Spring Training Game Thread for Week of March 8th

[Duran Is The Man]

Eaton getting it done.

[notin]

14 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.

But waiting has risks, too.  Had the Sox extended Mookie Betts in the 2016/2017 timeframe, MLB would be much different today.

Campbell’s deal really isn’t so bad.  The length is the only issue.  His $7.5mill AAV is basically Willi Castro/Rob Refsnyder level stuff on today’s market…

[Duran Is The Man]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

But waiting has risks, too.  Had the Sox extended Mookie Betts in the 2016/2017 timeframe, MLB would be much different today.

Campbell’s deal really isn’t so bad.  The length is the only issue.  His $7.5mill AAV is basically Willi Castro/Rob Refsnyder level stuff on today’s market…

yeah, i understand the concept; i just think they jumped the gun a bit. and for every Mookie, there are countless Bobby Dalbecs showing promise right now, i'm thankful Casas turned them down. he's been useless AF the last couple of years. 

[vegasbob]

 If only Campbell delivered as much benefit  to the win total, which is still the only stat that really counts, as his contract does to the AAV in 2028, he would be my hero.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

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.

But you have to take into account that we already had him under control.  If I have a rookie breakout. I have 2 pre-arb years, 3 arb years with him.  If I sign him to 6 years (buying one free agent year) - thats not exactly apples to apples to signing a free agent for 5 years.  Crochet isnt getting top of the market money either because he was signed when the team still had 2 years control and we leveraged that.  

Like MVP was saying, you should really only lock up the highest upside guys.  Because otherwise you are marrying yourself to average players and even though it isnt like killing us in Bellos case, theres just not enough of a reason to lock up an average player/pitcher when you could just keep em cheap.

Remember, when he got this extension, we thought he was baby-Pedro.  And his extension reflects that.  And now, looking back, it appears a little overzealous to extended him because we thought hed be next Pedro.  And looking back why even did we think he'd be Pedro? Because hes Dominican and Pedro liked him? He is a likeable guy, Bello, Ill give him that. But you dont guarantee all those years and hand Bello all that security and give him a pay bump along the way, and in return get one FA year that pays a #4 pitcher middle of the rotation pitcher money.

And now we have a situation where our rotation should be Crochet, Suarez, Gray, Oviedo,  Early and it wont be because we married Bello because he reminded us of Pedro, so we thought he had tremendous upside but he really never did.  His spin rates, his arm action, his extension, his pitch mix, his velocity, his control and command - they all suggest #3/#4 pitcher and its what he always been.  If he was Venezuelan , I dont think he gets that extension because the Pedro comparisons would have never happened.

We dont have to marry every player that comes up.

 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, notin said:

But waiting has risks, too.  Had the Sox extended Mookie Betts in the 2016/2017 timeframe, MLB would be much different today.

Campbell’s deal really isn’t so bad.  The length is the only issue.  His $7.5mill AAV is basically Willi Castro/Rob Refsnyder level stuff on today’s market…

The issue is that its one less spot for a player who is better than KC.  But thats not really directed at you because you arent a guy who thinks we should trade from redundancy and you value depth.

I dont have too much beef with KC extension in a vacuum.  But if theres 2 injuries next year to outfielders and we need a guy, I dont want to bring up KC over Eaton due to the fact that we paid him.

When you start making playing time decisions based on who you paid , you are running contra to playing the best 9 position players and starting the best 5 starters.

[drewski6]

Everyone other than established very good players (im talking multiple 4+ WAR years) and top 20 MLB prospects needs to continue to prove that they are better than the next man up.  They need to earn their way on by being the best of the candidates. And by definition, they cant all be the best of the candidates.

When you start going crazy on the extensions to chase value, and you end up locking up all these guys - you just penciled em in vs making them earn it.  I say open competition that is fair, and not predetermined. Thats why I love WWE wrestling. Nothing is predetermined.  Its all just honest and fair athletic competition.

[moonslav59]

Lets not extend Narvaez, until he's worth way more, too.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

We dont have to marry every player that comes up.

Where did I even hint at thinking this?

I wasn't for extending Mayer or even Duran.

I wasn't for extending Crawford or Slaten.

I wasn't even thinking about extending Rafaela, Bello and KC, until they did it. I never suggested we do it.

