What does 2023 look like?

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,257
Oh I think Duran sucks, but I was answering the question ("what Duran adds that Hamilton doesn’t"). It hasn't translated to MLB but Duran has shown the ability to hit throughout the minors. He has zero baseball instincts and his fielding is terrible, so even if he hit a little bit, he would still stink. Hamilton's a different player with some interesting strengths but his hitting looks marginal, and he's not young.
At age 24, Duran put up a 132 wRC+ over 283 PAs in AAA.
At age 24, from June 28 of this year on, David Hamilton put up a 137 wRC+ over 279 PA in AA.

It's hard to make a direct comparison because of the lost 2020 season, where Duran would have likely repeated AA after a so-so 2019 there. Duran had a really nice two-month stretch in AAA until July 6 (.976 OPS, 156 wRC+). Since that time he's hit .264/.339/.456 in AAA, good for a respectable but not thrilling 110 wRC+.

I don't think Duran is a lost cause or anything. But I genuinely struggle to see anything in his minor league numbers that's appreciably better than Hamilton. Duran has a bit more pop and about .010 points of batting average, which Hamilton makes up for it with a higher walk rate and some truly gaudy stolen base totals. It seems like some of the rule changes should help them both.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,624
i'm starting to believe that Xander will be gone and Bloom will go for Swanson. Personally don't think it's a good tradeoff as Swanson's bat wouldn't translate to other positions when Mayer moves up, and having Xander at least keeps an option for 3B if they can't resign Devers (I doubt that Mayer would be ready in '24 however) but I think 3B would be an easier one season spot to fill than SS.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,785
Mansfield MA
At age 24, Duran put up a 132 wRC+ over 283 PAs in AAA.
At age 24, from June 28 of this year on, David Hamilton put up a 137 wRC+ over 279 PA in AA.
So Hamilton hit similarly on a lower level but only if you cherry-pick an end point.

I don't think Duran is a lost cause or anything. But I genuinely struggle to see anything in his minor league numbers that's appreciably better than Hamilton. Duran has a bit more pop and about .010 points of batting average, which Hamilton makes up for it with a higher walk rate and some truly gaudy stolen base totals. It seems like some of the rule changes should help them both.
My understand is the rule changes (larger bases, shift banning) were in effect in the minors this year, so any impact on Hamilton's performance (and Duran's in AAA) would already be baked into his numbers from 2022.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
Duran has 335 at bats in the majors. The book is very close to being written on him, but not yet. He should start the year in the minors and get another shot at some point.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,257
So Hamilton hit similarly on a lower level but only if you cherry-pick an end point.


My understand is the rule changes (larger bases, shift banning) were in effect in the minors this year, so any impact on Hamilton's performance (and Duran's in AAA) would already be baked into his numbers from 2022.
Am I cherry picking? I’m using the most recent 300 or so PAs of his career and weighing them more heavily than the first 250 or so, when he had changed organizations. Anyone excited about Duran's minor league numbers has to do the same thing.

You're right about the rule changes in the minors, I'm just saying that I think Bloom and other teams are planning for left-handed batters to be more impactful, and more plentiful, at the major-league level than they have been over the last half decade.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,785
Mansfield MA
Am I cherry picking? I’m using the most recent 300 or so PAs of his career and weighing them more heavily than the first 250 or so, when he had changed organizations.
You could have literally the taken the most recent 300 PAs (from the 2nd game 6/23) but then his OPS would be 34 points lower. Maybe I'm not giving you enough credit, but it seems to me that you picked 6/28 (instead of, say, 6/1 or 7/1), to get the 8-for-11 stretch he ended June with, while neatly excising the 1 for 24 skid that immediately preceded it. That's cherry-picking.

Anyone excited about Duran's minor league numbers has to do the same thing.
I hate defending Duran, because I think Duran stinks. I don't want to create the impression that I'm a Duran supporter. But while the power was new in AAA in 2020, he hit for a high average at least in the low minors in 2018 and 2019. Hamilton doesn't have a lot of pop and he's a .250 hitter, while being older for his level than Duran throughout.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,624
You could have literally the taken the most recent 300 PAs (from the 2nd game 6/23) but then his OPS would be 34 points lower. Maybe I'm not giving you enough credit, but it seems to me that you picked 6/28 (instead of, say, 6/1 or 7/1), to get the 8-for-11 stretch he ended June with, while neatly excising the 1 for 24 skid that immediately preceded it. That's cherry-picking.


