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 manfred on Jan 24, 2020 13:23:04 GMT -5
Honestly, Wil Myers + better include the best prospect package ever, if only because it means the Sox have Wil Myers. Sigh.
I am 100% on the keep-Mookie train. Is it so wrong that whatever else I want one more season of Mookie? I will worry about two years from now two years from now. But I love Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2020 13:23:32 GMT -5
Baez may well be one of the elite closers in a couple years. Rest don't thrill me in a Betts deal, Quantril probably the best. Agree with poster above and some others who have resigned themselves to probable reality tho.. Betts is hitting FA. Us wanting him to stay won't help. Whether or not best offer is now, or in July is the tricky part pretty much as sad as it is. The best offer could also be Mookie remaining with the team and contributing to the 2020 Red Sox. I'm not sure why people continually ignore that. Just my two cents, but if you aren't resigning him. That's an all in move, yet they aren't acting like that. Sure maybe they get lucky, but is that worth not getting a lot for Betts right now? For years you have said it better to not go all in for one year, better to have many chances. Yet you seem to be arguing the exact opposite with Betts. If you aren't signing Betts trading him now increases your chances for years.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 13:51:13 GMT -5
The Red Sox won 84 games last season despite not really trying the last 6 weeks of the season - or the first 4 weeks of the season, essentially - and that was with a disastrous performance by the rotation which is not likely to be repeated. It's also essentially the same group that won 108 games in 2018. We don't know how the season will go, of course, but I can't fathom thinking that a team with Sale, Price, Rodriguez, Betts, Bogaerts, Devers, etc., should just be written off. Steamer projects Perez for a 4.59 ERA and Porcello for a 4.62 ERA. It's probable that Bloom thinks Perez is just better than Porcello, and he costs $3.5 million less. If "salary reduction" means replacing one player with another who is cheaper and also better, there's not a GM in the game who wouldn't do it. And beyond this example, there isn't anywhere on the roster that Bloom has given up talent for the sake of salary reduction. They were very trying, and I doubt that the players themselves were tanking. They were certainly trying when they lost 8 games in a row in the two series that were make or break for the season. Tampa and New York were simply a good deal better than them last season. ... I'm picking the Sox to win about 87 - 89 games because they're not as bad as last year and not as good as 2018, but I don't have them more than a handful of games better than last year because 1) they haven't improved their team at all, 2) other teams have, and 3) Alex Cora isn't around anymore and it's hard to be confident that the Sox will be as cohesive this season without him. Sure, 87-89 wins is not a crazy projection. But that's a lot different from 82-85 wins - it means they'll likely be in contention for a wild card, at least, and if a few things break right they could be legitimately really good. If your team projects for 87-89 wins you certainly don't write off their playoff chances. As for how they played at the beginning and end of last season - no, they weren't literally tanking, but the games were hardly being managed with a do-or-die mentality, e.g. in terms of bullpen usage, in September. And we all know about the weirdness with which they came out of the gate in April, and that's not likely to be repeated. (If they had merely played .500 in both April and September, they would have ended up with 88 wins, which is what you're projecting for them this year.)
