Rework JD Martinez contract?

[Van Everyman]

I have no idea how WAR is calculated but I do think comparing the relative value of offensive and defensive production is tricky.

Over the course of a season, it seems to make sense. For instance, I can see how a JBJ would provide a ton of value in the field over the course of 162 games. Even putting aside assists, he probably gets an average of 5-7 balls hit to his defensive zone per game and by my count I would imagine a majority of those are outs. By comparison, JDM gets up 4 times and gets on 1.5-1.75 times with a high slugging. I can see how those would even put.

Where it gets harder for me is when you start extrapolating those metrics for the smaller sample size of the postseason. It seems hard to imagine JBJ could provide as much value over the course of a playoff series as a high OPS hitter like JDM.

Maybe I’m letting my eyes deceive me—and short of an epic collapse, I suspect we will find out—but I wouldn’t expect this lineup to come up empty again the way they largely have the last two postseasons. The lineup has more holes this year—catcher, JBJ and Devers struggles—but their ceiling is greater. And a lot of that does seem to come from JDM anchoring the three-hole.

Then again, defensive value seems less streaky than offensive production so who knows.

 

[Hawk68]

I voted "No", for this reason: The parties reached a mutually acceptable solution. I see no reason nor advantage to the Red Sox to increase JDM contract value to terms sufficient to eliminate the player options.

Should JDM believe he can realize better terms by opting out, the Red Sox will enjoy information superiority on his value to them as they compete for offensive talent - in what has been a slow growth/declining free agent market.

If JDM determines his best interest is to remain with the Red Sox and elects not to terminate the remainder of his contract - well we simply abide by the terms already agreed to.

 

[grimshaw]

I guess none of the "all those people" were posting their firm beliefs on that here then, but which again I guess gets lost or doesn't actually really even matter within your own need to take the shot there.

But on that note, I'm pretty sure nobody spent more time this winter specifically posting about how good of a comparative to the league and entering FA in general hitter JDM was then I did btw. Much less while routinely pointing out those 4 year splits. Although I can admit to expecting a reasonable amount of regression, given that was quite a jump up over the previous 3 years in 2017. Which I'm also fairly certain Average Reds himself will end up agreeing with on that very latter.

Well I did post this in reponse to Tyrone from the offseason thread.

Stop it with the one year home run bullshit. You don't need to hit the most home runs to be one of the best power hitters in baseball. If he plays more, he'll accumulate more.

David Ortiz' OPS+ his last 4 years: 159,140,140,164
JD Martinez' OPS+ his last 4 years: 154,139,142,166

This isn't a guy who just figured out how to hit fly balls. He was really great the past 3 years, and then took it to another level last year.

 

[sean1562]

I feel like this should switch to DMs at this point, because nobody else really cares. I can’t wait for JBJ to go on a hot streak.

I think the two years we will prob have the guy are great. We are gonna need payroll flexibility in the future and I’d rather commit money to our home grown guys

 

[nvalvo]

But I didn't say that, and specifically framed it "as a player" instead of "as a hitter". Which of course I was obviously making a relative value reference as well. I mean c'mon. The amount of absurd twisting/stretching of comparative OPS that would have to be involved in making that claim should of been obvious enough imo.

While the numerous back and forth discussion I had with you and some others on the topic of JDM's value over the winter did come to mind earlier (which I believe also crossed over into that specific speculative conversation at some point), it was really meant more as a quick/dirty way to point out where people seemed to be projecting JDM's win value to the team over the winter, the fragile nature of value itself with good-at-one-thing-and-bad-at-the-other types, and how that's all basically adding up as a whole now a mere couple months latter in relationship to the directly quoted "People knew what he was this off season".

Which again and going back to my initial point, I really don't recall anybody here seriously projecting JDM to more or less be the same level of hitter he was in 2017.

And I think you're right about this. I think a lot of people were leery that 2017 might be a career year, and understandably so! He added like .160 points of SLG to an already high established level as a hitter, and while that's not an astonishing thing for a big strong dude to do in his late 20s, it doesn't happen so often.

It's kind of reminiscent of the transformation between the age 26 and 28 seasons of one David Ortiz. David went from being a .270/.340/.460 type player with the Twins — a nice player, but a guy you might correctly choose to replace with Justin Morneau — to the .300/.400/.600 type player we all fell in love with in his first few seasons in Boston.