I've reacted to what was done and think 3 of the 4 deals (4 of 5, if you count Whitlock) look pretty good, so far, but much can still happen- for good or for bad.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

But you have to take into account that we already had him under control. 

I have mentioned this several times. How am I not taking this into account? I mentioned arb estimates  vs production, and what happens during the last arb years and the years that go beyond are very important to judging the success of locking these guys up. 

All are a long way from that time. So far, some look good, but I'm not claiming wins. 

It sounds like some are claiming defeat before the majority of the deal has even occurred.

If they do great, we'll make out. If not, we may lose out. It's a gamble- not much different than a gamble on Buehler+Sandoval+Kluber+Richards, which is about what we are paying Bello.

Yes, he was already under control at decent prices. The contract has to beat that and or make up for it in the final "post control" years.

I could say "you have to take this into account."

[JoeBrady]

10 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

300M contract for Mayer? No. 

The other Raffy.

[JoeBrady]

5 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I wasn't even thinking about extending Rafaela, Bello and KC, until they did it. I never suggested we do it.

There is no reason to extend players, or not extend players.  If Mayer wants too much, you go year-by-year.  If Durbin was to give us a good deal, then you extend him.  I don't think it's about the talent as it is about things like health, like how hard is he going to work after he gets paid off, about whether you think they can continue to grow.

[notin]

18 hours ago, drewski6 said:

Like MVP was saying, you should really only lock up the highest upside guys.  Because otherwise you are marrying yourself to average players and even though it isnt like killing us in Bellos case, theres just not enough of a reason to lock up an average player/pitcher when you could just keep em cheap.

Remember, when he got this extension, we thought he was baby-Pedro.  And his extension reflects that.  And now, looking back, it appears a little overzealous to extended him because we thought hed be next Pedro.  And looking back why even did we think he'd be Pedro? Because hes Dominican and Pedro liked him? He is a likeable guy, Bello, Ill give him that. But you dont guarantee all those years and hand Bello all that security and give him a pay bump along the way, and in return get one FA year that pays a #4 pitcher middle of the rotation pitcher money.

And now we have a situation where our rotation should be Crochet, Suarez, Gray, Oviedo,  Early and it wont be because we married Bello because he reminded us of Pedro, so we thought he had tremendous upside but he really never did.  His spin rates, his arm action, his extension, his pitch mix, his velocity, his control and command - they all suggest #3/#4 pitcher and its what he always been.  If he was Venezuelan , I dont think he gets that extension because the Pedro comparisons would have never happened.

We dont have to marry every player that comes up.

 

Disagree.  Locking the high upside guys is a nice starting point, but those players are not always so willing to extensions.  Locking up any young plsyer is fine, as long as you can lock him up at a proper value (or lower).  I’m sure no one would be wild about a Nick Sogard extension, but if he signed a 4 year $10mill contract, it might wind up worth it. 
 

Of course, many would get upset at that gommmitment.  The one thing about locking players is up is, they need to perform IMMEDIATELY or it was a mistake.  Even if we ignore the first 2 dirt cheap years on Bello’s deal, the remaining contract gets you Jordan Hicks in free agency.  And because Bello (who I can promise you was NEVER compared to Pedro by the front office) is actually under control cheaply, he is now somehow behind Early and Oviedo on the depth charts? I spent half the off-season pushing Bello out the door, but not because I wanted him gone.  It was because his contract does make him a valuable trade asset, and we had depth to cover for him.

[JoeBrady]

41 minutes ago, notin said:

Locking up any young plsyer is fine, as long as you can lock him up at a proper value (or lower).

In real life, I will lock in any service where I think I am getting a good deal, at any price.  And some extensions need not be long and major contracts either.  We locked in Duran for two years.  That seems to have worked out fine.  Because of the cantankerous nature of arbitration, I think I'd approach a lot of our kids with an offer. 

Just using Durbin as an example, he's never going to get rich, since he will be 32 on his first FA contract.  I see nothing wrong with guaranteeing him $3-4M over his first three years, in exchange for him giving us options for the following three years.  It would make financial sense and might help team chemistry.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 hour ago, notin said:

I spent half the off-season pushing Bello out the door, but not because I wanted him gone.  It was because his contract does make him a valuable trade asset, and we had depth to cover for him.

