Wakefield is he last one I remember. In 1997 or so. Also Boggs did early on in his career.Hard to find with Google. What Red Sox historically have ever won arb besides Betts?
Wakefield is he last one I remember. In 1997 or so. Also Boggs did early on in his career.Hard to find with Google. What Red Sox historically have ever won arb besides Betts?
IIRC historically (or at least under Theo-LL etal) they avoided arbitration, and settled.Hard to find with Google. What Red Sox historically have ever won arb besides Betts?
From the on paper POV we do have the some potential bounce backs to be hopeful on, but we are also down what arguably amounted to the best 2017 hitter (sadly) and 2nd best RP on the team. Losing our deadline upgrades is essentially a step backwards that also has to be taken into account imo.How do you figure? A full season of David Price alone adds an expected 2-4 wins. Even if you don't accept the notion that the majority of the roster should improve/bounce back, how do you conclude that the 2018 version would be a downgrade?
The rotation doesn't need an upgrade. But the slots currently held by Sale, Pomeranz, and Porcello will have to be filled in two years. Paying Darvish + young acquired bat a combined $20M a year makes more long-term financial sense than JDM + traded pitcher $30M+, doesn't it?
It's not even just bounce backs. It's a full season of Price, Smith, and Devers, maybe even Pedroia, Holt, Wright, Workman, and Ross. That alone is significantly more than the worth of a quarter season of Nunez and Reed. I don't see how you can see this as a downgrade. In terms of WAR, you're talking about adding 5-10 wins. Smith basically replaces Reed. And if you're specifically talking about a step backwards from the roster at the end of the season/playoffs, then Nunez doesn't even count. Either way you look at it, they're starting 2018 in a better position than 2017.From the on paper POV we do have the some potential bounce backs to be hopeful on, but we are also down what arguably amounted to the best 2017 hitter (sadly) and 2nd best RP on the team. Losing our deadline upgrades is essentially a step backwards that also has to be taken into account imo.
And no, I still don't see Darvish making a lot of long term sense. Maybe if our projected/surrounding LT looked better, or if he was a couple of years younger. But yeah, that potential "extend the window value" he might provide to us down the road is going to have to start in the season he's due to turn 34. That's ultimately a bad bet to make imo.
Why would you assume a full season of Price? It’s probably equally likely that he has Tommy John surgery before opening day.It's not even just bounce backs. It's a full season of Price,
.
Hard to find with Google. What Red Sox historically have ever won arb besides Betts?
Didn’t the Red Sox win an arb case against Abad last offseason?IIRC historically (or at least under Theo-LL etal) they avoided arbitration, and settled.
Under DD, its looks like 0-1.
Yes they did. They offered $2M, he wanted $2.7M.Didn’t the Red Sox win an arb case against Abad last offseason?
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing addition insight into JBJ's character.Drellich wrote an interesting piece on JBJ that gets into personality types, which could be relevant to some on this board.
http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/jackie-bradley-jrs-comfort-boston-should-be-highly-valued
“I would say I [have always been this way]. I’m very much an introvert though, which is weird. I stay out of the limelight, and I’m not very I guess, so-called, outgoing. But… I just like to be treated how I want to be treated. It all stems down to that. No matter what anybody does, I’m still going to try to treat you with respect. And it’s only right. That’s what God would want me to do.”
It’s nice to see some nuanced treatment of these players as people with complex personalities. And in his case, some attention paid to how expectations of leadership merge with being a prominent black player in the city of Boston.
In my history as a fan, it’s often been the introverted types (Drew, Crawford, Foulke, Bogaerts, Wily Mo Pena, Carlos Quintana, maybe even Price despite the Twitter feed) who can for whatever reason be misunderstood. To me, it shows that there are leadership styles fans can’t often see, and that are materially different from the kind we associate with Hosmer, Pedroia and Ortiz.
Personally, I was connecting the comparative dot more to the Giants' decision to put Longoria on their books though 2023.Damn, Todd Frazier for 2/17. Lots of bargains will be going by the wayside while DD waits on JDM. Give JDM a deadline, 48 hrs to accept or the offers off the table
He's higher valued because of that positional difference, and the fact there are actually teams out there where he'd be a decent fit at 3B.Serious question, why is Frazier so much higher valued than Moreland and therefore a bargain at $8.5m per year vs. Moreland perceived as expensive at $6.5m? Almost identical OPS last year, but OPS+ had Moreland at 99 vs. 105 for Frazier - due to 1B vs. 3B. And if you add in defense (is Frazier that much better a defender than Moreland?) you get 3.4 WAR vs Moreland 2.0.