I hate defending Duran, because I think Duran stinks. I don't want to create the impression that I'm a Duran supporter. But while the power was new in AAA in 2020, he hit for a high average at least in the low minors in 2018 and 2019. Hamilton doesn't have a lot of pop and he's a .250 hitter, while being older for his level than Duran throughout.
I'm not 100% ready to write off Duran- I was never an apologist for him, nor even close to being excited by his mL stretch in 2021 when he seemed legit- but he does need more time at the ML level although I doubt it'll be at the start of the season. The guy's defense is atrocious... but can it be improved? I just don't get how it can be as bad as it seems and I'm willing to bet he's made/will make enough improvements there to not be a net negative.
Offensively, I'm also wondering if he trades in some of his attempts to hit for power, if he can get back to a higher BA with slap-hitting gap singles and doubles and use his speed to advance to score on another single. Or get a BB, steal and come around, etc... AAA is at least a good enough spot to see if his defense has improved before taking a chance on him again at the ML level. Offensively, I don't think at this point much will be learned by him facing AAA pitching though.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
42,592
NEW YORK — All significant Red Sox transactions reach ownership level eventually.
Fitting, then, that Red Sox CEO and president Sam Kennedy chose to elaborate on the critical topics of Xander Bogaerts, Rafael Devers, and a team at a crossroads at Wednesday’s MLB owners meetings.
Yes, said Kennedy, the Red Sox sweetened their offer recently to free agent Bogaerts and yes, they made an extension offer to Devers, one year from free agency, not long after the season ended.
While cautious at times about what he should say, Kennedy at other times was blunt about the club being in the doghouse for its awful 2022 season.
“Coming out of [last week’s] GM meetings, I can tell you that we have been very proactive,” said Kennedy, “though I know people don’t want to hear about how aggressive we’ve been, because it doesn’t mean anything until there’s something to announce.

“But I can tell you that we’ve made offers to several players, including our own players. And we’re cautiously optimistic that things are going to start moving here.”

The club has made at least two offers to Bogaerts since the season ended, once during its period of exclusivity before Bogaerts filed for free agency, and a sweetened offer since he became a free agent earlier this month.

“We’ve been engaged with Xander since the end of this season, and Scott [Boras], his agent, and I’ll leave it at that,” said Kennedy. “But we’ve had productive conversations.”



As for Devers, the 26-year-old third baseman, Kennedy said the club’s engagement with him and his agent since the end of the season has included one offer.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/11/16/sports/red-sox-confirm-that-theyve-sweetened-their-offers-xander-bogaerts-rafael-devers/

so this sort of confirms Yancen Pujols reporting about an offer from last month
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,986
Bangkok
So what do we think about Devers not agreeing to a deal yet? Waiting to see the market value for the shortstops as reference?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
He’s a year from free agency. At this point, I imagine he’s only signing if he gets an offer that’s close to what he’d get as a free agent; so it’s going to have to be pretty massive. There just no real incentive for him to sign right now.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,033
Isle of Plum
He’s a year from free agency. At this point, I imagine he’s only signing if he gets an offer that’s close to what he’d get as a free agent; so it’s going to have to be pretty massive. There just no real incentive for him to sign right now.
I know it’s the territory, but I can’t imagine turning down $200m+ and risking a career altering injury hoping to get $300m+.

These folks are wired different.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,349
So what do we think about Devers not agreeing to a deal yet? Waiting to see the market value for the shortstops as reference?
He's doing what hundreds of free agents to be have done? Waiting to hit free agency to see how much money people will throw at him?
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
458
Seattle now has five outfielders and a GM who is incapable of not making a trade every third day.

I think Winker, Lewis, and Kelenic are all intriguing buy-low options, but the Sox need reliable outfield production at this point.

Julio Rodriguez
Teoscar Hernandez
Jesse Winker
Kyle Lewis
Jarred Kelenic
(plus Sam Haggerty and others)
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
He's doing what hundreds of free agents to be have done? Waiting to hit free agency to see how much money people will throw at him?

Right. Every single organization ever has had, and will continue to have, key players hit free agency. It's not necessarily a failure of the organization when it happens. The Astros have lost Gerrit Cole, George Springer, and Carols Correa. The Dodgers lost Max Scherzer, Kenley Jansen, Corey Seager, and now Trea Turner is a FA. The Braves lost Freddie Freeman and now Dansby Swanson is a FA. Aaron Judge is a FA.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,263
Right. Every single organization ever has had, and will continue to have, key players hit free agency. It's not necessarily a failure of the organization when it happens. The Astros have lost Gerrit Cole, George Springer, and Carols Correa. The Dodgers lost Max Scherzer, Kenley Jansen, Corey Seager, and now Trea Turner is a FA. The Braves lost Freddie Freeman and now Dansby Swanson is a FA. Aaron Judge is a FA.
Right. But there's generally speaking a Plan B for those teams, next man up sort of thing. If the Sox lose Devers (and Bogaerts), who replaces them?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
Right. But there's generally speaking a Plan B for those teams, next man up sort of thing. If the Sox lose Devers (and Bogaerts), who replaces them?
I don't know. There are many possibilities. Fortunately, they would have the financial resources to fill those holes, and long historical record of being willing to spend. I'm willing to wait and see. If, in 2024, Boagerts and Devers are gone with cheap, mediocre replacements, and the payroll is 150 mil, I will be first in line to criticize.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
Right. But there's generally speaking a Plan B for those teams, next man up sort of thing. If the Sox lose Devers (and Bogaerts), who replaces them?
There is a next man up because those organizations took the time and care to build up their farm system. They didn't give in to impatient fans and just blow a bunch of money on veterans or trade whatever isn't nailed down to win now. And you can't say well the Astros and Dodgers did a full tear down. A lot of the players they lost happen when they had already rebuilt and had many years of not having a draft pick in the top ten. Also the next man up doesn't have to come from the farm system. It could be a free agent or it could be someone they target in trade.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,263
There is a next man up because those organizations took the time and care to build up their farm system. They didn't give in to impatient fans and just blow a bunch of money on veterans or trade whatever isn't nailed down to win now. And you can't say well the Astros and Dodgers did a full tear down. A lot of the players they lost happen when they had already rebuilt and had many years of not having a draft pick in the top ten. Also the next man up doesn't have to come from the farm system. It could be a free agent or it could be someone they target in trade.
But if you have the man here (Devers) why should you spend more money (it's always usually more money to lure someone from their original team) or spend minor league resources to replace the guy who left? The Dodgers and Astros have those replacements in their systems, the Red Sox don't (at least at third base right now).

