Bogaerts, Betts and likely Devers. The Red Sox needed AJ Preller in charge. Can't say I disagree completely on value for money, but it's a strange posture for Red Sox. I'm guessing they just aren't willing to sign mega long term deals, preferring to stick with 5 year deals. Seems reasonable. That's the Cardinals basic approach and it's served them well.

@alexspeier

According to a major league source, the Red Sox were “really far” from the Padres offer - and their offers were short of $200M. Just a huge gap in where the Padres went.

So I guess they're not counting on Tatis staying at short for the next eleventy billion years.

@Mike_Dyer13
Chaim Bloom inherited 27 year old Mookie, 27 YO Bogaerts, 25 YO Benintendi, and 23 YO Devers and so far has turned them into:

Alex Verdugo
Jeter Downs
Connor Wong
Franchy Cordero
Josh Winckowski
Grant Gambrell
Luis De La Rosa
Freddy Valdez

Devers still here, but not extended

#4 - To be completely fair, he also turned Betts into a decent amount of cash (via $ for Dodgers assuming some of the Price deal).

Should Devers get dealt before the start of the season, I wonder if a Red Sox self-immolation thread would be appropriate?

So I guess they're not counting on Tatis staying at short for the next eleventy billion years.

in 2021 - Tatis's last action - he started 101 G at SS, 16 in RF, and 7 in CF.

they weren't counting on his staying there even before this move.

plus Kim in 2022 blossomed into a very manageable 107 OPS+ at SS, after a 73 as a rookie. Kim also plays some 2B and 3B.

good teams no longer just seek 8 starters and 5 backups as their roster on offense. lotta moving parts

The Zobristification of the game, as it were.

I wonder if the Dodgers will get in on the act with Betts. He has played a teeny-tiny amount of 2B since coming to LA.

In the Padres projected line-up, is Bogaerts perhaps the fourth best defensive SS, behind Tatis, Machado and Kim?

in 2021 - Tatis's last action - he started 101 G at SS, 16 in RF, and 7 in CF.

they weren't counting on his staying there even before this move.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion simply by posting up some games played. While I think Tatis could be a great CF, his time in the OF was far from successful in terms of attitude. He continually expressed his displeasure with being in the OF, stating very clearly he saw himself as a SS. He showed real disinterest in his attitude/body language when in the OF. While the team may have wanted to put him there in order to try to keep him healthier than he had been at SS, it's far from a given that they were not planning to bring him back to SS for the foreseeable future. It's going to be interesting to see where these guys are deployed once he finishes his suspension.

#4 - To be completely fair, he also turned Betts into a decent amount of cash (via $ for Dodgers assuming some of the Price deal).

Cash that was not spent on locking in either Bogaerts or Devers, so...yay?

Cash that was not spent on locking in either Bogaerts or Devers, so... yay?

Exactly.

The problem isn't that they didn't outbid San Diego, it's that they didn't lock him up before reaching free agency with the offer they made him in free agency. But of course the point wasn't to sign him, it was to look like they tried. Really lame.

Devers will now want 12-15 years at 350+, rightly. If they don't sign him this off-season, they might as well deal him.

It does make my choice of cable alternatives easier since I don't have to worry about getting NESN.

He continually expressed his displeasure with being in the OF, stating very clearly he saw himself as a SS. He showed real disinterest in his attitude/body language when in the OF.

Given his behavior since, he's lucky to have a job at all. #### his displeasure.

That's the Cardinals basic approach and it's served them well.

But will they be able to stick with that now? Goldschmidt extended for 5 years (thru 36) in part because he knew the chances weren't very good that he could get more years elsewhere. But now we're seeing deals running thru 38-40 and while Judge might be a special case, Turner and X aren't. Would Arenado have signed his original deal with the Rox (thru 35 I think) if he thought he had a chance at an 11-12 year deal?

