Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Because of his familiarity with the staff, Salty would be our best option to bridge the gap to the prospects.  A two year deal would be ideal.  A three year deal wouldn't be the worse thing in the world.  I would not offer more than that.

    I think that the Sox would be willing to go three years with Salty if they could bring him back for that.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Salty is only 28 and it is a "young" 28 due to the fact that he has not caught a lot of games over his career. Catchers often hold value past age 34 or 36, so what is the fear about maybe trading Salty when he is 31 or 32? Teams will likely be beating down the door to trade for a 31-32 year old Salty with 1-2 years of team control.

    3 years may not be enough to land him, so the choice is likely 4 years of Salty (with the rights to trade him) vs 2 years of Ruiz maybe at a higher luxury limit number. I hope McCann is not part of the equation.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    Salty turns 29 next May. It's a young 29, in terms of wear and tear on his body. He's been on the bench of platooned basically his whole ML career. Signing him to a $38M/4 deal makes sense to me.  $9.5M off the luxury limit beats what McCann and Ruiz will probably cost, and if one of our catching prospects proves he's ready, the catching situation in MLB is so dire right now, that teams will be knocking down the door to trade for him at age 30, 31 or 32. Remember guys, VTek did not become the "complete catcher" until about age 31.

    Worst case scenarion: Salty becomes a .225  17 HR (.295 OBP) hitter and an average fielding catcher with throwing issues. At worst, we might have to pay a team a couple million to take him via a trade.

    Best case scenario: Salty continues to improve, and we get 4 good seasons from him against RHPs, or he improves and we trade him for something very very good as Vazquez, Swihart, Lava and/or Denny make the seemless transition.

    [/QUOTE]

    I simply don't see the in house options bearing fruit yet. I have been on this board for 2 years saying Lava is not a C prospect. He is a 4A player that at his advanced age still has no value in a platoon situation. Swihart is 175 pounds and has trouble keeping weight on. Denny is 19. Ruiz is 35 and coming off a horrible year including suspension and wants 2/$20. 

    You forgot Vazquez.

    I agree Lava is probably a 4A player going forward, but there is still hope he can improve. Swihart has a lot of potential, as does Denny. Between the 4 of them, there is a good chance one becomes a plus catcher, or that two combined in a platoon can form a plus.

    Salty warts and all doesn't look so bad for the next couple of years in a platoon. 

    He wants more than 2 years, and there in lies the rub.

    I say give him 4 and trade him if we have to whenever a kid is ready.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from REBEL. Show REBEL's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As reported by mlbtraderumors:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/red-sox-offer-saltalamacchia-two-year-deal.html

    Since I'm confident that he can get three or more years elsewhere, this means to me that he's gone. The FO must know that; this has to be a formality just in case he'll give a home-town discount.

    [/QUOTE]I THINK TWO YEARS WITH A VESTING OPTION 3RD YEAR, AND A MILLION ADDED TO EACH YEAR WOULD GET HIM!  AND, THAT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to REBEL's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As reported by mlbtraderumors:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/red-sox-offer-saltalamacchia-two-year-deal.html

    Since I'm confident that he can get three or more years elsewhere, this means to me that he's gone. The FO must know that; this has to be a formality just in case he'll give a home-town discount.

    [/QUOTE]I THINK TWO YEARS WITH A VESTING OPTION 3RD YEAR, AND A MILLION ADDED TO EACH YEAR WOULD GET HIM!  AND, THAT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE.


    [/QUOTE]

    I am nearly certain Salty is gone. We benched him when it counted most, so obviously he is not valued that highly by Sox management.

    Personally, I think we should offer him:

    2014: $9M

    2015: $9M

    2016: $9M

    2017: $11M club option with a $3M buyout

     

    That amounts to $30M/3 or $38M/4.

