Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,477
I hear you bro. Like you, I still haven't forgiven them for failing to lock Bobby D into a 8 year $25M contract following his torrid 2020.

It was right there for the taking.
Heck, in 2020 that's a full 4 years younger and $65M less than they invested in Yoshida - a bargain!
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
595
New York, USA
To be the Braves don’t you have to have the homegrown players to extend? Hopefully in the years to come the Sox system rebuild plan will produce excellent young talent that warrants a risk/reward deal that both sides find agreeable.

Somewhere near the truth is the Sox wanting to build up the prospect asset base. Until those assets are at/above AA and producing their value is still unknown. But I believe the Sox need to graduate recently drafts prospects to the big club before they can start thrown mega money around.

Reading multiple threads I don’t know how people can demand demand huge spends right now. Just too many holes that can’t be filled from AAA.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
907
Boston
It’s absolutely comparable. The Red Sox are at a different stage in their development cycle. They can only lock up the prospects that they have. The Braves did an incredible job finding and developing those players and they locked them up. The next wave of Sox prospects aren’t there yet. You should really listen to Bloom’s recent appearance on Bradford’s podcast. He said the Sox made a mistake by getting away from locking up prospects long term and need to get back in the game. It’s not fair to ding Bloom for not locking up a caliber of prospect he doesn’t have yet.
He could have extended Devers before 2020, before 2021, or before 2022. He didnt in any of those and from reports, didnt seem to even make an offer until before 2022. The Braves would have been all over that after 2019. He could have signed AB (right decision not to). I agree there haven't been a ton of other opportunities as they haven't had a ton of other good talent with a couple years of service time. We'll see how he proceeds after 2023 if Bello or Casas performs well, but there hasnt been a comprehensive strategy of signing players early since Theo left who made pretty early deals with Pedroia (6 year deal after his pre-arb years), Lester (5 year contract plus option year after his pre-arb years), and Buchholz (5 years plus two options after two years of service time). All of these deals are considerably shorter than what we are seeing the market over the past few years for extensions of guys with 2-3 years of experience - 3-5 win players are looking for 6-8 year guarantees on the low end.

If you want to say Whitlock may be an example of the Braves strategy, I could understand, but saying its comparable is a lot and seems completely off base in a degree (from both a quantity and quality of player perspective) that makes it not even the same concept. The Braves have basically signed every good player they've brought up other than Dansby Swanson early on - it just isnt a comparable implementation. Before Whitlock, the Sox haven't signed a guy early in a decade (Xander ultimately signed an extension but it wasn't until he was a year away from free agency) - there is an institutional risk paralysis. Does anyone think the Sox ownership/management team would guarantee 8 years to a guy like Michael Harris after ~200 MLB plate appearances? Or offer Devers $125-$150M after 2019? Well, thats how you get some of the really low valuations the Braves have.

Beyond the volume, these guys the Braves are signing are legitimate stars or borderline stars. Whitlock isn't at that level and isn't likely to ever get there. He was a great find by Bloom, but the likelihood hes above a mid to back end starter is pretty low - he's 27 and has never been able to stay healthy as a starter throughout his professional career and is effectively a two pitch guy (fastball/change) with a a below average slider and only the change is even arguably plus. He's not popping any 4 win seasons anytime soon. I'd happily trade Whitlock for basically any player the Braves have locked up under this strategy.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,305
He could have extended Devers before 2020, before 2021, or before 2022. He didnt in any of those and from reports, didnt seem to even make an offer until before 2022. The Braves would have been all over that after 2019. He could have signed AB (right decision not to). I agree there haven't been a ton of other opportunities as they haven't had a ton of other good talent with a couple years of service time. We'll see how he proceeds after 2023 if Bello or Casas performs well, but there hasnt been a comprehensive strategy of signing players early since Theo left who made pretty early deals with Pedroia (6 year deal after his pre-arb years), Lester (5 year contract plus option year after his pre-arb years), and Buchholz (5 years plus two options after two years of service time). All of these deals are considerably shorter than what we are seeing the market over the past few years for extensions of guys with 2-3 years of experience - 3-5 win players are looking for 6-8 year guarantees on the low end.

