drewski6

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.

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.

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

2 reasons. 1. Because the question posed was why would they ever call him up this early and so I operated from a standpoint that he'd be called up (not to imply that I agree he should be - just tried to think of a reason why a team would consider it) 2. To take a cheap shot at your WAR / $$ is everything belief because its an oversimplification. WAR/$$ is a good great way to view a contract , sure, but saying [insert anything] is all about [insert anything] is false. WAR/$ is not the be-all, end-all way of evaluating a contract/potential FA contract because nothing is the be-all, end-all way of evaluating a contract/potential FA contract. Now regarding the cheap shot - I am making an effort to be less of a "dingus" to you and at least it wasnt personal this time. My personal mantra is: People say everything happens for a reason but the truth is the opposite. Nothing happens for a reason. Anything that has ever happened ever has happened because of a combination of MULTIPLE reasons.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

A cheap team could trade out from that final arb 3 year and have him next 2 years at like 6m each (assuming like 4.5m arb 1, 7.5m arb 2). I ran the math and calculated that because he has like 25m in trade value and like 50m remaining on the deal (not including the option) over 4 years that comes to like 19m/yr (75/4) in expected value. So a trade partner would be getting 38m in value for 12m in pay for like 26m excess value over next 2 years with the bonus of a modest trade asset entering year 3. So 38-12 = 26...then hed have an extra like 5m for that final arb year, which is more trade value than he has (so the extension is underwater) but only slightly. The trade value hed have without the extension is close to the trade value he has with it.......And theres a reason for this.... And that reason is that looking at things from an AAV/lux tax standpoint is stupid. And when they extended him, the salary for each arb year was intended to closely reflect what we thought each arb year would be. So think hed get 5m in arb 1, pay him 6m in that year.... The extension was neither good or bad because it was made with the expectation hed be like a #3/4 starter, and hes been roughly that. We were hopeful hed be better and that would make the extension worth it but he hasnt been. But its not like killing his value. These extensions look absolutely terrible - if you look at tax hit as the payroll and its not. Full stop. But our overall payroll looks better if you look at it from a tax hit perspective (what did i say this morning its like 256m tax hit vs 215 expected cash payments), so the water carriers want you to look at it from a tax hit perspective but thats dumb because the tax hit and penalties only matter if you go full dodgers. And if you are going to go full dodgers, internal extensions are small speed bumps. The penalties are borderline irrelevant. The cash is what matters. When we extend, we try to keep the cash equivalent to what it would have been had there been no extension. So the only way to win/lose (when looking at payroll from a cash perspective) is to have a significant fluctuation in the player. Bello has not had a big fluctuation - so we're about even on the extension, maybe a little underwater (hed have slightly more trade value had we not extended him). Our payroll is 215m, only the anti-labor folks on here want to go by the tax hit. And its inaccurate.

I lean agree. It might be something other than pure wins/losses contributing to a call up. Like maybe they have a TV deal up for renewal and young players = more eyes. Nobody wants to watch a team of journeyman struggle but its always fun to watch the up-and-comers, even if they lose because then those losses are "growing pains / flashes of whats to come", It gives a reason to care even if the team stinks.

2WAR/1million = 2:1 War to millions paid. Does Crochet make 22.5M? Well he better have 45 WAR because if he doesnt , Monty is the better asset. Bad trade!

I would stop short of doesnt make sense at all. Pros/cons to everything, and there are some pros here. If he proves to be a piece that may help attract free agents, ticket sales, jersey sales, maybe get some buzz about a young kid. When you stink, watching the kids is kind of all you get. Dont get me wrong, the reasons why not I think exceed the reasons why. So I think its dumb. But there are reasons why teams do things like this. I remember in like the 2005ish the Tigers were joke(like multiple consecutive last place finishes, couldnt get a free agent without overpaying) and they signed a 32 yr old Pudge Rodriguez to 4 yrs at (for the time) big money. His first year there, he was great but they finished 4th in central, well under .500 out of playoff contention early. The next year he wsa great, they finsihed 4th in central , well under .500 out of playoff contention early. And then things got better from there. Around late 2007 I was in grad school at Bentley and had a class with a dude who worked for Theo (thats when i learned that theres 2 sets of rings because he had one but it wasnt real diamonds). He let me wear it. Cool guy. He explained to me that the Pudge deal at the time was universally panned. Why is this awful team clearly not ready to compete spending big money on a 32 year old! And this dude (forget his name) taught me that sometimes you do stuff like this for the side benefit. He told me the real reason they signed Pudge wsant to have a good team in those 4 years (they wound up having very good years his last 2 years) but even if the rebuild took longer that and if they never made the playoffs in those 4 years ....They still wouldnt regret it becuse they overpiad an aging Pudge to change their perception. To stop being a dormat. To generate buzz. Not every baseball dedision is made for 100% on field reasons. Sometimes changing the perception/culture comes first and building the competitive core comes next.