But from a pure bat perspective Frazier is not better I would argue. So what am I missing / why did Frazier get paid $12m last year vs. Moreland's $5.5m?
To my eyes, Devers has a plus arm (which can't be taught), an average MLB 3B glove and poor footwork - both of which can improve with coaching and reps.Thanks for that MikeM. So if equivalent performance at 3B commands such a premium because of the ability to field the position, if I were Rafael Devers I would resist being moved over to first and bust my butt to improve my defense to maximise my career earnings, right?
Damn, Todd Frazier for 2/17. Lots of bargains will be going by the wayside while DD waits on JDM. Give JDM a deadline, 48 hrs to accept or the offers off the table
This off-season in a nutshell!But yeah, DD jumping the gun on Moreland is going to be looking even worse in the upcoming weeks as other GMs start picking away at the desperation pool of players who are going to want to secure themselves jobs.
After reading your umpteenth condemnation of the Moreland signing, I’m curious. What was your ideal solution at first?Personally, I was connecting the comparative dot more to the Giants' decision to put Longoria on their books though 2023.
That's still a no on your Moustakas suggestion btw. But yeah, DD jumping the gun on Moreland is going to be looking even worse in the upcoming weeks as other GMs start picking away at the desperation pool of players who are going to want to secure themselves jobs.
Beyond all the GFIN stuff DD came into this winter essentially having one pressing and fairly straight forward job to do. One. Upgrade our offense or at least it's upside at 1B/DH, and do that by replacing Mitch Moreland. My ideal solution to that was always to avoid spending money on a top tier option (Hosmer/Santana), and if at all possible keep any additional guaranteed money off next years books as a fallback option bonus.After reading your umpteenth condemnation of the Moreland signing, I’m curious. What was your ideal solution at first?
Ok, thanks.Beyond all the GFIN stuff DD came into this winter essentially having one pressing and fairly straight forward job to do. One. Upgrade our offense or at least it's upside at 1B/DH, and do that by replacing Mitch Moreland. My ideal solution to that was always to avoid spending money on a top tier option (Hosmer/Santana), and if at all possible keep any additional guaranteed money off next years books as a fallback option bonus.
Right about now I'd love to be the team positioned to to grab whatever cheap rate Morrison/Duda/Lind come in at, or maybe even a sub-30yo Moose if his price tag drops far enough. While still using that open spot to somewhat leverage against this current position where people now feel we 'have" to sign JDM (to a contract I hope we both realize isn't likely to happen under a reality scenario that sees Boras throw up his arms in frustration and simply proclaim "You got me. Great job holding firm all winter. $125m over 5 to Boston it is").
Like I pointed out earlier in the off-season, I also expect you specifically to eventually join me in the belief that it ultimately even made more alternative/big picture sense to move Hanley back to 1B and avoid a greater odds scenario where that option vests out of a full time DH role. You are just taking the longer conclusion route to get there, and still getting hung up at the false hope side roads along the way.
1. It didn't have to be somebody that guaranteed significant improvement. That is more the surrounding GFIN mentality talking, which I am generally opposed to. Again, a better upside option would have sufficed imo. You novel thought is unfortunately right though.Some problems with what you're saying, as I see them:
1) There is no FA bat that could directly replace Mitch Moreland at 1B and provide significant improvement over him at similar or acceptable cost. (Your mileage varies...) Santana or Hosmer are the only two who fit that bill. This "upgrade Moreland" conundrum is not black and white. And a novel thought: what if the Red Sox actually value Mitch Moreland more highly than some or all of the other options? It appears to me they do.
2) I agree they may have been better off waiting out the mediocre 1B market. But we're talking about a couple million dollars over two years. It looks to me that DD identified the guy he wanted and signed him to a pretty reasonable (and not long-term-sacrificing) 2 year deal. Saying you're going to sign someone to a 1 year deal is all well and good, but you're back at square one next year:
2018-2019 First Basemen
Matt Adams (30)
Marwin Gonzalez (30)
Joe Mauer (36)
Brandon Moss (35) — $10MM mutual option with a $1MM buyout
Steve Pearce (36)
Hanley Ramirez (35) — $22MM vesting option
Justin Smoak (32) — $6MM club option with a $250K buyout
Unless we're moving Devers off third to sign Machado, there's even less next year. The 3B market isn't too hot, either.
3) So you think it entirely unrealistic that JDM, the best bat on the market but who is best suited to be a DH and apparently does not have the market he wants, will sign a reasonable deal (5/$125?), but in the same post think it's possible Moustakas, by far the best 3B option available, signs a significantly discounted one?
