Devers next deal

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

It's the truth. Devers has youth on his side, but in terms of actual productivity, Betts has virtually doubled him.

[Bellhorn04]

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

 

But it has to be approved by the league, right?

[moonslav59]

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.

 

... and no half-Price attached.

[notin]

But it has to be approved by the league, right?

 

I suppose, but it’s been done bridge so there are precedents. I don’t know of teams still do that.

 

I just assume not. If you deal him, get what you can. Don’t dilute the trade with another salary dump. And let his new team figure out out.

 

If that new team is San Fran, they’ve already shown the willingness to spend $400mill and $350mill on other players, and kept all their cash. They will get a deal done, just to save face…

[Bobe2]

Washington Nationals claim Jeter Downs off wire

[redsoxrules]

It's the truth. Devers has youth on his side, but in terms of actual productivity, Betts has virtually doubled him.

 

I mentioned this before which is why I don't think they resign him.

 

If the Sox were to pony up a 350 Mil contract Betts is the guy they needed to give it too and they didn't.

 

I just can't see a deal happening.

[moonslav59]

I mentioned this before which is why I don't think they resign him.

 

If the Sox were to pony up a 350 Mil contract Betts is the guy they needed to give it too and they didn't.

 

I just can't see a deal happening.

 

With inflation $350M is less than what Betts got and is pretty close to what we offered Betts.

 

I'm not that optimistic we extend Devers, but I still think we have a real shot at it.

[Hugh2]

With inflation $350M is less than what Betts got and is pretty close to what we offered Betts.

 

I'm not that optimistic we extend Devers, but I still think we have a real shot at it.

 

This also reeks of the David Price situation. I was the only person in the world who thought the Sox were going to make a serious run at him in 2015/2016 and was criticized for it, people used the Jon Lester situation as precedent and my argument was with these Sox the past is not a predictor of the future. Maybe Devers isn't the guy, but if you think the Sox won't eventually pivot and give out a top dollar contract at some point then you're living in the now, clouded by your emotions.

 

I think what Warren Buffett used to say about investing "be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy". The fact that NO ONE THINKS this can happen right now is what leads me to predict it will. Lets see if I eat crow.

[oldtimer]

With inflation $350M is less than what Betts got and is pretty close to what we offered Betts.

 

I'm not that optimistic we extend Devers, but I still think we have a real shot at it.

 

I am not at all optimistic we can resign Devers, so see us making a trade this winter with him as the centerpiece. If that were to happen it would definitely mean the 2023 club would be an also ran in the league. To me it seems time to reset and look to 2024. Maybe we should package Devers with Sale and start fresh to build a competitive team. The Sox have looked rudderless for 3 years running so is it time to replace the whole front office?

[moonslav59]

I am not at all optimistic we can resign Devers, so see us making a trade this winter with him as the centerpiece. If that were to happen it would definitely mean the 2023 club would be an also ran in the league. To me it seems time to reset and look to 2024. Maybe we should package Devers with Sale and start fresh to build a competitive team. The Sox have looked rudderless for 3 years running so is it time to replace the whole front office?

 

While it is true, we don't get better bringing Devers back, we do get a lot worse, losing him.

 

We can resign him, if JH wants to do so. I don't think his new contract would cripple the budget for years to come.

 

THe Sox may appear "rudderless," but the budget has been trimmed of larger contracts through attrition and should be in great shape, once Sale's contract ends in 2024. If we reset, this year, like it looks like we can, even if we extend Devers starting now or in '24, the cycle of spending more in 2024 and 2025 looks set up, nicely.

 

The build-up of the farm has not been rudderless. The FO has shown amazing discipline by not trading any prospect ranked higher than Aldo Ramirez, who topped out at #8. That's a major shift from the first 3 years of DD's era. Not only have we avoided trading top prospects, we've actively added over a dozen prospects under Bloom. Granted none, except Whitlock (not by trade) have shown signs of greatness, but some may end up taking over some sort of role on the big team (Wink, Wong, German, EValdez, Abreu, Ferguson, Rosier, de la Rosa) and Kelly (not by trade.)

 

The build up of the bottom of the 40 man roster has been steady and IMO, is complete. It hasn't really translated into consistent winning, but having a strong farm, which we just recently reached, and strong roster depth is part of the foundation of consistent winning. Now, the hard part: adding quality at the top of the roster while playing the 3 year reset game and trying to pay our homegrown stars what this insane new market demands.

 

I think their plan is pretty clear, but it is for the long term.

