The dodgers only have to pay half his salary, he took an unpaid year off, and he STILL probably won't end up being worth what the dodgers are paying him, ouchThe Price redux thread would be relatively short
The dodgers only have to pay half his salary, he took an unpaid year off, and he STILL probably won't end up being worth what the dodgers are paying him, ouchThe Price redux thread would be relatively short
One move was said to have taken more than 50 phone calls between Bloom and another club: the trade of Betts to the Dodgers, which will remain painful for Red Sox fans for a long, long time, even if the 2021 group wins a title. The lengthy process, in this instance, seemed to help Boston’s position, a source with knowledge of the talks said. The Sox came to believe Dodgers ownership was pressuring its front office to improve, and the Dodgers eventually became willing to take David Price’s contract in the deal.
...
In the bigger picture, the Betts trade leads to a question of what Bloom’s arrival and the hunt for surplus value represents, particularly for a large-market team like the Red Sox.
The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported. The Sox, a team source said, knew Betts was unlikely to take $290 million. But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.
Bloom didn’t have an absolute mandate to trade Betts, particularly if there were no good offers available. But in light of ownership’s position, it was clear Bloom would be wise to avoid a situation where the Sox’ only compensation for Betts would be the draft pick they’d receive if he left as a free agent.
Drellich article on the Athletic has some nuggets: https://theathletic.com/2898387/2021/10/21/chaim-bloom-the-red-sox-return-to-contention-and-the-hunt-for-surplus-value/
We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford,At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.
Bloom didn’t have an absolute mandate to trade Betts, particularly if there were no good offers available. But in light of ownership’s position, it was clear Bloom would be wise to avoid a situation where the Sox’ only compensation for Betts would be the draft pick they’d receive if he left as a free agent.
By that logic every deal a team makes that doesn't win didn't turn out well. Trout's deal will likely generate tens of millions in excess value based on his production, if they don't win it isn't because of that deal.I mean couldn’t you “technically” say that trouts deal wont turn out well unless the ANGELS actually win a WS with him on the team?
To be clear, the only reason Pedroia worked out great was because the AAV was so low. I wouldn’t qualify that as a mega contract. The last several (2? 3?) years of that deal were a complete disaster but he had earned the contract over the first 4-5 years, just because the value was so low. If the contract was 6 years and $96M then it still would have been a good deal and I’m not sure we would qualify that as a mega contract. A $96M contract signed after 2010 just doesn’t qualify IMO.The Sox have been a mixed bag with long term contracts, Pedey and Manny worked out great, Crawford and Castillo were terrible.
I'm not really sure how to judge Agon and Price, Agon was great with the Sox, but quickly traded though not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, Price was mediocre, but they had to pay a bunch of money to unload him on the back end.
I believe those are the only 7+ year deals they've ever agreed to.
edit: They also signed Nomar to what ended up being a 7 year deal including the options, that was also easily a home run, even though they traded him at the end.
The problem is, this is what young talented ballplayers want. It's going to be the going length of deal for a Rafael Devers or a Xander Bogaerts. If you're okay with having Devers or Bogaerts for a short amount of time and then either trading them a year before their current deal is up (and getting 75-50 cents on the dollar) or letting them walk to free agency for nothing, then I think that this is the price (no pun) that we're going to have to pay for not going to long-term contracts.We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford,
Albert Pujols, Yoenis Cespedes, Prince Fielder....
Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.
There is getting a hometown and then getting 10+ year deals.The problem is, this is what young talented ballplayers want. It's going to be the going length of deal for a Rafael Devers or a Xander Bogaerts. If you're okay with having Devers or Bogaerts for a short amount of time and then either trading them a year before their current deal is up (and getting 75-50 cents on the dollar) or letting them walk to free agency for nothing, then I think that this is the price (no pun) that we're going to have to pay for not going to long-term contracts.
Because I don't think that most players aren't going to take a home count discount in either dollars or years. Sure, one or two will, but most won't.
I think that these quotes are the money quotes:
Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.
I guess what I don't understand is that while being risk-averse is fine, ownership had no problem giving Sale a $168 million extension despite the overwhelmingly obvious risks attached to it. And in fact they've received almost nothing in return for that deal due to ineffectiveness and injury.Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.