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 24, 2020 13:53:06 GMT -5
Because I think most people have given up on the Sox being very good in 2020 (maybe 82-85 wins). If that's the case, it doesn't really matter what he contributes to the 2020 team. So, it's a matter of do you value the 1st round pick more than whatever return they get. The Red Sox won 84 games last season despite not really trying the last 6 weeks of the season - or the first 4 weeks of the season, essentially - and that was with a disastrous performance by the rotation which is not likely to be repeated. It's also essentially the same group that won 108 games in 2018. We don't know how the season will go, of course, but I can't fathom thinking that a team with Sale, Price, Rodriguez, Betts, Bogaerts, Devers, etc., should just be written off. You don't think Chaim Bloom isn't trying to reduce salary? That's how they ended up with Perez over Porcello. Steamer projects Perez for a 4.59 ERA and Porcello for a 4.62 ERA. It's probable that Bloom thinks Perez is just better than Porcello, and he costs $3.5 million less. If "salary reduction" means replacing one player with another who is cheaper and also better, there's not a GM in the game who wouldn't do it. And beyond this example, there isn't anywhere on the roster that Bloom has given up talent for the sake of salary reduction. Is it not possible that maybe they want to figure out the Betts situation before peeling away minor pieces like Workman? Also, he's a guy you can trade any time between now and the deadline and I doubt would command enough to make them questioning resigning him after next season. They might want to retain him for 2021 and beyond. The thing with Porcello is, he has more upside. We've seen a few times now that he's very Derek Lowe-esque. He can either be a front line starter or one of the worst in baseball. Predictions for him are incredibly difficult. I don't think the Mets would give him 10 million instead of Perez 6 if they didn't see the upside. Perez is basically a lock for a 4.5-4.7 ERA. Edit: Earlier I said Espinosa trade. Meant Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 14:05:48 GMT -5
The Red Sox won 84 games last season despite not really trying the last 6 weeks of the season - or the first 4 weeks of the season, essentially - and that was with a disastrous performance by the rotation which is not likely to be repeated. It's also essentially the same group that won 108 games in 2018. We don't know how the season will go, of course, but I can't fathom thinking that a team with Sale, Price, Rodriguez, Betts, Bogaerts, Devers, etc., should just be written off. Steamer projects Perez for a 4.59 ERA and Porcello for a 4.62 ERA. It's probable that Bloom thinks Perez is just better than Porcello, and he costs $3.5 million less. If "salary reduction" means replacing one player with another who is cheaper and also better, there's not a GM in the game who wouldn't do it. And beyond this example, there isn't anywhere on the roster that Bloom has given up talent for the sake of salary reduction. Is it not possible that maybe they want to figure out the Betts situation before peeling away minor pieces like Workman? Also, he's a guy you can trade any time between now and the deadline and I doubt would command enough to make them questioning resigning him after next season. They might want to retain him for 2021 and beyond. The thing with Porcello is, he has more upside. We've seen a few times now that he's very Derek Lowe-esque. He can either be a front line starter or one of the worst in baseball. Predictions for him are incredibly difficult. I don't think the Mets would give him 10 million instead of Perez 6 if they didn't see the upside. Perez is basically a lock for a 4.5-4.7 ERA. People always do this "Porcello is great every other season" thing, but I don't really see it. He's had two seasons in his career with an ERA below 4.28; one season in his career with a FIP below 3.50. It's been above 4.00 each of the last three seasons. He's just a very mediocre pitcher who's had one really good season. If Bloom didn't want to spend $10 million on that it hardly has to be construed as a payroll reduction move. And yes, possibly, in regards to figuring out the Betts move - but they haven't done that yet, so why would we assume that's the plan?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2020 14:09:05 GMT -5
They were very trying, and I doubt that the players themselves were tanking. They were certainly trying when they lost 8 games in a row in the two series that were make or break for the season. Tampa and New York were simply a good deal better than them last season. ... I'm picking the Sox to win about 87 - 89 games because they're not as bad as last year and not as good as 2018, but I don't have them more than a handful of games better than last year because 1) they haven't improved their team at all, 2) other teams have, and 3) Alex Cora isn't around anymore and it's hard to be confident that the Sox will be as cohesive this season without him. Sure, 87-89 wins is not a crazy projection. But that's a lot different from 82-85 wins - it means they'll likely be in contention for a wild card, at least, and if a few things break right they could be legitimately really good. If your team projects for 87-89 wins you certainly don't write off their playoff chances. As for how they played at the beginning and end of last season - no, they weren't literally tanking, but the games were hardly being managed with a do-or-die mentality, e.g. in terms of bullpen usage, in September. And we all know about the weirdness with which they came out of the gate in April, and that's not likely to be repeated. (If they had merely played .500 in both April and September, they would have ended up with 88 wins, which is what you're projecting for them this year.) The midpoint of 84 wins and 108 wins is 96 wins, and I don't see the Red Sox as doing that this season. 