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 patford on Jan 12, 2020 12:16:59 GMT -5
Also, writing “You might actually be right for once" to Shaughnessy makes me like John Henry more. It would have been even better if he'd written, "You are a cancer and a complete idiot."
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 12, 2020 15:31:17 GMT -5
Also, writing “You might actually be right for once" to Shaughnessy makes me like John Henry more. I don't love Shaugnessy, but the whole exchange does not color John Henry in a pretty light either. Trying to blame the focus of the CBT on the media when you allowed those words to escape your mouth is disingenuous. On several occasions this ownership group has operated with no integrity over the span of their existence. Sure, we had to dance with the devil to get the 4 Championships we have, but I won't shed a tear when Henry and that boll weevil Werner eventually sell the team. FWIW, The Ownership group should be seen and not heard. Every time JH opens his mouth, he says something completely stupid that either hurts the team (like announcing the intention to get under the CBT while trying to potentially negotiate trade deals for high priced stars or impromptu radio appearances where he makes the club more unstable.)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 12, 2020 15:39:59 GMT -5
Also, writing “You might actually be right for once" to Shaughnessy makes me like John Henry more. I don't love Shaugnessy, but the whole exchange does not color John Henry in a pretty light either. Trying to blame the focus of the CBT on the media when you allowed those words to escape your mouth is disingenuous. On several occasions this ownership group has operated with no integrity over the span of their existence. Sure, we had to dance with the devil to get the 4 Championships we have, but I won't shed a tear when Henry and that boll weevil Werner eventually sell the team. FWIW, The Ownership group should be seen and not heard. Every time JH opens his mouth, he says something completely stupid that either hurts the team (like announcing the intention to get under the CBT while trying to potentially negotiate trade deals for high priced stars or impromptu radio appearances where he makes the club more unstable.) Not to be obtuse, but there has been no better owner in Red Sox history and it's not even close. Try naming one. Red Sox history is littered with the worst of the worst owners. This is not a controversy at all. It's just a clarification and there is no animosity.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 12, 2020 15:50:26 GMT -5
I don't love Shaugnessy, but the whole exchange does not color John Henry in a pretty light either. Trying to blame the focus of the CBT on the media when you allowed those words to escape your mouth is disingenuous. On several occasions this ownership group has operated with no integrity over the span of their existence. Sure, we had to dance with the devil to get the 4 Championships we have, but I won't shed a tear when Henry and that boll weevil Werner eventually sell the team. FWIW, The Ownership group should be seen and not heard. Every time JH opens his mouth, he says something completely stupid that either hurts the team (like announcing the intention to get under the CBT while trying to potentially negotiate trade deals for high priced stars or impromptu radio appearances where he makes the club more unstable.) Not to be obtuse, but there has been no better owner in Red Sox history and it's not even close. Try naming one. Red Sox history is littered with the worst of the worst owners. This is not a controversy at all. It's just a clarification and there is no animosity. It's a pretty low bar set by previous ownerships, not only were they unsuccessful, they were racist, and they covered up sexual abuse in their own clubhouse for decades. I still won't be sad when the media spin boys go off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Jan 13, 2020 10:03:36 GMT -5
This will probably be the Cardinals big move. Can't imagine they'll have much left for either Price or Mookie after this.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 13, 2020 10:41:48 GMT -5
FWIW, The Ownership group should be seen and not heard. Every time JH opens his mouth, he says something completely stupid that either hurts the team (like announcing the intention to get under the CBT while trying to potentially negotiate trade deals for high priced stars or impromptu radio appearances where he makes the club more unstable.) While I don't disagree that Henry isn't good in press situations, I think they do need to address the media the couple of times they do each year. It's an accountability thing.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 13, 2020 12:05:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 13, 2020 12:14:45 GMT -5
You know, we took the good with the bad when it came to Larry Lucchino, but I think the public standing of the other owners really was helped by having him around as the bad cop. I'm not really making a normative statement there, it's just a thing that happened.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 13, 2020 13:41:46 GMT -5
You know, we took the good with the bad when it came to Larry Lucchino, but I think the public standing of the other owners really was helped by having him around as the bad cop. I'm not really making a normative statement there, it's just a thing that happened. I think we accept the bad because of the good, but there have been several pretty high visibility misses by this group. The public character assassination of Francona comes to mind as one that will always stick with me, as will Theo leaving in a gorilla costume, then leaving again, Bobby Valentine's year. It just seems like whenever someone is on their way out, everyone knows well before because things are "leaked" to the media. I'm not saying some of the moves they made weren't necessary in the end, but at the same time the circus environment around the club seems more appropriate for a WWE presser than a baseball one. I guess it is entertainment, and god knows our society loves a good dumpster fire, so in a way they are giving the masses what they want. As a die hard fan they already had me with the uniform, I don't need the orchestrated drama to sell me.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 13, 2020 13:51:29 GMT -5
I guess my point was that when Lucchino was around you could blame him for all of that, but not all of that baloney left with him.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 13, 2020 14:02:04 GMT -5
Actions always speak louder than words. If this was really a media fabrication then they would’ve gotten a legit pen arm, 5th starter or First baseman by now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 13, 2020 14:03:57 GMT -5
Actions always speak louder than words. If this was really a media fabrication then they would’ve gotten a legit pen arm, 5th starter or First baseman by now. There's a huge difference between not spending more and cutting $30 million.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jan 13, 2020 14:09:02 GMT -5
Wonder if the potential loss of draft picks makes a trade more likely.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 13, 2020 14:10:20 GMT -5
Also trying to figure out who the legit pen arm would be, and Martin Perez is the fifth starter. It's always easy to say to get a bullpen arm and then really hard to identify bullpen arms who you'd actually want.
