X Leaves the Spot for San Diego: 11 years, $280M

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,723
02130
This deal in a vacuum is insane. It's well beyond what anyone thought Bogaerts would get.

It's also the market price for free agent Xander Bogaerts.

I can't fault them for not wanting any part of any of these megadeals individually. And yet, if they're just never going to be competitive for the top tier of free agents, I think that's a bad strategy. Signing the middle class free agents of the world works in the NFL, where there's a hard salary cap and depth is paramount. But this is the Boston Red Sox. The whole point of making smart signings, drafting well, and developing young players is so that you can then sign marquee, star players to expensive deals, especially when they're your own players who are durable, in their prime, and have proven they can win in Boston.

I don't think this ownership group is cheap. I do think that if they think they can build a sustainable contender filling out the roster with the Nate Eovaldis and Trevor Storys of the world, they're mistaken.
This might be your point but over the Dombrowski years they did not, on the whole, make particularly smart signings, draft well or develop young players. At least not at the level of the top teams in the league. And the holes in the roster today stem from that. They did well patching them with short-term deals in 2021 but not nearly as well last year, which is pretty much going to be the case when you only have a few stars you can count on -- sometimes you'll do well patching up a roster and sometimes you won't unless you're an unbelievable GM.

The other thing that happened is the last crop of stars they developed did not sign extensions. Some of that is perhaps because the team did not offer enough but we heard in the Betts case, they definitely tried to at least some extent.

Develop some homegrown stars and everything else gets way easier, especially if they really like it here and will sign an extension before FA. Of course the problem is that everyone wants to do that but that's really how you build a consistently good team and there's no real way around it.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
I get your point, but obviously it's better to be a really good baserunner than to not be. I do think the game will shift back to more players putting the ball in play and contact and base running will become more important.
Story's a great baserunner, but he's not a "putting the ball in play and contact" guy. He hit .238 last year with 122 Ks in just 94 games, and he was barely a .270 hitter in Colorado.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,674
The Coney Island of my mind
Outside the box contract offer:

6/$162 for the first six years. AAV of $27M with four vesting options based on games played and OPS+

Final four years, 4/$40.

If X plays in more than 100 games, he’ll earn $1M more for every point of OPS+ over 100, up to a total salary of $35M per year.

10/$202 guaranteed, but able to go up to 10/$302 if he continues to perform at an elite level for the better part of a season.

I wonder if this would be a good footprint for a contract with Devers or Correa.
There's no reason for either Devers or (especially) Correa to do anything that complex when both are likely to be offered as much if not more money without the escalators and incentives.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,877
deep inside Guido territory
Outside the box contract offer:

6/$162 for the first six years. AAV of $27M with four vesting options based on games played and OPS+

Final four years, 4/$40.

If X plays in more than 100 games, he’ll earn $1M more for every point of OPS+ over 100, up to a total salary of $35M per year.

10/$202 guaranteed, but able to go up to 10/$302 if he continues to perform at an elite level for the better part of a season.

I wonder if this would be a good footprint for a contract with Devers or Correa.
On Devers: Austin Riley just got 10/212, but he has 2 less years of service than than Devers. Devers is going to want more than $21 million/year for his free agent years going forward. You're probably going have to be in the range of 10/300.

On Correa, he just saw Turner and Bogaerts both get at least $280 million. His contract will likely come in between X and Turner.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,334
Maine
Outside the box contract offer:

6/$162 for the first six years. AAV of $27M with four vesting options based on games played and OPS+

Final four years, 4/$40.

If X plays in more than 100 games, he’ll earn $1M more for every point of OPS+ over 100, up to a total salary of $35M per year.

10/$202 guaranteed, but able to go up to 10/$302 if he continues to perform at an elite level for the better part of a season.

