Predicting LT payroll

[moonslav59]

21 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I agree on both. 5 more years plus a player option to age 37 for Marte would be a surprise if the Red Sox made the trade.

At $14.7 AAV tax hit, I think they might. Ages 32-36 is scary.

If Duran goes to AZ, the AAV hit would be $7M for 2026. (Likely less in '27 and '28- JD's arb years.)

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

At $14.7 AAV tax hit, I think they might. Ages 32-36 is scary.

If Duran goes to AZ, the AAV hit would be $7M for 2026. (Likely less in '27 and '28- JD's arb years.)

Letting Duran go, actively makes your offense worse. Who cares about the 7M savings? 

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm now extremely skeptical that Casas can stay healthy.  And frankly his profile as a player is starting to look a bit suspect too.  He's big and slow and not a good fielder.  And he has had some very nasty slumps on O.       

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's about even, but if the money was the same, and at this moment with the window open wide, I'd have traded 6 yrs of Mayer for 2 years of Polanco... yes. (Close call.)

Hell no. 

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I'm now extremely skeptical that Casas can stay healthy.  And frankly his profile as a player is starting to look a bit suspect too.  He's big and slow and not a good fielder.  And he has had some very nasty slumps on O.       

Not sure about slumping more than anyone else:

He's a slow starter...

Monthly OPS

.766 SEP '22

.566 APR '23 (92 PAs)

.766 May 80

.851 JUN 96

1.199 JUL 77

.918 AUG 100

.858 SEP 57

.857 APR 2024 (90)

Injured>>>

.749 AUG 62

.790 SEP 88

.589 APR 2025

Injured>>>>

[Hugh2]

26 minutes ago, Hitch said:

Which is all well and good in a vacuum. And I'd agree. but if we spend the $30m on Bo, we're pretty much done as it'll leave very little money to spend elsewhere. Whereas if we sign Marte there's still room on the payroll (14.7m on the LT) to get better. 

But who are you going to add? if that's your budget you're still not adding Bregman and you're down two starting middle infielders if you trade Mayer away.  So what is your infield?  Okamoto/Story/Marte/Casas? are is that any better or less riskier than Mayer/Story/Bichette/Casas or Bregman/Story/Mayer/Casas?

I'd also argue that this would be the exact opposite of "in a vaccum" because in a vaccum I'm willing to make decisions sometimes that aren't winning moves in the aggregate E.G. lets bunt or steal a base.  In a vacuum I'd be willing to trade away youth for proven veteran talent.....in a vaccum.

[Hugh2]

27 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Depends on how many years it takes to sign Bichette. You may be paying for years of decline for both. I don’t think the Red Sox want any long term contracts for any of these guys, and I think the years piece might be holding up the Bregman situation.

Yes, but you're getting Bo Bichette for 5 years in his prime before he even gets to Martes age.  

Typically the argument for paying for those down years is you make up for it at the front of the contract.  Giving up talent to buy the entire back half of a contract is an entirely different thing. 

But you're right, Bo is likely a pipe dream. 

[Hugh2]

17 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's about even, but if the money was the same, and at this moment with the window open wide, I'd have traded 6 yrs of Mayer for 2 years of Polanco... yes. (Close call.)

Polanco last two years.  0.3 2.6.

At ages 30 and 31, and you'd be banking that he'd be worth more ages 32-33 over a kid who was a top 25 prospect in baseball who is going to give you his ages 23-28 seasons?  How many guys who fit that profile play better than 2.9 WAR over 6 seasons between ages 23-28? I'd bet it's a very large list. 

That's sever win now type of moves.  Even before factoring in that the money is not the same, Mayer is under team control. 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Suarez is less than 2 years older than Schwarber and will very likely sign a deal at least two years shorter.  So if you were already ok with Schwarber.,.

Hes also a lot more athletic (he just doesnt look it)

[notin]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

Mayer is incredibly difficult to value. He's shown next to nothing so far outside of good D and injury problems. He's lumped in with Anthony but is nowhere near his level. 

Could he be the next Yoán Moncada? Quite likely. But could he be a star? Also quite possible. 

Mayer has 136 career plate appearances.  Even if he OPSd 1.000 in them it’s still a small sample and a tad early to say he “likely” is the next anyone.

But that he has shown good defensive skills is at least something…

[drewski6]

13 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

What would you rather have.  All else equal and zero other moves being made. Marcelo Mayer for 6 years under team control or Polanco for 2?