It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.I am not saying that they should only take a home town discount. Iirc the $290 million contract they offered him in 2019 would have made him the 3rd highest paid player at that time. That’s not a “hometown” discount.
I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.
Which is fine. That's what I guess you do. But again, if they're not going to sign Mookie Betts to a long-term deal, then they probably won't sign anybody to that type of deal. If you're okay with that, that's cool. No judgement on my part. Like I said, I like a bit of continuity on my teams. I root for the laundry, but I also root for the players. There's no "right" way to root for a team.
I had the Baseball Show on last night for a bit and Tony Massarotti brought up a great point in that if the Sox aren't going to pay or give out long-term deals to superstars (like Betts) and are going to bring in good, but flawed, players, the Sox are going to be hard-pressed to win. He talked about guys like Renfroe who has mostly played well but has done some dumb things in the playoffs (ninth inning of Game 4, lack of production at the plate in the ALCS), Schwarber who is not the slickest first baseman and Adam Ottavino (Mazz was saying that Ottavino is not brought into the late innings because people run on him so much, something like 22 steals in 68 IP). Anyway, these flawed players put pressure on the stars that they always have to produce. For example, Whitlock going two innings in Game 4 and then Eovaldi coming into the ninth.
He posited that that's why teams like the Rays or the A's or the Twins don't win the World Series. They have these players that are really good, and during the year the flaws sort of even out. But during a short series their flaws are exposed and there's really not a chance for them to even things out.
I don't know if I would buy all of that, but I buy a lot of it. And I'd hate for the Sox to let go over stars because of contract length and bring in players that 85-90% of the player that they let go.
wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.
Which is fine. That's what I guess you do. But again, if they're not going to sign Mookie Betts to a long-term deal, then they probably won't sign anybody to that type of deal. If you're okay with that, that's cool. No judgement on my part. Like I said, I like a bit of continuity on my teams. I root for the laundry, but I also root for the players. There's no "right" way to root for a team.
I had the Baseball Show on last night for a bit and Tony Massarotti brought up a great point in that if the Sox aren't going to pay or give out long-term deals to superstars (like Betts) and are going to bring in good, but flawed, players, the Sox are going to be hard-pressed to win. He talked about guys like Renfroe who has mostly played well but has done some dumb things in the playoffs (ninth inning of Game 4, lack of production at the plate in the ALCS), Schwarber who is not the slickest first baseman and Adam Ottavino (Mazz was saying that Ottavino is not brought into the late innings because people run on him so much, something like 22 steals in 68 IP). Anyway, these flawed players put pressure on the stars that they always have to produce. For example, Whitlock going two innings in Game 4 and then Eovaldi coming into the ninth.
He posited that that's why teams like the Rays or the A's or the Twins don't win the World Series. They have these players that are really good, and during the year the flaws sort of even out. But during a short series their flaws are exposed and there's really not a chance for them to even things out.
I don't know if I would buy all of that, but I buy a lot of it. And I'd hate for the Sox to let go over stars because of contract length and bring in players that 85-90% of the player that they let go.
That $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....
X is on an extension right now. But Devers is coming up. It will be very interesting to see what they do there.I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
by AAV, sure. But at the time of the Sox $290M offer, the only deals bigger were Trout and Stanton. Since then, topped by Lindor, Tatis, Betts.That $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.
X has one year left until he can opt out (as does Sale). There’s about a 99.9% chance he opts out. Agree on Devers- have to think he will be looking for like a 12 year deal.X is on an extension right now. But Devers is coming up. It will be very interesting to see what they do there.
You might be right. But that's the direction that the Front Office has right now. I mean, they said as much in that article.I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
I am not a prospect humper at all, so you're coming at me with the wrong ammunition here. Marcelo Mayer may be the next Cal Ripken or he could be the next Mark Appel. You don't know how good he's going to be and neither do I. In fact, there have been three players taken as the overall number one pick in the draft that have made the Hall of Fame since the draft was started more than 50 years ago (Baines, Griffey and Chipper). So the draft isn't exactly a science here. You could miss out on a can't miss star in the first round and find a perpetual All-Star in the sixth, talent comes from everywhere in the draft. Especially in baseball. And if the team is penalized one year, guess what, there's another draft the next year. There's always another draft. A lot of people don't seem to mind that the Sox whiffed on high second-round pick Jud Fabian this year, mostly because there's a draft next year and maybe the Sox can get someone better.wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....