87 - 89 wins is on the fringe of wild card contention. 87 - 89 wins some years get you a wild card berth. In the late 1980s it would get you a division title. But last year that was nowhere near good enough to make the playoffs. The point is they're a fringy contender, one that I'd take my chances with by keeping Betts for awhile and seeing what happens, but they would have very little rope before I'd decide to cut bait. They have to be right there in wild card contention, not 5 to 7 games off the pace having to climb over 5 other teams or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 14:14:33 GMT -5
Sure, 87-89 wins is not a crazy projection. But that's a lot different from 82-85 wins - it means they'll likely be in contention for a wild card, at least, and if a few things break right they could be legitimately really good. If your team projects for 87-89 wins you certainly don't write off their playoff chances. As for how they played at the beginning and end of last season - no, they weren't literally tanking, but the games were hardly being managed with a do-or-die mentality, e.g. in terms of bullpen usage, in September. And we all know about the weirdness with which they came out of the gate in April, and that's not likely to be repeated. (If they had merely played .500 in both April and September, they would have ended up with 88 wins, which is what you're projecting for them this year.) The midpoint of 84 wins and 108 wins is 96 wins, and I don't see the Red Sox as doing that this season. 87 - 89 wins is on the fringe of wild card contention. 87 - 89 wins some years get you a wild card berth. In the late 1980s it would get you a division title. But last year that was nowhere near good enough to make the playoffs. The point is they're a fringy contender, one that I'd take my chances with by keeping Betts for awhile and seeing what happens, but they would have very little rope before I'd decide to cut bait. They have to be right there in wild card contention, not 5 to 7 games off the pace having to climb over 5 other teams or whatever. I agree with every word of this! Except maybe I'd project them for 90-92 wins, but I'd still call that fringe contender territory.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Jan 24, 2020 14:17:24 GMT -5
While hearing the Padres top 5 prospects are not in play is disappointing, where would 6,7,and 8 rank in our system if they were in the deal? Morejon, the $11 million signing from Cuba, Weathers, the 7th pick in the 2018 draft, and Baez who is already performing well in the majors?
I can't imagine they would all be included but that would be quite a haul if they were, would it not?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 14:24:49 GMT -5
Why would a team give up a huge package for Mookie if he is a rental? I mean, of all the play-for-one-year teams, the Sox have the best rationale, since the only cost is opportunity.
Edit: I mean, further, if you think you can sign him, why not waita year and only give ip a pick?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2020 14:30:15 GMT -5
Is it not possible that maybe they want to figure out the Betts situation before peeling away minor pieces like Workman? Also, he's a guy you can trade any time between now and the deadline and I doubt would command enough to make them questioning resigning him after next season. They might want to retain him for 2021 and beyond. The thing with Porcello is, he has more upside. We've seen a few times now that he's very Derek Lowe-esque. He can either be a front line starter or one of the worst in baseball. Predictions for him are incredibly difficult. I don't think the Mets would give him 10 million instead of Perez 6 if they didn't see the upside. Perez is basically a lock for a 4.5-4.7 ERA. People always do this "Porcello is great every other season" thing, but I don't really see it. He's had two seasons in his career with an ERA below 4.28; one season in his career with a FIP below 3.50. It's been above 4.00 each of the last three seasons. He's just a very mediocre pitcher who's had one really good season. If Bloom didn't want to spend $10 million on that it hardly has to be construed as a payroll reduction move. And yes, possibly, in regards to figuring out the Betts move - but they haven't done that yet, so why would we assume that's the plan? Last six years every other year for Porcello. First group 1.139 whip, 3.67 FIP and averaged 3.9 bwar. Was over 3 bwar every year. Second group 1.384 whip, 4.5 FIP and averaged .5 bwar a year. Top bwar was 1.2 Just look at the bwar 3.8, .5, 4.8, -.2, 3.1, 1.2
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Jan 24, 2020 14:32:09 GMT -5
It sounds like an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon but not on the amount of Myers contract the Sox would be willing to pay.
Since his AAV is quite a bit less than his actual salary, I wonder if what the Padres paid would count to lower his AAV for Red Sox cap purposes?
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 24, 2020 14:41:09 GMT -5
It sounds like an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon but not on the amount of Myers contract the Sox would be willing to pay. Since his AAV is quite a bit less than his actual salary, I wonder if what the Padres paid would count to lower his AAV for Red Sox cap purposes? Just curious but what information available is leading you to believe that an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon?