[oldtimer]

While it is true, we don't get better bringing Devers back, we do get a lot worse, losing him.

 

We can resign him, if JH wants to do so. I don't think his new contract would cripple the budget for years to come.

 

THe Sox may appear "rudderless," but the budget has been trimmed of larger contracts through attrition and should be in great shape, once Sale's contract ends in 2024. If we reset, this year, like it looks like we can, even if we extend Devers starting now or in '24, the cycle of spending more in 2024 and 2025 looks set up, nicely.

 

The build-up of the farm has not been rudderless. The FO has shown amazing discipline by not trading any prospect ranked higher than Aldo Ramirez, who topped out at #8. That's a major shift from the first 3 years of DD's era. Not only have we avoided trading top prospects, we've actively added over a dozen prospects under Bloom. Granted none, except Whitlock (not by trade) have shown signs of greatness, but some may end up taking over some sort of role on the big team (Wink, Wong, German, EValdez, Abreu, Ferguson, Rosier, de la Rosa) and Kelly (not by trade.)

 

The build up of the bottom of the 40 man roster has been steady and IMO, is complete. It hasn't really translated into consistent winning, but having a strong farm, which we just recently reached, and strong roster depth is part of the foundation of consistent winning. Now, the hard part: adding quality at the top of the roster while playing the 3 year reset game and trying to pay our homegrown stars what this insane new market demands.

 

I think their plan is pretty clear, but it is for the long term.

If it does look like we are developing young potential star players, I am all for signing them to lucrative contracts with periods to take them just past their prime and then consider trading them at or near peak value. In the end the risk is we might overpay somewhat for good but not great players instead of the risk of greatly overpaying for players in decline. The best strategy remains to be seen but the Astros appear to be a great model to copy.

[moonslav59]

If it does look like we are developing young potential star players, I am all for signing them to lucrative contracts with periods to take them just past their prime and then consider trading them at or near peak value. In the end the risk is we might overpay somewhat for good but not great players instead of the risk of greatly overpaying for players in decline. The best strategy remains to be seen but the Astros appear to be a great model to copy.

 

Let's assume the Astros are the model we are trying to get to. Remember, they tanked for several years to jump start their farm build up. Can we really expect we can do that as quickly and thoroughly as they did? Yes, they traded for Yordan Alvarez, while we traded for Winckowski, but it took them time, and they did not deviate from the plan of not trading farm pieces for immediate help all along.

 

Note, they did not trade Correa or Springer or Verlander or many other key pieces, who left via free agency. Nobody in Houston is bitching a bout them not trading those stars to get something instead of nothing. Winning shuts up almost all critics.

 

To me, Boston fans don't have the patience to wait that long, and I'm not blaming them, but the reality is, we would not have accepted a total tear down and restart that may have included 2-3 total tank years. We tried to win while rebuilding, and that is not an easy thing to do, when yo are starting with a farm that produced just Houck in 5 years and an owner than aimed to cut the budget massively in 2020 and then add winter spending money sparingly or to levels that essentially just replaced departing salaries.

 

Had we had a decent farm in 2019-2020, our chances of winning in 2021 and 2022 would have greatly increased. When you don't lose badly, you don't get top draft picks or IFA bonus pools. The poor finish in 2020 demonstrates just how much losing can boost the farm (Mayer draft pick and Bleis IFA addition).

[Bellhorn04]

The poor finish in 2020 demonstrates just how much losing can boost the farm (Mayer draft pick and Bleis IFA addition).

 

What does your finish have to do with IFA additions? (I don't know the rules.)

[moonslav59]

What does your finish have to do with IFA additions? (I don't know the rules.)

 

I could be wrong, but I think your bonus pool is larger for lower ranked teams. If not, at least it's not depleted by penalties of going over the tax line or signing QO FAs.

 

(I don't know the rules, either.)

[oldtimer]

Let's assume the Astros are the model we are trying to get to. Remember, they tanked for several years to jump start their farm build up. Can we really expect we can do that as quickly and thoroughly as they did? Yes, they traded for Yordan Alvarez, while we traded for Winckowski, but it took them time, and they did not deviate from the plan of not trading farm pieces for immediate help all along.

 

Note, they did not trade Correa or Springer or Verlander or many other key pieces, who left via free agency. Nobody in Houston is bitching a bout them not trading those stars to get something instead of nothing. Winning shuts up almost all critics.