Graterol is like a beefy Joe Kelly. He gives up way more contact than you'd think someone throwing that hard would. But he certainly seems to be a better piece than Jeter Downs right now. I knew Bloom should have stayed away from someone with that name.The only quarrel I have with the Betts trade is that Bloom's people may have misled him on Brusdar Graterol's "medicals." He is pretty impressive at the moment.
Pedro worked out well but that was 6.The Sox have been a mixed bag with long term contracts, Pedey and Manny worked out great, Crawford and Castillo were terrible.
I'm not really sure how to judge Agon and Price, Agon was great with the Sox, but quickly traded though not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, Price was mediocre, but they had to pay a bunch of money to unload him on the back end.
I believe those are the only 7+ year deals they've ever agreed to.
edit: They also signed Nomar to what ended up being a 7 year deal including the options, that was also easily a home run, even though they traded him at the end.
There's a difference though between a 9 figure deal that begins with a 1, and one that begins with a 3 or a 4. I doubt the ownership group would have a problem giving Devers (for example) a 6 year, $200M contract. The problem is when it gets to the 10-12 year, $300-$400M range.I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
I realize that. The issue as you said is with the mega long-term money and years which is what Betts wanted. If Devers is cool with a manageable deal like you said, they'd sign up for it in a second most likely.There's a difference though between a 9 figure deal that begins with a 1, and one that begins with a 3 or a 4. I doubt the ownership group would have a problem giving Devers (for example) a 6 year, $200M contract. The problem is when it gets to the 10-12 year, $300-$400M range.
Because he had 2 arb years left that were being bought out and you're comparing his contract to guys that didn'tThat $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.
He had a 4.59 era and a 1.41 whip pitching in the NL this year with a horrible strikeout to walk ratio, that would make him near the back end of the current Sox pen.The only quarrel I have with the Betts trade is that Bloom's people may have misled him on Brusdar Graterol's "medicals." He is pretty impressive at the moment.
Dude suffers from a major case of Joe Kelly-itis. Awesome to watch on Pitching Ninja, though.He had a 4.59 era and a 1.41 whip pitching in the NL this year with a horrible strikeout to walk ratio, that would make him near the back end of the current Sox pen.
It’s an interesting question. If you woke up to news that the Sox had dealt Downs for Graterol, would you be happy? I don’t think I would be (and slightly worse if we had to throw in Wong).Graterol is like a beefy Joe Kelly. He gives up way more contact than you'd think someone throwing that hard would. But he certainly seems to be a better piece than Jeter Downs right now. I knew Bloom should have stayed away from someone with that name.
First rounders have significantly better chances to reach the majors and contribute. Folks have posted the numbers here before, but here's a chart from the first article that I found while googling "MLB draft position and WAR correlation". Sure you can find guys everywhere, but first round picks are like having a bunch of extra picks. There's a reason why they changed the forfeiture of first round picks for signing top tier FAs. It actively discouraged signings.I am not a prospect humper at all, so you're coming at me with the wrong ammunition here. Marcelo Mayer may be the next Cal Ripken or he could be the next Mark Appel. You don't know how good he's going to be and neither do I. In fact, there have been three players taken as the overall number one pick in the draft that have made the Hall of Fame since the draft was started more than 50 years ago (Baines, Griffey and Chipper). So the draft isn't exactly a science here. You could miss out on a can't miss star in the first round and find a perpetual All-Star in the sixth, talent comes from everywhere in the draft. Especially in baseball. And if the team is penalized one year, guess what, there's another draft the next year. There's always another draft. A lot of people don't seem to mind that the Sox whiffed on high second-round pick Jud Fabian this year, mostly because there's a draft next year and maybe the Sox can get someone better.
Enjoy the weekly Verdugo walkoffs this year?I don't have the joy of watching Mookie play for the Sox anymore so no, we didn't win the trade.