And the Astros went through a horrific tear down a few years ago. They were the worst team in either league for years.
 

BravesField

lurker
Oct 27, 2021
118
Right. But there's generally speaking a Plan B for those teams, next man up sort of thing. If the Sox lose Devers (and Bogaerts), who replaces them?
I guess the current in house lineup is

C - McGuire
1B - Casas
2B - Valdez or Kike
SS - Story
3B - Dalbec
LF - Verdugo
CF - Kike or Valdez
RF - Refsnyder
DH - Hosmer

That is guess is what is on Chaim's board. How he adds to it is anyone's guess.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,349
I guess the current in house lineup is

C - McGuire
1B - Casas
2B - Valdez or Kike
SS - Story
3B - Dalbec
LF - Verdugo
CF - Kike or Valdez
RF - Refsnyder
DH - Hosmer

That is guess is what is on Chaim's board. How he adds to it is anyone's guess.
He'd better start adding!
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
635
Boston
Right. Every single organization ever has had, and will continue to have, key players hit free agency. It's not necessarily a failure of the organization when it happens. The Astros have lost Gerrit Cole, George Springer, and Carols Correa. The Dodgers lost Max Scherzer, Kenley Jansen, Corey Seager, and now Trea Turner is a FA. The Braves lost Freddie Freeman and now Dansby Swanson is a FA. Aaron Judge is a FA.
The big distinction with these teams is that they do lock up a lot of their talent. The Braves signed (i) Austin Riley to a 10/215; (ii) Matt Olson to a 8/168; (iii) Acuna to 8/100; (iv) Strider 6/75; (v) Harris 8/72; (vi) Albies 7/35. You're never going to sign everyone when you bring up as much talent as they have over the last 5 years or so, but they have done an excellent job locking their talent up. The Astros locked up: (i) Alvute - 7/165; (ii) Alvarez 6/115; (iii) Bregman 5/100; (iv) McCullers - 5/85. The Dodgers signed: (i) Betts 12/365; (ii) Freeman 6/162.

The Sox havent had much talent recently, but they traded Betts and Benintendi (who never turned out to be that good). If both Xander and Devers walk, theyll have kept nothing of the guys who came up since like 2015. If you do that and you dont sign any one to huge deals externally, its incredibly hard to build a strong core.

Basically, no one is ever going to keep everyone, but failing consistently to keep your stars isnt consistent with the teams you're referencing. At some point, blaming the players is lame and shitty management. If you meet an asshole one day, you met an asshole. If you constantly meet assholes, you're the asshole. Broad applicability to that statement, including here.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
19,499
Unreal America
The big distinction with these teams is that they do lock up a lot of their talent. The Braves signed (i) Austin Riley to a 10/215; (ii) Matt Olson to a 8/168; (iii) Acuna to 8/100; (iv) Strider 6/75; (v) Harris 8/72; (vi) Albies 7/35. You're never going to sign everyone when you bring up as much talent as they have over the last 5 years or so, but they have done an excellent job locking their talent up. The Astros locked up: (i) Alvute - 7/165; (ii) Alvarez 6/115; (iii) Bregman 5/100; (iv) McCullers - 5/85. The Dodgers signed: (i) Betts 12/365; (ii) Freeman 6/162.

The Sox havent had much talent recently, but they traded Betts and Benintendi (who never turned out to be that good). If both Xander and Devers walk, theyll have kept nothing of the guys who came up since like 2015. If you do that and you dont sign any one to huge deals externally, its incredibly hard to build a strong core.

Basically, no one is ever going to keep everyone, but failing consistently to keep your stars isnt consistent with the teams you're referencing. At some point, blaming the players is lame and shitty management. If you meet an asshole one day, you met an asshole. If you constantly meet assholes, you're the asshole. Broad applicability to that statement, including here.
I like this post very much. Sometimes I get the impression that some folks here think we should let every star walk in FA, because we'll have a farm system that consistently churns out star-level replacements. That's simply never going to happen. A team has to retain at least some of its home grown talent when they hit or near free agency. Or else you're not Houston, you're Oakland. And there's absolutely no reason that the Sox have to be Oakland.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,570
Maine
The big distinction with these teams is that they do lock up a lot of their talent. The Braves signed (i) Austin Riley to a 10/215; (ii) Matt Olson to a 8/168; (iii) Acuna to 8/100; (iv) Strider 6/75; (v) Harris 8/72; (vi) Albies 7/35. You're never going to sign everyone when you bring up as much talent as they have over the last 5 years or so, but they have done an excellent job locking their talent up. The Astros locked up: (i) Alvute - 7/165; (ii) Alvarez 6/115; (iii) Bregman 5/100; (iv) McCullers - 5/85. The Dodgers signed: (i) Betts 12/365; (ii) Freeman 6/162.

