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.
2020 Vision: Position Players
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 14, 2019 22:17:20 GMT -5
Points for fandom, but you're still talking in circles. Betts is so good that you'd be willing to trade the #3 starter and the cleanup hitter on pure salary dumps just to pay Betts more, but no other team in baseball would do anything similar because he's not that good? Also, if playoff performance is so vital to the Dodgers, explain Clayton Kershaw. If forced to choose between Mookie and JDM/Price, who are both over 30, the choice is simple. Playoff performance cannot be predicted so no smart team is going to give up a lot for what looks like might be an upgrade to fans. Also, the Dodgers have 17.1 fWAR from their outfielders this year compared to 12.1 for the Red Sox. How much of an upgrade would Mookie be to them? He would be an amazing upgrade because you can move Bellinger to 1b. In addition he is speed that gets on base which other than their big HR hitters don't that well. look at the team's OBP's. Mookei would be huge. Plus Mookie gives you superior defense.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 14, 2019 23:10:47 GMT -5
If forced to choose between Mookie and JDM/Price, who are both over 30, the choice is simple. Playoff performance cannot be predicted so no smart team is going to give up a lot for what looks like might be an upgrade to fans. Also, the Dodgers have 17.1 fWAR from their outfielders this year compared to 12.1 for the Red Sox. How much of an upgrade would Mookie be to them? The choice isn't Mookie or JDM/Price in a vacuum. There's some contracts and other portions of reality that you're glossing over. If playoff performance can't be predicted then why did you waste the time to bring it up? You tell me how much better their OF would be, you've already done 3/4 of the work to get to the answer. I would guess 3 fWAR which, if correct, is a notable improvement and well worth the price of admission. Your logic is still circular in that the Sox should retain him at all costs but no other team would invest in him. Now we have the added contradiction of playoff performance being vital but also random and therefore trivial. Playoff performance matters if you're trying to bring up why Mookie isn't valuable and won't be traded. Playoff performance doesn't matter thereafter. Don't you see?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 14, 2019 23:12:08 GMT -5
If forced to choose between Mookie and JDM/Price, who are both over 30, the choice is simple. Playoff performance cannot be predicted so no smart team is going to give up a lot for what looks like might be an upgrade to fans. Also, the Dodgers have 17.1 fWAR from their outfielders this year compared to 12.1 for the Red Sox. How much of an upgrade would Mookie be to them? He would be an amazing upgrade because you can move Bellinger to 1b. In addition he is speed that gets on base which other than their big HR hitters don't that well. look at the team's OBP's. Mookei would be huge. Plus Mookie gives you superior defense. That would be one heck of a team.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 15, 2019 0:11:41 GMT -5
If forced to choose between Mookie and JDM/Price, who are both over 30, the choice is simple. Playoff performance cannot be predicted so no smart team is going to give up a lot for what looks like might be an upgrade to fans. Also, the Dodgers have 17.1 fWAR from their outfielders this year compared to 12.1 for the Red Sox. How much of an upgrade would Mookie be to them? He would be an amazing upgrade because you can move Bellinger to 1b. In addition he is speed that gets on base which other than their big HR hitters don't that well. look at the team's OBP's. Mookei would be huge. Plus Mookie gives you superior defense. If I were the Dodgers and they acquired Betts, Betts makes the most sense in CF (assuming Verdugo goes to Boston) with Bellinger in RF. Pedersen would platoon in LF (with Taylor or Hernandez). They'd have an infield of Muncy, Lux, Seager, and Turner with the young power hitting catcher whose name escapes me at the moment (is it Smith?). That's an extremely scary lineup with the ultimate table setter in Betts.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 0:28:54 GMT -5
He would be an amazing upgrade because you can move Bellinger to 1b. In addition he is speed that gets on base which other than their big HR hitters don't that well. look at the team's OBP's. Mookei would be huge. Plus Mookie gives you superior defense. That would be one heck of a team. Yeah-- and Betts is a perfect fit for their offense. You have a guy with speed with a .380 - .400 OBP Who also gives you 30HR's add that to 40- 50 HR Bellinger along with on average 30 HR Muncy, Turner and Pederson - then maybe will Smith can be 30 HR catcher.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2019 7:34:09 GMT -5
