Red Sox Pre-Offseason Mega Thread

[notin]

29 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

He won't make or break the season, BUT with a penny pinching owner, why throw all these extensions onto the budget when IN TOTAL they've kinda busted out on them? They would have been better going year to year and having the cash on hand to spend today IMO. It is less risky unless you believe these guys are all turning into Mookie Betts and it hasn't turned out that way, clearly. 

Rafaela has been worth 8 fWAR over the past two seasons.   And his AAV (I don’t care if you don’t care about AAV) would gotten you Harrison Bader in free agency.  Exactly how is that a bust?

Bello hasn’t set the league on fire, but the guy signed for Patrick Sandoval/Michael Lorenzen money.   

They don’t have to become Betts to justify these deals…

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

Rafaela has been worth 8 fWAR over the past two seasons.   And his AAV (I don’t care if you don’t care about AAV) would gotten you Harrison Bader in free agency.  Exactly how is that a bust?

Bello hasn’t set the league on fire, but the guy signed for Patrick Sandoval/Michael Lorenzen money.   

They don’t have to become Betts to justify these deals…

The AAV doesn't matter when his AAV would be a lot less if they went year to year with him. 

The bust is all the extensions combined. If they could have, the would have dealt Bello by now at for higher value. Unfortunately, his extension diminishes his return. 

If the players don't become stars, the extensions are just flat out not worth it. Just go year to year. 

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, notin said:

Daulton Varsho got more in arbitration.  And we will see how Varsho - in my opinion, the lesser player of the two - does in free agency…

His '23 contract negotiation year (didn't go to ARB) was after back to back seasons over 100 OPS+ and hitting 27 HR in '22. It takes Rafaela two seasons to hit that many HR.  

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, notin said:

Sticking with my Duran/Marte trade prediction.

Although a Duran/Semien trade wouldn’t surprise me.  But it better not be 1 for 1…

I don't know what is going on in Marte's life. If that's the trade, that's the trade. Not sure whose stock dropped more last season. 

[Old Red]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The AAV doesn't matter when his AAV would be a lot less if they went year to year with him. 

The bust is all the extensions combined. If they could have, the would have dealt Bello by now at for higher value. Unfortunately, his extension diminishes his return. 

If the players don't become stars, the extensions are just flat out not worth it. Just go year to year. 

The only thing that justifies these extensions would be if the extensions would have been less costly all the way through. Right now probably not.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Old Red said:

The only thing that justifies these extensions would be if the extensions would have been less costly all the way through. Right now probably not.

It makes sense for Roman and Crochet. The other guys? I'm just not all in on extensions like some people. 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, Hitch said:

I also think there's something to be said for making a guy feel wanted and comfortable. In no way was it a bad deal for us. 

It's impossible to not love the extension.  I don't have to keep all our players, but Ceddanne is a pleasure to watch.

But more importantly, the idea that we should keep all our players, but never extend any of our players, isn't really worth considering.

[JoeBrady]

28 minutes ago, notin said:

Sticking with my Duran/Marte trade prediction.

Although a Duran/Semien trade wouldn’t surprise me.  But it better not be 1 for 1…

It better not be anything at all.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It's impossible to not love the extension.  I don't have to keep all our players, but Ceddanne is a pleasure to watch.

But more importantly, the idea that we should keep all our players, but never extend any of our players, isn't really worth considering.

Extending a bunch of our players is tying them to the organization for better or worse. If you are picking and choosing the players, fine. I think they just gave out too many extensions. For a back of the rotation starter like Bello? Pass. For any position player that isn't projected to get MVP votes in the next 5 years? Pass. 

[JoeBrady]

7 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't know what is going on in Marte's life. If that's the trade, that's the trade. Not sure whose stock dropped more last season. 

AZ would have to chip in money.  Like I said last year, over and over, his contract is cheap, but very long.  He's owed $93M.  He might only have 1-2 good years left.  I know the RSN mantra that RS players never age, but he will.

