Getting that roof to enclose completely over T Mobile Park may be the only “move” to healthy offense roster building. Gotta get that place consistently at room temperature, baby!
The cronenworth stuff Steve said in this chat was hilarious.
First it was his contract is 50-60m under water.
He is on a 6 year 71m deal as of now.
50-60m underwater would mean he is worth 2-3m yearly. He had a 2 war last year. That’s arguably worth more than 11-12m aav he is currently at. At least from a cost per war standpoint.
Then he said players like him sign 2 year 16-20m deals. That’s a 8-10m aav, far more than 2-3m. That value is already at or more than his neg 50-60m stated and only covers two years.
Lastly he says he thinks he is worth 2/15 which is 7.5m per.
All this just means throwing out he has a neg 50-60m number ridiculous. People come on here and ask questions in the chat thinking they are going to get good answers. This one unfortunately was a mess of an answer.
What he meant is that Cronenworth would only be able to sign a 2 year deal for about $15M right now. That doesn’t mean he is worth $7.5M per year on a 5 year deal.
Basically it means that the team trading for him would be spending $50 to $60 more than if he were a free agent right now.
He isn’t talking about trade value, he’s talking about the cost of his contract
I don’t agree with the entirety of the Cronenworth take. If he were a free agent, yeah somewhere around 2/15m is probably in the ballpark. If a guy is worth 7.5m in years 1 & 2 is he really worth $0 for years 3-6 to a potential team?
He’s a versatile player that had a 101 OPS+ in 2024 and was a 2 win player despite playing alot at 1b. He strikes out 20% less than league average and walks 10% more.
It’s not hard at all to imagine him being a 3 win 2b for the next couple seasons. He’s a 31 year old athlete who is nowhere near the tail end of his career.
One thing is for sure If teams see him as being 50m under water there is no reason to even consider trading him. It’s too bad they can’t just play him at 2b everyday… love watching his inner hockey player come out and diving to his side to snag a liner. Not that his defense at 1b isn’t a huge upgrade over Arraez and Hosmer before him just not utilizing him to his fullest.
He also said they get 2/16-20m deals which is even more than 2/15. Think he was back tracking with his math instead of just coming out and saying his first answer was off.
The problem with Cronenworth’s deal is the length, as well as the dollars. No way could he sign a deal this year for 6 years and over $72M. If he was on a 2/$25M deal (which is in line with what he’s being paid now by SD), they’d probably be able to move him. But that’s still an overpay for his production. And, no team will want to be committed to paying him over $12M a year in his age 35 and 36 seasons. Especially when guys like him can be had for 1/$8M-$10M, or 2/$15M.
They consider moving him because his deal is as bad, if not worse, than the Bogaert’s deal. They probably will wind up holding on to him, but not because they want to.
Maybe $60M is “crazy wrong”, but not sure the lower number can be described that way. That number was probably off the top of his head, and is bigger than it should be, but it’s not a huge exaggeration.
If the negative value is about $4M -$5M now, it’s probably $6M-$8M 2 years from now, and probably $8M-$10M 4 years from now, which factors to a minimum of $26M, but as much $46M.
Dave’s comment makes no sense. If the goal is to extend a player’s tenure with a team, why even make it an “option”? Why not just guarantee that extra year?
If Dave’s team signed a FA against tough competition from other teams wanting the same guy, and that deal included opt-outs, then the opt-outs were probably the factor that made that signing possible. Players love opt-outs. Fans don’t, but the result of not offering them, is often losing a FA to another team.
Dave is completely off base. It’s not players versus fans. That stance just demonstrates jealousy of players’ salaries without acknowledging owners have way more money than players.
@ 1:22
Getting that roof to enclose completely over T Mobile Park may be the only “move” to healthy offense roster building. Gotta get that place consistently at room temperature, baby!
Jeff – Maybe they can get a BOGO on roof replacements, take care of Tampa and Seattle at the same time.
I feel ya, Fever, I feel ya! Cheers.
Jeff – How did you know I’m watching Cheers right now on Pluto TV! For real!
LOL
Can’t speak for all Sox fans of course but the reason I personally want them shopping Duran is multifold:
1. Team has dearth of LH outfielders on the big squad and up and coming. Someone has to go.
2. SELL HIGH. Diminutive chance he repeats the success of last year.
3. Homophobe.
4. Just all around an annoying obnoxious guy that’s difficult to root for.
tom – I get why you dislike Duran, personally I don’t like his constant swearing. But he’s way too valuable to ship off.
