Spring Training Game Thread for Week of March 8th

[Duran Is The Man]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Probably. Like I said: it's a gamble that wins some and loses some.

With our record on FA "gambles" being so great, I'm not getting why this is such a big issue.

How about our fantastic record with locking up our stars after they prove they are good enough to extend? Great one, right?

How about our record with the biggest FA signings since DD left? (Story & Masa)

I, for one, applaud the effort to change things up and try to actually keep our young players for longer than we have been. 

Yes, I fully expect we will swing and miss on some, but we've been swinging and missing on other strategies that have been even more costly than $60M spent on KC, and speaking of KC, he's not quite dead yet.

 

you probably wish we'd "locked up" Bobby Dalbec, right? i'm not against it but damn did they jump the gun on KC. totally unnecessary.

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

you probably wish we'd "locked up" Bobby Dalbec, right? i'm not against it but damn did they jump the gun on KC. totally unnecessary.

I have not argued that jumping the gun is a great or even good idea. I have said it's a gamble.

Some work and some do not. It's early on KC, anyway.

I'm not for locking up anyone and everyone. We locked up the minor league player of the year. We did it very early, but it's not unheard of in MLB, and not just by low budget teams, either. It could end up being a 100% waste of $60M, but there is still a chance it turns out okay or even well.

Yes, it was not "necessary," but it's not without some merit.

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, drewski6 said:

The extension was neither good or bad because it was made with the expectation hed be like a #3/4 starter...

If the expectation is that he's a #3/4, you don't give him the extension. You give him the extension if you have the expectation that he's an Opening Day starter and is a guy that can trend towards the top of the rotation. 

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

How much does a guy that does this get on the FA market?

Compare Bello to what Gray has been over the past two seasons. Not many people on here aside from me thought Gray was a #2. Gray has been far better than Bello and is paid 25M. Bello's last two seasons are 20M. Seems like the extension is a little high for a contract that was signed a few years ago and is "just a hedge" against future performance for a 4th starter. 🫠

[mvp 78]

 

[mvp 78]

 

[drewski6]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Good post, and I'll respond to this part, since this gets to the heart of the matter. These early extensions are made to hedge against the possibility that the young arb or prearb player will do so well that they will "price themselves" to a point where we might lose them or have to pay FA market price and use too much budget space doing so.

I'm not sure the Sox expected Bello to be a Cy Young candidate at age 24 and 25. They likely expected decent seasons and improvement. I'd say two seasons at $15M value according to fangraphs is as good or better than expected. Yes, a 4.19 FIP for two years in a row is not "killing it," it's still is pretty good. His ERA+ of 123, last season is very nice.

How much does a guy that does this get on the FA market?

2024-2025:

28th ERA- at 93 (just below Gausman)

30th in IP

39th FIP (4.19) 36th xFIP

41st fWAR (3.9)

Signing these deals is a bet that the player will do well and command too much bargaining power, either in his last arb years or once their control years are up. 

I'd say Bello is slightly ahead of pace on being worth the extension, and Rafaela's 2025 season puts him way above the curve, but with enough doubts to still worry or wonder.

Pros and cons to everything.  One additional pro to extending (and Im not as into them as you are- and thats not intended as a diss or an implication that you are wrong or anything like that)....I just want to clarify that Im not mr always extend (because I believe in cyclicality, so if Im in a window I may keep my contributors at min wage because i focus on short term over long term when in windows, and that doesnt even imply id never extend if in that window - just that Im always case by case).  That aside aside, but one thing that I talk about here a lot and really not many others do .....but its is important as anything.....is.....INFLATION

If you can lock up someone who will be at prime in 2030 at a 2026 rate theres value in that because inflation only goes one way.

This is also why Im not as scared to go long as some. "he'll be declining in 2030 and youll be paying him top dollar!" Yeah but, it wont be top dollar in 2030.  Would be my rebut.  Player x will prob be overpaid in 2030 because thats how long term contracts go but it wont be as bad as it appears because inflation.

Im sure; however, that agents have found a way to bake inflation into the cake because its makes sense to do that and Im sure they arent bad at their jobs.

[JoeBrady]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

If it's good for the Rays, why not the Sox? How about the Braves? They do this a lot.

