Red Sox sign Ranger Suarez. 5 years $130 Million

[drewski6]

 

 

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

The PV of the Cubs deal is only $154M per Cots.  I assume the $165M includes deferrals, but without knowing how much, it is difficult to compare the two deals.

He turned it down because the sox offer was monstrously deferred , that and the no trade clause.  He said this. Will you be right, just once?

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, notin said:

So you think they should bid against themselves?  I’m confused.

Reportedly Boras tried the same “we have another offer” tactic on the Yankees sith Bellinger.  But the Yankees called his bluff and got the deal they wanted…

No, I want them to not revolve their entire offseason plan around crossing their fingers that Bregman accepts an offer while also challenging him to take other offers.

Boras might have tried something similar with Bellinger, but I doubt the Yankees acted as noob as Breslow did.

[moonslav59]

This really getting silly.

Nobody knows exactly what happened. 

Even if some missteps or misguesses were made, isn't that kinda the nature of negotiations when multiple entities are involved. 

[JoeBrady]

49 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

 

 

He turned it down because the sox offer was monstrously deferred , that and the no trade clause.  He said this. Will you be right, just once?

but without knowing how much, it is difficult to compare the two deals.

So is the 'monstrously deferred' an exact amount, or an estimate, or a concept you pulled out of your butt?  I said that, without knowing the number, it is difficult to compare.  So I am 100% right, unless of course, you have a better estimate of 'monstrously deferred'.  It's okay for you to admit that you have no idea what the RS number was.  Seriously, if you don't have a number, then you don't know.  It's okay to admit it.

[drewski6]

10 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

but without knowing how much, it is difficult to compare the two deals.

So is the 'monstrously deferred' an exact amount, or an estimate, or a concept you pulled out of your butt?  I said that, without knowing the number, it is difficult to compare.  So I am 100% right, unless of course, you have a better estimate of 'monstrously deferred'.  It's okay for you to admit that you have no idea what the RS number was.  Seriously, if you don't have a number, then you don't know.  It's okay to admit it.

Fine.  We know that the Red Sox offer contained heavy deferments and was widely believed to be well below the cubs offer in discounted present value, but you are correct that without knowing the exact amount deferred, we cannot know if the cubs offer was much much much better or merely much much better, so what you are saying is technically true and Im so glad that you made a whole post distinguishing this.

Youve bested me again with your genius intellect 

[Old Red]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

This really getting silly.

Nobody knows exactly what happened. 

Even if some missteps or misguesses were made, isn't that kinda the nature of negotiations when multiple entities are involved. 

I think we know what happened through different accounts. What we don’t know is if Brez was all on his own, or had some restrictions from above namely JH. Of course I’m not criticizing, or blaming Brez just like others are not apologizing, or defending Brez. What we do know is Bregman is a Cub, and Raffy was shipped to SF for a one, and done.🤭

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

No, I want them to not revolve their entire offseason plan around crossing their fingers that Bregman accepts an offer while also challenging him to take other offers.

Boras might have tried something similar with Bellinger, but I doubt the Yankees acted as noob as Breslow did.

You are assuming they did not have Suarez high on their list.

I admit, after getting Gray and Oviedo, it looked like a frantic pivot.

The point about Alonso signing before Breggie might have messed up our order of thinking, but one hopes that was one of the contingencies.

If these guys are continually messing up, then sure, it's a major issue, but when I keep hearing their best offer was far short (not on Breggie but others) I'm thinking it's not messing up the strategy of negotiations its messing up knowing the market and wasting time on players you actually thought you might get but are in la-la land or something. Then, I think maybe its just going through the motions so the fans think you are really trying to get good players, but these bad, bad super looney owners are ruining the game by offering the world to marginal stars.

Eventually, I accept I don't know jack about what the hell is going on in baseball negotiations by anyone, including the Sox.

I think we did pretty good, this winter, except for the one missing piece. I went in hoping we went full quality over quantity, even if it meant just two mega adds, 3 at most. We've added 4 but missed the two biggest goals: big RHB and 3B/2B. That part is not good, at all, but there are many ways to build a winning team, and while I prefer filling biggest need areas first and as best u can, we added 3 really good players plus Oviedo.

Last year, we added 3 kinda biggies: Bregman, Buehler & Chapman, and one of em burned us badly. Then, we dumped Devers but got lucky with Gio.

Baseball is a strange game to figure out, and I'm not sure figuring out front offices is any easier.