If you want to say Whitlock may be an example of the Braves strategy, I could understand, but saying its comparable is a lot and seems completely off base in a degree (from both a quantity and quality of player perspective) that makes it not even the same concept. The Braves have basically signed every good player they've brought up other than Dansby Swanson early on - it just isnt a comparable implementation. Before Whitlock, the Sox haven't signed a guy early in a decade (Xander ultimately signed an extension but it wasn't until he was a year away from free agency) - there is an institutional risk paralysis. Does anyone think the Sox ownership/management team would guarantee 8 years to a guy like Michael Harris after ~200 MLB plate appearances? Or offer Devers $125-$150M after 2019? Well, thats how you get some of the really low valuations the Braves have.

Beyond the volume, these guys the Braves are signing are legitimate stars or borderline stars. Whitlock isn't at that level and isn't likely to ever get there. He was a great find by Bloom, but the likelihood hes above a mid to back end starter is pretty low - he's 27 and has never been able to stay healthy as a starter throughout his professional career and is effectively a two pitch guy (fastball/change) with a a below average slider and only the change is even arguably plus. He's not popping any 4 win seasons anytime soon. I'd happily trade Whitlock for basically any player the Braves have locked up under this strategy.
Bloom’s strategy in signing Whitlock to an extension is comparable to the Braves’ strategy of signing their young players to extensions. Whitlock the player is not comparable to the Braves players that were signed to extensions. You are conflating a comparison of organizational strategies vis-a-vis signing young players to extensions with a comparison of the specific players being signed to extensions. I’m confident that if the players that the Braves signed to extensions somehow happened to be on the Red Sox right now, Bloom would sign them to extensions. Unfortunately they are not on the Red Sox so Bloom must limit his extension candidates to the young players that are on the Red Sox.
 
Why? I doubt the Rays are kicking themselves over the early Franco extension, for example. If the FO has confidence in their projections, make an offer.
They aren't, but if Franco plateaus at ~2 wins then his extension will look pretty terrible in hindsight. $16.5 mil per year isn't awful for a 2 win player, but it is when you consider that they should have been paying him like $500k for 3 of those years and quite a bit less than $16.5 for 3 more. Also consider that Franco got that extension after roughly triple the PA that Casas has had.

If they don't want to spend money to extend established stars at market rate, I'm all about a machine gun approach to young players if that's the alternative. There has to be a risk at some point in the equation - either the player lacks experience and can be had for reasonable money, or have performed and likely priced themselves out of this ownership group (Lester, Mookie, X, etc.).
You're 100% right that there has to be risk, but I think the inflection point where things make sense for both the player and the team is later than you are shooting for. The team is obviously going to discount their offer proportionally with the risk they are taking. Meanwhile, the offer needs to be tempting enough to a young player to get them to bite. I think the kinds of offers that a team could make to a totally unproven player just wouldn't be rich enough to be tempting to the kind of player that we'd actually be wanting to sign. When a player has played at least a half if not full season or two at a solid MLB level, they've significantly reduced but not eliminated the error bars on their projection. At this point there is enough likelihood of success that the team can put forward a substantial offer that is commensurate with the risk. Meanwhile, there is still enough risk for the player to be seriously tempted by a large but still discounted offer. Even if you are succeeding at an MLB level in your first or second pre-arb year, you probably aren't seeing life-changing money until your second or third arb year. There's a lot of risk of injury over those two or three years. At that point the kinds of contracts that Atlanta has been offering (or the Wander Franco contract) are going to be seriously tempting. Not every player will say yes to that kind of thing, but clearly quite a few will.

On the one hand, part of me says why not offer an ultra-discounted contract to top prospects that are on the cusp of the big show. After all, worst they can do is say no, right? But then I think that perhaps such an offer could create bad blood, and even if it doesn't it may make future attempts at an extension more unlikely. After all, if the player gambles once and wins he's probably a lot more likely to gamble again.

I think that's the window: first couple of years pre-arb. That's when you are most likely to get a contract extension done that actually benefits the player and the team. Too much longer than that and it's easier for players to ride it out until free agency. Sooner than that the level of risk to the team would require such extreme discounting that the player is unlikely to accept and may find the offer insulting and/or refusing may prime the player to be more likely to refuse future extension offers.

I very much hope that Bloom pursues this strategy with the next batch of talent, but even then it's not guaranteed to work. Some players are going to bet on themselves no matter what.
 