And if trading him means they are forced to start Rafaela in CF every day, that’s a big no from me.
Agree with all of this, Bruno.
He doesn’t seem scared of gay people.
If option years on contracts was really about the fans’ love for their players, teams would make that option year guaranteed.
The cronenworth stuff Steve said in this chat was hilarious.
First it was his contract is 50-60m under water.
He is on a 6 year 71m deal as of now.
50-60m underwater would mean he is worth 2-3m yearly. He had a 2 war last year. That’s arguably worth more than 11-12m aav he is currently at. At least from a cost per war standpoint.
Then he said players like him sign 2 year 16-20m deals. That’s a 8-10m aav, far more than 2-3m. That value is already at or more than his neg 50-60m stated and only covers two years.
Lastly he says he thinks he is worth 2/15 which is 7.5m per.
All this just means throwing out he has a neg 50-60m number ridiculous. People come on here and ask questions in the chat thinking they are going to get good answers. This one unfortunately was a mess of an answer.
What he meant is that Cronenworth would only be able to sign a 2 year deal for about $15M right now. That doesn’t mean he is worth $7.5M per year on a 5 year deal.
Basically it means that the team trading for him would be spending $50 to $60 more than if he were a free agent right now.
He isn’t talking about trade value, he’s talking about the cost of his contract
I don’t agree with the entirety of the Cronenworth take. If he were a free agent, yeah somewhere around 2/15m is probably in the ballpark. If a guy is worth 7.5m in years 1 & 2 is he really worth $0 for years 3-6 to a potential team?
He’s a versatile player that had a 101 OPS+ in 2024 and was a 2 win player despite playing alot at 1b. He strikes out 20% less than league average and walks 10% more.
It’s not hard at all to imagine him being a 3 win 2b for the next couple seasons. He’s a 31 year old athlete who is nowhere near the tail end of his career.
One thing is for sure If teams see him as being 50m under water there is no reason to even consider trading him. It’s too bad they can’t just play him at 2b everyday… love watching his inner hockey player come out and diving to his side to snag a liner. Not that his defense at 1b isn’t a huge upgrade over Arraez and Hosmer before him just not utilizing him to his fullest.
He also said they get 2/16-20m deals which is even more than 2/15. Think he was back tracking with his math instead of just coming out and saying his first answer was off.
The problem with Cronenworth’s deal is the length, as well as the dollars. No way could he sign a deal this year for 6 years and over $72M. If he was on a 2/$25M deal (which is in line with what he’s being paid now by SD), they’d probably be able to move him. But that’s still an overpay for his production. And, no team will want to be committed to paying him over $12M a year in his age 35 and 36 seasons. Especially when guys like him can be had for 1/$8M-$10M, or 2/$15M.
They consider moving him because his deal is as bad, if not worse, than the Bogaert’s deal. They probably will wind up holding on to him, but not because they want to.
Maybe but that doesn’t make him have a 50-60m in neg trade value. That’s statement was crazy wrong.
Maybe $60M is “crazy wrong”, but not sure the lower number can be described that way. That number was probably off the top of his head, and is bigger than it should be, but it’s not a huge exaggeration.
If the negative value is about $4M -$5M now, it’s probably $6M-$8M 2 years from now, and probably $8M-$10M 4 years from now, which factors to a minimum of $26M, but as much $46M.
Why did we get 3 questions on Jake Cronenworth???
Because the first answer Steve gave was incredibly ignorant. So follow up questions flooded in.
Dave speaking truth.
Dave’s comment makes no sense. If the goal is to extend a player’s tenure with a team, why even make it an “option”? Why not just guarantee that extra year?
If Dave’s team signed a FA against tough competition from other teams wanting the same guy, and that deal included opt-outs, then the opt-outs were probably the factor that made that signing possible. Players love opt-outs. Fans don’t, but the result of not offering them, is often losing a FA to another team.
Dave is completely off base. It’s not players versus fans. That stance just demonstrates jealousy of players’ salaries without acknowledging owners have way more money than players.
Steve is the only writer who has never used even one of my q’s.
Clearly he hates you.