bmags Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 I really wanted to dream big with Machado, but I honestly can't imagine having so much money tied to a single player. Whomever pans out from this rebuild we'll probably be pretty attached to and it would be pretty rough to trade/let those players go so that we can have a 30+ year old machado. But that is long ways hypothetical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 07:20 AM) I really wanted to dream big with Machado, but I honestly can't imagine having so much money tied to a single player. Whomever pans out from this rebuild we'll probably be pretty attached to and it would be pretty rough to trade/let those players go so that we can have a 30+ year old machado. But that is long ways hypothetical. Machado will only by going into his age 27 year in 2019. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) Machado will only by going into his age 27 year in 2019. I'm just not sure given the huge amount of money/bidding war that it makes the most sense for the Sox to sign any player to a mega deal. We could absolutely hate that contract if the player gets hurt or declines in performance. I'd rather spread the money around to several players who can help the team to win vs. one player who is a $40 million drain hole for the next decade. I'll reevaluate an opinion when we get closer to the mega free agency class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:32 AM) I'm just not sure given the huge amount of money/bidding war that it makes the most sense for the Sox to sign any player to a mega deal. We could absolutely hate that contract if the player gets hurt or declines in performance. I'd rather spread the money around to several players who can help the team to win vs. one player who is a $40 million drain hole for the next decade. I'll reevaluate an opinion when we get closer to the mega free agency class. Here's the problem with spreading it around. We have something like 10 starting pitcher candidates, who by 2021 many of them barring injury are going to need stints in the big leagues to see if they're worth anything. We may still add a veteran "hold this together" guy to the rotation, but until some of them flop we have more than enough arms to not need to sign anyone. Now let's go to the lineup. We have guys in the top 100 who play: 2 outfield spots (Rutherford and Jiminez), 2b, Anderson, our most recent draft pick plays 3b as of now (moveable?), and a couple guys who catch. Not all of these guys are going to succeed. One or two may drop out by the time they get to AAA. But a lot of them are going to make the big leagues. Not all of them are going to succeed when they make the big leagues. Someone in there is likely to get 3 years of time in the big league roster and Gordon Beckham this thing. But how are we going to know which one if we don't give them the time to see? Counting positions and temporarily ignoring DH, we've got 1b (maybe filled if someone moves there), CF (maybe filled by someone for defensive purposes), and C (maybe Collins comes around?). In other words...almost all of our positions have a kid who by 2019 or 2020 at the latest there will be taking over. And that isn't counting guys who are here and having decent success now like Garcia, or any 2018 or 2019 first round picks who might come fairly polished if they're out of college. Those kids will not all succeed. You and I both know that. But if you sign someone to block a player, you're either saying you're moving a guy or that you're giving up and trading a guy. For most of these guys, the only way we will know whether or not they will be solid big league players is to bring them up to the big leagues when they are ready. There just aren't a lot of positions right now where we don't have an heir apparent. To me, that means that planning to "Spread the money around" on paper does not work with these Sox. If you're thinking it'd be great to sign a $15 million corner OF, $15 million infielder, and 2 $15 million starters, I'm going to ask where you're putting the guys they're blocking. On paper, I think the "huge splash" makes more sense. Find me a guy who slots into our #3 or #4 slots in the lineup and dominates at a single position, then put the 7 rookies who need playing time around him and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Here's the problem with spreading it around. We have something like 10 starting pitcher candidates, who by 2021 many of them barring injury are going to need stints in the big leagues to see if they're worth anything. We may still add a veteran "hold this together" guy to the rotation, but until some of them flop we have more than enough arms to not need to sign anyone. Now let's go to the lineup. We have guys in the top 100 who play: 2 outfield spots (Rutherford and Jiminez), 2b, Anderson, our most recent draft pick plays 3b as of now (moveable?), and a couple guys who catch. Not all of these guys are going to succeed. One or two may drop out by the time they get to AAA. But a lot of them are going to make the big leagues. Not all of them are going to succeed when they make the big leagues. Someone in there is likely to get 3 