Another lost season

[UtahSox]

7 hours ago, notin said:

Huh?

Bregman signed a deal for $175million, slightly more than $26million.

Even if you mean AAV, his deal $35mill per year, it’s still more than $26mill.  If you disagree and think it’s not much more, can I borrow $9mill?

Huh? Huh? Must you start so many of your posts with this word? Articulate your argument a little better than huh.

I understand your point on the math. Bregman’s AAV is $35M, not $26M, and yes, there is a meaningful difference there. My post was not about whether $9M matters to me — it was about whether $9M matters to the Boston Red Sox an organization valued probably around 11b. When you factor in Fenway and NESN.

I remind you this is the same organization that just committed roughly $6M to IKF, and 12m to Sandoval which in my opinion has provided very little value. So let’s not suddenly act like every dollar is sacred. The dollar amounts are big in pro baseball $9 million can be added or subtracted from any major league baseball roster very easily… I have zero doubt you know this,  yet per usual…. You attempt to denigrate the entire argument based on dollar amounts.

I’ll spell it out……The larger point I was making is this: if we had not jumped early into long-term commitments for players we already controlled for years (Anthony, Campbell, Bello, etc.), I believe we could have realistically structured both the Suárez deal and Bregman. The math may not line up perfectly dollar-for-dollar, but we also would have had assets such as Kyle Harrison (no need at 3b = no trade with brewers) and others that could have been available to be moved in a package to free up additional payroll if needed.

So yes, $26M does not equal $35M. I understand that. The argument was never that they are identical numbers. The argument was that the Red Sox had alternative paths available, and chose not to take them.

Moon has sound logic and he hasn’t wavered from it since October: Alex Bregman stats in year 1 of his massive contract are not living up to the compensation. And if he’s not living up to the compensation in year1 , what are years 3-5 going to look like? But my opinion is simple: the Red Sox would be a better team today with Bregman at third base than without him. Between his bat, his consistency, and his clubhouse presence, I believe this team is at minimum sitting in a Wild Card spot right now with him on the roster. And that’s not worth spending a whole bunch of extra money just being smarter about when we spend it. 

[notin]

16 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Huh? Huh? Must you start so many of your posts with this word? Articulate your argument a little better than huh.

I understand your point on the math. Bregman’s AAV is $35M, not $26M, and yes, there is a meaningful difference there. My post was not about whether $9M matters to me — it was about whether $9M matters to the Boston Red Sox an organization valued probably around 11b. When you factor in Fenway and NESN.

I remind you this is the same organization that just committed roughly $6M to IKF, and 12m to Sandoval which in my opinion has provided very little value. So let’s not suddenly act like every dollar is sacred. The dollar amounts are big in pro baseball $9 million can be added or subtracted from any major league baseball roster very easily… I have zero doubt you know this,  yet per usual…. You attempt to denigrate the entire argument based on dollar amounts.

I’ll spell it out……The larger point I was making is this: if we had not jumped early into long-term commitments for players we already controlled for years (Anthony, Campbell, Bello, etc.), I believe we could have realistically structured both the Suárez deal and Bregman. The math may not line up perfectly dollar-for-dollar, but we also would have had assets such as Kyle Harrison (no need at 3b = no trade with brewers) and others that could have been available to be moved in a package to free up additional payroll if needed.

So yes, $26M does not equal $35M. I understand that. The argument was never that they are identical numbers. The argument was that the Red Sox had alternative paths available, and chose not to take them.

Moon has sound logic and he hasn’t wavered from it since October: Alex Bregman stats in year 1 of his massive contract are not living up to the compensation. And if he’s not living up to the compensation in year1 , what are years 3-5 going to look like? But my opinion is simple: the Red Sox would be a better team today with Bregman at third base than without him. Between his bat, his consistency, and his clubhouse presence, I believe this team is at minimum sitting in a Wild Card spot right now with him on the roster. And that’s not worth spending a whole bunch of extra money just being smarter about when we spend it. 