I do think that one of the low-cost 1B options would have been sensible. But I'm also not going to say that not signing, like, Justin Smoak means they aren't committed to winning.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 20, 2020 21:19:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Jan 21, 2020 1:05:34 GMT -5
You know, we took the good with the bad when it came to Larry Lucchino, but I think the public standing of the other owners really was helped by having him around as the bad cop. I'm not really making a normative statement there, it's just a thing that happened. Too bad Larry couldn’t have been more “diplomatic” when he interjected himself into the Jon Lester discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 21, 2020 8:39:02 GMT -5
So basically, this isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 21, 2020 9:01:12 GMT -5
So basically, this isn't going to happen. Yup. If that's accurate I doubt any team is going to pay that much money, only get one year guaranteed for Betts AND surrender two high end prospects. As for the Red Sox, good - that's what they should be proposing in a deal for Betts because otherwise they'd be doing a good job of wrecking their team's chances for 2020, getting rid of one of the elite players in the game and a guy who is still an excellent starter even if he isn't really a 30 million/year ace.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 21, 2020 11:16:34 GMT -5
So basically, this isn't going to happen. Good. Hope that was the point all along.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 21, 2020 11:36:37 GMT -5
I'm so confused, why would you want to drag down Betts value by demanding a team pay the full 96 million? Just pay down Price's salary to around 20 million a year or take back a bad contract. You want to maximize the return, not the dollar amount. Heck you should pay down Betts salary if it increases the return.
Heck wait till Price is healthy and pitching well. Look at Grienke, everyone was talking about how much they had to pay down his salary to trade him. Then they got the Astros to trade a rather good package and take on the last two years in full. That isn't a crazy contract given the way he's pitched the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jan 21, 2020 11:38:25 GMT -5
I could see that framework as more likely at the deadline than now, since it wouldn't add $59 million to a team's 2020 payroll. If the Sox are sputtering along with holes in the rotation but Price is pitching well, this would get us pretty close to under the cap even in July.
Maybe you'd have to deal some combination of JBJ/Hembree/Barnes too as I think we'd be a couple million short, but this gives a framework for keeping the band together for another run while still having a contingency plan in place to reset the luxury tax if things aren't going as planned.
And at that point I think a team that could use both Price and Betts (Dodgers, etc) would part with two-high end prospects since any deadline deal for a starter or impact regular would likely cost at least one apiece.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 21, 2020 13:24:39 GMT -5
That definitely won't happen, but if the Sox are intent on attaching Price to it I can see them being talked down to a point where they'd get two high-end prospects if they take on a hefty percentage of Price's contract, which I'd be cool with.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 21, 2020 15:52:29 GMT -5
That definitely won't happen, but if the Sox are intent on attaching Price to it I can see them being talked down to a point where they'd get two high-end prospects if they take on a hefty percentage of Price's contract, which I'd be cool with. Actually I could see them doing the other because this is all about salary dumping; that is, they would likely take one high-end prospect and a couple or three A-ball (or lower) flyers, or some MLB-average acceptable salary second or first baseman and just a flyer or two, if the acquiring team can eat enough salary. That's the real goal here, John Henry's words the other day to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Jan 21, 2020 16:55:06 GMT -5
That definitely won't happen, but if the Sox are intent on attaching Price to it I can see them being talked down to a point where they'd get two high-end prospects if they take on a hefty percentage of Price's contract, which I'd be cool with. Actually I could see them doing the other because this is all about salary dumping; that is, they would likely take one high-end prospect and a couple or three A-ball (or lower) flyers, or some MLB-average acceptable salary second or first baseman and just a flyer or two, if the acquiring team can eat enough salary. That's the real goal here, John Henry's words the other day to the contrary. Maybe I'm wrong here, but "salary dumping" is less so about paying the principal of the salary and more about avoiding paying the luxury tax on the salary, right? I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem eating ~8m a year of his salary or whatever if it meant that they didn't have to pay whatever they were going to be taxed, and got prospects in return.
|
|
|
Post by PedroKsBambino on Jan 21, 2020 17:11:00 GMT -5
This just sounds like negotiation on the part of the Red Sox. To get 2 good prospects they are going to have to eat some money and/or take back a contract like Pollock in return. I still think that the Sox and Dodgers match up good on a trade. Something like Mookie, Price, and 20 million for Verdugo, May and Pollock or Kelly seems to work for both sides. Even something in the middle like Verdugo and Gonsolin or May and Jeter Downs or Ruiz could work. We'll see how it works out before spring training
|
|
|