 

To me, Boston fans don't have the patience to wait that long, and I'm not blaming them, but the reality is, we would not have accepted a total tear down and restart that may have included 2-3 total tank years. We tried to win while rebuilding, and that is not an easy thing to do, when yo are starting with a farm that produced just Houck in 5 years and an owner than aimed to cut the budget massively in 2020 and then add winter spending money sparingly or to levels that essentially just replaced departing salaries.

 

Had we had a decent farm in 2019-2020, our chances of winning in 2021 and 2022 would have greatly increased. When you don't lose badly, you don't get top draft picks or IFA bonus pools. The poor finish in 2020 demonstrates just how much losing can boost the farm (Mayer draft pick and Bleis IFA addition).

 

I think the fan base is quite knowledgeable if this web site is any indicate. What troubles me about Bloom is that some of the moves didn't make sense. Like not resetting in 2022 and god forbid, trading to get JBJ back. Everyone deserves to be forgiven for some mistakes but it is the highly questionable decisions that make one wonder. Yes, Bloom has made good moves as well, but some were so questionable that it makes me ask why.

[moonslav59]

I think the fan base is quite knowledgeable if this web site is any indicate. What troubles me about Bloom is that some of the moves didn't make sense. Like not resetting in 2022 and god forbid, trading to get JBJ back. Everyone deserves to be forgiven for some mistakes but it is the highly questionable decisions that make one wonder. Yes, Bloom has made good moves as well, but some were so questionable that it makes me ask why. [/size][/b]

 

I totally agree on the non resetting thing, and I think that might have been from pressure to not upset the fans by trading JD at the deadline- part of the whole "need to stay competitive" thing that clashes with the long term goal of building up the farm and setting up the budget to maximize the timing aspect of the overall improvement of the team.

 

To me, the JBJ trade was the one deal that was horrific from day one, and for several reasons- one being the budget. (We'd have reset had we just traded Renfroe for prospects, alone.) The Betts trade was forced upon him, and reports show no significantly better trades were available. The Beni trade can be viewed as a loss, but it wasn't a big difference maker.

 

3 years: 1 really bad trade and maybe a couple others that were minor mistakes. That's not all that bad.

 

His FA signings, IMO, should be viewed within this context:

 

2020: $40M to spend (not even enough to replace Betts, 1/2 Price and Porcello's departing deals) and 12+ roster slots to fill.

 

2021: $40M to spend on 8-9 slots.

 

2022: $60M to spend on 7-8 slots.

 

Realistically, what can be expected from FAs at those numbers?

 

Granted, I expected better at "finding gems in the rough," but Bloom has "found" Whitlock, Schreiber, Pivetta, Refsnyder, Arroyo, Kelly, McGuire and maybe a few other surprises to come, but overall not what I hoped for.

 

FA: Story is still TBD. Good ones: Wacha, Strahm, Hill, Renfroe, Kike. Not so good: Richards, Perez I, Perez II, Paxton and a bunch at around $3M like Marwin & Andriese.

 

To me, when you look at the totality of Blooms moves, including the farm, he's been a net plus, but what's dragged us down were the budget constraints, bad inherited contracts, and the decline of so many vets, including some nearing or in their primes. Injuries really hurt our chances in 2022, but we were fortunate in 2021, injurywise.

 

As I have said, before, this winter would be Bloom's flashpoint, and so far, it's been underwhelming, to say the least. Let's see how he finishes the winter and how the team does in 2023, but I'm not thrilled about our chances in 2023 as I am about the beyond.

[S5Dewey]

As much as we like to whine about the JBJ trade it's not the reason the Sox finished last in two of the past three years - but it's a symptom of it.

 

I don't have contacts in the Red Sox board room so I don't know why Bloom was hired. Maybe he was hired to be the fall guy while the team rebuilt - but I doubt that. I'd sooner think that he was hired because the Rays were good at occasionally finding lightning in a bottle and JH thought Bloom could make a career of doing that. However, Bloom's luck ran out when he arrived in Boston.

 

The fact is that Boston fans aren't willing to see their team be the laughing stock of baseball while paying near-the-top for ticket prices and the NESN packages - and they shouldn't be!

 

One does have to admire the success of the marketing strategy which allows them to put a sub-standard team on the field, charge high prices, and still get the fannies in the seats though. Who would have thought that would work??

[notin]

I totally agree on the non resetting thing, and I think that might have been from pressure to not upset the fans by trading JD at the deadline- part of the whole "need to stay competitive" thing that clashes with the long term goal of building up the farm and setting up the budget to maximize the timing aspect of the overall improvement of the team.

