|
Post by vermontsox1 on Apr 10, 2024 10:58:52 GMT -5
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,138
|
Post by cdj on Apr 10, 2024 11:08:18 GMT -5
Love that team option
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 10, 2024 11:08:22 GMT -5
Sweet, we got an option. Probably under 50% it gets exercised, but will be huge savings in 2032 dollars if he's a guy you want starting.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Apr 10, 2024 11:16:34 GMT -5
How exactly is a bonus figure different from a salary for AAV?
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 10, 2024 11:18:38 GMT -5
AAV is just total guaranteed salary divided by years, plus adjustments for salary deferrals. Signing bonus gets added to the salary pile like everything else.
|
|
|
Post by asm18 on Apr 10, 2024 11:22:43 GMT -5
There's probably a bit of an overcorrection by the organization here to not extending Mookie, extending Xander but including an opt-out and not getting one done again before he walked, and then waiting to get one done with Devers until his agent had you over a barrel - but I can understand why they would opt to do that even if the Rafaela deal (and perhaps the Bello deal) are arguably a teeny bit aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 10, 2024 11:23:38 GMT -5
The team option adds a good bit of upside IMO to the deal so I'll go from pretty meh on it to slightly optimistic it will be a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Apr 10, 2024 11:29:00 GMT -5
AAV is just total guaranteed salary divided by years, plus adjustments for salary deferrals. Signing bonus gets added to the salary pile like everything else. That's what I thought, but in that case I don't get the advantage of having a bonus rather than just ascribing it to salary, unless it gets taxed differently for the player or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 10, 2024 11:31:26 GMT -5
AAV is just total guaranteed salary divided by years, plus adjustments for salary deferrals. Signing bonus gets added to the salary pile like everything else. That's what I thought, but in that case I don't get the advantage of having a bonus rather than just ascribing it to salary, unless it gets taxed differently for the player or something like that. Ceddanne gets to spend that money today
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 10, 2024 11:47:52 GMT -5
This seems like a no brainer. I feel like his floor is JBJ with much more speed and less power. I’m fine paying for that. Even now… if his OPS is ~.680 with gold glove defense? Done. And I expect improvement.
|
|
|
Post by wamderingdude on Apr 10, 2024 12:18:03 GMT -5
I get why Rafaela gets the JBJ comp but to me his comp has always fit a little more cleanly with Michael A. Taylor, who’s been around the league for a while now and averages 1.9 WAR per 162 games. That’s probably a realistic floor barring a complete collapse from the approach or injury and that contract feels fine. Also in 2031, 13 million might be the going price for like a 6th inning reliever so if that contract is hampering us from anything we’ll have much much bigger problems to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Apr 10, 2024 13:04:07 GMT -5
The downside certainly seems minimal, even if he ends up being more of a super sub utility guy his defense will provide value but it's no slam dunk he makes this extension look good when we look back on it in 8 years. Don't think it was really a necessary move but not upset at it either. I agree with the downside and the lack of necessity. I'm coming around to being more positive on the move. As others have said, he'll be age 30 at the end of the contract so the defense shouldn't slip too much. $6.25AAV is easy to hide or worst case just remove from the 40. At such a low AAV this move is just a blip even if it fails. Plus money will be different in near the end of the contract. I do think the economics of the extensions will change drastically in the next few years. We have a copycat league so everyone will try to be the Braves. Maybe the pendulum swings back due to risk. Wasn`t it TB who started the extensions to young players? The Braves just full throttled it.
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Apr 10, 2024 13:23:59 GMT -5
The downside certainly seems minimal, even if he ends up being more of a super sub utility guy his defense will provide value but it's no slam dunk he makes this extension look good when we look back on it in 8 years. Don't think it was really a necessary move but not upset at it either. I agree with the downside and the lack of necessity. I'm coming around to being more positive on the move. As others have said, he'll be age 30 at the end of the contract so the defense shouldn't slip too much. $6.25AAV is easy to hide or worst case just remove from the 40. At such a low AAV this move is just a blip even if it fails. Plus money will be different in near the end of the contract. I do think the economics of the extensions will change drastically in the next few years. We have a copycat league so everyone will try to be the Braves. Maybe the pendulum swings back due to risk. Zero faith in the MLBPA but I wonder if we could be headed for a reckoning on years of team control. The NHL has 7 years of team control or an age (27) at which the player automatically becomes an FA while still in their prime. Baseball would need to be a bit older but we're seeing some college pitchers or guys who get TJ type surgeries in the minors in particular that are locked into their 6 arb years until like age 32 when teams don't want to pay FA's anymore - Richard Fitts for example has had a solid trajectory since being drafted, but even if he made a huge leap (/was forced into action) and established himself as a starter this season he wouldn't be an FA until he's on the wrong side of 30. I'm glad to see younger guys getting paid a little closer to their worth and locking in that lifetime/generational wealth instead of taking the risk they get hurt and wash out with very little, but if the implicit bargain has always been that guys will be underpaid in their 20's but overpaid in their 30's and now one side is balking at paying guys in their 30's something has to give.
tl;dr got sidetracked, love the team option add so it's really 8/$50m or 9/$62m!