Back to JDM, I think the general assumption (and I've clicked through a few of the threads) was that we knew we'd get the positionless .900 OPS slugger he was in his first few seasons in Detroit, with the tantalizing upside of the guy we saw last year in both Detroit and Arizona. There were also concerns about his health.

For instance, here's a post of mine from February on page one of the "JDM" thread, spoilered to keep it from getting too long. In the post, I was projecting him as a 3.5 fWAR player. He's *already* been worth 3.2.

Spoiler

Exactly. Martinez has just been worth 5, 2, and 4 fWAR in his last three years. So projected 3-2-1 style, that's (5+2x2+3x4)/6=3.5. If you expect him to repeat that for the next two years, and then decline half a win per year over a six year deal, he should produce 3.5+3.5+3+2.5+2+1.5=16 projected wins. At last year's rate of $8m/WAR, we'd expect something like 5/$116 or 6/$128.

But the pattern has been for over a decade that $/WAR is subject to a slow but steady inflation, which probably made him think that he'd ask for $200m, and then settle somewhere in the $150-180m range, with the higher estimates coming in from teams who were either optimistic about his health going forward, or else believe that he can maintain the crazy HR/FB ratio we saw in his second half, and thus project him more rosily than I did. If you think he's a 5 win player the next few years — which he totally might be — it would be easy to talk yourself into a $180m offer.

Here's the thing: that slow but steady $/WAR inflation appears to be suffering a sharp reversal, similar to the "correction" that happened in the wake of the huge Manny/A-Rod type deals from the late 1990s early 2000s. And if that figure isn't going to inch up to $9 or $10m/WAR over the course of the deal, it's less and less likely that he'll "earn" $150m. And, well, that ratio appears to be heading down, if anything.

I'm not sure that's really Boras' fault, but your general point stands.

So I think people are beating up on MikeM for the wrong thing. His actual bad posts are those in which he propounds a completely bewildering and unsupported sense of what Dombrowski's commitments and tendencies are, which led him to make what felt like 700 posts (but was probably like 5) about how the Moreland signing meant we couldn't sign Martinez, because Dombrowski would never eat Hanley's sunk cost.

 

[Van Everyman]

I know this is a tired subject for SoSH and that I may not have the world's most sophisticated take on this, but ...
If a player outperforms his contract the first two years and opts out in year 3, why is that a bad thing for the team? JDM is going to be 33 when the first two years of his contract are up. Yes, it will be tough to lose a guy who is playing as well as he is. Yes, we will have to replace his production. But the value we would be getting by re-upping him would inherently be diminished. Right now we're getting JDM at his top value at $25M/y. Even if he produces the same in years 3 + 4 we are going to be paying more and getting less value. And as he will be two years older, it is likely we will be getting even less value.

Can someone explain to me how JDM opting out after he just, presumably, gave us two of the best years of his career is a bad thing? The only thing we would be paying for is the guarantee he'd be here in years 3/4/5.

I get the argument that opt outs benefit the player because they hold all the cards. But at the end of the day, I'd just prefer to get a guy at his best, pay him for those years, see him leave, and let someone else pay thru the nose for his older, most likely declining years. And if you have a high degree of confidence that the player is going to perform well enough to opt out, I'm not sure how that's much different than a two year contract which I think most of us would rather give elite players than the Carl Crawford Specials.

 

[MikeM]

So I think people are beating up on MikeM for the wrong thing. His actual bad posts are those in which he propounds a completely bewildering and unsupported sense of what Dombrowski's commitments and tendencies are, which led him to make what felt like 700 posts (but was probably like 5) about how the Moreland signing meant we couldn't sign Martinez, because Dombrowski would never eat Hanley's sunk cost.

Yeah, no qualms here stating that I completely miscalculated the Moreland situation. You could have also noted that behind all my insisting that JDM was worth more then the contract he ended up getting, my more conservative overall take on where I wanted the Sox to head payroll wise wasn't actually in full favor of signing him either. I personally liked that Jay Bruce uhhh..."value signing"

 

[williams_482]

I know this is a tired subject for SoSH and that I may not have the world's most sophisticated take on this, but ...
If a player outperforms his contract the first two years and opts out in year 3, why is that a bad thing for the team? JDM is going to be 33 when the first two years of his contract are up. Yes, it will be tough to lose a guy who is playing as well as he is. Yes, we will have to replace his production. But the value we would be getting by re-upping him would inherently be diminished. Right now we're getting JDM at his top value at $25M/y. Even if he produces the same in years 3 + 4 we are going to be paying more and getting less value. And as he will be two years older, it is likely we will be getting even less value.