I wonder if this would be a good footprint for a contract with Devers or Correa.
Interesting, but I believe escalators have to be based on counting stats to be included in a contract. So basing salary escalations/bonuses on OPS+ is a non-starter.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,422
There's no reason for either Devers or (especially) Correa to do anything that complex when both are likely to be offered as much if not more money without the escalators and incentives.
Yeah, you're just going to have to overpay for elite talent and hope you're right that the guy you think is elite talent actually is. Which I think makes a different level of sense for a 26 year old whose main tool is a bat that will play anywhere than it does for a 30 year old whose bat will become less and less of an asset as he slips down the defensive spectrum.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,301
Story's a great baserunner, but he's not a "putting the ball in play and contact" guy. He hit .238 last year with 122 Ks in just 94 games, and he was barely a .270 hitter in Colorado.
I know. I wasn't saying he was. Just that the GAME, IMO, will shift back to valuing those things. That's probably why the Sox signed Yoshida, and why Story's base running is going to be more valuable.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,791
i feel like Devers won’t be retained.

what I will say is that the Braves fan base have like a decade of watching their favorite players play together and I’m jealous of that.

I get to once again root for the laundry.
 

yeahlunchbox

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2008
828
Is anyone else really bothered by how Chaim handled the trade deadline now that X is gone? Didn't add anyone good either for the short term or long term. Didn't get under the cap. What was the plan if they were not going to go all out to sign X? Now they end up with a 4th round comp and paying the luxury tax for a last place team. If i was ownership I would be livid. It just looks to me like he tried to play both sides of the fence either because he was indecisive or trying to placate a fan base.
And now he wants to resign Vazquez??? WTF?!
I was bothered in the moment and I'm bothered now. Too busy talking about how he was above the narratives while selling a narrative that he was buying and selling. Ultimately he accomplished nothing of real substance and left us in a worse spot because he didn't get under the tax.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,771
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I wanted to wait a little while before posting, because I shouldn't post while angry. But I'm super upset over Xander leaving the red sox. I'm not upset that the red sox over the contract itself. I doubt that the red sox will ever give an eleven-year contract. What I'm pissed about has nothing to do with numbers at all; what I'm pissed about is that there are two sides to baseball. You have the analytical, numbers side of the game where everything has a value. You also have the emotional, romantic side of the baseball. We watch these players every day, they become part of the everyday narrative. It would be overstating it to call them like family, but you do become emotionally attached to certain players. You start to love the things that they do. They become someone you can rely on, someone who'll be there day in and day out. Xander meant a lot to this fanbase, to the city and to the team itself. He was everything you could ask of in a player. Maybe analytically there are better options out there, but for the emotional side he was the best choice. I'm glad for Xander that he got what he wanted, but this one tears me apart because it never should have gotten to this point to begin with. Bloom, Henry et al never should have tried to outplay Xander, to risk it to see if they could get him at a lower value at the beginning of spring training. The front office bet on themselves, that Xander would regress, that no one would really want him, that they could low ball him and then get him even cheaper, and that if it came down to it, they could pay him just a little bit more. That strategy bit the red sox in the ass big time. For the second time in the history of the John Henry era, maybe the third time if you count John Lester, they bet against a home-grown star for some unknown reason and at the end of the day were left out in the cold. Maybe they couldn't match San Diego's offer, but I do blame the front office for allowing Xander to become a free agent at all. I'm getting a little sick of the same thing happening over and over again.
I don't think you can have it both ways. It's stupid to fling money at every Sandy Leon or Bobby Dalbec that first comes along. By the time Xander had established himself ("emotionally" as you say) he was singed to a mutually-agreed-on extension, and Xander was the one who insisted on an opt-out clause so he could test the FA waters. Which he chose to do.

I mean, I'm not here to blindly defend management. They make their usual share of human mistakes. But several of the takes on this seem to assume Xander didn't have a say in what happened. Or that he (and Scott Boras) could have been led by the nose if only the front office had slipped him a clever offer at just the right time. Which they simply preferred not to do, because they enjoy "betting against" their own players.

I think if they could give out a lifteime "magic contract" to 1 or 2 fan-favorite face-of-the-franchise players, that was magically guarantted to pay fair-market value, they'd do so in a heartbeat.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,993
Seems like the Sox's issue is length rather than AAV. 11 year deals for players on the wrong side of 30 is the new way for owners to circumvent the CBA and lower the luxury tax impact, but not all teams seem onboard with this as a sustainable model. Notably, the Phillies, Rangers, and Padres are in clear win-now windows and haven't won for a while. Mets and Dodgers on the other hand seem to prefer shorter years and more dollars.

