A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[moonslav59]

Since the Mookie thread has been moved up, let's change the subject for this thread...

 

The Sox and Dodgers are now tied for the second best record.

 

The best record, by percentage points is not the Padres. It's not the surprising Giants. It's not the surging A's, and we all know it ain't the Yanks!

 

It's the Royals!

 

Danny Duffy has a 0.39 ERA!

Singer is at 2.95 but is 1-2.

The pen has been great, but only Carlos Santana has an OPS over .792.

Out of their 10 batters with 35+ PAs, 6 are below .700.

 

 

It must be Beni's clubhouse influence!

 

[Bellhorn04]

Gausman is pitching very well for the Giants. As moon would say, where are those who laughed at the idea of him being worth the Qualifying Offer?

[notin]

Gausman is pitching very well for the Giants. As moon would say, where are those who laughed at the idea of him being worth the Qualifying Offer?

 

Who in the Giants rotation isn't pitching well? Cueto and Desclafini also look like studs...

[moonslav59]

This Royals team is reminding of the ones that went far two years in a row back from 2014 to 2015.

[moonslav59]

I think many of these "over achieving" teams will likely come back to earth. It remains to be seen, if the Sox are in that group.

 

I don't think any of us expect us continuing a .640 winning %, but making the playoffs or even squeaking by with a divisional crown do not seem all that absurd.

[mvp 78]

The point is that yes, we can afford him, but when you also have Price at $32M, Sale at $25M, JD at $22M, Bogey at $20M and Eovaldi at $17M, the rest of your roster is going to be full of players barely above replacement level, unless you have a strong, deep and balanced farm.

 

Let's not for get the David Price part of that deal. It was Crawfordesque.

 

Betts is the best player listed there. You just get rid of someone else. Price's contract was bad when it was signed. They should have just sucked it up and re-signed Betts. Reset the lux tax later. You will not convince me otherwise.

[mvp 78]

Ummm, not trading Betts means we have Price's full $32M contract still on the books.

 

That's over $45M to make up. Richards is $10M of that.

 

Price's contract shouldn't have been on the books to begin with.

[oldtimer]

I think many of these "over achieving" teams will likely come back to earth. It remains to be seen, if the Sox are in that group.

 

I don't think any of us expect us continuing a .640 winning %, but making the playoffs or even squeaking by with a divisional crown do not seem all that absurd.

 

Getting Brasier and Sale back should help the staff. I'm an advocate of replacing our weakest field players sooner than later, either through prospects or by spending and going over the limit, if that is deemed necessary. Codero for sure and possibly Renfroe.

 

Having two additional significant bats in the lineup should reduce the likelihood of a prolonged slump. We all should expect some injuries to our better players along the way. Having a deeper lineup helps a lot in that case. Maybe we should alter the thinking and go for it this year.

[Bellhorn04]

Price's contract shouldn't have been on the books to begin with.

 

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

We were rather desperate for front-line pitching and in a window to compete for a title.

 

That's why.

[moonslav59]

Price's contract shouldn't have been on the books to begin with.

 

I don't disagree, but his contract was part of the Betts equation and trade.

[moonslav59]

Betts is the best player listed there. You just get rid of someone else. Price's contract was bad when it was signed. They should have just sucked it up and re-signed Betts. Reset the lux tax later. You will not convince me otherwise.

 

Context.

 

Betts and 5 scrubs or Verdugo, 2 prospects and 5 decent players.

[moonslav59]

Getting Brasier and Sale back should help the staff. I'm an advocate of replacing our weakest field players sooner than later, either through prospects or by spending and going over the limit, if that is deemed necessary. Codero for sure and possibly Renfroe.

 

Having two additional significant bats in the lineup should reduce the likelihood of a prolonged slump. We all should expect some injuries to our better players along the way. Having a deeper lineup helps a lot in that case. Maybe we should alter the thinking and go for it this year.

 

One nice thing going for us, and it's no accident- Bloom planned it this way, is that our most likely high need areas, this summer, are also the areas we have the best internal depth, including top prospects nearing MLB readiness:

 

P: Houck, Bazardo, Seabold and others

2B: Downs, Santana, Arauz, Munoz, Chavis

OF: Duran (Munoz/Santana)

1B: Chavis, Casas (Ockimey)

 

Note: our internal OF depth is not deep, but Duran is likely our best AAA prospect nearing ML readiness, and we do have Kike, Marwin, Santana, Munoz and maybe even Chavis able to play OF.

Edited April 29, 2021 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Context.

 

Betts and 5 scrubs or Verdugo, 2 prospects and 5 decent players.

 

I agree, but to be fair, Verdugo's cost may also go up rather sharply when his arb years start.

[moonslav59]

I agree, but to be fair, Verdugo's cost may also go up rather sharply when his arb years start.

 

True, but those costs will be worth it and still an underpay vs FAs.

 

His first of 3 arbs in 2022.

[mvp 78]

Context.

 

Betts and 5 scrubs or Verdugo, 2 prospects and 5 decent players.

 

No.