Is there something in the CBA or the new CBT penalties that are behind this? The threshold went up about 10% in year 1 but this is the first offseason where it's really in effect so a one-time big jump by the rich teams isn't shocking (leaving the Pirates et al even further behind) but I wasn't expecting this shift in years.

Anyway, I wouldn't have made an offer close to this so I can't blame the Red Sox for losing X nor could I question X if he turned down any extension offers I might have thought he should take. I kinda figured he'd land somewhere like 6/$162 to 7/$189.

Another player where ZiPS projects 30 WAR in the 30s. I'm starting to wonder whether somebody's detected a new "trend" in aging for star players -- something like most players with 30 WAR by 29 (or 20+ WAR for 25-29) repeat their 20s. That projection for X seems reasonable -- same player thru 32 then loses about 10% a year but largely in playing time and is still a productive player thru 37-38 and useful at 39-40 -- but that's a lot of production ... producing at a 2.3 WAR/650 pace at ages 37-40.

Or maybe since teams are so big on the part-time position player these days, maybe they are more tolerant of the playing time reductions for older players -- if you can defer money to reduce the CBT hit while keeping control of a guy who projects to give you average production in 400 PAs, maybe that's the way to go.

good teams no longer just seek 8 starters and 5 backups as their roster on offense. lotta moving parts

Is that really true for good teams?

Both the Dodgers and Astros ran out pretty stable lineups last year. For LAD, Smith, Freeman, Turner, Bellinger, and Betts pretty much played one position, aside from a little DH time. For HOU, Maldonado, Gurriel, Altuve, Pena, Bregman, and Tucker played the same position pretty much every day they were healthy. Alvarez probably would have done the same at DH, if they didn't have so many OF injuries.

I acknowledge teams want a couple of flexible "Zobrist-like" guys, but I think they largely want their stars playing every day in the same place. You're not giving a guy $280M to be a super-utility man.

They should have negotiated better in the spring. Had they done that he would be on the team with a reasonable contract. Instead, they let him get to free agenc,y where unreasonable contracts get offered.

The ownership either doesn't care or are incompetent. Lester was a lesson. John Henry said they'd learn from it. But they didn't. Instead they let Mookie get away, by not signing him early. Now, Bogearts is gone. The SD is a complete overpay; they couldn't match it. It's a bad contract.

As time goes on,Darren, not being to watch the team becomes a smaller and smaller issue.

With more and more fans streaming, eventually NESN's ratings will get lower and lower. I see no reason to pay $30 a month for NESN.

I will keep watching the Padres, Dodgers, Astros, and all the other interesting teams that are out there. (I watched about 30-40 Rays games last year compared to less than a handful of Red Sox games. I also watched another 100+ games of other teams.) I don't see a compelling reason to watch the Red Sox going forward. This will be especially true when they change direction AGAIN.

And what is their direction now? I have no clue. They can't be instituting the Rays model. They can't because Boston isn't Tampa. The Red Sox generate a lot of revenue and the fans know. What they should be, and I've said this many times before, is be the Dodgers East. The Dodgers are excellent in many different ways.

Where are the Red Sox excellent? Player development? Player evaluation? Economics? Player health? Do they efficiently spend money? Do they target specific needs by flexing their revenue strength? Do they treat their employees well? I could go on and on. The only area where they excel is maximiizing Fenway's revenue.

In 2004/2007 they were ahead of other teams. Their culture then pushed out Theo. Since then their culture seems just as toxic. Cherrington lucks into a championship with some great moves (and David Ortiz), and gets canned two years later. They then bring in Dombrowski and he works his magic. He's given the bums rush out of the organization. Now, they put Bloom in a horrific spot. He's now the guy who lost Mookie and Bogearts. Fans are already calling for his head,

The team has some prospects but they are a few years away. There is no way this ownership group shows any patience and honestly explains whatever plan they think is in place. I hope Bloom finds a nice landing spot.

You paint a sad picture

You paint a sad picture

Normally when Mr. Furtado emerges to say that the Sox have lost their way and the fans are suckers for not noticing, I roll my eyes and the team soon after wins the division and World Series. But this time I agree about the current situation so I don't know what to think!