Can someone explain to me how JDM opting out after he just, presumably, gave us two of the best years of his career is a bad thing? The only thing we would be paying for is the guarantee he'd be here in years 3/4/5.

I get the argument that opt outs benefit the player because they hold all the cards. But at the end of the day, I'd just prefer to get a guy at his best, pay him for those years, see him leave, and let someone else pay thru the nose for his older, most likely declining years. And if you have a high degree of confidence that the player is going to perform well enough to opt out, I'm not sure how that's much different than a two year contract which I think most of us would rather give elite players than the Carl Crawford Specials.

JD Martinez plays extremely well over the next two years, enough to make him want to opt out. Do you want him back?

JD Martinez plays poorly over the next two years, enough to make him not want to opt out. Do you want him back?

Opt-outs are bad for the team (in isolation) because they eliminate the upside possibility of retaining a player who is performing better than his contract, while keeping the downside potential of being forced to keep a player who is underperforming his contract.

In almost all cases, the team wants the player to be in a situation where they do opt out, because that means the player was better than expected. In those cases, the team would almost always prefer to keep the player at the original price, instead of losing the player or paying their new, higher price in FA.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

JD Martinez plays extremely well over the next two years, enough to make him want to opt out. Do you want him back?

JD Martinez plays poorly over the next two years, enough to make him not want to opt out. Do you want him back?

Opt-outs are bad for the team (in isolation) because they eliminate the upside possibility of retaining a player who is performing better than his contract, while keeping the downside potential of being forced to keep a player who is underperforming his contract.

In almost all cases, the team wants the player to be in a situation where they do opt out, because that means the player was better than expected. In those cases, the team would almost always prefer to keep the player at the original price, instead of losing the player or paying their new, higher price in FA.

This assumes the market keeps rising.

It, well...didn't last year. Who knows about the future.

 

[effectivelywild]

This assumes the market keeps rising.

It, well...didn't last year. Who knows about the future.

The other part of this, again, as has been re-hashed often but for a quick summary: If a player opts out, he is betting that he can get a bigger contract on the open market than what he currently has. Assuming he is accurate, that means that his current contract has value in excess of what he is getting paid, which means he has trade value based on his original contract. So let's pretend we are the GM for the Red Sox and JD plays great for 2 years and then he opts out. While maybe we, as theoretical FO people, are happy (because now we don't have to worry about paying the back end of the contract), if we assume that JD made the right choice in opting out then in theory (if he didn't have the opt outs) we could have just traded his contract to the people with whom he would have for some sort of asset, (since they have shown that the value him above his current contract).

 

[Adrian's Dome]

The other part of this, again, as has been re-hashed often but for a quick summary: If a player opts out, he is betting that he can get a bigger contract on the open market than what he currently has. Assuming he is accurate, that means that his current contract has value in excess of what he is getting paid, which means he has trade value based on his original contract. So let's pretend we are the GM for the Red Sox and JD plays great for 2 years and then he opts out. While maybe we, as theoretical FO people, are happy (because now we don't have to worry about paying the back end of the contract), if we assume that JD made the right choice in opting out then in theory (if he didn't have the opt outs) we could have just traded his contract to the people with whom he would have for some sort of asset, (since they have shown that the value him above his current contract).

This assumes other teams will ignore aging trends and will automatically take on (and pay assets for) large contracts in which other teams have already cashed in on majority of the "value" (the early years.) For every David Ortiz that hits like a Hall of Famer up to 40, there's hundreds of guys that fall off a cliff anywhere between the 30-35 years and there's not exactly a science behind when it'll happen.

The opt-out discussion is like a discussion on communism. On paper it's clear and it works, but in reality...

 

[williams_482]

This assumes other teams will ignore aging trends and will automatically take on (and pay assets for) large contracts in which other teams have already cashed in on majority of the "value" (the early years.)

If the team would have been willing to pay the player more than they are currently earning in FA, they would be willing to give up assets to take the same player on a lesser contract.

Teams and players make mistakes, but neither are dumb enough to ignore aging curves, and the mistakes they make are not consistent enough that a team could reasonably bank on players opting out when they shouldn't or vice-versa.

For every David Ortiz that hits like a Hall of Famer up to 40, there's hundreds of guys that fall off a cliff anywhere between the 30-35 years and there's not exactly a science behind when it'll happen.