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

AZ would have to chip in money.  Like I said last year, over and over, his contract is cheap, but very long.  He's owed $93M.  He might only have 1-2 good years left.  I know the RSN mantra that RS players never age, but he will.

He still has good offensive metrics. I think if he needs to slide over to 1b after Contreras is done, it's not a big deal to finish his contract over there. I'm more concerned with the interesting things that has happened to him off the field the past few years. Seems like a lot. Sox don't really have any leaders right now and adding Marte isn't going to move that clubhouse forward. 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Ok, the final scorecard isn't complete. Let's not talk about anything then. 

When did I even imply this?

[moonslav59]

32 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

It's impossible to not love the extension.  I don't have to keep all our players, but Ceddanne is a pleasure to watch.

But more importantly, the idea that we should keep all our players, but never extend any of our players, isn't really worth considering.

The ones complaining about JH never paying our best players to stay also complain when we try to lock them beyond their control years.

Of course we will swing and miss, like we do with FA signings and trades.

I'm glad we are at least trying to keep our players longer. Maybe we need to pick the right ones better. I'm glad we did not xtend Casas and Mayer.

[notin]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

It makes sense for Roman and Crochet. The other guys? I'm just not all in on extensions like some people. 

Is my new nickname “some people”?

Of course I’m also not quick to condemn an extension that doesn’t pan out immediately…

[mvp 78]

23 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm glad we did not xtend Casas and Mayer.

They tried to extend Casas. He said no! 

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, notin said:

Is my new nickname “some people”?

Of course I’m also not quick to condemn an extension that doesn’t pan out immediately…

If the extension doesn't look good 2 years in, why should I think it will look better 4 years from now? It just shows that those players weren't ready for an extension. 

You're not the only fan of MLB that likes extensions. 

[notin]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

They tried to extend Casas. He said no! 

But wasn’t that after 2023 when a 23yo Casas hit 24 HRs with an .856 OPS?  Certainly it was time at a minimum to consider it.

No idea what the terms were but it seems Casas bet on himself and lost.  This keeps coming up, but some players just don’t want the extensions.  Sometimes that works out; sometimes it doesn’t.  I don’t fault the Sox for asking here…

[notin]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

If the extension doesn't look good 2 years in, why should I think it will look better 4 years from now? It just shows that those players weren't ready for an extension. 

You're not the only fan of MLB that likes extensions. 

True.  Many Brewers’ fans like them, for example…

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

But wasn’t that after 2023 when a 23yo Casas hit 24 HRs with an .856 OPS?  Certainly it was time at a minimum to consider it.

No idea what the terms were but it seems Casas bet on himself and lost.  This keeps coming up, but some players just don’t want the extensions.  Sometimes that works out; sometimes it doesn’t.  I don’t fault the Sox for asking here…

I'm just saying that moon is glad they didn't extend Casas, but they almost did! 

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

True.  Many Brewers’ fans like them, for example…

Yellich is a good extension? 🫣

If KC was playing like Pratt, nobody would be complaining. Alas. 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

It's impossible to not love the extension.  I don't have to keep all our players, but Ceddanne is a pleasure to watch.

But more importantly, the idea that we should keep all our players, but never extend any of our players, isn't really worth considering.

strawman.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

AZ would have to chip in money.  Like I said last year, over and over, his contract is cheap, but very long.  He's owed $93M.  He might only have 1-2 good years left.  I know the RSN mantra that RS players never age, but he will.

Yes, to be a red sox fan you must accept a belief that humans dont age.  Um, what?

[drewski6]

44 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The ones complaining about JH never paying our best players to stay also complain when we try to lock them beyond their control years.

Of course we will swing and miss, like we do with FA signings and trades.

I'm glad we are at least trying to keep our players longer. Maybe we need to pick the right ones better. I'm glad we did not xtend Casas and Mayer.

