Not long ago, any given year in Major League Baseball might have seen a handful of players have player options to decide upon at the end of a season. Opt-out clauses have slowly worked their way into normalcy among contract negotiations, however, and what was once a perk typically reserved for star players has become more commonly used as a means of either sealing a deal with mid-range free agents or in many instances, gaming the luxury tax. Player options are considered guaranteed money, after all, so it’s become common for clubs on the precipice of luxury penalization to negotiate complex player options that tamp down a contract’s average annual value even though they’re unlikely to ever be exercised.
For the purposes of this look around the league, there’s little sense in separating opt-outs from player options. The two are effectively the same, though “opt-out” typically refers to an out clause where there are multiple years remaining on the contract and “player option” generally refers to an individual decision on the forthcoming season. Both are considered guaranteed money for luxury purposes, and both ultimately come down to the player’s preference, risk tolerance, etc.
At their core, opt-out provisions aren’t particularly different from the much longer-accepted club options that teams have negotiated for years. Teams guarantee a certain number of dollars over a certain number of years, and if the player continues performing at a high enough level, they’ll exercise a club option that’s typically locked in at a below-market price. If not, the player will be bought out and sent back to free agency. Player options and opt-outs are merely the inverse; the player/agent negotiate a certain length and annual value but reserve the right to opt back into the market if the player continues to perform at a high level. It’s two sides of the same coin.
There are more players with the opportunity to opt out of their contract this offseason, by way of a one-year player option or a multi-year opt-out, than ever before. As such, we’ll be keeping tabs on these situations throughout the season. Short of a major injury, performance this early in the season isn’t likely to have a major impact on a player’s likelihood of opting out or forgoing that right, but it’s worth listing out which players will have the opportunity, what their contracts look like, and at least taking an early glance at how they’re performing.
Note: All stats through play on Tuesday.
- Tucker Barnhart, C, Cubs ($3.25MM player option): Barnhart’s deal was announced as a two-year, $6.5MM contract, though he also obtained the right to opt out after 2023, effectively rendering 2024 a player option. He’s 5-for-16 with a walk and four strikeouts through just 17 plate appearances as the backup to Yan Gomes. Barnhart got this guarantee on the heels of a dismal .221/.287/.267 showing with the Tigers in 2022, so with even a decent season he’ll have reason to opt out and try his luck again amid a thin group of free-agent catchers.
- Josh Bell, 1B/DH, Guardians ($16.5MM player option): Bell limped to the finish line with the Padres after being traded over from the Nationals alongside Juan Soto in last summer’s blockbuster, and he hasn’t yet found his footing in 76 plate appearances with the Guardians. It’s a small sample, but Bell’s .203/.316/.344 slash looks quite similar to the .192/.316/.271 he mustered with San Diego in 2022. Bell hit 37 homers in 2019 and 27 in 2021, but he hits the ball on the ground far too often for someone with his power and lack of speed. Only one qualified hitter in MLB (Masataka Yoshida) has a higher ground-ball rate than Bell’s staggering 66.7% mark.
- Trey Mancini, 1B/OF, Cubs ($7MM player option, if he reaches 350 plate appearances): Like Bell, Mancini saw his offensive production crater following a deadline trade (to the Astros) last summer and has not yet recovered in a new setting. Through 60 plate appearances, he’s hitting just .196/.220/.250. While his contract is a two-year, $14MM deal, Mancini can opt out if he reaches 350 plate appearances (i.e., the second year becomes a player option). He isn’t hitting yet, but Mancini is playing regularly and appears to be trending toward earning that right.
- Javier Baez, SS, Tigers (can opt out of remaining four years, $98MM): After turning in a tepid .238/.278/.393 batting line in 590 plate appearances during his first season as a Tiger, Baez would need quite the season to walk away from this kind of cash. So far, he’s hitting .193/.254/.246 in 64 trips to the plate, however. When Baez gets hot, he can go on hot streaks for the ages, but he certainly doesn’t look like he’ll be opting out at season’s end.