It depends on how well or poorly these kids do. KC has 2 months under his belt. Can we wait a while to judge his deal?

IMO, the conversation has gone sideways.  There is no moral high-ground like something is good or something is bad.  It's more like any FA contract you sign.  You can like it or not like it, but there will always be some signings that work out great and some that work out badly.  Currently, imvho, we are way ahead on Raffy, ahead on RA, slightly ahead on Bello, well ahead on Whitlock, and behind on KC.

IRT to timing, imo, that's a 0-sum game.  If you wait for 2 years, and the kid doesn't progress, smart move, you saved money.  If the kid does progress, then bad move, you lost money.  We didn't extend Abreu and lost money.  We didn't extend Casas and saved money.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

If the expectation is that he's a #3/4, you don't give him the extension. You give him the extension if you have the expectation that he's an Opening Day starter and is a guy that can trend towards the top of the rotation. 

Im a case by case guy, if your position (and Im not sure it is) that you shouldnt extend a middle of the rotation guy, I would disagree just because there are probably times when it makes sense.

If you are saying "generally dont extend 3/4 guys", thats an interesting guideline and I could see myself jumping on with it because Im a big believer in looking at things from a lens of replacable vs not-replacable.

So for example, I may extend a lefty reliever over a righty reliever because the lefties are harder to find (and as always w me, Im not saying I would always extend a lefty and I would never extend a righty).  I dont believe in hard rules. Everything is case by case

But if you mean specifically to Bello, my other comments in this post are irrelevant.

[JoeBrady]

9 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

you probably wish we'd "locked up" Bobby Dalbec, right? i'm not against it but damn did they jump the gun on KC. totally unnecessary.

No extension is necessary.  Waiting can save you or cost you money.

I think Mayer is a more relevant discussion.  If we extend him now, we make a much bigger gamble.  But that's offset by the fact that he might sign at Ceddanne prices.  If you wait until he proves himself, and he comes in with 20/20/.275 and good fielding numbers, then that price tag increases significantly.

Anyone want to extend MM cheaply?  I would.

[JoeBrady]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

If you can lock up someone who will be at prime in 2030 at a 2026 rate theres value in that because inflation only goes one way.

That's as important a point as one could make.  That and the fact that you are betting on character.  When Tatis extended, a lot of people complained that $24.3M AAV was crazy high.  That's not even AS money now, and ten years from now, it'll look closer to average-player salary.

[drewski6]

13 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Unless you’re trying to fake like you’re spending 263m when you’re really only spending 195m. 

I honestly do not think they are doing these extensions to "fake" a higher payroll. I might have at one point.

I do think some posters go by AAV for deceptive reasons , but not everyone going by AAV is doing it to mislead.  They may just not understand how little the luxury tax matters unless you are going to full Dodgers.  Its adding 1.5% to our payroll this year, and we're a repeat offender.
 

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im a case by case guy, if your position (and Im not sure it is) that you shouldnt extend a middle of the rotation guy, I would disagree just because there are probably times when it makes sense.

If you are saying "generally dont extend 3/4 guys", thats an interesting guideline and I could see myself jumping on with it because Im a big believer in looking at things from a lens of replacable vs not-replacable.

So for example, I may extend a lefty reliever over a righty reliever because the lefties are harder to find (and as always w me, Im not saying I would always extend a lefty and I would never extend a righty).  I dont believe in hard rules. Everything is case by case

But if you mean specifically to Bello, my other comments in this post are irrelevant.

If they thought he was just a 3/4 guy, they extended him for too much $$$. 

It would be ridiculous to extend a reliever that didn't have crazy upside. They extended Whitlock and they didn't really get a discount there. It's fine? If he ended up starting, it would have been great. 

[mvp 78]

22 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

No extension is necessary.  Waiting can save you or cost you money.

I think Mayer is a more relevant discussion.  If we extend him now, we make a much bigger gamble.  But that's offset by the fact that he might sign at Ceddanne prices.  If you wait until he proves himself, and he comes in with 20/20/.275 and good fielding numbers, then that price tag increases significantly.

Anyone want to extend MM cheaply?  I would.

