The TrevorEnding Story: needs shoulder surgery, out for the year (4/9 update)

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,007
He also had massive home/away splits while in Colorado and there was concern that the Sox were paying for his home splits but would get his away ones.
That's an overblown issue when half his games would be at hitter friendly Fenway where countless players over the years have had the same sort of favorable home/road splits as Coors. Bogaerts has a career home OPS of .866 and road OPS .754 and has an .816 OPS at pitcher friendly PETCO v. .870 at Fenway.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
That's an overblown issue when half his games would be at hitter friendly Fenway where countless players over the years have had the same sort of favorable home/road splits as Coors. Bogaerts has a career home OPS of .866 and road OPS .754 and has an .816 OPS at pitcher friendly PETCO v. .870 at Fenway.
The splits were more extreme than that IIRC, one the order of more than 200 points of OPS.

This is all rearranging chairs on the Titanic anyway. Clearly the signing has been a complete disaster. There were warning signs beforehand but no one expected a total loss of the $140 million investment in terms of on-field results.

People here clowned on the Xander contract but I'd far rather have an 11/280 player who is actually on the field even in a different position instead of a 6/140 player who is always seriously injured. Others' mileage, including that of Sox ownership, may vary in that regard.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,007
His .796 Fenway OPS would have been fine if he stayed on the field. If GMs thought he was going to come close to his Coors OPS they would have been lining up around the block to give him $250 mil.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
His .796 Fenway OPS would have been fine if he stayed on the field. If GMs thought he was going to come close to his Coors OPS they would have been lining up around the block to give him $250 mil.
Well that's my very point: he wasn't going to maintain his Coors numbers which everyone knew and got him a middle-road contract instead of a top tier one. It was a concern for GMs.

An 800 OPS would have been fine, even if he had stayed at 2B. Didn't happen.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,601
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Or are we just going full SoSH and assuming everything that doesn't work is a the worst moral failure evah, and a personal insult to my fandom, on the part of someone instead of a common outcome?
FTFY.

What practical value is there in trying to peg how bad of a deal Story's contract is for the Sox? I am genuinely interested in what we can learn from it.
There is some value in a resources/risk/consequences type of analysis, but I doubt that drilling down on Story is going to produce any kind of universally applicable insight. (In no small part because of the Xander uncertainty and the prospects in-system - there were a lot of moving pieces there.)
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
There is some value in a resources/risk/consequences type of analysis, but I doubt that drilling down on Story is going to produce any kind of universally applicable insight. (In no small part because of the Xander uncertainty and the prospects in-system - there were a lot of moving pieces there.)
I'd love to see a survey about shopping for results in the middle of the market; my off the cuff recollection is that such contracts are usually pretty poor bets to work out, but that may well be the freshness of the Sale extension and Story contract (168 and 140 million) being fresh in my mind.

I'd always preferred a go big or go home approach but I know full well those contracts are no guarantee either. David Price's contract is usually considered bad even though he went 46-24 in Boston with a 118 ERA+ and played a huge part in a World Series and two more playoff appearances. Hell, $217 million might look good just knowing you'd get a starter to throw 230 IP again like Price did in 2016.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,601
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I'd love to see a survey about shopping for results in the middle of the market; my off the cuff recollection is that such contracts are usually pretty poor bets to work out, but that may well be the freshness of the Sale extension and Story contract (168 and 140 million) being fresh in my mind.

I'd always preferred a go big or go home approach but I know full well those contracts are no guarantee either. David Price's contract is usually considered bad even though he went 46-24 in Boston with a 118 ERA+ and played a huge part in a World Series and two more playoff appearances. Hell, $217 million might look good just knowing you'd get a starter to throw 230 IP again like Price did in 2016.
I think the largest risk for FA contracts is really the Sale type of outcome in a general sense. Meaning, a situation where you have a significant % of the budget tied up for multiple future years, and a huge question mark as to the player's ability to take the field and/or their effectiveness when they get there. Because they're also one of the 26/40 at some point.

Consider the last few years. As an example of the general concept - a 75%-career-numbers Sale would have been an asset and the trickle-down/push-back effect on the pitching staff could have made them competitive at the '22 or '23 trading deadline. But meanwhile (assuming you can't trade a player like that) you have to hold a slot open for him and give him a chance to win his job back. When that gets compounded by random injuries. . .

Contrast that to long-term guys who have a clear full-season injury you can plan around. Or even a clear half-season injury before the season begins. E.g., Sale was expected back (and came back) from TJS in mid-to-late 2021. So you go out and get a 1 year starter with some pen experience (Richards).