I would only preach caution with this line of thinking.  And its my usual catch phrase: if you are always dreaming about tomorrow , tomorrow never comes.  YOu wanna choose mayer to build around , fine.  But 5 years from now, I dont want to be hearing would you raher have mayer at $x or the NEXT 22 year old.  Youll always get more value from a WAR divided by salary for the next one on their way up.

So there comes a time where a team needs to decide if they are going to consider themselves in a "window" and not exclusively chase expected future value or if they are going to perpetually punt and kick the can down the road (like the As and Pirates do).

This is not a case for Polanco over Mayer, just an acknowledgement that if you are basing your decision on expected future value of  6 years vs 2, then you are not prioritizing the short term.  And thats a trap. There is a time to prioritize on the short term and I honestly believe for a big market team its at least 50% of the time (small market you have to take longer to rebuild).

Not saying we should go for Polanco, but lets say it was an elite player , who you can get.  Youll always be able to find someone more valuable and therefore youll always be able to justify not getting an elite player and thats not where i want to be. A team that breaks every potential signing down to value vs other options.  Thats great when you are at certain points in your cycle, but to get over the hump, there comes a time when we should stop value chasing.  We may be in that mode and just not like Polanco (which is fine) or we may fail to understand this (like that article I posted a few days ago points out).  Teams that ALWAYS look 5 years out and chase maximum efficiency are the pirates and a's.  Its fine to look 5 years out, but if its 5 years later and youre still looking 5 years out, you arent ever really being aggressive.  And a lot of that is punting on accountability.  Look at Bloom years.  Look whats coming down the pipeline!  Dont worry about these last place finishes.  All Im saying is this mentality conveniently takes the pressure off performance in a perform or die sport.

[Hugh2]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I would only preach caution with this line of thinking.  And its my usual catch phrase: if you are always dreaming about tomorrow , tomorrow never comes.  YOu wanna choose mayer to build around , fine.  But 5 years from now, I dont want to be hearing would you raher have mayer at $x or the NEXT 22 year old.  Youll always get more value from a WAR divided by salary for the next one on their way up.

So there comes a time where a team needs to decide if they are going to consider themselves in a "window" and not exclusively chase expected future value or if they are going to perpetually punt and kick the can down the road (like the As and Pirates do).

This is not a case for Polanco over Mayer, just an acknowledgement that if you are basing your decision on expected future value of  6 years vs 2, then you are not prioritizing the short term.  And thats a trap. There is a time to prioritize on the short term and I honestly believe for a big market team its at least 50% of the time (small market you have to take longer to rebuild).

Not saying we should go for Polanco, but lets say it was an elite player , who you can get.  Youll always be able to find someone more valuable and therefore youll always be able to justify not getting an elite player and thats not where i want to be. A team that breaks every potential signing down to value vs other options.  Thats great when you are at certain points in your cycle, but to get over the hump, there comes a time when we should stop value chasing.  We may be in that mode and just not like Polanco (which is fine) or we may fail to understand this (like that article I posted a few days ago points out).  Teams that ALWAYS look 5 years out and chase maximum efficiency are the pirates and a's.  Its fine to look 5 years out, but if its 5 years later and youre still looking 5 years out, you arent ever really being aggressive.  And a lot of that is punting on accountability.  Look at Bloom years.  Look whats coming down the pipeline!  Dont worry about these last place finishes.  All Im saying is this mentality conveniently takes the pressure off performance in a perform or die sport.

I violently disagree with the statement I’m building around Mayer.

 

im building around Anthony/crochet.

Mayer is an ancillary piece I’d trade in the right package. Certainly a player in their mid 30’s is not on a list of players I’d trade him for

[notin]

19 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Hes also a lot more athletic (he just doesnt look it)

Sure he does.  But then who doesn’t look more athletic than Kyle Schwarber?

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

I'll still stick to my guns, that if you take 100 Marcel Mayers and compare their age 23-27 seasons to 100 Ketel Martes age 33-37 seasons, the 100 Mayers are going to win every single time. 

Does that not mean some of those 100 Mayers will be out of the sport in a year or two and a complete bust? does it also not mean that Some Martes will continue producing at an elite level and staring down an invite into the hall of fame down the road? yes both are true, but the data clearly shows us how things turn up in the aggregate. 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to trade Mayer for Marte, but don't expect 1/2 of the people out there to agree with you that it's a good strategy to do so.  Personally I see that as a "win now" move where I would personally like to see the Sox trying to win for the next decade and not just the next 2-3 years.  