- Justin Turner, 3B/DH, Red Sox ($13.4MM player option): Turner hasn’t found his power yet in Boston, but he’s out to a .277/.385/.385 start with nearly as many walks as strikeouts. His $13.4MM player option comes with a hefty $6.7MM buyout. He’ll turn 39 in November, but as long as he hits reasonably well, he should have more earning power than that $6.7MM net decision.
- Jorge Soler, OF/DH, Marlins ($9MM player option): Soler’s three-year, $36MM deal in Miami pays him $12MM in 2022, $15MM in 2023 and $9MM in 2024, but he had the right to opt out after each season of the deal. He hit just .207/.295/.400 with 13 homers in 306 plate appearances last year, so there was no way he was taking the first opt-out. He’s already clubbed five dingers in 62 plate appearances in 2023. His .263/.323/.649 slash translates to a 155 wRC+, and his exit velocity and hard-hit rate are through the roof, so his .256 average on balls in play should at least hold steady. Soler is an extremely streaky hitter, so time will tell how much of this early heater he can sustain, but there’s plenty to like about his start, including a reduced strikeout rate.
- Michael Conforto, OF, Giants ($18MM player option, if he reaches 350 plate appearances): As with Mancini, Conforto is on a two-year deal but gains the right to opt out after one year if he reaches 350 plate appearances. You can call it an opt-out or a player option, but it’s the same mechanism; if Conforto is healthy, he’ll likely get the right to opt out. So far, he’s hitting .220/.373/.439 with a trio of homers in 51 trips to the plate. Conforto has walked nine times in those 51 plate appearances (17.6%), and his chase rate is actually down, so he still has good knowledge of the zone. However, a year-long layoff due to shoulder surgery is perhaps making itself known with a 74.5% contact rate on pitches in the strike zone, as that’s nearly 10 percentage points below his career mark of 84%. Unsurprisingly, Conforto’s 31.4% strikeout rate is a career worst. Some rust was inevitable, though, and the plate discipline and hard contact when he has made contact (94.4 mph exit velo, 52.5% hard-hit rate) are encouraging.
- Matt Carpenter, 1B/DH, Padres ($5.5MM player option): Carpenter’s stunning return with the Yankees last year was one of the best stories of the summer, but he’s out to a sluggish .152/.317/.273 start with the Padres. He’s chasing off the plate at a 30.3% clip after doing so at a 20.7% rate last summer, and his contact rate on swings off the plate has plummeted from 62.5% to 36.4%. It’s a small sample and there’s time to turn things around, of course, but he’s had a tough start.
- Andrew Heaney, LHP, Dodgers ($13MM player option): Heaney’s first Rangers start was one to forget (seven earned runs), but his second start was dominant, as he tied an AL record by fanning nine consecutive hitters. If Heaney tops 150 innings and doesn’t finish the year with an injury that’d likely keep him out for the first 60-plus innings of the 2024 season, the value of that player option jumps to $20MM. He hasn’t reached 150 innings since 2018.
- Seth Lugo, RHP, Padres ($7.5MM player option): Lugo’s return to the rotation has been solid. He’s posted a 2.70 ERA through 16 2/3 frames with strikeout and walk ratios that look similar to his numbers out of the bullpen (24.3% strikeout rate, 7.1% walk rate). It’s anyone’s guess how many innings Lugo will tally after throwing just 228 innings combined from 2019-22, when he was primarily a reliever, but a solid run out of the rotation will position him to turn down that player option in search of a multi-year deal in free agency.
- Sean Manaea, LHP, Giants ($12.5MM player option): The early ERA isn’t much to look at (4.76 in 11 1/3 innings), but the Giants have Manaea averaging 94.7 mph on his four-seamer. That’s a career-high by a wide margin, as he sat 91.7 mph on a now-scrapped sinker in 2021-22 and 91.1 mph on his four-seamer in 2017-20. Any major velocity gain of this nature is worth keeping an eye on.