Story is particularly bad luck in that he's suffered serious injuries after the season began or the FA window had closed: broken hand on pitch in July 2022, elbow toward end of offseason 2022-3, shoulder injury 10 games into 2024.

You can plan for that with moderate AAA backup, but when guys like Chang also go down. . .
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,673
Responding to the calls to trade for Adames. While I'd love for that guy to step in and it makes a lot of sense with the mL depth about a year away one would guess that a small package of Yorke Plus would work. But it doesn't make an ounce of sense for Milwaukee to cut bait this early, no? Not just on their season but for the return that they'd get as the trade deadline gets nearer teams would likely be willing to add a better player than Yorke to the deal.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,601
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Responding to the calls to trade for Adames. While I'd love for that guy to step in and it makes a lot of sense with the mL depth about a year away one would guess that a small package of Yorke Plus would work. But it doesn't make an ounce of sense for Milwaukee to cut bait this early, no? Not just on their season but for the return that they'd get as the trade deadline gets nearer teams would likely be willing to add a better player than Yorke to the deal.
Well, you also have to consider Milwaukee went to the post-season last year and are heavily favored to return. Adames is a key cog in their current configuration.

So they'd likely only do a trade if they thought they could trade Adames without harming this year. I'm not sure what they'd view as that, but it's likely not a prospect-only trade.

Perhaps the only match I see at the moment might be some subsidized bullpen arms.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,342
Story was signed before X left, they played together in 2022 with X at shortstop and Story at 2B. I do agree with you in that Story was signed with an eye to letting X walk after 2022 and moving Story over to SS. Obviously that turned out to be a catastrophic miscalculation if only on-field results are examined.

We do not know if ownership thinks it's a victory anyway given that Story got far less in FA than X did.
Disagree with the bolded. If the Padres offered Bogaerts for Story right now, Breslow would laugh at them.

4/90 left on Story’s deal (from this year forward) is a garden-variety bad contract. The 10/250 left on Bogaerts’ deal has the potential to be Pujols-level bad.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Disagree with the bolded. If the Padres offered Bogaerts for Story right now, Breslow would laugh at them.

4/90 left on Story’s deal (from this year forward) is a garden-variety bad contract. The 10/250 left on Bogaerts’ deal has the potential to be Pujols-level bad.
X put up more WAR in SD last year than Story has in 2. I'd far rather pay more for some production then pay less and get nothing.

4/90 with the potential to get nothing, after 2/50 already and getting nothing, is an awful deal, compounded by ownership's hard line on salary totals.

The Sox' ownership decided to sign Story with the idea that they would let X walk and Story would be the starting shortstop for the five years after X was gone. Nothing about those decisions has turned out to be a positive for the Red Sox, even if you think X's deal was an overpay.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,848
X put up more WAR in SD last year than Story has in 2. I'd far rather pay more for some production then pay less and get nothing.
That's more a factor of playing time than skill. I mean if you want to show me a post from the time of the Story signing saying "this guy's going to be injured for most of the next 3 years" then sure, you were right and we were wrong. But barring that you're arguing hindsight here.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
That's more a factor of playing time than skill. I mean if you want to show me a post from the time of the Story signing saying "this guy's going to be injured for most of the next 3 years" then sure, you were right and we were wrong. But barring that you're arguing hindsight here.
X's 5 year OPS+ was a bit higher than Story's at the time of the free agencies, by about 10 points or so.

It's really just looking at results. The Sox made a bet that they would be either fine or better off by letting their homegrown star walk in FA and replacing him with another FA they signed for a lot less money. That has obviously not worked out. I think the consensus at the time was that Story wasn't as good of a player as X and their contracts in FA reflected that. He wasn't thought of as a BAD player, just not on X's level.

They made a bet. They lost badly. Now they'll have to hope Meyer continues to develop while patching in at short. The situation is tough and will hamstring the club for some time.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
773
Disagree with the bolded. If the Padres offered Bogaerts for Story right now, Breslow would laugh at them.

4/90 left on Story’s deal (from this year forward) is a garden-variety bad contract. The 10/250 left on Bogaerts’ deal has the potential to be Pujols-level bad.
Someday Bogaerts's contract may be looked back at as a high-water mark in spending lunacy.

There's no way Xander can come close to earning it. And that will make him look bad, which is unfortunate, because he was a fine player and a good guy with the Red Sox.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Someday Bogaerts's contract may be looked back at as a high-water mark in spending lunacy.