years of time in the big league roster and Gordon Beckham this thing. But how are we going to know which one if we don't give them the time to see? Counting positions and temporarily ignoring DH, we've got 1b (maybe filled if someone moves there), CF (maybe filled by someone for defensive purposes), and C (maybe Collins comes around?). In other words...almost all of our positions have someone who by 2019 or 2020 at the latest there will be a kid taking over. And that isn't counting guys who are here and having decent success now like Garcia, or any 2018 or 2019 first round picks who might come fairly polished if they're out of college. Those kids will not all succeed. You and I both know that. But if you sign someone to block a player, you're either saying you're moving a guy or that you're giving up and trading a guy. For most of these guys, the only way we will know whether or not they will be solid big league players is to bring them up to the big leagues when they are ready. There just aren't a lot of positions right now where we don't have an heir apparent. To me, that means that planning to "Spread the money around" on paper does not work with these Sox. If you're thinking it'd be great to sign a $15 million corner OF, $15 million infielder, and 2 $15 million starters, I'm going to ask where you're putting the guys they're blocking. On paper, I think the "huge splash" makes more sense. Find me a guy who slots into our #3 or #4 slots in the lineup and dominates at a single position, then put the 7 rookies who need playing time around him and see what happens. I get what you are saying, but free agent additions will have to be made. Not all of our prospects will nicely pan out at the mlb level like we want them to. I expect the team to be active in free agency after the 2018 season to make significant additions to what the front office feels is needed. Right now it's too soon in the process to evaluate, but 18 months from now we should have a better grasp of what our roster needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:05 AM) Here's the problem with spreading it around. We have something like 10 starting pitcher candidates, who by 2021 many of them barring injury are going to need stints in the big leagues to see if they're worth anything. We may still add a veteran "hold this together" guy to the rotation, but until some of them flop we have more than enough arms to not need to sign anyone. Now let's go to the lineup. We have guys in the top 100 who play: 2 outfield spots (Rutherford and Jiminez), 2b, Anderson, our most recent draft pick plays 3b as of now (moveable?), and a couple guys who catch. Not all of these guys are going to succeed. One or two may drop out by the time they get to AAA. But a lot of them are going to make the big leagues. Not all of them are going to succeed when they make the big leagues. Someone in there is likely to get 3 years of time in the big league roster and Gordon Beckham this thing. But how are we going to know which one if we don't give them the time to see? Counting positions and temporarily ignoring DH, we've got 1b (maybe filled if someone moves there), CF (maybe filled by someone for defensive purposes), and C (maybe Collins comes around?). In other words...almost all of our positions have someone who by 2019 or 2020 at the latest there will be a kid taking over. And that isn't counting guys who are here and having decent success now like Garcia. Those kids will not all succeed. You and I both know that. But if you sign someone to block a player, you're either saying you're moving a guy or that you're giving up and trading a guy. There just aren't a lot of positions right now where we don't have an heir apparent. To me, that means that planning to "Spread the money around" on paper does not work with these Sox. If you're thinking it'd be great to sign a $15 million corner OF, $15 million infielder, and 2 $15 million starters, I'm going to ask where you're putting the guys they're blocking. On paper, I think the "huge splash" makes more sense. Find me a guy who slots into our #3 or #4 slots in the lineup and dominates at a single position, then put the 7 rookies who need playing time around him and see what happens. Yeah, I mean I guess in a few more years we will know a lot more, but you are right...there is going to be some opportunity costs borne by us for having so many kids that need reps. And that's ok..it is a small price to pay for the rebuild. I think if you can get a guy that can help stabilize and legitimize your team, I think it's worth it, but you've got to be careful about who that guy is. Harper, no doubt, he is that guy. Machado...hmm, not so sure. As stated earlier, I am really starting to come around on Arenado being the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Wouldn't Andrew McCutchen be the ideal sign for us? Shouldn't require a Machado $$$, yet plays CF and I think he plays good/greaat defense (??). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iWin4Ron @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 08:48 AM) Wouldn't Andrew McCutchen be the ideal sign for us? Shouldn't require a Machado $$$, yet plays CF and I think he plays good/greaat defense (??). Too old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iWin4Ron @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:48 AM) Wouldn't Andrew McCutchen be the ideal sign for us? Shouldn't require a Machado $$$, yet plays CF and I think he plays good/greaat defense (??). He does not play great CF defense. The Pirates tried to move him to a corner OF spot this year because his defense has become a big negative and Marte is a better OF. He also has been very unhappy about moving to a corner OF spot, potentially having it affect his play. I do think CF is a potentially solid place to target FA spending based on our current system, but that isn't McCutchen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) Machado will only by going into his age 27 year in 2019. Right but the contract being discussed is like 10 years 300 million. I mean, if he wanted to double dip and do a heyward esque 10 year 300 million with the first 4 years earning him $40 million with an opt-out, then I'd be happy. But Giancarlo Stanton is still pretty good and it's already an issue. I just don't know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:02 AM) Right but the contract being discussed is like 10 years 300 million. I mean, if he wanted to double dip and do a heyward esque 10 year 300 million with the first 4 years earning him $40 million with an opt-out, then I'd be happy. But Giancarlo Stanton is still pretty good and it's already an issue. I just don't know Yeah, I mean there is virtually no one in baseball that it would be wise to hand out a contract of that length for, unless of course you extend a guy in pre-arb or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) Yeah, I mean there is virtually no one in baseball that it would be wise to hand out a contract of that length for, unless of course you extend a guy in pre-arb or something. The trick with these deals is that you're paying in the latter years money that you spend in the early years to put yourself over the top. Anything you get in the out years is gravy - you need to put yourself over the top in years 1-4 if you're signing a deal like that. You just don't want to sign the guy to 5/$50 million a year to do it, so you spread it out into 10/$300. If you're signing one...be ready to win in years 1-4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 09:12 AM) The trick with these deals is that you're paying in the latter years money that you spend in the early years to put yourself over the top. Anything you get in the out years is gravy - you need to put yourself over the top in years 1-4 if you're signing a deal like that. You just don't want to sign the guy to 5/$50 million a year to do it, so you spread it out into 10/$300. If you're signing one...be ready to win in years 1-4. Agreed, although if you could sign anyone of these guys to the 5/250 deal, it might be worth it, because you'll likely be eating a ton of money at the end of the deal anyways. You can always utilize any number of financial instruments behind the scenes to alter the risk profile anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 I see regarding McCutchen. Would AJ Pollock, Adam Jones, or Charlie Blackmon be better defensive options? Personally, I'd like the Sox to try to shore up CF/ C with strong defensive+offensive players in free agency and have a strong plan at SS/2b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveno89 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iWin4Ron @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 11:50 AM) I see regarding McCutchen. Would AJ Pollock, Adam Jones, or Charlie Blackmon be better defensive options? Personally, I'd like the Sox to try to shore up CF/ C with strong defensive+offensive players in free agency and have a strong plan at SS/2b. Jones and Blackmon will be 33/34 years old by the time they hit free agency, so I'm not sure how long of a deal they will ask for. Anything more than 3 years would be a big mistake. I hate paying a premium for a player that is very likely to decline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxforlife05 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 If Machado was a bust the team would never be able to make the necessary signings to win a World Series. It would also likely prohibit extending 2-3 of our prospects who pan out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (soxforlife05 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:18 PM) If Machado was a bust the team would never be able to make the necessary signings to win a World Series. It would also likely prohibit extending 2-3 of our prospects who pan out And if he performs like he has in his career, he'd be a veteran leader on a young team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan49 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 10:48 AM) Too old. Also, I read that he's kind of a d***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 21, 2017 -> 01:13 PM) Also, I read that he's kind of a d***. He was thought to be a great guy early in his career but he hasn't handled the last season or two very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.