Devers next deal

[moonslav59]

It's not the amount of money Henry is spending that's the problem, it's the amount of money he's not spending. He (and Bloom) are consistently underestimating the market and whistling while owners who want to win and/or draw fans are setting the market.

 

Here's the question that goes unanswered: If the Dodgers, Yankees, and even the Padres can spend the money necessary to sign these players why can't the Boston Red Sox? Fenway is a big draw and they have a big NESN contract (which in itself feeds Henry). It's not a matter of their not being able to - the issue is that they refuse to. That's why they get stuck with 2nd tier players in their OF and looking for a SS at Christmas and their fans are becoming resigned to losing an AS 3rd baseman.

 

Again, I think JH can and should spend more, but it's a futile argument. I'm not defending his budget limitations by merely pointing out he has b een spending more than all but maybe 6-8 owners from 2020 to 2022.

 

Obviously, they have chosen not to overpay for the highest ticket items, and I'm not so sure that's a bad strategy, if you look at the results of past high ticket signings, especially by the Sox.

 

To me, the problem is he's losing out on the best second tier signings, too.

 

I like the strategy of building up the farm as the top priority. I bought into their stated goal that we would "stay competitive" along the way, and so far, we are 1 for 3 on that front, but they have not wavered on farm building or succumbed to the temptation to trade away top prospects for the here and now. I may be in the vast minority on liking that strategy, but I'm scratching my head on even their moderate here and now moves.

 

My biggest beef, this winter, is not the actual guys they added, I like all of the top 4 they added (Yoshida, Jansen, Turner & Martin,) but to me only 2 filled our most pressing needs (the two pen arms.) Yes, we needed offense, in in one sense Yoshida and Turner maye do better than Bogey & JD combined in 2023, but we need a SS, a RF'er not named Verdugo and a SP. We could have filled the offense need and a positional need, at the same time with one guy, but we chose DH/LF and DH/3B/1B to sign, To me, those were near last on my list of high need areas.

[Bellhorn04]

It's certainly a head-scratcher they haven't added a starting pitcher yet.

[notin]

It's certainly a head-scratcher they haven't added a starting pitcher yet.

 

So far it seems like the buzz is the QO has killed Eovaldi’s appeal (likely combined with his dip in velocity) and he will end up back in Boston…

[mvp 78]

So far it seems like the buzz is the QO has killed Eovaldi’s appeal (likely combined with his dip in velocity) and he will end up back in Boston…

 

The velo was close to his 2018 and 2020 seasons. I think the QO sealed the deal for him. Why lose some picks on a guy who struggles to stay healthy? I wouldn't be jumping at signing him if I was another team. He probably should have just accepted the QO.

[moonslav59]

Someone will sign Nate, and I hope it's not the Sox, so we can get that measly comp pick, but if his price drops so low, due to the QO that he becomes a bargain, they why not?

 

I'd still rather have Kluber or trade for a salary dump like AGarcia and get a Luzardo and maybe Rojas or Berti thrown in.

 

Getting Kluber and Nate plus someone like Andrus might even get me a bit excited about our staff and its depth.

[Hugh2]

Should the Sox resign Devers at any cost? Should they offer 350/10? And walk away if he wants more?

 

At this point, you either pay Devers price, or you're banking he gets less on the open market. That strategy failed miserably this year.

 

Teams that missed out big this offseason, and have money, will be competing for Devers next year. SF/LA and I'm sure others will push Devers contract much higher than we think.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Should the Sox resign Devers at any cost? Should they offer 350/10? And walk away if he wants more?

 

At this point, you either pay Devers price, or you're banking he gets less on the open market. That strategy failed miserably this year.

 

Teams that missed out big this offseason, and have money, will be competing for Devers next year. SF/LA and I'm sure others will push Devers contract much higher than we think.

 

... and offer a lot less in trade, in the meantime.

[mvp 78]

Someone will sign Nate, and I hope it's not the Sox, so we can get that measly comp pick, but if his price drops so low, due to the QO that he becomes a bargain, they why not?

 

I'd still rather have Kluber or trade for a salary dump like AGarcia and get a Luzardo and maybe Rojas or Berti thrown in.

 

Getting Kluber and Nate plus someone like Andrus might even get me a bit excited about our staff and its depth.

 

Eovaldi at 10M? I'm ok with it.

[notin]

... and offer a lot less in trade, in the meantime.