Yep, players can and do get worse rapidly and unpredictably. This can happen before or after an opt-out date, and if it happens before then the team is royally fucked.

The only time you could reasonably argue that an opt-out will benefit the team is if the team has good reason to believe that the player is disproportionately likely to fall off a cliff shortly after the opt out date, and the player is ignorant of this. In reality, teams are not much better at predicting declines than players are, so this become a high risk, low reward gamble for them to take.

 

[williams_482]

This assumes the market keeps rising.

It, well...didn't last year. Who knows about the future.

No, it assumes that the player has a reasonably accurate read on the market for his services. All that matters is market performance relative to whatever the player expects.

If the market falls off such that the player is actually being paid more than they would otherwise get, they don't opt out, and the team is in a hole.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Once again, you're working in absolutes and speaking as if variables aren't in play. Things aren't always that black and white, nobody can predict the market, some teams are smart, some are dumb, and shit happens. All of that is why you cannot make definitive statements like you have been.

If the opt-outs were really that one-sided in reality, teams wouldn't offer them. They literally would not be a thing. They're a calculated risk, if anything, but not a completely lopsided one.

Remember when the Yankees tripped all over themselves to re-sign a certain high profile player that opted out? Certainly would've been better if they hadn't, but, you know, we have that knowledge now. Didn't at the time.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

The JD Martinez contract will go down as one of the best free agent contracts in the history of the franchise. I can’t understand why any Red Sox fan would want to change it. It’s working out perfectly, don’t mess with it.

 

[Patek's 3 Dingers]

Am I the only one that is irritated a bit by these numbers? In the real world, unless you live In Manhattan, $200K is a great salary. JD will this year, after paying his commission to Boras, make 113 times that amount. If he just plays out his Sox contract and doesn't buy an airliner and put his name on it, he will make more than he, or future generations, could ever spend. Whether he can leverage his opt-out for another $50M is meaningless as to his future quality of life

And the there is David Price. According to Wikipedia, he almost dropped out Vanderbilt to work at a McDonald's. Now that same guy is being paid over $30M a year.

Players should earn as much as teams are willing to pay them, but it is ridiculous.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Am I the only one that is irritated a bit by these numbers? In the real world, unless you live In Manhattan, $200K is a great salary. JD will this year, after paying his commission to Boras, make 113 times that amount. If he just plays out his Sox contract and doesn't buy an airliner and put his name on it, he will make more than he, or future generations, could ever spend. Whether he can leverage his opt-out for another $50M is meaningless as to his future quality of life

And the there is David Price. According to Wikipedia, he almost dropped out Vanderbilt to work at a McDonald's. Now that same guy is being paid over $30M a year.

Players should earn as much as teams are willing to pay them, but it is ridiculous.

Would you rather John Henry add a few million more to his billions? Money needs to go somewhere.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Am I the only one that is irritated a bit by these numbers? In the real world, unless you live In Manhattan, $200K is a great salary. JD will this year, after paying his commission to Boras, make 113 times that amount. If he just plays out his Sox contract and doesn't buy an airliner and put his name on it, he will make more than he, or future generations, could ever spend. Whether he can leverage his opt-out for another $50M is meaningless as to his future quality of life

And the there is David Price. According to Wikipedia, he almost dropped out Vanderbilt to work at a McDonald's. Now that same guy is being paid over $30M a year.

Players should earn as much as teams are willing to pay them, but it is ridiculous.

How much money does Bruce Springsteen need? How about Robert Downey Jr.?
They are entertainers and they are being paid what the market will bear.

 

[bluefenderstrat]

How much money does Bruce Springsteen need? How about Robert Downey Jr.?
They are entertainers and they are being paid what the market will bear.

Seriously. Humans have valued and paid for entertainment for centuries. Somehow sports salaries are seen as more offensive than the $30 million Tom Cruise gets for Mission Impossible 10, but it's the same math in the end. Yeah, it's annoying to see "our" money go to the likes of Sandoval, Hanley, and Castillo but then again, Tom Cruise made "The Mummy".

 

[Patek's 3 Dingers]

Seriously. Humans have valued and paid for entertainment for centuries. Somehow sports salaries are seen as more offensive than the $30 million Tom Cruise gets for Mission Impossible 10, but it's the same math in the end. Yeah, it's annoying to see "our" money go to the likes of Sandoval, Hanley, and Castillo but then again, Tom Cruise made "The Mummy".