     

    If one of our prospects proves he is ready, we can look to trade the 30 or 31 year old Salty.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 808soxfan. Show 808soxfan's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to REBEL's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As reported by mlbtraderumors:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/red-sox-offer-saltalamacchia-two-year-deal.html

    Since I'm confident that he can get three or more years elsewhere, this means to me that he's gone. The FO must know that; this has to be a formality just in case he'll give a home-town discount.

    [/QUOTE]I THINK TWO YEARS WITH A VESTING OPTION 3RD YEAR, AND A MILLION ADDED TO EACH YEAR WOULD GET HIM!  AND, THAT WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE.


    [/QUOTE]

    I am nearly certain Salty is gone. We benched him when it counted most, so obviously he is not valued that highly by Sox management.

    Personally, I think we should offer him:

    2014: $9M

    2015: $9M

    2016: $9M

    2017: $11M club option with a $3M buyout

     

    That amounts to $30M/3 or $38M/4.

     

    If one of our prospects proves he is ready, we can look to trade the 30 or 31 year old Salty.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    +1. Especially given what is out there and the fact that Salty knows the staff. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Salty is only 28 and it is a "young" 28 due to the fact that he has not caught a lot of games over his career. Catchers often hold value past age 34 or 36, so what is the fear about maybe trading Salty when he is 31 or 32? Teams will likely be beating down the door to trade for a 31-32 year old Salty with 1-2 years of team control.

    3 years may not be enough to land him, so the choice is likely 4 years of Salty (with the rights to trade him) vs 2 years of Ruiz maybe at a higher luxury limit number. I hope McCann is not part of the equation.

    [/QUOTE]


    That's a fair enough proposal.  Honestly, I never think in terms of offering a longer deal with the intent of trading the player in the last years of the contract.  That is usually when the contract is worth more than the player.  But, Salty is young enough that it could work.

    I don't think the FO will go 4 years though.  The fact that they didn't give him a QO, coupled with the initial 2 year offer and benching him in the WS, leads me to believe that they think there are better options, which is kind of surprising, since Salty already knows the staff.

    I agree about McCann.  I like him, but his cost will be too high. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    That's a fair enough proposal.  Honestly, I never think in terms of offering a longer deal with the intent of trading the player in the last years of the contract.  That is usually when the contract is worth more than the player.  But, Salty is young enough that it could work.

    I'm not for signing him to a 4 year deal knowing we will trade him, but my point is more about the fact that the 3rd and 4th year shouldn't scare us. If a prospect proves he deserves to play, then we will not get stuck with year 3 and 4. Trading a 30 or 31 year old catcher should be very easy.

     

    I don't think the FO will go 4 years though.  The fact that they didn't give him a QO, coupled with the initial 2 year offer and benching him in the WS, leads me to believe that they think there are better options, which is kind of surprising, since Salty already knows the staff.

    Agreed. Another team will offer him 4 years.

     

    I agree about McCann.  I like him, but his cost will be too high. 

    Agreed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    Sign McCann and get it over already. Have him and Ross behind the plate for 2014 with an eye on moving McCann to a 70/30 split between 1B/CA for 2015; Napoli style first-baseman for the next 5 seasons.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sign McCann and get it over already. Have him and Ross behind the plate for 2014 with an eye on moving McCann to a 70/30 split between 1B/CA for 2015; Napoli style first-baseman for the next 5 seasons.

    [/QUOTE]

    He's not worth that kind of money as a 1Bman/DH.

    Also, with the glut of young 3Bmen in our system, it might not be a bad idea to plan for one to slide over to 1B by 2015 or 2016 at the latest.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    Phillies To Re-Sign Carlos Ruiz
    By Steve Adams [November 18 at 10:34am CST]
    Free agent catcher Carlos Ruiz will re-sign with the Phillies, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (on Twitter). Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer tweets that Ruiz's contract will guarantee him $26MM over three years.

