A Realistic View at 2023: Part I

[moonslav59]

In the midst of all our griping this offseason, the story about the Red Sox negotiations with Devers at his home in the Dominican was actually pretty cool. Cora was there and when Devers first saw the offer his eyes got really big, according to Cora.

Only the negative stories get the attention.

[Bellhorn04]

Instead, the Red Sox were over the tax threshold last year and still didn't have Mookie. If you're a billionaire and going to be over, might as well blast into another orbit, like Cohen.

Well, it's a little early to be pronouncing Cohen's spending orgy a brilliant success.

[notin]

Supposition is what we do here. I'm talking about Foulke, Dice-K, Drew, Lackey, Victorino, Price, JDM and others, and that's not even counting Mr. Duquette's prize free agent signing.

That's pretty reasonable supposition.

I think you and I differ greatly on the definition of a free agent bust…

[moonslav59]

Well, it's a little early to be pronouncing Cohen's spending orgy a brilliant success.

Comparing the farm and budget Bloom was given to spend on a "supporting cast," even without Betts and half-Price's contracts on the books to what LA was able to build up since the trade is a joke.

Like it's Bloom's fault our budget isn't close to LA's.

[Bellhorn04]

I think you and I differ greatly on the definition of a free agent bust…

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

[moonslav59]

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

It's interesting to look back and see that our best 2 free agent signings of this century were in 2000 (Manny signed by Dan D.) and Jan 22, 2003 (Papi signed for peanuts by Theo.)

If you look at all the FA signings over the last 20 years, it's not an good overall look. Manny & Papi were both signed more than 20 years ago!

[notin]

I'm not really sure what your argument is any more. You said "the free agents Henry has shelled maybe a billion or so for over the years haven’t really done much".

So I was agreeing with you that most were busts.

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

[moonslav59]

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

The funny thing is, many of our contracts for 4 years or longer, actually stopped being an asset before 4 years or never really were an asset, except for maybe one season.
* extension

217/7 Price: Yr1 good (136 ERA+ w DET then 112 in '16), Yr 2 75IP, Yr 3 176 IP 126 ERA+
160/8 Manny: Clear winner until the very end of his contract
154/7* AGon: Yr 1 great season (155 OPS+), then nothing close & traded year 2.
142/7 Crawford: Complete bust from yr 1 (107 OPS+ w TBR & 89 w BOS)
145/5* Sale: Complete bust year 1, 2 & 3
140/6 Story: Injured for a big chunk of yr 1 and yr 2
110/5 JD: Year 1, 2 & 4 were big plusses. 5 was not bad.
110/8 Pedroia: Pretty clearly a bust, although the start was not bad
95/5 Sandoval: Bust from year 1
88/4 HRam: Yr 1 kinda bad, yr 2 good, yr 3-4 pretty bad
83/4 Porcello: Yr 1 Cy Young, yr 3 okay, the rest not so good
83/5 Lackey: Yr 1 Meh, Yr 2 sucked, Yr 3 missed, Yr 4 helped win ring, traded
73/7 Castillo: Bust from the start
70/5 JD Drew: Pretty good, especially yr 2 & 3. 1 & 4 were OK
68/4 Eovaldi: Yr 1 bad, Yr 2 good but COVID, Yr 3 his best, Yr 4 meh
68/4* Beckett: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 bad, yr 3 good, yr 4 bad/traded (beergate)
52/6 (+52 posting fee) Dice-K: Yr 1 okay, 2 very good, then caput
42/4* Youkilis: Yr 1 good, Yr 2 pretty good, Yr 3 not good & traded
40/4 Renteria: Yr 1:Not good then traded
40/4 VTek ('05): Solid contract all the way
36/4 Lugo: Yr 1 not as bad as many think but still... lost a step afterwards
31/4 Damon: Good signing front to back
30/5* Lester: Good extension
26/4 Foulke: Yr 1 was vital, then yuck!

[Bellhorn04]

26/4 Foulke: Yr 1 was vital, then yuck!

I figure Foulke's arm was destroyed in the 2004 postseason. In Games 4-6 of the ALCS he threw 100 pitches over 3 nights, in cold weather. Pitchers aren't really supposed to do that.

He was worth every penny regardless.

[Bellhorn04]

I don’t mind any free agent signed to a deal of 3 years or less. Anything longer is probably going to stop being an asset and start being a problem…

So were you opposed to extending any of Betts, Bogaerts or Raffy?

[notin]

So were you opposed to extending any of Betts, Bogaerts or Raffy?

Absolutely not. Not Lester.

The big issue with free agents is that the overwhelming bulk of them are stat over 30. So now the Sox are paying players in their 30s for what they did for another team in their 20s…

[Bellhorn04]

Absolutely not. Not Lester.

The big issue with free agents is that the overwhelming bulk of them are stat over 30. So now the Sox are paying players in their 30s for what they did for another team in their 20s…

OK, so let's look at Betts's deal with the Dodgers.

12 years

Year 1 started at age 28.5 ended at age 29
Year 2 started at age 29.5 ended at age 30

The last 10 of the 12 years are all over age 30.

Good signing or bad?

[notin]

OK, so let's look at Betts's deal with the Dodgers.

12 years

Year 1 started at age 28.5 ended at age 29
Year 2 started at age 29.5 ended at age 30

The last 10 of the 12 years are all over age 30.

Good signing or bad?

I still would have liked it. If the Sox are going to have their future payroll hamstrung, it shouldn’t be by someone who played their best baseball in another uniform…

[Bellhorn04]

I still would have liked it. If the Sox are going to have their future payroll hamstrung, it shouldn’t be by someone who played their best baseball in another uniform…

That implies it's a bad deal for the Dodgers, but wouldn't have been for the Red Sox.

[notin]

That implies it's a bad deal for the Dodgers, but wouldn't have been for the Red Sox.

I don’t care if the Dodgers make bad deals.

Do you think it’s a good deal by the Dodgers?