The Sox havent had much talent recently, but they traded Betts and Benintendi (who never turned out to be that good). If both Xander and Devers walk, theyll have kept nothing of the guys who came up since like 2015. If you do that and you dont sign any one to huge deals externally, its incredibly hard to build a strong core.

Basically, no one is ever going to keep everyone, but failing consistently to keep your stars isnt consistent with the teams you're referencing. At some point, blaming the players is lame and shitty management. If you meet an asshole one day, you met an asshole. If you constantly meet assholes, you're the asshole. Broad applicability to that statement, including here.
The other difference between the Braves/Astros approach and the Red Sox is the Sox signed or acquired a few big money contracts with players not among their homegrown talent. Price, Sale, Eovaldi, Martinez, Kimbrel, etc (probably can include Sandoval and Ramirez on the list too). The Braves and Astros were able to throw money at their young/home grown stars primarily because they hadn't spent a ton on outside stars.

I'd also point out that most of those deals the Braves and Astros signed were/are below market contracts. The Sox have signed those kinds of deals too (Bogaerts just opted out of such a deal). But they require mutual agreement from the player. To extend Betts or Bogaerts or Devers to a long term contract, they have to say yes too. It'd be awesome if the Red Sox could have signed Devers to an Acuna-like deal after 2018 or 2019, or a Riley like deal after 2020. Would Devers have agreed to it if it was offered is the real question.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
Surely Bogaerts and Devers are looking for contracts that don’t represent great value, and the Sox have money to use to replace them…..the obvious challenge, though, is that replacing them will involve dipping into that same free agent market where top tier players (who you need to have at least a few of to compete for championships) are getting overpaid. It’s harder and harder to trade for young up and coming players especially when you don’t have elite pitching talent to spare.

If you lose Boagerts and instead sign Swanson, what’s really the point?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,263
I'd also point out that most of those deals the Braves and Astros signed were/are below market contracts. The Sox have signed those kinds of deals too (Bogaerts just opted out of such a deal). But they require mutual agreement from the player. To extend Betts or Bogaerts or Devers to a long term contract, they have to say yes too. It'd be awesome if the Red Sox could have signed Devers to an Acuna-like deal after 2018 or 2019, or a Riley like deal after 2020. Would Devers have agreed to it if it was offered is the real question.
Here's the thing, and it's building off mikcou and 8slim's point, you've already said that Mookie Betts isn't the guy that you're going to devote a lot of money too. And while I disagree, that's fine; there were two other players that needed to be signed to big money contracts in the near future. But if now you're saying Bogaerts and Devers aren't worth backing up the Brinks' truck, exactly who is?

Because Betts is an MVP and has a really good shot of going to Cooperstown. Bogaerts is probably the best shortstop that's come through this organization ever (maybe Nomar, if he wasn't hurt). And Devers is on the precipice of being a star on a team with none (especially if Bogaerts leaves). At some point, you have to pay one of these guys, right? You simply cannot win every single deal--it's sports, there's going to be an overpay and the end of that contract is going to suck. That's a fact of life. Again, if you don't throw money (that you definitely have, BTW) at Betts, Bogaerts or Devers; what the hell are you even doing?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
The big distinction with these teams is that they do lock up a lot of their talent. The Braves signed (i) Austin Riley to a 10/215; (ii) Matt Olson to a 8/168; (iii) Acuna to 8/100; (iv) Strider 6/75; (v) Harris 8/72; (vi) Albies 7/35. You're never going to sign everyone when you bring up as much talent as they have over the last 5 years or so, but they have done an excellent job locking their talent up. The Astros locked up: (i) Alvute - 7/165; (ii) Alvarez 6/115; (iii) Bregman 5/100; (iv) McCullers - 5/85. The Dodgers signed: (i) Betts 12/365; (ii) Freeman 6/162.
The Red Sox cap number last year was 240 million, a result of locking up Chris Sale, David Price, Xander Boagerts, JD Martinez, Trevor Strory, and Nate Eovaldi.

Chaim Bloom understands he is working for a high payroll team and will act accordingly.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
But if you have the man here (Devers) why should you spend more money (it's always usually more money to lure someone from their original team) or spend minor league resources to replace the guy who left? The Dodgers and Astros have those replacements in their systems, the Red Sox don't (at least at third base right now).