There's no way Xander can come close to earning it. And that will make him look bad, which is unfortunate, because he was a fine player and a good guy with the Red Sox.
I generally think with large contracts like that one that there is an expectation that the player will not be worth every penny of it. You're overpaying because the player is freely available. The question becomes if it's worth it to the signing team to pay X $280 million and perhaps only receive, say $200 million worth of WAR.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
773
I generally think with large contracts like that one that there is an expectation that the player will not be worth every penny of it. You're overpaying because the player is freely available. The question becomes if it's worth it to the signing team to pay X $280 million and perhaps only receive, say $200 million worth of WAR.
That was a truly exceptional overpay. I think most people expected Xander to top out at 180 mill or thereabouts. 280 mill was stunning for a player of his pedigree and age.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
That was a truly exceptional overpay. I think most people expected Xander to top out at 180 mill or thereabouts. 280 mill was stunning for a player of his pedigree and age.
I agree with you on the age (the term for a 29 year old player was shocking), but his OPS+ leading into the contract were 135, 139, 118, 128, 129, and 131. All from a defensive position that is difficult to fill. That's exceptional offensive production. Even if a usual decline phase, starting from such a level would be an extremely productive player for a very long time.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
773
I agree with you on the age (the term for a 29 year old player was shocking), but his OPS+ leading into the contract were 135, 139, 118, 128, 129, and 131. All from a defensive position that is difficult to fill. That's exceptional offensive production. Even if a usual decline phase, starting from such a level would be an extremely productive player for a very long time.
But there was always speculation he'd eventually be moved off SS. And it's already happened.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,187
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Additionally, @Smiling Joe Hesketh is there anything about Xander's profile as a hitter that argues for a slow decline, as opposed to the risk of a rapid one?
I'm no stats expert but his Fangraphs page shows only small changes in K rate, BB rate, and ISO from year to year. I don't think he was ever one of those "young players with old player skills" that are so vulnerable to complete statistical collapse.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,936
11 years, $280 million?
I can't believe people are still doing this. There are a lot of people, like me, who liked Xander and wanted the team to keep him. We wanted him extended before he ever hit free agency. Some people say "Boras never does that with his clients," but he will if the client wants it, which is what Xander did in 2019. So some of us were hoping for a Story-like deal to keep Bogaerts. As far as I've seen, NO ONE on this board has EVER suggested they wanted the Sox to give him what the Padres gave him.

Someday Bogaerts's contract may be looked back at as a high-water mark in spending lunacy.
We've since learned why it happened. Peter Seidler was dying and wanted to see his team win, so the mandate seemed to be to throw money at people until they said yes. He understood that you can't take it with you and left it for other people to figure out how to deal with it later.

To use a phrase popular in baseball circles, the Padres spending spree was pretty much a unicorn.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
773
I can't believe people are still doing this. There are a lot of people, like me, who liked Xander and wanted the team to keep him. We wanted him extended before he ever hit free agency. Some people say "Boras never does that with his clients," but he will if the client wants it, which is what Xander did in 2019. So some of us were hoping for a Story-like deal to keep Bogaerts. As far as I've seen, NO ONE on this board has EVER suggested they wanted the Sox to give him what the Padres gave him.


We've since learned why it happened. Peter Seidler was dying and wanted to see his team win, so the mandate seemed to be to throw money at people until they said yes. He understood that you can't take it with you and left it for other people to figure out how to deal with it later.

To use a phrase popular in baseball circles, the Padres spending spree was pretty much a unicorn.
Which is all understandable. But wasn't it reported that there was a major auction on Xander with several teams involved? That seems plausible because not even the Padres would bid against themselves.

I love Xander, but that really was an astonishing amount of money he got - about 100 million more than projected. The Red Sox final offer fell 118 million short! :p

You wonder how much that signing had to do with Boras's apparently over-optimistic projections going into the offseason just past.
 

PapnMillsy

New Member
Jun 10, 2023
60
Not now. I'd guess his value is close to zero. Chris Sale proved that if a guy is healthy at the moment, there will be a market for his services. Suck it up, let him rehab, and see where he (and Mayer) stand next April.
The funny thing is if Sale does what I expect and balls out this year and puts up like 4-5 WAR, his extension won’t look nearly as bad but the Red Sox will look worse because they lost out on the majority of his production on the extension and paid his entire salary for him to do it elsewhere.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,107
Pittsburgh, PA
But there was always speculation he'd eventually be moved off SS. And it's already happened.
He was the same fielder last year in San Diego that he was in Boston. About middle of the pack by OAA and with a positive defensive WAR. I think Xander would still be a SS on most teams. He was only moved off SS by San Diego because they have another guy who happens to be incredible in the field. It’s not like Bogaerts was moved because he couldn’t handle the position any longer.