- Nick Martinez, RHP, Padres (team has two-year, $32MM club option; if declined, Martinez has two-year, $16MM player option): Martinez’s strikeout rate, walk rate, home-run rate and velocity have all gone the wrong direction through his first three starts. It’s just 17 2/3 innings, so it could be rendered a footnote if he rebounds and the Padres pick up their hefty option on the righty. Still, it’s not the start he or the Padres wanted.
- Eduardo Rodriguez, LHP, Tigers (can opt out remaining three years, $49MM): E-Rod hasn’t missed bats anywhere near his Boston levels since signing with the Tigers. The lefty still showed good command both in 2022 and so far in 2023, but his 8.7% swinging-strike rate and 20.4% strikeout rate are well shy of the respective 11.6% and 26% marks he posted in his final four years with the Red Sox. Rodriguez’s velocity in 2023 is back up after a slight dip in 2022, but if he can’t get back to missing bats at his prior levels it’ll be an easy call for him to forego that opt-out provision.
- Max Scherzer, RHP, Mets ($43.333MM player option): Scherzer hasn’t gotten out to his best start, but he posted a 2.29 ERA with gaudy strikeout and walk rates (30.6% and 4.2%) in 145 1/3 frames with the Mets in 2022. He was at the center of controversy after being ejected from today’s start after failing a foreign substance check, though that’s not likely to have any effect on his opt-out decision. Scherzer has already suggested that his opt-out was negotiated in part to ensure that he’d have an opportunity to look elsewhere if the Mets didn’t remain fully committed to winning. That hasn’t been the case under owner Steve Cohen, who’s currently financing the largest payroll and luxury-tax bill in MLB history.
- Ross Stripling, RHP, Giants ($12.5MM player option): Stripling has been ambushed for 10 runs in his first 12 1/3 innings of work and had been set to operate primarily out of the bullpen before the injury to Alex Wood. It’s not a great start considering the weighty $25MM guarantee on his deal, but he has time to turn things around. A stunning six of the 13 fly-balls Stripling has yielded in 2023 have cleared the fence for a home run, and that rate will surely stabilize over a larger sample. Still, if he’s relegated to long-relief duty for too long, it’ll become difficult for him to even consider his opt-out.
- Marcus Stroman, RHP, Cubs ($21MM player option): Stroman took a rather atypical contract structure for a 31-year-old free agent, inking a three-year guarantee at a premium annual value with an opt-out after year two. It’s more common to see pitchers that age push for the longest deal possible, but it might work out in Stroman’s favor. He’ll bank $50MM through the contract’s first two seasons, and after a nice 2022 season (3.50 ERA, 3.74 SIERA in 138 2/3 innings), he’s come roaring out of the gates with a 0.75 ERA and vastly improved 26.9% strikeout rate through his first 24 frames. Stroman’s walk rate is also up, and it’s all a small sample for now anyway, but it’s a promising start all the same. He’ll turn 33 in 2024, and if he continues anywhere near the pace he’s set since 2019 (3.15 ERA in 520 innings), he should have no problem topping that $21MM in free agency. He’ll also be ineligible for a qualifying offer, having already received one earlier in his career.
- Michael Wacha, RHP, Padres (two-year, $32MM club option; if declined, Wacha has $6.5MM player option and $6MM player options in 2025-26): Wacha’s four-year, $26MM deal was effectively just the Padres manipulating the luxury tax by meeting Wacha’s price tag on a multi-year deal but spreading out the term to tamp down the AAV. Wacha’s total guarantee is the type of money one might’ve expected him to land over a two- or perhaps three-year term. By spreading it to four, the Padres could end up avoiding the third luxury-tax bracket. Wacha has a 6.06 ERA through three starts and posted an ERA of 4.76 or worse each season from 2019-21. If he can wind up replicating his strong 2022 results, the Padres might consider picking up their end of the option, but the likelier scenario is that they decline, leaving Wacha with a remaining three years and $19MM, but opt-outs after each season.