And the Astros went through a horrific tear down a few years ago. They were the worst team in either league for years.
I addressed the Astro's tear down in my original post. Why not sign Devers? Bloom and company believe he is destined to be a first baseman in one or two years, or they believe his body type means he won't age well over the course of the contract. The reason to sign a player is because you deem that for the most part they will be worth that contract. If Xander and Devers are both gone that does not mean the team is doomed to toil in obscurity. There is many ways to skin a cat.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
Here's the thing, and it's building off mikcou and 8slim's point, you've already said that Mookie Betts isn't the guy that you're going to devote a lot of money too. And while I disagree, that's fine; there were two other players that needed to be signed to big money contracts in the near future. But if now you're saying Bogaerts and Devers aren't worth backing up the Brinks' truck, exactly who is?

Because Betts is an MVP and has a really good shot of going to Cooperstown. Bogaerts is probably the best shortstop that's come through this organization ever (maybe Nomar, if he wasn't hurt). And Devers is on the precipice of being a star on a team with none (especially if Bogaerts leaves). At some point, you have to pay one of these guys, right? You simply cannot win every single deal--it's sports, there's going to be an overpay and the end of that contract is going to suck. That's a fact of life. Again, if you don't throw money (that you definitely have, BTW) at Betts, Bogaerts or Devers; what the hell are you even doing?
Totally agree. You ever have the strategy in a fantasy auction draft where you will just hold on to your money until the middle to late rounds, since all the guys who go early are overpriced? Usually what happens is you are left with a bunch of money you can’t use, or overpay on the lower tier players anyway. Not saying the Sox are doing this but you can find a flaw with any top tier free agent- they are too old, too injury prone, etc.

We all agree that the Sox have lots of money. Who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on?
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
Totally agree. You ever have the strategy in a fantasy auction draft where you will just hold on to your money until the middle to late rounds, since all the guys who go early are overpriced? Usually what happens is you are left with a bunch of money you can’t use, or overpay on the lower tier players anyway. Not saying the Sox are doing this but you can find a flaw with any top tier free agent- they are too old, too injury prone, etc.

We all agree that the Sox have lots of money. Who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on?
How much money are you talking about? Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts? How about 200 million? Should Devers get 300 million? What if he wants 350 million or 500 million. The Sox will spend. What we as fans should want is for them to spend intelligently. That does not mean never spending over 300 million or never over spending a bit if needed. Saying who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on is missing a massive part of the equation.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,263
How much money are you talking about? Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts? How about 200 million? Should Devers get 300 million? What if he wants 350 million or 500 million. The Sox will spend. What we as fans should want is for them to spend intelligently. That does not mean never spending over 300 million or never over spending a bit if needed. Saying who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on is missing a massive part of the equation.
How much am I comfortable spending? A trillion dollars. It's not my money, I don't care.

We are not in partnership with John Henry and FSG, my comfort level with spending has no affect on this decision. (And neither does yours). We're not going halfsies on a pizza here. Whatever Devers wants, I am 1000% positive John Henry can afford and still make a profit. Practically all Major League sports franchises make profits, which is why every league has a line around the block of billionaires looking to join their club.

The worry that some of you have for a mulit-billionaire's money is just weird. Honestly, I'll never understand it.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,624
How much money are you talking about? Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts? How about 200 million? Should Devers get 300 million? What if he wants 350 million or 500 million. The Sox will spend. What we as fans should want is for them to spend intelligently. That does not mean never spending over 300 million or never over spending a bit if needed. Saying who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on is missing a massive part of the equation.
I just don't think any team will want X for that much, or Devers for that much. They may WANT another team to (and we sure as hell know their respective agents will claim that other teams want them that much) but I just don't see it. Bogaerts issue is his age, expected defensive decline within 3 years to the Jeter Level, and a noticeable power drop. Devers is young but also has a defensive rep that he hasn't been able to shake yet despite improvements... and he's had inconsistency at the plate. Great first halves and then a decline- whether injury related or not it doesn't matter. It's there and it's a trend. Bloom obviously sees these issues and it's a real tightrope walk... you don't want to value them over what another team that is more desperate to get them and is willing to eat the later years.
I'm really torn... I don't think replacing X with Swanson is a good idea. Hell, I don't think replacing him with Correa is a good idea. I'd like to keep him but despite people screaming for Henry to bust the budget and throw all the penalties of going over the tax thresholds to the wind... he HAS a budget and he's the damned owner of the team and he's generally a freaking good one despite some confusing (mis)directions. Xander can definitely stick at SS for two more years IMO and his bat will still be elite for at least another 5. I think overpaying for two years on the tail end is worth that... 3? 4? Maybe not.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
4,624
How much am I comfortable spending? A trillion dollars. It's not my money, I don't care.

We are not in partnership with John Henry and FSG, my comfort level with spending has no affect on this decision. (And neither does yours). We're not going halfsies on a pizza here. Whatever Devers wants, I am 1000% positive John Henry can afford and still make a profit. Practically all Major League sports franchises make profits, which is why every league has a line around the block of billionaires looking to join their club.

