The 2023 Red Sox Budget

[notin]

But what GM worth his Wong will give up anything decent "for just one year of Devers?"

 

Brusdar, I see you in the morning

Brusdar, asleepin next to me

Brusdar, let the memory of the evening

Be the first thing that you think of...

 

That’s the thing, too.

 

What team that feels 2023 is just one third baseman away? Like say. there was this hypothetical team that had made the postseason in 2022 and then declined the option on Justin Turner. Can you imagine that fallout!

 

“Bloom certainly can build a World Series Champ. Just look what he did for the Dodgers.”

[notin]

No, you're right, it's serious money. At the same time it appears unrealistically light.

 

Austin Riley felt it was serious money…

[moonslav59]

No question. But then you don't have Devers in your 2023 lineup.

 

I'd hate that. I'm all about "Devers Forevers," but I don't want what is happening to Bogey to happen again.

[Bellhorn04]

Austin Riley felt it was serious money…

 

Yep. Riley's contract bought out his 3 arb years. The offer to Devers was with 2 arb years left - now 1 left.

 

In theory Riley's deal should be a good comp for Devers.

[moonslav59]

Sox do well with those picks sometimes, also it's also about the draft pool money that gives you flexibility elsewhere. Plus lets not also forget one whole year of production from Devers.

 

"Those picks" used to be much higher than now.

[mvp 78]

...and they'll blame Bloom, if the budget is restricted, again. (This time, he will deserve criticism, if we fail, badly.)

 

One difference, this winter: we can reset and still spend over $90M, and we have less high need areas to fill than the last 3 winters, thanks in large part to the long-awaited infusion of young and cost effective players from the farm.

 

Bloom should be able to build a playoff team and reset, at the same time. This is his firepoint winter and may very well set his legacy in stone... good or bad.

 

They can spend 90+, but the question is on who? It's a BAD FA class. Re-sign Xander. Get Montero. OF options are not good. Hodgepodge of other relievers? I don't see them going after QO guys unless it's Turner/Correa/Judge. The QO to Bassitt takes him off the table IMO.

[mvp 78]

But what GM worth his Wong will give up anything decent "for just one year of Devers?"

 

Brusdar, I see you in the morning

Brusdar, asleepin next to me

Brusdar, let the memory of the evening

Be the first thing that you think of...

 

Again, it's a bad FA class. It could be a good year to deal a guy like Devers. There isn't a lot of good talent available. Maybe you could get a good haul? IDK. Sounds gross just to type it out.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

They can spend 90+, but the question is on who? It's a BAD FA class. Re-sign Xander. Get Montero. OF options are not good. Hodgepodge of other relievers? I don't see them going after QO guys unless it's Turner/Correa/Judge. The QO to Bassitt takes him off the table IMO.

 

Correa does not have a QO, so think like Bloom: we can replace Bogaerts with a younger Correa and get a draft pick for Xander signing elsewhere.

[Hugh2]

I'd hate that. I'm all about "Devers Forevers," but I don't want what is happening to Bogey to happen again.

 

True, but I think they lose international bonus pool money too.

[Hugh2]

Correa does not have a QO, so think like Bloom: we can replace Bogaerts with a younger Correa and get a draft pick for Xander signing elsewhere.

 

Supposedly Correa loved playing for Cora too. I wonder if he'd take 270/9 to play here.

[mvp 78]

Correa does not have a QO, so think like Bloom: we can replace Bogaerts with a younger Correa and get a draft pick for Xander signing elsewhere.

 

It just depends on how big the Correa contract would be. I think Correa is a great fit, especially defensively.

[moonslav59]

They can spend 90+, but the question is on who? It's a BAD FA class. Re-sign Xander. Get Montero. OF options are not good. Hodgepodge of other relievers? I don't see them going after QO guys unless it's Turner/Correa/Judge. The QO to Bassitt takes him off the table IMO.

 

This could be the year we make trades that involve taking on larger contracts. We could even take on a "dead money" contract along with a coveted player, so the return package would not need to be so great.

 

I agree, the FA market is not all that great, but there are other ways to spend the $90M and improve the roster.

[moonslav59]

Correa does not have a QO, so think like Bloom: we can replace Bogaerts with a younger Correa and get a draft pick for Xander signing elsewhere.

 

If we do go big splash, Correa makes the most sense. While bringing Bogey back would be great, it would not feel like a big splash, even thought it would be.

[moonslav59]

True, but I think they lose international bonus pool money too.

 

Who?

 

We can extend Devers, starting in year 2024, if needed, and not go over the tax line.

[mvp 78]

If we do go big splash, Correa makes the most sense. While bringing Bogey back would be great, it would not feel like a big splash, even thought it would be.

 

It wouldn't be a splash, but re-signing Bogey and extending Raffy would make fans happy.

[moonslav59]

It wouldn't be a splash, but re-signing Bogey and extending Raffy would make fans happy.

 

Indeed. I'd be very happy, as long as they weren't gross overpays.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Indeed. I'd be very happy, as long as they weren't gross overpays.

 

I'm ready for Devers' payday to get gross. Losing all the Red Sox top homegrown faces would really rot.

[Hugh2]

I'm ready for Devers' payday to get gross. Losing all the Red Sox top homegrown faces would really rot.

