A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[moonslav59]

The consensus is that the pitching staff is in need of improvement . I am scratching my head trying to figure out how trading Eovaldi helps to achieve that . Have not come up with anything yet .

I'm scratching my head wondering when his next IL stint is. Tomorrow?

The idea of trading Eovaldi (with some cash), assuming for a prospect or two, is to free up budget space for adding pitchers we can actually count on to pitch while building up the farm for longer term success.

Sure, the trade might not work, or Eovaldi could suddenly get healthy right after we deal him, but the theory for trading him does make some sense, even if you disagree with it and think Eovaldi is going to do something meaningful for us over the next 2 years of his deal.

Yes, it looks counterintuitive to trade pitching when your biggest need is pitching, but we're talking about a pitcher who spends more time on the IL than not. He has 62 starts and 345 IP in the last 5 seasons combined. Several pitchers give that in 2 seasons.

If we don't get anything useful for him, then keep him, but one could argue trading him and his full contract for nothing might be a plus.

[Nick]

If we spend the full $70M we have under the lux limit, we can be much better next year without any major trades.

That doesn't mean we won't or shouldn't make any, but only that we may not need to shed anymore vets or big salaries to get back to competitiveness. My guess is we hold onto the players that will be free agents, soon, and see what happens, next season. If we are not looking competitive, we'll trade some by the deadline.

Pedey, ERod and Barnes all come off the books after 2021, so the latter two seem like the most likely to be traded, but if Eovaldi , Beni & JD look good, next year, they could be on the block, too. They all come off the books after 2022.

If Henry really wants to win in 2021, he may okay going $19M over the limit, thereby allowing us to spend about $90M. If we can't get competitive with that budget, then there's little hope.

The problem with spending every bit of cap space in 2021 is hindering Sox from signing players post 2021. It has to be the right mix. Devers and others will start to cost more in near future. I just don't see us being competitive next year based on this year's performance. Sure we'll be better. But how much better? Good enough to compete for a playoff spot better?

[moonslav59]

The problem with spending every bit of cap space in 2021 is hindering Sox from signing players post 2021. It has to be the right mix. Devers and others will start to cost more in near future. I just don't see us being competitive next year based on this year's performance. Sure we'll be better. But how much better? Good enough to compete for a playoff spot better?

Not if a big chunk of the deals we make, money wise, are 1-2 year deals or longer term deals that actually work out for the long term.

We also lose Pedey, ERod and Barne's contracts after 2021. That will give us more to spend after 2021. We lose JD and Eovaldi after 2022. Bogey may opt out after 2022, as well.

The only real long term deal we have left is Sale, and he only has 4 more years left after 2020.

I'm not saying we will spend $90M, this winter, but we could. More likely we spend about $60M, keep $10-30M to make summer deals, if needed, or to spend after 2021.

I do think that if Bloom identifies a FA he really likes for the long term, and it will take a 6+ year deal to get him, why wait for 2022? The idea is to start building a core, now. Fill in the rest with shorter term deals to allow flexibility, later, but get a few pieces this winter.

I could see the plan being to spend up to but not over the first limit, maybe $6-10M short of it, then go $19M over for 2022- the year we might be a top contender with Bogey, JD and Eovaldi still under control that one last year.

[jacksonianmarch]

Eovaldi is only going to move in a dump. So you deal him and literally take back either another dump or nothing. So dealing Eovaldi does nothing. If he pitches, he fills a need. If he doesn’t, he’s the same as a dump. If the true goal is to contend, then penciling in Eovaldi to the 5 hole is what you do. If your goal is financial flexibility, then you dump him

[harmony]

Will the Red Sox tender Eduardo Rodriguez a 2021 contract working off his 2020 salary of $8.3 million?

Much will depend on the medical updates between now and non-tender deadline (which may still be December 2).

.https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2020...as-he-has.html

https://d39ba378-ae47-4003-86d3-147e...61b93715b5.pdf

Last offseason the Red Sox beat Rodriguez in arbitration when the three-arbitrator panel went with the team's $8.3 million salary over the lefthander's salary submission of $8.975 million.

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2020...n-in-2020.html

MLB Trade Rumors had projected Rodriguez with a 2020 salary of $9.5 million.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/...ries-2020.html

[moonslav59]

Eovaldi is only going to move in a dump. So you deal him and literally take back either another dump or nothing. So dealing Eovaldi does nothing. If he pitches, he fills a need. If he doesn’t, he’s the same as a dump. If the true goal is to contend, then penciling in Eovaldi to the 5 hole is what you do. If your goal is financial flexibility, then you dump him

I think we hold onto him, at least to next summer's trade deadline. We hope he looks healthy and with less and less owed to him as time goes by, we might be able to trade him without paying any of his deal, or very little. The return might not be the goal.

[notin]

The problem with spending every bit of cap space in 2021 is hindering Sox from signing players post 2021. It has to be the right mix. Devers and others will start to cost more in near future. I just don't see us being competitive next year based on this year's performance. Sure we'll be better. But how much better? Good enough to compete for a playoff spot better?

Well, some of those current commitments will also come off the books, too. For example, after 2021, Pedroia is off the books.