My point is it’s actually silly to take these little contracts like IKF and Sandoval and pretend had they been avoided, a superstar was easily affordable.  Sure they spent $15mill on them, but that’s still $160mill short on Bregman.  I think we can both safely assume the Sox don’t look solely at AAV.  
 

And at some point in this deal, Bregman is likely to decline, but his contract never will.  
 

Sure it’s easy to cite the extensions for young players that haven’t worked out yet.  But we both know that free agents rarely last as long as their deals.  Whats preferable? A $50mill deal to a younger player with a bad year or two upfront?  Or a $180mill deal to an older player with an equally bad year or two at the end?

[mvp 78]

It seemed to be that it was Ranger or Bregman, not IKF/Sandoval/10M or Bregman. They pivoted to Ranger right after missing out on Bregman. Don't think the smaller contracts played into it.

[notin]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

It seemed to be that it was Ranger or Bregman, not IKF/Sandoval/10M or Bregman. They pivoted to Ranger right after missing out on Bregman. Don't think the smaller contracts played into it.

And Ranger has worked out.

Would people prefer Bregman with more Bello in the rotation?  Or Ranger and Durbin?

Again - one year ago today Durbin had a .501 OPS, not much better than his current.   He finished with a .721.  If he can do that again…

 

[drewski6]

23 minutes ago, notin said:

My point is it’s actually silly to take these little contracts like IKF and Sandoval and pretend had they been avoided, a superstar was easily affordable.  Sure they spent $15mill on them, but that’s still $160mill short on Bregman.  I think we can both safely assume the Sox don’t look solely at AAV.  
 

And at some point in this deal, Bregman is likely to decline, but his contract never will.  
 

Sure it’s easy to cite the extensions for young players that haven’t worked out yet.  But we both know that free agents rarely last as long as their deals.  Whats preferable? A $50mill deal to a younger player with a bad year or two upfront?  Or a $180mill deal to an older player with an equally bad year or two at the end?

I read that if you go over the lux tax, you forfeit your share of that sweet sweet dodgers money.  The RS went over by like $3.50 and cost themselves like a $30m in lux tax rev share as a result.  In addition, Fenway is not packed and missed playoff revenue is significant.

I see the RS as more dysfunctional than anything else.  I know people wanna pretend that we are some value hawking, eagle-eye, line in the sand, business first, shrewd, efficient, $$/WAR ....

But its simply not really it.  For every dollar they save "here" they just give right back "there"

[drewski6]

20 minutes ago, notin said:

And Ranger has worked out.

Would people prefer Bregman with more Bello in the rotation?  Or Ranger and Durbin?

Again - one year ago today Durbin had a .501 OPS, not much better than his current.   He finished with a .721.  If he can do that again…

 

What were the PA on the .501 OPS.  Its easier to get it up when it is over a sample size of like 14 games.  

NOt that it really matters because the goal isnt increasing his OPS to higher number, its simply having him turn it around.

But I reject presenting it as Breslows choice of Ranger > Bregman.  It was Bregman who made that choice when Breslow made a fool out of himself and insulted Bregman for no reason.

[Old Red]

23 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

What were the PA on the .501 OPS.  Its easier to get it up when it is over a sample size of like 14 games.  

NOt that it really matters because the goal isnt increasing his OPS to higher number, its simply having him turn it around.

But I reject presenting it as Breslows choice of Ranger > Bregman.  It was Bregman who made that choice when Breslow made a fool out of himself and insulted Bregman for no reason.

I agree on Brez. I think most analysts especially AJ agree that Brez BOTCHED the Bregman’s negotiations from the first offer made, and then every move after that. That’s Brez #12 in your program.