Maybe Correa or to a lesser extent, Swanson, are more willing to take the greater risk and potential reward of a short term deal at a high AAV because they're two years younger than Xander and Turner. Offer Correa a shorter deal that makes him the highest paid position player in MLB like 4/$180, no opt-outs. He'd hit FA again going into his age 32 season, at the same age Freeman and Semien got near $200M contracts, and could potentially grab a 10-year guarantee after 2026. Added benefit that you're entering FA when the new CBA expires, with potentially higher thresholds and more money available. To insure against the risk of getting hurt in your walk-year, maybe get yourself a 1-year player option for $25M or so. Same concept for Swanson at lesser dollars.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,695
Lowballing your own about-to-be free agents is not just ineffective, it's a bit backwards given there's just money involved (no QO-player compensation) and you know this player can perform in your environment.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,695
Unreal America
Don't trade Devers. Work all year on doing everything possible to sign him. We won't get valuable enough prospects in return if we trade him, we just won't. Why would a team trade away top-shelf, can't-miss, young talent for a guy they can wait a year to sign? If someone is in GFIN mode in December 2022, they've likely already made those kind of moves.
 

MuellerToldHisTale

New Member
Oct 29, 2018
395
New Jersey
Offer Correa a shorter deal that makes him the highest paid position player in MLB like 4/$180, no opt-outs. He'd hit FA again going into his age 32 season, at the same age Freeman and Semien got near $200M contracts, and could potentially grab a 10-year guarantee after 2026. Added benefit that you're entering FA when the new CBA expires, with potentially higher thresholds and more money available. To insure against the risk of getting hurt in your walk-year, maybe get yourself a 1-year player option for $25M or so. Same concept for Swanson at lesser dollars.
I really like this idea, but don't see why Correa has to take it given the current market. It would probably have to be something like 4/200 with opt outs. Frankly I still like it - bridges the gap to Mayer and doesn't doom us for a decade if he goes south. We're over the LT anyway, so why not?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,581
Newton
That's not the evidence people were citing re: Story's inability to play SS. It's his 8th percentile arm strength that will keep him from playing the position.
Story cannot play SS anymore. This has become the new transferring Pedroia to coach so his salary doesnt count anymore. His arm is toast. Cooked. Finished.

You are comparing apples to meatballs.
Before we consign Story to the dustbin of shortstops, how reliable is this "arm strength" stat? Is it some video analysis that watches him throw balls 20 feet to his left? Was it calculated when he was injured?

I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily but all those "toast/cooked/finished" stuff seems a little ridiculous on its face.
 

EpsteinsGorillaSuit

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2003
311
Right. Which is why I said if you want to consider this a seven year $280m deal I still wouldn't do it. Would you?
Yes, that kind of financial outlay is appropriate for a player of Xander's caliber, as judged by what other major teams are paying for top-tier talent at the SS position. Plenty of precedent for that now: Lindor, Tatis, Seager, Turner, and Franco (depressed AAV because the contract covers arb years, but very much in line with a top-tier SS salary progression).

Want a top-tier SS? The market rate is around $30-35M a year, with the ability to get lower AAV by padding the back end of the contract. Do I want the Red Sox to have a top SS? Yes. Can they afford it? Also yes.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,829
Reflecting more, I think the handling of the PR is poor, & I wonder if there's a specific reason for it that's more related to agent management than fan management.

Having an internal valuation of X & how much he is worth to your franchise moving forward when considering the various factors is fine & it's what they should be doing. We can argue that their internal valuation should be higher (or lower), but going above the internal valuation just because other teams are doing it isn't a particularly effective strategy.

If teams are blowing their long-term budgets on huge deals for older players & you don't think that's a sustainable model, you have to find the value elsewhere. Maybe that's taking on subsidized players later in those bad deals, or giving long contracts to guys who have played like 3 games & trusting your internal valuation, or just churning pre-free agency guys with short-term fill-ins (the Rays+ model).

But if you know your value of X is lower than you expect his market to be at (& I don't think they really thought 6/$160m was going to get it done), saying he is your highest priority & sending these messages is only going to lead to anger on the back end.

Idk, it's weird, because none of the stuff they actually do gets leaked, but EVERYTHING they don't do gets leaked. So it's like they're fine being used openly to drive up salaries for their players & for other players & being used by agents in that manner, even if it leads to a PR hit. Like hey, in return for letting you leak this other stuff, let's keep this stuff strictly confidential.