If forced to choose between Mookie and JDM/Price, who are both over 30, the choice is simple. Playoff performance cannot be predicted so no smart team is going to give up a lot for what looks like might be an upgrade to fans. Also, the Dodgers have 17.1 fWAR from their outfielders this year compared to 12.1 for the Red Sox. How much of an upgrade would Mookie be to them? The choice isn't Mookie or JDM/Price in a vacuum. There's some contracts and other portions of reality that you're glossing over. If playoff performance can't be predicted then why did you waste the time to bring it up? You tell me how much better their OF would be, you've already done 3/4 of the work to get to the answer. I would guess 3 fWAR which, if correct, is a notable improvement and well worth the price of admission. Your logic is still circular in that the Sox should retain him at all costs but no other team would invest in him. Now we have the added contradiction of playoff performance being vital but also random and therefore trivial. I brought up playoff performance because it's absolutely the only thing the Dodgers need more of to win a World Series. They do not need Mookie to win their division every year. They're about to win their 7th straight division title. They have no reason to try to build a super team, so that they're exactly where the Red Sox are now in a few years. All of you guys are counting on the Dodgers to change their philosophy to "go for it" and that would be incredibly dumb for them to do and make it far less likely for them to sustain what they've built. Oh and the Dodgers are not dumb. That's why they've won 7 straight division titles and still have a great farm system. We're talking about the Dodgers now, not other teams. By all means, if a team makes a stupid offer, do it. But I don't expect stupid offers. And talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't think other teams are going to be, isn't much of an argument. We're having a philosophical discussion about things that haven't happened yet. No one is wrong until something happens. I'd admit I'm wrong if I am. I doubt others will.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 15, 2019 7:45:14 GMT -5
Not sure how else to say this. The Dodgers are clearly a playoff team for the foreseeable future with Mookie or without. They aren't so dumb to give up a huge return to get someone who may or may not show up in the playoffs. They gave up one top 100 prospect (who has dropped from #64 to #90 since) for Machado after Seager went down for the season and then let him walk. They aren't going to give up a lot more than that for a guy they do not need. Points for fandom, but you're still talking in circles. Betts is so good that you'd be willing to trade the #3 starter and the cleanup hitter on pure salary dumps just to pay Betts more, but no other team in baseball would do anything similar because he's not that good? Also, if playoff performance is so vital to the Dodgers, explain Clayton Kershaw. No, The Dodgers wouldn't trade for him because he doesn't fill a position of need for them and because he doesn't move the needle on their playoff chances next year by much.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 15, 2019 8:09:10 GMT -5
Bottom line, Mookie Betts will likely provide more than $30 million of excess value next year. That has value. Where he's a better fit (meaning where he increases a teams excess value the most considering who he'd replace) will likely determine the highest bidder of those that have next year playoff goals.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Sept 15, 2019 8:55:07 GMT -5
Lots of interesting comments about the Sox future and what they should or could do.
IMO it is going to be difficult to do much that doesn't carry significant risk. The risk being that what ever they do is going to be costly players wise and could backfire. It is easy to look back and say they should have done more last off season but what are you going to do differently after having the single most dominant season in Sox history?
They just have to hope Sale and Price are healthy and pitching to their potential. Moving one of them isn't going to get someone else with any better potential to be better. Sometimes you just have to rely on the players you have. The new GM is going to have a tough time doing anything about those 2. Maybe a big deal can be done with multiple players to turnover the roster but that isn't likely either.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 15, 2019 9:11:21 GMT -5
I think the two questions you have to ask :
1. If they keep Mookie , JDM and price, are they good enough to win in the playoffs or even make the playoffs?
2. Keeping or trading Mookie comes down to the gamble can you sign him? And for how much?
Question one: IF you really believe you are close to being able to compete against the yanks and the astros next year then maybe you should try and pay the big money, the penalties and go for it. Frankly I think they have too many holes with the pitching to be a serious contender. I believe they will be much better next year because the off years and bad luck at times will be much better.