 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Campbell for Urias - C-

Fitts, Weissert, Judice for Verdugo - A

Slaten for Ammons/cash - B+

O'Neill for Santos and Robertson - B+

Grissom for Sale - F

Paxton for Bolivar - C-

Jansen for Paulin, Coffey, Batista - D+

Priester for Yorke - B

Sims for Portes - D

Garcia for Kavadas, Zeferjahn, Lugo and Vargas - D

Narvaez for Rodriguez - B+

Fajardo for Booser - A-

Moran for Gasper - B

Crochet for Teel, Montgomery, MEidroth, Gonzalez - A-

Aybar for Koss - D

Rodriguez, Holobetz, Comp A for Priester - C

Harrison, Hicks, Tibbs, Bello for Devers - C-

Tibbs and Ehrhard for May - F

Matz for Jordan - B

Heyman for Hoppe - C

Ward for Bernardino - C-

Hernandez for Murphy - C+

Gray for Guerrero - C

Gray for Clarke, Fitts and Galle - B+

Oviedo, Samaniego and Guzman for Garcia and Travieso - C-

Jackson for Grissom - C

Watson for Riemer - D+

Bennett for Perales - B-

Contreras for Dobbins, Fajardo and Aita - A-

Baez for Gray - C-

Ziehl and PTBNL for Hicks, 2 PTBNL and Sandlin - C-

Durbin, Monasterio, Seigler and Comp B for Harrison, Drohan and Hamilton - D-

I think you got em all, not just the important ones. Some are clearly TBD or neither side will get any plus or minus from, but you graded them anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

If you had to narrow down to 5 or 10, which ones would you choose?

[UtahSox]

52 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It seemed to be that it was Ranger or Bregman, not IKF/Sandoval/10M or Bregman. They pivoted to Ranger right after missing out on Bregman. Don't think the smaller contracts played into it.

Thats correct…… They HAD to pivot based on other decisions they had made. 
Let’s not focus on IKF/ Sandoval for now start here:

Bello- time in league is 3 years, he would have been Arb1 this year. (3years of control left) Roughly 1.6m salary…. Instead RS show an AAV of 9.16m = 7.56m unnecessary against the RS AAV

Anthony- time in league less than 1 yr. (6 years of control left) Roughly 800k salary……… instead RS show an AAV of 16.25M = 15.45m unnecessary against the RS AAV

Campbell- time in league less than 1 yr. (6 years of control left) Roughly 800k salary……… instead RS show an AAV of 7.5M= 6.7m unnecessary against the RS AAV

combined between those 3 that’s 29.7M in unnecessary AAV then if you simply didn’t sign IKF (something they didn’t need to do) you’re there you’re at 35M AAV.

Ergo RS could have signed both Suarez and Bregman for the same # in AAV. If the front office wasn’t completely dysfunctional and obsessed with winning every deal instead focusing on winning baseball games. 

 

 

[UtahSox]

1 hour ago, notin said:

My point is it’s actually silly to take these little contracts like IKF and Sandoval and pretend had they been avoided, a superstar was easily affordable.  Sure they spent $15mill on them, but that’s still $160mill short on Bregman.  I think we can both safely assume the Sox don’t look solely at AAV.  
 

And at some point in this deal, Bregman is likely to decline, but his contract never will.  
 

Sure it’s easy to cite the extensions for young players that haven’t worked out yet.  But we both know that free agents rarely last as long as their deals.  Whats preferable? A $50mill deal to a younger player with a bad year or two upfront?  Or a $180mill deal to an older player with an equally bad year or two at the end?

Extensions on young players with 5-6 years of control are done by dipsh** who are obsessed with winning deals vs winning World Series. The best way to win World Series is to keep young talented players cheap and use you dollars to maximize roster around them with GOOD proven baseball players. Such as Suarez and Bregman. 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Extensions on young players with 5-6 years of control are done by dipsh** who are obsessed with winning deals vs winning World Series. 

The Braves are dipsh**s?

[UtahSox]

7 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

The Braves are dipsh**s?

No the braves traded Chris sale for Grissom. Breslow is a dips***. Also I think I’ve established this already but I loathe these extensions for young players absolutely despise them. 

[Old Red]

4 hours ago, UtahSox said:

No the braves traded Chris sale for Grissom. Breslow is a dips***. Also I think I’ve established this already but I loathe these extensions for young players absolutely despise them. 

Now up for the Red Sox #12 Breslow #12.

[Hugh2]

5 hours ago, UtahSox said:

No the braves traded Chris sale for Grissom. Breslow is a dips***. Also I think I’ve established this already but I loathe these extensions for young players absolutely despise them. 

Have you seen the lack of low quality players in free agency growing the last decade? 

Extending young players is meaning more and more that premium players are reaching free agency at 30 or older.  All teams are doing it, teams like the Braves have just done it more than other organizations and the Braves were 1st place 3 of the last 5 seasons with a world series to show for it.....and they're in first place now so....

[Hugh2]

14 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Extensions on young players with 5-6 years of control are done by dipsh** who are obsessed with winning deals vs winning World Series. The best way to win World Series is to keep young talented players cheap and use you dollars to maximize roster around them with GOOD proven baseball players. Such as Suarez and Bregman. 

I mean, having someone like Ronald Acuna Jr for $17 million a year for the next several years is also maximizing the roster.  You're still maximizing the roster just in later years, which honestly makese more sense now when the team sucks

[notin]

15 hours ago, drewski6 said:

What were the PA on the .501 OPS.  Its easier to get it up when it is over a sample size of like 14 games.  

NOt that it really matters because the goal isnt increasing his OPS to higher number, its simply having him turn it around.

But I reject presenting it as Breslows choice of Ranger > Bregman.  It was Bregman who made that choice when Breslow made a fool out of himself and insulted Bregman for no reason.

It was 30 games 105 PA.  This year he is at 45 games 159 PA.  Not huge difference…

[notin]

14 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Extensions on young players with 5-6 years of control are done by dipsh** who are obsessed with winning deals vs winning World Series. The best way to win World Series is to keep young talented players cheap and use you dollars to maximize roster around them with GOOD proven baseball players. Such as Suarez and Bregman. 

There is value in keeping some young players cheap, but at some point they can price out the future.   It’s a risk but so is free agency.  The one extension everyone questioned was Rafaela, but right now that looks like the best one.

Bregman is 32, and signed through age 36 and hasn’t been the same player he was in 2017-19 since, well, 2019.  Chances are very good he continues to decline over the next 5 seasons and is no longer “good” before they end.

With free agency, you need to get the good years upfront or you’re f***ed.  With extensions, you still have a chance if the player doesn’t hit the ground running…

 

[mvp 78]

16 hours ago, drewski6 said:

I read that if you go over the lux tax, you forfeit your share of that sweet sweet dodgers money.  The RS went over by like $3.50 and cost themselves like a $30m in lux tax rev share as a result.  In addition, Fenway is not packed and missed playoff revenue is significant.

I see the RS as more dysfunctional than anything else.  I know people wanna pretend that we are some value hawking, eagle-eye, line in the sand, business first, shrewd, efficient, $$/WAR ....

But its simply not really it.  For every dollar they save "here" they just give right back "there"

If Fenway is not packed, they don't get the revenue share if they are under the luxury tax.

The first $3.5 million funds player benefits. Half of the remaining sum is then used to fund contributions to MLBPA players' individual retirement accounts. The other half of the remaining sum is then distributed by the commissioner to payee clubs that have grown their non-media net local revenue over a multi-year period. This incentivizes clubs to increase ticket sales, fan engagement, and other revenue generators that most likely rely on increasing payroll, rather than under the old system which allowed teams to not increase payroll and still collect from tax payers.

[mvp 78]

Roman and Crochet were worth the extensions because of their ceilings. You can debate the other ones for sure. 

[moonslav59]

6 hours ago, UtahSox said:

No the braves traded Chris sale for Grissom. Breslow is a dips***. Also I think I’ve established this already but I loathe these extensions for young players absolutely despise them. 

The Braves are one of the leading teams in extending young players.

One trade of vets wipes all that out?

When it works, it works.

Most of ours are still TBD.

[UtahSox]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

The Braves are one of the leading teams in extending young players.

One trade of vets wipes all that out?

When it works, it works.