The longterm contract was the same reason I didn't think anyone would want to trade for Rafaela -- a few years when Moon suggested him as trade bait.

At the time, Ceddanne was a guy who posted these stats at age 23: 15 HRs, 75 RBI, 19 SBs... but also, 15 BB, 151 Ks and 10 CS. He looked like someone who could go either way -- and still does for those who freak over average MLB offensive numbers.

But now entering his prime and due $43.5 million over the next six seasons, Rafaela doesn't look so overpaid. Unless you think $7 mil per year is too much for the sport's elite defensive centerfielder through age 26-31.

[notin]

7 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

The longterm contract was the same reason I didn't think anyone would want to trade for Rafaela -- a few years when Moon suggested him as trade bait.

At the time, Ceddanne was a guy who posted these stats at age 23: 15 HRs, 75 RBI, 19 SBs... but also, 15 BB, 151 Ks and 10 CS. He looked like someone who could go either way -- and still does for those who freak over average MLB offensive numbers.

But now entering his prime and due $43.5 million over the next six seasons, Rafaela doesn't look so overpaid. Unless you think $7 mil per year is too much for the sport's elite defensive centerfielder.

And Campbell was a BA top 3 prospect only 12 months ago, and the AL Rookie of the Month 11 months ago.  That doesn’t all disappear in 100 PA.  
 

And even if he is never a superstar, and even if we only look at his remaining contract, he is still paid utility infielder money.  He might not be the next Jose Altuve, but then again, he’s being paid like Brandon Drury…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Just using Durbin as an example, he's never going to get rich, since he will be 32 on his first FA contract.  I see nothing wrong with guaranteeing him $3-4M over his first three years, in exchange for him giving us options for the following three years.  It would make financial sense and might help team chemistry.

I'm not sure about the advantage of locking a guy up for ages 32-34 seasons, especially when he still has some question marks.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

And Campbell was a BA top 3 prospect only 12 months ago, and the AL Rookie of the Month 11 months ago.  That doesn’t all disappear in 100 PA.  

But, but, but he sucked in AAA after the demotion, too!

[drewski6]

19 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I have mentioned this several times. How am I not taking this into account? I mentioned arb estimates  vs production, and what happens during the last arb years and the years that go beyond are very important to judging the success of locking these guys up. 

All are a long way from that time. So far, some look good, but I'm not claiming wins. 

It sounds like some are claiming defeat before the majority of the deal has even occurred.

If they do great, we'll make out. If not, we may lose out. It's a gamble- not much different than a gamble on Buehler+Sandoval+Kluber+Richards, which is about what we are paying Bello.

Yes, he was already under control at decent prices. The contract has to beat that and or make up for it in the final "post control" years.

I could say "you have to take this into account."

I thought you had said on another page in defense of the Bello extension in particular, that you are not unhappy with it because the post control added years beat FA price-tag for a player like Bello, and thats why I said its more about value one would have had without extension vs value with extension.

But it may have been in response to a different question.  Do you think the Bello contract hurts us going forward vs was the extension worth it are not exactly the same question.

I believe there are 2 post-control years (including the option), and those salaries arent bad vs cost of FA equivalent, but prob not as valuable as we thought when we extended

One thing that I also consider is where we're at.  So like for example, if I lose in WS to dodgers with 3 contributing rookies, I may keep em cheap and sign vets around them because thats how I add max talent and get over that hump.  So someone asked why spend on FA vs internally - and the reason is because that way, you can have both (spend on the FA + keep the internal guy cheap)

This creates future headaches and financial cliffs ;) for sure.  So to me, it depends where in the window we are. There are times to be more willing to worry about later when later comes and focus on short term (not saying go all-in because thats a little extreme). Im just saying ....Think of it like a sliding scale and on one end of spectrum you have fortify current roster and on other side focus on future.  And I dont like to ever be extreme on one side or the other, but where exactly I am on that spectrum depends.  And right now its tough because we are good but also young, so its not easy decision to say we should focus on short term or long term, so right now because of this team, Im pretty close to the middle and think we should weighing now vs later pretty evenly balanced.

[drewski6]

16 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

The other Raffy.

