To use a different metric, DRS had Devers in the bottom 10 of all defensive players combined last year at a -13:
http://fieldingbible.com/DRSLeaderboard
Red Sox in season discussion
- Thread starter Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat
- Start date
http://fieldingbible.com/DRSLeaderboard
Devers has not been and is not (until he shows otherwise) a good defensive third basemen. He loses his footwork regularly, which causes his to botch plays and sail throws.
There is a more nuanced position that is probably accurate - he has the tools to potentially be a good defensive player, but hasnt been able to perform. A player without those tools would likely have been moved already.
Edit: His 2021 performance was disappointing. His defensive play the second half of the season was terrible.
They lived without Betts because they had Bogaerts, Devers, and JD. Bogaerts is likely a goner, JD is aging out, so if Devers goes, what’s your plan to replace all that? The kids aren’t ready yet.
I would prefer to avoid a 10 year deal with Devers so I won’t give him a blank check but 10/300? Sure. Sign me up. If you need 10/360 or something like that, then I would struggle with the decision a lot more.
Devil's advocate for a moment...You still have Devers under control for another season post Martinez and Bogaerts should he leave. Story was brought in this season to address part of your concerns here and we still have two full seasons for the "kids" to further develop. By all accounts Casas is looking to join the team at some point this year. If he's what we hope he will be and Dalbec shows some consistency this creates the opportunity for both to contribute next season while Devers is still here and if the two sides can't come to an agreement Bloom will get someone else.
The “someone else” piece is the tough one though. Who is that guy? If you’re thinking FA route, would be curious to know who in 2023/2024 classes you’d be targeting. Most of the impact guys next year are SS where we have Story ready to go or maybe X. Machado might opt out but he’ll be 30 soon so don’t think you want that next contract. Overpaying Devers by 10-20% or whatever wouldn’t be ideal but if Mayer/Casas are the impact guys we hope they are, then you have several cheap years of potential impact guys. Even if he needs to move to DH in a few years, the bat should play for a long time.
As mentioned by others, Devers has very good range for a 3rd baseman. He's got the ability to get to a lot of balls, but at times has issues completing the play. I haven't had the opportunity to see much of him this spring, but I hope that you're onto something.
There’s literally always impact players available, either via free agency or trade. Devers is a very good player, but the Sox aren’t going to give him a blank check. If they can come to terms in a reasonable dr, great, if not, there’s a myriad number of ways to replace his production with a player or combination of players. If anything, I think Bloom has shown that he’s not going to get too fixated on any one player and is going to keep his options and flexibility open.
Obviously too early to start penciling in Mayer as that guy, but if he plays really well in the minors and establishes himself as an elite SS prospect, I hope Bloom is aggressive with an early extension. The Albies/Acuna deals with the Braves really help that franchise out for long term planning purposes.
The other variable in this would be what Devers could fetch in a trade. If they decide they're just not going to pay what he ultimately will get, they'd have to be very smart about when to make him available. A 3B prospect coming back in return could be part of such a deal.
I'm really hoping that Mayer/Yorke/Jordan are ready in 2 years. Not that this means anything but sox prospects has their respective arrival dates as:
Mayer: late 2024
Yorke: 2024
Jordan: late 2024
Casas: mid 2022
It will take a lot for any of them to be as good as X or Devers at the plate, because X and Devers are both tremendous offensive players. But Story is signed through 2027 and he's a good player. Maybe (or maybe not) as good as X all-around. But either way, he's pretty close (he averages 5.8 bWAR per 162, while Bogaerts averages 4.2, for whatever that's worth).
X leaves after this year, and that frees up a lot of money. Devers is free after the 2023 season, right when Yorke is apparently due to arrive (but who knows really). Story slides into the SS position after X leaves. You could play Dalbec at 3b for a season as Casas takes over 1b full time (Dalbec in 2023 would be a 3b/1b/DH guy, playing wherever needed). Then in 2024, your team looks like:
1b Casas
2b Mayer/Story
3b Dalbec/Jordan
SS Story/Mayer
And Yorke plays the IF backup role. If these guys are as good as they appear they could be, that's a really good setup for Boston, and the cost savings would be enormous. They could then use those cost savings to purchase OF and pitching.