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I think we know what happened through different accounts. What we don’t know is if Brez was all on his own, or had some restrictions from above namely JH. Of course I’m not criticizing, or blaming Brez just like others are not apologizing, or defending Brez. What we do know is Bregman is a Cub, and Raffy was shipped to SF for a one, and done.🤭

Still can't answer a simple question.

and, we don't know exactly what happened, except we lost out on a close negotiation by a team that offered more money, a no trade clause and maybe less deferred money. Maybe it was only closer than we think because Berggie wanted Boston.

Nobody knows, so let's stop the pretending based on a few talking heads all jacked up about losing another first prize star.

[Old Red]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Still can't answer a simple question.

and, we don't know exactly what happened, except we lost out on a close negotiation by a team that offered more money, a no trade clause and maybe less deferred money. Maybe it was only closer than we think because Berggie wanted Boston.

Nobody knows, so let's stop the pretending based on a few talking heads all jacked up about losing another first prize star.

I’ve answered, but just not the way you like. For myself I don’t have to know what exactly happened to form an opinion just like you don’t. Like I said this was talked about all around baseball on several different venues, and they all had an opinion. What’s silly is you constantly thinking you have to defend Brez just like you do JH when someone says he’s cheap when they have a different view of what cheap is, and like you defended Bloom back in the day. You keep saying you are not, but you really are, and that’s  what’s so silly.different views lead to different opinions and you can’t stop it.👋

[Hugh2]

I thought it was fairly obvious that the defining factor Bregman was the no trade clause.  
 

Boston has a history of trading away aging stars and Bregman has been pretty adamant about wanting his next contract to be his last.  He wants to sign where he’s going to end his career.  Idk, maybe you don’t trust the reporting of Abraham but this is pretty consistent with what he heard out of Bregmans camp for a long time.  He valued stability.

[Hugh2]

This is pure conjecture but I feel if Breslow did hand out a no trade clause, going against “club policy” he probably could have defended his position while keeping his job intact. Maybe not…idk.

but I think it’s painstakingly obvious Raffy was shipped outta town because of John Henry.  He wanted him off the team at all costs.  

[Old Red]

31 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I thought it was fairly obvious that the defining factor Bregman was the no trade clause.  
 

Boston has a history of trading away aging stars and Bregman has been pretty adamant about wanting his next contract to be his last.  He wants to sign where he’s going to end his career.  Idk, maybe you don’t trust the reporting of Abraham but this is pretty consistent with what he heard out of Bregmans camp for a long time.  He valued stability.

There was more than 1 issue most likely, but the thing that gets me the most is the Red Sox have Ranger more PDV than they offered Bregman for the same amount of years after the fact.

[Hugh2]

42 minutes ago, Old Red said:

There was more than 1 issue most likely, but the thing that gets me the most is the Red Sox have Ranger more PDV than they offered Bregman for the same amount of years after the fact.

A. That’s pure conjecture, that’s fair but that’s exactly what it is.  From what we know that came out of Bregmans camp it was all about job security

 

B. Why can’t they be mutually exclusive? Would you feel better if after signing Bregman we spend zero money and didn’t sign anyone else?

that seems to be very conflicting with taking issue with the team not spending the money to improve the team.

And why is PDV so important here? Some players prefer the money later.  Also, Suarez is younger and performed better than Bregman last year.  Suarez got 130 million.  What was the Sox offer to Bregman?

[mvp 78]

8 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Fine.  We know that the Red Sox offer contained heavy deferments and was widely believed to be well below the cubs offer in discounted present value, but you are correct that without knowing the exact amount deferred, we cannot know if the cubs offer was much much much better or merely much much better, so what you are saying is technically true and Im so glad that you made a whole post distinguishing this.

Youve bested me again with your genius intellect 

Why would Bregman take the Cubs's offer if it wasn't much better? Bregman came back to the Sox to get them to up their offer and the Sox clearly didn't get close enough OR deal with the no trade clause issue.

Honestly, I don't know what this argument is even about anymore. Some in the Sox FO wanted Bregman back badly and he's not here. I'm sure they are not happy about it today. They didn't get it done and there currently isn't a public plan on 2b/3b. 

[mvp 78]

38 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

A. That’s pure conjecture, that’s fair but that’s exactly what it is.  From what we know that came out of Bregmans camp it was all about job security

 

B. Why can’t they be mutually exclusive? Would you feel better if after signing Bregman we spend zero money and didn’t sign anyone else?

that seems to be very conflicting with taking issue with the team not spending the money to improve the team.

And why is PDV so important here? Some players prefer the money later.  Also, Suarez is younger and performed better than Bregman last year.  Suarez got 130 million.  What was the Sox offer to Bregman?

Why would anyone prefer the money later? Are they dumb? 