Never heard of the "Mummy", but with a 15% Rotten Tomatoes score I'm glad I missed it.

I've got no problem with supply and demand and have no sympathy for the owners. Before free agency the owners could negotiate with a, "take it, are don't play", strategy.

Probably the worst thing for me is that players claiming to be willing to take a discount for the "home team" invariably go for top dollar with Pujols being an example.

Yeah, the players are entitled to market value, but I try to look the other way.

BTW, I've been been visiting this site for awhile and have often read that the market rate for 1 WAR is $8M. Does that mean Trout will get $80M per year?

 

[Earthbound64]

Now would be the absolute worst time for the Red Sox to do it.
Not going to happen.

 

[grimshaw]

BTW, I've been been visiting this site for awhile and have often read that the market rate for 1 WAR is $8M. Does that mean Trout will get $80M per year?

No, because there is a luxury tax and teams need to pay 25+ people.

 

[Plympton91]

The opt-out discussion is like a discussion on communism. On paper it's clear and it works, but in reality...

No, No it doesn’t. It seems appealing until you realize it’s based on faulty assumptions.

The fault assumption in all of this opt out discussion is that the player would have signed the exact same contract without the opt outs.

The opt out has value to the player, and for that reason the player signs for less guaranteed money than he otherwise would have.

The Red Sox didn’t have a choice of 5/$110 with an opt out or 5/$110 without an opt out. They would have had to add more dollars and more years to JDM/Boras to sign without an opt out.

That’s the value to the team. They trade off fewer up front guaranteed dollars against the risk that the player will overprform and leave.

 

[bsj]

Now would be the absolute worst time for the Red Sox to do it.
Not going to happen.

While I see your point, I'd rather overpay for a sure thing than underpay for a risk.

 

[williams_482]

While I see your point, I'd rather overpay for a sure thing than underpay for a risk.

JD Martinez from 2020-2022 is by no means a "sure thing."

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

Never heard of the "Mummy", but with a 15% Rotten Tomatoes score I'm glad I missed it.

I've got no problem with supply and demand and have no sympathy for the owners. Before free agency the owners could negotiate with a, "take it, are don't play", strategy.

Probably the worst thing for me is that players claiming to be willing to take a discount for the "home team" invariably go for top dollar with Pujols being an example.

Yeah, the players are entitled to market value, but I try to look the other way.

BTW, I've been been visiting this site for awhile and have often read that the market rate for 1 WAR is $8M. Does that mean Trout will get $80M per year?

If you could guarantee trout performs at his peak, never got hurt, and was on a one year deal, you might see bidding up to that level. But those things aren’t true.

Also and your second paragraph only works if the owners collude.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

People get way more upset when a piece of art by a living artist sells for more than a million and react as if it’s some sort of fucking scam..... they get way more upset by an artist “selling”* art for a million than an athlete make tens of millions in s year.

*likely resale value through an auction- good chance the artist made $10K at most off her sale through the initial gallery sale

 

[Patek's 3 Dingers]

If you could guarantee trout performs at his peak, never got hurt, and was on a one year deal, you might see bidding up to that level. But those things aren’t true.

Also and your second paragraph only works if the owners collude.

I don't understand your comment regarding the 2nd paragraph. With the reserve clause the only leverage available to the players was to threaten to not play which was something that guys like DiMaggio did every year. They also had no control over trades which was what triggered Flood to take a stand.

 

[In my lifetime]

Part of the reason for the added opt out in JDM's case was related to the RS getting protection re: his Lisfranc injury.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I don't understand your comment regarding the 2nd paragraph. With the reserve clause the only leverage available to the players was to threaten to not play which was something that guys like DiMaggio did every year. They also had no control over trades which was what triggered Flood to take a stand.

Sorry, I misread that as your suggestion.

 

[Spelunker]

Never heard of the "Mummy", but with a 15% Rotten Tomatoes score I'm glad I missed it.

I've got no problem with supply and demand and have no sympathy for the owners. Before free agency the owners could negotiate with a, "take it, are don't play", strategy.

Probably the worst thing for me is that players claiming to be willing to take a discount for the "home team" invariably go for top dollar with Pujols being an example.

Yeah, the players are entitled to market value, but I try to look the other way.

BTW, I've been been visiting this site for awhile and have often read that the market rate for 1 WAR is $8M. Does that mean Trout will get $80M per year?