15. There was a whole article discussing this today in the Athketic where Dombrowski broaches this new market inefficiency - ie older star players have sustainable careers from 35-40 due to nutrition, training etc.

I don't believe it. If you signed me to an 11/300 contract i would not be working out late a demon anymore. Period. I wouldn't get fat either but hours in the gym ? No.

It is a dismal picture, though. And I'd be hard-pressed to think of the way out. Extending Devers, sure. But that's just one piece (and I don't think they will extend him). There's not a big-name trade that could happen (or is likely to happen) that would make this all feel any better, so more or less 2023 is looking like another "transition" year.

I mean, as others have said, I don't see a strategy or a guiding philosophy here. It does very much make me wonder if there's a connection between the Fenway Group's potential sale of Liverpool and the desire to trim the sails on the MLB side. Maybe Henry's just going to be cashing out across the board and doesn't care too much anymore about the product on the field? I'm at a loss. Henry is 73; he's not a young guy and at some point why bother with all of this...

I can maybe--maybe--squint and see Bloom valuing defense (owing to no shifts) and maybe speed/steals (thinking the cost/benefit analysis of steals will be changing in the new pickoff/pitch clock environment), and feeling like good marginal gains can be made without spending a lot of $, but... they screwed up here. Speier's article in the Globe today on how negotiations played out over the past year is pretty damning (even though, obviously, seen from just the side of Bogaerts/Boras).

15. There was a whole article discussing this today in the Athketic where Dombrowski broaches this new market inefficiency - ie older star players have sustainable careers from 35-40 due to nutrition, training etc.

But how can it be an inefficiency if they're paying top dollar for said players?

Dombrowski won't be around when the Phillies reap what he's sowing, just as he's not around now for the Red Sox.

Of course, the other possibility here is that if the owners throw just a wee bit more $ at veterans, then those veterans will continue to not care at all about the 0-6 year players... which is exactly what owners want.

And I'd be hard-pressed to think of the way out.

Move Story to SS and find a second baseman?

Surprised SD wanted a SS. Tatis looks somewhat less special in RF than he does at SS. I can't help but think that they're paying a lot in opportunity cost in addition to the cash.

Devers is now in the driver's seat more than ever. Red Sox have to extend him or trade him for good young major league ready players. They can't possibly allow him to leave in free agency.

Devers is now in the driver's seat more than ever. Red Sox have to extend him or trade him for good young major league ready players. They can't possibly allow him to leave in free agency.

I disagree. EG, I prefer losing Bogaerts now rather than last offseason via trade even though, team-wise, this past season was crummy.

Welp.... I was getting myself marginally into a mindset of "Maybe the Cubs could fringe contend if they get a SS and lots of health + luck (Bellinger)"... now, I guess that depends on whether they outbid everyone else on Correa.

#22: But MLBPA did a good bit for the 0-6 year players in the latest CBA. Maybe that was only out of a belated recognition that the only way to help the Mitch Hanigers was to make the 0-6 WAR players more expensive but they put a lot of effort in this year. Also spending even more money on old, unproductive players seems like a strange way to better exploit the cheap young productive ones, especially since the main benefit of that exploitation is as leverage against mediocre older players and/or to provide the money to sign the stars to crazy long-term contracts.

Which is one of my questions in #15 -- if there was some mechanism in the last CBA that caused this jump in contract length and total money, I'm curious what it is. I didn't pay a lot of attention but other than the jump in the threshold (long overdue but still standard in year 1 of a new CBA), I don't see anything. Maybe it's a consequence of the penalties -- i.e. even more deferment, spreading out makes it easier to reset -- but I'm not sure this was the MLBPA's doing. I certainly never got the sense during the negotiations that the MLBPA thought things were about to improve substantially for FAs -- quite the opposite, to me they seemed resigned to continuing stagnation.