Does anyone think the Sox ownership/management team would guarantee 8 years to a guy like Michael Harris after ~200 MLB plate appearances?
I think they might, yeah. If we had a player like Harris we could find out! I'll admit you could be correct too, I just don't think we have the information on what Bloom would do in this situation. There's certainly evidence based on his public statements that he would be likely to pursue such an extension. I have to think that the ownership group would be amenable as well, otherwise they likely wouldn't have hired Bloom and/or Bloom wouldn't feel comfortable speaking publicly about such a strategy in the way that he has. That leads me to believe that Bloom likely would try to extend players like the Braves have if he had the opportunity to do so, but I'm not Bloom and I'm not the ownership so I can't be sure.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
He could have extended Devers before 2020, before 2021, or before 2022. He didnt in any of those and from reports, didnt seem to even make an offer until before 2022. The Braves would have been all over that after 2019. He could have signed AB (right decision not to). I agree there haven't been a ton of other opportunities as they haven't had a ton of other good talent with a couple years of service time. We'll see how he proceeds after 2023 if Bello or Casas performs well, but there hasnt been a comprehensive strategy of signing players early since Theo left who made pretty early deals with Pedroia (6 year deal after his pre-arb years), Lester (5 year contract plus option year after his pre-arb years), and Buchholz (5 years plus two options after two years of service time). All of these deals are considerably shorter than what we are seeing the market over the past few years for extensions of guys with 2-3 years of experience - 3-5 win players are looking for 6-8 year guarantees on the low end.
It should be pointed out again that when the Braves started locking up their young stars (2019), they had a middle of the road sized payroll and thus the flexibility to pay those players a higher salary than they'd otherwise be getting without inducing or compounding luxury tax penalties. In other words, they had more than enough flexibility to have Acuna on the books for $12.5M per year instead of the <$1M he'd have been getting as a pre-arb eligible player. In 2019, Devers was on the books for $614K while the team payroll was over $243M, #1 in baseball and triggering the most severe luxury tax penalties on the books at the time. No doubt the 2023 (and 2024 and 2025) team would be in better shape with a locked up Devers, but it would have had detrimental effects on the 2019-2020 payroll situation. If we think the Sox struck out on the Betts/Price return as is, how much worse would it have been if they needed to clear another $10-15M in salary commitments to get under the cap? Could they have convinced the Dodgers to take Price's whole nut with a reduced trade package? Would they have had to move someone else (or multiple someones) in spring 2020? I'm not saying the path taken is preferable here, just making clear that this is not nearly as simple as they could/should have paid him and didn't.

As far as extending him at a later date (2020 or 2021), again the payroll situation has to be taken into account. Goosing the salary commitment to Devers from $692K in 2020 (non-prorated) or $4.5M in 2021 to an eight figure number ($12M? $15M $20M) has a cascading effect on the rest of the payroll, which again was hovering near or over the cap. And let's be honest here, we don't know that overtures weren't made to extend Devers during this time. Just because it hasn't been reported doesn't mean it didn't happen. Discussions can happen between front office and player/agent without actual offers being made, but ideas as far as what might be acceptable and what won't can be formed. The Bloom front office generally seems pretty locked down on leaks. Leaks come mostly from agents. If there are discussions with no concrete numbers, what is there to leak? What leverage can be gained by leaking vague discussions?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,348
Also, there's a reason Atlanta, and only Atlanta, keeps coming up in these discussions: they're a unicorn wrt young player extensions. Other teams have extended a young guy or two, but nobody else has done so on the scale of ATL. A favorable financial window is likely part of it, but there are also indications that there's an element of team culture at play (when one of their prospects got traded this month, they tweeted not "new opportunities" pablum, but a string of broken hearts). It's fair to be jealous of what they've done - I certainly am - but it's not realistic to pretend it's the norm across the league.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
Also, there's a reason Atlanta, and only Atlanta, keeps coming up in these discussions: they're a unicorn wrt young player extensions. Other teams have extended a young guy or two, but nobody else has done so on the scale of ATL. A favorable financial window is likely part of it, but there are also indications that there's an element of team culture at play (when one of their prospects got traded this month, they tweeted not "new opportunities" pablum, but a string of broken hearts). It's fair to be jealous of what they've done - I certainly am - but it's not realistic to pretend it's the norm across the league.
Great point. I'll add that even with the evidence of a good team culture, they're not locking down every quality young player coming up through their system even if they clearly want to. Sometimes even with all that, a player still may choose to forgo an early extension, go year-to-year, and test free agency. Dansby Swanson is a great example of that. Offers were made to him that he declined. It underlines that the early extensions are still a two-way thing. It's not just a matter of the team making an effort, it's the player being agreeable as well.
 

