BOS offered Bogaerts 1/30 additional not to opt out (Heyman report)

Ganthem

a ray of sunshine
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2022
699
No, you thought what you thought and that’s ok. Ascribing your thoughts to Bloom is disingenuous and is a valueless way of trying to add worth to that.
Thank you for your permission to think my own thoughts:rolleyes: I ascribed my thoughts based on where contract negotiations are currently, on what I have seen from Bloom over the last few years and based on the resources the Sox are going to have in terms of money and prospect capital going forward. Just like most of the post on this thread. If you believe that Bloom is going to push hard to get both signed long term, I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. If you are going to just be demeaning and arrogant on an internet forum, because you feel small and insignificant in real life then I have no use for you.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If you knew where the contract negotiations actually were at then I'd be more interested in continuing this conversation. But unless you work for the team or for the agents involved I am guessing you don't so I'm going to move on.

Good for you on lashing out at me and good luck with your future posting.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
15,035
Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
6,322
I'm going home
Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
I agree 100%. Ganthem's post is not only reasonable, it's well thought out and well reasoned. We have some Lurkers who may deserve a bit of snark, but as far as I can tell, Ganthem is not one of those.

And Ganthem is no longer a lurker, Welcome!!
 
Last edited:

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
2,104
Cambridge
Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
I think linking Bogie and Devers, somehow making it a competition of who first accepts a team-friendly offer to play 3B, is not reasonable. Rather, the two negotiations will stand on their own with different ages, skill sets, and future use of the two players.

That the Sox will let one or both go if the price is too high - sure. But I think this is more a function of their confidence in talent evaluation - knowing their own prospects and the ability to find decent players who don’t fit their current teams’ needs.
 

jaytftwofive

lurker
Jan 20, 2013
1,130
Drexel Hill Pa.
Were you happy with the contributions from Hernandez, Renfroe, Whitlock, Schwarber and Pivetta last season? Verdugo seems to be doing OK. Trevor Story's had a very nice career to date. These are all guys that Bloom brought in, yes? Now let's shift to the work ahead. With an eye to next year and beyond, I'm guessing you want to see Devers extended as we all do, but he's not coming cheap. Who's the starting catcher next year? Vaz and Plawecki are both FAs after this season as are 2 of your 3 starting outfielders. Martinez's bat is leaving and Sale, Eovaldi, Paxton, Wacha and Hill may leave as many as 3 holes to fill in the starting rotation. How much do you want to lay out for a guy who fully intends to explore free agency when you already have a more than capable replacement in house at a time when 4 other bats are leaving your starting line up and there's no one in your rotation behind Houck and Pivetta?
Yes they were good acquisitions, and they did contribute. I'm just so disappointed when you lose these great home grown players. Didn't mean to go off the deep end. And it's too early in his tenure to let Bloom go. He has still has plenty of time to make good moves.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
41,635
Ganthem's position is very reasonable. The Red Sox do not have an unlimited budget, and the CBT penalties are real from both a financial perspective and a team-building one. There are credible reports that the Red Sox offered Bogaerts a contract extension that he was highly unlikely to accept. So it seems reasonable to deduce that Bloom (and ownership) are ultimately willing to let at least one of Bogaerts/Devers to walk.
I agree 100%. Ganthem's post is not only reasonable, it's well thought out and well reasoned. We have some Lurkers who may deserve a bit of snark, but as far as I can tell, Ganthem is not one of those.

And Ganthem is no longer a lurker, Welcome!!
I agree with all 3 of you. @Ganthem is pretty much saying what I have said previously. MLB likes to think we don’t have a salary cap. We do. It’s just not called a salary cap. The punishments for going over the CBT are pretty much a cap. People here and elsewhere complain that the sox don't spend money. They did spend money, In FA/ the draft, and the international FA . Both the MLB draft and INT FA market have had hard caps since the 2017 CBA, when that was not the case in prior CBA's. (and the sox did spend an absurd amount of money in those two markets when they could spend to their hearts desire and not get punished for doing so)...

