SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2019 17:10:49 GMT -5
Interesting. Can you please also summarize the comparison that Gammons is making with Benintendi to Yaz and Lynn? The comparison was that Benitendi was positioned to become this generation's sweet-swinging lefthander like Yaz and Lynn. After mentioning their similar statures,he then pointed out that both Yaz and Lynn struggled in their 25 year old seasons before breaking out. Thanks. Lynn kind of broke out at age 23 (I think he was either 22 or 23 in 1975) when he was Rookie of the Year and MVP at the same time. Yes, he had his huge year in 1979 after a big step back in 1976 and some good but not so overwhelming 1977 and 1978 seasons. Yaz did break out at age 27 after he graduated college and had the offseason time to devote to rigorous training. I hope Benintendi does as well. I think there were some Christian Yelich comps in the past but that's before Yelich broke out even more than could reasonably be expected. I can't see Benintendi having a 39 HR or 44 HR year like Lynn and Yaz did. I thought he'd be a contender for the batting title eventually. I really hope he takes that next step. I know it can take time. Bogaerts and Devers took it this year although it took X longer to do so, and that's after a big step forward by X last season. If Beni does do that then yes you have to try to extend him. Otherwise he becomes a casualty of the Sox big spending when they prioritize.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 13, 2019 19:04:50 GMT -5
Interesting. Can you please also summarize the comparison that Gammons is making with Benintendi to Yaz and Lynn? If you're looking to avoid signing up for their service, you can read 3 free articles a month on The Athletic app
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 14, 2019 3:26:15 GMT -5
Last post on this thread until the off-season, but this is turning into classic Red Sox spin here. "Mookie doesn't like Boston if he doesn't want to get paid here." Crap. Crap. Crap. Translation- I'm sure the Sox want to pay him, I'm sure they want to make him the face of the franchise. They want to probably do it at their price point, however. The Sox are probably nervous that this might not happen. Their idea of paid is probably different than Mookies. This is why they're scouting other team's farm systems. They have no idea if their best offer is enough to keep Mookie. They did the same thing to another former Red Sox franchise player; Nomar Garciaparra. They negotiated with Nomar a year before free agency. Negotiations soured. The Red Sox put out a story of them offering 4/60 to Nomar Garciaparra to the press. Complete fabrication and spin. The Sox never offered it. The burning question and statement of "Why didn't Nomar take the money? He must not like it here in Boston." popped up a ton, and the blame was placed directly on the player. It was kind of ingenious spin to get out of the blame. Nomar was soon "all Boston'd out" after terrible negotions and injuries in 2004 that ruined his season to that point. No wonder. I see the same thing happening here. Fans will buy it too. I've seen fans already posting about if Mookie even likes Boston throughout the past year, multiple times. Buying the same crap. Don't buy that crap people. This is solely on the Sox if they don't get a deal done and they don't reach Mookie's value on a contract. Mookie says he loves Boston. No reason not to believe him. Mookie has actually been very forthright about everything and telling it how it is so far when it comes to his free agent status so far. The most likely simple fact about Mookie is that while he loves Boston, he probably loves money more. That's perfectly okay. Would love to be proven wrong about all this and would gladly leave the board if I'm wrong and if some people hate my opinion that much. Whatever. Sox better put their money where their mouth is. Probably the most critical decision of the John Henry ERA is coming up.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 14, 2019 9:39:13 GMT -5
Last post on this thread until the off-season, but this is turning into classic Red Sox spin here. "Mookie doesn't like Boston if he doesn't want to get paid here." Crap. Crap. Crap. Translation- I'm sure the Sox want to pay him, I'm sure they want to make him the face of the franchise. They want to probably do it at their price point, however. The Sox are probably nervous that this might not happen. Their idea of paid is probably different than Mookies. This is why they're scouting other team's farm systems. They have no idea if their best offer is enough to keep Mookie. They did the same thing to another former Red Sox franchise player; Nomar Garciaparra. They negotiated with Nomar a year before free agency. Negotiations soured. The Red Sox put out a story of them offering 4/60 to Nomar Garciaparra to the press. Complete fabrication and spin. The Sox never offered it. The burning question and statement of "Why didn't Nomar take the money? He must not like it here in Boston." popped up a ton, and the blame was placed directly on the player. It was kind of ingenious spin to get out of the blame. Nomar was soon "all Boston'd out" after terrible negotions and injuries in 2004 that ruined his season to that point. No wonder. I see the same thing happening here. Fans will buy it too. I've seen fans already posting about if Mookie even likes Boston throughout the past year, multiple times. Buying the same crap. Don't buy that crap people. This is solely on the Sox if they don't get a deal done and they don't reach Mookie's value on a contract. Mookie says he loves Boston. No reason not to believe him. Mookie has actually been very forthright about everything and telling it how it is so far when it comes to his free agent status so far. The most likely simple fact about Mookie is that while he loves Boston, he probably loves money more. That's perfectly okay. Would love to be proven wrong about all this and would gladly leave the board if I'm wrong and if some people hate my opinion that much. Whatever. Sox better put their money where their mouth is. Probably the most critical decision of the John Henry ERA is coming up. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think there's a little more. I think the Sox want to know - if they make Mookie a market offer this winter - will he take it? If not, then the Red Sox face this potential problem Say Mookie has another strong season and now it's Nov 2020. The Red Sox could offer him $40 million/year for 13 years hypothetically. They won't, but say they make a really strong market offer. Some other team could come along, one with plenty of payroll and still top the Red Sox already huge offer - and the Sox lose him for a 4th round draft pick. In Nov 2020 that's possible albeit that the Sox won't make the kind (nor should they) of offer I threw out there. I mean if they put out a 11 year $33 million/year deal, isn't that highly reasonable? But if another team is willing to give him a record setting contract, then despite the Sox giving him a reasonably strong market deal (not a hometown discount deal), they could still lose him. I think that's why they want to make sure he gets signed THIS offseason - so there's no possibility another team will go crazy. Now if they offer him a huge market deal to keep him and he still turns it down, then the Red Sox have to look at trading him, because at that point if they gave him some huge market deal that he turns down, then the Sox probably have no recourse. But if the Red Sox try to get him to sign to a hometown discount (say David Price's deal but for 8 years or something like that), then yeah, the Red Sox will wind up trying to trade him, and I'd be mad at the Red Sox for trying to get a bargain when Mookie has made it obvious that he wants market value. My concern is that if the Sox do give him market value he's still going to want to go to free agency, and in that case I wouldn't have an issue with the Red Sox as much. I mean they could still give him a fair/huge market type deal when 2020 is up, but at that point, they cannot control the actions of any of the other 29 teams and if one wants to go insane (remember when the Mariners went nuts giving Robinson Cano all those years?!!), there's not much the Sox can do about it. Those quotes I read are eye opening. They tell me that the Sox plan on putting out their best offer (and I hope that it's a fair market offer and not a hometown discount type offer) and if Mookie turns it down, they're probably going to trade him as they can't risk him leaving for a draft pick. And from what I read from Mookie, he wants his fair market value. The best way to gauge that is to go to free agency, so there could be a collision course this winter. I hope not, but it's certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 14, 2019 9:58:58 GMT -5
Because it drags down the percentage of revenue the players get. The salary caps in other sports are set so the players get there set amount of revenue. Baseball doesn't have that, if the top teams stop spending what they should, the players get less and owners just pocket more money. I don't care who teams sign, I just don't look at things that way. Yet it's not good for Baseball to have it's high revenue teams not spending hundreds of millions per year that they should be spending. You need those teams in the market regardless of how they spend the money, just as long as they are spending it. If not you have a broken system. You can't make up the amount of money those teams aren't spending, it's going to be the main cause of a strike. They control so much money that they litterally can alter the free agent market. Giving the lower revenue teams ten million is a huge amount of money to them. Like I get it, you want parity and think the top teams spending less gives you that or makes things better. Maybe it does slightly, but it also breaks the economic system in Baseball. So until you find a way to transfer revenues the top teams have to spend. The Yankees are going to have revenues of what like 800 million this year and are spending like 200 million on payroll. That's 25%, 200 million the players lose and the Yankees owners pocket in just one year. But $10 million is chump change in your market... especially when teams like the Marlins appear to pocket it. I guess my point is that it is not just the big teams sitting on cash. But I DO have a huge problem with a handful of teams signing all the best players. The NBA, with these concentrated super teams, is a bore. The regular season becomes meaningless. 