    Ruiz, also known as "Chooch," is represented by agent Marc Kligman. The 34-year-old began the season with a 25-game suspension for amphetamine usage and was limited by a hamstring injury upon his return. As such, the .268/.320/.368 batting line produced by Ruiz doesn't tell the whole story of his season. Over the season's final two months, the Panamanian backstop slashed .288/.343/.444.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    The Red Sox were in the bidding for catcher Carlos Ruiz "to the end" until the Phillies offered a third year and a higher AAV, according to ESPN's Jayson Stark:

    https://twitter.com/jaysonst

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Red Sox were in the bidding for catcher Carlos Ruiz "to the end" until the Phillies offered a third year and a higher AAV, according to ESPN's Jayson Stark:

    https://twitter.com/jaysonst

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm glad the Phillies got him, but hope it doesn't drive into overpaying for McCann.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    doesnt the Ruiz deal in his 35th, 36th and 37th years age with an annual AAV of $8.5 make Salty at 4 years with an annual AAV of $10 even more attractive?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    ruben amaro jr is a dope.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    doesnt the Ruiz deal in his 35th, 36th and 37th years age with an annual AAV of $8.5 make Salty at 4 years with an annual AAV of $10 even more attractive?

    [/QUOTE]

    You'd think so. Salty is just 28. He'll be 31 to start the 4th year of his deal: still prime.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    There is no more prime than 28-32.... it is the best time, prime time

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    Following the 2004 season, the Red Sox signed Jason Varitek to a four-year, $40 million contract when the 32-year-old switch-hitting catcher was coming off a World Series title and a 4.1 WAR* season:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/12/24/sox_have_deal_to_keep_varitek/?page=full

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=217&position=C

    Jarrod Saltamacchia is a 28-year-old switch-hitting catcher coming off a Word Series title and a 3.6 WAR** season:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5557&position=C

    A 4.1 WAR season in 2004 was valued at $12.8 million while a 3.6 WAR season in 2013 was valued at $17.8 million, according to the WAR conversions at FanGraphs.

    MLB salaries have gone up roughly 50 percent from Opening Day 2004 to Opening Day 2013 and are expected to spike this offseason with the influx of new television revenues.

    A catcher's worth is difficult to measure because of intangibles -- such as the handling of a pitching staff -- that are hard to quantify.  

    Nevertheless, Jarrod Saltalamacchia won't come cheap.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs

    ** to be fair, Varitek had accumulated 11.9 WAR in the four seasons leading up to the $40 million contract while Saltalamacchia has accumulated 7.2 WAR over the last four seasons (all but 0.1 in the last three seasons)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from djcbuffum. Show djcbuffum's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Following the 2004 season, the Red Sox signed Jason Varitek to a four-year, $40 million contract when the 32-year-old switch-hitting catcher was coming off a World Series title and a 4.1 WAR* season:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/12/24/sox_have_deal_to_keep_varitek/?page=full

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=217&position=C

    Jarrod Saltamacchia is a 28-year-old switch-hitting catcher coming off a Word Series title and a 3.6 WAR** season:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5557&position=C

    A 4.1 WAR season in 2004 was valued at $12.8 million while a 3.6 WAR season in 2013 was valued at $17.8 million, according to the WAR conversions at FanGraphs.

    MLB salaries have gone up roughly 50 percent from Opening Day 2004 to Opening Day 2013 and are expected to spike this offseason with the influx of new television revenues.

    A catcher's worth is difficult to measure because of intangibles -- such as the handling of a pitching staff -- that are hard to quantify.  

    Nevertheless, Jarrod Saltalamacchia won't come cheap.

    * Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs

    ** to be fair, Varitek had accumulated 11.9 WAR in the four seasons leading up to the $40 million contract while Saltalamacchia has accumulated 7.2 WAR over the last four seasons (all but 0.1 in the last three seasons)

    [/QUOTE]

    This is good info, but don't forget that Varitek wore the "C" on his jersey for a reason. I don't think Salty could earn that honor. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    when valuing wins above replacement, which both the RS and Salty are doing, wearing a "C" on the jersey means zero.

    lets not annoit Salty as CFisk, but lets also not lump him with Lava. Metric's indicate Salty has a fair market value. Either the RS will pay that value, or they will find some one else. I have no issue walking away from Salty and finding some one else, but the question is who is out there? The choices seem really unappealing, Mcann at his $$$ value included.