So you think that extra money should go to a billionaire owner instead? Because that's the choice.

 

[tonyarmasjr]

So you think that extra money should go to a billionaire owner instead? Because that's the choice.

Isn't it obvious? They'll use that money to raise wages for all the beermen and stadium attendants, as well as building new ballparks (without taxpayer money, of course). I mean, after all, the billionaires are the ones who invented baseball, so they should get to reap the large majority of its financial rewards.

As for the original question posed, I think it's complete folly. There is no world in which I want to be offering to pay top dollar for a player's early-to-mid-30s before he even gets there. That's without taking into account the surrounding financial and roster landscape over the next 2-3 years.

 

[pdub]

As much as I'd love for the guy to earn more money, it doesn't make sense given his age. If he opts at around age 32-33 or so, then we've gotten two amazing years out of him. We are better off using that money to extend our young core OR go after young offensive players (Machado, for example).

That said, I am rooting for the guy.

 

[Pitt the Elder]

How much would the Sox have had to pay JD without the opt-outs? Isn't that what is really important? If it would have taken 5/130 without the opt-outs to sign him, how does that change the calculus? At what point is it empirically better for the Sox? 5/140? 6/150?. I think both sides realize that player options have tangible value, which allows the team to reduce the dollar amount.

In theory, there's got to be a way to do some sort of discounted cash value calc for the life of a deal that takes the player optoutop into account and translates that all into present day value.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

How much would the Sox have had to pay JD without the opt-outs? Isn't that what is really important? If it would have taken 5/130 without the opt-outs to sign him, how does that change the calculus? At what point is it empirically better for the Sox? 5/140? 6/150?. I think both sides realize that player options have tangible value, which allows the team to reduce the dollar amount.

In theory, there's got to be a way to do some sort of discounted cash value calc for the life of a deal that takes the player optoutop into account and translates that all into present day value.

Well, given more money would've put them over the luxury threshold, with all the negatives that come with it, I'd say those opt outs were worth quite a bit.

 

[BaseballJones]

Martinez' great year makes me wonder about this question - and not sure if it's worthy of another thread...mods, feel free....

Sox' bias aside, who would you rather have (age and contracts taken into consideration):

Betts or Judge?
- Betts (25): 22 hr, .342/.432/.673/1.105
- Judge (26): 25 hr, .280/.399/.572/.971

Martinez or Stanton?
- Martinez (30): 27 hr, .329/.392/.646/1.039
- Stanton (28): 21 hr, .267/.341/.510/.852

Bogaerts or Gregorius?
- Bogaerts (25): 14 hr, .281/.355/.520/.875
- Gregorius (28): 15 hr, .252/.317/.454/.771

Devers or Andujar?
- Devers (21): 14 hr, .246/.294/.431/.726
- Andujar (23): 12 hr, .276/.305/.498/.803

Benintendi or Torres? (I know they play different positions)
- Benintendi (24): 14 hr, .293/.379/.515/.894
- Torres (21): 15 hr, .294/.350/.555/.905

Sale or Severino?
- Sale (29): 2.36 era, 0.89 whip, 13.0 k/9
- Severino (24): 2.12 era, 0.96 whip, 10.4 k/9

Kimbrel or Chapman?
- Kimbrel (30): 1.98 era, 0.91 whip, 13.4 k/9
- Chapman (30): 1.42 era, 0.84 whip, 15.6 k/9


My votes:
- Betts (does more things better and is a year younger; but you have more years of control with Judge)
- Martinez (both are monsters; like Martinez' contract better, though Stanton is younger)
- Bogaerts (three years younger)
- Andujar (Devers is 2 years younger but I think Andujar is a better player)
- Torres (love Beni, but Torres is going to be an absolute animal, and is 3 years younger)
- Severino (Sale is a tiny bit better now, but Severino is 5 years younger)
- Kimbrel (I'd have a very hard time rooting for Chapman for non-baseball reasons)

Edge: 4-3, Sox

But man there's a LOT of talent on these rosters. (sorry for the off-topic post I guess)

 

[Sausage in Section 17]

In theory, there's got to be a way to do some sort of discounted cash value calc for the life of a deal that takes the player optoutop into account and translates that all into present day value.

It's just different forms of negotiations, almost like variable rate mortgages. If the Sox wanted to hedge against JDM leaving, they could offer to tack on some player options at the end of the current deal. Offer him a 1 year $25M player option he can exercise at the end of his 5 years, as disincentive to opting out and seeking another deal elsewhere.