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jan 24, 2020 14:42:42 GMT -5
If reports are true...
1. Wil Myers would be included as a salary dump 2. Padres top 5 prospects are off limits (Gore, Patino, Trammell, Abrams, Campusano) 3. Padres willing to send controllable MLB assets and pass the bar set by the Goldschmidt trade
Then I’d figure the type of deal would look something like this:
Betts to SD for Wil Myers, Margot, Quantrill, Morejon, Baez and their competitive round draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2020 14:44:23 GMT -5
While hearing the Padres top 5 prospects are not in play is disappointing, where would 6,7,and 8 rank in our system if they were in the deal? Morejon, the $11 million signing from Cuba, Weathers, the 7th pick in the 2018 draft, and Baez who is already performing well in the majors? I can't imagine they would all be included but that would be quite a haul if they were, would it not? That is highly subjective, but below #1 for sure. I'd say from reports I've seen they are likely top 6 guys in our system. It would be really fun depending Matta vs Morejon.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2020 14:53:47 GMT -5
If they do this deal I would suspect it's Myers, Margot, Quantrill and Morejon for Betts.
And Manfred, why would SD do this deal rather than wait a year to sign Moookie?
Because they probably know they can't sign him either and they're taking a shot that this year they can vault into serious contention.
They have already spent a ton of money on Machado and Hosmer. Odds are they cannot afford Mookie so this is their one chance to rent Mookie and it won't even touch the top of their farm system.
Their lineup could contain Mookie, Tatis, Machado, Hosmer, Pham, Grisham, Mejia, and Profar. That's a really good lineup that they can contend with.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 24, 2020 14:56:14 GMT -5
Is it not possible that maybe they want to figure out the Betts situation before peeling away minor pieces like Workman? Also, he's a guy you can trade any time between now and the deadline and I doubt would command enough to make them questioning resigning him after next season. They might want to retain him for 2021 and beyond. The thing with Porcello is, he has more upside. We've seen a few times now that he's very Derek Lowe-esque. He can either be a front line starter or one of the worst in baseball. Predictions for him are incredibly difficult. I don't think the Mets would give him 10 million instead of Perez 6 if they didn't see the upside. Perez is basically a lock for a 4.5-4.7 ERA. People always do this "Porcello is great every other season" thing, but I don't really see it. He's had two seasons in his career with an ERA below 4.28; one season in his career with a FIP below 3.50. It's been above 4.00 each of the last three seasons. He's just a very mediocre pitcher who's had one really good season. If Bloom didn't want to spend $10 million on that it hardly has to be construed as a payroll reduction move. And yes, possibly, in regards to figuring out the Betts move - but they haven't done that yet, so why would we assume that's the plan? In 2013, he had an ERA of 4.32 and a FIP of 3.53 at the age of 24 In 2014, he had and ERA of 3.43 and a FIP of 3.67 at the age of 25 In 2015, he had a near 5 ERA but a 4.19 FIP in 2016 he won the Cy Young In 2017 he was woefully mediocre with a 4.65 ERA and a 4.6 FIP in 2018 he was better with a 4.28 ERA and a 4.01 FIP Then last year he was just a complete disaster. He's now going to be 31. So, he very well could have had a low ERA in 2013. He was borderline in 2018. In 2016 he was absolutely magical. There's certainly a higher upside than Perez. In fact, you're more likely to get a better outcome from Porcello then you are from Perez. Just like 2016 was an outlier, so was 2019.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jan 24, 2020 15:02:35 GMT -5
If they do this deal I would suspect it's Myers, Margot, Quantrill and Morejon for Betts. And Manfred, why would SD do this deal rather than wait a year to sign Moookie? Because they probably know they can't sign him either and they're taking a shot that this year they can vault into serious contention. They have already spent a ton of money on Machado and Hosmer. Odds are they cannot afford Mookie so this is their one chance to rent Mookie and it won't even touch the top of their farm system. Their lineup could contain Mookie, Tatis, Machado, Hosmer, Pham, Grisham, Mejia, and Profar. That's a really good lineup that they can contend with. That's not a bad lineup and ontop of that, they get a draft pick back.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Jan 24, 2020 15:15:11 GMT -5
The thing I don't mind about taking Myers back, and Eric mentioned this when he proposed sending Price to LA and paying all of his salary, is the extra minor league talent you could get back by taking him off the Padre's hands.