 

Here’s the problem with resigning both Bogey and Raffy. You had both of them this year and you still sucked.

 

Personally with the shift changes, I think we should go big with Correa, resign Raffy is you can or wait u til next year. After that, unless you land Nimmo, I hope all the focus is on pitching .

[Bellhorn04]

Here’s the problem with resigning both Bogey and Raffy. You had both of them this year and you still sucked.

 

That's not a problem. Without them we would have sucked much worse.

 

Their price tags? Yeah, that could be a problem.

[moonslav59]

I'm ready for Devers' payday to get gross. Losing all the Red Sox top homegrown faces would really rot.

 

That's why I say...

 

Devers Forevers

 

with no qualifiers.

 

[Bellhorn04]

That's why I say...

 

Devers Forevers

 

with no qualifiers.

 

 

Sorry man, but you did issue a qualifier, in post #166.

[moonslav59]

Sorry man, but you did issue a qualifier, in post #166.

 

That was sooooo long ago!

 

[mvp 78]

I'm ready for Devers' payday to get gross. Losing all the Red Sox top homegrown faces would really rot.

 

It’d be the worst.

[moonslav59]

For argument's sake, what is worse?

 

Losing Devers (via trade)

 

Losing Devers (via free agency w comp pick)

 

Signing Devers to $300M/12

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

For argument's sake, what is worse?

 

Losing Devers (via trade)

 

Losing Devers (via free agency w comp pick)

 

Signing Devers to $300M/12

 

Trading Devers this winter would be the worst possible scenario for Boston and Red Sox fans. It would show -- yet again -- that the Sox are unwilling to pay fair market value to their homegrown stars, the faces of the franchise. It would also send the same message to all up-and-coming prospects, and to future free agents.

 

And to teammates in the clubhouse, dugouts and bullpens, it would confirm that management is unwilling to use its resources to provide them with the best possible support towards achieving the ultimate goal of a professional sports team: winning.

[moonslav59]

Trading Devers this winter would be the worst possible scenario for Boston and Red Sox fans. It would show -- yet again -- that the Sox are unwilling to pay fair market value to their homegrown stars, the faces of the franchise. It would also send the same message to all up-and-coming prospects, and to future free agents.

 

And to teammates in the clubhouse, dugouts and bullpens, it would confirm that management is unwilling to use its resources to provide them with the best possible support towards achieving the ultimate goal of a professional sports team: winning.

 

I think losing him for just a comp pick is worst.

 

Also, I'm not so sure about the clubhouse issue. The Astros let Springer and Correa go, because they would "not pay market value," and fans love the team.

 

Winning makes fans get over this type of thing.

 

I put $300M/12, but what if it's $360M/12 needed to keep him? How far can we go just to make a point to fans that we will keep our stars? If JH continues to reset every few years, a contract like that will really limit what the team can for over the next 12 years.

[Bellhorn04]

I think losing him for just a comp pick is worst.

 

Also, I'm not so sure about the clubhouse issue. The Astros let Springer and Correa go, because they would "not pay market value," and fans love the team.

 

Winning makes fans get over this type of thing.

 

I put $300M/12, but what if it's $360M/12 needed to keep him? How far can we go just to make a point to fans that we will keep our stars? If JH continues to reset every few years, a contract like that will really limit what the team can for over the next 12 years.

 

That sure doesn't sound like Devers Forevers!

[notin]

Trading Devers this winter would be the worst possible scenario for Boston and Red Sox fans. It would show -- yet again -- that the Sox are unwilling to pay fair market value to their homegrown stars, the faces of the franchise. It would also send the same message to all up-and-coming prospects, and to future free agents.

 

And to teammates in the clubhouse, dugouts and bullpens, it would confirm that management is unwilling to use its resources to provide them with the best possible support towards achieving the ultimate goal of a professional sports team: winning.

 

Who says the Sox are unwilling to pay FAIR market share?

 

Just because a player demands an exorbitant amount of money does NOT mean that’s a fair market price.

 

Why is is fair for the Sox to give more money to Devers than the younger, better Austin Riley got here?

[Bellhorn04]

Who says the Sox are unwilling to pay FAIR market share?

 

Just because a player demands an exorbitant amount of money does NOT mean that’s a fair market price.

 

Why is is fair for the Sox to give more money to Devers than the younger, better Austin Riley got here?

 

As I've said before, there's no such thing as fair market value with MLB free agents, because it doesn't operate like a normal market.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think losing him for just a comp pick is worst.

 

Also, I'm not so sure about the clubhouse issue. The Astros let Springer and Correa go, because they would "not pay market value," and fans love the team.

 

Winning makes fans get over this type of thing.

 

I put $300M/12, but what if it's $360M/12 needed to keep him? How far can we go just to make a point to fans that we will keep our stars? If JH continues to reset every few years, a contract like that will really limit what the team can for over the next 12 years.

 

A trade would presumably yield a better return than a comp pick, but it would also signal to Red Sox Nation that the team was giving up on resigning hometown hero Raffy Devers.

 

If they keep him for one more year and let him walk, at least they could pretend they were trying to sign him up until the bitter end.

 

Which scenario looks better to the public: pushing him out the door a year early, or him walking through it on his own?