[notin]

I think we hold onto him, at least to next summer's trade deadline. We hope he looks healthy and with less and less owed to him as time goes by, we might be able to trade him without paying any of his deal, or very little. The return might not be the goal.

Since te Sox are not likely to move him without eating money or taking back some sort of Rougned Oder-type hideous deal, he probably stays. Hopefully they move him to the bullpen. He simply cannot handle the rotation...

[moonslav59]

Since te Sox are not likely to move him without eating money or taking back some sort of Rougned Oder-type hideous deal, he probably stays. Hopefully they move him to the bullpen. He simply cannot handle the rotation...

I'd do the Odor trade, yesterday.

He's owed $27M over the next 2 years, including paying off the $3M buyout for the 3rd year. Eovaldi is owed $34M. While we save $7M over 2 years, we actually save $8.75M PER YEAR on the luxury tax budget. That's very significant. We could even throw in another player or chip in the $7M to even the deal for the Rangers, but we'd still save over $5 a year on the tax budget.

[moonslav59]

Well, some of those current commitments will also come off the books, too. For example, after 2021, Pedroia is off the books.

Pedey, ERod & Barnes may total $25M for 2021. That's a pretty big chunk of change to have added to the winter spending budget after 2021.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm scratching my head wondering when his next IL stint is. Tomorrow?

The idea of trading Eovaldi (with some cash), assuming for a prospect or two, is to free up budget space for adding pitchers we can actually count on to pitch while building up the farm for longer term success.

Sure, the trade might not work, or Eovaldi could suddenly get healthy right after we deal him, but the theory for trading him does make some sense, even if you disagree with it and think Eovaldi is going to do something meaningful for us over the next 2 years of his deal.

Yes, it looks counterintuitive to trade pitching when your biggest need is pitching, but we're talking about a pitcher who spends more time on the IL than not. He has 62 starts and 345 IP in the last 5 seasons combined. Several pitchers give that in 2 seasons.

If we don't get anything useful for him, then keep him, but one could argue trading him and his full contract for nothing might be a plus.

2 of Eovaldi's last 3 IL stints were to clean up 'loose bodies' from his last TJ surgery. That seems like bad luck more than being injury-prone.

The other was for a minor calf strain.

[notin]

I'd do the Odor trade, yesterday.

He's owed $27M over the next 2 years, including paying off the $3M buyout for the 3rd year. Eovaldi is owed $34M. While we save $7M over 2 years, we actually save $8.75M PER YEAR on the luxury tax budget. That's very significant. We could even throw in another player or chip in the $7M to even the deal for the Rangers, but we'd still save over $5 a year on the tax budget.

It is significant, until you realize Oder has morphed into a replacement level player and it will cost more than $8.75 mill to replace Eovaldi.

Now if Oder can return to being a 2.4 fWAR player, that’s another matter...

[moonslav59]

2 of Eovaldi's last 3 IL stints were to clean up 'loose bodies' from his last TJ surgery. That seems like bad luck more than being injury-prone.

The other was for a minor calf strain.

Do you have faith he'll make even 42 of his scheduled 64 starts over 2021-2022?

I'd probably bet the under on 34 GS'd.

[moonslav59]

It is significant, until you realize Oder has morphed into a replacement level player and it will cost more than $8.75 mill to replace Eovaldi.

Now if Oder can return to being a 2.4 fWAR player, that’s another matter...

He's only 26, and replacing a pitcher who only pitches half the time is not such a big deal.

I'm not making the deal because I have much faith in Odor. I'm making the deal to free up some cash for the next 2 years. No, we probably won't strike magic at $8M a year, but Bloom is pretty good at finding under-the-radar gems, and the idea is that maybe instead of signing a pitcher for $12-18M a year, we could add the $8M saved from Eovaldi and get a mucch better one at $20-28M per year.

Look, I'm not sold on it being a sure fire good idea. Eovaldi is a damn good pitcher, when healthy, and he can pitch much better than his $17M contract, but with just 2 years left on his deal and our rebuild maybe taking 1-2 more years, I'm at least looking into dealing anyone with less than 3 years of team control- not handing them away, of course.

[oldtimer]

I'm scratching my head wondering when his next IL stint is. Tomorrow?

The idea of trading Eovaldi (with some cash), assuming for a prospect or two, is to free up budget space for adding pitchers we can actually count on to pitch while building up the farm for longer term success.

Sure, the trade might not work, or Eovaldi could suddenly get healthy right after we deal him, but the theory for trading him does make some sense, even if you disagree with it and think Eovaldi is going to do something meaningful for us over the next 2 years of his deal.

Yes, it looks counterintuitive to trade pitching when your biggest need is pitching, but we're talking about a pitcher who spends more time on the IL than not. He has 62 starts and 345 IP in the last 5 seasons combined. Several pitchers give that in 2 seasons.

If we don't get anything useful for him, then keep him, but one could argue trading him and his full contract for nothing might be a plus.

I have thought he might act as a closer for us in 2021. We paid Kimbrel an equivalent amount and he may be able to handle 1 inning assignments and stay healthy.