The offseason heading into 2018

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,672
Good for Mookie.

Looking ahead, this clarifies next year’s committed money w/r/t arb increases for Betts, Bradley, Vazquez, Bogaerts, Smith, Holt, EdRo, Wright, Johnson, Thornburg, León, Barnes, Elias, Hembree and Workman. (Though doubtful all will be with the team in a year.)

$25.325M comes off the books in Kimbrel, Kelly, and Pomeranz, which should be just about the cost of retaining the players above.

Among other reasons, this is why I wish we could have snagged one of this year’s good and cheaper set-up relievers on a 2-year deal. If we don’t re-sign Kimbrel or Kelly and Smith/Thornburg aren’t effective, our 2019 pen looks pretty rough. Seems like we’d be laying out money for a “proven closer” (Kimbrel, Britton, Miller, Herrera, Doolittle, Allen, Ramos, Robertson, Soria, Madsen, Rosenthal) no matter what.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
How do you figure? A full season of David Price alone adds an expected 2-4 wins. Even if you don't accept the notion that the majority of the roster should improve/bounce back, how do you conclude that the 2018 version would be a downgrade?

The rotation doesn't need an upgrade. But the slots currently held by Sale, Pomeranz, and Porcello will have to be filled in two years. Paying Darvish + young acquired bat a combined $20M a year makes more long-term financial sense than JDM + traded pitcher $30M+, doesn't it?
From the on paper POV we do have the some potential bounce backs to be hopeful on, but we are also down what arguably amounted to the best 2017 hitter (sadly) and 2nd best RP on the team. Losing our deadline upgrades is essentially a step backwards that also has to be taken into account imo.

And no, I still don't see Darvish making a lot of long term sense. Maybe if our projected/surrounding LT looked better, or if he was a couple of years younger. But yeah, that potential "extend the window value" he might provide to us down the road is going to have to start in the season he's due to turn 34. That's ultimately a bad bet to make imo.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,102
From the on paper POV we do have the some potential bounce backs to be hopeful on, but we are also down what arguably amounted to the best 2017 hitter (sadly) and 2nd best RP on the team. Losing our deadline upgrades is essentially a step backwards that also has to be taken into account imo.

And no, I still don't see Darvish making a lot of long term sense. Maybe if our projected/surrounding LT looked better, or if he was a couple of years younger. But yeah, that potential "extend the window value" he might provide to us down the road is going to have to start in the season he's due to turn 34. That's ultimately a bad bet to make imo.
It's not even just bounce backs. It's a full season of Price, Smith, and Devers, maybe even Pedroia, Holt, Wright, Workman, and Ross. That alone is significantly more than the worth of a quarter season of Nunez and Reed. I don't see how you can see this as a downgrade. In terms of WAR, you're talking about adding 5-10 wins. Smith basically replaces Reed. And if you're specifically talking about a step backwards from the roster at the end of the season/playoffs, then Nunez doesn't even count. Either way you look at it, they're starting 2018 in a better position than 2017.

Sure, there will be variation in performance, age-related decline, and injuries in 2018, too. But, that equation bodes well for 2018 looking better than 2017, too. Which players do you realistically expect could be worse/provide less value than in 2017? Vazquez, Kimbrel (there's really only one way to go...), regular season Sale, Pomeranz, and Kelly make up the entirety of that list in my eyes. On the flip side, I expect better contributions from Bogaerts, Benintendi, Bradley, Betts, Ramirez, Porcello, Wright, and Ross. Qualitatively, the offense should be significantly better, while the pitching looks to be relatively level, in my opinion.

Darvish isn't the only option. He's the best pitcher on the market and got inserted into the discussion. But guys like Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb could serve the same purpose to a lesser degree, but at a lower cost.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
So somewhat random but potentially interesting note on our currently estimated CBA payroll post Betts settlement (COTS):

In the event the Sox ultimately found themselves wanting to bail out of the 2018 season, deadline deals of our 3 upcoming FA pitchers (Kimbrel/Pom/Kelly) looks to roughly leave us barely squeezing back under the LT. With any additional plus costs before then needing to be balanced out, of course.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,672
Drellich wrote an interesting piece on JBJ that gets into personality types, which could be relevant to some on this board.

http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/jackie-bradley-jrs-comfort-boston-should-be-highly-valued

“I would say I [have always been this way]. I’m very much an introvert though, which is weird. I stay out of the limelight, and I’m not very I guess, so-called, outgoing. But… I just like to be treated how I want to be treated. It all stems down to that. No matter what anybody does, I’m still going to try to treat you with respect. And it’s only right. That’s what God would want me to do.”