[moonslav59]

No.

 

You really think spending $30+M a year on someone has no affect on what you spend on several other players? (maybe even more than 5)

[mvp 78]

You really think spending $30+M a year on someone has no affect on what you spend on several other players? (maybe even more than 5)

 

It has an impact for sure, I just think it's worth moving other contracts around in order to keep Betts.

[moonslav59]

It has an impact for sure, I just think it's worth moving other contracts around in order to keep Betts.

 

Easier said than done.

 

I'm fine with the argument about preferring Betts over Price, or more realistically, choosing not to extend Sale, Eovaldi or Bogey, so we could keep Betts, but I'm a firm believer in the idea that Henry insists on re-setting before we ever reach the 3rd year mega tax, and his history shows he likes to stay under for 2-3 years at a time- not just one. I'm fine with disagreeing with that plan, but within that framework, signing Betts would have meant serious budget complications for at least 3 years, especially since it also meant keeping $16M of Price's deal. maybe we could have dumped Price's $16M elsewhere, but I doubt it.

[mvp 78]

Easier said than done.

 

I'm fine with the argument about preferring Betts over Price, or more realistically, choosing not to extend Sale, Eovaldi or Bogey, so we could keep Betts, but I'm a firm believer in the idea that Henry insists on re-setting before we ever reach the 3rd year mega tax, and his history shows he likes to stay under for 2-3 years at a time- not just one. I'm fine with disagreeing with that plan, but within that framework, signing Betts would have meant serious budget complications for at least 3 years, especially since it also meant keeping $16M of Price's deal. maybe we could have dumped Price's $16M elsewhere, but I doubt it.

 

He was willing to give him 30M annually. An additional 6M isn't materially affecting the roster you put on the field.

[notin]

While I do think that other commitments had an impact on Betts’ offer, a $30 mill deal was not very likely. His last season in Boston, he was already making $25 mill...

[iortiz]

The thing is (was)... Are (were) the Red Sox ready to win it all, say next 2-3 years?

 

If the answer is no, there's no reason to commit a contract like that to any player. Would be a waste of money while his prime talent is taxed.

 

Said that, Betts is a great fit for LA because Betts was the pice that missed in recent years in LA to win it all like they did last year.

 

IMHO We are not in that position —yet.

Edited April 29, 2021 by iortiz

[moonslav59]

He was willing to give him 30M annually. An additional 6M isn't materially affecting the roster you put on the field.

 

The initial $30M still counts and was viewed as a trade-off. Adding $6M tilted the balance to a know.

 

How about another $6M? And then another? (I'm actually not even sure they wanted him at their initial offer they knew he'd refuse- same as Lester.)

[Bellhorn04]

The initial $30M still counts and was viewed as a trade-off. Adding $6M tilted the balance to a know.

 

How about another $6M? And then another? (I'm actually not even sure they wanted him at their initial offer they knew he'd refuse- same as Lester.)

 

It wasn't quite the lowball insult that Lester's was.

[moonslav59]

It wasn't quite the lowball insult that Lester's was.

 

Agreed, and they did comeback with a sizably higher offer with Lester, much later.

 

In defense of Sox management, Lester did say he was willing to take a "hometown discount." It's hard to know exactly what that means. many felt Pedey took way less than he could have gotten, and maybe they looked at the Pedey contract as a comp.

 

That being said, I do think it was insultingly low.

[mvp 78]

The thing is (was)... Are (were) the Red Sox ready to win it all, say next 2-3 years?

 

If the answer is no, there's no reason to commit a contract like that to any player. Would be a waste of money while his prime talent is taxed.

 

Said that, Betts is a great fit for LA because Betts was the pice that missed in recent years in LA to win it all like they did last year.

 

IMHO We are not in that position —yet.

 

If you think the next 2-3 years is the prime of that contract, the remaining 9 years will be a nightmare.

[mvp 78]

The initial $30M still counts and was viewed as a trade-off. Adding $6M tilted the balance to a know.

 

How about another $6M? And then another? (I'm actually not even sure they wanted him at their initial offer they knew he'd refuse- same as Lester.)

 

Why would I add another$6M?

[mvp 78]

It wasn't quite the lowball insult that Lester's was.

 

Not going back to Betts after this counter was worse.

[Bellhorn04]

Not going back to Betts after this counter was worse.

 

I don't know. If the reports are accurate, Mookie asked for $420 million.

 

My theory is that the Red Sox line in the sand was somewhere around $350 million. Keeping in mind that this was 2 years before his free agency, that would be very reasonable.

[notin]

It wasn't quite the lowball insult that Lester's was.

 

The confusing part there was with Lester, the Sox were working with some strategy about not overpaying heavily for pitchers. That whole idea was clearly gone by the time Price hit the market...

[notin]

I don't know. If the reports are accurate, Mookie asked for $420 million.

 

My theory is that the Red Sox line in the sand was somewhere around $350 million. Keeping in mind that this was 2 years before his free agency, that would be very reasonable.

 

That's part of it, too.

 

We don't really know how all the negotiations went down...