LostinNJ

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
478
Great point. I'll add that even with the evidence of a good team culture, they're not locking down every quality young player coming up through their system even if they clearly want to. Sometimes even with all that, a player still may choose to forgo an early extension, go year-to-year, and test free agency. Dansby Swanson is a great example of that. Offers were made to him that he declined. It underlines that the early extensions are still a two-way thing. It's not just a matter of the team making an effort, it's the player being agreeable as well.
Yes, it seems to be the Braves' model that they don't sign free agents, even their own. They were content to let Freeman and Swanson walk, even though those guys were central to their brand. The Astros have done the same, waving good-bye to Springer, Cole, Correa, and now Verlander. So if that's the template, it seems unlikely that Rafael Devers will be a member of this team past 2023.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
907
Boston
Bloom’s strategy in signing Whitlock to an extension is comparable to the Braves’ strategy of signing their young players to extensions. Whitlock the player is not comparable to the Braves players that were signed to extensions. You are conflating a comparison of organizational strategies vis-a-vis signing young players to extensions with a comparison of the specific players being signed to extensions. I’m confident that if the players that the Braves signed to extensions somehow happened to be on the Red Sox right now, Bloom would sign them to extensions. Unfortunately they are not on the Red Sox so Bloom must limit his extension candidates to the young players that are on the Red Sox.
I think this is where we differ - the Braves have a clear organizational strategy of signing their core guys before they hit their arbitration years. You think that Whitlock is evidence of the same strategy whereas I think its just as likely (or perhaps more) that they just like the value so much that they weren't going to pass it up. The deal was 4/19 for his last pre-arb year plus three arb years plus two options for two FA years. Its almost impossible for that deal to go south unless he literally implodes and cant pitch again. Without additional deals, seems more reasonable to me that the inference is that they aren't going to turn down close to no risk/good upside deals than a comprehensive, we're going to sign pre-arb guys. 3-5 win players arent signing pre-arb deals that only guarantee through their arb years for 19M.

There's a 10 year general history of them not doing these deals and a 10 year general history of the Braves doing them - take whatever specific players you want. Maybe Bloom is massive difference to Dombrowski and Cherington, but Im not taking a tiny Whitlock deal as evidence of them changing because I think its become pretty clear there's an organizational view (read: comes from above Chaim's level) that long term deals should be avoided absent very rare circumstances.