If they sign Devers long-term, there probably isn't room for all these guys unless one of them can transition to the OF.
Mayer: late 2024
Yorke: 2024
Jordan: late 2024
Casas: mid 2022
It will take a lot for any of them to be as good as X or Devers at the plate, because X and Devers are both tremendous offensive players. But Story is signed through 2027 and he's a good player. Maybe (or maybe not) as good as X all-around. But either way, he's pretty close (he averages 5.8 bWAR per 162, while Bogaerts averages 4.2, for whatever that's worth).
X leaves after this year, and that frees up a lot of money. Devers is free after the 2023 season, right when Yorke is apparently due to arrive (but who knows really). Story slides into the SS position after X leaves. You could play Dalbec at 3b for a season as Casas takes over 1b full time (Dalbec in 2023 would be a 3b/1b/DH guy, playing wherever needed). Then in 2024, your team looks like:
1b Casas
2b Mayer/Story
3b Dalbec/Jordan
SS Story/Mayer
And Yorke plays the IF backup role. If these guys are as good as they appear they could be, that's a really good setup for Boston, and the cost savings would be enormous. They could then use those cost savings to purchase OF and pitching.
If they sign Devers long-term, there probably isn't room for all these guys unless one of them can transition to the OF.
10/$300 would tie Machado for 9th largest ever. 10/$360 would be third. Devers is young, and he’s been relatively healthy. But he’s a weak fielder who’s made one all star team and never finished in the top 10 for MVP. His career OBP+ is 120; his seasonal high is 132.
I think there is zero reason for the team to offer anything in that range now when they control him for 2 more years. The only reason to consider a 10 year deal now is if Devers is willing to give up AAV for the length, overall amount, and risk benefit of signing now v later. 8/$200 tacked on to his two remaining arb years? That would be understandable. That’s closer to what Yelich agreed to, for example. If he wants full market value, they might as well wait.
I think there is zero reason for the team to offer anything in that range now when they control him for 2 more years. The only reason to consider a 10 year deal now is if Devers is willing to give up AAV for the length, overall amount, and risk benefit of signing now v later. 8/$200 tacked on to his two remaining arb years? That would be understandable. That’s closer to what Yelich agreed to, for example. If he wants full market value, they might as well wait.
Yes, good point. If a Devers extension looks doomed, they need to trade him and recoup some value. I’m fine letting it play out this year. Will be another data point. If he kills it, then the price goes up and that is probably it. If he has a so-so season, maybe the price comes down to a more palatable price and you’d feel more comfortable about not going 10/300 or whatever for him. Hard to really judge all this without knowing his demands.
Does the 3Bman have to be elite? We did fine filling in with Bill Mueller and taking on what was thought to be Lowell’s albatross contract. Maybe we get a journeyman type (the Twins took back Urshela and went big at SS). In a couple more years, maybe it’s Story at 3B, Mayer at SS, Yorke at 2d.
This is where I hate the “we did fine” during whatever previous season is being referenced. We did fine in 2003-2004 because we had prime Manny, Nomar, Papi, etc. anchoring the offense those years. It’s always easier to build around the stars than it is to replace them.
There are a million ways to build a successful team so I think conceptually all of this makes sense. But the execution piece is always tough, especially when there are always multiple teams with money or better prospect packages to offer.
Casas emerging as a young reliable power hitter would reduce my anxiety over potentially losing Devers. It’s just so hard to find a young middle-of-the-order all around power hitter like we have in Devers. I just really hope we get to a price that all parties are cool with.
Separate question for the 10/300 crowd. How does Machado on his deal look to you right now? Great/good/ok/lousy? I’d say ok to good, maybe leaning good. If SD was hoping for a couple of 7 WAR seasons, they haven’t got them, and probably won’t. But he’s been basically All Star caliber. He also was a better overall player than Devers when he signed. Raffy will probably have to hit even better than last year to have a good shot at Machado’s deal in two years.