It’s nice to see some nuanced treatment of these players as people with complex personalities. And in his case, some attention paid to how expectations of leadership merge with being a prominent black player in the city of Boston.

In my history as a fan, it’s often been the introverted types (Drew, Crawford, Foulke, Bogaerts, Wily Mo Pena, Carlos Quintana, maybe even Price despite the Twitter feed) who can for whatever reason be misunderstood. To me, it shows that there are leadership styles fans can’t often see, and that are materially different from the kind we associate with Hosmer, Pedroia and Ortiz.
 
Last edited:

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Drellich wrote an interesting piece on JBJ that gets into personality types, which could be relevant to some on this board.

http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/jackie-bradley-jrs-comfort-boston-should-be-highly-valued

“I would say I [have always been this way]. I’m very much an introvert though, which is weird. I stay out of the limelight, and I’m not very I guess, so-called, outgoing. But… I just like to be treated how I want to be treated. It all stems down to that. No matter what anybody does, I’m still going to try to treat you with respect. And it’s only right. That’s what God would want me to do.”

It’s nice to see some nuanced treatment of these players as people with complex personalities. And in his case, some attention paid to how expectations of leadership merge with being a prominent black player in the city of Boston.

In my history as a fan, it’s often been the introverted types (Drew, Crawford, Foulke, Bogaerts, Wily Mo Pena, Carlos Quintana, maybe even Price despite the Twitter feed) who can for whatever reason be misunderstood. To me, it shows that there are leadership styles fans can’t often see, and that are materially different from the kind we associate with Hosmer, Pedroia and Ortiz.
Thank you for sharing addition insight into JBJ's character.

In light of new information I sometimes change my opinion.

Honor est in honorante, injuria in injuria.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Sign Moustakas and move Devers to DH? Might be worth considering if JDM fails, depending on how much prices fall for those who chose to sign rather than hold out
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Damn, Todd Frazier for 2/17. Lots of bargains will be going by the wayside while DD waits on JDM. Give JDM a deadline, 48 hrs to accept or the offers off the table
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
Damn, Todd Frazier for 2/17. Lots of bargains will be going by the wayside while DD waits on JDM. Give JDM a deadline, 48 hrs to accept or the offers off the table
Personally, I was connecting the comparative dot more to the Giants' decision to put Longoria on their books though 2023.

That's still a no on your Moustakas suggestion btw. But yeah, DD jumping the gun on Moreland is going to be looking even worse in the upcoming weeks as other GMs start picking away at the desperation pool of players who are going to want to secure themselves jobs.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,646
Melbourne, Australia
Serious question, why is Frazier so much higher valued than Moreland and therefore a bargain at $8.5m per year vs. Moreland perceived as expensive at $6.5m? Almost identical OPS last year, but OPS+ had Moreland at 99 vs. 105 for Frazier - due to 1B vs. 3B. And if you add in defense (is Frazier that much better a defender than Moreland?) you get 3.4 WAR vs Moreland 2.0.

But from a pure bat perspective Frazier is not better I would argue. So what am I missing / why did Frazier get paid $12m last year vs. Moreland's $5.5m?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
Serious question, why is Frazier so much higher valued than Moreland and therefore a bargain at $8.5m per year vs. Moreland perceived as expensive at $6.5m? Almost identical OPS last year, but OPS+ had Moreland at 99 vs. 105 for Frazier - due to 1B vs. 3B. And if you add in defense (is Frazier that much better a defender than Moreland?) you get 3.4 WAR vs Moreland 2.0.

But from a pure bat perspective Frazier is not better I would argue. So what am I missing / why did Frazier get paid $12m last year vs. Moreland's $5.5m?
He's higher valued because of that positional difference, and the fact there are actually teams out there where he'd be a decent fit at 3B.