Question two: If you keep Mookie and he leaves you get a 4th round pick in the draft. If you believe that you have a small chance to sign Mookie for a reasonable amount of money that fits in with your total salary model, not talking low ball numbers or home town discounts, then you look to trade him. You know you will not get equal value back and probably lose all chance of being in the playoffs. But, the return is certainly better than a 4th round pick in the draft. Very very tough choice. Do not want him to leave but understand about the security of a bigger contract for his family.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 9:32:12 GMT -5
The choice isn't Mookie or JDM/Price in a vacuum. There's some contracts and other portions of reality that you're glossing over. If playoff performance can't be predicted then why did you waste the time to bring it up? You tell me how much better their OF would be, you've already done 3/4 of the work to get to the answer. I would guess 3 fWAR which, if correct, is a notable improvement and well worth the price of admission. Your logic is still circular in that the Sox should retain him at all costs but no other team would invest in him. Now we have the added contradiction of playoff performance being vital but also random and therefore trivial. I brought up playoff performance because it's absolutely the only thing the Dodgers need more of to win a World Series. They do not need Mookie to win their division every year. They're about to win their 7th straight division title. They have no reason to try to build a super team, so that they're exactly where the Red Sox are now in a few years. All of you guys are counting on the Dodgers to change their philosophy to "go for it" and that would be incredibly dumb for them to do and make it far less likely for them to sustain what they've built. Oh and the Dodgers are not dumb. That's why they've won 7 straight division titles and still have a great farm system. We're talking about the Dodgers now, not other teams. By all means, if a team makes a stupid offer, do it. But I don't expect stupid offers. And talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't think other teams are going to be, isn't much of an argument. We're having a philosophical discussion about things that haven't happened yet. No one is wrong until something happens. I'd admit I'm wrong if I am. I doubt others will. But Betts isn't going to cost a lot more than likely. You're dismissing it because as jebl says you are looking at things in a vacuum. Mooke Betts increases the odds of LAD winning a championship. They went after Machado for half a year so this means you close out any belief they will go after Mookie for a full year? So they wouldn't be changing their philosophy that much, would they? And playoff performance -- why can't Mookie help the the pitching staff not only with his defense but now that they score more runs you'd have a more rested staff? And the idea that you are downplaying Mookie's playoffs - why then should the Red Sox pay him if you know he isn't going to perform in the post season? How much do you want to bet if the Dodgers got Mookie for a reasonable deal that they increase their odds of winning it all? Getting 1 year Mookie is not going away from what they are doing because you saw they went after Machado. And again -- as I've told the poster fenway-- you and he and I don't give a damn if the Dodgers don't win it all. You're okay as a non-Dodger fan if they come close but don't win it all. You say they have no reason to go after Betts - but Betts does increase their odds to win it all. They haven't won it all in 30 years and if they don't win it all it will be 31. That's not a reason to get Betts if you have not won it in so long? You don't think at some point this won't be a reason to go after a superstar in his prime for just 1 year after waiitng maybe now 31 and counting? What you say is "working" still hasn't produced a championship in now possibly 31. This isn't on jleb. As I've told you in the Sale discussion I usually agree with you other than Sale and now this. With you bringing up Mookie's performance in the playoffs while not bringing up Kershaw's it wreak's homerism.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 9:38:33 GMT -5
Points for fandom, but you're still talking in circles. Betts is so good that you'd be willing to trade the #3 starter and the cleanup hitter on pure salary dumps just to pay Betts more, but no other team in baseball would do anything similar because he's not that good? Also, if playoff performance is so vital to the Dodgers, explain Clayton Kershaw. No, The Dodgers wouldn't trade for him because he doesn't fill a position of need for them and because he doesn't move the needle on their playoff chances next year by much. It depends on what you mean "by much." Every team would probably have a different meaning of what "by much" means. He would increase their chances however and that would be proportionate what they would trade. They wouldn't have to trade "much" to get a player that increase their chances to win. They are getting a MVP - and they didn't lose by much in 2017. In regards to "need" imo there is no team that can't use a MVP for a full season.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 9:49:00 GMT -5
I think the two questions you have to ask : 1. If they keep Mookie , JDM and price, are they good enough to win in the playoffs or even make the playoffs? 2. Keeping or trading Mookie comes down to the gamble can you sign him? And for how much? Question one: IF you really believe you are close to being able to compete against the yanks and the astros next year then maybe you should try and pay the big money, the penalties and go for it. Frankly I think they have too many holes with the pitching to be a serious contender. I believe they will be much better next year because the off years and bad luck at times will be much better.
Question two: If you keep Mookie and he leaves you get a 4th round pick in the draft. If you believe that you have a small chance to sign Mookie for a reasonable amount of money that fits in with your total salary model, not talking low ball numbers or home town discounts, then you look to trade him. You know you will not get equal value back and probably lose all chance of being in the playoffs. But, the return is certainly better than a 4th round pick in the draft. Very very tough choice. Do not want him to leave but understand about the security of a bigger contract for his family. Not arguing but do I understand the bold right?-- You don't think they can be a contender but you think they will be "much" better next year? If they are "much" better it would more than likely mean their starters were really good. So if that is the case and the starters are good you don't think they would be a contender?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2019 10:17:01 GMT -5
I brought up playoff performance because it's absolutely the only thing the Dodgers need more of to win a World Series. They do not need Mookie to win their division every year. They're about to win their 7th straight division title. They have no reason to try to build a super team, so that they're exactly where the Red Sox are now in a few years. All of you guys are counting on the Dodgers to change their philosophy to "go for it" and that would be incredibly dumb for them to do and make it far less likely for them to sustain what they've built. Oh and the Dodgers are not dumb. That's why they've won 7 straight division titles and still have a great farm system. We're talking about the Dodgers now, not other teams. By all means, if a team makes a stupid offer, do it. But I don't expect stupid offers. And talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't think other teams are going to be, isn't much of an argument. We're having a philosophical discussion about things that haven't happened yet. No one is wrong until something happens. I'd admit I'm wrong if I am. I doubt others will. But Betts isn't going to cost a lot more than likely. You're dismissing it because as jebl says you are looking at things in a vacuum. Mooke Betts increases the odds of LAD winning a championship. They went after Machado for half a year so this means you close out any belief they will go after Mookie for a full year? So they wouldn't be changing their philosophy that much, would they? And playoff performance -- why can't Mookie help the the pitching staff not only with his defense but now that they score more runs you'd have a more rested staff? And the idea that you are downplaying Mookie's playoffs - why then should the Red Sox pay him if you know he isn't going to perform in the post season? How much do you want to bet if the Dodgers got Mookie for a reasonable deal that they increase their odds of winning it all? Getting 1 year Mookie is not going away from what they are doing because you saw they went after Machado. And again -- as I've told the poster fenway-- you and he and I don't give a damn if the Dodgers don't win it all. You're okay as a non-Dodger fan if they come close but don't win it all. You say they have no reason to go after Betts - but Betts does increase their odds to win it all. They haven't won it all in 30 years and if they don't win it all it will be 31. That's not a reason to get Betts if you have not won it in so long? You don't think at some point this won't be a reason to go after a superstar in his prime for just 1 year after waiitng maybe now 31 and counting? What you say is "working" still hasn't produced a championship in now possibly 31. This isn't on jleb. As I've told you in the Sale discussion I usually agree with you other than Sale and now this. With you bringing up Mookie's performance in the playoffs while not bringing up Kershaw's it wreak's homerism. If Betts isn't going to cost a lot for the Dodgers, then I would never trade him.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2019 10:20:00 GMT -5
I brought up playoff performance because it's absolutely the only thing the Dodgers need more of to win a World Series. They do not need Mookie to win their division every year. They're about to win their 7th straight division title. They have no reason to try to build a super team, so that they're exactly where the Red Sox are now in a few years. All of you guys are counting on the Dodgers to change their philosophy to "go for it" and that would be incredibly dumb for them to do and make it far less likely for them to sustain what they've built. Oh and the Dodgers are not dumb. That's why they've won 7 straight division titles and still have a great farm system. We're talking about the Dodgers now, not other teams. By all means, if a team makes a stupid offer, do it. But I don't expect stupid offers. And talking to me like I'm stupid because I don't think other teams are going to be, isn't much of an argument. We're having a philosophical discussion about things that haven't happened yet. No one is wrong until something happens. I'd admit I'm wrong if I am. I doubt others will. If playoff performance is random, as you've suggested, then there's no reason for a team (like the Dodgers) to avoid a player because of it, as you've also suggested. If you think that the Dodgers should be content to win the division and just sit and wait for random luck to be on their side for a playoff run that's fine and have no inclination to debate that with you, just doesn't seem like a very popular strategy around here when applied to the Red Sox. The Dodgers (if we're going to focus exclusively on them) do have a reason to try to build a "super team", many of them actually. One is to win a WS, it's been stated several times very plainly as a reason for it. Another reason for acquiring Mookie is for the general betterment of a team. Mookie makes the Dodgers better. Full stop. That they would pay the price is a different story, but certainly up for debate. As the owner of the "As I said before and you ignored" and "Not sure how else to say this" quotes in this thread alone, there's some irony in you complaining about how someone speaks to you, no? As for my argument - my thought is that Betts is valuable and the Red Sox should try to keep him, but that Betts is valuable and other teams might want to acquire him. No team in baseball (Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.) should do anything ill-advised to retain his services. Some of the things you've said don't align with that argument in my opinion, if that's talking to you like you're stupid then guilty, I guess. They should not avoid Betts because of the playoff performance. They should avoid giving up their plan of developing their own incredible talent along with the deepest team in the majors that has led them to winning 7 straight division titles with no end in sight. They should only give up their incredible team building philosophy IF it would guarantee a WS victory, which cannot ever happen. Until then, they'll stick with what they're doing. It's just a matter of time before they win, with Mookie or without.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 11:20:41 GMT -5
But Betts isn't going to cost a lot more than likely. You're dismissing it because as jebl says you are looking at things in a vacuum. Mooke Betts increases the odds of LAD winning a championship. They went after Machado for half a year so this means you close out any belief they will go after Mookie for a full year? So they wouldn't be changing their philosophy that much, would they? If Betts isn't going to cost a lot for the Dodgers, then I would never trade him. There are two points to this. 1-- I think you and I are in agreement or at least still don't like the idea of firing DD? For me I thought they have a chance to be a contender next year provided they have money to retain guys like JDM and Mookie etc. So, if you are a contender, why would they fire DD? I think it possible Henry and/or people he listens to thinks the Sox are not a contender. If that is the case then why not trade Mookie (This is under the assumption he refuses any offer to extend which seems extremely likely.) for the best offer if that is what they believe? 2-- I still don't understand how the Sox can afford Mookie and JDM. SO if JDM opts in how can they retain Mookie without going over the 1st threshold? Price, JDM, Sale, Xander, Eovaldi, Pedey, and VAz are approx $134m. Mook, ER, Beni, Workman, Devers and Barnes would be about $47M. (I assume $41-$42m for MB, ER and AB, -- and about $5-$6m for BW, RD and MB) Then for Medical Expenses and minor leagues about $17.5m. This is $198m - $199m. so there is only $9.5m more and you have to sign 27 more players to get to the 40 man. Am I wrong with these numbers? In summary-- So even if you can fit it in - with so many low cost players that aren't all that good overall - can you really be a contender? So to add up (1) not sure management sees them as a contender, (2) not sure Sox can afford Mookie, and (3) hate the idea of only getting a 4th round pick for him if we're not a contender, then why not trade him for the best you can get? And to further the summary point - you brought up his post season. If you really believe the post season stats of Mookie are relevant going forward, then why would you want him? I want Mookie just like you. As I said I think the team can be a contender (as long as they have the money.) But if you're telling me that I should be using Mookie's stats for the postseason in any manner to project next year's post season concluding he is someone who won't perform then I want him traded. But I don't hold those stats as having any meaning other than combine those number with his career numbers. Thus your reason to say Dodgers shouldn't get him if they want him to help lead to a title then that is the reason why I wouldn't want him as Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Sept 15, 2019 11:48:54 GMT -5
If playoff performance is random, as you've suggested, then there's no reason for a team (like the Dodgers) to avoid a player because of it, as you've also suggested. If you think that the Dodgers should be content to win the division and just sit and wait for random luck to be on their side for a playoff run that's fine and have no inclination to debate that with you, just doesn't seem like a very popular strategy around here when applied to the Red Sox. The Dodgers (if we're going to focus exclusively on them) do have a reason to try to build a "super team", many of them actually. One is to win a WS, it's been stated several times very plainly as a reason for it. Another reason for acquiring Mookie is for the general betterment of a team. Mookie makes the Dodgers better. Full stop. That they would pay the price is a different story, but certainly up for debate. As the owner of the "As I said before and you ignored" and "Not sure how else to say this" quotes in this thread alone, there's some irony in you complaining about how someone speaks to you, no? As for my argument - my thought is that Betts is valuable and the Red Sox should try to keep him, but that Betts is valuable and other teams might want to acquire him. No team in baseball (Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.) should do anything ill-advised to retain his services. Some of the things you've said don't align with that argument in my opinion, if that's talking to you like you're stupid then guilty, I guess. They should not avoid Betts because of the playoff performance. They should avoid giving up their plan of developing their own incredible talent along with the deepest team in the majors that has led them to winning 7 straight division titles with no end in sight. They should only give up their incredible team building philosophy IF it would guarantee a WS victory, which cannot ever happen. Until then, they'll stick with what they're doing. It's just a matter of time before they win, with Mookie or without.That's the crux of it. You have no vested interest whether they win it all or don't. If they don't win it all for another 30 years over-and-above the current 30+ years no skin off your back (or mine). IMO they will eventually feel differently. They went after Machado last year. No reason why they can't look at Mookie for 1 year. Especially if the sox are looking to trade Mookie / feel they can't win it all/ they can't afford him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 15, 2019 11:56:09 GMT -5
So you want a bigger hole in the rotation and a huge amount of dead money? That's my point, you can't just dump him, that trade doesn't exist. That's clearly way crazier then getting a good return for one of the best players in the game. Don't lump everyone together, only a few posters think you can get that return. A good return, like the Goldy trade should be easy. Then there's the few people like you that think you get almost nothing. As I said before and you ignored, Goldschmidt was clearly open to signing an extension and with how the Cardinals work, that's (likely) precisely why they traded for him. That is clearly NOT the case with Mookie, so good luck getting more for him than he's worth to the Red Sox already. No team is going to rent 1 year of Mookie and give up what I consider a good return. Have you researched that trade? You keep claiming something that wasn't known before they traded for him. There was no deal before the trade. He liked the team and area and got a market rate contract. You just keep using hindsight, like they knew that and the GM didn't say that at all. We have no clue if Betts turns down a market rate contract, no one has come close to offering him one. The Red Sox keep low balling him, just like with Jon Lester. I wouldn't have discussions with a team if they started at about half of what seems market value, because that isn't a team ready to pay market value. Who knows what Betts will do, but you won't really know till you drop a market rate contract in his lap. They drop a 10 year 350 million contract in his lap and he doesn't sign then I will agree his value on the trade market could take a hit. I don't think that ever happens though. See this is the thing with you, you argue in absolutes which is crazy. You have zero clue what teams will and won't do. You have no clue which owners will want to win or make a move next year. Two years ago the Padres didn't seem like an option for any top free agents, now they have signed two for like 450 million and we're still in on Harper and thinking about it. Everyone was shocked and called the Mets stupid for the Cano and Diaz trade. We have zero clue what teams will do, yet put a player like Betts on the market and chances are some team does something stupid. If you can even call it stupid, given the way Betts would project in CF. The going rate for 8 bwar on trade market is crazy high. Look at what the Astros gave up to pay Grienke a market rate contract as he ages, three of their top five prospects from a good farm system. Betts is going to most likely provide you the same excess value in one year that Grienke does in two plus years. Can't wait for the backpedaling and hating the trade talk that will come after he is traded.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 15, 2019 11:56:28 GMT -5
If playoff performance is random, as you've suggested, then there's no reason for a team (like the Dodgers) to avoid a player because of it, as you've also suggested. If you think that the Dodgers should be content to win the division and just sit and wait for random luck to be on their side for a playoff run that's fine and have no inclination to debate that with you, just doesn't seem like a very popular strategy around here when applied to the Red Sox. The Dodgers (if we're going to focus exclusively on them) do have a reason to try to build a "super team", many of them actually. One is to win a WS, it's been stated several times very plainly as a reason for it. Another reason for acquiring Mookie is for the general betterment of a team. Mookie makes the Dodgers better. Full stop. That they would pay the price is a different story, but certainly up for debate. As the owner of the "As I said before and you ignored" and "Not sure how else to say this" quotes in this thread alone, there's some irony in you complaining about how someone speaks to you, no? As for my argument - my thought is that Betts is valuable and the Red Sox should try to keep him, but that Betts is valuable and other teams might want to acquire him. No team in baseball (Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.) should do anything ill-advised to retain his services. Some of the things you've said don't align with that argument in my opinion, if that's talking to you like you're stupid then guilty, I guess. They should not avoid Betts because of the playoff performance. They should avoid giving up their plan of developing their own incredible talent along with the deepest team in the majors that has led them to winning 7 straight division titles with no end in sight. They should only give up their incredible team building philosophy IF it would guarantee a WS victory, which cannot ever happen. Until then, they'll stick with what they're doing. It's just a matter of time before they win, with Mookie or without. The Sox were bound to win 3 straight divisions in a row from 2016-2018, no matter what they did. Then they acquired JDM and Chris Sale and built a unstoppable force for one year, which you argued against in the Chris Sale trade forum. The Dodgers would be doing the correct thing by pushing all their chips on the table while Kershaw is still relevant and helping the Dodgers win because that's definitely not lasting forever. Windows only last so long today in MLB or in any sport for that matter. The Diamondbacks are building a good team, thanks to Hazen. The Padres are coming with all their young talent too. The Braves and Astros would be doing the correct thing if they acquired Mookie instead.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 15, 2019 12:07:28 GMT -5
Yeah, this "Mookie will not sign before free agency so teams will not want to give up anything for him" is crap too.
If a team like the Braves or Dodgers all of a sudden have the money to spend and *actually want to spend it,* then they can definitely sign Mookie before free agency.
The reason why he hasn't signed in Boston is because the Sox haven't met Mookie's perceived value he places on himself. Argue with me on that fact or don't, but the simple truth is that the Sox haven't done it yet and it's doubtful the Sox ever go to that value (money) that Mookie wants.
Mookie has said he expects to get it in free agency. Doesn't mean he can't get it somewhere else first before free agency. It's probably not going to be Boston though.
The Sox just fired the GM that would lobby most to pay Mookie and keep him. There's no way in heck Dombrowski would be okay with trading a superstar like Mookie on his watch, because that's what Dombrowski gravitates towards. Star level (elite talent).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 15, 2019 12:15:21 GMT -5
Points for fandom, but you're still talking in circles. Betts is so good that you'd be willing to trade the #3 starter and the cleanup hitter on pure salary dumps just to pay Betts more, but no other team in baseball would do anything similar because he's not that good? Also, if playoff performance is so vital to the Dodgers, explain Clayton Kershaw. No, The Dodgers wouldn't trade for him because he doesn't fill a position of need for them and because he doesn't move the needle on their playoff chances next year by much. Doesn't move the needle? Wow, then you assume no player can basically which is crazy talk. You can certainly debate if it's worth the cost, but Betts certainly moves the needle more than any other player would. Which is the point being made and why the Dodgers could look at him. You can't find another player that will be available that moves the needle in such a meaningful way. At this point it's safe to assume the Dodgers owners only care about Championships. They traded five prospects for 1\3 of a season of Machado and that was all about the post season, not making the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2019 12:15:45 GMT -5
They should not avoid Betts because of the playoff performance. They should avoid giving up their plan of developing their own incredible talent along with the deepest team in the majors that has led them to winning 7 straight division titles with no end in sight. They should only give up their incredible team building philosophy IF it would guarantee a WS victory, which cannot ever happen. Until then, they'll stick with what they're doing. It's just a matter of time before they win, with Mookie or without. The Sox were bound to win 3 straight divisions in a row from 2016-2018, no matter what they did. Then they acquired JDM and Chris Sale and built a unstoppable force for one year, which you argued against in the Chris Sale trade forum. The Dodgers would be doing the correct thing by pushing all their chips on the table while Kershaw is still relevant and helping the Dodgers win because that's definitely not lasting forever. Windows only last so long today in MLB or in any sport for that matter. The Diamondbacks are building a good team, thanks to Hazen. The Padres are coming with all their young talent too. The Braves and Astros would be doing the correct thing if they acquired Mookie instead. You see where the Red Sox are now? The Dodgers are not heading there because they have a great farm system, a great young core and great depth at every position. This tangent was about why I don't think the Dodgers are going to deviate from their very successful team building strategy. FWTH basically said the exact same thing I did and there are not 5 people arguing with him. I'm out. Go on with your insistence that another team will overpay for a 1 year rental of Mookie. And then we can talk about it after it happens or doesn't happen. Arguing over what might happen in the future is pointless and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2019 12:36:34 GMT -5
You see where the Red Sox are now? Reigning World Series champions You see where the Red Sox are now with the largest payroll in the majors, a severe lack of depth a poor farm system and a window that is closing? I'm done talking about it. We've stated our positions without anything else to say and absolutely nothing can be proved until it happens or doesn't happen. Arguing more is a total waste of time. If you get the job running the Dodgers, then I'll change my mind before it happens.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Sept 16, 2019 5:24:27 GMT -5
I think the two questions you have to ask : 1. If they keep Mookie , JDM and price, are they good enough to win in the playoffs or even make the playoffs? 2. Keeping or trading Mookie comes down to the gamble can you sign him? And for how much? Question one: IF you really believe you are close to being able to compete against the yanks and the astros next year then maybe you should try and pay the big money, the penalties and go for it. Frankly I think they have too many holes with the pitching to be a serious contender. I believe they will be much better next year because the off years and bad luck at times will be much better.
Question two: If you keep Mookie and he leaves you get a 4th round pick in the draft. If you believe that you have a small chance to sign Mookie for a reasonable amount of money that fits in with your total salary model, not talking low ball numbers or home town discounts, then you look to trade him. You know you will not get equal value back and probably lose all chance of being in the playoffs. But, the return is certainly better than a 4th round pick in the draft. Very very tough choice. Do not want him to leave but understand about the security of a bigger contract for his family. Not arguing but do I understand the bold right?-- You don't think they can be a contender but you think they will be "much" better next year? If they are "much" better it would more than likely mean their starters were really good. So if that is the case and the starters are good you don't think they would be a contender? Let me clarify. They will be better and make the playoffs, BUT not good enough to compete with the yanks and the astros. That's my optimistic side. With their salary limits, they are highly unlikely to be in the bidding for Cole. And there does not appear to be a star in the system to upgrade the staff. So, my pessimistic side says they will tread water and may be even worse next year. But, I am trying to stay with my optimistic side.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 16, 2019 11:02:39 GMT -5
Bottom line, Mookie Betts will likely provide more than $30 million of excess value next year. That has value. Where he's a better fit ( meaning where he increases a teams excess value the most considering who he'd replace) will likely determine the highest bidder of those that have next year playoff goals. Someone remind me who the fourth best outfielder in the Red Sox org is.
|
|
|