 

That price goes down in July, when Devers becomes ineligible for a QO if he can’t be extended…

[mvp 78]

That price goes down in July, when Devers becomes ineligible for a QO if he can’t be extended…

 

I think that price goes down once the season starts.

 

if and only if:

 

1. That player has never received a qualifying offer previously in his career.

2. That player spent the entire season on that team's roster (in-season acquisitions are ineligible).

[moonslav59]

Should the Sox resign Devers at any cost? Should they offer 350/10? And walk away if he wants more?

 

At this point, you either pay Devers price, or you're banking he gets less on the open market. That strategy failed miserably this year.

 

Teams that missed out big this offseason, and have money, will be competing for Devers next year. SF/LA and I'm sure others will push Devers contract much higher than we think.

 

If we offer $350M/10 or $375M/12 and he walks away, we'll still never hear the end of "we could have gotten him for cheaper had we offered it a year or ___ ago." Not that this point does not have merit, but if we offer him something like that and he walks, I'm not sure what more could be done?

 

$400M/13 or 14? (Would MLB disallow a contract that long?)

[moonslav59]

Eovaldi at 10M? I'm ok with it.

 

"LOWBALL! LOWBALL!"

 

If he settles for that little, it would remind me of the VTek situation on his last contract.

 

Nate shoulds taken the QO.

[Bellhorn04]

If we offer $350M/10 or $375M/12 and he walks away, we'll still never hear the end of "we could have gotten him for cheaper had we offered it a year or ___ ago." Not that this point does not have merit, but if we offer him something like that and he walks, I'm not sure what more could be done?

 

$400M/13 or 14? (Would MLB disallow a contract that long?)

 

They've allowed 13/14 year contracts to Stanton, Harper, Tatis Jr.

[moonslav59]

They've allowed 13/14 year contracts to Stanton, Harper, Tatis Jr.

 

I guess it comes down to the age.

[mvp 78]

"LOWBALL! LOWBALL!"

 

If he settles for that little, it would remind me of the VTek situation on his last contract.

 

Nate shoulds taken the QO.

 

It would be more like the Stephen Drew QO fiasco.

[notin]

I guess it comes down to the age.

 

I think so. The idea of paying Judge through age 44 probably felt different than paying Bogaets and Turner through age 41…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think so. The idea of paying Judge through age 44 probably felt different than paying Bogaets and Turner through age 41…

 

Mookie will still be bowling 300 games. All Judge will be doing is wearing a bowler hat.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If Bloom is really Bloom, here's how he can trade Devers and save his job:

 

... approach the true big money markets -- which are really now just owners with big money pockets... afire -- and tell it like it is: Any club willing to deal for Raffy -- because they will do so with every intention of signing him to a longterm contract and keeping him away from free agency -- should offer a trade package of what it would be worth for a World Series title.

 

Because Rafael Devers is a difference-maker, and is good enough to tip the scales for the Mets or Phillies in the East, or the Dodgers or Padres in the West, or even get the Giants back in the conversation.

 

You want his prime? Make us an offer for more than one year of control... it doesn't have to be for the next dozen years that you'll gladly pay him for... just for control of the next half decade of rings and banners. Best package wins. Over and over.

[harmony]

If Bloom is really Bloom, here's how he can trade Devers and save his job:

 

... approach the true big money markets -- which are really now just owners with big money pockets... afire -- and tell it like it is: Any club willing to deal for Raffy -- because they will do so with every intention of signing him to a longterm contract and keeping him away from free agency -- should offer a trade package of what it would be worth for a World Series title.

 

Because Rafael Devers is a difference-maker, and is good enough to tip the scales for the Mets or Phillies in the East, or the Dodgers or Padres in the West, or even get the Giants back in the conversation.

 

You want his prime? Make us an offer for more than one year of control... it doesn't have to be for the next dozen years that you'll gladly pay him for... just for control of the next half decade of rings and banners. Best package wins. Over and over.

Isn't that precisely what the Red Sox did with Mookie Betts?

[notin]

Isn't that precisely what the Red Sox did with Mookie Betts?

 

This time there will be no “Buy Betts get Price half off” promotion…

[harmony]

This time there will be no “Buy Betts get Price half off” promotion…

David Price was a 34-year-old lefthander with three years and $96 million remaining on his contract when the Red Sox traded Price, Mookie Betts and cash to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

 

Chris Sale, a lefthander who turns 34 in March, has two years and $55 million remaining on his contract.

 

A package of Rafael Devers and Sale would not be out of the question.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Isn't that precisely what the Red Sox did with Mookie Betts?