I'd make Mayer get through a full professional season healthy before I'd extend him unless it's at a deep discount (give him Rafaela's contract).

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

That's as important a point as one could make.  That and the fact that you are betting on character.  When Tatis extended, a lot of people complained that $24.3M AAV was crazy high.  That's not even AS money now, and ten years from now, it'll look closer to average-player salary.

People complained about the Tatis extension? 

[drewski6]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

That's as important a point as one could make.  That and the fact that you are betting on character.  When Tatis extended, a lot of people complained that $24.3M AAV was crazy high.  That's not even AS money now, and ten years from now, it'll look closer to average-player salary.

I go back to Beltre's deal with the Rangers.  When signed everyone was like "good player, but wow-what an overpay. Too many years!" 2 yrs later- everybody and their mother trying to trade for that contract (and he was north of 30 with the 2 front years of the contract already burned by then!).  And it was funny to see the progression of those efforts.....

started with like "hey, we'll take this bad contract off your hands if you eat a bitt", to "we'll take this contract off your hands with no money eaten" to "hey, we'll actually give you a bit for this contract" to multiple teams bidding against each other to trade for him. I forget if the Rangers ever moved him when he was under that contract 

Im a nothing is ever always true kind of guy.  But one thing I would try to take advantage of is that inflation in MLB contracts dont happen simultaneously to inflation in real-life.  So like USA might have 3% inflation 5 years in a row, and for simplicity lets say thats 15% (I know its not), but then what sometimes happens is mlb contracts lag but then catch up with a hard-adjustment.  Thats usually when you see the "the free agent signings this year have gone crazzzzzy, you see what these teams are paying" .....Well I got news, that bump is a league wide adjustment to years of lagging behind inflation and those "craaaazy" contracts are the new norm.

So I say, if the free agents are getting approx what similar free agents got 7 years ago....It might be a good idea to go large and long, get in before the adjustment.  I think people approach refi's this way (take advantage before it goes up, but not baseball contracts).

For this reason, I was team extend Swayman.  People like you cant make him the third highest paid goalie, and I said he'll be be the third highest paid goalie for a week, and in 2 years he'll fall out of top 10 highest paid goalies. Look forward. Expect inflation"

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I honestly do not think they are doing these extensions to "fake" a higher payroll. I might have at one point.

I do think some posters go by AAV for deceptive reasons , but not everyone going by AAV is doing it to mislead.  They may just not understand how little the luxury tax matters unless you are going to full Dodgers.  Its adding 1.5% to our payroll this year, and we're a repeat offender.
 

TBF, last year the CBT calc added 16% above what the actual cash payments were. It really just depends on the year. The hope is that some year the CBT will be significantly LOWER than the cash payments. 

[JoeBrady]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

People complained about the Tatis extension? 

Sure.  TBH, a lot of posters complain about people getting paid.  But he had less than 600 career ABs at that point.  Some posters felt like he hadn't proven himself.  And the $340M/14 he received absolutely dwarfed Acuna's $100M/8 extension.

[JoeBrady]

20 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I'd make Mayer get through a full professional season healthy before I'd extend him unless it's at a deep discount (give him Rafaela's contract).

I agree 100%.  I'd extend him for Raffy's price tag.

[JoeBrady]

17 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

inflation in MLB contracts dont happen simultaneously to inflation in real-life. 

If this was real life, I'd use 3%.  If this was BB, I'd use 5% minimum, and have 6% in the back of my mind.

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Sure.  TBH, a lot of posters complain about people getting paid.  But he had less than 600 career ABs at that point.  Some posters felt like he hadn't proven himself.  And the $340M/14 he received absolutely dwarfed Acuna's $100M/8 extension.

I went to look at some older posts in various places and most of the comparisons to Acuna basically say "Acuna should fire his agent," which is probably true TBH.

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I agree 100%.  I'd extend him for Raffy's price tag.

300M contract for Mayer? No. 

[drewski6]

13 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If they thought he was just a 3/4 guy, they extended him for too much $$$. 