It also doesn't make sense to just hand wave all the reporting on the issue that you don't like as "Bregman's camp." C'mon man...

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Old Red said:

I’ve answered, but just not the way you like. For myself I don’t have to know what exactly happened to form an opinion just like you don’t. Like I said this was talked about all around baseball on several different venues, and they all had an opinion. What’s silly is you constantly thinking you have to defend Brez just like you do JH when someone says he’s cheap when they have a different view of what cheap is, and like you defended Bloom back in the day. You keep saying you are not, but you really are, and that’s  what’s so silly.different views lead to different opinions and you can’t stop it.👋

You didn't give your opinion. That's the point. "I think we know what happened" is not saying what you think happened. Can you get that? No, it's not giving your opinion. You dont have to, if you dont want, but just don't say you gave one when you didnt.

You just regurgitate what others say and try to imply that because by all accounts it makes something true or seem true, but again, you never said you think what they said was true. You simple won't say it.

You don't have to have the opinion that Brez botched it or not. It's okay to say "I'm not sure," which is my position. What's silly is thinking that me saying I and nobody knows is somehow a defense of Brez. I'm fully open to the idea that Brez botched it or parts of it, and that maybe it didn't make a difference anyway, since the limits of where he could go were never going to get Breggie to sign. (That's a different subject, I know.)

I never said i did not defend Bloom. Another lie. I did defend many of his moves and thought he fit the mold of what JH & Co were looking for- someone who could find "diamonds in the rough," but he largely failed at that. I often pointed out the impossible situation he was was put in and added context. I pointed out he left Brez with a decent core and farm. If you disagree, fine. If you agree he did, are you "DEFENDING BLOOM?" Gasp...

You can't stop the outright lies. You think you know my positions and motives and you are just plain wrong. I'm not all black and white. I rarely try to pin blame on one person. Bloom & Brez made several serious mistakes- some more in hindsight, but some seemingly indefensible. Nobody is perfect.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

I thought it was fairly obvious that the defining factor Bregman was the no trade clause.  
Boston has a history of trading away aging stars and Bregman has been pretty adamant about wanting his next contract to be his last.  He wants to sign where he’s going to end his career.  Idk, maybe you don’t trust the reporting of Abraham but this is pretty consistent with what he heard out of Bregmans camp for a long time.  He valued stability.

It seems like this could very well have been the main reason Breggie went to Chicago. It sounds plausible.

If it is true, and Bloom was not given the opportunity to offer a no trade clause, it's hard for me to think that was a botch. Of course, he could have botched other aspects of the talks and hardened Breggie against coming back to BOS, and that's not a good thing, at all. If "bay all accounts" he did that, he made a mistake, but that does not mean he "botched" a signing that could never have happened, unless Breggie dropped the no trade clause.

One could argue the animosity Brez caused made it more difficult for Breggie to drop the no trade clause demand, and maybe there is truth to that, and indirectly, that was a botch.

To me, I don't know. I'm not throwing anyone under a bus before knowing.

Brez seems to have some faults with communication and interpersonal relationships. That's kind of a human trait we all share to some degree.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

There was more than 1 issue most likely, but the thing that gets me the most is the Red Sox have Ranger more PDV than they offered Bregman for the same amount of years after the fact.

By all accounts Brez botched the Ranger signing by not forcing him to defer money. I heard that on every street corner!

[mvp 78]

I think it's not fair to say Breslow botched it because I don't believe he really wanted Bregman here long term anyway (see: last offseason chatter, short term deal with opt outs, etc.). 

I think it's fair to say that the Sox botched it IF they really wanted Bregman (by this I mean the Cora, Sam leaning portion of the FO). Per all reports and what we have seen, he was Plan A for 3b and they have now fallen down the path towards several contingency plans which appear to be lesser than. It's a botch if they can't figure out 3b/2b with expediency (entire FO botch). If they have to give up additional prospects that they weren't planning on giving up in order to bring someone else on, it's a botch.

It's a FO botch if they continue to have a roster that makes no sense (4 OFers AND Masa). This is a botch that goes back a few years. It's fair to call out multiple people for this. 

I think it can be both a botch and yet not a botch. The Schrodinger's Cat of botches. Honestly, we may not even have a clear answer when the full squad reports on the 15th. 

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

By all accounts Brez botched the Ranger signing by not forcing him to defer money. I heard that on every street corner!

You did not hear this. I believe you are lying. I bet you haven't even walked on a street corner recently.

[Hugh2]

24 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Why would anyone prefer the money later? Are they dumb? 

It also doesn't make sense to just hand wave all the reporting on the issue that you don't like as "Bregman's camp." C'mon man...