10 million per team that get revenue sharing isn't chump change in the market. It's a ton of money overall and will help the mid to lower tier guys you felt were getting hurt and they have been the last few years. Some teams do from year to year, yet the Marlins also had likely the biggest operating loss of any team in recent memory when they tried to spend for the new stadium. It's why the new owners had to gut the team, they were losing money. It's just what some small market teams do, pick and choose when to go for it because they can't afford to spend even a 100 million a year on payroll. I don't mind those teams rebuilding, but do I agree Baseball needs some type of salary floor because those teams staying away from the free agent market does hurt it also. Like all revenue sharing money should have to be spent on players. I don't really get this issue, like no team even the Yankees can afford all the best players. Baseball isn't Basketball, getting top players doesn't mean you get a super team. Look no further than the three biggest contracts last year, the Phillies, Padres, and Angles they aren't super teams. The best teams right now are much more home grown and made with good trades than just getting a ton of top free agents. That's one of the good things about Baseball, spending doesn't mean you'll have a super team, it just makes it easier.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 14, 2019 10:23:32 GMT -5
But $10 million is chump change in your market... especially when teams like the Marlins appear to pocket it. I guess my point is that it is not just the big teams sitting on cash. But I DO have a huge problem with a handful of teams signing all the best players. The NBA, with these concentrated super teams, is a bore. The regular season becomes meaningless. 10 million per team that get revenue sharing isn't chump change in the market. It's a ton of money overall and will help the mid to lower tier guys you felt were getting hurt and they have been the last few years. Some teams do from year to year, yet the Marlins also had likely the biggest operating loss of any team in recent memory when they tried to spend for the new stadium. It's why the new owners had to gut the team, they were losing money. It's just what some small market teams do, pick and choose when to go for it because they can't afford to spend even a 100 million a year on payroll. I don't mind those teams rebuilding, but do I agree Baseball needs some type of salary floor because those teams staying away from the free agent market does hurt it also. Like all revenue sharing money should have to be spent on players. I don't really get this issue, like no team even the Yankees can afford all the best players. Baseball isn't Basketball, getting top players doesn't mean you get a super team. Look no further than the three biggest contracts last year, the Phillies, Padres, and Angles they aren't super teams. The best teams right now are much more home grown and made with good trades than just getting a ton of top free agents. That's one of the good things about Baseball, spending doesn't mean you'll have a super team, it just makes it easier. That’s fine, but I can’t imagine being a fan of a team like the Marlins or even say the Royals who work and lose for years to build a core, may win a WS (or not) but then have to sell off their parts and start all over. Imagine if the Sox had to dump Betts, JD, Sale, etc this season and leave Devers for another year or two before dumping him too.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 14, 2019 10:25:53 GMT -5
Last post on this thread until the off-season, but this is turning into classic Red Sox spin here. "Mookie doesn't like Boston if he doesn't want to get paid here." Crap. Crap. Crap. Translation- I'm sure the Sox want to pay him, I'm sure they want to make him the face of the franchise. They want to probably do it at their price point, however. The Sox are probably nervous that this might not happen. Their idea of paid is probably different than Mookies. This is why they're scouting other team's farm systems. They have no idea if their best offer is enough to keep Mookie. They did the same thing to another former Red Sox franchise player; Nomar Garciaparra. They negotiated with Nomar a year before free agency. Negotiations soured. The Red Sox put out a story of them offering 4/60 to Nomar Garciaparra to the press. Complete fabrication and spin. The Sox never offered it. The burning question and statement of "Why didn't Nomar take the money? He must not like it here in Boston." popped up a ton, and the blame was placed directly on the player. It was kind of ingenious spin to get out of the blame. Nomar was soon "all Boston'd out" after terrible negotions and injuries in 2004 that ruined his season to that point. No wonder. I see the same thing happening here. Fans will buy it too. I've seen fans already posting about if Mookie even likes Boston throughout the past year, multiple times. Buying the same crap. Don't buy that crap people. This is solely on the Sox if they don't get a deal done and they don't reach Mookie's value on a contract. Mookie says he loves Boston. No reason not to believe him. Mookie has actually been very forthright about everything and telling it how it is so far when it comes to his free agent status so far. The most likely simple fact about Mookie is that while he loves Boston, he probably loves money more. That's perfectly okay. Would love to be proven wrong about all this and would gladly leave the board if I'm wrong and if some people hate my opinion that much. Whatever. Sox better put their money where their mouth is. Probably the most critical decision of the John Henry ERA is coming up. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think there's a little more. I think the Sox want to know - if they make Mookie a market offer this winter - will he take it? If not, then the Red Sox face this potential problem Say Mookie has another strong season and now it's Nov 2020. The Red Sox could offer him $40 million/year for 13 years hypothetically. They won't, but say they make a really strong market offer. Some other team could come along, one with plenty of payroll and still top the Red Sox already huge offer - and the Sox lose him for a 4th round draft pick. In Nov 2020 that's possible albeit that the Sox won't make the kind (nor should they) of offer I threw out there. I mean if they put out a 11 year $33 million/year deal, isn't that highly reasonable? But if another team is willing to give him a record setting contract, then despite the Sox giving him a reasonably strong market deal (not a hometown discount deal), they could still lose him. I think that's why they want to make sure he gets signed THIS offseason - so there's no possibility another team will go crazy. Now if they offer him a huge market deal to keep him and he still turns it down, then the Red Sox have to look at trading him, because at that point if they gave him some huge market deal that he turns down, then the Sox probably have no recourse. But if the Red Sox try to get him to sign to a hometown discount (say David Price's deal but for 8 years or something like that), then yeah, the Red Sox will wind up trying to trade him, and I'd be mad at the Red Sox for trying to get a bargain when Mookie has made it obvious that he wants market value. My concern is that if the Sox do give him market value he's still going to want to go to free agency, and in that case I wouldn't have an issue with the Red Sox as much. I mean they could still give him a fair/huge market type deal when 2020 is up, but at that point, they cannot control the actions of any of the other 29 teams and if one wants to go insane (remember when the Mariners went nuts giving Robinson Cano all those years?!!), there's not much the Sox can do about it. Those quotes I read are eye opening. They tell me that the Sox plan on putting out their best offer (and I hope that it's a fair market offer and not a hometown discount type offer) and if Mookie turns it down, they're probably going to trade him as they can't risk him leaving for a draft pick. And from what I read from Mookie, he wants his fair market value. The best way to gauge that is to go to free agency, so there could be a collision course this winter. I hope not, but it's certainly possible. Seems rather clear, the offer needs to top Harper's 330 million and it wouldn't hurt for him to be second per year in salary either. So 11 years at 33 million or 10 years at 350 million are very fair offers given the current market. If Betts turns those types of offers down I have zero issues with looking at trading him. It's 100% his right to test the market, yet like you said some team might go crazy with years and I want no part of that. I'd rather pay him more on a shorter term deal, than less on a longer term, even if it cost more overall. I look at Harper and he's not a free agent till 2032, like OMG that is a long way off.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 14, 2019 10:42:30 GMT -5
10 million per team that get revenue sharing isn't chump change in the market. It's a ton of money overall and will help the mid to lower tier guys you felt were getting hurt and they have been the last few years. Some teams do from year to year, yet the Marlins also had likely the biggest operating loss of any team in recent memory when they tried to spend for the new stadium. It's why the new owners had to gut the team, they were losing money. It's just what some small market teams do, pick and choose when to go for it because they can't afford to spend even a 100 million a year on payroll. I don't mind those teams rebuilding, but do I agree Baseball needs some type of salary floor because those teams staying away from the free agent market does hurt it also. Like all revenue sharing money should have to be spent on players. I don't really get this issue, like no team even the Yankees can afford all the best players. Baseball isn't Basketball, getting top players doesn't mean you get a super team. Look no further than the three biggest contracts last year, the Phillies, Padres, and Angles they aren't super teams. The best teams right now are much more home grown and made with good trades than just getting a ton of top free agents. That's one of the good things about Baseball, spending doesn't mean you'll have a super team, it just makes it easier. That’s fine, but I can’t imagine being a fan of a team like the Marlins or even say the Royals who work and lose for years to build a core, may win a WS (or not) but then have to sell off their parts and start all over. Imagine if the Sox had to dump Betts, JD, Sale, etc this season and leave Devers for another year or two before dumping him too. If they had more fans, they'd have more revenue and wouldn't have to do that. It's really simple you need the right markets, not just the biggest markets. Florida isn't a good Baseball state and they have multiple teams and the fans don't show up even when they are good. Then add in a good revenue sharing program and you can fix a bunch of the issues baseball has. Like look at the stretches the Red Sox went threw being bad and not winning a championship and the Marlins have won two Championships in their short history. Tampa Bay has very little money, yet had produced a ton of really good teams and the fans just don't show up. Yet Red Sox fans are so did hard it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 14, 2019 11:21:33 GMT -5