Yes, the red sox fans who are mad that we got rid of our best players are so irrational.  I mean, look, weve finished an average of 4th out of 5th since weve traded Betts!

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Yes, the red sox fans who are mad that we got rid of our best players are so irrational.  I mean, look, weve finished an average of 4th out of 5th since weve traded Betts!

It's not irrational at all to be pissed a big market team doesn't choose to keep their best players.

Had we extended Betts early, we'd have had him longer. Nobody would have complained about that "early extension," because he did well.

I agree: we should not have to act like the Rays and try to guess who will be good and extend them, so we can "afford them," but when the team doesn't keep our best players, I'd prefer we at least try it another way than to just let them all walk.

[drewski6]

17 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

It's not irrational at all to be pissed a big market team doesn't choose to keep their best players.

Had we extended Betts early, we'd have had him longer. Nobody would have complained about that "early extension," because he did well.

I agree: we should not have to act like the Rays and try to guess who will be good and extend them, so we can "afford them," but when the team doesn't keep our best players, I'd prefer we at least try it another way than to just let them all walk.

Sure, if giving superstar money to superstar players is completely off the table....then the only chance we have to get superstar players is to find em young and lock em up early.  But I dont believe in these hard/fast rules or this absolute fear to ever be underwater on a contract.  I believe that being scared of a contract going underwater and being scared money at the poker table has done more harm than actual bad contracts.

If you never sign big contracts because you are scared of them going south you arent in that different of a place then a team who cant sign a big contract because they have a couple that have already gone south.

[moonslav59]

56 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Sure, if giving superstar money to superstar players is completely off the table....then the only chance we have to get superstar players is to find em young and lock em up early.  But I dont believe in these hard/fast rules or this absolute fear to ever be underwater on a contract.  I believe that being scared of a contract going underwater and being scared money at the poker table has done more harm than actual bad contracts.

If you never sign big contracts because you are scared of them going south you arent in that different of a place then a team who cant sign a big contract because they have a couple that have already gone south.

I'm with you and others on the disgust over JH & Co being too chicken to pay bigly for the best players- not everyone (like Bogey for one) but certainly Betts.

Knowing this is one thing, but ignoring the fact that JH & Co. won't do it, so how about an idea to keep them longer instead might make some sense kinda rings hollow to me.

If we know they won't keep 'em, try to extend the best ones early. Maybe we swing and miss. Maybe we disagree one who should and shouldn't, but I'm for the added effort being made- not against it, despite  it not being my idea of plan A. (Just re-sign the best guys.)

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm with you and others on the disgust over JH & Co being too chicken to pay bigly for the best players- not everyone (like Bogey for one) but certainly Betts.

Knowing this is one thing, but ignoring the fact that JH & Co. won't do it, so how about an idea to keep them longer instead might make some sense kinda rings hollow to me.

If we know they won't keep 'em, try to extend the best ones early. Maybe we swing and miss. Maybe we disagree one who should and shouldn't, but I'm for the added effort being made- not against it, despite  it not being my idea of plan A. (Just re-sign the best guys.)

Im not sure thats the right approach if I was to even accept a reality where we are never going to be players for great players at market rate.  Because if you think we have this guy who is just going to be awesome, and in 3 years hes going to be making 50m, so lets give him 30myr/7 yrs, only way we can keep him beyond the 3....But you are giving him such a raise in those first three years, where if you would just leave him cheap , its possible that you would have the resources to put a really good team around him.

So I think if we are being serious and seriously considering how we are going to be perpetually under funded vs some teams, then to compete with these teams despite having less, we should not look to take a smooth it out approach. And extend.  I think if this were the case, and Im not saying it is, we may be better served by circling 3-5 year windows and building towards that.  And if you are on teh eve of a 3 yr window and you ahve roman making 900k, it doesnt make much sense to extend him at that point vs keep him cheap and build around him.

Id rather take some years off to rebuild. I would rather build , play the youth, focus on the future, then flip a switch and focus on the present when that window comes, then stink again.