 

To me, the JBJ trade was the one deal that was horrific from day one, and for several reasons- one being the budget. (We'd have reset had we just traded Renfroe for prospects, alone.) The Betts trade was forced upon him, and reports show no significantly better trades were available. The Beni trade can be viewed as a loss, but it wasn't a big difference maker.

 

3 years: 1 really bad trade and maybe a couple others that were minor mistakes. That's not all that bad.

 

His FA signings, IMO, should be viewed within this context:

 

2020: $40M to spend (not even enough to replace Betts, 1/2 Price and Porcello's departing deals) and 12+ roster slots to fill.

 

2021: $40M to spend on 8-9 slots.

 

2022: $60M to spend on 7-8 slots.

 

Realistically, what can be expected from FAs at those numbers?

 

Granted, I expected better at "finding gems in the rough," but Bloom has "found" Whitlock, Schreiber, Pivetta, Refsnyder, Arroyo, Kelly, McGuire and maybe a few other surprises to come, but overall not what I hoped for.

 

FA: Story is still TBD. Good ones: Wacha, Strahm, Hill, Renfroe, Kike. Not so good: Richards, Perez I, Perez II, Paxton and a bunch at around $3M like Marwin & Andriese.

 

To me, when you look at the totality of Blooms moves, including the farm, he's been a net plus, but what's dragged us down were the budget constraints, bad inherited contracts, and the decline of so many vets, including some nearing or in their primes. Injuries really hurt our chances in 2022, but we were fortunate in 2021, injurywise.

 

As I have said, before, this winter would be Bloom's flashpoint, and so far, it's been underwhelming, to say the least. Let's see how he finishes the winter and how the team does in 2023, but I'm not thrilled about our chances in 2023 as I am about the beyond.

 

Yes you may have voiced displeasure with the JBJ trade at some point in the past. The Sox won 78 games. How many do they win with Renfroe over Bradley?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes you may have voiced displeasure with the JBJ trade at some point in the past. The Sox won 78 games. How many do they win with Renfroe over Bradley?

 

They probably win 3 more games, according to WAR, but they also stay under the tax threshold.

[notin]

They probably win 3 more games, according to WAR, but they also stay under the tax threshold.

 

Both admirable goals.

[moonslav59]

As much as we like to whine about the JBJ trade it's not the reason the Sox finished last in two of the past three years - but it's a symptom of it.

 

I don't have contacts in the Red Sox board room so I don't know why Bloom was hired. Maybe he was hired to be the fall guy while the team rebuilt - but I doubt that. I'd sooner think that he was hired because the Rays were good at occasionally finding lightning in a bottle and JH thought Bloom could make a career of doing that. However, Bloom's luck ran out when he arrived in Boston.

 

The fact is that Boston fans aren't willing to see their team be the laughing stock of baseball while paying near-the-top for ticket prices and the NESN packages - and they shouldn't be!

 

One does have to admire the success of the marketing strategy which allows them to put a sub-standard team on the field, charge high prices, and still get the fannies in the seats though. Who would have thought that would work??

 

No GM gets us very much farther under the circumstances of the last 3 years:

 

1. Houck as the only prospect of note in 5 years.

2. A m assive budget cut year one, followed by a trickle of winter spending money.

3. Injuries and declining production from returning vets.

 

Mistakes were certainly made by Bloom and the blame game can extend beyond him, but some context is needed, IMO.

 

Signing high-priced players is a big risk. Signing tier 2 and 3 FAs is not something many GMs do very well.

[moonslav59]

Yes you may have voiced displeasure with the JBJ trade at some point in the past. The Sox won 78 games. How many do they win with Renfroe over Bradley?

 

Certainly, not enough, and if that is really the only very bad deal Bloom made, maybe that is the point.

 

What do people expect from $3M/1 free agents? Or even $10M/1'ers?

[moonslav59]

They probably win 3 more games, according to WAR, but they also stay under the tax threshold.

 

That was my point, and why I said had we traded Renfroe for prospects.

 

While we often talk about only the tax line and AAV, that $8M JBJ buyout paid, this winter might be one reason why JH is not ev en spending up to the tax line.

[Bellhorn04]

That was my point, and why I said had we traded Renfroe for prospects.

 

While we often talk about only the tax line and AAV, that $8M JBJ buyout paid, this winter might be one reason why JH is not ev en spending up to the tax line.

 

It would be pitiful if that's the case.

[moonslav59]

It would be pitiful if that's the case.

 

I would think $8M matters to all but maybe 5-6 owners in MLB. I'm sure it's pitiful to think a GM might decide to spend $2-4M less because of the $8M check to JBJ, this winter.