EDIT: To put that more succinctly, $280 M to Bogaerts is far beyond "a wee bit more money" -- it's at least $100 M (and 5 years) more than I thought he might get and I would have thought that was an overpay.

it's that they didn't lock him up before reaching free agency

I believe this is the most important thing and it shows the team really never wanted to keep him. If you really want someone to stick around, you do what the Braves, Mariners and a host of other teams have done and sign these guys to long term deals when they are young that extend into their early/mid 30's, without opt outs.

Since they haven't really done anything with Devers, I assume the situation is the same and they are looking at moving him.

I am surprised by the length of both the Turner and Xander deals, maybe I need to recalibrate how I think about these things?

Or maybe they'll sign Correa and Rodon and surprise us all! Ha!

Also, I still don't get the Jansen signing, can someone explain the logic behind that when a decent innings eater like Quintana costs less and will pitch about 3 times more innings(assuming at less effective rate, but still 1450+ innings don't get pitched by themselves)

I believe this is the most important thing and it shows the team really never wanted to keep him. If you really want someone to stick around, you do what the Braves, Mariners and a host of other teams have done and sign these guys to long term deals when they are young that extend into their early/mid 30's, without opt outs.

The Yankees have never followed that philosophy, but they've shown the willingness to pay up to keep their FAs.

Also, I still don't get the Jansen signing, can someone explain the logic behind that when a decent innings eater like Quintana costs less and will pitch about 3 times more innings(assuming at less effective rate, but still 1450+ innings don't get pitched by themselves)

No clue.

Since they haven't really done anything with Devers, I assume the situation is the same...

I'd be happy with 9+ years of Devers like they got with Bogaerts.

The problem isn't that they didn't outbid San Diego, it's that they didn't lock him up before reaching free agency with the offer they made him in free agency.

Or more precisely, the Red Sox never really tried to lock up Bogaerts. It’d be a different thing if Bogaerts had spurned Boston’s efforts, but by all reports he was interested in an extension and never got a realistic offer, unless you count the one finally made during the Winter Meetings, which also trailed a rapidly increasing market. Inexplicable, IMHO.

I suppose the Red Sox could surprise by signing Correa or Swanson, but that seems extremely unlikely.

In fairness to the Red Sox, although they were later than most teams, they did extend Bogaerts in April 2019, the start of his pending FA year, covering up to his first 6 years of FA. A bit like the JDM deal, they were cheapskates and preferred giving him the opt-out rather than ponying up what was likely a relatively trivial amount of money to guarantee those years. Still they ended up with 9 years of X which (for example) is one more guaranteed year or one fewer total year than the Acuna/Harris deals.

Those 9 years of X cost about $85 M. For Acuna it will be 8/$100, 9/$107 or 10/$124; for Harris it's 8/$72, 9/$87 or 10/$102. Given inflation that's probably about the same as Acuna's deal due to the Sox waiting it out to make the deal.

are these Dec. 2022 contracts making the Mets' addition of Lindor 2 years ago look better, worse, or the same?

can factor in that the Mets gave up underpriced MIs Gimenez and Rosario in the trade, and that Lindor sucked in 2021 but was really good in 2022......

are these Dec. 2022 contracts making the Mets' addition of Lindor 2 years ago look better, worse, or the same?

can factor in that the Mets gave up underpriced MIs Gimenez and Rosario in the trade, and that Lindor sucked in 2021 but was really good in 2022......

I think they make the Lindor, Semien, and Seager contracts look better.

While I think Tatis could be a great CF, his time in the OF was far from successful in terms of attitude. He continually expressed his displeasure with being in the OF, stating very clearly he saw himself as a SS. He showed real disinterest in his attitude/body language when in the OF. While the team may have wanted to put him there in order to try to keep him healthier than he had been at SS, it's far from a given that they were not planning to bring him back to SS for the foreseeable future. It's going to be interesting to see where these guys are deployed once he finishes his suspension.

