Xander Bogaerts has signed with San Diego Padres

[notin]

In terms of MLB draft, he's done a very good job so far. Internationally, Bleis was a good get.

 

That’s because it’s not just about evaluating prospects in a trade, but also about selecting ones the other guy is willing to give up.

 

It doesn’t help that in most of the trades he has made so far, the Sox didn’t give up much. Certainly Betts is the outlier, but even he came with a very high salary and was handcuffed to David Price. I don’t think getting elite prospects was the primary objective with that deal…

[notin]

I agree with this, and I did actually like Downs, but still hated the Mookie trade. Most people hated it at the time, but when the “top prospect” in the deal busts, it makes it way worse. I think David Price somehow gave the Dodgers more value as a relief pitcher than Downs gave Boston, which is absurd.

 

Well Downs may be back if he clears waivers. And one day maybe he can be as good as an aging David Price…

[moonslav59]

I agree with this, and I did actually like Downs, but still hated the Mookie trade. Most people hated it at the time, but when the “top prospect” in the deal busts, it makes it way worse. I think David Price somehow gave the Dodgers more value as a relief pitcher than Downs gave Boston, which is absurd.

 

The Dodgers paid Price $45M for measly relief pitching for one year.

 

I guess, since money does not matter to them, if could be viewed as a plus.

[Jasonbay44]

The Dodgers paid Price $45M for measly relief pitching for one year.

 

I guess, since money does not matter to them, if could be viewed as a plus.

That the thing is, money doesn’t matter to them. Even after giving Betts his extension and taking Price contract, they still signed Freeman.

 

Money doesn’t matter to these rich people, they’re in a different tax bracket

[Bellhorn04]

That the thing is, money doesn’t matter to them. Even after giving Betts his extension and taking Price contract, they still signed Freeman.

 

Money doesn’t matter to these rich people, they’re in a different tax bracket

 

The Dodgers are cutting payroll this year, though. They let go of T Turner, J Turner, and Bellinger.

[Jasonbay44]

The Dodgers are cutting payroll this year, though. They let go of T Turner, J Turner, and Bellinger.

 

They also brought back Kershaw, signed Sydnergaard and signed JD Martinez and are expected to be heavily involved in the Ohtani sweepstakes next off season.

 

And I’m not really sure id consider Bellinger much of a loss.

[notin]

They also brought back Kershaw, signed Sydnergaard and signed JD Martinez and are expected to be heavily involved in the Ohtani sweepstakes next off season.

 

And I’m not really sure id consider Bellinger much of a loss.

 

 

Bellinger wasn’t much of a baseball loss, but he was definitely a payroll savings for them..

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The Dodgers paid Price $45M for measly relief pitching for one year.

 

I guess, since money does not matter to them, if could be viewed as a plus.

 

I honestly thought they merely viewed that extra $45M as an added cost of having Mookie.

[Jasonbay44]

Bellinger wasn’t much of a baseball loss, but he was definitely a payroll savings for them..

 

I mean he saves payroll, sure, but he wasn’t a big impact player anymore and letting him go instead of paying him $18 million makes sense

[moonslav59]

That the thing is, money doesn’t matter to them. Even after giving Betts his extension and taking Price contract, they still signed Freeman.

 

Money doesn’t matter to these rich people, they’re in a different tax bracket

 

I get that, but expecting every our owner to do the same is not going to make him change.

 

BTW, the Dodgers are resetting, this year, so budgets do matter- in cycles.

[moonslav59]

I honestly thought they merely viewed that extra $45M as an added cost of having Mookie.

 

Maybe not, but taking on Price lessened the return needed, and the Dodgers do try to keep their farm strong and deep, even if it costs them money.

[Jasonbay44]

I get that, but expecting every our owner to do the same is not going to make him change.

 

BTW, the Dodgers are resetting, this year, so budgets do matter- in cycles.

 

Every owner? Maybe not. The guy who owns the 3rd most valuable MLB franchise in John Henry? He absolutely should be spending more than most teams.

[mvp 78]

Every owner? Maybe not. The guy who owns the 3rd most valuable MLB franchise in John Henry? He absolutely should be spending more than most teams.

 

The ticket cost is high (in large part due to demand because of the limited seating).

They own the Sports Network.

The owner has similar net worth to other owners that are signing big contracts (Yankees, Phillies).

[moonslav59]

Every owner? Maybe not. The guy who owns the 3rd most valuable MLB franchise in John Henry? He absolutely should be spending more than most teams.

 

Again, I've said I wish he would spend more and "should," but so should every team other than the ones that already are, and if that happened, we might be even worse off.

 

I'm not understanding why every owner not already spending more should not, but the Sox owner should. Being the third most valuable does not make much of a difference to me. Many team owners who are raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, some on revenue sharing spend zero on free agents. To me, in the grand scheme of things, what they are doing is much worse than JH deciding to be the 6th or 7th highest spending team vs 3rd or 4th among madmen spenders.

 

Yes, we should spend more, but so should 24 other teams to varying degrees, and most by a higher percentage increase in budget than what we are asking JH to do.