- Chad Green, RHP, Blue Jays (three-year, $27MM club option; if declined, Green has $6.25MM player option; if both decline, team has two-year, $21MM option): Green may have the most convoluted contract of the entire free-agent class. That’s reflective both of his considerable talent and the broad range of outcomes as he works back from last May’s Tommy John surgery. We won’t know have an inkling of how this’ll play out until at least the summer, as Green needs to finish off his rehab. If he can return to peak form (1.83 ERA, 40.7% strikeout rate, 6.7% walk rate) for three or so months down the stretch, perhaps the Jays would actually consider the three-year, $27MM option. But that’s premium setup man money, and Green will be coming back from a year-long absence with a major surgery on his recent resume. He’ll have a $6.25MM player option if that three-year team option is declined, and that seems far more plausible. The two-year, $21MM option if both parties decline their first options feels only slightly more viable than the Jays’ original 3/27 decision.
Nothing looks too exciting on here for next season; easy pass.
Trey Mancini has around 50-75 million reasons to opt out if he goes open market.
In what world is Mancini making anywhere near that much money?
He banged 35 HR in 2019 and he banged almost 20 last year despite missing almost 20 games.
2019 was the juiced ball year. Numbers across the league were over inflated. MLB team are kind of aware…
“banged almost 20 last year despite missing almost 20 games” is a creative way to say he didn’t reach 20 HR while playing nearly a full season.
And he’s already considered the GodFather of the clubhouse even though it’s his 1st season in Chicago. Great leader.
He was just on the open market and didn’t get near that. So far he’s not been good for the Cubs. No chance, unless things turn around big time.
15 games is just not enough to jump to needs to turn things around for me. He had a pretty solid ST so I have hope. I do not have a ton of hope for Hosmer. Bring on Mervis and dump either Hosmer or Rios.
Lol he sucks. Super duper overated.
Andrew Heaney Dodgers?
$25 million isn’t a lot for 2 years even if Stripling continues to struggle. KC gave Gil Meche over $40 million for 4 years and that was over 15 years ago.
Stripling sucks so far
He should fit in well in SF then
Sadly so, lately
Heaney and Carpenter – two small sample stars in 2022 who are predictably pumpkins now.
I don’t recall seeing anything like the $6.7M buyout that Justin Turner has on his player option. With player options, it’s usually just forfeiting future earnings rather than paying money out of pocket upfront. Has any player ever paid that much upfront to become a free agent?
Or is it the other way around? Boston pays Turner $6.7M if he opts out?
Yes. The team pays the buyout regardless of who has the option.
Nothing against Turner but that seems like a crazy overpay by Boston.
Bloom basically gave Turner $21.7MM for two years. The Luxury Tax amount is $10.85MM per year.. In 2023 he gets $8.3MM in cash plus he has 5 plate appearance bonuses of $200K for each so at 480 at bats he gets $200K and every 20 at bats beyond that he gets another $200K up to 560 at bats.
In 2024 he gets $13.4MM or he can opt out and get $6.7MM. So basically, if Turner opts out with 560 at bats in 2023 he will cost Boston $14MM. If he stays and gets 560 at bats he’s paid $22.7MM for two years.
But theres a big difference whether the team or player has the option. If Turner is terrible and Red Sox have the option, they’ll take it. If Turner has the option and has a good season, he’ll take it.
Huge advantage to the one who has the option. I’d assume its the team that holds the option. It makes more sense, Player has a guaranteed contract PLUS 6.7M player option, not likely.
It’s a player option. Player options count in the CBT calculation. So it’s essentially a one year $15m contract that has a CBT calculation of a shade under $11m. That’s the advantage of the structure for Boston. The worst case scenario for Boston is if Turner is so bad that he’s not worth the $6.7m net difference and opts in. That’s not an awful outcome.
