Early Trade deadline deals the selling Sox should make

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

Because after this season he's a free agent. 

He has a mutual option for 28, which means BOTH him and the team have to exercise it......which hardly ever happens in such scenarios. 

He was a free agent after last year. Also I’m fully aware of his contract, but like I said he was a FA last offseason, and signed back with Boston.

[Old Red]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

It's not a slam dunk that Chapman and the Sox wouldn't both exercise the option for 2028 but it's pretty close to it.  He will be 39 in 2027.  If he's still good, and the Sox would want to exercise the option some team out there would pay more than 12.7 million for one year. 

Why would we assume he would be here for 2027?

I not assuming either way, and there is still games to be played this year before a decision has to be made on trading him, or not.

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, Old Red said:

He was a free agent after last year. Also I’m fully aware of his contract, but like I said he was a FA last offseason, and signed back with Boston.

Yes, FREE AGENT is not the same thing as having a mutual option.  The whole point of this exercise in determining who to sell is to list the expiring contracts. 

ADD: I've also edited my comment to state the mutual option is for next year 2027, not 2028.  I wasn't quick enough for you. 

[Hugh2]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

I not assuming either way, and there is still games to be played this year before a decision has to be made on trading him, or not.

Oh, absolutely 100% 

We could be living in a completely different world in 5-6 weeks from now. 

But if we are sitting here at the end of July and the Sox are sub .500 and not competing for a wild card they need to sell.  No more of this hugging the line crap. 

[Old Red]

Just now, Hugh2 said:

Yes, FREE AGENT is not the same thing as having a mutual option.  The whole point of this exercise in determining who to sell is to list the expiring contracts. 

Either way he can still sign back with Boston if he wants too. The Yankees traded him one year, and signed him back the next. That could happen too. 

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Yes, FREE AGENT is not the same thing as having a mutual option.  The whole point of this exercise in determining who to sell is to list the expiring contracts. 

That I agree with.

[Bellhorn04]

56 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I was wrong on Contreras, but Chapman is much more certain to be gone after this season.  

Without much playoff hope in 2026.....what should we keep Chapman and lose him for nothing?

Chapman's option for 2027 is also a vesting option, if he pitches 40 innings and passes a year end physical he is retained for 2027 at $13 million. 

[Hugh2]

8 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Chapman's option for 2027 is also a vesting option, if he pitches 40 innings and passes a year end physical he is retained for 2027 at $13 million. 

No, it's a vesting mutual option.  If it doesn't vest theres no option.  It's either a mutual option or no option at all and mutual options are almost never exercised by both parties. 

[Sthpaw777]

2 hours ago, Hugh2 said:

could be, but what are the odds? less than 10% certianly.  For all practical purposes I'd consider him here 

if you’re offered a good deal you take it. With one year team option he’ll have more value. I’d definitely listen to offers

[Hugh2]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

No, it's a vesting mutual option.  If it doesn't vest theres no option.  It's either a mutual option or no option at all and mutual options are almost never exercised by both parties. 

Correction: it's a mutual option IF it does not vest, which is almost certainly the case if it does not.  If Chapman doesn't hit 40 IP something seriously went wrong. 

If the option vests, certainly Chapman is going to earn himself much more than 12.7 per year given the year he's having this year.  Even at his age, if he performs at this level all year someone is giving him 20 million for a year. 

[Old Red]

6 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Correction: it's a mutual option IF it does not vest, which is almost certainly the case if it does not.  If Chapman doesn't hit 40 IP something seriously went wrong. 

If the option vests, certainly Chapman is going to earn himself much more than 12.7 per year given the year he's having this year.  Even at his age, if he performs at this level all year someone is giving him 20 million for a year. 

To much worrying about this, and worrying about that. He did get 20 million this year after the year he had last year, so it’s far from a certainty he would get that next year.

[Hugh2]

10 minutes ago, Old Red said:

To much worrying about this, and worrying about that. He did get 20 million this year after the year he had last year, so it’s far from a certainty he would get that next year.

Who is worrying? I'm not worrying.  I think the liklihood that Chapman opts into a contract are extremly small and he should be considered a guy not part of this core post 2026 and should be traded......if we are sellers. 

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, Hugh2 said:

It's not a slam dunk that Chapman and the Sox wouldn't both exercise the option for 2027 but it's pretty close to it.  He will be 39 in 2027.  If he's still good, and the Sox would want to exercise the option some team out there would pay more than 12.7 million for one year. 

Why would we assume he would be here for 2027?

If he gets to 40 innings this season, the contract becomes guaranteed.

[mvp 78]

50 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

No, it's a vesting mutual option.  If it doesn't vest theres no option.  It's either a mutual option or no option at all and mutual options are almost never exercised by both parties. 

Nope. 

[Old Red]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If he gets to 40 innings this season, the contract becomes guaranteed.

That’s the way the contract reads. Pretty straightforward.