[Jasonbay44]

Again, I've said I wish he would spend more and "should," but so should every team other than the ones that already are, and if that happened, we might be even worse off.

 

I'm not understanding why every owner not already spending more should not, but the Sox owner should. Being the third most valuable does not make much of a difference to me. Many team owners who are raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, some on revenue sharing spend zero on free agents. To me, in the grand scheme of things, what they are doing is much worse than JH deciding to be the 6th or 7th highest spending team vs 3rd or 4th among madmen spenders.

 

Yes, we should spend more, but so should 24 other teams to varying degrees, and most by a higher percentage increase in budget than what we are asking JH to do.

 

I mean they all should be spending more, I never disagreed with that, but especially someone like Henry, in a big market, worth a ton of money, and owns basically everything Red Sox related that gets revenue. There really isn’t an excuse for him to not spend and and keep the Red Sox star free agents, such as Xander and Devers.

[Jasonbay44]

The ticket cost is high (in large part due to demand because of the limited seating).

They own the Sports Network.

The owner has similar net worth to other owners that are signing big contracts (Yankees, Phillies).

 

And also, yes, these are additional great points.

[moonslav59]

I mean they all should be spending more, I never disagreed with that, but especially someone like Henry, in a big market, worth a ton of money, and owns basically everything Red Sox related that gets revenue. There really isn’t an excuse for him to not spend and and keep the Red Sox star free agents, such as Xander and Devers.

 

I get it, and don't disagree, but if we spend $50M more, and 5 other teams spend $40M more, 10 teams $30M more and 5 teams $20M more, I'm not sure we'd be much better off.

 

IMO, JH will spend big, again. Just not this winter.

 

The plan may be to wait until the younger players get established and are starting to mature before he pounces bigtime. It's just speculation, and if correct, I'm not sure when "that time" will be.

 

He has spent in cycles, before.

[Bellhorn04]

I mean they all should be spending more, I never disagreed with that, but especially someone like Henry, in a big market, worth a ton of money, and owns basically everything Red Sox related that gets revenue. There really isn’t an excuse for him to not spend and and keep the Red Sox star free agents, such as Xander and Devers.

 

There is one indisputable good reason not to pay luxury tax every year, though - some of the penalties are losses of draft picks and international pool money, so it's not just costing money but prospects.

[Hugh2]

There is one indisputable good reason not to pay luxury tax every year, though - some of the penalties are losses of draft picks and international pool money, so it's not just costing money but prospects.

 

Those penalties have compounding effects. It will be interesting to see what the Mets system looks like in a few years. I’m sure Mets fans could care less if they buy a couple WS here. But they could get caught with their pants down if the new CBA puts in harsher penalties or even a hard cap and they’re sitting way over with no farm system in 4-5 years from now.

 

They pretty much have to win a World Series or it’s going to not be worth it. For all the talk about DD ruining our farm (a lot of those guys have busted anyways) at least we have something to show for it. That makes it all worth it.

[cp176]

I mean they all should be spending more, I never disagreed with that, but especially someone like Henry, in a big market, worth a ton of money, and owns basically everything Red Sox related that gets revenue. There really isn’t an excuse for him to not spend and and keep the Red Sox star free agents, such as Xander and Devers.

 

This i agree with so much. Obviously the concept of spending what ever it takes does in fact have some significance to some big market teams. I have said for years that thinking that teams like the Red Sox actually have a budget is ridiculous. Of course teams have budgets but evidently they can be expanded on at any time. Allowing top of the food chain homegrown talent to walk when your budget is just as budget less as any other big market teams is a shame. I have no clue any more than anyone else does here what the "plan" is going forward but to date I find what they have done to be sadly pathetic.

[moonslav59]

We can argue till the cows come home about the Sox having or needing to have a budget, but the reality is they do, and even during the years they go over, it seems there is an upper limit.

 

We may not recognize "a plan" or even some obvious direction the team is heading towards, but there does seem to be some hints that lead me to believe...

 

1. We will never go over the tax line 3 years in row. (We never have.)

2. We are in a farm-building mode and have been since 2019. (We have not traded any top prospects since before 2019, and have traded for many, since then.)

3. We seem to be averse to signing any large and long contracts or extensions. (The Story $140M/6 signing and Sale $145M/5 extension are the largest since Price in 2015.)

4. As of now, the plan seems to be to build up the 40 man roster in a balanced and deeper way- not top heavy.

 

We can disagree with these strategies or plans, or even whether my interpretations of our plan is correct or not, or incomplete, but it seems to me, we are have been in this mode, since even before DD left.

 

If you look at the bottom 10 and 20 of the 40 moan rosters from 2020 to 2021 to 2022 to now, I'm pretty sure we'd all agree those groupings have greatly improved, even if it hasn't helped us win more consistently or more often. To me, it's not a bad plan to build up roster depth and farm potential, at the same time, perhaps in preparation for a FA spending splurge when the reset tax cycle turns in our favor. That could be 2024, but we've been known to stay under the tax line for 2 and even 3 straight years, before.