Well put, ty.
Kamkid – The AAV as explained above is $10.85MM and that’s really the ONLY thing that matters because that impacts the Luxury Tax calculation in both 2023 and 2024..
Cash flow is an ownership issue ONLY and the ownership group is making such incredible profits that this contract from a cash flow perspective is irrelevant.
You have your timing wrong. In year 1 (2023) his cash flow is $8.3 AND the CBT number is $10.85MM. In year 2 (2024) there are two choices:
1 – The player returns in 2024 – Cash Flow is $13.4MM and CBT is $10.85MM
2 – The player opts out in 2024 – Cash Flow is $6.7MM and CBT is $10.85MM
So there is NO ADVANTAGE to this messed up structure. This structure is PRO Justin Turner NOT PRO Boston Red Sox!!
If he opts out because he can do much better after having a decent 2023 then Boston has $10.85MM against the CBT in 2024 AND they still owe him $6.7MM. That means we paid $8.3MM and $6.7MM $15MM for 1 year as you mentioned plus up to $1MM more based on incentives raises total CASH FLOW to $16MM.
But as I mentioned above the CBT is the ONLY thing that matters and he will cost Boston $21.7MM split into two seasons for a guy who only plays 1 year if he opts out which is likely.. The dreaded RETAINED PAYROLL for 2024 will go up $10.85MM thus reducing the available money under the cap by $10.85MM. A really bad idea that will impact next year’s GM!!
THAT’S NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE RED SOX unless we see JT put up number comparable to Devers. That’s not likely to happen.
“ONLY thing that matters because that impacts the Luxury Tax calculation in both 2023 and 2024..”
Luxury tax matters here, it also matters when Bloom does it. Yet last week it was ‘DD was under the Tax for active players’. But DD was over the Tax, and that should be the “only thing that matters”.
KD17, it’s $8.3m this year + the $6.7m buyout = $15m. The lofty buyout on the second year player option incentivizes him to opt out suggesting they simply valued him at $15m for one year and because it’s a player option, saves them $4m in the tax calculation this season. It can bite them next year I guess if he opts in and they are overpaying him but at a net $6.7m valuation, that’s not really an overpay even if he has a bad year. Think about the one year contracts veterans are on. I’m a Jays fan and they signed Belt and Kiermaier to roughly $9m one year deals after poor seasons. They traded actual players to take on Merrifield’s contract at about Turner’s net valuation for next year and Merrifield was having an awful season at the plate when they did and it was the second well below average offensive season in a row for him. I feel like Turner would have to look completely washed or be injured to pick up his option given how thin the free agent market is shaping up to be and the valuation on veteran role players lately. And if he does pick up the option and add the tax hit for next year, they’ll know that right at the start of the offseason and can plan accordingly.
Kamkid – You seem to be missing my main point about why this was a bad deal. The $10.85MM is spent for 2023 and 2024. That’s money against the Luxury Tax unless they trade him. Opting out doesn’t remove the 2024 amount!!! Since they incented him to leave as you mentioned, then Boston just reduced their available payroll by $10.87MM in 2024 for a player on another team in 2024. The AAV is already established.
Does that sound like a wise business move to you? What Bloom has yet to understand is that the CAP is a ceiling. ALL RETAINED PAYROLL effectively reduces available money under the CAP. So in 2024 if Boston had no RETAINED PAYROLL, they would have $237MM to spend on their roster. Bloom already blundered and in 2024 RETAINED PAYROLL includes $2.49MM to Eric Hosmer because they released him. If Turner opts out which is likely then RETAINED PAYROLL will include Hosmer and Turner’s retained amounts ($10.85 + $2.49) totaling $13.34MM. Thus, while other teams will start with $237MM for payroll, Boston will only have $223.66MM. While that may not seem like a big deal, BOSTON under Bloom has been taking on dead contracts (RETAINED PAYROLL) of $6.625MM so far based on two players in 2023, over $48MM in 2022 for 16 players cut, $39MM in 2021 for 13 players cut and $15MM in the COVID season of 2020.