 

Not even close to my suggestion... but definitely the inspiration for it.

 

All we ever heard about was that the Dodgers' paltry package was for one year of Mookie, when in reality they were intent on building championships around him for only the next dozen years.

 

No more joking around. Now they'll have to pay up for Devers, or they know the Padres or Giants or Mets or Phils will get him for the next dozen years.

[moonslav59]

David Price was a 34-year-old lefthander with three years and $96 million remaining on his contract when the Red Sox traded Price, Mookie Betts and cash to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

 

Chris Sale, a lefthander who turns 34 in March, has two years and $55 million remaining on his contract.

 

A package of Rafael Devers and Sale would not be out of the question.

 

Certainly, a possibility.

 

Giving a team a window for the rights to negotiate an extension could up the return, as well.

[Hugh2]

In the end we are just repackaging the concept of trading him to the highest bidder. Which is not a new concept and I’m sure the Sox will do regardless.

 

Teams know what they’re trading for, you can’t eliminate the fact that he ONLY has 1 year of team control. You’re on going to give up so much talent for one year of a guy. If you want a higher return, then we should have traded him this past deadline or even last year.

[Hugh2]

Think of it this way, why would you have traded for Devers this off-season and give away your version of Marcelo Mayer when you could have just signed Bogaerts or Correa? They just cost money, and you’re trading for a guy who you’re about to pay a boatload of money too.

 

There’s a reason Betts got you Downs. If he had multiple years of control you probably would have got 2-3 Jeter Downs, and in a perfect world all three of them are not busting.

[moonslav59]

In the end we are just repackaging the concept of trading him to the highest bidder. Which is not a new concept and I’m sure the Sox will do regardless.

 

Teams know what they’re trading for, you can’t eliminate the fact that he ONLY has 1 year of team control. You’re on going to give up so much talent for one year of a guy. If you want a higher return, then we should have traded him this past deadline or even last year.

 

It doesn't seem like the return packages are what they used to be years ago for a year of a guy like Devers or even 2 months, but we should get something significant.

 

I hope we signing him, but if we don't, he needs to be traded before opening day. Who knows what the highest bidder offers, but it should help that a few teams should be heavy into getting him. If a team like the Giants don't have the right return package, maybe a 3rd team gets involved.

[Bellhorn04]

Certainly, a possibility.

 

Giving a team a window for the rights to negotiate an extension could up the return, as well.

 

Under what circumstances can an acquiring team be given a window like that?

[harmony]

It doesn't seem like the return packages are what they used to be years ago for a year of a guy like Devers or even 2 months, but we should get something significant.

 

I hope we signing him, but if we don't, he needs to be traded before opening day. Who knows what the highest bidder offers, but it should help that a few teams should be heavy into getting him. If a team like the Giants don't have the right return package, maybe a 3rd team gets involved.

FWIW when the Red Sox traded Mookie Betts with one year of team control remaining, Betts had posted 36.9 fWAR and 42.2 bWAR in 794 games with the Sox.

 

Rafael Devers, who has one year of team control remaining, has posted 18.1 fWAR and 15.2 bWAR in 689 games with the Red Sox.

 

Betts was a four-time All Star and the 2018 AL MVP while Devers is a two-time All Star who has never finished in the top 10 in MVP voting.

 

Since entering MLB in 2014 Devers ranks ninth among qualified third basemen with 18.1 fWAR in 689 games (sandwiched between Kris Bryant with 18.2 WAR in 620 games and Eugenio Suarez with 17.5 fWAR in 810 games):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=3b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2022&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2017-01-01&enddate=2022-12-31

 

Newly acquired Justin Turner posted 22.2 fWAR in the same number (689) of games over that period.

 

Working in Devers' favor is his relative youth at 26 years of age.

Edited December 22, 2022 by harmony

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

First, forget about attaching Sale to any Devers trade this winter. Bloom has at least learned his lesson (though dumping half-price Price at the cost of Mookie will maybe be underrated in his legacy).

 

Second, because there's no albatross contract attached, a really good return -- at least a freaking upgrade from Doogie, Downs and Wong -- will be based on finding and/or pitting two rivals in a bidding war.

 

Because the winner of the Raffy sweepstakes will have the edge going forward... no matter what past statistics say. Even old guys with our failing eye tests know this one.

[notin]

Under what circumstances can an acquiring team be given a window like that?

 

It’s been known to happen. It can be part of the trade…