So obviously the Correa deal is happening ASAP.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,355
NYC
This team was on top of the world four years ago, and now look at the state of things.

Bemoan the Padres offering dumb money all you want in a market that's more cash flush than anyone expected, but 6/160 is not a serious offer. It just isn't. If that's the best that ownership would do for a franchise shortstop who has been a dependable, durable rock in the lineup for nearly a decade, then this team isn't serious about competing at a higher level. It's also such a total misread of the market that it makes me question Bloom's basic competency in this stuff. I know the Rays were never involved in free agency when he was in charge there, but he does know that it exists, right? And that other teams can make offers too?

Why Bloom and company are more comfortable spending money on far riskier players (Story, Jansen, Yoshida, etc) in the middle tiers instead of the elite guys is beyond me. Seems like a flawed team building strategy dictated first and foremost by payroll instead of wins and losses.

The expectation when Bloom was hired was that this team would be running a far tighter payroll and turn its focus primarily to the farm system. The book is still out on the latter (in terms of MLB contributions anyway), and the result is a team that might be fielding Elvis Andrus or Christian Arroyo at shortstop next season. It's impossible to stress how much that sucks.

ETA: And yes I'm aware that Mayer awaits down the road, but there's still a long way between where he is now and being a regular MLB shortstop even half as valuable as the guy they let walk away. This is as risky a path as possible to building a contender, and not a particularly good faith one either when it comes to the fans you're soaking for tickets and beer in the meantime.
 

EpsteinsGorillaSuit

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2003
311
Outside the box contract offer:

6/$162 for the first six years. AAV of $27M with four vesting options based on games played and OPS+

Final four years, 4/$40.

If X plays in more than 100 games, he’ll earn $1M more for every point of OPS+ over 100, up to a total salary of $35M per year.

10/$202 guaranteed, but able to go up to 10/$302 if he continues to perform at an elite level for the better part of a season.

I wonder if this would be a good footprint for a contract with Devers or Correa.
Creative, and this is kind of what the recent contracts are doing, just without the performance incentives. You are just using too low of a salary for the expected productive years. So your contract value is way below market.

Market rate for a top SS at ages 28-36 averages approximately $35M/year. So for Xander, that's about 7 years at $240M. His next 4 years aren't worth much and are being paid out for about 4/40M with no performance escalators, plus the team defers salary and lowers AAV on top of it.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,806
Michigan
Philosophical question: If it’s a given that there is always at least one team that will overpay an elite free agent, is it ever a good idea to top that team’s offer?
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,547
CT
Devers is only 26. I have no problem giving him a 10 year deal because it won’t be touching his back end 30s.
I’d reach out to his agent today and offer 10-350-375. If we are getting the cold shoulder I think you’d have to move him.
It’s certainly possible with Xander gone, Devers may just be hell bent on hitting the market unless he gets something lIke 10/400.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,334
Maine
Philosophical question: If it’s a given that there is always at least one team that will overpay an elite free agent, is it ever a good idea to top that team’s offer?
If there's at least one team that will overpay an elite free agent, is it possible to top that team's offer? Aren't they just going to go over the top of whatever your offer is no matter how high you go?
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,695
Unreal America


Great job Bloom.
I don't know how accurate this is, but if it's even remotely in the vicinity of accurate, then it takes all the wind out of the "what could the Sox have done?" arguments. Seems like there was a viable path, and they chose not to pursue it.
 

grepal

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
193
i feel like Devers won’t be retained.

what I will say is that the Braves fan base have like a decade of watching their favorite players play together and I’m jealous of that.

I get to once again root for the laundry.
Never buy a player jersey, btw this fiasco was terrible mis-managed. I want to give Bloom the benefit of the doubt but it is clear to see he had to get Boston under the cap at the deadline. Also, should have traded Martinez for anything. Unless the farm starts producing and fast the Bloom era can only be called a disaster. No way Devers takes less that 300 for 10 now. If he does he's an idiot. Pretty sure that leaves us zero from our core, okay we still have Matt Barnes.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,993
Reflecting more, I think the handling of the PR is poor, & I wonder if there's a specific reason for it that's more related to agent management than fan management.

