Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,136
San Diego
Yea, the Padres really need a shortstop.

Sure Jan Jon.
It's been covered elsewhere, but there's a chance the Padres want to play Tatís in the outfield to mitigate injury risk. Xander would certainly be an upgrade over Kim. They may lose Machado next year, too, which opens up 3rd for Xander. Doesn't fit as neatly as some of the other teams listed, but it's certainly an option.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
7,614
New York City
To the extent RSS is saying you can’t be a contender without an “elite player on a massive contract” - I’m not sure there’s any real evidence to support that.

The Astros have been the cream of the crop in the AL the last 5+ years largely by NOT entering into such contracts, with the exception of Altuve. They’ve drafted well, spread the money around, and signed some players like Verlander for high dollars but low years.

That is the model I want the Sox to follow, not mindlessly shelling out big contracts because they feel the need to have an “elite player.”

Put another way, it’s virtually impossible to win consistently in the modern MLB without developing cheap talent, whereas it’s definitely possible to win in the modern MLB without a bunch of huge contracts.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,008
Portland
I think I'd rather see Swanson come here. Good RH bat, solid defensive player and durable. Played 162 games last season and 160 the year before and isn't going to command the price that Correa will. .
That's what I'd like too. A middle infield of him and Story would be fantastic.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,536
UWS, NYC
Kike to SS and add Reynolds or Nimmo in the OF keeps the franchise afloat so long as Devers stays.

Yoshida seems best suited to DH
 
Last edited:

jacklamabe65

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
To the extent RSS is saying you can’t be a contender without an “elite player on a massive contract” - I’m not sure there’s any real evidence to support that.

The Astros have been the cream of the crop in the AL the last 5+ years largely by NOT entering into such contracts, with the exception of Altuve. They’ve drafted well, spread the money around, and signed some players like Verlander for high dollars but low years.

That is the model I want the Sox to follow, not mindlessly shelling out big contracts because they feel the need to have an “elite player.”

Put another way, it’s virtually impossible to win consistently in the modern MLB without developing cheap talent, whereas it’s definitely possible to win in the modern MLB without a bunch of huge contracts.
This.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
738
I mean yeah it’s probably just posturing but I won’t be able to relax until the contract is signed. The longer it goes on the more possible someone else steps in and takes him away from us

What happened to the “momentum”? Something doesn’t feel right
Credit where it’s due, you nailed this. Alas.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,962
Maine
Barring a free agent signing, isn't it most likely that Story moves to SS?
Not necessarily. I think it was telling that whenever they needed a non-Bogaerts shortstop this season, and Story was healthy and available, they used Arroyo and Kike and Arauz and Downs and Chang and even Dalbec, but not Story. I don't think that rules out Story as a possibility, but I think it does indicate he's not choice #1.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,454
Mobile, AL
Following the Yoshida signing, I wondered if this would also help with a potential Senga addition. Players often struggle in their initial season following a move to a new city, never mind an entirely different country; thus, I imagine that having a teammate from the same country/culture (experiencing the same transition) would be helpful. Plus, from all acounts, Senga is ... talented. I'd love to see him or Eovaldi signed. From there, add an additional bargain bat or two, pull a trade for another starter, and we're in business! Baseball's a weird game. With a handful of top hitters, a decent supporting cast, healthy-ish rotation, and key deadline deal or two, anything is possible.

On a side note? Maybe it's because I was born in '81 and by the time I turned 21 I was convinced the Red Sox would never win a World Series (Wait, we've won f-cking four during my lifetime?), but I'm completely perplexed by the Bloom impatience. I'm sold on his vision and am all for the necessary short-term steps to turn the Sox into a Dodgers/Padres/Astros kind of monster. Creating an organization with a loaded farm system and Top-5 spending power is by far the best way to compete for champions on a year-to-year basis.
Shades of the Dice-K + Okajima signings
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
To the extent RSS is saying you can’t be a contender without an “elite player on a massive contract” - I’m not sure there’s any real evidence to support that.

The Astros have been the cream of the crop in the AL the last 5+ years largely by NOT entering into such contracts, with the exception of Altuve. They’ve drafted well, spread the money around, and signed some players like Verlander for high dollars but low years.

That is the model I want the Sox to follow, not mindlessly shelling out big contracts because they feel the need to have an “elite player.”