SD maybe should just trade Tatis for parts that fit better. Maybe that's their plan, I dunno. Then again, Soto is a FA in 2 years and Machado has an opt out coming up so maybe they just plan on doing everything to win now and then let those guys walk and build around Tatis/Xander.

SD maybe should just trade Tatis for parts that fit better.

Has anybody with 12 years left on a contract ever been traded?

Lindor sucked in 2021

Come on.

Has anybody with 12 years left on a contract ever been traded?

No one's ever had 12 years left on a contract. Ok, that's not strictly true but there haven't been many.

There have been 21 MLB contracts of 10 or more years. Three of those players were traded after year 3: Alex Rodriguez and Richie Zisk (ten-year deals, both with the Rangers) and Giancarlo Stanton (13-year deal).

Details

They should have negotiated better in the spring. Had they done that he would be on the team with a reasonable contract.

TBH I don't believe this. I mean, it's absolutely true that they didn't offer him anywhere near what he'd accept in return for not testing the market. But the only thing we KNOW he would accept is the contract he got in free agency, which I don't think anyone has described as reasonable. But, yeah, let's speculate what he would have accepted.

The estimates of what Bogaerts would get in free agency, just before the offseason, were around 7-8 years, $28m AAV. He ended up accepting 11 years, $25.5 AAV. That's the equivalent of 8 years at $28m AAV (pre-offseason estimate) plus 3 years at $18.7m AAV. If the prior estimate was accurate, that's a sizable pay cut in the last few years. From a value perspective that seems reasonable given player aging patterns, but from a player perspective that's quite generous. To me that suggests it's a reasonable assumption that the years mattered in the calculus. Bogaerts basically has signed what is probably his last contract, at age 30.

So let's say that was Bogaerts' objective: to sign a 10- or 11-year deal, using his leverage as an elite shortstop to lock in a long career and never have to sign another contract. What would be a reasonable contract (from the team's perspective) that would have accomplished that for Bogaerts? I'm assuming from the team's perspective it's around the Story deal plus $6m AAV, and if you want to tack on some club option years feel free. So that's more like a guaranteed 6 years $30m AAV, or $180m, with an opt-out in 3 years.

Bogaerts doesn't sign that deal. If he's playing well and healthy for 3 years (ages 30-32) he can opt out and test the market, but that's under the same CBA as now, and the age curve is not his friend in the marketplace. If he's not playing well or not healthy - or even if he's doing moderately well - he'll be looking for a new contract after his age 35 season because they won't exercise the options. (Ask J.D. Martinez about being a good hitter at age 35.) He's better off going to free agency, if he wants the years. And if he's not going to sign that deal, then to retain him either Boston would need to up the AAV to incentivize him not to hold out for more years, or tack on more guaranteed years, neither of which would have been IMO reasonable prior to this offseason from the team's perspective.

There is a contract Boston could have offered that Bogaerts would have accepted. There is a contract Bogaerts could have accepted that Boston would have offered. The Venn diagrams of those two contract sets do not overlap, because in either case what they "could" do and what they were willing to do were far apart. Boston could have paid more; Bogaerts could have accepted less. Neither wanted to make that move. And, like, neither should have.

The estimates of what Bogaerts would get in free agency, just before the offseason, were around 7-8 years, $28m AAV.

Right, so you really think he would have turned down a 7/175 extension before the season?

Surprised SD wanted a SS. Tatis looks somewhat less special in RF than he does at SS. I can't help but think that they're paying a lot in opportunity cost in addition to the cash.

I do think it's partly insurance for Machado opting out after next season. Bogaerts slots in at 3B to replace him while Tatis and/or Kim take SS. It's also positional flexibility if they do try to move Tatis to the OF, Bogaerts and Kim can cover SS. Totally agree with you that Tatis does not look interested in playing OF though.

Then again, Soto is a FA in 2 years and Machado has an opt out coming up so maybe they just plan on doing everything to win now and then let those guys walk and build around Tatis/Xander.