The someone else piece is always a tough one when you're looking two years out. There may be guys on that '24 FA list that play really well over the next two seasons. There may also be development in the Sox farm system that leads to a significant trade. Two months ago there was frustration with Bloom's lack of making a big free agent splash, yet he addressed a need for the future of the club and the majority of the response here has been very positive. Overpaying Devers is a subjective topic that concerns both money and length of deal. Push comes to shove I'd rather a higher AAV deal over 8 years that would included this season and next.
All fair but let’s say that we overpay by $5M a year or whatever. How much does that really impact a team like the Sox? We sign retread RP for that amount every offseason. I get there isn’t an endless supply of money so it really comes down to Devers not going nuts with his demands. If he wants to be in that $350-400M range or whatever then, yeah, count me out.
I‘ll be following the development of Yorke, Mayer, and Casas very closely this year.
Is it though? I can't recall a five year period where we've seen so many young players who are able to affect the game with a swing of the bat.
5M a year for how many years? That's my sticking point. It's not an extra 5M per, but a question of how many seasons you are willing to risk on the back end of that 25-30M deal because that's meaningful money in the context of a single season.
In 2003, David Ortiz was a Bill Mueller. He ended up being a lot more. It happens. We did just fine filling in 1b with Ortiz, Giambi and a bunch of other stop gap players.
Or to put it in other words, David Ortiz was not a star offensive player when acquired, for free.
Shit happens. But lets lock up someone up to a bad deal for 10 years to avoid that.
edit: The more I think of it, how can you even use Ortiz as a reason to hate "we did fine" especially when Bill Mueller was brought up. They were brought in the same year along with a bunch of other rag tag players. It's a huge win for the "We did fine" people.
Last edited:
Fair point on Papi. But just because they did it in the past doesn’t mean they’ll replicate the success in the future. It’s really hard to build a team. You are assuming it’ll take 10 year deal. I don’t think that’s anywhere near a given. Nobody wants to give Devers a 10 year deal. But if locking him up to a 10 year deal keeps a really good hitter in the organization for a decade, I’m willing to consider it. There are a lot of variables here, notably how people evaluate Devers’ trajectory.
I’m perfectly fine playing it out now that the extension was rejected. Let’s see how things go.
I get the argument with not re-signing Bogaerts with Story in the fold, but it would be egregious if they didn't extend Devers. He's one of the best players in baseball and in his mid-20's. It would make no sense to me for the organization to not invest in Devers.
I'm all for locking Devers up at a reasonable deal. I just took issue with you saying the Red Sox NEED to lock him up. They don't. The Sox are bigger than any one player. Other people have been throwing around 10 years so I was just running with that. The Red Sox do not need to offer Devers a 10 year contact at above market value, and I'd argue it's the last thing they need.
And it is really hard to build a team. That's why I prefer to stay away from 10 year deals that have no upside even if they do work out. It's all downside. It's the type of deal that gets worse all the time. And while I don't see the Red Sox lucking into another David Ortiz in a few years, they've signed many other successful players ranging from Mike Napoli to Adrian Beltre. When Ortiz left, the Sox were able to replace him with JD Martinez. Every year there are also players who break out. So looking at the FA in 2024 isn't very helpful. I'm using a non existing player but an average 3b in year 4 of service time at age 24 could be a bit more than average at age 26 and going into FA. It's possible Devers breaks out the next 2 years too, but the contract would already be paying him a premium anyway. 2024 is a long way away. I would rather not lock up a guy at a premium rate in fear of the future.
On another note that's kind of related, it sucks that successful homegrown talent want above market value to stay in Boston. At least it feels that way. Though the 1st Xander contract was a very good deal. It worked out well for the Sox and it is probably going to work out well for Xander. Devers and Bogaerts are very good players but so isn't Trevor Story. They shouldn't be getting close to Mookie money. Of course, neither should Mookie but that's another argument.