That said, he was never a rational alternative answer here though. Not with the abundance of FA options at 1B that were already out there. If you are going to move Devers over it certainly isn't going to be for a Todd Frazier.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,646
Melbourne, Australia
Thanks for that MikeM. So if equivalent performance at 3B commands such a premium because of the ability to field the position, if I were Rafael Devers I would resist being moved over to first and bust my butt to improve my defense to maximise my career earnings, right?
 

Hawk68

lurker
Feb 29, 2008
172
Massachusetts
Thanks for that MikeM. So if equivalent performance at 3B commands such a premium because of the ability to field the position, if I were Rafael Devers I would resist being moved over to first and bust my butt to improve my defense to maximise my career earnings, right?
To my eyes, Devers has a plus arm (which can't be taught), an average MLB 3B glove and poor footwork - both of which can improve with coaching and reps.

Time will tell if he sticks at third, but he showed a lot of poise and that kind self confidence can make all the difference - in any endeavor.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,391
Damn, Todd Frazier for 2/17. Lots of bargains will be going by the wayside while DD waits on JDM. Give JDM a deadline, 48 hrs to accept or the offers off the table
But yeah, DD jumping the gun on Moreland is going to be looking even worse in the upcoming weeks as other GMs start picking away at the desperation pool of players who are going to want to secure themselves jobs.
This off-season in a nutshell!

It may not be pleasant to watch, but I think the Red Sox are still in a great position. They need a power hitter, and one of the best power hitters in the game -- who has extra value to them because they don't mind his lack of defensive value -- is sitting out there in a buyer's market. The downside risk is that he gets so upset at the state of the market that he decides to go play in Korea or something, and I don't think that's remotely likely. JD Martinez to the Red Sox for five years and $125 million seems like a no-brainer for everybody, even if it takes an uncomfortably long time to happen.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,672
Personally, I was connecting the comparative dot more to the Giants' decision to put Longoria on their books though 2023.

That's still a no on your Moustakas suggestion btw. But yeah, DD jumping the gun on Moreland is going to be looking even worse in the upcoming weeks as other GMs start picking away at the desperation pool of players who are going to want to secure themselves jobs.
After reading your umpteenth condemnation of the Moreland signing, I’m curious. What was your ideal solution at first?
 

mfried

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,679
Trade for Abreu might have been an appealing move as alternative to Moreland. If we sign JDM that wouldn't look as sweet, especially if JBJ is the cost.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,606
EXCept a JBJ for Abreu trade was never going to happen. If they are trading him, it is for prospects and they are loaded with OFs
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
After reading your umpteenth condemnation of the Moreland signing, I’m curious. What was your ideal solution at first?
Beyond all the GFIN stuff DD came into this winter essentially having one pressing and fairly straight forward job to do. One. Upgrade our offense or at least it's upside at 1B/DH, and do that by replacing Mitch Moreland. My ideal solution to that was always to avoid spending money on a top tier option (Hosmer/Santana), and if at all possible keep any additional guaranteed money off next years books as a fallback option bonus.

Right about now I'd love to be the team positioned to to grab whatever cheap rate Morrison/Duda/Lind come in at, or maybe even a sub-30yo Moose if his price tag drops far enough. While still using that open spot to somewhat leverage against this current position where people now feel we 'have" to sign JDM (to a contract I hope we both realize isn't likely to happen under a reality scenario that sees Boras throw up his arms in frustration and simply proclaim "You got me. Great job holding firm all winter. $125m over 5 to Boston it is").

Like I pointed out earlier in the off-season, I also expect you specifically to eventually join me in the belief that it ultimately even made more alternative/big picture sense to move Hanley back to 1B and avoid a greater odds scenario where that option vests out of a full time DH role. You are just taking the longer conclusion route to get there, and still getting hung up at the false hope side roads along the way.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,102
Some problems with what you're saying, as I see them:
1) There is no FA bat that could directly replace Mitch Moreland at 1B and provide significant improvement over him at similar or acceptable cost. (Your mileage varies...) Santana or Hosmer are the only two who fit that bill. This "upgrade Moreland" conundrum is not black and white. And a novel thought: what if the Red Sox actually value Mitch Moreland more highly than some or all of the other options? It appears to me they do.