I don't disagree with any of this, but I think there's a little more. I think the Sox want to know - if they make Mookie a market offer this winter - will he take it? If not, then the Red Sox face this potential problem Say Mookie has another strong season and now it's Nov 2020. The Red Sox could offer him $40 million/year for 13 years hypothetically. They won't, but say they make a really strong market offer. Some other team could come along, one with plenty of payroll and still top the Red Sox already huge offer - and the Sox lose him for a 4th round draft pick. In Nov 2020 that's possible albeit that the Sox won't make the kind (nor should they) of offer I threw out there. I mean if they put out a 11 year $33 million/year deal, isn't that highly reasonable? But if another team is willing to give him a record setting contract, then despite the Sox giving him a reasonably strong market deal (not a hometown discount deal), they could still lose him. I think that's why they want to make sure he gets signed THIS offseason - so there's no possibility another team will go crazy. Now if they offer him a huge market deal to keep him and he still turns it down, then the Red Sox have to look at trading him, because at that point if they gave him some huge market deal that he turns down, then the Sox probably have no recourse. But if the Red Sox try to get him to sign to a hometown discount (say David Price's deal but for 8 years or something like that), then yeah, the Red Sox will wind up trying to trade him, and I'd be mad at the Red Sox for trying to get a bargain when Mookie has made it obvious that he wants market value. My concern is that if the Sox do give him market value he's still going to want to go to free agency, and in that case I wouldn't have an issue with the Red Sox as much. I mean they could still give him a fair/huge market type deal when 2020 is up, but at that point, they cannot control the actions of any of the other 29 teams and if one wants to go insane (remember when the Mariners went nuts giving Robinson Cano all those years?!!), there's not much the Sox can do about it. Those quotes I read are eye opening. They tell me that the Sox plan on putting out their best offer (and I hope that it's a fair market offer and not a hometown discount type offer) and if Mookie turns it down, they're probably going to trade him as they can't risk him leaving for a draft pick. And from what I read from Mookie, he wants his fair market value. The best way to gauge that is to go to free agency, so there could be a collision course this winter. I hope not, but it's certainly possible. Seems rather clear, the offer needs to top Harper's 330 million and it wouldn't hurt for him to be second per year in salary either. So 11 years at 33 million or 10 years at 350 million are very fair offers given the current market. If Betts turns those types of offers down I have zero issues with looking at trading him. It's 100% his right to test the market, yet like you said some team might go crazy with years and I want no part of that. I'd rather pay him more on a shorter term deal, than less on a longer term, even if it cost more overall. I look at Harper and he's not a free agent till 2032, like OMG that is a long way off. Umass - all we can do is speculate at this point, but since we all have opinions, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think the Sox will offer more than $330 million? And if so, do you think Betts will agree to an extension a year before his free agency? And if they don't reach an agreement, do you think the Red Sox will trade him or ride out 2020 with him hoping they can re-sign him after 2020? And if the Sox did trade Mookie, what kind of trade package would a year of Mookie command? I would think a projectable #2/#3 type starting pitcher - one that's either just established or knocking on the door of the majors, and a replacement outfielder who is just getting established or has a future as a major league regular, and an intriguing lottery ticket in the lower minors would be my guess.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 14, 2019 12:53:19 GMT -5
I don't think they do, it's just not Henry's way. They'll offer him a good deal, but not more than Harper, yet it won't be as bad as Lester either. Betts will not surprisingly pass. They will then listen to offers. I think they get big offers, guys like Betts just don't hit the market often. Do they trade him? That is a hard one, like it's not a given even if he doesn't take their best offer and they can get a ton for him that they trade him. Henry has been known to flip flop a ton over the years due to public pressures. Look at the Lester saga and then the David Price deal. Nevermind owners never want to trade away future HOF type guys, look at Washington couldn't do it with Harper after giving him a best offer even at the deadline when they were out of it.