The worry that some of you have for a mulit-billionaire's money is just weird. Honestly, I'll never understand it.
For the love of god, please stop saying this! NOBODY gives a shit about John Henry's Millions! We give a shit about the fact that he has a budget. The league has penalties that will affect the team going forward and if he wants to avoid those those penalties, that's his right. You're a fan! That's it. He owns the club and clearly wants to avoid those penalties so some degree. As a fan, all I can do is try to see where his line is drawn and how Bloom operates within that budget. Complain away though... that's your right of course.... but nobody on this board is worried about his money.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
How much am I comfortable spending? A trillion dollars. It's not my money, I don't care.

We are not in partnership with John Henry and FSG, my comfort level with spending has no affect on this decision. (And neither does yours). We're not going halfsies on a pizza here. Whatever Devers wants, I am 1000% positive John Henry can afford and still make a profit. Practically all Major League sports franchises make profits, which is why every league has a line around the block of billionaires looking to join their club.

The worry that some of you have for a mulit-billionaire's money is just weird. Honestly, I'll never understand it.

Strawman alert.

Nobody here worries about John Henry's money. Not one person. There are many who live in the real world and understand that every single organization ever operates within a budget, and that at some point every dollar spent in one place is a dollar less they can spend elsewhere.

EDIT: and also the penalties SLT mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,570
Maine
Here's the thing, and it's building off mikcou and 8slim's point, you've already said that Mookie Betts isn't the guy that you're going to devote a lot of money too. And while I disagree, that's fine; there were two other players that needed to be signed to big money contracts in the near future. But if now you're saying Bogaerts and Devers aren't worth backing up the Brinks' truck, exactly who is?

Because Betts is an MVP and has a really good shot of going to Cooperstown. Bogaerts is probably the best shortstop that's come through this organization ever (maybe Nomar, if he wasn't hurt). And Devers is on the precipice of being a star on a team with none (especially if Bogaerts leaves). At some point, you have to pay one of these guys, right? You simply cannot win every single deal--it's sports, there's going to be an overpay and the end of that contract is going to suck. That's a fact of life. Again, if you don't throw money (that you definitely have, BTW) at Betts, Bogaerts or Devers; what the hell are you even doing?
I wasn't really trying to argue for or against signing any or all of those guys. I was more trying to counter the comparisons to the Astros and Braves locking up a bunch of their young stars. Acuna's deal is a steal (he's getting $17M per year for the next five seasons!). Riley's deal could well turn into a steal (21M AAV for 10 years!). The time for the Red Sox to sign deals like those was 3-4 years ago, and even if the Sox offered similar deals, we don't know the players say yes (and the tone around here would be to blame the Red Sox if they said no). So that ship has sailed and I don't feel like those contracts are relevant to the Bogaerts/Devers discussion.

As a fan, I absolutely want those guys back and I couldn't care less about the cost. I also recognize that there are restrictions in place (however flimsy we might think they are) and it's unsustainable for any team to just hand out blank checks in order to keep good/popular players around forever.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,257
If you lose Boagerts and instead sign Swanson, what’s really the point?
I agree, Swanson seems like a clear wrong move to me. We’d bet a 4th round pick in losing Bogaerts just to give up a 2nd round pick for the right to pay Swanson — a guy with a mysterious spike in defensive value who has only eclipsed 100 wRC+ twice in the last six seasons — on a similarly-lengthed deal at maybe $2M less AAV.

Bogaerts makes the most sense to me, because he’s on the record as being amenable to moving positions. Otherwise, I’m in the Sign Correa camp. Plan C) Roll with Arroyo and trade for a high-upside guy like Adalberto Mondesi to play SS/DH.

For the love of god, please stop saying this! NOBODY gives a shit about John Henry's Millions! We give a shit about the fact that he has a budget. The league has penalties that will affect the team going forward and if he wants to avoid those those penalties, that's his right. You're a fan! That's it. He owns the club and clearly wants to avoid those penalties so some degree. As a fan, all I can do is try to see where his line is drawn and how Bloom operates within that budget. Complain away though... that's your right of course.... but nobody on this board is worried about his money.
I disagree, and I’m with JMOH on this. The league has (modest!) roster-building penalties precisely because we are made to care about owners’ revenues, which are a higher share of total revenues with each passing year. Because MLB owners are approved by other owners, there’s a kind of anti-spending self-regulation within the culture of owners, and it’s stronger and more systemic than the whims of any individual owner like Henry.

Now, there’s evidence that Henry is among the more liberal spenders of those 30 ownership groups. He’s no Dick Monfort. But the salary cap/luxury tax is in place for a reason, and it’s because the owners have collectively advocated for it.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
22,263
For the love of god, please stop saying this! NOBODY gives a shit about John Henry's Millions! We give a shit about the fact that he has a budget. The league has penalties that will affect the team going forward and if he wants to avoid those those penalties, that's his right. You're a fan! That's it. He owns the club and clearly wants to avoid those penalties so some degree. As a fan, all I can do is try to see where his line is drawn and how Bloom operates within that budget. Complain away though... that's your right of course.... but nobody on this board is worried about his money.
Strawman alert.

Nobody here worries about John Henry's money. Not one person. There are many who live in the real world and understand that every single organization ever operates within a budget, and that at some point every dollar spent in one place is a dollar less they can spend elsewhere.