2) I agree they may have been better off waiting out the mediocre 1B market. But we're talking about a couple million dollars over two years. It looks to me that DD identified the guy he wanted and signed him to a pretty reasonable (and not long-term-sacrificing) 2 year deal. Saying you're going to sign someone to a 1 year deal is all well and good, but you're back at square one next year:

2018-2019 First Basemen
Matt Adams (30)
Marwin Gonzalez (30)
Joe Mauer (36)
Brandon Moss (35) — $10MM mutual option with a $1MM buyout
Steve Pearce (36)
Hanley Ramirez (35) — $22MM vesting option
Justin Smoak (32) — $6MM club option with a $250K buyout

Unless we're moving Devers off third to sign Machado, there's even less next year. The 3B market isn't too hot, either.

3) So you think it entirely unrealistic that JDM, the best bat on the market but who is best suited to be a DH and apparently does not have the market he wants, will sign a reasonable deal (5/$125?), but in the same post think it's possible Moustakas, by far the best 3B option available, signs a significantly discounted one?

4) And that the Sox have better leverage by saying "Hey, JD, we can still get our bat in Moustakas. We'll just either need to move our 20yo top-ranked 3B prospect to a new position once ST starts or ask Moustakas to shift across the diamond, where he's significantly less valuable and has never played before." As opposed to "Hey, JD, we're set to roll with what we have. We'd like to have you but there is no real need - our roster's pretty full. If Hanley doesn't bounce back, maybe we can offer you a 1 year deal in a couple months. Or we could offer it to Moustakas, who's also still unsigned."

4) Moving Hanley back to 1B can still be done. In that scenario, they still need to sign another first baseman. Unless you're counting on him either breaking down (in which case you need a 1Bman) or having his option vest there. At this point, they're still in the market for a DH/OF type. Whether Hanley is currently listed as a DH or 1B is largely irrelevant. His role is/was going to be diminished in any scenario.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,672
Beyond all the GFIN stuff DD came into this winter essentially having one pressing and fairly straight forward job to do. One. Upgrade our offense or at least it's upside at 1B/DH, and do that by replacing Mitch Moreland. My ideal solution to that was always to avoid spending money on a top tier option (Hosmer/Santana), and if at all possible keep any additional guaranteed money off next years books as a fallback option bonus.

Right about now I'd love to be the team positioned to to grab whatever cheap rate Morrison/Duda/Lind come in at, or maybe even a sub-30yo Moose if his price tag drops far enough. While still using that open spot to somewhat leverage against this current position where people now feel we 'have" to sign JDM (to a contract I hope we both realize isn't likely to happen under a reality scenario that sees Boras throw up his arms in frustration and simply proclaim "You got me. Great job holding firm all winter. $125m over 5 to Boston it is").

Like I pointed out earlier in the off-season, I also expect you specifically to eventually join me in the belief that it ultimately even made more alternative/big picture sense to move Hanley back to 1B and avoid a greater odds scenario where that option vests out of a full time DH role. You are just taking the longer conclusion route to get there, and still getting hung up at the false hope side roads along the way.
Ok, thanks.

Hanley was never an option at first. Besides his shoulder injury and general reluctance to play the position last year, one of the most critical narratives this year and beyond is Devers’s development at third, where he’s struggled with arm accuracy. However enticed they might have been by Alonso’s or Morrison’s big months of May, that was a main reason they preferred Mitch (along with tonyarmasjr’s rationale above).

There’s also zero chance Hanley is the full-time DH in 2018.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
Some problems with what you're saying, as I see them:
1) There is no FA bat that could directly replace Mitch Moreland at 1B and provide significant improvement over him at similar or acceptable cost. (Your mileage varies...) Santana or Hosmer are the only two who fit that bill. This "upgrade Moreland" conundrum is not black and white. And a novel thought: what if the Red Sox actually value Mitch Moreland more highly than some or all of the other options? It appears to me they do.

2) I agree they may have been better off waiting out the mediocre 1B market. But we're talking about a couple million dollars over two years. It looks to me that DD identified the guy he wanted and signed him to a pretty reasonable (and not long-term-sacrificing) 2 year deal. Saying you're going to sign someone to a 1 year deal is all well and good, but you're back at square one next year:

2018-2019 First Basemen
Matt Adams (30)
Marwin Gonzalez (30)
Joe Mauer (36)
Brandon Moss (35) — $10MM mutual option with a $1MM buyout
Steve Pearce (36)
Hanley Ramirez (35) — $22MM vesting option
Justin Smoak (32) — $6MM club option with a $250K buyout

Unless we're moving Devers off third to sign Machado, there's even less next year. The 3B market isn't too hot, either.

