll flexibility.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
2022 Xander Bogaerts 5.8 WAR
2022 Dansby Swanson 5.7 WAR

Not advocating (strongly), just saying it's not like Swanson would be a gigantic step backwards. If they could get him for less than they offered Bogaerts, which seems unlikely in this market, that would be a good use of their payroll flexibility.
He was a 1.9 WAR player in 2021 though. Seems like a volatile option to me and not one I'd commit to unless the deal was short, like 2-3 years.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,099
Duval
2022 Xander Bogaerts 5.8 WAR
2022 Dansby Swanson 5.7 WAR

Not advocating (strongly), just saying it's not like Swanson would be a gigantic step backwards. If they could get him for less than they offered Bogaerts, which seems unlikely in this market, that would be a good use of their payroll flexibility.
2022 DS isn’t available this year. Rest of his career DS is available at 2022 prices though.
 

astrozombie

New Member
Sep 12, 2022
395
I will fully admit that the Betts trade significantly impacted my Sox fandom, but I thought the point of that trade was for the financial flexibility or whatever to... do stuff like re-sign X. Yeah the Padres paid a lot and there are arguments for and against that price, but man, it certainly seems like Bloom has no desire to even try to get top talent.
On one of the Celtics games recently, Scal was talking about the C's opponents and how they had good role players, but no star. They were a bunch of complementary talent with nothing to complement. I feel like this is where the Sox are now. I know Bloom was "looking at a few #2 pitchers" (sure, Jan) but ostensibly those would be in line behind Sale, a player I do not think is ever going to amount to much of anything again even though some people disagree with that assessment. I would be willing to bet good money that Devers is gone and that leaves the team with... not a ton.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,576
Swanson had a good 2022 and is a fine player, but his career numbers aren't close to Xander's. In the last 6 years, he's had an ops+ over 100 just twice.