4) And that the Sox have better leverage by saying "Hey, JD, we can still get our bat in Moustakas. We'll just either need to move our 20yo top-ranked 3B prospect to a new position once ST starts or ask Moustakas to shift across the diamond, where he's significantly less valuable and has never played before." As opposed to "Hey, JD, we're set to roll with what we have. We'd like to have you but there is no real need - our roster's pretty full. If Hanley doesn't bounce back, maybe we can offer you a 1 year deal in a couple months. Or we could offer it to Moustakas, who's also still unsigned."
4) Moving Hanley back to 1B can still be done. In that scenario, they still need to sign another first baseman. Unless you're counting on him either breaking down (in which case you need a 1Bman) or having his option vest there. At this point, they're still in the market for a DH/OF type. Whether Hanley is currently listed as a DH or 1B is largely irrelevant. His role is/was going to be diminished in any scenario.
The fact of the matter is that Hanley has been a potential option at 1B every year since he's been here, minus the start of last season when he could have alternatively started the year on the DL until he was ready to take the field. It's the surrounding narrative being written in which once again isn't making him an option there for 2018.Ok, thanks.
Hanley was never an option at first. Besides his shoulder injury and general reluctance to play the position last year, one of the most critical narratives this year and beyond is Devers’s development at third, where he’s struggled with arm accuracy. However enticed they might have been by Alonso’s or Morrison’s big months of May, that was a main reason they preferred Mitch (along with tonyarmasjr’s rationale above).
There’s also zero chance Hanley is the full-time DH in 2018.
Well, that’s nonsense.the commissioner's office said in a statement. "Owners own teams for one reason: They want to win.
Well, that’s nonsense.[/QUOTE]http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2018/02/baseball_union_head_says_rebuilding_teams_threaten_integrity
MODS, not sure if this is worth a new thread, but it certainly is worth a read. In short, the player's union now publicly engaged - and this ups the stakes in a looming labor dispute.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2018/02/baseball_union_head_says_rebuilding_teams_threaten_integrity
MODS, not sure if this is worth a new thread, but it certainly is worth a read. In short, the player's union now publicly engaged - and this ups the stakes in a looming labor dispute.
I agree. I don't think it's sensible or sound strategy for the union to consider striking now, and sitting out isn't likely to help the players get bigger deals. Nothing the players can do will change the CBT realities for the big market teams. Nor can a guy like Moustakas change the reality that he can't get on base at a reasonable clip, or JDM prove that he's a reliable bet for 150+ games with a plus glove in the OF, factors which cut against them getting paid like perennial MVP candidates (because, well, they're not)..... Regardless, at some point these free agents are going to need to come down from their demands and sign the best deals on the table.
No, they're going to strike to get a salary floor, better pay for players under team control early in their careers, enhancements to the arb system, a CBT threshold tied to revenues, etc. Which is why a strike won't happen this year.Do you really think a guy with 4-5 years of team control left is going to go on strike because a few free agents aren't signing the 100 million dollar+ offers they have?
Far too perfect a fit to actually happen. That contract alone, my god it's beautiful!
Interesting!
Stating the obvious perhaps, but this feels like it was leaked to put pressure on JDM.
Interesting!
Encarnacion's contract is a good fit for a team that will likely be looking to dip back under the luxury tax threshold in 2020, but Bradley is a far more valuable player -- younger, controlled for longer, playing a more premium position. They each put up 2.8 WAR last year, but Bradley put up 5.3 to EE's 3.7 in 2016.Far too perfect a fit to actually happen. That contract alone, my god it's beautiful!
Not to mention the Sox would have to sign or trade for a CF.Encarnacion's contract is a good fit for a team that will likely be looking to dip back under the luxury tax threshold in 2020, but Bradley is a far more valuable player -- younger, controlled for longer, playing a more premium position. They each put up 2.8 WAR last year, but Bradley put up 5.3 to EE's 3.7 in 2016.
Presumably they would move Betts or Benintendi to CF.Not to mention the Sox would have to sign or trade for a CF.
Who would play RF or LF then ?.. EE is a DH/1Bman .. are you suggesting they move Hanley back to LF?Presumably they would move Betts or Benintendi to CF.
Then they could tell Martinez he'd be able to play left for Boston and maybe the 5/125 would be enough.Presumably they would move Betts or Benintendi to CF.
Who would play RF or LF then ?.. EE is a DH/1Bman .. are you suggesting they move Hanley back to LF?
But they couldn't afford 5/125 with Encarnacion's $20m on the books.Then they could tell Martinez he'd be able to play left for Boston and maybe the 5/125 would be enough.
Hopefully not, but finding a cromulent LF or RF seems like a smaller challenge than finding a cleanup hitterWho would play RF or LF then ?.. EE is a DH/1Bman .. are you suggesting they move Hanley back to LF?