Looking ahead to 2017

[Spudboy]

68-94, bad stadium, poor fan support, always having the threat of moving the franchise. The best thing their "fans" have to look forward to is a few more losing seasons to rebuild their franchise through the draft, and by then Longoria will be gone.

 

Why would a guy like Longoria want to play there?

 

Here's why.

[S5Dewey]

Here's why.

 

LOL. Well, there is THAT!!

[Spudboy]

LOL. Well, there is THAT!!

 

About the only reason that I would live there!

[mvp 78]

68-94, bad stadium, poor fan support, always having the threat of moving the franchise. The best thing their "fans" have to look forward to is a few more losing seasons to rebuild their franchise through the draft, and by then Longoria will be gone.

 

Why would a guy like Longoria want to play there?

 

They are not that far removed from winning 90+ games in 5 out of 6 years. The fanbase may not show up, but they get decent tv ratings and players get to live in a very comfortable part of the country with a cheap tax rate. I don't see much of a downside.

 

The threat of the franchise moving is overblown. It's more likely that they build a new stadium near Tampa than move out of state.

[moonslav59]

Nobody would force the Reds to pay a penny of Votto's deal. Look at what players of lesser value are getting these days!

 

I think the CWS have a big decision to make. They may decide to keep trying to win it within the window of Sale (3 years) and Quintna (4 yrs), then their player availability is gone. I get that. However, there has been talk that they may blow it all up. Usually, when teams do that, they look to dump the highest salary players and players who may not be around by the time the team looks to be ready to compete again. These days, teams can rebuild in 2-3 years. The Sox showed they can go from last to first to last within one year of each other. If I was a CWS fan, I wouldn't want to trade Quintana due to the 4 years of control, but as a Sox fan, he's the top prize due to the 4 years and the $4.2M luxury tax cost. We could try to expand the trade to involve Robertson and/or Frazier, but the return would have to be enormous. One way to lessen the return would be to take Jamie Shields. I don't want the guy, but his contract would really make a difference on what the CWS would want in return. I think we could take Shields, Frazier, Robertson and Quintana and be very close to the luxury tax limit. We might need to trade Buch or someone else to get under the limit, but we could get something (cheap RP'er?) for him.

 

So, what might it take to get these three players plus the Shields' dump? Would the CWS want immediate ML ready prospects or would they look at a 2-3 year window for readiness?

 

I think Moncada would have to be a must. We'd have to give a catcher, and Swihart probably has the highest value, but if they wanted Vazquez, we could give him instead. I'm thinking Devers would give them team control years starting in 2-3 years. They'll want pitching and may demand ERod, but I'd try to get them to take Kopech and Owens/Johnson instead. Maybe others like Basabe, Travis and Dubon would need to be added. Maybe they'd want Shaw or Holt. Maybe Barnes or Hembree. Maybe just about all of these guys. Maybe they'd demand JBJ, but he's got the same 4 years of control as Quintana, so I don't see the reasoning there. Getting JBJ for Sale makes a little more sense, so maybe we'd need to take Sale over Quintana, and Sale seems to be the one they'd rather deal.

 

So, is this too little or too much to offer for Sale, Robertson, Frazier and Shields ($44M/2 owed)?

 

Moncada

Devers

Kopech

Swihart or Vazquez

Shaw or Holt

Owens or Johnson

2 from Basabe, Chavis, Travis or Dubon

 

Other trade options might be out there, and I know I must sound like a broken record on the White Sox, but I do think we match up well with them.

[Spudboy]

They are not that far removed from winning 90+ games in 5 out of 6 years. The fanbase may not show up, but they get decent tv ratings and players get to live in a very comfortable part of the country with a cheap tax rate. I don't see much of a downside.

 

The threat of the franchise moving is overblown. It's more likely that they build a new stadium near Tampa than move out of state.

 

One has to wonder what the Ray's payroll would look like IF a new stadium were built. Does that causeway to St. Pete actually dissuade enough fan from attending games that it suppresses the payroll or is there just apathy for baseball in the region?

 

The Rays do a good job of putting an entertaining team on the field. But with a $70. mil payroll it may take divine intervention for them to sniff a title again.

[Dojji]

Moonslav, I want to challenge you -- make at least 15 posts without using the word "sale" in any sentence, form or context before doing it again.

[mvp 78]

One has to wonder what the Ray's payroll would look like IF a new stadium were built. Does that causeway to St. Pete actually dissuade enough fan from attending games that it suppresses the payroll or is there just apathy for baseball in the region?

 

The Rays do a good job of putting an entertaining team on the field. But with a $70. mil payroll it may take divine intervention for them to sniff a title again.