Great point. I'll add that even with the evidence of a good team culture, they're not locking down every quality young player coming up through their system even if they clearly want to. Sometimes even with all that, a player still may choose to forgo an early extension, go year-to-year, and test free agency. Dansby Swanson is a great example of that. Offers were made to him that he declined. It underlines that the early extensions are still a two-way thing. It's not just a matter of the team making an effort, it's the player being agreeable as well.
Sure, you're never going to sign everyone, but if people are going to point to one guy the Sox have done it for who is not really someone anyone could think of as a core piece while not doing it for 5-6 guys who were more important and the Braves who have signed everyone of significance over a decade with one exception. You've made the point about player agency throughout - its obvious, but also pretty irrelevant at some point - if players keep saying no, its on the team to figure out what they are doing wrong. Its literally the FOs job to get to yes on players they want to keep. The likely reason is money, which all comes back to their valuation and risk profile makes them too skittish to sign guys really early (e.g. Michael Harris) where valuations are lowest, but also dont want to pay free agent rates. Teams are never going to get 100%, but when teams are failing at close to 100%, they're either doing something wrong or are way off market.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,003
Mansfield MA
It should be pointed out again that when the Braves started locking up their young stars (2019), they had a middle of the road sized payroll and thus the flexibility to pay those players a higher salary than they'd otherwise be getting without inducing or compounding luxury tax penalties. In other words, they had more than enough flexibility to have Acuna on the books for $12.5M per year instead of the <$1M he'd have been getting as a pre-arb eligible player. In 2019, Devers was on the books for $614K while the team payroll was over $243M, #1 in baseball and triggering the most severe luxury tax penalties on the books at the time. No doubt the 2023 (and 2024 and 2025) team would be in better shape with a locked up Devers, but it would have had detrimental effects on the 2019-2020 payroll situation. If we think the Sox struck out on the Betts/Price return as is, how much worse would it have been if they needed to clear another $10-15M in salary commitments to get under the cap? Could they have convinced the Dodgers to take Price's whole nut with a reduced trade package? Would they have had to move someone else (or multiple someones) in spring 2020? I'm not saying the path taken is preferable here, just making clear that this is not nearly as simple as they could/should have paid him and didn't.
This justification doesn't make me feel better, to be honest. Signing Devers long-term would keep him on the squad for what, 10 years? But instead they prioritized the luxury tax situation for that period of time. Seems penny-wise, pound-foolish to me.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Also, there's a reason Atlanta, and only Atlanta, keeps coming up in these discussions: they're a unicorn wrt young player extensions. Other teams have extended a young guy or two, but nobody else has done so on the scale of ATL. A favorable financial window is likely part of it, but there are also indications that there's an element of team culture at play (when one of their prospects got traded this month, they tweeted not "new opportunities" pablum, but a string of broken hearts). It's fair to be jealous of what they've done - I certainly am - but it's not realistic to pretend it's the norm across the league.
IIRC there was also the issue that their two biggest coups, Acuna & Albies, had very inexperienced agents who may have been motivated to get an extension done so they would get the commission before they were replaced. I don’t think anyone on the player or agent side will make this mistake again.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,210
Manchester, N.H.
A few things on the Braves strategy front.

I think there's value in separating out those Braves extensions. The Albies and Acuna extensions are criminally bad for the players. Ozzie Albies got a 7/35 extension with two club options on the back end for his 22-30 years and Ronald Acuna got an team 8/100 extension with those same two club options for his 21-30 seasons. Both Acuna and Albies had 4ish bWAR seasons under their belt at the time. I think any GM in the game makes these signings. This isn't just team strategy - if Rafael Devers' agent had gone to Chaim Bloom in the offseason in 2019 and said Rafael Devers would sign for 8/120 with two club options on the back end Chaim Bloom would probably move anyone on the team to make room for that. Honestly, I bet if Triston Casas would take 7/35 with two team options on the back end they'd do that right now even with minimal MLB track record. Those two are truly absurd deals that I don't think we'll see again any time soon.

The Strider, Harris, Riley, and Olson deals are probably a bit more in the realistic realm but I think also highlight how much of this is player specific.

Austin Riley is an interesting one with Rafael Devers on the mind - another young third baseman who had a pretty meteoric rise. He signed a 10/212 extension in August 2022. Riley's bWAR by year

2019: .1
2020: -.6
2021: 6.1
2022: 6.5

It's similar, at least through the first three years, to Devers who had .9, .2, 5.4 respectively. However Devers fourth year, where Riley signed his extension, was a down year (COVID also). .7 WAR. This is where Bloom would have to make a decision like the Braves did with Riley in terms of service time, but Riley was in the midst of another 6 WAR year at the time. Giving Boston the ability to see 2021, it gets iffier because now Devers is two years away from FA now and Devers, kind of like X, seems likely to bet on himself in this spot as well. I would posit that if Devers was wlling to take that Riley deal, he'd be a Red Sox into the 2030s even in 2021. Obviously now given how the market changed around. But my point here is that the Braves locked up Riley on a deal with a 21m AAV who is putting up 6 WAR in two consecutive years - I think Austin Riley probably would've commanded a LOT more than that on the FA market this year for instance. It's a below market extension

Matt Olson is interesting because this seems to be what Boston wanted to pay Raffy seeing him as a 1B/OF convert in the future. He was acquired from Oakland and then given an 8/168 deal with a similar club option on the back end for his 28-36 years (two arb years I think). Matt Olson also cost them four prospects, the biggest of which were Christian Pache (#12 on MLB's 2021 rankings) and Shea Langliers (#73 on MLB's 2021 rankings). One wrinkle to consider the Braves were not willing to meet market on their 32-year old decade long hometown superstar (Dodgers signing for 6/160ish). But yeah, it's a weird mix because it is a very good deal but the acquistion price is a wrinkle since their unwillingness to meet the hometown talent cost means they had to deal, and possibly lose the ability to hold long term, two fairly valuable prospects to replace some of Freeman's value. Dansby Swanson isn't a perfect comparison but let's say he wasn't an FA and the Sox could lock him into this kind of deal...but it'd cost Mayer and Yorke to do it? A bit less appealing.

