A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[harmony]

And no one suggested they would. You just jumped in making incorrect assumptions.

No team would take the entire Eovaldi contract because the contract is under water despite the righthander’s 2020 performance.

[Bellhorn04]

No team would take the entire Eovaldi contract because the contract is under water despite the righthander’s 2020 performance.

 

So you're just going to keep reiterating that, despite no one saying another team would do any such thing. Really adds to the discussion.

[harmony]

And no one suggested they would. You just jumped in making incorrect assumptions.

“That’s actually a pretty dumb statement” in response to “The Eovaldi contract is under water.”

 

A contract is under water if more is owed than the asset’s worth.

[moonslav59]

No idea. But that's not the argument. The argument is whether the Red Sox would be doing well if they traded him for nothing except 50% salary relief. You and notin said that would be a plus. BTV, which both you guys seem to value, says it would not. Pretty simple.

 

I have been suggesting trading Eovaldi, getting a player back that essentially pays half of Eovaldi PLUS another player that fills a gap in CF, 2B or RP.

 

I think he has more value than $8.5M x 2.

 

I would pay $17M of his $34M in a trade that brings back great defensive CF'er who can hit over .725, a plus defensive 2Bman that can his over .750 or a very good set up man in the pen.

 

I take those savings and instead of signing a pitcher for $40M/4 of $60M/5, I get a better one at $48M/4 or $78M/5. We'd be, in theory, upgrading Eovadli's slot and filling another high need area.

 

Before Eovaldi's decent 2020 season, I might have said I'd hand him away at half the cost for a bag of balls, but I don't think I have said that since last winter. (I'm sure someone will correct me, if I am wrong.)

 

Also, I've never been one to place value on any player based on just one season, and certainly not a 60 game season like Eovaldi just did well in.

[harmony]

Perhaps the pessimistic ZiPS projections for Nathan Eovaldi need to be updated:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/nathan-eovaldi/9132/stats?position=P#zips-3-year-projections

 

Or not.

[Bellhorn04]

“That’s actually a pretty dumb statement” in response to “The Eovaldi contract is under water.”

 

A contract is under water if more is owed than the asset’s worth.

 

Under that narrow definition, a contract with a projected 1 million negative value and a contract with a 100 million negative value would both be under water.

 

All you have to say is what the negative value is. "Under water" is just a buzz phrase that adds zero to the analysis.

[moonslav59]

Under that narrow definition, a contract with a projected 1 million negative value and a contract with a 100 million negative value would both be under water.

 

All you have to say is what the negative value is. "Under water" is just a buzz phrase that adds zero to the analysis.

 

Certainly, some player's contracts are more "underwater" than others, but I think the term is useful.

 

We'll probably never agree on how much underwater Eovaldi's contract is. The BTV has him at -10.2, so they basically are saying he's worth $11.9M x 2- not $17M x 2. ($17M salary- $11.9M value= -$5.1M per year). I'm not saying they are the foremost authority on projected value, and I actually think he's worth more than that, speculatively thinking, but I doubt any GM would give him more than $11-12M x 2, this winter. Injury prone pitchers have gotten more than that, selectively here and there, so I don't know if there is one GM out there who would offer more.

 

I'm fine with keeping him and hoping he can give us one full season or even moving him to the closer role to try and improve the chances he can stay healthy, but when you look at ways we can free up some salary space to add more or better players, his name is near the top of any list for doing so.

 

What is the "break even point" for JD? Half his salary? 2/3? 3/4? There's usually not a big rush to sign DH's, but maybe he could attract someone who thinks he can play corner OF, perhaps with a short home field OF.

 

Sale won't be traded. Trading Bogey might make sense due to the opt out, but if we are looking at winning in 2-3 years, it's hard to see that without Bogey.

Edited October 10, 2020 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Sale won't be traded. Trading Bogey might make sense due to the opt out, but if we are looking at winning in 2-3 years, it's hard to see that without Bogey.