That makes a lot more sense

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, notin said:

Disagree.  Locking the high upside guys is a nice starting point, but those players are not always so willing to extensions.  Locking up any young plsyer is fine, as long as you can lock him up at a proper value (or lower).  I’m sure no one would be wild about a Nick Sogard extension, but if he signed a 4 year $10mill contract, it might wind up worth it. 
 

Of course, many would get upset at that gommmitment.  The one thing about locking players is up is, they need to perform IMMEDIATELY or it was a mistake.  Even if we ignore the first 2 dirt cheap years on Bello’s deal, the remaining contract gets you Jordan Hicks in free agency.  And because Bello (who I can promise you was NEVER compared to Pedro by the front office) is actually under control cheaply, he is now somehow behind Early and Oviedo on the depth charts? I spent half the off-season pushing Bello out the door, but not because I wanted him gone.  It was because his contract does make him a valuable trade asset, and we had depth to cover for him.

It depends on the GM but point taken with Breslow.  Because hes more active than Bloom.  As long as you are willing to wheel and deal, I guess locking up a player has less downside then if you were just going to sit with him. And I know that sounds weird, but some GMs just dont shake things up as much as others.

Bello would still be a nice trade asset if we didnt extend him, and I actually think maybe even a little more.  But if thats the downside, its not a lot of downside (he would have had 30 trade units but now he has 25 isnt the end of the world).

And theres always other variables.  So if I have 2 awesome position players and an awesome pitcher, Im more willing to extend a B- player because thats still a solid player, and I dont need to keep the door open for studs because I already have 2, so Im trying to build around them, and this hypthetical B- guy is cheap and can  compliment what I already have in place

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

In real life, I will lock in any service where I think I am getting a good deal, at any price.  And some extensions need not be long and major contracts either.  We locked in Duran for two years.  That seems to have worked out fine.  Because of the cantankerous nature of arbitration, I think I'd approach a lot of our kids with an offer. 

Just using Durbin as an example, he's never going to get rich, since he will be 32 on his first FA contract.  I see nothing wrong with guaranteeing him $3-4M over his first three years, in exchange for him giving us options for the following three years.  It would make financial sense and might help team chemistry.

But in real life you dont only get 9 starting position players and 4 bench guys.  If you lock up a bunch of solid guys to value deals, that may look great from a war / $$ perspective, but you have nowhere to add a true stud.

So if you wanna go this route, and Im warming up to it, I would say just be willing to make a trade where you WAR/SS isnt the primary.  For example if you have 9 2.5 WAR guys making 1m, thats great WAR/$, but it prob doesnt win the world series and can be better.  So maybe you trade 2 guys who have a 2.5 WAR/$$ for a 7.5 WAR guy making 30m.  The other 7 WAR / $$ value guys who you didnt trade do set up a  nice foundation to allow you to go get that stud, even though that stud isnt great WAR/$$ himself because 15m (or higher guys) are never great from WAR/$$ perspecitve but its nice to have studs.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, notin said:

And Campbell was a BA top 3 prospect only 12 months ago, and the AL Rookie of the Month 11 months ago.  That doesn’t all disappear in 100 PA.  
 

And even if he is never a superstar, and even if we only look at his remaining contract, he is still paid utility infielder money.  He might not be the next Jose Altuve, but then again, he’s being paid like Brandon Drury…

Would you be willing to keep sending him down if his struggles continue and he starts getting expensive for a AAA player? Thats my concern, that they already chose him to be on this team with that contract, and now could that create a situation where we arent letting the best man win.  Because Eaton passed him on the depth chart.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

I thought you had said on another page in defense of the Bello extension in particular, that you are not unhappy with it because the post control added years beat FA price-tag for a player like Bello, and thats why I said its more about value one would have had without extension vs value with extension.

But it may have been in response to a different question.  Do you think the Bello contract hurts us going forward vs was the extension worth it are not exactly the same question.

I believe there are 2 post-control years (including the option), and those salaries arent bad vs cost of FA equivalent, but prob not as valuable as we thought when we extended

One thing that I also consider is where we're at.  So like for example, if I lose in WS to dodgers with 3 contributing rookies, I may keep em cheap and sign vets around them because thats how I add max talent and get over that hump.  So someone asked why spend on FA vs internally - and the reason is because that way, you can have both (spend on the FA + keep the internal guy cheap)

This creates future headaches and financial cliffs ;) for sure.  So to me, it depends where in the window we are. There are times to be more willing to worry about later when later comes and focus on short term (not saying go all-in because thats a little extreme). Im just saying ....Think of it like a sliding scale and on one end of spectrum you have fortify current roster and on other side focus on future.  And I dont like to ever be extreme on one side or the other, but where exactly I am on that spectrum depends.  And right now its tough because we are good but also young, so its not easy decision to say we should focus on short term or long term, so right now because of this team, Im pretty close to the middle and think we should weighing now vs later pretty evenly balanced.