So Bloom has reduced available payroll in his first three years by a total of $102MM!!! 2023’s number is low right now but he doesn’t seem to realize that dead contracts shrink his available money, thus he exceeded the CAP last year. Will he in 2023? Who knows? He doesn’t seem to understand the financial side of his job and must not be getting much help from their financial experts if they have any.
So AAV is the TAX HIT and it’s already there for 2023 and 2024. Turner used $21.7MM of the availalbe payrolls in 2023 and 2024 and Boston may get him for just a few games if he gets hurt in the near future and misses a lot of time. His contract suggests that if it happens, he still opts out because others will know he’s still got skills and may lower their numbers due to chance of injury but he’ll still get a contract and will have cost Boston $21.7MM. He could be an enormous bust if he gets hurt and misses significant time.!!!
Like I said, NOT A GOOD DEAL for the Red Sox unless he gives them $21.7MM in production while wearing their uniform. $21.7MM could have been used far more effectively than picking up a player at that age and offering a contract that benefits him completely.
If the strategy, like many teams in big markets, is to spend to the CAP but not over then Bloom reduced that available money in 2024 when he’s likely not to be in Boston by $10.85MM. How many more lame duck contracts (aka RETAINED PAYROLL) will he leave the next GM.
Paying Turner $15MM would have been a better deal for Boston. It wouldn’t have hurt future spending.
You are mistaken about the TAX hit in 2024. It happens either way. That’s what makes this a bad deal. It’s not ACTIVE payroll it’s RETAINED payroll in 2024 and count against the CAP.
Not quite. The AAV is the tax hit this year. If he opts out his salary is not counted against the ‘24 CBT calculation. If that were the case, you’d still have Bogaerts’ previous AAV as part of your CBT calculation this year and the next two. Yeah, player options have their downside for the team. But in this case when Boston doesn’t want escalating penalties, ‘23 was a priority year to reset. I thought there was easily a way to get under last trade deadline, but I guess they didn’t think of themselves as a last place team at that point.
I agree that 23 needs to be a reset and that there is no excuse for going over in 2022.
Bogey opted out without a buy-out. That’s the difference.
The buy-out is RETAINED PAYROLL reducing available spending in 2024. If he opts in then we have the player for the remainder of the $21.7MM not paid in 2023 and the AAV against the CBT.
Unless JT is completely inept this year it would benefit Boston for him to return. Since that’s not happening. Bloom split the money for JT into two seasons knowing it was likely that he would only play in ONE season. If he puts up $15MM worth of stats then Boston doesn’t get ripped off BUT Bloom should have just paid him $15MM in 2023 and based on performance extended the deal during the season if he was performing at a $15MM a year pace. Instead, Bloom got cute and made it look like he was paying him $10.85MM per year but in fact it was $15 as you stated.
Bloom reduced payroll in the future like he’s done so many times in his tenure in Boston. It’s a terrible strategy. That’s one small reason in a long list of reasons why a new GM is needed.
KD, do you take part in the hosted chats on here? It might be a good place to get clarification on the CBT rules around this. Admittedly, I am unsure about your statement that because he had a buyout, his entire contract is covered in the CBT calculation next year if he opts out. Profar and Eflin also opted out with buyouts this past year, but I don’t see them as calculated against SD’s or Philly’s tax calculation. Furthermore, anything I can see says that buyouts on options are not even retained as part of the calculation. Though I don’t see any clarification around the difference between player/team options. The new CBA might have closed some of the loopholes around this, but the fact Boston used a common mechanism for budgeting CBT hits suggests that the loophole is still there. And I can’t imagine the union agreeing to your scenario where a player is counting $20m in tax calculations for only making $15m as well as counting a full salary to two different ledgers in the same season (he’d count against Boston as well as his new contract with his new team). But at this point, I’m using indirect evidence and an understanding of the way it used to be so I’ll leave room for doubt and curiosity. It sounds like you are a Boston fan with a negative emotional reaction to Bloom so you might not be giving him the benefit of the doubt I am. But I can’t imagine that everyone in the front office would have been unaware of the rules in the new CBA. The writers on this site are well versed on contract mechanisms and their implications. If you ask in one of the chats and get clarification, post a link to the chat as a reply here and I’ll do the same if I happen to get a reply. They get a lot of questions and only get to a few, but it seems like a good time to have it answered as a follow up to this article.