But youve said many times its all about WAR/$ , no? If Braden Montgomery has a projected 1.3WAR at min wage (round to 1m). Thats 1.3 War / $ (in millions). Cedanne is $6.5m (tax hit, which you always use) and is projected 4.7m WAR. So thats .72 War/$$ So according to your own logic, Monty (this year) is almost double the value of Cedanne! What a bargain! And what about next year when Montgomery gives you 2.5m on a 1m tax hit (2.5 War/ $ in millions)! And the year after , he may even be a 4m on a 1m tax hit ( a whopping 4 WAR / $ in millions). So over next 3 years , Monty is like a cumulative 7.8/WAR(in millions) over the next 3 yars but Cedanne is only like 2.5m So Monty is worth 3 Cedannes!!!!! Or maybe this is exactly why WAR / $ is a grossly oversimplified metric.

Sometimes its wiser to keep your cheap studs cheap so you have extra ammo to build around them. Sometimes, its a good idea to lock up. Im a case by case guy. But when we lock up youth, we try (at least reasonably) to keep the cash outlay in line with expected performance. For example, Romans tax hit is like 17m, but they are actually paying him like 7m this year. And sure thats more than his pre-arb hit of ~1m but the gap between 7 (cash) and 1 (what he would have been if no extension) is still a lot better than the gap between his AAV/Tax hit (17m) and 1m (what he would have been if no extension). If we're talking about upping a 1m to 7m and getting some free agent years added, that feels more worth it than if we were upping his pay from 1m to 17m (which we are not). So yes going by the tax hit does create a little bit of a "funny money" effect as the tax hit only matters for the tax. So Ive been applying the tax hit evenly across the entire roster to estimate true cost. For example, Spotrac estimates that the Red Sox will have a 256m tax basis and therefore the tax hit is like 30% on like 12m aka ~3.5M. They also estimate that our payroll expenditure (without penalty) will be 213.5m So 3.5/(213.5+3.5) = 1.6%. So really only thing the tax is doing is adding 1.6% to our payroll (side note: all this fuss about tax and all its doing is increasing our payroll 1.6% lol and thats with 2nd year repeater penalty. Tax is borderline irrelevant unless you are going to go full Dodgers, fans just love having pretend budgets to make roster building more like a fun puzzle). But Im not going to go by tax hit when all it does is calculate a miniscule penalty. But I am willing to apply a 1.6% markup to cash spend to account for the tax because thats what its doing. So instead of 213.5M, our real payroll is 213.5+ 1.6% or 217m (2026 player expenditure + tax penalty). Romans true cost in 2026 is 7*1.016= 7.11M (his salary + 1.6% markup due to tax penalty). But its not his 17m cap hit, and going by tax is indeed just carrying water for ownership. All of that being said, I really do not think the handcuff (this offseason) was financial. I dont think they are being super value driven, at least not to the extent of the past. I fully believe the thrice reported story that everything centered around Bregman, and they blew it with Breslows bad interpersonal skills. At least blew their plan, I dont think they've blown the season. We may be better served without Bregman, and Story and Duran will step up as the leaders. I do think Sox look very strong right now. Breslow, I have mixed opinions on, and I think hes a douche. But I think hes made 2 spectacular moves that are really going to save his bacon. Them being 1) Crochet 2) not trading Duran. #2 might just be another example of mr magoo'ing into a good decision accidentally. Like botching something but winding up better for the botch (if he tried to trade Duran but couldnt) - so I dont know how much credit to give him there personally....But whatever, we look great and its hard for me to be as mad at Breslow as Ive been when I like the team - but I still think hes a huge douche

Best compliment Ive received today

Maybe detective Columbo of classic television drama series can get to the bottom of why Coulombe is still assigned.

Am I that sicko?

Agreed. The contracts are not underwater, and thats what the positive BTV represents. But its not like either player would have negative value if they were still on pre-arb or in their arb deals (if extension never happened). I use to think that Cedannes contract would turn negative eventually, but Im loving what Im seeing from him this spring. Bello is currently blocking a better pitcher from making the rotation and should get the MVP (MoVed for Prospects)

TY Jad, the number of times in my life I've heard "you're not white, you f'ing Jew" rose from 1 to 4 in recent months. In my experience, trying to police who gets to call themselves what is so rarely coming from a good place. My post was sincere. I only meant to express my hope that Kimmi's expressed interest in the backstories were to celebrate them, not police their eligibility. But I guess that went too far. Unfortunately, this isnt the first time Ive run into this particular brand of ugliness on this website.

Who is the fastest player in MLB right now? Victor Scott? Corbin Carroll? I assume its not Trea Turner anymore.

Looks like me out there when I played lf

I heard that Ward cant actually run the bases at full speed and has to slow up while hes going around them because if he went at full speed, hes too fast for the human retina to register and nobody would even see/believe him that he already went all the way around and touched all 4 bags (if he ran at full speed).

Bunt inside the park HR?