This is not your approach as you are always concerned about a contract being bad in its final years, but with my plan, if those final years are after your window closes , thats okay.  So you can be more aggressive in the season in which you are actually going for it....And if you are trying to swing up, you may need that advantage. 

Sucking in 2028, 2029 and being willing to suck in 2034, 2035 can be a big advantage to having a superstar team in 2031,2032,2033.....Because in 2031 FA, you arent scared to give a 6 yr deal to an aging player because thats your window.  And in 2028, 2029 you can play your kids to see what they got.  

But the redsox just try to be .500, third place, half win-half sell, balance, balance, balance....And I think this is why the results are what they are. Never above third place.  First round playoff exit when you make it....

[drewski6]

I think the results we are getting match up with what we are doing.....We manage like a third place team.  We are a third place team.  We arent bad. We are above average even.  But its a place where you can complacent, get stuck, and be a decent but not elite team for too long.  

[drewski6]

If you are not going to spend the money to be competitive every year, you do not try to not be terrible every year.  You do not try to treat all years equally.  You use windows.  Or youll just never make a deep run.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Im not sure thats the right approach if I was to even accept a reality where we are never going to be players for great players at market rate.  Because if you think we have this guy who is just going to be awesome, and in 3 years hes going to be making 50m, so lets give him 30myr/7 yrs, only way we can keep him beyond the 3....But you are giving him such a raise in those first three years, where if you would just leave him cheap , its possible that you would have the resources to put a really good team around him.

So I think if we are being serious and seriously considering how we are going to be perpetually under funded vs some teams, then to compete with these teams despite having less, we should not look to take a smooth it out approach. And extend.  I think if this were the case, and Im not saying it is, we may be better served by circling 3-5 year windows and building towards that.  And if you are on teh eve of a 3 yr window and you ahve roman making 900k, it doesnt make much sense to extend him at that point vs keep him cheap and build around him.

Id rather take some years off to rebuild. I would rather build , play the youth, focus on the future, then flip a switch and focus on the present when that window comes, then stink again.

This is not your approach as you are always concerned about a contract being bad in its final years, but with my plan, if those final years are after your window closes , thats okay.  So you can be more aggressive in the season in which you are actually going for it....And if you are trying to swing up, you may need that advantage. 

Sucking in 2028, 2029 and being willing to suck in 2034, 2035 can be a big advantage to having a superstar team in 2031,2032,2033.....Because in 2031 FA, you arent scared to give a 6 yr deal to an aging player because thats your window.  And in 2028, 2029 you can play your kids to see what they got.  

But the redsox just try to be .500, third place, half win-half sell, balance, balance, balance....And I think this is why the results are what they are. Never above third place.  First round playoff exit when you make it....

It's hard to get into the mindset of "accepting" we will not pay our proven stars to stay beyond their control years. We both disagree with the FO taking just that approach. The one the guy the extend, Devers, they dump shortly after the big pay began.

I'm not trying to say extending these kids before they even play a game in MLB (KC) or after just a few games (3 others) is the best plan, but I prefer it to watching everyone bolt either by free agency or by trade.

Another plan is to wait a little longer, geta better read, then pay a little more since the players has already increased their value by playing well in their pre-arb or early arb years. Maybe that's a better plan, but then you run the risk of guys like Betts seeing how goo they are and refusing to extend, choosing to "test the market" first.

I will add that this is nothing new for JH. He caught grief for the Lester mess, tried to get it back with the Price signing, and the lesson he learned was, he was right to not go large and long for any "window." Despite the ring in 2018, he learned it wasn't worth it. (Maybe he thought we'd have won w/o Price, anyway.)

I brought up the Devers extension, but there were two more around the time they cut ties with Betts:

Eovaldi was not a major contract but it did seem to address the perceived "window" idea. The Sale extension was widely criticized on this site, so sometimes I wonder WTF us posters want.

BTW, we dumped Sale like Devers.