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Apr 10, 2024 13:38:01 GMT -5
I agree with the downside and the lack of necessity. I'm coming around to being more positive on the move. As others have said, he'll be age 30 at the end of the contract so the defense shouldn't slip too much. $6.25AAV is easy to hide or worst case just remove from the 40. At such a low AAV this move is just a blip even if it fails. Plus money will be different in near the end of the contract. I do think the economics of the extensions will change drastically in the next few years. We have a copycat league so everyone will try to be the Braves. Maybe the pendulum swings back due to risk. Zero faith in the MLBPA but I wonder if we could be headed for a reckoning on years of team control. The NHL has 7 years of team control or an age (27) at which the player automatically becomes an FA while still in their prime. Baseball would need to be a bit older but we're seeing some college pitchers or guys who get TJ type surgeries in the minors in particular that are locked into their 6 arb years until like age 32 when teams don't want to pay FA's anymore - Richard Fitts for example has had a solid trajectory since being drafted, but even if he made a huge leap (/was forced into action) and established himself as a starter this season he wouldn't be an FA until he's on the wrong side of 30. I'm glad to see younger guys getting paid a little closer to their worth and locking in that lifetime/generational wealth instead of taking the risk they get hurt and wash out with very little, but if the implicit bargain has always been that guys will be underpaid in their 20's but overpaid in their 30's and now one side is balking at paying guys in their 30's something has to give. tl;dr got sidetracked, love the team option add so it's really 8/$50m or 9/$62m!
Not that we can't have both, but can we increase MiLB and MLB minimum pay first? Like... by a lot! Also, MiLB teams could provide a housing allowance and healthy food options spreads for players, on top of the per diem.
|
|
|
Post by wamderingdude on Apr 10, 2024 14:06:12 GMT -5
I agree with the downside and the lack of necessity. I'm coming around to being more positive on the move. As others have said, he'll be age 30 at the end of the contract so the defense shouldn't slip too much. $6.25AAV is easy to hide or worst case just remove from the 40. At such a low AAV this move is just a blip even if it fails. Plus money will be different in near the end of the contract. I do think the economics of the extensions will change drastically in the next few years. We have a copycat league so everyone will try to be the Braves. Maybe the pendulum swings back due to risk. Zero faith in the MLBPA but I wonder if we could be headed for a reckoning on years of team control. The NHL has 7 years of team control or an age (27) at which the player automatically becomes an FA while still in their prime. Baseball would need to be a bit older but we're seeing some college pitchers or guys who get TJ type surgeries in the minors in particular that are locked into their 6 arb years until like age 32 when teams don't want to pay FA's anymore - Richard Fitts for example has had a solid trajectory since being drafted, but even if he made a huge leap (/was forced into action) and established himself as a starter this season he wouldn't be an FA until he's on the wrong side of 30. I'm glad to see younger guys getting paid a little closer to their worth and locking in that lifetime/generational wealth instead of taking the risk they get hurt and wash out with very little, but if the implicit bargain has always been that guys will be underpaid in their 20's but overpaid in their 30's and now one side is balking at paying guys in their 30's something has to give.
tl;dr got sidetracked, love the team option add so it's really 8/$50m or 9/$62m!
If i had to guess lowering the years of control is going to be a non-starter for the owners. The only way i see that getting done is if the MLBPA agrees to a cap which they’ve repeatedly said they wouldn’t do. Lowering the team control would be a huge change and i think would have to be part of an entire overhaul.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 10, 2024 15:50:41 GMT -5
AAV is just total guaranteed salary divided by years, plus adjustments for salary deferrals. Signing bonus gets added to the salary pile like everything else. Does the $4M buyout count as his 9th year guarantee or is it part of the 8 years of salary?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Apr 10, 2024 16:56:06 GMT -5
AAV is just total guaranteed salary divided by years, plus adjustments for salary deferrals. Signing bonus gets added to the salary pile like everything else. Does the $4M buyout count as his 9th year guarantee or is it part of the 8 years of salary? It is part of the guaranteed $50M ($2M Bonus,$46M Salary,$4M Buyout). The Buyout is only payable if the Red Sox turn down the option year.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Apr 10, 2024 17:38:25 GMT -5
This seems like a no brainer. I feel like his floor is JBJ with much more speed and less power. I’m fine paying for that. Even now… if his OPS is ~.680 with gold glove defense? Done. And I expect improvement. I think JBJ is the best recent Red Sox comparison but as a comp and not as his floor.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 10, 2024 18:05:16 GMT -5
Does the $4M buyout count as his 9th year guarantee or is it part of the 8 years of salary? It is part of the guaranteed $50M ($2M Bonus,$46M Salary,$4M Buyout). The Buyout is only payable if the Red Sox turn down the option year. Yeah I get that. If they turn down the option they pay him $4m. But does that make it 50/9 or 50/8 for the luxury tax?
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Apr 10, 2024 18:15:55 GMT -5
It is part of the guaranteed $50M ($2M Bonus,$46M Salary,$4M Buyout). The Buyout is only payable if the Red Sox turn down the option year. Yeah I get that. If they turn down the option they pay him $4m. But does that make it 50/9 or 50/8 for the luxury tax? 50/8
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Apr 11, 2024 10:18:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Apr 11, 2024 10:43:41 GMT -5
little chance Boston clearly wins this rather than going year to year with a defensive first player Feel free to think Rafaela isn't very likely to be any good, but any scenario where he's a long term starter piling up 2 WAR seasons through his FA years is one where the Sox win big here and thats clearly not like a 95th percentile type outcome
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by radiohix on Apr 11, 2024 11:02:25 GMT -5
I love Rafa but to me the young bat they should’ve extended is Casas. Before Bello, CR or Crawford, Houck etc
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Apr 11, 2024 11:12:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Apr 11, 2024 11:44:41 GMT -5
|
|