So if Devers wants 10/400m, it would be egregious to not extend him? The terms actually do matter.
Of course there's a limit however if they don't exhaust every avenue to sign him it's a horrendous look for the franchise. We aren't a small market team that develops star players just for them to go sign with other teams. If Devers asks for half a billion or just doesn't want to stay in Boston sure there's a line there, but if he's asking for market or slightly above market value and they still let him go I would have a big issue with that. The Red Sox can afford to have a few big contracts given what is coming off the books after this year and what is coming up through the minor leagues.
Do you have a problem with them not signing Devers to a market/slightly above market contract or do you have an issue with them not spending money? What if, instead of signing Devers for 10/300, they sign a comparable 3b for 6/140? And then use the 7.5 million difference annually in other spots? What is the huge need to lock up Devers, specifically, for 10 years? And why would it be considered cheap to go with a suitable alternative for 6/140 over 10/300? What if they offered someone 6/198, which is more annually? They are still spending the money. They are just committing to less years; and in doing so, taking less risk. Devers is not easily replaceable but he can be replaced. And he can be replaced simply with spending money on another player. Why the attachment to Rafael Devers? Maybe I root for the laundry to an extreme but I just want the Red Sox to win as many WS as possible and as long as they aren't doing it with known scum, IDC if it's Rafael Devers or a SoSH member. "If they are willing to spend the money on Player X, why not just spend it on Devers?" is a pretty bad argument.
It's like the reverse hometown discount. The Sox are now expected to pay a premium to keep their hometown players. Why sign Xander when you can sign Story?
Imagine this team without X or Devers right now. It would be a bad team. A top 5 offense is our only hope.
But the team has both of them right now, so why am I imagining that?
Do you think the team won't look to replace either player if/when they leave? Imagine any team without 2 of their best hitters and replacing them with no one. It would be a bad team.
Sure, if Xander and Devers walk over the next 2 seasons and the Sox replace them with no one, it will be a bad team. If that happens, let me know.
I know that was a rhetorical question, but the Twins/Yankees signed Josh Donaldson for 4/$92M, or a $23M AAV, pretty much exactly akin to the 6/140 suggested above.
Is Donaldson "comparable" to Devers? Hell no. But a team could do worse.
Is Donaldson "comparable" to Devers? Hell no. But a team could do worse.
It would certainly be very strange to see Boston field a team with no left side of the infield.
It’s as though half the people on this board don’t understand how our 4 WS teams were each constructed. There’s no one way, and no one person is indispensable (except maybe Papi!). 2004 we traded Nomar. Sorry, but Nomar was better and waaaaaaay more beloved than Devers. 2007 we won despite letting Pedro go. 2013 we won after jettisoning hero Beckett, “stud“ Crawford, savior Gonzalez (not to mention Punto) and signing a bunch of retreads. Jeezus, we won in 2018 getting 12 minutes from heart and soul Pedroia.
WE. DON’T. NEED. TO. EXTEND. DEVERS. Would it be nice? Sure. But stop hyperventilating. We’re not giving him 10/$300+ because he’s not worth it. Deal with it.
WE. DON’T. NEED. TO. EXTEND. DEVERS. Would it be nice? Sure. But stop hyperventilating. We’re not giving him 10/$300+ because he’s not worth it. Deal with it.
Last edited:
If you asked me last year who replaces Xander for 6/140, I wouldn't have known the answer to that question either. That is my entire point. People want to sign Devers to a 10 year deal, and even at a premium, because they fear the future. Let's give a guy a deal that has 0 upside right now because we don't know who is replacement is in 2024. There's always someone available. Maybe that person isn't even a 3b but a SP.
"We will be fine." Would you marry someone you have some doubts on right now in fear of losing them just because you don't know who you might meet in the future? It's almost doomed from the start. What happens if Devers declines even in the slightest when he's already overpaid? What if he has to move over to 1b or DH? What is the upside? Is there any? I guess if he develops into a 150-160 OPS+ hitter and an average or better 3b over those 10 years. Seems pretty optimistic.