 

The Guardians payroll is pretty similar to the Rays... The Astros, Pirates and A's have all been relatively close in the past few years.

[Spudboy]

The Guardians payroll is pretty similar to the Rays... The Astros, Pirates and A's have all been relatively close in the past few years.

 

So?

 

Have any of these teams had sustained success over, say, the last ten years?

 

Each one of them is capable of putting a team on the field that looks like a winner for about 1 year and then it all evaporates.

 

They need to have the money available to sustain success.

 

Either that or they all have really s***** baseball operations.

[moonslav59]

Moonslav, I want to challenge you -- make at least 15 posts without using the word "sale" in any sentence, form or context before doing it again.

 

sale or Sale?

 

I want Quintana.

[moonslav59]

One has to wonder what the Ray's payroll would look like IF a new stadium were built. Does that causeway to St. Pete actually dissuade enough fan from attending games that it suppresses the payroll or is there just apathy for baseball in the region?

 

The Rays do a good job of putting an entertaining team on the field. But with a $70. mil payroll it may take divine intervention for them to sniff a title again.

 

The problem with Florida baseball teams is the fact that many people living their are transplants from elsewhere. They are Yankee and Red Sox fans and never will be Rays fans. They only go to games when their team plays there. I see that some here in Houston.

 

I think North Carolina would do well with a MLB team, but the population is spread out, and finding a central location may be too far away from everyone.

[Spudboy]

The problem with Florida baseball teams is the fact that many people living their are transplants from elsewhere. They are Yankee and Red Sox fans and never will be Rays fans. They only go to games when their team plays there. I see that some here in Houston.

 

I think North Carolina would do well with a MLB team, but the population is spread out, and finding a central location may be too far away from everyone.

 

Maybe. I used to do a s*** ton of market research and analysis for business. I don't have enough interest in this subject to delve into it ( plus I have no financial incentive ). I suspect the demographics are far from ideal in the Tampa market.

[moonslav59]

Have any of these teams had sustained success over, say, the last ten years?

 

Compared to who? The Sox with 3 last place "evaporations" in the last 5 years?

 

The Guardians have made the playoffs in 9 times since 1995 (22 years). They've won 80 or more games 7 times in the last 10 years and 90 or more 3 times.

 

The Sox have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 and 90 or more in 6 of 10. They've made the playoffs in 5 of the last 11 years.

 

The Rays have made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years. They have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 years (same as the Sox) and 90 or more in 5 of the last 10 years- one less than the Sox. They've made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years- pretty close to the same as the Sox 5 of 11.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Rusney for Votto? Lololololol! I've now heard it all.

 

Votto's contract is long. That being said, he's one of the best offensive players in baseball and he's still in his prime. Getting him would cost prospects AND eating his contract

 

Votto's contract is unmovable unless the Reds pick up some of the remaining money. He will turn 34 next year and thus is entering his decline years and yet the Reds are on the hook for 25 million per year (approximately) for the next 7 years (along with a 7 million buyout in the 8th year). No one is touching that contract unless the Reds kick in money or take on a bad contract.

 

His contract isn't quite as bad as Albert Pujols' contract, but it is similar. If Votto were 26 years old, I would agree with you, but he will turn 34 next season and thus everyone knows that a significant decline in production is right around the corner.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

Votto's contract is unmovable unless the Reds pick up some of the remaining money. He will turn 34 next year and thus is entering his decline years and yet the Reds are on the hook for 25 million per year (approximately) for the next 7 years (along with a 7 million buyout in the 8th year). No one is touching that contract unless the Reds kick in money or take on a bad contract.

 

His contract isn't quite as bad as Albert Pujols' contract, but it is similar in that it is unmovable for reasons that are pretty obvious. If Votto were 26 years old, I would agree with you, but he will turn 34 next season and thus everyone knows that a significant decline in production is right around the corner.

 

I didn't realize he was already 33 (turns 34 next Sept), so you are probably right about the "dump" nature of his contract. He's owed $179M/7 counting his $7M buyout for 2024 when Votto will start the season at age 40. Or, he could be paid $192M/8 if the $20M option is taken.

 

Giving the Reds Castillo plus prospects makes some sense, but Castillo costs nothing on the luxury tax. I think DD would rather give them Sandoval, who does and will count against the tax. He is owed $58M/3 or $70M/4. I think his deal would more than even up the financial nature of Votto's deal, so we'd probably have to pay some of Pablo's deal. It would essentially make Votto's deal worth $121M/7 or $134M/8.