    I keep reading that Weiters is available, but trading for him only means you are dealing with Boras in 24 months. I would trade for Weiters, if the asking price was reasonable for a 2 year rental. Would Weiters for Workman work for both teams? O's need pitching with controlable years...they have to sign Davis, Jones, Machado, etc

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    when valuing wins above replacement, which both the RS and Salty are doing, wearing a "C" on the jersey means zero.

    lets not annoit Salty as CFisk, but lets also not lump him with Lava. Metric's indicate Salty has a fair market value. Either the RS will pay that value, or they will find some one else. I have no issue walking away from Salty and finding some one else, but the question is who is out there? The choices seem really unappealing, Mcann at his $$$ value included.

    I keep reading that Weiters is available, but trading for him only means you are dealing with Boras in 24 months. I would trade for Weiters, if the asking price was reasonable for a 2 year rental. Would Weiters for Workman work for both teams? O's need pitching with controlable years...they have to sign Davis, Jones, Machado, etc

    [/QUOTE]

    The thing about Weiters is that we get 2 years of control, which is just about what we need.

    We lose Ross after 2014, so Lava or Vazquez should step in. After 2015, we might be able to go with Lava & Vazquez or maybe Swihart may win one slot by then.

    Lastly, Weiters might net us a comp pick after 2 years.

    The negative: we have to lose a player or two to get him: maybe Lava, Britton and Johnson.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    when valuing wins above replacement, which both the RS and Salty are doing, wearing a "C" on the jersey means zero.

    lets not annoit Salty as CFisk, but lets also not lump him with Lava. Metric's indicate Salty has a fair market value. Either the RS will pay that value, or they will find some one else. I have no issue walking away from Salty and finding some one else, but the question is who is out there? The choices seem really unappealing, Mcann at his $$$ value included.

    I keep reading that Weiters is available, but trading for him only means you are dealing with Boras in 24 months. I would trade for Weiters, if the asking price was reasonable for a 2 year rental. Would Weiters for Workman work for both teams? O's need pitching with controlable years...they have to sign Davis, Jones, Machado, etc

    [/QUOTE]

    The thing about Weiters is that we get 2 years of control, which is just about what we need.

    We lose Ross after 2014, so Lava or Vazquez should step in. After 2015, we might be able to go with Lava & Vazquez or maybe Swihart may win one slot by then.

    Lastly, Weiters might net us a comp pick after 2 years.

    The negative: we have to lose a player or two to get him: maybe Lava, Britton and Johnson.

    [/QUOTE]

    I have no where near the regard for Lava as you seemingly do. His hitting has regressed. His defensive skills have never been evident. The pitchers hate throwing to him.

    The RS seem to favor a C situation with one catcher behind the plate 100-115 games per year and the other C behind the plate 45-65 games. I see no spot for Lava under this alignment.

    Theoretically to trade for Weiters the O's would also prefer a C to come back to them. I have to think Swihart/Denney is off the table, but the O's would then look to Vasquez, Butler with no interest in Lava.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:

    This is good info, but don't forget that Varitek wore the "C" on his jersey for a reason. I don't think Salty could earn that honor

    The "C" is one of those intangibles ... and I agree that Jarrod Saltalamacchia has not earned that honor.

    Here is a philosophical question: Is the "C" an attribute that should be compensated for financially or is the "C" itself a form of compensation? In other words, can an employer say we can give you only a modest raise this year, so we'll sweeten the deal by giving you a more prestigious title within the company?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    The thing about Weiters is that we get 2 years of control, which is just about what we need.

    We lose Ross after 2014, so Lava or Vazquez should step in. After 2015, we might be able to go with Lava & Vazquez or maybe Swihart may win one slot by then.

    Lastly, Weiters might net us a comp pick after 2 years.