Since 2002 the Lowest (in terms of ranking) the sox have been Payroll wise is 6th in 2003
Rankings:
1st(19,18,)
2nd (2004, 2005,2006,2007,2010,)
3rd: (2011,2012,2015,2016,2017,2020,2021)
4th (08,09,13,14,)

the highest payroll When the last CBA was signed (2017 season)
Was the dodgers in 2017 with a payroll of $242,065,828

that Payroll # is still lower than the $253,639,162 spent by the dodgers the previous year, as well as the dodgers again ($272,789,040 in 2015)
https://www.fueledbysports.com/mlb-payrolls/

Also, its not only penalties for going over the CBT threshold, there are hard spending caps in t
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
273
(B)Austin Texas
I believe another key factor is the on-field play of one Trevor Story and MiLB development and readiness of Jeter Downs. If, say, Story has a season like one of his 3 MVP-votes received seasons, with a 120 or more OPS+, and his arm is recovered, Chaim has a negotiation position that likely moves his maximum package for Xander down several $M and years. Would he offer as much as 5 years, $125? I cannot imagine he'd go any higher than that if Story can easily slip into the SS role in '23 for a few years until Marcelo is ready.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,768
So let's play this out, if X and Devers leave...

Early 2022: 1b Dalbec, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
Late 2022: 1b Casas, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
2023: 1b Casas, 2b Arroyo, 3b Devers, SS Story
2024: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
2025: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)

I mean, there's a lot of IFs there, but IF Mayer and Yorke and Casas turn out to be what we hope and think they could be, then going from Dalbec/Story/Devers/Xander to Casas/Mayer/Yorke/Story isn't too bad, and it frees up a TON of money to use elsewhere.

I love X and Devers, don't get me wrong. But the Sox aren't in bad shape to withstand the loss of those two guys, I don't think.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
I believe another key factor is the on-field play of one Trevor Story and MiLB development and readiness of Jeter Downs. If, say, Story has a season like one of his 3 MVP-votes received seasons, with a 120 or more OPS+, and his arm is recovered, Chaim has a negotiation position that likely moves his maximum package for Xander down several $M and years. Would he offer as much as 5 years, $125? I cannot imagine he'd go any higher than that if Story can easily slip into the SS role in '23 for a few years until Marcelo is ready.
And if Bogaerts has a similarly good, if not better season than Story, where does that leave things? I think Story's presence certainly would soften a Bogaerts departure from an on-field perspective, but I don't think it gives Bloom any kind of negotiating leverage. Bogaerts' value is what it is, and Bloom is likely to offer exactly what he thinks that is regardless of Story.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
And if Bogaerts has a similarly good, if not better season than Story, where does that leave things? I think Story's presence certainly would soften a Bogaerts departure from an on-field perspective, but I don't think it gives Bloom any kind of negotiating leverage. Bogaerts' value is what it is, and Bloom is likely to offer exactly what he thinks that is regardless of Story.
This is pretty much where I'm and if I might add...Bogaerts currently has an opinion on what his value/worth is as does Chaim. Those values will differ depending on the positions of either side. They may also change as the season progresses and certainly at it's conclusion depending on Bogaerts' 2022 performance as well as how other teams may value him at that point. While I do think Story may influence the sense of urgency regarding the resigning of Xander, I don't think it precludes it. Bloom will enter the FA period with a firm idea of what he will be willing to spend and I don't expect that there will be a lot of movement from that amount. The only leverage the Story signing might hold is if Bogaerts desperately wants to remain in Boston which does not seem to be the case.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
This is pretty much where I'm and if I might add...Bogaerts currently has an opinion on what his value/worth is as does Chaim. Those values will differ depending on the positions of either side. They may also change as the season progresses and certainly at it's conclusion depending on Bogaerts' 2022 performance as well as how other teams may value him at that point. While I do think Story may influence the sense of urgency regarding the resigning of Xander, I don't think it precludes it. Bloom will enter the FA period with a firm idea of what he will be willing to spend and I don't expect that there will be a lot of movement from that amount. The only leverage the Story signing might hold is if Bogaerts desperately wants to remain in Boston which does not seem to be the case.
If Bogaerts desperately wanted to stay, he could simply not opt out. So yeah, not a lot of leverage gained from Story being in the fold. If there's anything Bogaerts desperately wants, it's to get paid his max value. He'll stay if there's overlap between what he wants and what Bloom (and Henry) wants to give. It's as simple as that.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If Bogaerts desperately wanted to stay, he could simply not opt out. So yeah, not a lot of leverage gained from Story being in the fold. If there's anything Bogaerts desperately wants, it's to get paid his max value. He'll stay if there's overlap between what he wants and what Bloom (and Henry) wants to give. It's as simple as that.
Yeah, I meant in the sense of extending, if he really wants to stay and get a pay bump. Bloom would be foolish to prematurely up the ante for this particular player who is under contract. Let this season play out to determine his worth.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,250
I’m wondering if there is some reluctance from teams to renegotiate with players who have an opt out, before they’ve exercised it. Was certainly an issue with the Yankees and A-Rod back in the day, right? Are there examples of teams who have extended a player before they have officially opted out?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
I’m wondering if there is some reluctance from teams to renegotiate with players who have an opt out, before they’ve exercised it. Was certainly an issue with the Yankees and A-Rod back in the day, right? Are there examples of teams who have extended a player before they have officially opted out?
Can't think of any off the top of my head. I can only think of two examples of a player opting out and returning to his original team, let alone working a new extension out of them before the opt-out: A-Rod and Stephen Strasburg. I think you're right though, teams probably don't see an urgency to go too far with negotiations because they already have a contract, typically a team friendly one. Why commit to paying more before they have to?