Michael Harris is more like the Acuna and Albies contracts but there's some interesting new wrinkles - some of them highlighting the benefits of this but also possibly signifying players considering it a bit more. First, Harris' extension costs more immediately - not much for his value but his base salary is 5m in his two min salary years and 8-9 in his arbitration years. Great deal for Atlanta but shows an adjustment for Harris as they got Acuna on 1m for those years. Harris also has salary escalators on the club option years to where, if he remains a 5 WAR OF (or even settles at like...3 WAR) it's still a deal.

Spencer Strider is entirely different. It was a 6/75 extension which is overpaying his arbitration years in exchange for an extra couple years on the back end. It may prove to be savvy but this one is a lot riskier for Atlanta in my view and might represent more what teams would encounter normally - a player willing to lock in a large sum of guaranteed money for a year or two discounted on the back end, not to the level of Albies, Acuna, or even Harris.

It's also pretty important to note that all of these players had all-star level seasons in the book or in nearly complete progress prior to getting these deals. Of course, so did Devers, Betts, and X so it's not a matter of difference on that but getting those 4, 5, 6 WAR seasons in rookie years or year twos isn't terribly common in itself. - Devers and X were both in Year 3 closer to Riley than Acuna or Harris and arbitration years are staring them in the face.

This isn't to make excuses, I think the if Bello or Casas are 3, 4, 5 WAR players next year and the Sox think they are viable and the players are willing to take team-friendly deals with team options in the back or buying out a couple years of FAs? Absolutely. We should also remember these smart teams are willing and able to let talented, hometown players walk who won't agree to these deals. Like X is heartbreaking, but my understanding is Freddie was a whole 'nother level in Atlanta. This is part of the equation sadly. Atlanta's FO is very smart but Atlanta's FO also seems willing to let players go at FA who aren't willing to severely compromise their value or who bet on themselves in the FA market. Maybe the Sox need to be closer to the RIley market than the Olson market on Devers...but I kind of feel like that Devers would've either been locked up on a pauper's deal in 2019 or 2021 (relative to actual value) or hitting FA in 2023 in Atlanta.

Edit: To the point above, the last Red Sox second year player to put up a 4+ WAR was Mookie Betts in 2015, the last first year player to do it was Daisuke Matsuzaka in 2007 which is a very different scenario. The last true minor league rookie/FYP to do it was arguably Nomar in 1997 if you don't count 1996 which was a partial season. It's rare. Your players putting up those numbers in years two and particularly three is more common but you then have the Devers issue where some players will lock it in and some won't.
 
Last edited:

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
907
Boston
They didn’t give Freeman one. But they had a backup plan ready immediately to trade for Olsen.
In the context of arbitration/pre-arb deals, they did. They gave Freeman a massive (at the time), 8 year/$135M deal right before he hit 3 years of service. He played 10 years for the Braves; not 6.
 

HighTek

New Member
Feb 9, 2020
23
LA
Conforto Rumors

There have been occasional talk about the Red Sox interest in Confirto. While i don't trust chaim after the "Xander is our number one priority" lie, I do think he would be smart to take a chance on giving Conforto a real shot in an OF/DH rotation.

Do we think the metrics prove that he will be a good fit for Fenway?

If so a 1 year w/ an option or a pillow deal where he becomes a valuable trade chip would seem to make Boston a good spot for him.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,463
I think Conforto will get two years at least, and I think it will be with the Cubs.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Conforto Rumors

There have been occasional talk about the Red Sox interest in Confirto. While i don't trust chaim after the "Xander is our number one priority" lie, I do think he would be smart to take a chance on giving Conforto a real shot in an OF/DH rotation.