I've said these types of early extensions are gambles that seem no more risky than other types of signings.

All of these signings, except the Whitlock one is too early to know if they are or will be good ones.

I've watched so many of our younger players bolt for free agency, that in general, I like the idea of locking up the young players we think will be very good. Not anyone and everyone. Not Sogard. I wouldn't even lock up Mayer. I might look to lock up Narvaez, but I'm not advocating for it.

I think the Bello signing is working out pretty well, so far, He's just entering prime, now, and with the two seasons he's had his arb costs would likely have been pretty high. Of course, how he does this year would affect what his 2027 arb would have been. It's a guessing game. Even when his years of control are done, we might still have disagreements on being worth it or not.

The Rafaela extensions is off to a very nice start, but there is a long way to go.

The Anthony extension is way too early, but he has some major upside.

Only the KC extension is off to a bad start.

Of course I look at all the elements involved with judging if the extension is or will be worth it or not. I'm not claiming victory on any of the extensions nor defeat on the KC one.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Bello would still be a nice trade asset if we didnt extend him, and I actually think maybe even a little more.  

What do you think Bello would get as a FA? Have you seen what some pitchers with way worse records than Bello have gotten, recently?

He's owed $50M/4 or $70M/5: 26:$6M, 27:$8.5M, 28:$16M, 29:$19M, 30:$21M club option ($1M buyout)

I know the arb equation is vastly different than the FA equation, but many GMs would love to have Bello at this cost.

Yes, some of the low budget teams would not want him at this cost but would take him for a couple arb years, then maybe trade him, assuming he gets to expensive.

[Old Red]

16 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I've said these types of early extensions are gambles that seem no more risky than other types of signings.

All of these signings, except the Whitlock one is too early to know if they are or will be good ones.

I've watched so many of our younger players bolt for free agency, that in general, I like the idea of locking up the young players we think will be very good. Not anyone and everyone. Not Sogard. I wouldn't even lock up Mayer. I might look to lock up Narvaez, but I'm not advocating for it.

I think the Bello signing is working out pretty well, so far, He's just entering prime, now, and with the two seasons he's had his arb costs would likely have been pretty high. Of course, how he does this year would affect what his 2027 arb would have been. It's a guessing game. Even when his years of control are done, we might still have disagreements on being worth it or not.

The Rafaela extensions is off to a very nice start, but there is a long way to go.

The Anthony extension is way too early, but he has some major upside.

Only the KC extension is off to a bad start.

Of course I look at all the elements involved with judging if the extension is or will be worth it or not. I'm not claiming victory on any of the extensions nor defeat on the KC one.

KC has to pick it up some just to get back to being a Suspect let alone a prospect.🤔

[moonslav59]

10 minutes ago, Old Red said:

KC has to pick it up some just to get back to being a Suspect let alone a prospect.🤔

He certainly has a ways to go to even be considered for another MLB look-see.

Maybe that gamble is a loss. It's $60M- about the same as Buehler+ Sandoval+Kluber+Richards gambles.

[Old Red]

17 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

He certainly has a ways to go to even be considered for another MLB look-see.

Maybe that gamble is a loss. It's $60M- about the same as Buehler+ Sandoval+Kluber+Richards gambles.

It was pretty much a wasted year last year, which set KC back a year IMO.

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, Old Red said:

It was pretty much a wasted year last year, which set KC back a year IMO.

He did play in a 140 games and get 580 PAs between MLB & AAA, last year. (Plus 6s PAs in the PRWL.)

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

He did play in a 140 games and get 580 PAs between MLB & AAA, last year. (Plus 6s PAs in the PRWL.)

And what did all those PA get him? He couldn’t even work his way back up to Boston. So far he doesn’t look any better this ST either. Jerking him around from position to position last year didn’t help him much either.