I don't think they're planning to let Machado walk, but it's a possibility and Bogaerts offers some insurance if he does. Soto is definitely gone, IMO, as I don't think they'll be able to compete with the bigger markets once he's a free agent. But if they're planning to win now, they need to sign and/or trade for some more SP because the depth they had is gone now. Manaea, Clevinger, Gore, Lamet are gone and the minors are mostly guys projected to be two to three years away at least.

Obviously it has worked out great for him but I don't think Bogaerts turns down 6/$180 last spring. Maybe the agents' crystal balls foretold this sudden explosion in 9+ year contracts for guys around 30 but there was nothing in contract trends to suggest such a thing. Add the risk of injury or just having a bad year, it would make no financial sense to turn down the chance to turn 3/$60 into 6/$180 ... especially with several other SS on the market. But kudos to Xander's agent if he could tell where the market was gonna go.

If I was running the Red Sox, I proably would have ended up in the same boat. I'd have offered him Story's contract, maybe a bit more. I don't think I'd have gone to 6/$180 but maybe I could have been talked into it. Behind closed doors I would have rolled my eyes at his agent's suggestion of 10-11 years. Bogaerts through age 40?? Crazy talk.

But I'm clearly out of the loop because I also don't get what SD is thinking here either. SS is not a problem, I'd rather spend big money on Machado, Nimmo was a better positional fit and, as #45 notes, the rotation needs help. Maybe there's another move coming that will make the plan clear but, as it stands, this seems like the last team that should be signing a big-name, long-term SS.

They should have negotiated better in the spring. Had they done that he would be on the team with a reasonable contract.
TBH I don't believe this.

You allude to this a bit, but I think the problem is that we'll never know. I do think it's safe to assume that a team that offers 4/90 before least season does not have any serious interest in signing him.

Right, so you really think he would have turned down a 7/175 extension before the season?

Absolutely, for two reasons. First, at that level either he needs to be willing to accept a hometown discount or it's worth waiting to free agency to see what he can get, and we have literally no reason to think he (or any player, really) is willing to take the discount. Second, that's the Story deal plus 1 year and ~$1.5m additional AAV, and minus the opt-out. (The additional AAV is on the low side of the benefit needed to offset the lack of opt-out, FWIW, so in a sense it's the Story deal plus a year.) Even just using Story as the reference point, Bogaerts knows he's worth more than that contract. And even if he doesn't truly "know" it, it's worth it to him to get to FA and find out.

There are dueling interests with locking him up early. In the team's interest they want to avoid the possibility of losing him OR keeping him at a FA price. They want the lowest possible contract that's high enough to convince him not to look. But that's the thing Boras understands well: the player is giving up something of value (the opportunity of free agency) by bypassing FA. It really only makes sense if the contract offer provides an incentive to bypass it. Security against injury is tangible value - like, if Bogaerts shreds his ACL in game 3 of the season then having signed a long-term deal a week earlier is a great deal for him. If he's worried about that, then security of a contract NOW is better than possibility of a contract LATER. But, frankly, offering him 7 years a year before free agency when he's nearly certain to get 7+ years in free agency is not adding an incentive to bypass free agency. If he's seen at the time as likely to get, let's say, 7 years $200 million in free agency then what's the incentive in a 7 year $175 million offer 8 months ahead of that? I mean, really, other than the rational-but-very-unlikely fear of career-ending injury in the immediate season, and the willingness to get a hometown discount, the "fair" pre-FA contract from the player's perspective is something richer than what they're likely to get. The team is buying his services, but also his freedom. The latter is worth something. Arguably it would be a hometown discount to accept a year early a contract that is exactly in line with what is expected at free agency.

If it were likely that players could be locked up early at a lower-than-market rate, it would happen literally all the time. It rarely happens, at least for players of Bogaerts' caliber. I mean, in some sense it did with Bogaerts already - in his arb years they signed him to a deal that ended up being below market value. But part of the reason it was below market value was that he had the opt-out clause. He gave up AAV for the opt-out. I think one thing Boston fans need to consider is that Boston might have included the opt-out because they *wanted* it to be exercised. That they looked at the Bogaerts extension as 3 years $60 million, but marketable as 6 years $120 million. That their long-term contracts are designed to be short-term contracts.