Let's say they do offer him that contract, I would think he would sign it. Yet I just don't know and Betts has said I'm going to free agency. I hope they offer him that deal, because then I have no issue moving on. Love the guy, but I want no part of a crazy long deal. 10 years 350 million is a mega deal. That scares the crap out of me, but I'd do it for Betts. If Betts wants to chase some 13-15 year deal on the open market and 400 plus million, trade his ass. Nothing personal, I just wouldn't give out deals like that to anyone Betts age.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2019 13:00:15 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 14, 2019 13:05:36 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been. The team acquiring him could be willing to outbid every other team and could A. Feel like they're close next year to being a WS contender and B. Want to make sure he's a fit in their organization before giving the guy 350-400 million.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2019 13:20:29 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been. The team acquiring him could be willing to outbid every other team and could A. Feel like they're close next year to being a WS contender and B. Want to make sure he's a fit in their organization before giving the guy 350-400 million. Some teams expect an advantage in re-signing a guy they want if they trade for him. But that doesn't seem like it would be the case for Mookie (if he is traded which I still doubt).
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Aug 14, 2019 13:26:51 GMT -5
These teams could trade for Betts and receive a 1st round pick in 2021 if he doesn't re-sign: Braves, Padres... Diamondbacks, Orioles, Reds, Indians, Rockies, Astros, Royals, Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Athletics, Pirates, Mariners, Rays. Would be a pretty big offset for them, as opposed to the Sox getting a 4th round pick if Betts walks.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 14, 2019 13:38:20 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been. Which is why I think the teams that would be involved would be likely to make a strong run on resigning. Living in the Braves market I don’t get the feeling they would trade for him. I’m guessing teams like Washington, White Sox, San Fran, Texas and maybe the Mets want to get involved with some MLB guys like Diaz, Conforto types.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 14, 2019 13:40:01 GMT -5
At some point you have to wonder how much Mookie is actually worth and whether it's even worth paying him like Harper whose contract will absolutely be a disaster about halfway through it if it's not already in year 1 of 13. I also think Machado's contract will be a disaster if it's not already. Mookie's hitting, defense and baserunning have taken a huge nosedive this season. He will be lucky to reach half his fWAR total from last year in the same number of games. 2018 136 games, 10.4 fWAR. 2019 121 games, 4.4 fWAR. His power has been greatly reduced (ISO dropped from .294 to .210) and his BABIP has fallen drastically from .368 to .302.
His xwOBA has fallen from .433 to .391.
I'm most concerned with his defense and baserunning. Is he already starting to decline? Is his extreme defensive value going to disappear?