 

I agree JH could and should spend more, but I think that about every filthy rich company owner squeezing what he can out of his workers at the least amount of expense possible.

[Bellhorn04]

I would think $8M matters to all but maybe 5-6 owners in MLB. I'm sure it's pitiful to think a GM might decide to spend $2-4M less because of the $8M check to JBJ, this winter.

 

I agree JH could and should spend more, but I think that about every filthy rich company owner squeezing what he can out of his workers at the least amount of expense possible.

 

We paid JBJ 17.5 million for one season, that's how it worked out. In the big picture that's not much money for a team like the Red Sox.

[moonslav59]

We paid JBJ 17.5 million for one season, that's how it worked out. In the big picture that's not much money for a team like the Red Sox.

 

It was for the tax line.

 

It was when you figure the winter spending budget was $60-70M.

 

If we keep thinking in terms of what JH could have spent, yes, you are right, but it's not the way it was or apparently still is.

[oldtimer]

I totally agree on the non resetting thing, and I think that might have been from pressure to not upset the fans by trading JD at the deadline- part of the whole "need to stay competitive" thing that clashes with the long term goal of building up the farm and setting up the budget to maximize the timing aspect of the overall improvement of the team.

 

To me, the JBJ trade was the one deal that was horrific from day one, and for several reasons- one being the budget. (We'd have reset had we just traded Renfroe for prospects, alone.) The Betts trade was forced upon him, and reports show no significantly better trades were available. The Beni trade can be viewed as a loss, but it wasn't a big difference maker.

 

3 years: 1 really bad trade and maybe a couple others that were minor mistakes. That's not all that bad.

 

His FA signings, IMO, should be viewed within this context:

 

2020: $40M to spend (not even enough to replace Betts, 1/2 Price and Porcello's departing deals) and 12+ roster slots to fill.

 

2021: $40M to spend on 8-9 slots.

 

2022: $60M to spend on 7-8 slots.

 

Realistically, what can be expected from FAs at those numbers?

 

Granted, I expected better at "finding gems in the rough," but Bloom has "found" Whitlock, Schreiber, Pivetta, Refsnyder, Arroyo, Kelly, McGuire and maybe a few other surprises to come, but overall not what I hoped for.

 

FA: Story is still TBD. Good ones: Wacha, Strahm, Hill, Renfroe, Kike. Not so good: Richards, Perez I, Perez II, Paxton and a bunch at around $3M like Marwin & Andriese.

 

To me, when you look at the totality of Blooms moves, including the farm, he's been a net plus, but what's dragged us down were the budget constraints, bad inherited contracts, and the decline of so many vets, including some nearing or in their primes. Injuries really hurt our chances in 2022, but we were fortunate in 2021, injurywise.

ale

As I have said, before, this winter would be Bloom's flashpoint, and so far, it's been underwhelming, to say the least. Let's see how he finishes the winter and how the team does in 2023, but I'm not thrilled about our chances in 2023 as I am about the beyond.

 

Since I don't see the Sox as fully competitive in 2023, it is probably best to reset now. Sale may elicit some interest from teams wanting a starting pitcher capable of making a difference in 2023. If they are and willing to accept his contract while giving us a solid prospect and/or doing a salary dump for a major league level player of their own, I would consider it. Longer term we need to be able to offer Devers what he's worth and a Sale deal may help. If Bloom could pull that off, it would be a positive sign he is staying on plan.

[harmony]

A Minnesota vulture is circling the Rafael Devers prey:

 

A Potential Trade for Rafael Devers - Minnesota Twins Free Agents & Trade Rumors - Twins Daily

TWINSDAILY.COM

---

While reading “3 Third Baseman Trades that Could Provide the Twins a Productive Bat” posted by Nate Palmer, I got a very interesting idea. The first trade he proposed is one for Rafael Devers, which got me thinking… The Minnesota Twins are in a unique place where depth isn’t quite a concern anymo...

[moonslav59]

Since I don't see the Sox as fully competitive in 2023, it is probably best to reset now. Sale may elicit some interest from teams wanting a starting pitcher capable of making a difference in 2023. If they are and willing to accept his contract while giving us a solid prospect and/or doing a salary dump for a major league level player of their own, I would consider it. Longer term we need to be able to offer Devers what he's worth and a Sale deal may help. If Bloom could pull that off, it would be a positive sign he is staying on plan.

 

If Sale has a great first half of 2023, a deadline deal might become worth while. I would not trade him, now.