poppysox

Diminishing skills do not mean no skills, and I suggest 2-4 years at 10-14-M, not the 20 M option cost. Lastly, you can drop the attitude as well.

What is in front of my face is that Robert has probably underperformed his agent's expectations as well as mine. I don't pretend to know what they would settle for. I would like to retain Robert for the lowest price possible (I suggest 10-14 M per year for 2-4 years because he is worth that to me. That is in-line with his defensive and speed attributes. Several years ago, the Cubs had Jason Heyward with the same problem, and his 20 M salary became an albatross for both him and the Cubs. Now, if Getz can't have a meeting of the minds with Robert...trade him.

Extending a player with diminished skills is not fantasy. You can drop the attitude.

The question was My preference, not Robert.

Extend him 2 to 4 years somewhere in the 10-14M range or trade him. No way am I picking up the option.

Who doesn't!

Carnak knows all.

independent economist=oximoron

I grasp it just fine. We simply disagree on how the club should proceed. I obviously think Robert has more value to the WS than some of you. If they don't offer him an extension and if no deal transpires...give the man his 2 M buyout and wait to see how that works out.

What I do understand is if I used 20 M per year X 4 years you would claim that I was grossly overvaluing his worth. Why don't you state his value as you see it and save everybody a lot of time.

I didn't say I was right. I said neither you or I know what he's thinking.

You are suggesting he is willing to bet on himself, which, of course, is possible. He might also have seen the Tim Anderson career implosion. Let's not act like the 40 million offer I suggest isn't a lot of money.

I doubt you or I know where he wants to be. He looked very happy trading high 5's with his teammates before last night's game.

Multiple people here have explained he is worthless. Maybe something in the middle is more accurate.

I think 40 million is a little better than your example.

It costs absolutely nothing to ask.

Nothing about it is confusing. Robert can accept a new offer if he chooses. The WS can choose to make an offer...pick up the 20 M option to retain his services, or buy him out for the 2 M option, or trade him to any interested party. I suggest we make a reasonable offer (4 years at 10M). If he doesn't accept the new contract proposal...trade him for the best offer.

I would make the offer. That, of course, presumes that offers suck as most here suggest.

If Robert were a FA from another team, I would be happy to offer 4 years at 10 million. Why would you want to settle for a box of rocks?

You can't have it both ways...either he isn't worth 10 M per year or he's much to good to accept that salary. You guys keep insisting we won't get squat and then will b**** when he goes elsewhere and reverts to his 2023 ways.

No. However, I would like us to offer a multi-year contract in the area of 4 years at $ 10 million per year. I realize that most here say he won't take it. That's fine...then trade him. But at least try to keep his potential at an affordable cost.

The Sox went 67-95 in 2017.

Hard to believe...But I feel confident about a W tonight.

Those players preferring the Yankees over the Sox had better make twice the salary. Living in NY ain't for sissies.

My current observation is that we have 21 players who I judge to be of major league caliber. That includes Robert, Houser, Civale, Tauchman, Benintendi, and others frequently mentioned by forum members as possible trade chips. I don't care if we trade all or some of them. What I want as a first step is 26 major league-caliber type players. A franchise in a major market should not be running a 50-million-dollar payroll. We all know a competitive team can be bought for 200-250 million payroll. I don't even expect that...however, 26 people who would be in the major leagues for other teams seems a doable goal for even JR.