Do we think the metrics prove that he will be a good fit for Fenway?

If so a 1 year w/ an option or a pillow deal where he becomes a valuable trade chip would seem to make Boston a good spot for him.
Another LH bat which isn't a need in this OF, but if healthy he's got the ability to produce runs and that's still a need with this club.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,348
Do we think the metrics prove that he will be a good fit for Fenway?
The metrics make Fenway look like a pretty bad fit for him. One of the worst parks in baseball for him in terms of HR suppression, also he doesn't get good jumps or have a high sprint speed to cover ground in right. His arm was still good in 2021, but then he lost all last year after shoulder surgery, so who knows?
 

grepal

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
193
I think Conforto on a prove it deal or even two years at 20 to 25 million is reasonable. Of course, this year reasonable left a few weeks ago. The one player who I am shocked is not getting more love on the free market is Nate. I have to wonder what he is looking for.
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
4,334
Upstate NY
Do not see the Orioles making a deal within the division, but this was an interesting tidbit from Ken Rosenthal:

According to The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal (subscription required), the Orioles might move shortstop Jorge Mateo if the right deal is out there. That's because Baltimore has a lot of young middle-infield talent coming up through the organizational ranks, which might make Mateo expendable. The 27-year-old led the AL with 35 steals and played excellent defense at short in 2022.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,918
For an actual rumor, Morosi says people around baseball think Eovaldi re-signs with Boston.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rumors-trades-and-signings?partnerID=web_article-share
I hope this is true. Maybe the QO + injury concerns reduces Eovaldi's market enough.

Also in same article:

View: https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/1605245374842769409?s=20&t=aoNqvywQQ3NspInJNVbGmg


More smoke around Marlins trading Pablo Lopez. At 26 years old, he's a guy I'd be very OK trading prospects for and signing to a long extension before he (hopefully) reaches another gear.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,348
I hope this is true. Maybe the QO + injury concerns reduces Eovaldi's market enough.

Also in same article:

View: https://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/1605245374842769409?s=20&t=aoNqvywQQ3NspInJNVbGmg


More smoke around Marlins trading Pablo Lopez. At 26 years old, he's a guy I'd be very OK trading prospects for and signing to a long extension before he (hopefully) reaches another gear.
I'm certainly interested in Lopez too if he's available, but the fact that they extended Alcantara but are shopping him makes me wonder if he's determined to hit FA.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,645
Do not see the Orioles making a deal within the division, but this was an interesting tidbit from Ken Rosenthal:

According to The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal (subscription required), the Orioles might move shortstop Jorge Mateo if the right deal is out there. That's because Baltimore has a lot of young middle-infield talent coming up through the organizational ranks, which might make Mateo expendable. The 27-year-old led the AL with 35 steals and played excellent defense at short in 2022.
Yeah, between Henderson, Westburg, and Ortiz they have a lot of better MI options than Mateo. I’m not sure how much they’d worry about trading him in division given that he’s a below average hitter, the speed notwithstanding. But, he’s a solid defensive SS and would be an acceptable stopgap for Boston until they reached Mayer.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,130

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,918
Forgive my ignorance on how to properly embed a link like this, but I thought it was interesting as a "rumor."

The Giants postponed Correa's intro press conference due to a medical concern that came up in his physical. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35293179/report-giants-postpone-carlos-correa-intro-medical-concern

I fully admit once we lost Bogaerts, I would have given that deal to Correa, even knowing his injury history. But I thought this was at least noteworthy.
View: https://twitter.com/vodkasnowflake/status/1605301311720898562?s=20&t=aKn9PweDjX10B9_J6EwWhg
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
914
Given the contracts being given out to guys like Degrom and Nimmo, it was only a matter of time before somebody failed their physical. I guess Correa drew the short straw.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,069
Maybe Correa loses out on this huge deal and it costs him a lot of money. And maybe Devers looks at that and says you know, if I get offered 10/300 from the Sox, I’m taking it.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,918
Ouch. How does this work? If he’s damaged goods can the Giants refuse the agreement?
Destroy his value but then teams would probably line up for more one year deals?
He hasn't officially signed, right? But I assume Correa's camp would file a grievance immediately. I'd think Correa would still have his share of 10 year offers from the Mets/Twins/etc. but more incentive laden if the Giants deal blows up.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,463
And that’s why waiting for FA is always risky.
Well, he actually made it to FA last year, but Boras overplayed his hand and he had to sign a one year deal. If this big deal does fall through, I’d say it more than counterbalances everything else Boras has done this winter.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
He hasn't officially signed, right? But I assume Correa's camp would file a grievance immediately. I'd think Correa would still have his share of 10 year offers from the Mets/Twins/etc. but more incentive laden if the Giants deal blows up.
What sort of grievance? All of these contracts are pending physicals, right? If there are any question marks San Fran has the right to refuse or renegotiate depending on the reports. That said, if San Fran has cold feet it might affect how future FAs look at them.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Cross posting from the MLB thread :