 

And Bogey has no-trade protection now, so he would have to approve.

[Bellhorn04]

Certainly, some player's contracts are more "underwater" than others, but I think the term is useful.

 

I'm not sure why 'negative value' doesn't suffice.

 

'Underwater' suggests a disastrous situation. Only in some cases is that true.

[moonslav59]

I'm not sure why 'negative value' doesn't suffice.

 

'Underwater' suggests a disastrous situation. Only in some cases is that true.

 

"Underwater"does have a more negative context to it just saying "negative."

 

Let's assume BTV value is correct. They say Eovaldi is worth $11.9M x 2, and he's being paid $17M x 2. $5.1M/$17M is a 30% overpay.

 

What do you think should be the minimum percent the term "underwater" should be used?

 

30% is pretty significant, but $5.1M for only 2 years does not seem all that massive. Certainly the CC, Price, Pablito & HRam deals were much worse.

[moonslav59]

And Bogey has no-trade protection now, so he would have to approve.

 

He probably would accept, since trading him would surely be to an immediate contender, but who knows.

 

(BTW, I am not in favor of trading Bogey.)

[dgalehouse]

The Sox briefly tried Eovaldi in the closer's role last year. ( I was all for it at the time ) He did not take too well to it and was not effective. He has stated repeatedly that he prefers starting . I think that is his best spot and where his value is at present . Given our shortage of quality arms in the rotation , I think it would be wiser to keep him and hope he stays healthy.

[Bellhorn04]

"Underwater"does have a more negative context to it just saying "negative."

 

Let's assume BTV value is correct. They say Eovaldi is worth $11.9M x 2, and he's being paid $17M x 2. $5.1M/$17M is a 30% overpay.

 

What do you think should be the minimum percent the term "underwater" should be used?

 

Whatever you choose would be arbitrary, obviously.

 

Like I say, I don't think it's even necessary.

 

No one had to explain to us that contracts like Pablo, Hanley or Castillo were disasters, or figure out how to classify them.

[moonslav59]

Too much "hope" involved in our 2021 chances.

[Bellhorn04]

Too much "hope" involved in our 2021 chances.

 

Maybe so.

 

What about Porcello? He's one of the few virtually guaranteed durability guys.

[moonslav59]

Maybe so.

 

What about Porcello? He's one of the few virtually guaranteed durability guys.

 

Durable? Yes.

 

Good? Unknown.

 

Costly? Not likely too much.

[harmony]

I'm not sure why 'negative value' doesn't suffice.

 

'Underwater' suggests a disastrous situation. Only in some cases is that true.

Baseball Trade Values lists the median trade value of 1,210 contracts of what the site considers MLB players.

 

BTV lists 122 players with negative median trade values. Nathan Eovaldi ranks 49th on the list of most negative median trade values:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/

[moonslav59]

Baseball Trade Values lists the median trade value of 1,210 contracts of what the site considers MLB players.

 

BTV lists 122 players with negative median trade values. Nathan Eovaldi ranks 49th on the list of most negative median trade values:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/

 

I get your point, but usually when you talk about "sunken cost" or "underwater contracts" the player in question sucks or is grossly overpaid.

 

One could maybe argue being overpaid by about $5M a year is "grossly overpaid," but most probably don't think of it that way. As for Eovaldi's on the field value, here's how BTV values Sox players before adjusting for salary:

 

86 Sale

79 Verdugo

60 Bogaerts

50 Devers

35 Dalbec

32 Vaz

22 Eovaldi

21 D Hern

19 Beni

17 ERod

17 JD

9 Brasier & Chavis

8 Taylor

7 Arroyo

6 Perez

5 Barnes & Pivetta

3 Covey & Arauz

2 Valdez & Peraza

1 Plawecki & Munoz

 

Our worst?