I think one thing Boston fans need to consider is that Boston might have included the opt-out because they *wanted* it to be exercised. That they looked at the Bogaerts extension as 3 years $60 million, but marketable as 6 years $120 million. That their long-term contracts are designed to be short-term contracts.

I think you are over-complicating things here. They *wanted* it to be exercised at the time of the signing only because that would mean he was good enough for them before the opt-out to command a high salary. That's basically the same for any team's perspective at the moment a contract with an opt-out is signed. But if this fall he looked in his heart and realized he loved playing in front of Nasty Nate up in the grandstands and decided not to opt out, the team would be ecstatic to have him at 3/$60m.

Obviously it has worked out great for him but I don't think Bogaerts turns down 6/$180 last spring. Maybe the agents' crystal balls foretold this sudden explosion in 9+ year contracts for guys around 30 but there was nothing in contract trends to suggest such a thing. Add the risk of injury or just having a bad year, it would make no financial sense to turn down the chance to turn 3/$60 into 6/$180 ... especially with several other SS on the market. But kudos to Xander's agent if he could tell where the market was gonna go.

A new CBA very often brings new spending. This is the first full offseason under the new CBA. I think even if it was unexpected how generous the market would become it was widely and reasonably forecasted to be a generous market. CBT thresholds are $30 million higher than they were 2 years ago, the last offseason in which teams knew the threshold in advance. That's a huge jump.

At least 6/$180m is offering an incentive on AAV. If a player has incentive to lock in a long-term deal to avoid the possibility of injury in the very year he's about to play, a player also has incentive to lock in a longer-term deal to protect against future injury. Arguably the latter is more critical and rational. Six years is good, but looking at what he ultimately signed for I'd think he was looking for more.

To be clear, he should have been looking for more. Boston wasn't going to offer it.

You allude to this a bit, but I think the problem is that we'll never know. I do think it's safe to assume that a team that offers 4/90 before least season does not have any serious interest in signing him.

Agreed. And that's most of the fan reaction, right? They were demonstrating they didn't want to sign him, and fans wanted him signed. I'm happy he got what he got, I'm sad he didn't get it here.

I had the same feeling with Pedro as well. But, like, Boston was right not to outbid the Mets for Pedro. Maybe they're right in this case, too. Maybe not.

I think you are over-complicating things here. They *wanted* it to be exercised at the time of the signing only because that would mean he was good enough for them before the opt-out to command a high salary. That's basically the same for any team's perspective at the moment a contract with an opt-out is signed. But if this fall he looked in his heart and realized he loved playing in front of Nasty Nate up in the grandstands and decided not to opt out, the team would be ecstatic to have him at 3/$60m.

One one hand, of course. On the other hand, there is a risk with a high-AAV guaranteed contract that Boston doesn't want to take - mostly that it takes away performance/conditioning incentives - and they use opt-outs to incentivize players staying in shape and playing well for a short term. I'm not just saying the team is hoping the player will stay on the field and perform well, and as a consequence leave. I'm saying the team believes the player is more likely to stay on the field and perform well because of the opt-out. I'm saying they believe short-term deals incentivize better performance, and they are using opt-outs to reduce risk on long-term deals. The team gets the benefit of lower AAV from someone who has incentive to deserve higher AAV. Even if they don't deserve higher AAV and don't opt out, they are still in better shape & productivity than they would have been entering year 4 of a 6-year guaranteed deal, because the opt-out provision gave them incentive to do so.