“Cap is a ceiling” KD17
Its not a “ceiling”, its a Threshold that can and probably will be broken next year. Thats the Red Sox plan is get under ’23, then go over ’24, repeat and rinse.So whether they go through it by 1 dollar or 6.7 million, it has doesnt matter. Unless, you are concerned by the owners financial well being, which we know he doesnt.
Kamkid – Lets start with Eflin. He signed a 1 yr $5.7MM contract with Philly on May 24, 2022. This contract had a mutual option for 2023 for $15MM. Either side could opt out. Eflin declined so that money simply disappears and is not on Philly because it was an option not an opt out.
Profar was a bit different. On Jan 22, 2021 Profar signed a 3yr deal worth $21MM with SD. The payouts were $4.5MM in 2021, $8MM in 2022 and he opted out of the final year $7.5MM and took a $1MM buyout. That buyout went against SD’s books in 2022.
That allowed him to sign with anyone and he thought he could do much better than $7.5MM (the SD amount). As it turned out TB paid slightly more than the $7.5MM SD put on the table for him. He got $7.75MM from TB for 2023.
Buyouts always have to go against the team that offered the buyout. They year depends on the timing of the declined option and buy-out. SD included it in their 2022 payroll under Retained Payroll.
I read about the new CBA and I don’t remember much changing with regard to buy-outs. The list of changes didn’t mention it as I recall. I hope to read the new one soon to get familar with all the escalations of payroll over the next several years. The Big Market Teams got a great deal along with the Player’s Association on moving the CAP up so much.
As far as not being a Bloom fan. For me, it’s not about fandom as much as it is about evaluating performance. His performance is worse than Devers’ defense and not many things are!!! Same for Cora. Ownership should have hired experienced people that were the most qualified to continue their success. Instead, they went political. Diversity was an open issue and they addressed it by firing Farell and hiring an unqualified bench coach that was bilingual. Were there lots of better alternatives that would have addressed the diversity issue just as well? Absolutlely. They screwed up.
Same with Bloom. They needed to distract the public from the racism issues with Mookie and Price so after firing DD who was trying to resign Mookie, they chose an OSWALD, a PATSY, to blame the dismissal of Price and Betts. Bloom took the heat, the issue of racism got avoided and ownership was happy. 3 years later the team is disaster thanks to Bloom BUT ownership never got dragged through the mud like they should have been. It’s a win for them but a loss for the fan base.
“They needed to distract the public from the racism issues with Mookie and Price so after firing DD who was trying to resign Mookie, they chose an OSWALD, a PATSY, to blame the dismissal of Price and Betts.”
Where did that story come from KD17? Care to give backup, links? Pure fantasy land stuff right there. Wait, I think I saw a guy holding an open umbrella in the bleacher, ON A SUNNY DAY.
Reality: Neither one of them wanted to stay in Boston, and thats because of the lunatic fringe of the fanbase. They were both fine with the trade. This was not some grand conspiracy.
That is why Bloom traded for Jackie Bradley Jr. He traded away two African American players and had no African American players on the roster so hence the panic move to pick up JBJ In that terrible trade.
Mookie Betts was very involved in helping feed the homeless people in Boston. He was a good guy and should have been signed. He wanted to stay in Boston and should have been signed. Bloom traded him then rescinded the deal because of a medical report on Gateral. Then he had to trade him somewhere and hence the Dodgers trade for Wong, Downs, and Verdugo.