JDM also had a medical flag pop up, and it led to his deal being restructured. IIRC the team got more protection in the form of an option early in the deal and JDM got an extra opt out Later. Since interested teams are probably getting preliminary medicals beforehand, this would have to be pretty major to void the deal, and the Twins had his medicals all yearand and still offered $285M/10 years,.

I’d be surprised if there was anything more than “light restructuring.”
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,485
Scituate, MA
Do not see the Orioles making a deal within the division, but this was an interesting tidbit from Ken Rosenthal:

According to The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal (subscription required), the Orioles might move shortstop Jorge Mateo if the right deal is out there. That's because Baltimore has a lot of young middle-infield talent coming up through the organizational ranks, which might make Mateo expendable. The 27-year-old led the AL with 35 steals and played excellent defense at short in 2022.
Also speculation of them moving Mullins... let's get them both please.
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
4,334
Upstate NY
Let the games begin...This is Devers' camp trying to get ahead of the PR game with all of this. Say this now, let Bloom and the FO try to deal with it prior to the season, then walk into free agency being able to make the Sox look like they once again dropped the ball. Meanwhile, Devers and his camp know they are testing the free agent market...they'd be fools not to.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,592
Let the games begin...This is Devers' camp trying to get ahead of the PR game with all of this. Say this now, let Bloom and the FO try to deal with it prior to the season, then walk into free agency being able to make the Sox look like they once again dropped the ball. Meanwhile, Devers and his camp know they are testing the free agent market...they'd be fools not to.
Maybe they are just telling the truth. There is a number they would take now, but not once the season starts. And the “PR” aspect of it is that once the actual games begin he won’t answer any questions about his contract.

Edit: And maybe he gets the feeling the Sox are moving more slowly than is necessary, and are trying to call his bluff when he isn’t bluffing.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,805
The back of your computer
Maybe they are just telling the truth. There is a number they would take now, but not once the season starts. And the “PR” aspect of it is that once the actual games begin he won’t answer any questions about his contract.

Edit: And maybe he gets the feeling the Sox are moving more slowly than is necessary, and are trying to call his bluff when he isn’t bluffing.
The number (whether now or later) is likely the same - market value. He's not taking a discount, and neither were Betts or Bogaerts (Betts made no bones about it, and Bogaerts' PR may or may not be true on this point, we'll never know).

I don't think it's a bluff, and I have no idea why Braves' players all seemingly took discounts on their contracts. The Red Sox probably think that, because there's no discount, there's no reason to rush into a long-term contract with a player who has not been in the best shape all his career and is not likely to age well. The question is why they haven't shopped him yet, just to see if there is a trade market for Devers. The longer they wait, the less value they'll get (see Betts, Mookie).
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,130
The way I look at it is, it’s probably a “discount” based on what next year‘s market will be. Kind of like if we’d offered Bogaerts the second highest deal of last off season (which I believe was Bryant’s $182m deal) that would have looked like a bargain right now (and I think he would have taken that in March of 2022).

I bet if we offered Devers 12/$325m (right between Correa and Turmer) that he‘d take it and that it would be less than he’d get next year’s free agent market.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,458
Maybe Correa loses out on this huge deal and it costs him a lot of money. And maybe Devers looks at that and says you know, if I get offered 10/300 from the Sox, I’m taking it.
I’m not a professional athlete, but I can guarantee you that’s not how athletes think. They never believe they’re going to get hurt and they always bet on themselves. That’s because most of the times this events pay off.

My guess is that Devers sees himself having a Judge year more than what happened to Correa.