I’m full team blow it up because I think this season is toast, but Devers is the one untouchable imo. They need a face to sell tickets.If they internally have decided to not resign Devers, blow it up. 1.5 seasons of Raffy gets a huge haul.
Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.Can we sell, trade for Soto, and then sign him and Devers to long term deals?
The other way to look at it is if it cost, say, $72Million/year between the two of them as your 3-4 hitters, is Bloom capable of building a competitive team around them with the remaining $160Million?Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.
I agree it can be done. And that Devers is priority one.The other way to look at it is if it cost, say, $72Million/year between the two of them as your 3-4 hitters, is Bloom capable of building a competitive team around them with the remaining $160Million?
I am not advocating a Soto signing, and I don’t think anyone is signing him until after 2024 anyway.
I do advocate an immediate signing of Devers.
I’m just saying, you can start with one or two big stars and a creative GM should be able to make it work.Or you can get a boatload of Wachas and Kikés. One way or another they are spending that billion dollars.
Yes it’s a gamble. And it’s also a gamble in a different way to get more middling players. I have a long-standing bias towards retaining star players that is based on emotion more than analytics.I agree it can be done. And that Devers is priority one.
The main issues I have with that is what it would cost in cheap prospects and how long it would take to rebuild the farm. Plus, if one of the two has a significant injury they probably wouldn't have the resources to work a trade for a good player.
Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.
you can say that about the Angels.If you’re going to spend $75m on two players, guys like Soto and Devers, given their ages and production, are exactly the kinds of guys you spend it on.
Stanton's actual AAV for NY is $22M per, so really it is $58M combined per season for those two.The Yankees have $65m tied up in Cole and Stanton. They seem to be doing okay.
Having two huge contracts doesn’t at all guarantee success. But it doesn’t preclude it either.
They were 4.5 games behind Toronto for the second wildcard on July 25 when they traded Chapman.Didn’t Cashman go fire sale when the Yankees were still kind of in it? Was it when they sold off miller and Chapman? I feel like we are in a similar spot.
Wait until next year when they sign Judge.Stanton's actual AAV for NY is $22M per, so really it is $58M combined per season for those two.
He's making 4.5 mil next year (including the buyout). That's what guys like Diekman cost, if he's a negative asset it's not by much.Any deadline sell offs need Diekman’s 2023 contract attached to them. I love Chaim, but giving Diekman a two year deal was an atrocious whiff.
Exactly. The Yankees are experiencing success despite paying top dollar for the likes of Cole and Stanton (and let's not forget Donaldson's $23M salary) because they're paying their best starter by ERA (Cortes) the league minimum and about $24M for the other three guys. They're also getting all star production out of low cost guys like Trevino and Holmes. Getting the re-incarnated Matt Carpenter for next to nothing doesn't hurt either.You can spend a high % of your payroll on a few players and be successful if you have a number of cheap and productive players to offset that. As it is now, the Red Sox don’t have many of those players, and trading those who have the best chance of becoming such players in order to pay Soto a record setting amount of money seems unwise.
I think PTBNLs are usually pre-determined at trade time, or at least narrowed down to a short list and the ultimate choice is conditional. Like if the receiving team makes the post-season, they give up Prospect A, but if they miss the post-season, they give up lesser Prospect B. And those details are made known to the commissioners office for approval but not to the public (mainly for the sake of the prospects). I can't imagine the commissioner approving a trade that is essentially loaning a player out for nothing or next to nothing.Half serious question: is there any precedent or rule regarding trading for a PRBNL and having the PTBNL be the guy you traded?
For example, we trade Devers to the Dodgers for a prospect and a PTBNL. The Dodgers send us a prospect, and the day after they beat the Yankees in the World Series, they send Devers back to complete the trade.
Because at this point, I’m all about blowing this squad up. It’s been a complete and utter pants shitting against their divisional rivals, and I think it’s becoming more likely this team finishes in last place than they manage to snatch a wild card spot.
Inexpensive, controlled players like Verdugo and Pivetta are the kind of guys the Sox need to keep, not trade.Who are the players it would make the most sense to unload in the next few weeks to get something decent in return? I’d say JD, Verdugo, and Pivetta. They all have served the Sox well but we need to get something meaningful back while recognizing this team now without Sale yet again has zero chance of producing an exciting run this year.
Trading Pivetta is another 175 inexpensive innings to replace next year.Who are the players it would make the most sense to unload in the next few weeks to get something decent in return? I’d say JD, Verdugo, and Pivetta. They all have served the Sox well but we need to get something meaningful back while recognizing this team now without Sale yet again has zero chance of producing an exciting run this year.
And piss away the players that they might be able to affordably surround Soto and Devers with.Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.
Yep. I covered that in a later post in this thread.And piss away the players that they might be able to affordably surround Soto and Devers with.