I think I brought this up earlier, but this strikes me as a bit similar to the Sale extension. People have a beef with them having done that "too soon" rather than letting the season play out because maybe they get out of extending an injured/frail player by waiting. Should the team not take that stance here? Doubly so since they're already on the hook for another 3-4 years if he ultimately decides to not opt-out (say he gets seriously hurt in August or something). There's nothing stopping the team from giving Bogaerts exactly what he wants in November after he opts out. All the posturing right now from Boras is just that, posturing.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,024
Twin Cities
I’m wondering if there is some reluctance from teams to renegotiate with players who have an opt out, before they’ve exercised it. Was certainly an issue with the Yankees and A-Rod back in the day, right? Are there examples of teams who have extended a player before they have officially opted out?
Possible that some teams would think this way, but it doesn’t seem like a big impediment to me. The team gave the player this option/leverage. It’s all still negotiation, including wishes, risk assessment, and valuation. And if there’s a hometown discount to be had, it’s more likely before bigger contract numbers start actually coming in.

If I’m advising X, with his 3 yr/$20M per deal plus a vesting 4th yr option in the bag, and the team has merely offered to tack on a $30M deal, I’d advise him to wait unless he REALLY just wants a longer term commitment from the team. (I’m not sure we know whether the $30M year replaces the vesting option or is added after, do we?). For comparison, if the team’s offer is just to add a $30M yr on to his remaining 3/$20M per year deal, then that’s less than what the Twins gave an older Josh Donaldson 2+ years ago. That’s not all that attractive.

It’d be better imo if the team said we want you to be here in some capacity for the rest of your career, and we’d like to add another 4 years at $25m per (inflation, after all). That’s not quite what Semien got, but it’s reasonable. Maybe tack on a reachable additional option year.

Again, imo, this is where they failed with Lester, who did seem to want to be a Sox for life. Until they low-balled him in money AND years and then traded him.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
22,843
Newton
I understand the handwringing about Xander not getting extended now but is there a scenario in which he doesn’t opt out because he’s either injured or has a down year that could affect his future value?
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
15,535
Washington
Not opting out because of serious injury is plausible. Probably less likely because of a down year though. I think he has enough of a track record to get a bigger/longer deal than what he has left on his current contract even if his numbers are down.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I understand the handwringing about Xander not getting extended now but is there a scenario in which he doesn’t opt out because he’s either injured or has a down year that could affect his future value?
Of course there are. He could get injured, or have a down year.

Edit: I think there’s a bit more variation in his contract numbers than the certainty EE implies; the question is would a down year, coupled with his age and defensive shortcomings, limit his contract offers to only about what he already has without the opt out/ minor extension offer.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
514
Boston
Can't think of any off the top of my head. I can only think of two examples of a player opting out and returning to his original team, let alone working a new extension out of them before the opt-out: A-Rod and Stephen Strasburg. I think you're right though, teams probably don't see an urgency to go too far with negotiations because they already have a contract, typically a team friendly one. Why commit to paying more before they have to?

I think I brought this up earlier, but this strikes me as a bit similar to the Sale extension. People have a beef with them having done that "too soon" rather than letting the season play out because maybe they get out of extending an injured/frail player by waiting. Should the team not take that stance here? Doubly so since they're already on the hook for another 3-4 years if he ultimately decides to not opt-out (say he gets seriously hurt in August or something). There's nothing stopping the team from giving Bogaerts exactly what he wants in November after he opts out. All the posturing right now from Boras is just that, posturing.
The Yankees added 1/30 onto CC's deal in exchange for him declining his opt out (made a 4/92 option into 5/122), but that was agreed to right before the opt-out date. I dont see any reason a team would be less likely to negotiate with a player with an opt out after the season whose deal has significant surplus value to the team than a player who will be a free agent - if anything it should be easier as you have already bought some of the long term injury risk of a market deal (in this case say $60M of $175M rather than 0 of $175M for a free agent to be Xander) in the off chance he doesnt opt out.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
Possible that some teams would think this way, but it doesn’t seem like a big impediment to me. The team gave the player this option/leverage. It’s all still negotiation, including wishes, risk assessment, and valuation. And if there’s a hometown discount to be had, it’s more likely before bigger contract numbers start actually coming in.