He's likely not as bad as he has been this season, but he's also not nearly as good as he was last season. So where does a 7ish win player belong? Not even close to the same conversation as Mike Trout. And that's the only kind of player that I'm writing a blank check for. If he wants $35 million+ for 10+ years with 10 opt-outs he's delusional IMO.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 14, 2019 14:31:50 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been. The team acquiring him could be willing to outbid every other team and could A. Feel like they're close next year to being a WS contender and B. Want to make sure he's a fit in their organization before giving the guy 350-400 million. Is there a team that actually fits this description, by the way? I know it's not the trade proposal sub-forum, but I think it's worth talking about how few organizations are even remotely in a position to do this.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 14, 2019 15:02:59 GMT -5
The team acquiring him could be willing to outbid every other team and could A. Feel like they're close next year to being a WS contender and B. Want to make sure he's a fit in their organization before giving the guy 350-400 million. Is there a team that actually fits this description, by the way? I know it's not the trade proposal sub-forum, but I think it's worth talking about how few organizations are even remotely in a position to do this. I've heard the Braves floated out there.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Aug 14, 2019 15:07:06 GMT -5
The team acquiring him could be willing to outbid every other team and could A. Feel like they're close next year to being a WS contender and B. Want to make sure he's a fit in their organization before giving the guy 350-400 million. Some teams expect an advantage in re-signing a guy they want if they trade for him. But that doesn't seem like it would be the case for Mookie (if he is traded which I still doubt). I agree any "edge" doesn't seem likely, unless he's just so blown away and enamored with the city, but he seems dead set on getting top dollar, which should also mean the Red Sox are just as likely to re-sign as they are to retain. Though trading him means they aren't willing to pay market and his value would need to depreciate in his contract year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 14, 2019 16:02:03 GMT -5
Is there a team that actually fits this description, by the way? I know it's not the trade proposal sub-forum, but I think it's worth talking about how few organizations are even remotely in a position to do this. I've heard the Braves floated out there. The Braves are cheap as hell. They're not about to sign a contract in the Harper-Machado vicinity, much less trade away controllable assets for the privilege of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by jbuttah on Aug 14, 2019 17:18:45 GMT -5
The Sox are kind stuck here. I don't think they'd get a huge return if they traded him before the season as other teams will know that the Sox are trading him because he seems to be going to free agency no matter what. Also, you'd be weakening a team that should contend for the WS. I think the only scenario in which they trade Betts is if the Sox are again looking like they're on the outside looking in and someone offers a decent return at the trade deadline. That way they get some talent and still have as good a chance to sign him as they did before.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Aug 15, 2019 9:14:41 GMT -5
I’d like to see us talk to Rendon and if he seems interested in signing, then you do so and then trade Betts. A bird in the hand...
Otherwise I’d just keep Mookie and try to resign him. I don’t think the trade return would be worth losing a huge star like that without replacing him with another current stud like Rendon.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 15, 2019 11:35:57 GMT -5
One more thing on Betts. If he is traded, the team trading for him knows for almost absolute fact that he's not re-signing just because he's there. That probably makes the return less than it might have been. Unless they’re desperate for a title and have a loaded farm, like Atl. Then you ask for Pasche and Anderson and see if they jump.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 15, 2019 12:02:03 GMT -5
“From the time that he signed as an amateur, which was minutes before, about 30 minutes in his case before the midnight deadline on August 15 of 2011, he has treated every business negotiation as exactly that – in one that’s not subject to sentiment,” Speier said, “And you know, he believes that it makes all the sense in the world to have the full extent of his abilities recognized financially and he’s not afraid to kind of walk that to the brink. “So you know, what we’re seeing in terms of how he’s approaching his negotiations with the Red Sox at this point is no different than what got him to the red sox initially, and every financial conversation he’s had with them since.” weei.radio.com/blogs/gabby-guerard/red-sox-mookie-betts-contract-negotiations-alex-speier-examines-red-sox-stars
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 15, 2019 12:34:08 GMT -5
“From the time that he signed as an amateur, which was minutes before, about 30 minutes in his case before the midnight deadline on August 15 of 2011, he has treated every business negotiation as exactly that – in one that’s not subject to sentiment,” Speier said, “And you know, he believes that it makes all the sense in the world to have the full extent of his abilities recognized financially and he’s not afraid to kind of walk that to the brink. “So you know, what we’re seeing in terms of how he’s approaching his negotiations with the Red Sox at this point is no different than what got him to the red sox initially, and every financial conversation he’s had with them since.” weei.radio.com/blogs/gabby-guerard/red-sox-mookie-betts-contract-negotiations-alex-speier-examines-red-sox-starsI think it's more a question of whether the Sox deal him than whether or not he signs this offseason. I could be wrong but I think the Sox could offer Mookie the moon and he'd still turn it down because he wants to see what his market value is on the open market come Nov 2020. And that is his choice. Then the Sox have to weigh the trade return plus not having Mookie around for 2020 versus having Mookie for 2020 and what the odds are that they actually sign him after the 2020 season. Would they get enough for Mookie when he would truly be a rental for whoever deals for him? I think this is definitely headed for a collision course. I'm starting to think more and more he will be traded this offseason and the return might not be as much as hoped for.
|
|
|