I can’t remember the guy but there was a baseball transaction where a player was the PTBNL in the original deal. He was traded for himself.Half serious question: is there any precedent or rule regarding trading for a PRBNL and having the PTBNL be the guy you traded?
You might be thinking of Dickie Noles. From wiki, it's happened four timesI can’t remember the guy but there was a baseball transaction where a player was the PTBNL in the original deal. He was traded for himself.
I think this came up before, but there is no way that this would get past the league office if it was the intent from the beginning. And all Hell would break loose if it was someone of Devers' caliber.I think PTBNLs are usually pre-determined at trade time, or at least narrowed down to a short list and the ultimate choice is conditional. Like if the receiving team makes the post-season, they give up Prospect A, but if they miss the post-season, they give up lesser Prospect B. And those details are made known to the commissioners office for approval but not to the public (mainly for the sake of the prospects). I can't imagine the commissioner approving a trade that is essentially loaning a player out for nothing or next to nothing.
If it is just a matter of Devers wanting to play with Xander because of their friendship, then that is probably true to some extent, although it might be balanced by his familiarity with the organization and the city. Unless the Sox sign both of them, however, it seems unlikely that they would end up in the same place anyway. Most players follow the money. If the Sox give Devers the money he is looking for, he would sign with them, I expect.I agree with everyone who is saying sell except for Devers who should be signed.
That said, doesn't selling make the Sox a less desirable place for him to sign? Especially if Xander is the one sold?
The thread title should be renamed with this in it, although that might not helpJust another reminder that Bogaerts has a full no-trade clause. It might not matter who might want him if he isn't interested in them.
True, but Bogaerts gets a benefit if he agrees to be traded. The team that signs Bogaerts as a FA would not have to lose a comp pick for signing him, by virtue of the fact that Bogaerts was traded midyear and is therefore not covered by the compensation pick rules. Those rules may, however, go away in a week if the MLB and MLBPA agree to an international draft, in which case it is hard to see Xander agreeing to any trade.Just another reminder that Bogaerts has a full no-trade clause. It might not matter who might want him if he isn't interested in them.
Now add the $100m+ in free agent signings that are almost certainly coming and see how they lookIt's... better than I expected it to be? But it seems like they’ll be in no-man’s land, not good enough to compete but not bad enough to fully tank. At minimum, they'll need a starting-quality catcher and probably another bat, preferably one who can man a corner OF spot, ideally another who’s ok with DHing full-time**. I would argue - I have argued - that this should be a serious consideration as we enter Transacting Season, and surely it is.
* - I mean, right? They have to throw him out there at some point and if not next year then when?
** - if you want to read that as “Mike Zunino, Brandon Nimmo, and Jose Abreu,” then that’s the concept, if not necessarily those specific names.
Not even remotely suggesting that they won’t make additional moves, but are you proposing to fill all of those holes via free agency? That was my point.Now add the $100m+ in free agent signings that are almost certainly coming and see how they look
Rotation seems extraordinarily concerning.I'm not going to get into the "Buy or sell?" question, but I think it's worth getting this out there. Here, as of this moment, are the 2023 Red Sox if they don't make any additional moves between now and next Opening Day, as best as I can figure:
C - Hernandez/Wong
1B - Casas*/Dalbec/Cordero
2B - Story/Downs/Arroyo
SS - Story/Downs
3B - Devers
LF - Verdugo/Refsnyder
CF - Duran
RF - Cordero/Refsnyder/Verdugo
DH - Dalbec/Casas/Cordero
SP - Sale
SP - Paxton
SP - Pivetta
SP - Whitlock
SP - Winckowski/Bello/Crawford/Walter
There are a lot of relief options, including Houck, Barnes, Sawamura, Diekman, Davis, Schreiber, D. Hernandez, Brasier, Taylor, etc. etc.
I think that's more than 25 players, and surely you all will find some errors on my part. But that's the basic idea.
It's... better than I expected it to be? But it seems like they’ll be in no-man’s land, not good enough to compete but not bad enough to fully tank. At minimum, they'll need a starting-quality catcher and probably another bat, preferably one who can man a corner OF spot, ideally another who’s ok with DHing full-time**. I would argue - I have argued - that this should be a serious consideration as we enter Transacting Season, and surely it is.
* - I mean, right? They have to throw him out there at some point and if not next year then when?
** - if you want to read that as “Mike Zunino, Brandon Nimmo, and Jose Abreu,” then that’s the concept, if not necessarily those specific names.
That's 1 middle infielder, 1 maybe 2 outfielders, a catcher, a DH, and a couple relievers? Yeah I'm pretty sure $100m+ can cover that.Not even remotely suggesting that they won’t make additional moves, but are you proposing to fill all of those holes via free agency? That was my point.
Ha! I actually thought it was the strength of that proposed roster. But….injury issues yeah.Rotation seems extraordinarily concerning.
This is the Red Sox trade deadline thread. What reason would there be for not talking about it here?So should we reopen the sell thread or discuss what should be sold here?