EDIT: and also the penalties SLT mentioned.
Ganthem sure seems worried. He asked "Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts?" yes, I was answering his question snarkily to make a point. Which is, there seems like there's a faction on this board that is worried that John Henry is looking for nickles under his couch to make payroll. Because I get that there's a budget and I understand that penalties are foisted on teams that go over the very soft cap, but guys, if they can't (or won't) sign Bogaerts and Devers after jettisoning Betts, there's a real fucking problem here.

Or to put it another way, John Henry has signed plenty of players to big contracts over the last 20 years in numerous sports. Why is the question being raised as to whether he (or us, I guess) are comfortable with the going rate for stars are unless something has changed? He's definitely comfortable with it. Or at least he should be because the price of stars is not getting cheaper and this is the game that he's decided to be a big part of. Whether he wants to pay for it, is a completely different (and legit) question.

I don't know what to think about this ownership. One season they're throwing gobs of money at Pablo Sandoval and Chris Sale, the next they're saying that they can't afford Mookie Betts and Jon Lester because they won't take discounted rates. It's the inconsistency that's kind of maddening. YMMV.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,775
Ganthem sure seems worried. He asked "Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts?" yes, I was answering his question snarkily to make a point. Which is, there seems like there's a faction on this board that is worried that John Henry is looking for nickles under his couch to make payroll. Because I get that there's a budget and I understand that penalties are foisted on teams that go over the very soft cap, but guys, if they can't (or won't) sign Bogaerts and Devers after jettisoning Betts, there's a real fucking problem here.

Or to put it another way, John Henry has signed plenty of players to big contracts over the last 20 years in numerous sports. Why is the question being raised as to whether he (or us, I guess) are comfortable with the going rate for stars are unless something has changed? He's definitely comfortable with it. Or at least he should be because the price of stars is not getting cheaper and this is the game that he's decided to be a big part of. Whether he wants to pay for it, is a completely different (and legit) question.

I don't know what to think about this ownership. One season they're throwing gobs of money at Pablo Sandoval and Chris Sale, the next they're saying that they can't afford Mookie Betts and Jon Lester because they won't take discounted rates. It's the inconsistency that's kind of maddening. YMMV.

Is Ganthem worried about the impact of a 300 million contract on John Henry's personal portfolio? Or the impact it would have on the Red Sox' ability to make other moves in the future, given the realities of a budget?

To me, ownership's commitment to spending if measured by their total payroll. Which has always been high. If they let Boagerts go and instead keep the payroll high by signing (for example) Dansby Swanson, Jose Abreu, Michel Conforto, and Kodai Senga and the payroll ends up right around the threshold, is that any less of a commitment to winning?
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
458
We all agree that the Sox have lots of money. Who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on?
This is the question. There is a ton of money waiting to be spent around the league and the free agent market drops off really fast. I suspect some mediocre players are going to be making a lot of money this offseason and I hope the Sox aren't paying them.

As for how to spend it: 1) make every effort to sign homegrown players to extensions early (too late for Xander and Devers); 2) take on bad contracts via trades when paired with young, cost-controlled players; 3) offer really high dollar/short year contracts to free agents.

1. Consider signing Bello, Casas to deals next year. Once the pieces shake out, consider the same for mid-range guys (Verdugo, Schreiber) if they are part of the long term plan.
2. I've already gone overboard in pushing the Sox to trade for Burnes/Woodruff and Yelich.
3. Xander at 3 years $120 million? How about Verlander for 2 years $90 million? Judge for 2 years $120 million? At some point, one of these will pull in a player and, if nothing else, it should drive up the costs to other teams.

As for Devers and Xander, I'd rather pay them rather than pay their replacements.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,768
Right. But there's generally speaking a Plan B for those teams, next man up sort of thing. If the Sox lose Devers (and Bogaerts), who replaces them?
I mean, who really knows, right? But the Sox still have time to sign Devers. And if he ultimately does walk, you have guys like Matt Chapman and Manny Machado available via free agency and I'm sure there are trade candidates that will emerge.

As for Bogaerts, there are a number of very good free agent SS available, which I'm sure you're aware of. There's also Story as the fallback.