There's a ton of data out there about the war guys in their mid 20's put up vs. guys in their mid 30's and the reality is Mayer is at an age where value skyrockets and Marte is at an age where it plummets. Again I'm not going to compare 1-1 because I don't have a crystal ball and neither do any of you but I'll take 100 23 year olds careers over 100 33 year olds (from 33 on) every single time.  And I'll be right

Sure.  But my point (and this is not about the specific players being mentioned):

If you are worried about 2026-2036 equal weight, you will likely not be as aggressive building the best team possible for 2026-2028 (shorter window) as teams that prioritize that shorter window over the larger 10 year window.

Okay.  Well, we'll get them in 2030, right!

Well now its 2030 and you are trying to build a team that can compete from 2030-2040 (still looking at a ten year window) but now you are competing with an entirely different team (that first team won a championship in 2028 but now has bad contracts and is screwed for a few years, okay). But now theres a different team that is prioritizing 2030-2033 (short term) and overpaying (giving away too many years to FA's) window. Lets say they get a ship in 2032.  Thats okay, we'll get em in 2035, right?

Now its 2035, and we wanna make sure we are good for the next 10 years! So we are equal weighting them and trying to build a team that will be competitive from 2035-2045.  That team that won this ship in 2032 is trapped under the bad contracts (hahaha, look at those fools) but theres a brand new team focusing on the short term. And they start gobbling chanmpionships from 2035-2038.  Well, those fools might be celebrating today, but just you wait until 2040!

Now its 2040, and we want to make sure we are good for the next 10 years!  But while we are looking to be as good as possible over a long term, we arent being as aggressive in the 2040-2043 window as some teams that are prioritizing that window.  And guess who's back now that its 2040, its that team that won a championship in 2028 bolded above.  And you are thinking you are going to hurt yourselves 5 years out just like you did last time! Sure, but they are embracing the cyclical nature of this and now they are set up for a second compete window while we've been kicking the can down the road for decades.

 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

Add. I'm not against adding elite talent and taking chances, even on the aging curve.  This is why I've advocated for the signing of a guy like Bo Bichette.  I'd rather overpay for Bo Bichette a little bit than save a few bucks on Marte, pay for his decline, and give up Mayer/Early

good clarification

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

Which is all well and good in a vacuum. And I'd agree. but if we spend the $30m on Bo, we're pretty much done as it'll leave very little money to spend elsewhere. Whereas if we sign Marte there's still room on the payroll (14.7m on the LT) to get better. 

good counter point

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I violently disagree with the statement I’m building around Mayer.

im building around Anthony/crochet.

Mayer is an ancillary piece I’d trade in the right package. Certainly a player in their mid 30’s is not on a list of players I’d trade him for

I haven't seen "the right package" on TS that I'm willing to part with for Mayer (at least recently). 

In a Joe Ryan deal? Ok. 

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, notin said:

Sure he does.  But then who doesn’t look more athletic than Kyle Schwarber?

Majority of us posting on here.

[Hugh2]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

Sure he does.  But then who doesn’t look more athletic than Kyle Schwarber?

Schwarber is a freak of nature, he’s still elite elite for bat speed and exit velocity.  

[drewski6]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I haven't seen "the right package" on TS that I'm willing to part with for Mayer (at least recently). 

In a Joe Ryan deal? Ok. 

Im not including mayer for joe ryan.

[Hugh2]

6 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

good clarification

I was going to respond to your last larger post but I was pretty much going to say exactly what you were responding to here.

problem is our infield is all holes and question marks right now.

imagine being told a year or two ago our safest bet in the infield was Trevor Story followed by all question marks.  If we had less question marks a Mayer for Marte trade is more justified, but you’re filling one hole and opening up another.  So there’s really no money saved for other moves at all.  You still need a 3B and a 1B and with $15 million less to spend.

[JoeBrady]

51 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Polanco last two years.  0.3 2.6.

At ages 30 and 31, and you'd be banking that he'd be worth more ages 32-33 over a kid who was a top 25 prospect in baseball who is going to give you his ages 23-28 seasons?  How many guys who fit that profile play better than 2.9 WAR over 6 seasons between ages 23-28? I'd bet it's a very large list. 

That's sever win now type of moves.  Even before factoring in that the money is not the same, Mayer is under team control. 

FG has Mayer and Polanco as about even this year, so I assume they would rate Mayer better than Polanco over two years.  Mayer's 6 years v Polanco's 2 years is not close, imo.