Most of ours are still TBD.

I’d praise the A’s for the way they have handled their 3 headed young core. I wish we did it how they did. Win now…….. worry about 2031 in 2029-2030 like the Dodgers do. 

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

I’d praise the A’s for the way they have handled their 3 headed young core. I wish we did it how they did. Win now…….. worry about 2031 in 2029-2030 like the Dodgers do. 

We did what they did with their young core, but ours did not do great out of the gate. Of course their deals are not identical to ours, but...

Harris $72M/8 (8/22) Had just turned 21 and had zero MLB experience before the season. He was hitting over .800 in 2022. From 2023-2026 he has hit .740.

Riley $212M/10 (8/22) He was 25, so very different signing. He had an .898 season in 2021. He's hit .813 since 2021, .743 since 2024 and .715 since 2025.

Strider $75M/6 (10/22) He was 23 when he signed. He had a 2.67 ERA in 20 GS in 2022. He went 20-5 in 2023 3.86 ERA, but from 2024-2026: 4.41 ERA and just 28 GS in 2.3 seasons.

I'm not seeing great three signings here. The difference is ATL is winning with other players: we are not.

[notin]

17 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

I’d praise the A’s for the way they have handled their 3 headed young core. I wish we did it how they did. Win now…….. worry about 2031 in 2029-2030 like the Dodgers do. 

Lawrence Butler signed a 7 year extension and has a .538 OPS, over .100 points lower than Anthony.  And Butler’s career OPS+ is only slightly better than Kristian Campbell’s.  If Butler was in Boston, he’d be another “extended him too early” candidate…

[UtahSox]

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We did what they did with their young core, but ours did not do great out of the gate. Of course their deals are not identical to ours, but...

Harris $72M/8 (8/22) Had just turned 21 and had zero MLB experience before the season. He was hitting over .800 in 2022. From 2023-2026 he has hit .740.

Riley $212M/10 (8/22) He was 25, so very different signing. He had an .898 season in 2021. He's hit .813 since 2021, .743 since 2024 and .715 since 2025.

Strider $75M/6 (10/22) He was 23 when he signed. He had a 2.67 ERA in 20 GS in 2022. He went 20-5 in 2023 3.86 ERA, but from 2024-2026: 4.41 ERA and just 28 GS in 2.3 seasons.

I'm not seeing great three signings here. The difference is ATL is winning with other players: we are not.

I was talking about the athletics…. Soderstrom, Wilson and Kurtz. Soda and Wilson just signed their deals after year + service and Kurtz still hasn’t signed. I don’t know man the more I think about it, I think I just hate Craig Breslow so bad that anything he does looks ridiculously stupid to me. But because he botched the negotiations with Bregman so badly I look for reasons why he wouldn’t step up on the money. 
 

You are right the Red Sox do spend money, not as much as most of us think they should based on their revenue. But they do spend the money which means they do have the flexibility.

 

[notin]

9 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

We did what they did with their young core, but ours did not do great out of the gate. Of course their deals are not identical to ours, but...

Harris $72M/8 (8/22) Had just turned 21 and had zero MLB experience before the season. He was hitting over .800 in 2022. From 2023-2026 he has hit .740.

Riley $212M/10 (8/22) He was 25, so very different signing. He had an .898 season in 2021. He's hit .813 since 2021, .743 since 2024 and .715 since 2025.

Strider $75M/6 (10/22) He was 23 when he signed. He had a 2.67 ERA in 20 GS in 2022. He went 20-5 in 2023 3.86 ERA, but from 2024-2026: 4.41 ERA and just 28 GS in 2.3 seasons.

I'm not seeing great three signings here. The difference is ATL is winning with other players: we are not.

He said A’s, not Braves…

[UtahSox]

11 minutes ago, notin said:

Lawrence Butler signed a 7 year extension and has a .538 OPS, over .100 points lower than Anthony.  And Butler’s career OPS+ is only slightly better than Kristian Campbell’s.  If Butler was in Boston, he’d be another “extended him too early” candidate…

Agreed. Maybe that’s why they moved slower on Kurtz/ Wilson?

