Article: A Plea For The Red Sox To Sign Juan Soto

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

Yeah, I mostly say this in jest, like…it’s funny to me.  But honestly, I’m not 100% convinced either.  People who are fired/let go if they have honor, or professionalism just won’t discuss certain things.  Not saying I do believe it, but I guess what I’m really trying to say is I don’t care.  
 

it’s been 5 years, I’m moving on with my life.  I’m ready to love again.

That's great, but we have 4+ months to fill with our jabbering before games start again. 😄

[Old Red]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

He explained in great detail the reasons Mookie was not extended and why he was traded.  No one could read that and deduce that the trade was something Bloom did on his own. 

We know why Mookie was traded, because they couldn’t agree to a contract whatever that was, and I’m sure JH was in on the trade discussions with DD, and Bloom, but I’m not there that JH directed the trade to be done. NO One said anything, or referred that Bloom would have done on his own.

[moonslav59]

31 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Rays have extended SOME players in the past (Wander, Longoria). They don't tend to sign FA's like Gio, Story, etc. The Red Sox are certainly not following any TBR trajectory. They are midmarket, not small market. 

Yes. I have never called the Sox "Tampa Bay North." I just said that the Bloom hiring and quick trade of Mookie was likely a big factor in the term being used by others.

[Bellhorn04]

18 minutes ago, Old Red said:

We know why Mookie was traded, because they couldn’t agree to a contract whatever that was, and I’m sure JH was in on the trade discussions with DD, and Bloom, but I’m not there that JH directed the trade to be done. NO One said anything, or referred that Bloom would have done on his own.

JH explained in detail to Red Sox fans the history and the reasoning behind why they traded him.  He brought stories about Stan Musial into it.  Still not enough to convince you he was directly and prominently involved in the decision?

[Hugh2]

The year is 2078, the Sox have just finished celebrating their 3rd intergalactic series win in a row.  A an old fan was heard on his death bed “mooooooook ie….beh……tsssss”

[Hugh2]

When you read that last line you should think of Yoda

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The year is 2078, the Sox have just finished celebrating their 3rd intergalactic series win in a row.  A an old fan was heard on his death bed “mooooooook ie….beh……tsssss”

The Mookie story could be around as long as the Babe Ruth story.  Mookie has 2 rings since we traded him and we have 0.  It's not going away.  

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

The year is 2078, the Sox have just finished celebrating their 3rd intergalactic series win in a row.  A an old fan was heard on his death bed “mooooooook ie….beh……tsssss”

Much to your chagrin Mookie will be talked about for years to come as he’s still talked about as much as he has been on here, and most likely as his rings continue to add up, and his playing career is long over.

[Hugh2]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Mookie story could be around as long as the Babe Ruth story.  Mookie has 2 rings since we traded him and we have 0.  It's not going away.  

I mean ok, but it’s going to be really annoying really quick if that’s everyone’s go to for everything.

Lou Merlin said it best on the section 10 podcast.  Move on, f***ing up the Mookie Betts contract doesn’t mean the Sox can’t sign anyone good again.

omelet if anyone has listened to it you should.  It made me feel a lot better.  I’m ready to move on again.  

[Hugh2]

Al Bundy still talks about his 4 touchdowns in one game

[Old Red]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

JH explained in detail to Red Sox fans the history and the reasoning behind why they traded him.  He brought stories about Stan Musial into it.  Still not enough to convince you he was directly and prominently involved in the decision?

No on the convincing, but nice try. It’s just a case of JH actually mandating Mookie to be traded to either DD, or Bloom. JH was most likely in on all the discussions, and approved everything that happened, or didn’t happen. That I’ll go with, but just not on giving the direct order to do the trade, which really don’t make a difference on where Mookie ended up.

[Hugh2]

41 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Much to your chagrin Mookie will be talked about for years to come as he’s still talked about as much as he has been on here, and most likely as his rings continue to add up, and his playing career is long over.

It’s like….ya’ll are cheering for Sox failure and another 86 years of darkness

[Duran Is The Man]

6 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I mean ok, but it’s going to be really annoying really quick if that’s everyone’s go to for everything.

Lou Merlin said it best on the section 10 podcast.  Move on, f***ing up the Mookie Betts contract doesn’t mean the Sox can’t sign anyone good again.

omelet if anyone has listened to it you should.  It made me feel a lot better.  I’m ready to move on again.  

"....doesn't mean the Sox can't sign anyone good again".  yeah.... hasn't happened and still waiting.

[MADSTORK]

Like I said, Boston is preferred  as is eastern Connecticut 

hangup is years

12 gets it done

those r the facts and u pink hats know the rest 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Hell, go 13 or 14, if it's all about years.

 

Still would not get him to age 40.

[Hugh2]

LOL, I think all these people offering 8-12 years are hilarious.  

If the Sox do manage to pull off a Soto signing it will give them something to whine about.  Because there's no way he's not signing a mammoth of a contract. 

[Hugh2]

The only way Soto is signing a contract with less years is if the AAV is much higher and there's an opt out after year 4.  Maybe the total contract is less, but you got to have that thing front loaded paying him 60-70 a year where he opts out at 30.  

I just don't see that happening.  If that is what is suppose to entice a guy to take 500 million instead of 650 million he's just going to take the later. 

[mvp 78]

56 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

LOL, I think all these people offering 8-12 years are hilarious.  

If the Sox do manage to pull off a Soto signing it will give them something to whine about.  Because there's no way he's not signing a mammoth of a contract. 

8-12 years with how many opt outs? That's the only way a shorter deal gets done. Higher AAV, more opt outs. 

[mvp 78]

53 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

The only way Soto is signing a contract with less years is if the AAV is much higher and there's an opt out after year 4.  Maybe the total contract is less, but you got to have that thing front loaded paying him 60-70 a year where he opts out at 30.  