Put another way, it’s virtually impossible to win consistently in the modern MLB without developing cheap talent, whereas it’s definitely possible to win in the modern MLB without a bunch of huge contracts.
I will go a step further and say that MLB is moving towards being a game for younger players as the average age of prime performance seems to be coming down. So those players are usually in their cheap years team control when they're putting up their best numbers.

The flip side is that if you want to extend them, you have to make it lucrative enough and sign them early enough. Whitlock is a good example. Taking this long to extend Devers makes it pointless as he's already got enough money, so he can deal with 1 year of risk to test the market. I'm also fine with adding the opt outs since they're likely necessary to get the deal signed in the first place, and the team can be get years that are more likely to high value (they are a way for disciplined teams to avoid the decline phase, although it will aggrieve the fanbase in the short term).
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
237
While I don't disagree at all with the notion of it being a "young players" game, and understand the hesitancy to enter in to long term deals with players over 30 - both of which make sense - my questions are:

Relative to Bogaerts specifically, why not move him at the deadline then. If you believe those things, and know you aren't going to meet the market for a player, get more prospects. At least then you have the chance of two or three prospects becoming part of that long term core vs where we are now - losing the player for nothing.

Not for nothing, but at the price it will cost, I don't particularly want Correa. He's played 150 games once in his career and he isn't even 30 yet. That is not the type of "durability" profile I want to bet on for someone that will likely command a minimum of 8 years and $240m - and that is probably on the low side.
 

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
265
Before we start talking about a dozen years for Corea, don't we allegedly have the future SS in the minor league?
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
36,148
Wow wasn’t expecting to wake up to that. What are the Padres thinking? They have two excellent SS’s already. Are they getting rid of Tatis? Can we trade for him?
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
8,582
No one should ever assume any particular prospect works out at all. They bust all the time. Meyer is six billion miles from the major leagues. As they say in hockey, "There's many a slip between Cup and lip."
Thank you for saying this. I know prospects are exciting and Meyer looks like a good one, but everyone putting all the Red Sox eggs in the farm system basket are going to be disappointed.
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
10,630
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Wow wasn’t expecting to wake up to that. What are the Padres thinking? They have two excellent SS’s already. Are they getting rid of Tatis? Can we trade for him?
If we traded for him, he better come with a suitcase full of cash. I'd rather the other kid, Kim, as a bridge to Mayer.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
17,290
They also have another good shot-on-goal at SS with Romero. I know that he's less likely to stick at SS than is Mayer, though.
 
Last edited:

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
237
Not for nothing, but I don't particularly WANT the team to meet the cost of what Correa will likely command.

I don't disagree that he is a better defensive SS than Bogaerts, nor do I disagree he is a better offensive player than Bogaerts. He is better in both cases. I also think it's highly unlikely that someone whom has averaged 122 games per season in his age 21-27 seasons is suddenly going to be dependable to play 145plus games per season from the ages of lets say 28-38. For what it's worth, I did not include the "Covid Tournament" of 60 games, those are from his first full season in 2016 through last year, discounting a meaningless "season", averaged out.

My big complaint is not in failing to pay Bogaerts until he's 40; it's in letting him walk for nothing when you almost assuredly knew you weren't going to meet the market price all along.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,603
They also have another good shot-on-goal at SS with Romero. I know that he's less likely to stick at SS than is Meyer, though.
All the more reason to sign Correa, I think, who is still only 28. The currency is talent, not money. So if you're able to afford a star shortstop and keep the other(s) in your pocket, you can trade them down the line for what you need, and the players you trade for will be younger.

Otherwise, you'd have to spend in FA for what you need, meaning those players you acquire will be older and less likely to be in their prime.
 
Jun 2, 2016
846
Hanover, PA
Not for nothing, but I don't particularly WANT the team to meet the cost of what Correa will likely command.

I don't disagree that he is a better defensive SS than Bogaerts, nor do I disagree he is a better offensive player than Bogaerts. He is better in both cases. I also think it's highly unlikely that someone whom has averaged 122 games per season in his age 21-27 seasons is suddenly going to be dependable to play 145plus games per season from the ages of lets say 28-38. For what it's worth, I did not include the "Covid Tournament" of 60 games, those are from his first full season in 2016 through last year, discounting a meaningless "season", averaged out.