Teams are capped for both international spending and the July draft, where the Red Sox are particularly handicapped by their draft position and lack of additional picks other teams receive. If San Diego is really desperate to unload Myers, this is the one chance for Boston to add to their system.
If it is still a goal to get under 208, Boston can take care of that with other moves now or in July.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2020 15:23:44 GMT -5
People always do this "Porcello is great every other season" thing, but I don't really see it. He's had two seasons in his career with an ERA below 4.28; one season in his career with a FIP below 3.50. It's been above 4.00 each of the last three seasons. He's just a very mediocre pitcher who's had one really good season. If Bloom didn't want to spend $10 million on that it hardly has to be construed as a payroll reduction move. And yes, possibly, in regards to figuring out the Betts move - but they haven't done that yet, so why would we assume that's the plan? In 2013, he had an ERA of 4.32 and a FIP of 3.53 at the age of 24 In 2014, he had and ERA of 3.43 and a FIP of 3.67 at the age of 25 In 2015, he had a near 5 ERA but a 4.19 FIP in 2016 he won the Cy Young In 2017 he was woefully mediocre with a 4.65 ERA and a 4.6 FIP in 2018 he was better with a 4.28 ERA and a 4.01 FIP Then last year he was just a complete disaster. He's now going to be 31. So, he very well could have had a low ERA in 2013. He was borderline in 2018. In 2016 he was absolutely magical. There's certainly a higher upside than Perez. In fact, you're more likely to get a better outcome from Porcello then you are from Perez. Just like 2016 was an outlier, so was 2019. Why are you reducing this to a question of Porcello's upside? Why do you think Bloom would necessarily invest in a player purely based on their upside? He went with Perez over Porcello for $3.5 million less, and there's no reason to believe he didn't think Perez is just the better bet.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Jan 24, 2020 15:25:18 GMT -5
There is no question Boston is a better team in 2020 with Mookie. But Chaim said his responsibility is for what gives the Red Sox the best chance for success for the next decade.
It is hard to argue against waiting for July to see if the Sox are a playoff team this year. But there probably is an offer San Diego could make that many of us would say was too good to pass up on right now.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jan 24, 2020 15:26:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 24, 2020 15:29:43 GMT -5
His inclusion should be mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Jan 24, 2020 15:34:58 GMT -5
It sounds like an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon but not on the amount of Myers contract the Sox would be willing to pay. Since his AAV is quite a bit less than his actual salary, I wonder if what the Padres paid would count to lower his AAV for Red Sox cap purposes? Just curious but what information available is leading you to believe that an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon? www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/padres/story/2020-01-23/padres-mookie-betts-trade-red-sox-wil-myersThe article stated " The package of prospects the Red Sox are evidently willing to accept ...."
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 24, 2020 15:51:48 GMT -5
That article doesn't exactly make it sound like an acceptable player trade has been agreed upon to me, it makes it sound like the Red Sox said here is a list of players we have interest in and that the Padres aren't currently interested in giving up that type of package. The header of the article says deal seams unlikely, I would think if all that was left to agree on was the money changing hand it wouldn't be seen as unlikely. Just my opinion anyway, they could agree upon something in the coming days and I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2020 16:09:23 GMT -5
If they do this deal I would suspect it's Myers, Margot, Quantrill and Morejon for Betts. And Manfred, why would SD do this deal rather than wait a year to sign Moookie? Because they probably know they can't sign him either and they're taking a shot that this year they can vault into serious contention. They have already spent a ton of money on Machado and Hosmer. Odds are they cannot afford Mookie so this is their one chance to rent Mookie and it won't even touch the top of their farm system. Their lineup could contain Mookie, Tatis, Machado, Hosmer, Pham, Grisham, Mejia, and Profar. That's a really good lineup that they can contend with. I hear you, but I guess it seems like an all-in for a long shot. I might be wrong, but their pitching is not great, is it? I mean, with youth and Machado signed longterm, I’d be more interested in sustaining a solid team than playing for one year.
|
|
|