Blaming Bloom while DD is left unscathed.
If Betts shouldve been signed, it wouldve been much easier when they were under cap threshold and further from FA. But, that would mean the fault of him leaving lies with DD, and we cant have that. Ignore the fact that DD wouldnt pay Betts and instead took him all the way to Salary Arbitration. Instead you are blaming the guy hired to get the payroll under the threshold and only a few months to do it. Basically ridiculous.
If he was such a good guy, why didnt DD sign him, when it wouldve been easy? I read comments how ‘Bloom blew it not signing Bogaerts early’. Why doesnt the same rule apply to other GMs?
Instead DD brought Betts all the way to arbitration, where they sat in a room and DD reps argued (and lost) that Betts isnt worth that much money. Yeah, that was great business sense. usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2018/01/31/mookie-be…
There is no way Detroit will be lucky enough to see Baez exercise his opt-out.
Baez cant play ball without the fans completely behind him, he showed this in Chicago as well as NY. Going to Detroit may have been the end of Javy
The Nats got the better end of the Soto/Bell trade, by far…
Good thing the Padres let Bell walk. Lucky AJ Preller…
So the Red Sox have just completed one of the easiest parts of their schedule and are 10-10. My predictive model suggested they would be 11-9 but they lost a game to the model.
BAL – prediction 2-1 actual 2-1
PIT – prediction 2-1 actual 0=3 (lost 2 games on the 74 win pace)
DET – prediction 2-1 actual 3-0 (gained a game back putting them 1 behind the pace)
TB – prediction 1-3 actual 0=4 (lost a game on the 74 win pace)
LAA – prediction 2-2 actual 3-1 (gain back the game they lost to TB)
MIN – prediction 2-1 actual 2-1 (leaving them 1 game behind the pace after 20 games)
MIL – prediction 1-2 (Away series)
BAL – prediction 1=2 (Away series)
CLE – prediction 1-2 (Home series so 2-1 is nearly as likely)
TOR – prediction 1-3 (Home series so 2-2 is nearly as likely)
PHI – prediction 1-2 (Away series)
ATL – prediction 0=2 (Away series otherwise a split would have been the prediction)
This takes us to May 10. If the predictions are correct the team goes 5-13 between now and May 10th so by then their record would be 15-23. This is a tough stretch with plenty of upside potential..
The only two series against bad teams in the near future happens at the end of May. ARI and CIN (both rated “BAD” for prediction purposes) should boost the teams record, however, somebody forgot to tell ARI they were bad!!. Maybe in a few weeks they will return to their original status but right now they lead two “GOOD” teams in the NL West.
If the pitching can continue to improve and Sale keeps looking like AS Sale maybe the team can improve on the 5-13 prediction and put themselves ahead of the predicted 74 win pace.
If Soler stays healthy and stays the course of what he’s been doing, he’ll opt out for sure. He’ll easily get more than $9 million on the open market.
Interesting to see Javier Baez’s failures. If he had one or two less years, I’d be curious about a trade of bad contracts between Avisail Garcia and Javier Baez
the voice inside my head
Everyone seems to understand that Nick Martinez is better suited in long relief than as a starter — except Nick Martinez. If the Padres have to choose between him and Lugo to go to the ‘pen when Musgrove comes off of the DL, Martinez is more likely the one coming out of the rotation. Albeit small sample sizes so far, but if Padres then go to a five-man rotation as expected, Lugo may stay in the rotation over Wacha and the latter dangled at the trade deadline. Of course, injuries will have a say in who stays and who goes.
Red Sox should extend Justin Turner if he has the same numbers after 80 games. The .385 OBP is worth 12 to 15 million next year. Even if his power continues its slide getting on base at a .385 clip is very valuable. If you aren’t hitting home runs, you can’t strikeout more than you walk. Turner is about even between walks and strikeouts so we can live with just 15 to 20 home runs.