On the other hand, there is a risk with a high-AAV guaranteed contract that Boston doesn't want to take - mostly that it takes away performance/conditioning incentives - and they use opt-outs to incentivize players staying in shape and playing well for a short term. I'm not just saying the team is hoping the player will stay on the field and perform well, and as a consequence leave. I'm saying the team believes the player is more likely to stay on the field and perform well because of the opt-out. I'm saying they believe short-term deals incentivize better performance, and they are using opt-outs to reduce risk on long-term deals. The team gets the benefit of lower AAV from someone who has incentive to deserve higher AAV. Even if they don't deserve higher AAV and don't opt out, they are still in better shape & productivity than they would have been entering year 4 of a 6-year guaranteed deal, because the opt-out provision gave them incentive to do so.

This is very interesting. Are you saying this solely because it matches their behavior (which it does), or have they also made public statements that hint at this? Do you think this is a post-Crawford-and-AGon thing, or a post-Dombrowski thing?

Follow-up question: Do you think it works? Do you think it helped with incentivization for Price, Bogaerts, Sale, Devers, and Betts?

I think it - the opt-out in particular - is a thing the FO determined in the Dombrowski era and Bloom has embraced. I don't know if it works, at least in the way I laid out. Assuming hyper-competitive athletes won't do what they need to remain hyper-competitive without a financial incentive seems like a sucker's game to me. Then again, how many times have we seen a player's best season be in the final year of a contract?

Trying to get cute with contract provisions to engineer player behavior goes all the way back to the Lackey contract. That one will always bug me.

Nitpick: the CBT threshhold went from $210 to $230 and now $233, not a $30 M jump. (I think I may have used $30 M at some point myself)

So a 10% jump in the threshhold would, maybe, lead to a 10% jump in payroll across the league, certainly a 10% jump in payroll for the teams willing to meet/exceed the threshhold.

I don't see any reason to have expected Bogaerts to get 7 years, taking him through 36. Baez and Story only got 6 years through 34, Correa didn't get a long-term deal he would accept. Arenado was signed through 35, agreed to defer money to get an extension for a mere $15 for his age 36 season (although some of that probably because he jut wanted to get out of Colorado) ... and then he didn't opt out after this season. Prior to this offseason, Lindor (37), Freeman (37), Harper, Betts and Trout were the only guys signed past 36. Bryant got 7/$182 through 36 and everybody derided that deal. Seager's 10/$320 was considered a shocker, going to set off a huge increase that didn't come. Freeman's deal was 6/$162 but he deferred $57 of that so it's official NPV equivalent is $148. If X's agent explains that Freeman really got 6/$150, does X turn down 6/$180 last spring?

Maybe some folks considered X to be in the Harper, Betts, Trout class of players, I certainly didn't. I didn't consider him Lindor's equal, more in the Freeman/Bryant end. Maybe I'm just badly under-rating him. But fair enough, a Freeman-equivalent contract taking X through 37 would be 8/$216, add 10% for 8/$240 (although the new threshold was known at Freeman's signing) ... but then what do we do with the deferment? Anyway, 8/$240 is close enough to 11/$280 in NPV terms that maybe that was the logic.

Of course there's always the Rendon 7/$245 contract through 36. Almost everything looks like a bargain in comparison to that, I'd certainly much rather have X at 11/$280.

I'm happy for somebody to take a closer look but, coming into this offseason, it sure seemed like teams had fully learned the lesson of only signing somebody past 36 if they "had to" for a super-duper-star. If anything, it looked to me like that age might be getting pulled back to 35. Everybody was well aware how little playing time players older than 34-35 have been getting in the game the last 5+ years. If anything, I'd have expected to see something like 4/$140 for Bogaerts more than 11/$280.

Anyway, I'm expecting to be surprised (don't do this at home) by a lot of deals now. Seems virtually guaranteed because it's either gonna be "holy crap, did somebody really give Correa 11/$385?" or "wait, X gets 11/$280 while Correa gets just 6/$180?"

I'm happy for somebody to take a closer look but, coming into this offseason, it sure seemed like teams had fully learned the lesson of only signing somebody past 36 if they "had to" for a super-duper-star.

The universal DH may make teams more willing to go an extra year or two, both for their own needs and possibly making aging players more tradeable. Also, MLB is awash in dough.