3) So you think it entirely unrealistic that JDM, the best bat on the market but who is best suited to be a DH and apparently does not have the market he wants, will sign a reasonable deal (5/$125?), but in the same post think it's possible Moustakas, by far the best 3B option available, signs a significantly discounted one?

4) And that the Sox have better leverage by saying "Hey, JD, we can still get our bat in Moustakas. We'll just either need to move our 20yo top-ranked 3B prospect to a new position once ST starts or ask Moustakas to shift across the diamond, where he's significantly less valuable and has never played before." As opposed to "Hey, JD, we're set to roll with what we have. We'd like to have you but there is no real need - our roster's pretty full. If Hanley doesn't bounce back, maybe we can offer you a 1 year deal in a couple months. Or we could offer it to Moustakas, who's also still unsigned."

4) Moving Hanley back to 1B can still be done. In that scenario, they still need to sign another first baseman. Unless you're counting on him either breaking down (in which case you need a 1Bman) or having his option vest there. At this point, they're still in the market for a DH/OF type. Whether Hanley is currently listed as a DH or 1B is largely irrelevant. His role is/was going to be diminished in any scenario.
1. It didn't have to be somebody that guaranteed significant improvement. That is more the surrounding GFIN mentality talking, which I am generally opposed to. Again, a better upside option would have sufficed imo. You novel thought is unfortunately right though.

2. It's an extra couple million dollars we didn't have to spend or commit to next year's payroll, but feel free to remind me of that "only" factor when we still need to upgrade the lineup latter and start fully crunching the #'s behind next season's get under the LT possibility. I don't care about the possibility of ending back at square one when you are setting the bar at Mitch Moreland either. The presented concept that you might struggle to replace one of the worst hitting starting 1B in the majors should pretty much rank dead last on a potential off-season concern list.

3. I wasn't doubting the possibility JDM signs a more reasonable deal then initially expected this winter. I'm doubting it ends up with Team Boras making a complete and utter surrender concession in Boston/DD's predetermined favor. For better or for worse that is least likely way this all plays out imo, and as already proposed in the JDM thread I'd more likely guess he ends up back in Arizona atm on some lesser contract with an early opt out. Moustakas doesn't have the same premium value type leverage JDM has either.

4. Yes, since scenario one both presents the possibility and would indeed leave us upgrading the lineup this offseason, and scenario two doesn't.

4b. No, it can't. Or more specifically won't minus the possibility Moreland goes down with injury. Not after signing Moreland at 2 years. I also find it extremely unlikely that we in the market for alternative JDM options either. It's JDM or nothing at this point.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
2,941
Florida
Ok, thanks.

Hanley was never an option at first. Besides his shoulder injury and general reluctance to play the position last year, one of the most critical narratives this year and beyond is Devers’s development at third, where he’s struggled with arm accuracy. However enticed they might have been by Alonso’s or Morrison’s big months of May, that was a main reason they preferred Mitch (along with tonyarmasjr’s rationale above).

There’s also zero chance Hanley is the full-time DH in 2018.
The fact of the matter is that Hanley has been a potential option at 1B every year since he's been here, minus the start of last season when he could have alternatively started the year on the DL until he was ready to take the field. It's the surrounding narrative being written in which once again isn't making him an option there for 2018.

I do believe your extreme distaste on the possibility of that Hanley option vesting rivals my own over DD's decision to sign Moreland though, and that's why I ultimately see us landing on common ground btw. At least once you come to terms that the chance Hanley ends up in the role he's currently already slotted for here is a lot better then zero. In the end the overall emphasis value of Moreland's proposed ability to help Devers isn't going to weighed in a vacuum, and simply wasn't that important in the grander scheme of things imo.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
57,466

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
925
Pittsboro NC
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2018/02/baseball_union_head_says_rebuilding_teams_threaten_integrity