If I’m advising X, with his 3 yr/$20M per deal plus a vesting 4th yr option in the bag, and the team has merely offered to tack on a $30M deal, I’d advise him to wait unless he REALLY just wants a longer term commitment from the team. (I’m not sure we know whether the $30M year replaces the vesting option or is added after, do we?). For comparison, if the team’s offer is just to add a $30M yr on to his remaining 3/$20M per year deal, then that’s less than what the Twins gave an older Josh Donaldson 2+ years ago. That’s not all that attractive.

It’d be better imo if the team said we want you to be here in some capacity for the rest of your career, and we’d like to add another 4 years at $25m per (inflation, after all). That’s not quite what Semien got, but it’s reasonable. Maybe tack on a reachable additional option year.

Again, imo, this is where they failed with Lester, who did seem to want to be a Sox for life. Until they low-balled him in money AND years and then traded him.
All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.

Let's assume the offer was $30M added in place of the option year. That's 4/90, which is exactly what they are paying Trevor Story for the same time period (2023-2026). I have a hard time viewing that as a low-ball or insulting offer. It's a fair starting point.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I believe another key factor is the on-field play of one Trevor Story and MiLB development and readiness of Jeter Downs. If, say, Story has a season like one of his 3 MVP-votes received seasons, with a 120 or more OPS+, and his arm is recovered, Chaim has a negotiation position that likely moves his maximum package for Xander down several $M and years. Would he offer as much as 5 years, $125? I cannot imagine he'd go any higher than that if Story can easily slip into the SS role in '23 for a few years until Marcelo is ready.
Downs has struck out 21 times in 43 PAs with Worcester so far. I understand small sample sizes and other limitations of statistics, but just that information is... not encouraging.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
1,869
So let's play this out, if X and Devers leave...

Early 2022: 1b Dalbec, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
Late 2022: 1b Casas, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
2023: 1b Casas, 2b Arroyo, 3b Devers, SS Story
2024: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
2025: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)

I mean, there's a lot of IFs there, but IF Mayer and Yorke and Casas turn out to be what we hope and think they could be, then going from Dalbec/Story/Devers/Xander to Casas/Mayer/Yorke/Story isn't too bad, and it frees up a TON of money to use elsewhere.

I love X and Devers, don't get me wrong. But the Sox aren't in bad shape to withstand the loss of those two guys, I don't think.
If Mayer is up for all of '24, then he's exceeded expectations enough that I think he slots right into SS and Story (age 31 then) goes back to 2B. More likely this transition happens in '25 though, provided seniority/"veteran presence" doesn't dictate otherwise.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
So let's play this out, if X and Devers leave...

Early 2022: 1b Dalbec, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
Late 2022: 1b Casas, 2b Story, 3b Devers, SS Bogaerts
2023: 1b Casas, 2b Arroyo, 3b Devers, SS Story
2024: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)
2025: 1b Casas, 2b Mayer, 3b Yorke, SS Story (with Jordan backing up 3b/1b)

I mean, there's a lot of IFs there, but IF Mayer and Yorke and Casas turn out to be what we hope and think they could be, then going from Dalbec/Story/Devers/Xander to Casas/Mayer/Yorke/Story isn't too bad, and it frees up a TON of money to use elsewhere.

I love X and Devers, don't get me wrong. But the Sox aren't in bad shape to withstand the loss of those two guys, I don't think.
I'd only add that Dalbec played 2800 innings at 3B in the minors, so he gives them additional options in these not-quite-doomsday scenarios.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
514
Boston
All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.

Let's assume the offer was $30M added in place of the option year. That's 4/90, which is exactly what they are paying Trevor Story for the same time period (2023-2026). I have a hard time viewing that as a low-ball or insulting offer. It's a fair starting point.
Arguing that Xander should be held to anything after 2022 is disingenuous. The deal Xander signed gives him the right to be a free agent after 2022 - ignoring that part of the deal and equating it with a football style holdout is just wrong. I cant imagine they went to him with that logic because that definitely would be insulting because its fundamentally not the economic deal Xander signed.