Now if he wants to sign for 6/180 or 8/200, it's a different Story.
Nobody is hyperventilating and ending posts with “deal with it” is counterproductive. People are allowed to have varying opinions on a player’s value and framing contrary opinions as “hyperventilating” is just unnecessary.
Ok. That’s fair. I’ll take a step back without ceding my overall point. I also get that this is mixed parts rational and emotional. There’s no one formula. Thx.
Phew, because I've spent the past 10 minutes trying to figure out who's in the half of SoSH's 8,547 members who don't understand how the WS teams were built ... who's in the other half ... and what that remaining poster thinks
Funny thing is that I don’t think we’re that far apart. Nobody wants a 10 year deal for Devers. The list of guys I would gladly sign to 10 year deals can probably be counted on one hand. But I also don’t think there is much risk of Devers being a bad hitter in the next 6-7 years. So I would go 8 years without blinking as long as AAV is in the low 30s. If he wants 10/350 or something crazy like that, yeah, see ya.
How is Donaldson not comparable to Devers? The guy is a better fielder with a career OPS+ that is higher than Devers' best season.
Matt Chapman is a FA in 2024, will be 31, and is a great defender at 3B. He probably won't be getting a 10 year deal and will probably be able to play good defensive 3B into his mid late 30s. This team has no pitching. Most of our prospects seem to project as back end type starters. Eventually we are going to need to pay big money for a FA pitcher.
Donaldson's worst OPS+ for a season since 2012 is 118. Devers career OPS+ is 120. Playing for Boston drives up the price.
I am watching Chris Bassitt pitch for the Mets, and I really wish Chaim had gotten him. "On March 12, 2022, Bassitt was traded to the New York Mets in exchange for J.T. Ginn and Adam Oller." I obviously don't know if those kids going back to Oakland would have been hard for the Sox to match, but with Sale down, we could have used this guy.
In honor of past precedent, we would collectively refer to this as the Araúz trade.You mean what will the Dodgers trade for Devers and Sale?
How do you know Devers is asking for a 10 year deal? Yeah it’d be great if your hypothetical comparable cheaper players exist but is a Story type scenario an anomaly or the standard going forward. I’m all for finding different solutions to stay a good team but it is frustrating to see the possibility of another homegrown star leave because the team won’t pay him. Draft well and you’ll be able to balance the big deals with cost controlled talent.
In regards to your premium comment, Bogaerts took less to stay in Boston already. Should he be expected to do so again?
QUOTE="Cesar Crespo, post: 4936624, member: 587"]
......................
On another note that's kind of related, it sucks that successful homegrown talent want above market value to stay in Boston. At least it feels that way. Though the 1st Xander contract was a very good deal. It worked out well for the Sox and it is probably going to work out well for Xander. Devers and Bogaerts are very good players but so isn't Trevor Story. They shouldn't be getting close to Mookie money. Of course, neither should Mookie but that's another argument.
[/QUOTE]
This puzzles me. The market is what it is. If it's going to cost the RS 10/35 to nail down that skill set, you have limited options. Either you suck it up and pay the price, you find another way to replace the skill set you're going to lose, or you completely change the complexion of the team, .say by opting for a base-to-base approach. Complaining about or ignoring this is like whining about the weather. Maybe it makes you feel good but it doesn't change a thing.
I completely understand the situation with X. He's likely looking for a deal that would cripple the RS in 5-6 years. Devers is different.
Looking at what's happened in the past to predict we'll always be able to find another Papi is wishful thinking. Now, if what's happening is that the RS ae really hoarding their dollars for Soto in a couple of years, and you can't do both him and a Devers extension, I get that. I also get that Bloom isn't exactly going to hold a presser to announce that's what he's doing. But that's a long shot, with other deep pocket teams in the discussion as well. If it's simply resistance to paying a premium for a skilled young player because he 'shouldn't' be getting that, with no real alternate strategy, that just doesn't make sense. That's particularly the case when you're allowing a player who has adapted well to the challenging Boston sports market to walk away.