Having an internal valuation of X & how much he is worth to your franchise moving forward when considering the various factors is fine & it's what they should be doing. We can argue that their internal valuation should be higher (or lower), but going above the internal valuation just because other teams are doing it isn't a particularly effective strategy.

If teams are blowing their long-term budgets on huge deals for older players & you don't think that's a sustainable model, you have to find the value elsewhere. Maybe that's taking on subsidized players later in those bad deals, or giving long contracts to guys who have played like 3 games & trusting your internal valuation, or just churning pre-free agency guys with short-term fill-ins (the Rays+ model).

But if you know your value of X is lower than you expect his market to be at (& I don't think they really thought 6/$160m was going to get it done), saying he is your highest priority & sending these messages is only going to lead to anger on the back end.

Idk, it's weird, because none of the stuff they actually do gets leaked, but EVERYTHING they don't do gets leaked. So it's like they're fine being used openly to drive up salaries for their players & for other players & being used by agents in that manner, even if it leads to a PR hit. Like hey, in return for letting you leak this other stuff, let's keep this stuff strictly confidential.

So obviously the Correa deal is happening ASAP.
At the same time, Xander's been a good soldier so if you're not going to re-sign him, you're happy to see him get the biggest deal he can possibly get elsewhere. And the PR hit from saying "yeah he's not a priority because we think he's overvalued by the market because he's a shit defender and his power is in regression" is probably just as bad. I suppose there's a middle ground of just not really saying anything but it's not an easy line to walk in this town.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
25,695
Unreal America
This might be your point but over the Dombrowski years they did not, on the whole, make particularly smart signings, draft well or develop young players. At least not at the level of the top teams in the league. And the holes in the roster today stem from that.
I'm not sure I buy this point about holes. In the 2019 season the core of the lineup was 28, 26, 22, 24, 29 and 26 (Vazquez, X, Devers, Benny, JBJ, Mookie). JD was only 31, for that matter. Seemed to me that we had several years to replenish the farm system and make smart mid-tier signings while that core matured. If DD wasn't the guy to do that, I get it. But we broke up that core by choice, for the most part. Most of the current holes are of our own making, not because of terrible moves by DD.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
21,629


Great job Bloom.
So given the choice between Xander and Story, they chose Story. I don't get it at all. Even if Story is ever so slightly better, which I doubt, Xander has real ties to the organization and fanbase. Truly bizarre decision making.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
3,526
Los Angeles
I don't know how accurate this is, but if it's even remotely in the vicinity of accurate, then it takes all the wind out of the "what could the Sox have done?" arguments. Seems like there was a viable path, and they chose not to pursue it.
Right, they chose it. I think the simplest explanation is that the front office asked themselves if they wanted Xander on the team in 5 or 6 years at $25M and their answer was no. Plenty of people may disagree, but I don't think it demonstrates "malpractice." It demonstrates a different approach than many (most?) people want to see them take to team building.

Edited because it's clear they would have liked him 4 years from now at $30. I think it was about years 5+.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,791
Never buy a player jersey, btw this fiasco was terrible mis-managed. I want to give Bloom the benefit of the doubt but it is clear to see he had to get Boston under the cap at the deadline. Also, should have traded Martinez for anything. Unless the farm starts producing and fast the Bloom era can only be called a disaster. No way Devers takes less that 300 for 10 now. If he does he's an idiot. Pretty sure that leaves us zero from our core, okay we still have Matt Barnes.
I have 3. All gifts.
One home white blank. One away Pedroia. And an away 38 for Schilling (which was just given to me from my uncle whom I hadn’t seen in over a decade - hand me down situation).

But yah. Buying a players jersey is never good unless you’re a Yankee fan.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,355
NYC
That Globe article is absolutely damning to Bloom, ownership, and everyone involved in this process. Just completely oblivious.

Does anyone feel confident that this is the group that should be running this team right now?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,422
So, you're telling me that Xander Bogaerts, advised by Scott Boras, coming up on his big chance to cash in after having already signed a team-friendly deal, would have looked at the contract that Trevor Story, an arguable inferior player, got before the new CBA was in place, from a team that he had no leverage over -- you're telling me that Bogaerts would have looked at that deal and said, "Okay, I'll just take that," and signed in spring training?