Another way to put it - would you see things the same way if Xander's contract was up after 2022 subject to a player option for 3/60 for 2023 through 2025? If you don't you should probably reconsider you view on the opt out as there is no substantive economic difference between that player option structure and Xander's current deal.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,030
Maine
Arguing that Xander should be held to anything after 2022 is disingenuous. The deal Xander signed gives him the right to be a free agent after 2022 - ignoring that part of the deal and equating it with a football style holdout is just wrong. I cant imagine they went to him with that logic because that definitely would be insulting because its fundamentally not the economic deal Xander signed.

Another way to put it - would you see things the same way if Xander's contract was up after 2022 subject to a player option for 3/60 for 2023 through 2025? If you don't you should probably reconsider you view on the opt out as there is no substantive economic difference between that player option structure and Xander's current deal.
Who is equating it to a football-style holdout? All I said is he can't find their offer insulting if he has already agreed to most of it once already.

Of course the deal gives Bogaerts the right to be a free agent. It also gives him the right to get paid 3/60 for the next three years even if his arm falls off tomorrow and he can no longer play baseball. Until the opt-out is exercised, the contract exists and we can't just wave it away because it's convenient. The Red Sox have no obligation to negotiate at all as if the opt-out has already happened. So they're not wrong to operate as if the existing deal is a good enough place to start talks.

Now if Bogaerts contract completely expired at the end of this season and he was going to be a free agent no matter what, then it's a different story and Bloom would no doubt be taking a different approach to it. He wouldn't be starting with 4/90 as his opening offer. I'd imagine he might start with the remaining Story contract as a starting bid (5/120 or 6/145). That wouldn't be his ceiling but it absolutely can't be called a low-ball or insulting offer either.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
514
Boston
Who is equating it to a football-style holdout? All I said is he can't find their offer insulting if he has already agreed to most of it once already.

Of course the deal gives Bogaerts the right to be a free agent. It also gives him the right to get paid 3/60 for the next three years even if his arm falls off tomorrow and he can no longer play baseball. Until the opt-out is exercised, the contract exists and we can't just wave it away because it's convenient. The Red Sox have no obligation to negotiate at all as if the opt-out has already happened. So they're not wrong to operate as if the existing deal is a good enough place to start talks.

Now if Bogaerts contract completely expired at the end of this season and he was going to be a free agent no matter what, then it's a different story and Bloom would no doubt be taking a different approach to it. He wouldn't be starting with 4/90 as his opening offer. I'd imagine he might start with the remaining Story contract as a starting bid (5/120 or 6/145). That wouldn't be his ceiling but it absolutely can't be called a low-ball or insulting offer either.

Your language about honoring the contract sounds a lot like football hold-outs especially in this context as Xander didn't agree to play 2023-2025 for $20M AAV back in 2019 - he agreed that he would agree after the 2022 season if he would or if he wanted to be a free agent. In other words he agreed to nothing with respect to 2023-2025; the Red Sox committed to $60M if Xander decided in the future that he wanted that rather than being a free agent. That is of course the point of opt-outs to begin with - the player only commits to a short term deal, but the team commits to longer term security/down side protection. Saying that he agreed to the 2023-2025 seasons fundamentally misstates the economics of the deal they made in 2019.

The Red Sox treating him as if he's under contract past 2022 is just not in line with the economics of their deal. He holds all of the power, in fact, even more power than an impeding free agent as he has much less downside risk to playing out the year - ignoring that because a technical notice might need to be provided after the season for him to be a free agent is the only hand waiving here. I cant imagine Bloom (and a management team under a quant like Henry) would have a different offer if Bogaerts had no contract for next year and especially not $30-55M more, although I agree that that is a reasonable discount to his max for getting the deal done a year in advance of free agency.

The Red Sox don't have any obligation to negotiate as if the opt-out occurred... because there's no obligation to negotiate at all, but assuming the contract is enforceable at the teams prerogative is likely to irritate the other party because it ignores the current status/reality (as compared to the legal technicality of whether he is on the roster) of the parties' current deal.

I never expected them to sign Xander after Story was signed as the roster construction gets strange long term having them both on the roster so I'm not particularly worried about them not having Xander after 2021 (much more concerned about Devers post 23), but it seemed a completely bizarre offer to make in the circumstances.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,024
Twin Cities
All this makes sense from Bogaerts' perspective. I'm not sure the comparisons to Lester are apt though. Was their low offer to him a mistake in hindsight? Sure. I don't think the additional $30M offer to Bogaerts (however it is added) is the same at all. He's already agreed to the existing contract. He can't be insulted to be asked to hold to it.

