Bryce Harper
Getty Images

Report: Giants to offer short-term deal to Bryce Harper

14 Comments

The Giants may not be willing to meet Bryce Harper‘s 10-year, $300+ million asking price, but that doesn’t mean they’re unwilling to sign the 26-year-old this winter. The two sides met for a four-hour meeting in Las Vegas on Monday, after which club president Farhan Zaidi said there was “mutual interest on both sides,” then added, “You don’t make a trip out there to meet with a player just for show.”

According to a report from USA Today’s Bob Nightengale on Sunday, the Giants are now positioning themselves to offer the six-time All-Star a hefty short-term deal, though any contract specifics have yet to be divulged. Nightengale points out that the Giants were all too eager to trade for Giancarlo Stanton — and his $265 million price tag — during the 2018 offseason, which might suggest that some financial flexibility exists for the right player. That fits with recent speculation from MLB Network’s Jon Heyman, who claimed that as many as eight teams were still pursuing Harper, more than a few of which would reportedly prefer to make a more modest commitment before Opening Day rolls around.

While there’s no reason to believe the Giants won’t make a serious offer to Harper, it’s also worth pointing out that similar optimism has followed each of the outfielder’s previous meetings this offseason. The Phillies were the reported favorites to land Harper after multiple discussions with the slugger, while the Padres were said to favor Harper over free agent Manny Machado in the days after their own face-to-face meeting with him. If Harper and agent Scott Boras truly have shifted their focus from the Phillies, Padres, Nationals, and White Sox (and any number of mystery teams) to the Giants, they’ll make their intentions known relatively soon.

John Henry tries to justify the Red Sox’ trade of Mookie Betts

Getty Images
2 Comments

Red Sox owner John Henry issued a lengthy statement to fans today trying to explain and justify the team’s trade of Mookie Betts. It’s a master class in distortion that will, in all likelihood, make no one happy.

Henry starts by talking about “challenges.” The “particularly challenging” offseason the Red Sox had, the “extraordinary challenges” the Red Sox faced, and the front office’s handling of these “challenges.” He goes on to talk about how he knows the “challenges” affect the fans and how he sees it as his job to protect the organization from these “challenges.”

There’s a lot of passive voice here, and at no point does Henry note that the primary challenge at play here was the team’s decision to cut payroll and get it below the Competitive Balance Tax threshold. It’s just a thing that happened to the Red Sox, apparently. They had no agency in this at all.

For what it’s worth, the team keeps denying that the CBT was the motivating factor:

This is laughable, of course, given that Henry himself began the Red Sox’ offseason by specifically saying the team needed top do just that. His exact words from late September:

“This year we need to be under the CBT . . .  that was something we’ve known for more than a year now. If you don’t reset there are penalties so we’ve known for some time now we needed to reset as other clubs have done.”

Three days later, Kennedy himself said it’d “be difficult” to keep both Betts and J.D. Martinez and accomplish that goal. When that all went over like a lead balloon with the fans Henry and everyone else tried to walk it back, but you have to be an idiot not to see what happened here:

  1. Owner demands team get under CBT;
  2. Team president says it’ll be hard to do that without one of the superstars leaving;
  3. Martinez declines to op-out of his deal;
  4. Betts is traded.

They can cite all the “challenges” they want, but they traded Betts in order to slash payroll and they slashed payroll simply because they wanted to, not, as we and many others have demonstrated, because of any compelling reason.

Instead of talking about that, Henry spends the bulk of the statement talking about how baseball’s financial system — free agency, basically — requires teams to make tough choices. Henry:

In today’s game there is a cost to losing a great player to free agency — one that cannot merely be made up by the draft pick given. . . . we felt we could not sit on our hands and let him go without getting value in return to help us on our path forward.”

Losing a player to free agency stinks, but nowhere in the entire statement does Henry mention that the Sox could’ve, you know, not lost Betts to free agency next November.

Nowhere does he note that the Sox had a full year to talk to Betts about a possible extension nor did he mention that the Sox — who print money at a faster rate than anyone except the Yankees — could’ve bid on him in free agency too. He simply does not allow for the possibility that a 2021 Boston Red Sox team could’ve done what the 2020 Washington Nationals did, for example, and sign one of their big, would-be departing free agents in Stephen Strasburg. Nor, for that matter, does he allow for the possibility that they could do what the 2019 Washington Nationals did with their all-but-certain-to-depart superstar in Anthony Rendon: hold on to him in his walk year and win a damn World Series. Guess it was a “challenge” to go into all of that.

Of course, as we’ve seen across baseball this past week, it’s really, really hard to explain something when you don’t want to admit the facts and accept the consequences of it all. That’s maybe the toughest challenge of them all.

The full statement: