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.
A Mookie Betts Trade Return
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 9, 2020 1:16:16 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I keep seeing these 10/420m figures, 10/375m for Betts and have to wonder.. How much is left over for the rest of the potential good players Boston will have 4-6y down the road? Giving 1 guy 40m is a huge chunk of cash, even without the salary cap in force today and for 10y? Myself, no chance. Not even for the current 2nd best player in the game. 5y? Sure thing.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 9, 2020 6:33:39 GMT -5
And it worked even in 2018, when we had Sandoval, Ramirez, and Pedroia all on the books and doing nothing. But like FTHW said somewhere above, you gotta spend the money somehow. It doesn't prevent the team from retooling if and when they have to. Obviously it's harder when you owe $40 million to one player who isn't producing. But have, like, the Yankees had a single season this century when they didn't have that much money sunk into some motley collection of broken down all farts? Yet they seem to get by okay. Here's the other thing people are missing about those "low risk" free agents in the $80-120m range... a lot of them bust, a lot of them bust right away, and then you have to go get more of them. Sandoval, contract was dead money from the moment it was signed. Eovaldi could easily be that guy. There's no "well at least we get a few good years" assurance with that class of free agents; if there was, they'd cost more. Yes, each $100m free agent incurs less risk, but you have to incur that risk more often. Rodriguez had a 2.7 fWAR season the year he turned 40. His rapid decline came when he was 41. Cano has put up 21.5 fWAR in 6 years, which is hardly terrible for a $24 million/year deal. He was mediocre this season but good last season and it's not obvious he's totally washed up. Votto's been even more productive than Cano - 24 WAR in six seasons - and he projects to add a few more WAR to that. These contracts are not "showing one thing and one thing only. Oh man, can we talk about how good the original A-Rod contract turned out?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 9, 2020 6:37:58 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I keep seeing these 10/420m figures, 10/375m for Betts and have to wonder.. How much is left over for the rest of the potential good players Boston will have 4-6y down the road? Giving 1 guy 40m is a huge chunk of cash, even without the salary cap in force today and for 10y? Myself, no chance. Not even for the current 2nd best player in the game. 5y? Sure thing. You're proposing a $40m and the lowest threshold for the luxury tax will be around $210m so I'd say about $170m is left over for everyone else. So, almost twice as much money as the Rays needed to win 96 games this year.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 9, 2020 12:58:54 GMT -5
And it worked even in 2018, when we had Sandoval, Ramirez, and Pedroia all on the books and doing nothing. But like FTHW said somewhere above, you gotta spend the money somehow. It doesn't prevent the team from retooling if and when they have to. Obviously it's harder when you owe $40 million to one player who isn't producing. But have, like, the Yankees had a single season this century when they didn't have that much money sunk into some motley collection of broken down all farts? Yet they seem to get by okay. Here's the other thing people are missing about those "low risk" free agents in the $80-120m range... a lot of them bust, a lot of them bust right away, and then you have to go get more of them. Sandoval, contract was dead money from the moment it was signed. Eovaldi could easily be that guy. There's no "well at least we get a few good years" assurance with that class of free agents; if there was, they'd cost more. Yes, each $100m free agent incurs less risk, but you have to incur that risk more often. No one took me up on my invitation to say which members of the 2021 free agent class they'd spend the money on instead, but that would help put meat on the bones of this discussion. For one, who do you get to fill the gaping hole in the outfield that we don't have the prospects to fill ourselves? Here are your options (with what their ages will be): Michael Brantley (34) George Springer (31) Yoenis Cespedes (35) David Peralta (33) Joc Pederson (28) Jay Bruce (33) Nick Markakis (37) Marwin Gonzalez (32) Leury Garcia (30) Enrique Hernandez (29) Jake Marisnick (30) Adam Eaton (32) Josh Reddick (34) There are a few others but those are the "highlights." Taking into account the sort of contract you could realistically sign them to, are any of those less risky than a Betts signing? I mean, I suppose you could sign Bruce for like a million bucks or something, and that wouldn't be "risky," but you'd be lucky to get replacement-level value out of him.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 9, 2020 13:24:22 GMT -5
Alan 1:18 If the Sox move Mookie to LAD and Lux is off the table what is a good return package in your opinion?
Keith Law 1:18 If I'm the Red Sox I am insisting on May and one of the catchers in the deal, at a bare minimum. It's Mookie Fucking Betts, people.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 10, 2020 4:27:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cotuitfan on Jan 10, 2020 8:42:24 GMT -5
Reading Law this am and really intrigued by this ... do people think the Cardinals are in play here? Bloom obviously knows Liberatore, is it crazy to think he'd be part of a Cards package? Anyone have any idea who else the Cards have for a return? (and two sides - would be in Rays interest to see Mookie in St. Louis obv, and I am vehemently opposed to the Sox trading the best player I or my 12 year old son may ever root for on the hometown team) "The elephant in the room is whether the Cardinals acquired Liberatore to keep him moving. They’re also in win-now mode, so adding a top starting pitching prospect who won’t likely see the majors until 2022 doesn’t align with their competitive window, while I would guess any of the teams currently shopping elite offensive players — I don’t know, maybe Nolan Arenado? Or Mookie Betts? — would love to see Liberatore added to a potential trade package." theathletic.com/1523959/2020/01/09/law-the-cardinals-swap-outfield-surplus-to-the-rays-for-a-top-50-prospect/?source=dailyemail
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 10, 2020 9:28:25 GMT -5
If we're taking at face value that the Cardinals really aren't willing to move Dylan Carlson, then it does kinda make sense: Liberatore's the sort who could headline a deal for an impact guy. With the added benefit that, even if they can't flip him then they're "stuck" just having him as the best pitching prospect in the system. So yeah, I wouldn't be happy about a Betts deal fronted by Liberatore, but I'd be less mad than if it were Gorman or another Cardinals not-Carlson prospect.
|
|
|
Post by lennsakata on Jan 10, 2020 11:54:55 GMT -5
If we're taking at face value that the Cardinals really aren't willing to move Dylan Carlson, then it does kinda make sense: Liberatore's the sort who could headline a deal for an impact guy. With the added benefit that, even if they can't flip him then they're "stuck" just having him as the best pitching prospect in the system. So yeah, I wouldn't be happy about a Betts deal fronted by Liberatore, but I'd be less mad than if it were Gorman or another Cardinals not-Carlson prospect. I prefer Liberatore over Gorman as well. Not too much else there for the Cardinals, Jhon Torres is probably the guy I'd want in addition to one/two of the big three and he is all tools/projection at this point. Junior Fernandez is also intriguing since being moved to the pen/
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jan 10, 2020 13:31:55 GMT -5
I think I’d rather just go for it one more time this year with Betts than have a package with Liberatore as the headliner, but only if we find a way to have enough depth and a decent enough bullpen to contend, which may be unlikely.
Hard to like the way we’re positioned right now. Really curious to see how we fill the various holes while cutting payroll.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 10, 2020 15:41:30 GMT -5
If we're taking at face value that the Cardinals really aren't willing to move Dylan Carlson, then it does kinda make sense: Liberatore's the sort who could headline a deal for an impact guy. With the added benefit that, even if they can't flip him then they're "stuck" just having him as the best pitching prospect in the system. So yeah, I wouldn't be happy about a Betts deal fronted by Liberatore, but I'd be less mad than if it were Gorman or another Cardinals not-Carlson prospect. I want to reiterate that any Betts trade that punts the season is a complete non-starter, which means you have to get a first-division starting OF in return. Harrison Bader would qualify, but not by a lot, and for 2020 you really would want a player with a better balance of offensive and defensive value, like Verdugo -- a guy just good enough to handle RF in Fenway, rather than a guy who could move JBJ to RF. OTOH, Bader would fit in well as a 3-year replacement for JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 11, 2020 4:09:26 GMT -5
One note on the Cardinals, they're not afraid to trade for star players with one year of control left. They did it both with Goldsmidt and Jason Heyward at the time. Goldsmidt resigned. Heyward didn't after his year.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 11, 2020 12:43:27 GMT -5
One note on the Cardinals, they're not afraid to trade for star players with one year of control left. They did it both with Goldsmidt and Jason Heyward at the time. Goldsmidt resigned. Heyward didn't after his year. Goldschmidt also didn't outright say he was going to going to test the market. Don't remember with Heyward, but I would doubt it since it's not the norm. You can't take Mookie and other expiring stars and compare them apples to apples. Mookie has explicitly said he's going to test the market. There's very little precedent for that and it's hard for teams to gauge his interest in re-signing without him being on the actual team.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 11, 2020 20:03:48 GMT -5
And it worked even in 2018, when we had Sandoval, Ramirez, and Pedroia all on the books and doing nothing. But like FTHW said somewhere above, you gotta spend the money somehow. It doesn't prevent the team from retooling if and when they have to. Obviously it's harder when you owe $40 million to one player who isn't producing. But have, like, the Yankees had a single season this century when they didn't have that much money sunk into some motley collection of broken down all farts? Yet they seem to get by okay. Here's the other thing people are missing about those "low risk" free agents in the $80-120m range... a lot of them bust, a lot of them bust right away, and then you have to go get more of them. Sandoval, contract was dead money from the moment it was signed. Eovaldi could easily be that guy. There's no "well at least we get a few good years" assurance with that class of free agents; if there was, they'd cost more. Yes, each $100m free agent incurs less risk, but you have to incur that risk more often. Rodriguez had a 2.7 fWAR season the year he turned 40. His rapid decline came when he was 41. Cano has put up 21.5 fWAR in 6 years, which is hardly terrible for a $24 million/year deal. He was mediocre this season but good last season and it's not obvious he's totally washed up. Votto's been even more productive than Cano - 24 WAR in six seasons - and he projects to add a few more WAR to that. These contracts are not "showing one thing and one thing only. Oh man, can we talk about how good the original A-Rod contract turned out? That's the huge point A-Rod's first contract took him through age 34. He was crazy young and only got ten years, now look at the years it makes no sense. I'd sign Betts to age 34 in a second, but that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 11, 2020 23:02:20 GMT -5
One note on the Cardinals, they're not afraid to trade for star players with one year of control left. They did it both with Goldsmidt and Jason Heyward at the time. Goldsmidt resigned. Heyward didn't after his year. Goldschmidt also didn't outright say he was going to going to test the market. Don't remember with Heyward, but I would doubt it since it's not the norm. You can't take Mookie and other expiring stars and compare them apples to apples. Mookie has explicitly said he's going to test the market. There's very little precedent for that and it's hard for teams to gauge his interest in re-signing without him being on the actual team. They knew Heyward was going to test the market afterwards too.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 12, 2020 2:33:12 GMT -5
Goldschmidt also didn't outright say he was going to going to test the market. Don't remember with Heyward, but I would doubt it since it's not the norm. You can't take Mookie and other expiring stars and compare them apples to apples. Mookie has explicitly said he's going to test the market. There's very little precedent for that and it's hard for teams to gauge his interest in re-signing without him being on the actual team. They knew Heyward was going to test the market afterwards too. Link?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 12, 2020 3:52:17 GMT -5
They knew Heyward was going to test the market afterwards too. Link? "The Cardinals did not approach Heyward during the season about an extension because of the outfielder’s wishes. He told them he did not want the distraction." www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/mozeliak-it-comes-down-to-money/article_ac964c54-162b-53a9-9fee-1b686d22ef09.amp.htmlThe Cardinals knew that if they were going to bring back Heyward, it was going to be through free agency. They knew they could lose him as a rental. Moral of the story is the Cardinals have given up years of control for a star rental that they knew they could have lost because of the direction where the team was at. They wanted to make a run because they knew they were a playoff team back then. They know they are a playoff team now. I still think they have a big move in them before the off-season is over, especially after acquiring Liberatore.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 12, 2020 8:41:32 GMT -5
Dan Shaughnessy cites emails from Werner and Henry saying being competitive every year is more important than resetting the luxury tax. I know Shaughnessy's opinions are not reliable but I think his quotations are. "I e-mailed all parties (Henry, Werner, Kennedy) late Thursday afternoon: “Guys — I am working on a column in which I will suggest that there was no plan to disclose the mandate to get under the $208 million luxury tax threshold before you went into the September 27 press conference. It felt like John just came out with it spontaneously. And now that is the charge for Chaim Bloom. Is this accurate?’’ About 9 p.m., Werner responded with, “Our plan has been the same since 2002, namely to be competitive year in and year out. That is the charge for Chaim.’’ Just before midnight, Henry wrote, “You might actually be right for once in that I don’t plan what I’m going to say before answering media questions in a live media event. But this focus on CBT resides with the media far more than it does within the Sox. I think every team probably wants to reset at least once every three years — that’s sort of been the history — but just this week . . . I reminded baseball ops that we are focused on competitiveness over the next 5 years over and above resetting to which they said, ‘That’s exactly how we’ve been approaching it.’" www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/01/11/red-sox-agenda-slash-payroll-according-john-henry-media-driven-noise/sjq5dWD30McxaaDucHHYnM/story.html
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Jan 12, 2020 10:13:16 GMT -5
Dan Shaughnessy cites emails from Werner and Henry saying being competitive every year is more important than resetting the luxury tax. I know Shaughnessy's opinions are not reliable but I think his quotations are. "I e-mailed all parties (Henry, Werner, Kennedy) late Thursday afternoon: “Guys — I am working on a column in which I will suggest that there was no plan to disclose the mandate to get under the $208 million luxury tax threshold before you went into the September 27 press conference. It felt like John just came out with it spontaneously. And now that is the charge for Chaim Bloom. Is this accurate?’’ About 9 p.m., Werner responded with, “Our plan has been the same since 2002, namely to be competitive year in and year out. That is the charge for Chaim.’’ Just before midnight, Henry wrote, “You might actually be right for once in that I don’t plan what I’m going to say before answering media questions in a live media event. But this focus on CBT resides with the media far more than it does within the Sox. I think every team probably wants to reset at least once every three years — that’s sort of been the history — but just this week . . . I reminded baseball ops that we are focused on competitiveness over the next 5 years over and above resetting to which they said, ‘That’s exactly how we’ve been approaching it.’" www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/01/11/red-sox-agenda-slash-payroll-according-john-henry-media-driven-noise/sjq5dWD30McxaaDucHHYnM/story.htmlMusic to my ears. Any trade we try to pull off to dip under the tax will most likely make us a worse team in 2020. Several players including Price may rebound to have a better year. I’d rather see what we got and we can always revisit at the trade deadline if we want to sell off pieces.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 12, 2020 10:20:42 GMT -5
So that means there is no chance in hell that Mookie gets traded, because they want "to be competitive year in and year out." The only chance it happens is if they're 10 games out of the Wild Card by the trade deadline. Seems like a big waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 12, 2020 10:31:20 GMT -5
Reading over the various comments most people here and elsewhere seem to feel the return on any trade of Betts would be underwhelming. With that in mind I think the consensus is forming that the Sox should keep Betts and then if they are not contending trade him during the season. That makes sense to me and I think there is a strong possibility that in the event the Sox have a lousy year and decide to move him the return at that point might be even better than what they are apparently being offered at this time. Circumstances would have a lot to do with that but if one of the contenders had a sudden need due to injury it would be awfully tempting to make the move for Betts if they felt it would result in a ring. And imagine if by chance two or more contending teams both wanted him ? Of course I would rather see the Sox rotation go the whole year healthy with Betts playing his usual big role and the Sox winning it all again.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jan 12, 2020 10:48:06 GMT -5
So that means there is no chance in hell that Mookie gets traded, because they want "to be competitive year in and year out." The only chance it happens is if they're 10 games out of the Wild Card by the trade deadline. Seems like a big waste of time. Can you elaborate ? Do you mean the Sox seeing what teams are willing to offer for Betts has been a waste of time ? I think clearly what has been offered has been disappointing so much so that the Sox likely believe that if they are 10 games out of the Wild Card and move him at the trade deadline the return might be better or the difference so insignificant that it is worth seeing how the rotation plays out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 12, 2020 10:52:15 GMT -5
So that means there is no chance in hell that Mookie gets traded, because they want "to be competitive year in and year out." The only chance it happens is if they're 10 games out of the Wild Card by the trade deadline. Seems like a big waste of time. Can you elaborate ? Do you mean the Sox seeing what teams are willing to offer for Betts has been a waste of time ? I think clearly what has been offered has been disappointing so much so that the Sox likely believe that if they are 10 games out of the Wild Card and move him at the trade deadline the return might be better or the difference so insignificant that it is worth seeing how the rotation plays out. There is no trade offer that would leave the Red Sox as competitive as they would be with Mookie. I think I posted this about 14 pages ago or so. Trading him at the trade deadline if they were clearly out of the playoff race is a no-brainer because they'd be losing him anyway and what he did for the rest of the season wouldn't help them do anything but get a worse draft pick. Given his approach to free agency, I don't think trading him would prevent a return since he doesn't seem to allow emotion to control or even affect his decisions.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Jan 12, 2020 11:04:50 GMT -5
The Sox would still be competitive without Betts and they have shown this winter they aren't "all-in" or as "competitive" as they could be. If the Sox get an offer they deem acceptable for him, and if he is still not interested in an extension, they will move him, in my opinion. If he somehow decides to sign, great, but my guess right now is in the end we are going to feel like the best play would have been the Group of 4 should have traded him for the best offer after the World Series and then hired Bloom and let him have a full winter with flexibility and no blood on his hands.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 12, 2020 11:11:14 GMT -5
Also, writing “You might actually be right for once" to Shaughnessy makes me like John Henry more.
|
|
|