    The negative: we have to lose a player or two to get him: maybe Lava, Britton and Johnson.

    [/QUOTE]

    I have no where near the regard for Lava as you seemingly do. His hitting has regressed. His defensive skills have never been evident. The pitchers hate throwing to him. 

    The RS seem to favor a C situation with one catcher behind the plate 100-115 games per year and the other C behind the plate 45-65 games. I see no spot for Lava under this alignment.

    Theoretically to trade for Weiters the O's would also prefer a C to come back to them. I have to think Swihart/Denney is off the table, but the O's would then look to Vasquez, Butler with no interest in Lava.

     

    I don't have much faith in Lava, but he still has a chance to do well, at least on offense. With the state of catching being as it is right now in MLB, there is probably some team that would want him as part of a package, even if just to increase their odds that one of their catchers will improve.

    I'd avoid giving Vazquez, and they might want more of an immediate return than Swihart/Denny.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The thing about Weiters is that we get 2 years of control, which is just about what we need.

    We lose Ross after 2014, so Lava or Vazquez should step in. After 2015, we might be able to go with Lava & Vazquez or maybe Swihart may win one slot by then.

    Lastly, Weiters might net us a comp pick after 2 years.

    The negative: we have to lose a player or two to get him: maybe Lava, Britton and Johnson.

    [/QUOTE]

    I have no where near the regard for Lava as you seemingly do. His hitting has regressed. His defensive skills have never been evident. The pitchers hate throwing to him. 

    The RS seem to favor a C situation with one catcher behind the plate 100-115 games per year and the other C behind the plate 45-65 games. I see no spot for Lava under this alignment.

    Theoretically to trade for Weiters the O's would also prefer a C to come back to them. I have to think Swihart/Denney is off the table, but the O's would then look to Vasquez, Butler with no interest in Lava.

     

    I don't have much faith in Lava, but he still has a chance to do well, at least on offense. With the state of catching being as it is right now in MLB, there is probably some team that would want him as part of a package, even if just to increase their odds that one of their catchers will improve.

    I'd avoid giving Vazquez, and they might want more of an immediate return than Swihart/Denny.

    [/QUOTE]

    Interdivision trades are extremely rare these days and even if they weren't, why would Baltimore want to help make one of their biggest competitors better, unless they were getting a ridiculous package (which the Sox would never do) in return for him?   It's obviously possible the Orioles move Weitters, but the odds that they would trade him within the AL East are next to zero.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from djcbuffum. Show djcbuffum's posts

    Re: Sox offer Salty a 2-year deal.

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:

    This is good info, but don't forget that Varitek wore the "C" on his jersey for a reason. I don't think Salty could earn that honor

    The "C" is one of those intangibles ... and I agree that Jarrod Saltalamacchia has not earned that honor.

    Here is a philosophical question: Is the "C" an attribute that should be compensated for financially or is the "C" itself a form of compensation? In other words, can an employer say we can give you only a modest raise this year, so we'll sweeten the deal by giving you a more prestigious title within the company?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think your question is more abstract than you intended. Of course a generic employer can offer nominal promotions and symbolic compensation in lieu of financial benefits. But I don't think that's really your question.

    I think you're wondering to what extent it is done in baseball. There are non-financial clauses in contracts; players get no-trade clauses, for one. A player could agree to a better parking spot, or a weekly canasta game with John Henry, as a non-financial benefit in exchange for a smaller pay raise. I would argue that Dustin Pedroia has accepted a lesser salary from the Sox in exchange for non-monetary compensation -- respect, de facto leadership, and stability.

    Or maybe you were asking people's opinion of the practice? I think there's nothing wrong with it so long as both parties agree. If I had an employer approach me with an offer of non-monetary compensation, I would hope for an explanation. Profits are down, nobody's getting a raise, etc. etc. It would likely be a bit of a blow to my enthusiasm for the job; depending on my level of job satisfaction and/or my ability to find a different, better paying job it might or might not be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

     

Share