I think inflation kind of saved their bacon. 2 WAR guys 22m per now (included in that is a short term premium).  The salary during what would have been arb1 and arb2 years is roughly equal to what he would have gotten in arb, in what would be his arb3 year, getting more stinky vs what he would have made in arb3, So that year looks bad, but then the next year its a 1 yr contract at 19m and thats a discount for a #3/4 pitcher and will be even more of a discount in 4 years, plus theres a team option year with a miniscule buyout.

I would say the extension looks bad if you go by AAV but you shouldnt.  The extension isnt great but its not particularly bad either because inflation saved it from turning south hard.  I think hed have slightly more trade value today if no extension, but its not drastic.  I would agree the contract had more downside than upside.  But I cant really call that out without being a hypocrite because I celebrated Bregman's deal with us and the downside was more than the upside there.  More downside than upside is kind of the cost of doing business.  

But I do lean agree that in this particular case, the extension doesnt appear particularly rosy.  Also the elephant in the room is that hes prob not one of our best 5 starters but he'll prob be in teh rotation because we can send Early down.  So if you are mr. the games in April matter just as much (not you specifically, but Ive heard that) know that Bello being on the team makes us worse in April, but its not really a huge deal to me because injuries will make him one of our 5 best for most of the season or if we have injury luck- he'll or someone else wil get moved when we jsut cant keep Early (and/orTolle) down any longer.

[drewski6]

26 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

TBF, last year the CBT calc added 16% above what the actual cash payments were. It really just depends on the year. The hope is that some year the CBT will be significantly LOWER than the cash payments. 

Im looking at sportrac right now and it appears that we had a 1.5M penalty to a 250m payroll. I may be misreading or Sportrac may be wonky. I dont really compare CBT basis to cash.  I compare cash without penalty to cash+ penalty  because thats the actual impact and seabeach fred taught me that hypotheticals and projections are for libtards.

BUT HOLY CRAP - I just wanted to 2x check something and learned something.  The 1.5M we paid in tax last year actually WASNT the true cost of going over because only teams that didnt go over get a piece of that delicious Dodgers+Mets tax penalty.  Last year - there was 400m distributed to 21 teams so like 20m/each.

So by going 1.5m over last year they forfeited 20m.  So the real cost of going over last year was 21.5. So the question is was it incompetence that led to going jsut over  or a baseball decision (e.g. we like our team and dont want to cut 1.5m from 250m even though doing so would actually save us 21.5M cuz we'd get a cut of the penalty money)

Props to you if you factored that in.. Thats a good job tracking down effected variables.

 

[mvp 78]

37 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

seabeach fred taught me

So that's where you get your posting style from. Lovely. 

[drewski6]

18 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

So that's where you get your posting style from. Lovely. 

My posting style is prob mostly derived from my disorganized hyper-active brain

[jad]

12 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

My posting style is prob mostly derived from my disorganized hyper-active brain

That is absolutely not allowed on sports-boards.  Only perfectly rational, well reasoned, grammatically correct statements are permissible, all with the proper use of the subjunctive, and acute awareness of the difference between 'disinterest' and 'lack of interest', and don't get me started on 'begging the question'.

[mvp 78]

Oviedo continuing his strong ST so far. 

[moonslav59]

5 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

If the expectation is that he's a #3/4, you don't give him the extension. You give him the extension if you have the expectation that he's an Opening Day starter and is a guy that can trend towards the top of the rotation. 

They didn't sign him to $130M/5.

The amount of the signing is the key. The amount is weighed against projected value during the arb years and then the year or two afterwards and the projected paydays for each year. If he does better than expected, you will likely save money and get a couple years of control at lower than market price.

His last 3 years, he'll get paid $16M (would have been final arb year) $19M and then the $21M option season at age 30.

This is "opening day pitcher" money? In those final years, his tax line hit will be about $9M a year.

We're paying Gray $21M to be a 3rd starter.

[mvp 78]

56 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

His last 3 years, he'll get paid $16M (would have been final arb year) $19M and then the $21M option season at age 30.

We're paying Gray $21M to be a 3rd starter.

And Gray's contract seems much more reasonable than Bello's due to Gray's better production. Hedging your bets on an extension and not getting a discount from the player is a terrible way to do an extension. 

Spencer Strider signed a 6/75 extension after having a 4.9 fWAR season. That's a discount. It took Bello 2.5 seasons to get to that fWAR.