My big complaint is not in failing to pay Bogaerts until he's 40; it's in letting him walk for nothing when you almost assuredly knew you weren't going to meet the market price all along.
How do you know they were sure they wouldn't meet the market rate? The offered 6/160 which is right in line with the consensus in our projected salaries thread. We all believed that to be the market rate - until everything went nuts with Turner and Bogaerts.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,683
CA
My big complaint is not in failing to pay Bogaerts until he's 40; it's in letting him walk for nothing when you almost assuredly knew you weren't going to meet the market price all along.
While I get the sentiment, I don’t think anyone can fault the Red Sox for expecting the Padres to set the market for Bogaerts at 11/280m. Everyone on this site and before the FA process began had pegged Xander to be in the 6-8 year range at $25-30m per. As others have pointed out, the Padres basicaly gave him a 5-7 year deal at $35-40m that they are amortizing over 11 years.

I think you can fault them for offering 4/90 as opposed to 6/150 last Spring — but who knows if a Boras client even takes that. There is a reason these players hire Boras —he gets max value for them, usually absurd money, most of the time.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
53,282
deep inside Guido territory
I love SoxScout, but that's... a lot.
There's now a clear pattern of how this ownership group values their homegrown talent when they get to become more expensive. Lester, Betts, and now Bogaerts were all lowballed and weren't close to being paid what they're worth here so they were traded or walked away. Why is this suddenly going to change with Rafael Devers? The only way I can see it ending with him like all the others is that he is 5 years younger than Bogaerts and Lester were when they were up for a deal. But even with Betts, he was entering his age 27 season when they traded him. So, yeah I believe that if they aren't willing to extend Devers this offseason that they should trade him.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
237
How do you know they were sure they wouldn't meet the market rate? The offered 6/160 which is right in line with the consensus in our projected salaries thread. We all believed that to be the market rate - until everything went nuts with Turner and Bogaerts.
Using Semien as a comp. He got 7/$175M last year and he's not as good of a baseball player nor as consistent as Bogaerts, and he isn't even a short stop for any point of the contract, much less the first several years. Once Bogaerts got to free agency that was pretty much the minimum to expect him to sign for, and apparently our "best" offer was fewer years for less total money. Thinking he'd sign for less than Semien seems extremely unlikely.

Had we offered the midpoint from what RG33 mentioned (sorry, I don't know how to quote you in an edit, but I'm happy to learn if someone is willing to educate) with an offer of something like 7yrs and $200m then I'd buy the argument that we thought we'd be in the market. But to make 6/$160 your best offer, and I trust Speier's reporting there, means you had either knew all along you weren't going to sign the player or dramatically misread the market. Both of which are quite damning for a baseball operations staff that I expect to be at the forefront of reading the markets.
 
Last edited:

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,683
CA
Also, I don’t know Dr. Charles Steinberg, but these are the facts:

- Xander had an OPS over .800 in 5 of his 10 seasons
- Xander had a slugging % over .500 in 3 of 10 seasons
- Xander hit 20+ HRs in 4 of 10 seasons
- Xander OPS+ above 115 in 5 of 10 seasons (the last 5)
- Xander was replacement level defensively for most of his career

I really don’t mean this is a bash, I think he was a very good (not great) player, I think the Red Sox got his best years (and great value), I think there is great value in the leadership he brought to the team and the great ambassadorship he brought to Boston, and I think he would have been a fool not to take the Padres offer.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
7,262
If we traded for him, he better come with a suitcase full of cash. I'd rather the other kid, Kim, as a bridge to Mayer.
You'd want the vastly inferior player as a bridge to some guy who might end up being a vastly inferior player to Fernando Tatis Jr.?
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,221
Boston, MA
Also, I don’t know Dr. Charles Steinberg, but these are the facts:

- Xander had an OPS over .800 in 5 of his 10 seasons
- Xander had a slugging % over .500 in 3 of 10 seasons
- Xander hit 20+ HRs in 4 of 10 seasons
- Xander OPS+ above 115 in 5 of 10 seasons (the last 5)
- Xander was replacement level defensively for most of his career

I really don’t mean this is a bash, I think he was a very good (not great) player, I think the Red Sox got his best years (and great value), I think there is great value in the leadership he brought to the team and the great ambassadorship he brought to Boston, and I think he would have been a fool not to take the Padres offer.
As good as he is, I have never once thought Xander Bogaerts was in the conversation for best player in MLB and that's the way he got paid. Good for you X, no hard feelings, but I think he's about three years removed from being a .780 OPS left fielder. There's going to be a long time for San Diego to regret this move.