-5 Walden

2 Springs & Triggs

-1 Brewer

 

 

[moonslav59]

Looking at the BTV numbers, I think they have these Sox players over-rated:

12.1 Duran

7.5 Chavis

5.5 Beni

5.2 Brasier

4.9 Chatham

 

Boy, Devers' value sure went down! Here's who I think are under rated:

35.9 Devers

12.9 DHern

4.5 Ward

2.6 Houck

0.0 Perez & Munoz

-18.2 Sale

 

[jacksonianmarch]

Devers just burned a pre-arb year so value drops

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball Trade Values lists the median trade value of 1,210 contracts of what the site considers MLB players.

 

BTV lists 122 players with negative median trade values. Nathan Eovaldi ranks 49th on the list of most negative median trade values:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/

 

I apologize for getting so testy about the 'under water' thing.

[Bellhorn04]

The thing about Eovaldi is that the situation is pretty simple.

 

I assume his projected value is depressed by the fact that he has missed a lot of his time in his career.

 

He's missed that time because of two Tommy John surgeries, and two subsequent procedures to remove 'loose bodies'.

 

But at the end of 2020 he seemed very healthy and was pitching at a very high level.

 

In 2018 and 2020, he was a different pitcher from the guy with the Marlins and Yankees. Striking out more while walking less.

 

And he's only 30.

 

So there's a lot of upside, with the only real cloud being those damn 'loose bodies'...

[moonslav59]

Devers just burned a pre-arb year so value drops

 

Yes, I get that, but the drop was more than just that.

[moonslav59]

The thing about Eovaldi is that the situation is pretty simple.

 

I assume his projected value is depressed by the fact that he has missed a lot of his time in his career.

 

He's missed that time because of two Tommy John surgeries, and two subsequent procedures to remove 'loose bodies'.

 

But at the end of 2020 he seemed very healthy and was pitching at a very high level.

 

In 2018 and 2020, he was a different pitcher from the guy with the Marlins and Yankees. Striking out more while walking less.

 

And he's only 30.

 

So there's a lot of upside, with the only real cloud being those damn 'loose bodies'...

 

Well said.

 

I will add that he looked very healthy and pitching at a very high level at the end of 2018 as well.

[Bellhorn04]

Well said.

 

I will add that he looked very healthy and pitching at a very high level at the end of 2018 as well.

 

One thing I wonder about is what rights teams have to conduct medical exams on their players. It seems like the Red Sox should be entitled to give Nathan's arm a serious exam every offseason, but I don't know if they can.

[moonslav59]

Billy Beane & the Sox?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-10/beane-s-play-for-red-sox-could-signal-the-end-of-moneyball-era?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business&cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0esGuChb0gs7uaW5_Uw2Rler3lqoFHepoH7xIENt8hNsVQrzGuq8_YiG0&fbclid=IwAR0hlg1XMWWgm0GSpuyDgQh5JuDmSQNacD7P2VsIIDVI8Qh-kKs8wKX5QwI

[moonslav59]

One thing I wonder about is what rights teams have to conduct medical exams on their players. It seems like the Red Sox should be entitled to give Nathan's arm a serious exam every offseason, but I don't know if they can.

 

I think they can before a signing- like after 2018.

[jad]

I think they can before a signing- like after 2018.

 

They can make trades dependent on passing a physical. couldn't a contract be written that way?

[notin]

Billy Beane & the Sox?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-10/beane-s-play-for-red-sox-could-signal-the-end-of-moneyball-era?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business&cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0esGuChb0gs7uaW5_Uw2Rler3lqoFHepoH7xIENt8hNsVQrzGuq8_YiG0&fbclid=IwAR0hlg1XMWWgm0GSpuyDgQh5JuDmSQNacD7P2VsIIDVI8Qh-kKs8wKX5QwI

 

So he turns us down as GM only to come back as part-owner?

[moonslav59]

They can make trades dependent on passing a physical. couldn't a contract be written that way?

 

Seems like it should be part of any signing process.