The Red Sox have and will continue to spend money. A lot of us would love to see that spent on X and Devers, but if it's not, they have the resources to fill these holes with quality guys.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
635
Boston
I wasn't really trying to argue for or against signing any or all of those guys. I was more trying to counter the comparisons to the Astros and Braves locking up a bunch of their young stars. Acuna's deal is a steal (he's getting $17M per year for the next five seasons!). Riley's deal could well turn into a steal (21M AAV for 10 years!). The time for the Red Sox to sign deals like those was 3-4 years ago, and even if the Sox offered similar deals, we don't know the players say yes (and the tone around here would be to blame the Red Sox if they said no). So that ship has sailed and I don't feel like those contracts are relevant to the Bogaerts/Devers discussion.
Sure, the best time to sign is usually after a year or two in majors. They didnt do that and there werent any rumors that they even tried with any of Xander, Mookie, or Devers. This effectively goes to my point - occasionally not signing your homegrown stars is fine - it is a nature occurence. If the team consistently isnt getting anywhere with them over a number of years and a number of different players, the problem isnt with the players, its the team - it either is trying to find too much of a deal, is being too risk averse (read: too short on the years, take a look at how long those Braves deals are), or is way off market on valuations. The likelyhood that every single start over a long period of time is being unreasonable starts becoming really unlikely.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
6,606
How much money are you talking about? Are you comfortable spending 300 million on Bogearts? How about 200 million? Should Devers get 300 million? What if he wants 350 million or 500 million. The Sox will spend. What we as fans should want is for them to spend intelligently. That does not mean never spending over 300 million or never over spending a bit if needed. Saying who exactly are folks comfortable spending it on is missing a massive part of the equation.
No, I’m not really comfortable spending that….but it’s going to be the going rate for any marquee player, whether it’s Boagerts or Swanson or whoemever. The Sox don’t have much in the way of high end talent; if they want to acquire it, they are going to have to pay up. The alternative is to just play in the middle of the market and have an endless parade of short term players here. Maybe that is the way to go (it might be when you have an established core in place but the Sox do not), but if you are only looking at players willing to sign at terms that are more favorable / less risky to the team in the shot term, you are severely limiting the pool of players you can sign.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
For the love of god, please stop saying this! NOBODY gives a shit about John Henry's Millions! We give a shit about the fact that he has a budget. The league has penalties that will affect the team going forward and if he wants to avoid those those penalties, that's his right. You're a fan! That's it. He owns the club and clearly wants to avoid those penalties so some degree. As a fan, all I can do is try to see where his line is drawn and how Bloom operates within that budget. Complain away though... that's your right of course.... but nobody on this board is worried about his money.
I would like to second this.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
No, I’m not really comfortable spending that….but it’s going to be the going rate for any marquee player, whether it’s Boagerts or Swanson or whoemever. The Sox don’t have much in the way of high end talent; if they want to acquire it, they are going to have to pay up. The alternative is to just play in the middle of the market and have an endless parade of short term players here. Maybe that is the way to go (it might be when you have an established core in place but the Sox do not), but if you are only looking at players willing to sign at terms that are more favorable / less risky to the team in the shot term, you are severely limiting the pool of players you can sign.
I agree with you. I think my point is we don't know what they are asking for or what other teams are willing to give them. At some point if it becomes insane the Sox should not be involved. To further clarify I don't think insane means its a team friendly deal. I am all for Dever's getting 10 320, but where it become tricky is if someone is willing to give Devers 350 million or more.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,570
Maine
Sure, the best time to sign is usually after a year or two in majors. They didnt do that and there werent any rumors that they even tried with any of Xander, Mookie, or Devers. This effectively goes to my point - occasionally not signing your homegrown stars is fine - it is a nature occurence. If the team consistently isnt getting anywhere with them over a number of years and a number of different players, the problem isnt with the players, its the team - it either is trying to find too much of a deal, is being too risk averse (read: too short on the years, take a look at how long those Braves deals are), or is way off market on valuations. The likelyhood that every single start over a long period of time is being unreasonable starts becoming really unlikely.
Bogaerts just opted out of a contract he signed before he reached free agency. There were plenty of rumors of the Red Sox offering Betts long term deals, including the reported 10/300M offer he rejected prior to the 2019 season. There have also been stories about Devers being given extension offers as well. If that they were rejected is entirely on the team rather than the players, then let's stop using the Braves example as aspirational because they lucked into players willing to leave money on the table.

And again, as far as the one or two years into their career thing, there is context we're ignoring. The Braves didn't have a huge payroll when they signed Acuna and Albies and Riley. The Sox payroll was, as usual, top 5 (#1 in Devers' case) in the league when these guys were at that stage. Whether we liked it or not, they were paying Sandoval and Ramirez and Price and Sale and Kimbrel the money that should/could have been offered to Bogaerts and Betts in their first couple seasons. If they didn't offer those guys early extensions, it was because they needed to balance the big contracts. If they signed them to extensions early, maybe we don't get 2018. Choices were made. That doesn't mean it's an all encompassing organizational philosophy. After all, Pedroia, Lester, and Buchholz all signed extensions early in their careers. They just inked Whitlock to a similar deal one year into his career. But by all means, it has to be that the Sox brass are idiots who couldn't be bothered with extending their young players.
 

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
826
Is Ganthem worried about the impact of a 300 million contract on John Henry's personal portfolio? Or the impact it would have on the Red Sox' ability to make other moves in the future, given the realities of a budget?

To me, ownership's commitment to spending if measured by their total payroll. Which has always been high. If they let Boagerts go and instead keep the payroll high by signing (for example) Dansby Swanson, Jose Abreu, Michel Conforto, and Kodai Senga and the payroll ends up right around the threshold, is that any less of a commitment to winning?
I think that is what John and others who depend on that strawman don't understand. There is a budget. It doesn't matter if we agree or not, that is the reality. As I stated above I don't mind going above three hundrend million for Devers, but there has to be a cut off so the Sox aren't prevented from making future moves.