[mvp 78]

28 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im not including mayer for joe ryan.

Too bad for you.

[notin]

35 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Majority of us posting on here.

But that it’s not all does prove my point….

[UtahSox]

2 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I'll still stick to my guns, that if you take 100 Marcel Mayers and compare their age 23-27 seasons to 100 Ketel Martes age 33-37 seasons, the 100 Mayers are going to win every single time. 

Does that not mean some of those 100 Mayers will be out of the sport in a year or two and a complete bust? does it also not mean that Some Martes will continue producing at an elite level and staring down an invite into the hall of fame down the road? yes both are true, but the data clearly shows us how things turn up in the aggregate. 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to trade Mayer for Marte, but don't expect 1/2 of the people out there to agree with you that it's a good strategy to do so.  Personally I see that as a "win now" move where I would personally like to see the Sox trying to win for the next decade and not just the next 2-3 years.  

There's a ton of data out there about the war guys in their mid 20's put up vs. guys in their mid 30's and the reality is Mayer is at an age where value skyrockets and Marte is at an age where it plummets. Again I'm not going to compare 1-1 because I don't have a crystal ball and neither do any of you but I'll take 100 23 year olds careers over 100 33 year olds (from 33 on) every single time.  And I'll be right

Specifically to the question do we trade Mayers for Marte ….. I play track record game, odds Marte plummets are much lower than Mayers Skyrocketing.

1- I think everyone agrees, if you have a rising star you don’t trade him. You and I see Mayers as different players and time will tell. We all agree the easiest way to get better, is grab guys like Alonso and Bregman in FA, but alas we have to adhere to this self imposed salary cap.

2- Marte finished 3rd in MVP voting in 2024 6+ WAR and is a great player, consistent, great defensively physically takes really good care of his body. Has 4 straight years with 125+ games. The best part he has the Yankees on his no trade list, along with a bunch of bad teams. 
“The Diamondbacks star has the Yankees among five teams on his no-trade list, along with the Athletics, Pirates, Giants and Cardinals, The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reported on Monday.”- NY Post

3- I just don’t see it with Mayers, I admittedly put way less value on even the 2027 season and on. I know some of you guys talk about a 5 year window, and for me too many variables change. So I put heavier value on 2026 Red Sox,  IF they stretch on a guy like Marte and he falls apart. They will be forced to use their resources to fix the problem. 

[Hugh2]

There's a pretty simple solution for all this.  Don't trade Mayer for Marte, trade someone else for Marte. 

[notin]

5 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

There's a pretty simple solution for all this.  Don't trade Mayer for Marte, trade someone else for Marte. 

Duran and Bello works on BTV.  But does it work for Hazen?  (Wasn’t he involved with recruiting both for Boston?)

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Sure he does.  But then who doesn’t look more athletic than Kyle Schwarber?

Schwarber has an athletic bat.  

[Hugh2]

13 minutes ago, notin said:

Duran and Bello works on BTV.  But does it work for Hazen?  (Wasn’t he involved with recruiting both for Boston?)

The Diamonbacks, if they're not getting someone like Mayer back, almost certainly want pitching.  

[Hugh2]

22 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Specifically to the question do we trade Mayers for Marte ….. I play track record game, odds Marte plummets are much lower than Mayers Skyrocketing.

1- I think everyone agrees, if you have a rising star you don’t trade him. You and I see Mayers as different players and time will tell. We all agree the easiest way to get better, is grab guys like Alonso and Bregman in FA, but alas we have to adhere to this self imposed salary cap.

2- Marte finished 3rd in MVP voting in 2024 6+ WAR and is a great player, consistent, great defensively physically takes really good care of his body. Has 4 straight years with 125+ games. The best part he has the Yankees on his no trade list, along with a bunch of bad teams. 
“The Diamondbacks star has the Yankees among five teams on his no-trade list, along with the Athletics, Pirates, Giants and Cardinals, The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal reported on Monday.”- NY Post

3- I just don’t see it with Mayers, I admittedly put way less value on even the 2027 season and on. I know some of you guys talk about a 5 year window, and for me too many variables change. So I put heavier value on 2026 Red Sox,  IF they stretch on a guy like Marte and he falls apart. They will be forced to use their resources to fix the problem. 

What do you place those odds on? quantifiable stats and studies outlining the data of thousands of baseball players comparing their war at specific ages noting trends and even more specifically the results for top 25 prospects????????? Or is that just your guy instinct that likes Marte?