MODS, not sure if this is worth a new thread, but it certainly is worth a read. In short, the player's union now publicly engaged - and this ups the stakes in a looming labor dispute.
Well, that’s nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is nonsense. This, however, rings true:
"It is common at this point in the calendar to have large numbers of free agents unsigned," MLB added. "What is uncommon is to have some of the best free agents sitting unsigned even though they have substantial offers, some in nine figures. It is the responsibility of player's agents to value their clients in a constantly changing free-agent market based on factors such as positional demand, advanced analytics and the impact of the new Basic Agreement. To lay responsibility on the clubs for the failure of some agents to accurately assess the market is unfair, unwarranted, and inflammatory."
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
This isn't an either or situation. Manfred and the owners are correct that the market has shifted and it's on players and agents to recognize that. But the market has shifted, in large part, because the players negotiated themselves into this situation. So, while the union has legitimate gripes about where we are in terms of player control, salaries and teams tanking, these are self inflicted rules. There owners have no obligation cave here, and while I don't think we are in danger of a strike this season, I do think the players will have to be willing to strike before the current CBA expires to force negotiations for a new CBA.

It's a really interesting dynamic. By the rules, the owners are 100% in the right here, but practically speaking, the players have a lot of legitimate reasons to be upset. I think the union needs to replace Tony Clark before any progress is going to be made in fixing this, and maybe that's part of why he's been making statements. He feels the heat. Regardless, at some point these free agents are going to need to come down from their demands and sign the best deals on the table.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
953
Connecticut
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2018/02/baseball_union_head_says_rebuilding_teams_threaten_integrity

MODS, not sure if this is worth a new thread, but it certainly is worth a read. In short, the player's union now publicly engaged - and this ups the stakes in a looming labor dispute.


Well, that’s nonsense.[/QUOTE]


It certainly is nonsense, but the same things can be said of players. People act in self-interest and often the self-interest is monetary.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,695
Twin Cities
.... Regardless, at some point these free agents are going to need to come down from their demands and sign the best deals on the table.
I agree. I don't think it's sensible or sound strategy for the union to consider striking now, and sitting out isn't likely to help the players get bigger deals. Nothing the players can do will change the CBT realities for the big market teams. Nor can a guy like Moustakas change the reality that he can't get on base at a reasonable clip, or JDM prove that he's a reliable bet for 150+ games with a plus glove in the OF, factors which cut against them getting paid like perennial MVP candidates (because, well, they're not).
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
10,394
Do you really think a guy with 4-5 years of team control left is going to go on strike because a few free agents aren't signing the 100 million dollar+ offers they have?
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Do you really think a guy with 4-5 years of team control left is going to go on strike because a few free agents aren't signing the 100 million dollar+ offers they have?
No, they're going to strike to get a salary floor, better pay for players under team control early in their careers, enhancements to the arb system, a CBT threshold tied to revenues, etc. Which is why a strike won't happen this year.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,391
Far too perfect a fit to actually happen. That contract alone, my god it's beautiful!
Encarnacion's contract is a good fit for a team that will likely be looking to dip back under the luxury tax threshold in 2020, but Bradley is a far more valuable player -- younger, controlled for longer, playing a more premium position. They each put up 2.8 WAR last year, but Bradley put up 5.3 to EE's 3.7 in 2016.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,052
Portland
The average salary of a player is now 4.5 million as opposed to 1.1 million in 1994. Even with inflation, that is quite a large jump.

The amount of money everyone will lose if there is a prolonged strike is mind boggling and I think the main reason something will eventually get hashed out.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
7,711
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Encarnacion's contract is a good fit for a team that will likely be looking to dip back under the luxury tax threshold in 2020, but Bradley is a far more valuable player -- younger, controlled for longer, playing a more premium position. They each put up 2.8 WAR last year, but Bradley put up 5.3 to EE's 3.7 in 2016.
Not to mention the Sox would have to sign or trade for a CF.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
7,015
Who would play RF or LF then ?.. EE is a DH/1Bman .. are you suggesting they move Hanley back to LF?

I don't know, but finding a LF is easier than finding a CF. I'm not saying they should make the trade, but if they did trade JBJ, that's how they would fill CF.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
18,700
Maine
So if they "revisit" this JBJ/Encarnacion deal, who is the third starting outfielder? Sign someone like Carlos Gonzalez? Seems like that would approach spending more than just waiting out Martinez.