 

The Reds would still want a major haul of prospects, even with Pablo. I'm not sure an offer of Pablo, Swihart, Basabe, Owens and Johnson would come close.

 

[mvp 78]

You guys are underselling Votto's value at the moment. You worry about 2022 and 2023 another day. I don't see them making this move though.

[jacksonianmarch]

Votto just turned 33. He just posted a .985OPS following up a season where he posted a cool 1.000 OPS. His OBP numbers are absolutely off the charts. Yes, he has 7 years left on his contract, and it is at $22.5 mil a year. I get that. Its a big, although not quite as big a number as guys will start to see. Regardless, if you deal a player coming off the season he has, you expect FULL salary relief and major prospects in return. It's the price of business. Votto has been the best 1b in the NL for awhile now. If someone doesn't meet that demand, they'll keep their only draw to the ballpark.

[Spudboy]

Have any of these teams had sustained success over, say, the last ten years?

 

Compared to who? The Sox with 3 last place "evaporations" in the last 5 years?

 

The Guardians have made the playoffs in 9 times since 1995 (22 years). They've won 80 or more games 7 times in the last 10 years and 90 or more 3 times.

 

The Sox have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 and 90 or more in 6 of 10. They've made the playoffs in 5 of the last 11 years.

 

The Rays have made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years. They have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 years (same as the Sox) and 90 or more in 5 of the last 10 years- one less than the Sox. They've made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years- pretty close to the same as the Sox 5 of 11.

 

What is your point?

 

I merely suggested that it is unlikely to be able to sustain year to year success and grab a championship while spending so little.

 

Obviously that is a difficult concept to understand. Sorry.

[mvp 78]

Maybe. I used to do a s*** ton of market research and analysis for business. I don't have enough interest in this subject to delve into it ( plus I have no financial incentive ). I suspect the demographics are far from ideal in the Tampa market.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-television-viewership-up-five-percent/

 

There are 11 teams with worse tv ratings than them.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

If the Red were competing, then maybe they would want to hold on to Votto. They are in full blown rebuild mode and Votto will be a player in significant decline before the Reds are ever good again. I'm assuming the rebuilding Reds would rather invest Votto's money in player development, scouting, international signings, etc.

 

I'm trying to think of the last time a team was able to trade a huge contract (where the player would be making over 20 million in his late 30s, early 40s) without picking up some of the money. I can't think of an example. The best example I can think of is the Troy Tulo trade, but the Rockies had to take back Reyes' contract (a player they didn't want at all) in order to make the trade work for the Blue Jays. Likewise, the Reds would need to do the same with Votto. And even though the Tulo contract is enormous, it is a better contract than Votto's (Tulo is a few years younger and his contract doesn't take him to his age 41 season).

 

I was thinking about Sandoval, who has around 60 million left on his contract. He might be a better fit for this kind of trade. Votto would be the Troy Tulo in the trade whereas Sandoval would be the J.Reyes. These deals are complicated to work through and obviously involve input from ownership.

 

With all that said, I don't think the Red Sox want any part of Votto's contract. I also don't think they will spend big money on the free agent market, i.e, I don't think they will sign E.Encarnacion.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Fan_since_Boggs

[mvp 78]

The Reds have some good young pitchers. They may be better sooner than you expect.

[Eddy Ballgame]

The Reds have some good young pitchers. They may be better sooner than you expect.

 

Joey Votto also has a full no trade and he has made it pretty clear that he wouldn't waive it. Things could change, but I wouldn't count on it.

[moonslav59]

What is your point?

 

I merely suggested that it is unlikely to be able to sustain year to year success and grab a championship while spending so little.

 

Obviously that is a difficult concept to understand. Sorry.

 

My point is obvious to understand. The Guardians have spent less than half as much as the Sox and have been just about the same in winning season records and making the playoffs. The Rays have spent about a quarter of what we have spent and done nearly as well with 80 and 90+ seasons and making the playoffs.

 

Both teams are way behind on recent rings for sure, I'll grant you that, but after next year (assuming no ring), we'll have just one ring in the last10 years.

 

[moonslav59]

Joey Votto also has a full no trade and he has made it pretty clear that he wouldn't waive it. Things could change, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

Why is it so clear he'd refuse a trade to a winning team?

[S5Dewey]

Have any of these teams had sustained success over, say, the last ten years?

 

Spud asked: Have any of these teams had sustained success over, say, the last ten years?

 

Compared to who? The Sox with 3 last place "evaporations" in the last 5 years?

 

The Guardians have made the playoffs in 9 times since 1995 (22 years). They've won 80 or more games 7 times in the last 10 years and 90 or more 3 times.