Please. That article reeks of Boras doing to the Boston FO what the Boston FO has done to so many players over the years.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,874
So, you're telling me that Xander Bogaerts, advised by Scott Boras, coming up on his big chance to cash in after having already signed a team-friendly deal, would have looked at the contract that Trevor Story, an arguable inferior player, got before the new CBA was in place, from a team that he had no leverage over -- you're telling me that Bogaerts would have looked at that deal and said, "Okay, I'll just take that," and signed in spring training?

Please. That article reeks of Boras doing to the Boston FO what the Boston FO has done to so many players over the years.
yup. You dont hire Boras as your agent if you want to sign a "team friendly deal"

And the only reason Xander agreed to the original extensions with the Sox was because Boras demanded the opt out be included. And the sox said yes... If they said no I doubt he agrees to that deal
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,806
Michigan
I don’t understand the anger towards the Red Sox over letting Bogaerts go. Is there anyone here that would be happy if the Red Sox matched or topped the Padres 11/280 offer?
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,791
yup. You dont hire Boras as your agent if you want to sign a "team friendly deal"

And the only reason Xander agreed to the original extensions with the Sox was because Boras demanded the opt out be included. And the sox said yes... If they said no I doubt he agrees to that deal
Didn’t X switch to Boras after his last deal? I vaguely recall that. If so - I believe the sentiment at the time was “well he won’t finish his career here”
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,829
At the same time, Xander's been a good soldier so if you're not going to re-sign him, you're happy to see him get the biggest deal he can possibly get elsewhere. And the PR hit from saying "yeah he's not a priority because we think he's overvalued by the market because he's a shit defender and his power is in regression" is probably just as bad. I suppose there's a middle ground of just not really saying anything but it's not an easy line to walk in this town.
Yeah, I had originally typed out some thoughts on what the messaging should have been, but deleted them because I didn't love them. I think basically "We would rather not comment on pending contract negotiations, but we love X & we appreciate everything he's done for this franchise & think he's as great of a person as he is a baseball player" & just leaving it at that.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,611
If this is true, don’t they kind of have to look at trading him right now- when there’s a larger market of teams that can afford him and they can get more in return? It would be a pretty massive PR hit but it sure seems Iike they need to extend or trade, asap.
I imagine we lose a tiny bit of leverage after repeatedly showing an unwillingness/inability to sign the marquee home grown guys. Of course, the trade market for Devers should be robust enough that won’t matter, but not being able to credibly counter with, “fine, we’ll just walk away and resign him” might weaken us a bit at the table.
 

TheYellowDart5

Hustle and bustle
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
9,355
NYC
I don’t understand the anger towards the Red Sox over letting Bogaerts go. Is there anyone here that would be happy if the Red Sox matched or topped the Padres 11/280 offer?
I read the anger and frustration — and speaking only for myself, my anger and frustration — as related to the Red Sox letting things get to this point. They had multiple points at which they could've done more or tried harder to lock Bogaerts up long-term. I'm also upset that the front office seems incredibly slow to adapt to changes in the market; it's very clear that they misread the interest in Bogaerts and that there was far more money up for grabs this winter and decided to keep lowballing him. The result sucks, but what's really annoying is that the process seems to have been just as bad, if not worse.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,186
Great job Bloom.
I’m looping back around to incompetency reading this article, although I get the feeling the hidden truth of they didn’t really want him ever might still be there.

it’s so hard to judge because the vague sourcing that X would have taken 5/150 is just that, vague enough that this could have been made up after the fact.

edit: this article is pretty unflattering as well:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/08/sports/san-diego-airport-stunned-chaim-bloom-tried-process-thought-red-sox-without-xander-bogaerts/?event=event12
 
Last edited:

Return of the Dewey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
3,166
Pants Party
A long time ago, Red Sox signed away a fan favorite, productive 29 yo shortstop from StL by offering $40MM over 4 years, while StL offered $32M over 4 years. Amazing how much things have changed over the last 18 years.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,026


Great job Bloom.
Can this finally shut the door on the 'he was always going to free agency' crap? I mean, the guy already showed he was willing to sign before free agency with his first contract, and lo and behold there were a series of opportunities to do it again and they shit themselves.