Let's assume the offer was $30M added in place of the option year. That's 4/90, which is exactly what they are paying Trevor Story for the same time period (2023-2026). I have a hard time viewing that as a low-ball or insulting offer. It's a fair starting point.
Re: Story, it’s the same per year, but not in commitment. If X wants to stay here, it’s because he wants to stay here. So give him the years. THAT’s the issue for some of these players. 4 years are simply not enough.

And the Lester deal was stupid at the time. They should have offered to beat Wainwright’s just signed deal, which was five years. Lester had kicked Wainwright’s ass in the WS. I said it at the time. Give Lester a 5 year deal at $5M more (total) than what Wainwright took, plus a player option, and I’m pretty sure he signs it (or at least isn’t insulted). Before the trade. Before the Cubs got involved. We f’d that up.

You have to think about what matters to the player, and it’s not always AAV.
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
3,602
Heyman reporting he heard from a friend of X that he’s definitely leaving. This just more water carrying for Boras?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
41,635
Heyman reporting he heard from a friend of X that he’s definitely leaving. This just more water carrying for Boras?
Yes. “Friend” of Xander.
Wow. What a source
. He stayed for a hometown discount last time but won’t do that twice. “He’s going to leave,” one friend predicted of the Red Sox star.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,461
As dubious as this source may be, does anyone expect anything different?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Serious question. Other than a scenario where he get's injured or winds up having a completely miserable season, in what world does anyone here see Bogaerts in a Red Sox uniform next season. He's on the record as saying that he's going to opt out after the season. He's going to want elite SS money and he likely will want it for 6-8 years. He's not going to get that here when his probable replacement was drafted last season and the guy who will bridge that gap was brought in this past off season.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Serious question. Other than a scenario where he get's injured or winds up having a completely miserable season, in what world does anyone here see Bogaerts in a Red Sox uniform next season. He's on the record as saying that he's going to opt out after the season. He's going to want elite SS money and he likely will want it for 6-8 years. He's not going to get that here when his probable replacement was drafted last season and the guy who will bridge that gap was brought in this past off season.
I guess it would be the world where no one else offers him elite SS money for 6-8 years either. At that point, maybe he'd be more open to talking about a Story-like contract with the Sox to play 2B and maybe LF. I'm not saying it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
6,461
I guess it would be the world where no one else offers him elite SS money for 6-8 years either. At that point, maybe he'd be more open to talking about a Story-like contract with the Sox to play 2B and maybe LF. I'm not saying it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible.
Right. That's even less likely if he continues to perform like he has, but given the QO will be in play, it's possible.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
8,219
Bogaerts is probably going to be competing with Correa for the top SS on the market. Should be interesting to see what numbers each gets.

If they can get him to waive the NTC, trade him ASAP and move Story over. If he really wants to play SS, maybe getting moved over early will get his bat going a little more. Not sure who they would put at 2B, but that seems like it wouldn't be much of a headache given what they have in the system. Araúz just went on a rehab assignment and should be ready soon. Arroyo has remained healthy. Dalbec logged innings at 2B. They can get through it if they don't get someone back in a deal.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
28,104
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/07/sports/amazin-resurgence-by-mets-with-little-attention-detail-buck-showalter/

Bogaerts, who can opt out of the final three years of his contract after this season, has since taken the posture that business is business and he’ll see where free agency takes him.

Meanwhile, the team is playing terribly.

Sox ownership needs to correct this and make Bogaerts an offer he’ll accept or at the very least makes it clear they’re serious about keeping him. They need to change the mood around the team.

I was told at the All-Star Game last season that Bogaerts understands he’ll eventually have to move off shortstop. His bat will play anywhere and his attachment to the organization is such that a record-setting deal won’t be needed. But it must be a contract that recognizes his worth.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
28,104
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/05/15/sports/with-his-future-with-red-sox-uncertain-xander-bogaerts-is-just-trying-live-moment/

That the Sox didn’t come close to what his value would be on the open market led Bogaerts to shut down further negotiations until after the season.

But he backed off that stance a bit on Sunday.

“I don’t know how this would work. But if they talk to Scott behind closed doors and it’s something that’s fair, he can come to me,” Bogaerts said. “We’ll see how that goes.”
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
8,219
Translation: I'm starting to realize that I'm not going to get paid like I hoped on the open market and want to make sure I can still get the best possible offer here