 

The upcoming top prospects and recent grads seem to be times, just right, for 2024 or 2025. Whether we "splurge" or not remains to be seen. I was thinking (hoping) that time might be this winter, even with a reset, but it looks like we stayed in the "spread the wealth" mode on FA signings.

 

 

[cp176]

We can argue till the cows come home about the Sox having or needing to have a budget, but the reality is they do, and even during the years they go over, it seems there is an upper limit.

 

We may not recognize "a plan" or even some obvious direction the team is heading towards, but there does seem to be some hints that lead me to believe...

 

1. We will never go over the tax line 3 years in row. (We never have.)

2. We are in a farm-building mode and have been since 2019. (We have not traded any top prospects since before 2019, and have traded for many, since then.)

3. We seem to be averse to signing any large and long contracts or extensions. (The Story $140M/6 signing and Sale $145M/5 extension are the largest since Price in 2015.)

4. As of now, the plan seems to be to build up the 40 man roster in a balanced and deeper way- not top heavy.

 

We can disagree with these strategies or plans, or even whether my interpretations of our plan is correct or not, or incomplete, but it seems to me, we are have been in this mode, since even before DD left.

 

If you look at the bottom 10 and 20 of the 40 moan rosters from 2020 to 2021 to 2022 to now, I'm pretty sure we'd all agree those groupings have greatly improved, even if it hasn't helped us win more consistently or more often. To me, it's not a bad plan to build up roster depth and farm potential, at the same time, perhaps in preparation for a FA spending splurge when the reset tax cycle turns in our favor. That could be 2024, but we've been known to stay under the tax line for 2 and even 3 straight years, before.

 

The upcoming top prospects and recent grads seem to be times, just right, for 2024 or 2025. Whether we "splurge" or not remains to be seen. I was thinking (hoping) that time might be this winter, even with a reset, but it looks like we stayed in the "spread the wealth" mode on FA signings.

 

 

 

I think that the term budget in this case is extremely relative. If your concepts of budget and plan are accurate, what does that say about every piece of information that has been published by the front office? Once again my opinion is that allowing potentially HOF talent to leave because of the "budget" when talking about a franchise this valuable is pathetic.

[Bellhorn04]

I think that the term budget in this case is extremely relative. If your concepts of budget and plan are accurate, what does that say about every piece of information that has been published by the front office? Once again my opinion is that allowing potentially HOF talent to leave because of the "budget" when talking about a franchise this valuable is pathetic.

 

Letting players like Betts and Bogaerts go isn't so much because of the budget, it's because of the risk of getting stuck with albatross contracts.

[cp176]

Letting players like Betts and Bogaerts go isn't so much because of the budget, it's because of the risk of getting stuck with albatross contracts.

 

Once again, i'm not buying in to the Red Sox budget concepts so much but for those that do, I think the long term contracts can be terribly restrictive on budget flexibility. Although, if you plan to run with the big boys sometimes you have to act like them. The Sox are one of the big boys.

[Jasonbay44]

There is one indisputable good reason not to pay luxury tax every year, though - some of the penalties are losses of draft picks and international pool money, so it's not just costing money but prospects.

 

Sure. However, Sox went over the luxury tax without even paying Betts or Xander and instead paid a worse player in Trevor Story a decent sum of money. Then they followed this up by having a s***** season and not selling at the deadline.

 

Additionally, If they wanted to avoid losing picks, why not sell players like Nate, JD, and even Xander If you know you aren’t re-signing them? Even if the return isn’t great, it’s better than getting nothing for a player you plan on losing anyway.

 

The trade deadline was frustrating and sent mixed signals, and this off season has been more of the same. The Red Sox are currently projected the 16th highest pay roll and an extension to Devers seems less and less likely.

 

Following this all up with Bloom and Henry making stupid comments about “doing everything they can” to keep Xander ans “building a championship contender” is also all ******** and is extremely annoying to hear as a fan as well

[moonslav59]

I think that the term budget in this case is extremely relative. If your concepts of budget and plan are accurate, what does that say about every piece of information that has been published by the front office? Once again my opinion is that allowing potentially HOF talent to leave because of the "budget" when talking about a franchise this valuable is pathetic.

 

Of course it is. Had Judge taken the bigger deal in SF, Yankee fans would be saying the same thing.

 

Like it or not, money is the reason Betts and Bogey are gone and Devers might be right behind them.

 

Greed is a powerful thing.

[Jasonbay44]

Of course it is. Had Judge taken the bigger deal in SF, Yankee fans would be saying the same thing.

 

Like it or not, money is the reason Betts and Bogey are gone and Devers might be right behind them.

 

Greed is a powerful thing.

Is it really greed if you are elite and what you do and want to get paid like it?

[Bellhorn04]

Is it really greed if you are elite and what you do and want to get paid like it?

 

As we've discussed before, it seems to become a matter of ego more than anything. Plus the Players Association encourages players to get as much money as possible.

[moonslav59]

Is it really greed if you are elite and what you do and want to get paid like it?

 

I meant greed by the owners.

 

JH values making more money over paying out what it takes.

[Jasonbay44]

I meant greed by the owners.

 

JH values making more money over paying out what it takes.

 

My bad, I thought you were implying the players were the greedy ones.