On your other point - I share the frustration in seeing successful homegrown talent asking for the very top dollar to stay here. I suspect that for Black ballplayers, the Adam Jones and related incidents have had much more impact than I as a white fan can appreciate, but I realize that's a hornets nest no-one wants to poke at. For the rest of it, there are the usual suspects: Taxes, weather, a more circumspect urban life than one finds in LA, NY, Miami etc.
I didn't realize it until I explored relocating to Boston (since abandoned) but MA has an inheritance tax that usually accrues on the second death, and it increases quite significantly as the taxable estate increases. I am not sure how it affects the athlete who chooses to reside elsewhere even though he's playing for a MA franchise, but it doesn't help.
......................
On another note that's kind of related, it sucks that successful homegrown talent want above market value to stay in Boston. At least it feels that way. Though the 1st Xander contract was a very good deal. It worked out well for the Sox and it is probably going to work out well for Xander. Devers and Bogaerts are very good players but so isn't Trevor Story. They shouldn't be getting close to Mookie money. Of course, neither should Mookie but that's another argument.
[/QUOTE]
This puzzles me. The market is what it is. If it's going to cost the RS 10/35 to nail down that skill set, you have limited options. Either you suck it up and pay the price, you find another way to replace the skill set you're going to lose, or you completely change the complexion of the team, .say by opting for a base-to-base approach. Complaining about or ignoring this is like whining about the weather. Maybe it makes you feel good but it doesn't change a thing.
I completely understand the situation with X. He's likely looking for a deal that would cripple the RS in 5-6 years. Devers is different.
Looking at what's happened in the past to predict we'll always be able to find another Papi is wishful thinking. Now, if what's happening is that the RS ae really hoarding their dollars for Soto in a couple of years, and you can't do both him and a Devers extension, I get that. I also get that Bloom isn't exactly going to hold a presser to announce that's what he's doing. But that's a long shot, with other deep pocket teams in the discussion as well. If it's simply resistance to paying a premium for a skilled young player because he 'shouldn't' be getting that, with no real alternate strategy, that just doesn't make sense. That's particularly the case when you're allowing a player who has adapted well to the challenging Boston sports market to walk away.
On your other point - I share the frustration in seeing successful homegrown talent asking for the very top dollar to stay here. I suspect that for Black ballplayers, the Adam Jones and related incidents have had much more impact than I as a white fan can appreciate, but I realize that's a hornets nest no-one wants to poke at. For the rest of it, there are the usual suspects: Taxes, weather, a more circumspect urban life than one finds in LA, NY, Miami etc.
I didn't realize it until I explored relocating to Boston (since abandoned) but MA has an inheritance tax that usually accrues on the second death, and it increases quite significantly as the taxable estate increases. I am not sure how it affects the athlete who chooses to reside elsewhere even though he's playing for a MA franchise, but it doesn't help.
Which hopefully will be less distressing to Sox fandom than the Wong trade was.
If he'd hit the free agent market after the 2019 season, his peers on the market would have been Didi Gregorius, Jose Iglesias, Jose Peraza, and Adeiny Hechavarria. So far and away he would have been the best SS on the market, coming off his two best statistical seasons to date (5th in MVP voting in 2019). Someone would have paid up. The aforementioned Josh Donaldson got the richest position player contract that winter heading into his age 34 season at 4/$96M. No doubt that Bogaerts going into his age 27 season gets a similar, likely higher AAV for more years.
This analogy seems inapt. There are many fish in the sea, but a finite amount of MLB-caliber third basemen. It’s easy to tell which are slated to reach free agency in the next few years. Which do you think will sign with Boston for 6/$140? Moncada? Bregman? Or which of our in-house candidates (Binelas, Dalbec) do you think handles it?