If principal is equal more often than not you’d be right with caveats but um some people like to win.

lets not act like there are not contracts that are back loaded because there are.  Is that not money later? What is deferred money if not money later.  Why invest in a 401k are we all dumb????
 

It’s more enticing if those payments go up.  
 

 

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It seems like this could very well have been the main reason Breggie went to Chicago. It sounds plausible.

If it is true, and Bloom was not given the opportunity to offer a no trade clause...

He was given the opportunity by Bregman. He was most likely told no by the rest of the org. It's an org-wide botch if that's the case and they really wanted him.

The Sox continuing to do business that way is just dumb.

[mvp 78]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

If principal is equal more often than not you’d be right with caveats but um some people like to win.

lets not act like there are not contracts that are back loaded because there are.  Is that not money later? What is deferred money if not money later.  Why invest in a 401k are we all dumb????

It’s more enticing if those payments go up.  

You want money NOW so that you can put it in investments NOW so you can have even more money later. 

Typically, people invest in a 401k because employers give you matching funds which is basically free money. I don't have to really explain 401ks to you do I? 

The "some people like to win" argument is different altogether. 

[moonslav59]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

I think it's not fair to say Breslow botched it because I don't believe he really wanted Bregman here long term anyway (see: last offseason chatter, short term deal with opt outs, etc.). 

I think it's fair to say that the Sox botched it IF they really wanted Bregman (by this I mean the Cora, Sam leaning portion of the FO). Per all reports and what we have seen, he was Plan A for 3b and they have now fallen down the path towards several contingency plans which appear to be lesser than. It's a botch if they can't figure out 3b/2b with expediency (entire FO botch). If they have to give up additional prospects that they weren't planning on giving up in order to bring someone else on, it's a botch.

It's a FO botch if they continue to have a roster that makes no sense (4 OFers AND Masa). This is a botch that goes back a few years. It's fair to call out multiple people for this. 

I think it can be both a botch and yet not a botch. The Schrodinger's Cat of botches. Honestly, we may not even have a clear answer when the full squad reports on the 15th. 

In this sense, I agree the past few management teams botched the roster construction and several of their biggest moves back-fired.

If sticking to the no trade policy causes the team to keep missing out, then that can be considered evidence of a botch, but was it a Brez botch?

You brought up some key points about logjammed areas, and we knew we had that last winter, but kept it as is while leaving big holes open. We even added KC to the OF mix for this year, but we did move the password.

Another area was the rotation. I'm glad we beefed it up, but we went into the winter hearing the FO say "We need a #2 SP," but then we went out and made 3 of our 4 biggest additions SP'ers. We got the #2 SP'er last, and it makes you wonder if they'd take back the Gray trade, if they knew we'd get Suarez, and use those assets to get an infielder.

Now, if we get a decent infielder, I'll be fine with the end result, but the path we have taken looks shaky, at best and aimless at worst.

[moonslav59]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

You did not hear this. I believe you are lying. I bet you haven't even walked on a street corner recently.

I literally live on a street corner.

[Old Red]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I think it's not fair to say Breslow botched it because I don't believe he really wanted Bregman here long term anyway (see: last offseason chatter, short term deal with opt outs, etc.). 

I think it's fair to say that the Sox botched it IF they really wanted Bregman (by this I mean the Cora, Sam leaning portion of the FO). Per all reports and what we have seen, he was Plan A for 3b and they have now fallen down the path towards several contingency plans which appear to be lesser than. It's a botch if they can't figure out 3b/2b with expediency (entire FO botch). If they have to give up additional prospects that they weren't planning on giving up in order to bring someone else on, it's a botch.

It's a FO botch if they continue to have a roster that makes no sense (4 OFers AND Masa). This is a botch that goes back a few years. It's fair to call out multiple people for this. 

I think it can be both a botch and yet not a botch. The Schrodinger's Cat of botches. Honestly, we may not even have a clear answer when the full squad reports on the 15th. 

So you think he didn’t want Breggie longterm, and created the Raffy mess for a one, and done, and didn’t want Raffy either?

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I literally live on a street corner.

53rd and 3rd?

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

So you think he didn’t want Breggie longterm, and created the Raffy mess for a one, and done, and didn’t want Raffy either?

Yup.

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Yup.

Very plausible, so that would make the Bregman PLAN A theory a sham,  sham, sham! So who was going to be the big bat?

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

He was given the opportunity by Bregman. He was most likely told no by the rest of the org. It's an org-wide botch if that's the case and they really wanted him.

The Sox continuing to do business that way is just dumb.

Change the HOBO but business as usual stays the same.