 

The Sox have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 and 90 or more in 6 of 10. They've made the playoffs in 5 of the last 11 years.

 

The Rays have made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years. They have won 80 or more games in 7 of the last 10 years (same as the Sox) and 90 or more in 5 of the last 10 years- one less than the Sox. They've made the playoffs in 4 of the last 9 years- pretty close to the same as the Sox 5 of 11.

 

Ten years may not be the best evaluator of sustained success. The Rays record since their inception has been spotty. During the first 10 years they averaged 65 wins per season. During their hayday of the next six seasons they averaged 92 wins per season. This proves that the draft system worked for them as they were able to get high draft picks who helped the team after they matured. However, once that crop of elite young players matured the Rays have been unable to sustain even a .500 record, reverting to 68 wins per year over the past three years.

 

If they can work their way back to ~85 wins over the next five (or so) seasons I'll think that they're having sustained success but without that my opinion is that their future is going to be what their past was - prolonged losing seasons during which they accumulated high draft picks followed by a few years of success followed by prolonged losing seasons again.

 

That may play in Tampa Bay but it wouldn't cut it in Boston or New York - or probably even Baltimore.

[moonslav59]

Ten years may not be the best evaluator of sustained success. The Rays record since their inception has been spotty. During the first 10 years they averaged 65 wins per season. During their hayday of the next six seasons they averaged 92 wins per season. This proves that the draft system worked for them as they were able to get high draft picks who helped the team after they matured. However, once that crop of elite young players matured the Rays have been unable to sustain even a .500 record, reverting to 68 wins per year over the past three years.

 

If they can work their way back to ~85 wins over the next five (or so) seasons I'll think that they're having sustained success but without that my opinion is that their future is going to be what their past was - prolonged losing seasons during which they accumulated high draft picks followed by a few years of success followed by prolonged losing seasons again.

 

That may play in Tampa Bay but it wouldn't cut it in Boston or New York - or probably even Baltimore.

 

I didn't set the 10 year range. I was just responding to a comment.

 

I do think the Rays had success not just because of high draft picks. They had a very good GM. They traded away very good players right before they declined. They had the guts to trade good pitchers for some nice prospects that mostly worked out. They picked up many journeymen type players that had career years for them. They had one year where they maxed out the supplemental pick strategy with something like 11 picks in the first 3 rounds.

 

I realize a team like the Sox could not use many of their strategies, but they did do moves like the Wagner one that brought us a comp pick. Certainly, I do not want us to emulate the Ray's, and as I remember, the Rays bombed out on those 11 picks, so they were far from perfect.

 

The Guardians might be a better model to look at. One thing the Rays and Guardians seem to have that we don't have is the ability to draft and acquire top young pitchers.

 

[Spudboy]

lol

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Why is it so clear he'd refuse a trade to a winning team?

 

He would probably use his no trade as leverage and waive it if the acquiring team picks up his 2024 option. I just noticed that Votto and Encarnacion were born in the same year--Votto is 10 months younger. It'll be interesting to see what kind of contract Encarnacion gets--he will be 34 at the beginning of the 2017 season. I wouldn't go beyond 4 years; he will probably want 5 or 6 years. I don't like giving up a first round pick for Encarnacion. Sure, that pick could turn out to be a complete bust but the pick could also yield a pitcher like Noah Syndergaard.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

He would probably use his no trade as leverage and waive it if the acquiring team picks up his 2024 option. I just noticed that Votto and Encarnacion were born in the same year--Votto is 10 months younger. It'll be interesting to see what kind of contract Encarnacion gets--he will be 34 at the beginning of the 2017 season. I wouldn't go beyond 4 years; he will probably want 5 or 6 years. I don't like giving up a first round pick for Encarnacion. Sure, that pick could turn out to be a complete bust but the pick could also yield a pitcher like Noah Syndergaard.

 

You're probably right on demanding the option be taken, but with a $7M buyout and a $20M final year cost, it's only a $13M difference, and if Votto ages well, it might be a good deal at age 40.

 

4 years for EE is a lot, but he'll get it for sure. He may get 5 years. It's his last chance for a big payday.

 

[S5Dewey]

You're probably right on demanding the option be taken, but with a $7M buyout and a $20M final year cost, it's only a $13M difference, and if Votto ages well, it might be a good deal at age 40.

 

4 years for EE is a lot, but he'll get it for sure. He may get 5 years. It's his last chance for a big payday.

 

 

Are we forgetting that not everyone ages as well as David Ortiz? $25M seems like an awful lot for a 40 yr DH, especially when you remember that The Great David Ortiz {with no disrespect intended} never had a year when he made more than $16M.