[notin]

6 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

I was talking about the athletics…. Soderstrom, Wilson and Kurtz. Soda and Wilson just signed their deals after year + service and Kurtz still hasn’t signed. I don’t know man the more I think about it, I think I just hate Craig Breslow so bad that anything he does looks ridiculously stupid to me. But because he botched the negotiations with Bregman so badly I look for reasons why he wouldn’t step up on the money. 
 

You are right the Red Sox do spend money, not as much as most of us think they should based on their revenue. But they do spend the money which means they do have the flexibility.

 

Ok I’m confused.  (A fancier way of saying “Huh?”)

I assumed Butler was part of the A’s young extended core and Kurtz wasn’t because Butler has actually been extended and Kurtz has not (although Kurtz is definitely a corr player, if not a franchise player).

Butler, Soderstrom and Wilson have combined this year for 0.0 bWAR.  Anthony, Mayer and Rafaela have combined for 3.1 bWAR.  Why is the Athletics model preferable? 
 

Is this more Hamilton Factor - that the same (or worse) is acceptable as long as it’s someplace else? 
 

And yes, I am officially calling it the Hamilton Factor.  Although “the monster is always greener” is also acceptable (actually preferable)…

[notin]

4 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

Agreed. Maybe that’s why they moved slower on Kurtz/ Wilson?

I think Kurtz is less willing to sign since it most definitely will cost him more money.

Or possible they break the bank on him upon moving to Vegas, and he becomes a marketable franchise player in a legitimate market…

[moonslav59]

36 minutes ago, UtahSox said:

I was talking about the athletics…. Soderstrom, Wilson and Kurtz. Soda and Wilson just signed their deals after year + service and Kurtz still hasn’t signed. I don’t know man the more I think about it, I think I just hate Craig Breslow so bad that anything he does looks ridiculously stupid to me. But because he botched the negotiations with Bregman so badly I look for reasons why he wouldn’t step up on the money. 
 

You are right the Red Sox do spend money, not as much as most of us think they should based on their revenue. But they do spend the money which means they do have the flexibility.

 

Sorry. You answered to my Braves question but clearly said the A's. My bad.

I don't have issues with trying to extend young and promising players beyond their years of control. Most are signed into prime years. When they become FAs, they want contracts beyond prime and for more money, if they are good.

It's risky, but to me the bigger risk is signing guys like...

$21M Buehler

$18M Sandoval

$10M Kluber, Richards, Hendriks & Paxton

$7M Wacha

$5M Hill

and also...

$140M Story

$95M Pablito

$90M Yoshida

$88M HRam

$39M Giolito

 

[drewski6]

35 minutes ago, notin said:

Ok I’m confused.  (A fancier way of saying “Huh?”)

I assumed Butler was part of the A’s young extended core and Kurtz wasn’t because Butler has actually been extended and Kurtz has not (although Kurtz is definitely a corr player, if not a franchise player).

Butler, Soderstrom and Wilson have combined this year for 0.0 bWAR.  Anthony, Mayer and Rafaela have combined for 3.1 bWAR.  Why is the Athletics model preferable? 
 

Is this more Hamilton Factor - that the same (or worse) is acceptable as long as it’s someplace else? 
 

And yes, I am officially calling it the Hamilton Factor.  Although “the monster is always greener” is also acceptable (actually preferable)…

Its harder to spend money than some believe.  And thats why Im not into all this max efficiency $$/WAR type stuff.  I get the math.  But the whole trading for value to create budget room....BUt theres not an infinite supply of high priced / worth it talent.....Its not like if someone like Soto becomes available again, theres only 3 bidders , with those being the 3 teams that have the most efficient rosters......

Despite how many times people want to high five over all the high priced, underperformers on other teams and take a victory lap for financial flexibility.....that doesnt mean that all we do is need to wait for next free agency and we can go shopping.

FA is usually a bunch of 32 yr old stopgaps.