If the Sox want do this, they should still wait until after next year to re-visit what the terms should look like.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

I'll probably fuck this up, so in case I do, this tweet compares the beginnings of JD's career to Manny's career with the Sox. Uncanny similarities.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">J.D. Martinez vs Manny Ramirez first 335 AB&#39;s with Red Sox<br><br>H<br>JD - 111<br>Manny - 111<br><br>2B<br>JD - 21<br>Manny - 21<br><br>HR<br>JD - 28<br>Manny - 27<br><br>XBH<br>JD - 50<br>Manny - 50<br><br>TB<br>JD - 218<br>Manny 217<br><br>BA<br>JD - .331<br>Manny - .331<br><br>K<br>JD - 87<br>Manny - 88<br><br>Wait, what?<br><br>details <a href="https://t.co/ICuHKl3Kec">pic.twitter.com/ICuHKl3Kec</a></p>&mdash; Boston Sports Info (@bostonsportsinf) <a href="">July 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Just paste the link, the board will do the rest.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Martinez "absolutely open" to renegotiating contract:

"Absolutely," Martinez said about his interest in signing a new extension as a measure to remove the opt-out clauses. "It obviously would have to be discussed later. I've liked my time there. It's been fun so far, so I don't see why not."

"[It's] the fans, the passion, the environment you get to play every day in," Martinez said of playing in Boston. "They love their baseball and love their team. They'll die with them and they'll live with them."

 

[soxhop411]

I’d approach him after the season and see if they can work something out.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Why in the world would you do that? It makes no sense to me.

He'll either opt in at a lower price than what a renegotiated deal would cost, or opt out and save the Red Sox from paying him Pujols-style in his later years

Agreeing to give him even more money after one great season is foolish. If he loves the fans and the park so much, he can prove it by staying ... especially with so many other unresolved contract issues coming up

 

[soxhop411]

Why in the world would you do that? It makes no sense to me.

He'll either opt in at a lower price than what a renegotiated deal would cost, or opt out and save the Red Sox from paying him Pujols-style in his later years

Agreeing to give him even more money after one great season is foolish. If he loves the fans and the park so much, he can prove it by staying ... especially with so many other unresolved contract issues coming up

Convert the Option year into a guaranteed year.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Convert the Option year into a guaranteed year.

You’d have to give him another $5M per year or so for each option year. Maybe more.

 

[sean1562]

I may do that for the third year but I’m not sure he will be worth it years 4 and 5, especially when we need to sign Xander.

 

[mauidano]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2781760-how-jd-martinez-rose-from-division-ii-obscurity-mlb-reject-to-elite-superstar?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&share=other
Pay the man.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Geez... I still don't know. I'm really loving JD but given the budget and the potential cost for Betts and Sale, who, IMO are priority over Martinez... I'm not sure he's going to be worth the cost. My priorities... if I'm DD... are Betts, Sale, Benintendi, Xander. Next up is JDM and another SP... I was hoping Rodriguez was going to be the no.2 long term, but the guy is looking fragile. Yeah... long term... if DD can find another 30 million under the mattresses and it's within his spending budget after those first four guys, then absolutely.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Why in the world would you do that? It makes no sense to me.

He'll either opt in at a lower price than what a renegotiated deal would cost, or opt out and save the Red Sox from paying him Pujols-style in his later years

Agreeing to give him even more money after one great season is foolish. If he loves the fans and the park so much, he can prove it by staying ... especially with so many other unresolved contract issues coming up

Terror about how his oppo power might play in the toilet may cause some furrowed brows in Boston and lead to incentive to put prudence to the side.

But, in the end, I don't think it matters. Boras isn't going to let him do anything. Why should he? He has his $60 million insurance policy for injury or regression. Boras got him a deal that would ensure he will be comfortable for the rest of his life and that he'll be wealthy beyond imagination if he has two good years. So far, he's 30 percent of the way there.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2781760-how-jd-martinez-rose-from-division-ii-obscurity-mlb-reject-to-elite-superstar?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&share=other
Pay the man.

Very good article.

Side note: The restaurant JD is eating at in the article is one that was recommended to us by SoSH when we saw the Sox play in Minny a few years back. Quite good

 

[joe dokes]

On JD's defense:

https://apps.bostonglobe.com/sports/graphics/2018/07/martinez-defense/?event=event12