I just don't see that happening.  If that is what is suppose to entice a guy to take 500 million instead of 650 million he's just going to take the later. 

Yup, I should just read further before replying. 🙃

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

8-12 years with how many opt outs? That's the only way a shorter deal gets done. Higher AAV, more opt outs. 

Stork was calling for an 8 year deal.  I don't think he takes a shorter term deal, but you're 100% right if he does it's going to have to have opt outs and a higher AAV.

And for Soto, I think a shorter deal is in the 10-12 range.  No way it's 8 years. 

[drewski6]

Yeah but refusing to make longer term non-discounted commitments has been part of the problem. With story they were in on despite a longer term contract because they believed he was undervalued and they smelled discount.  Then you have these 1-2 year contracts for pitchers, and they are ignoring the top of the market because those guys generally (last year was weird) wont accept 1-2 years. So when you offer short term contracts you get guys who will accept them.

And when you go for these 1-2 year contracts , back to back , you dont save much because the AAVs are not that far off from than the top tier guys (who just get more years).

Dont bet against inflation.  Need I remind you all that we laughed at Adrian Beltres Rangers contract as an overpay , then 1.5 years later everyone is trying to trade for it.

Longer term contracts come with inflation protection. Look how Pivetta just turned down 21M.  If you offered a 6 year deal to a #3 starter at 17M 4 years ago, everyone would have laughed at you. But if that guy is still a #3 starter today, that deal has trade value.

I understand not wanting to be stuck with an underwater commitment, but scared money dont make money. Gotta trust the scouts, GMs and pull the trigger even if theres risk.

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Stork was calling for an 8 year deal.  I don't think he takes a shorter term deal, but you're 100% right if he does it's going to have to have opt outs and a higher AAV.

And for Soto, I think a shorter deal is in the 10-12 range.  No way it's 8 years. 

I was agreeing with your points against our resident goober. 

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Yeah but refusing to make longer term non-discounted commitments has been part of the problem. With story they were in on despite a longer term contract because they believed he was undervalued and they smelled discount.  Then you have these 1-2 year contracts for pitchers, and they are ignoring the top of the market because those guys generally (last year was weird) wont accept 1-2 years. So when you offer short term contracts you get guys who will accept them.

And when you go for these 1-2 year contracts , back to back , you dont save much because the AAVs are not that far off from than the top tier guys (who just get more years).

Dont bet against inflation.  Need I remind you all that we laughed at Adrian Beltres Rangers contract as an overpay , then 1.5 years later everyone is trying to trade for it.

Longer term contracts come with inflation protection. Look how Pivetta just turned down 21M.  If you offered a 6 year deal to a #3 starter at 17M 4 years ago, everyone would have laughed at you. But if that guy is still a #3 starter today, that deal has trade value.

I understand not wanting to be stuck with an underwater commitment, but scared money dont make money. Gotta trust the scouts, GMs and pull the trigger even if theres risk.

Oh, I don't think the majority of us want player opt outs in a Soto contract. Player opt outs only serve players that are underperforming the contract. I'd rather they just pay him until he's 40 with no opt outs. If there's a way to defer money and reduce the AAV, tremendous. 

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Oh, I don't think the majority of us want player opt outs in a Soto contract. Player opt outs only serve players that are underperforming the contract. I'd rather they just pay him until he's 40 with no opt outs. If there's a way to defer money and reduce the AAV, tremendous. 

There are also times the opt outs reward performing players, like Xander.

The players can't lose either way.

[mvp 78]

23 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

There are also times the opt outs reward performing players, like Xander.

The players can't lose either way.

True, I misworded that sentiment using "only." 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

54 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Oh, I don't think the majority of us want player opt outs in a Soto contract. Player opt outs only serve players that are underperforming the contract. I'd rather they just pay him until he's 40 with no opt outs. If there's a way to defer money and reduce the AAV, tremendous. 

Season-ticket holders should have opt outs. If the team doesn't spend to upgrade during the offseason, or either buy or sell at the deadline, season-ticket holders should be able to opt out of the second half and get refunds.

And while we're at it, regular guys should have opt-outs from the draft beers they buy at Fenway. If the beer gets warm in the plastic cups before half-empty, they get to dump them at the door of the president's office.

If the beer stays cold, however, the drinker can opt in, and get his cup topped off at the tap.

[moonslav59]

He's going to get 14 years- 13 min.

Opts outs are too hard to project, but I guess he might worry the market could keep going up and up.

I just think $600-700M/14 is not something anyone should worry about ending up feeling short-changed.

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Season-ticket holders should have opt outs. If the team doesn't spend to upgrade during the offseason, or either buy or sell at the deadline, season-ticket holders should be able to opt out of the second half and get refunds.

And while we're at it, regular guys should have opt-outs from the draft beers they buy at Fenway. If the beer gets warm in the plastic cups before half-empty, they get to dump them at the door of the president's office.

If the beer stays cold, however, the drinker can opt in, and get his cup topped off at the tap.

Fanbases should be able to opt out from an ownership group, but still retain the team. 

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Fanbases should be able to opt out from an ownership group, but still retain the team. 

Or become like my Packers.

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Oh, I don't think the majority of us want player opt outs in a Soto contract. Player opt outs only serve players that are underperforming the contract. I'd rather they just pay him until he's 40 with no opt outs. If there's a way to defer money and reduce the AAV, tremendous. 

There’s times when they’re good for fans.

Price had an opt out after year three when he would have been 34 (with 4 years $123mill left).  It looked like one he might have taken had he just stayed healthy for 3 years, especially since Zack Greinke signed a mega deal with Arizona around that time, and he was 4 years older than Price.

 

But Price just couldn’t stay healthy for 3 years.  Or even two years…