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 kingstephanos on Nov 8, 2019 10:33:08 GMT -5
Noah has two years control remaining and only made $6m this year. I'm not sure why the Mets would want to do this. I could envision their F.O./ownership looking to move in a more offensive minded direction, as their collection of really great pitchers has yet to move the needle in terms of wins and playoff births. Perhaps getting a young, handsome RF/CF could boost marketing sales and sell more seats, especially if Betts pulls off another 7+ WAR season and the Mets vie for contention during the season.
|
|
|
Post by thardingesq on Nov 8, 2019 10:57:37 GMT -5
People need to keep in mind that trading Betts is a separate, but related, issue to cutting payroll. The reason you trade Mookie Betts is to avoid being left with nothing if he leaves in free agency. You do not trade him IN ORDER TO save money. However, if you do trade him, that has the effect of cutting payroll. Hence why it is related. Nobody is saying the Red Sox are going to trade Betts for the purpose of saving money. Fans are not getting this. Mookie is not open to an extension right now, his choice and I get it. But if the Sox trade him, it is because they do not want to lose him for nothing. Not about money
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 11:49:17 GMT -5
That's what I think the Sox are afraid of - that they match whatever offer he gets and he says, "No thanks. I prefer to go elsewhere" and all the Sox get out of it is a 4th round pick. And they also get Mookie's 2020 season, which is worth a lot. They do not just get a 4th round pick. It has value of course, but let's face it. If the starting pitching is where it was in 2019 the Red Sox aren't going far even if Betts has a year that exceeds 2018. So much of the upcoming season depends on two of Sale, Price, and Eovaldi being highly productive and the Sox doing a good job of filling in Rick Porcello's innings. As we've seen the starting pitching staff can lift the team to a World Series and it can doom them to non-contention. Depending upon Sale's health, the Sox have one spot to fill in and might need to add another. That's two spots with little in the way of prospects (can Houck be more than a reliever? Can Mata make a huge jump?) and little in the way of money to improve. So yes, on paper Betts' 2020 season has a ton of value. So does Mike Trout's, but unless the rest of the Angels around him play better, what difference does it make to the big picture? I'm not trying to argue with you that Betts' 2020 season has no value, because it does - if the starting staff bounces back somewhat then the Sox most definitely need Mookie to go anywhere in 2020, but if we find out that Sale isn't right come spring training....and well, who knows which way Bloom goes to improve the rotation? The point is that Mookie's real value for 2020 for the Red Sox matters most in the context of the team's expectations for the upcoming season.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 11:50:49 GMT -5
I think the Sox should offer Mookie $210 for 6 years. Set it up $10 for 2020, $40 for 2021-2025. That gives him an AAV of $35 per. If he rejects, then deal him.
Package him along with Price. I’m not as worried as much about what’s coming back as I am the financial relief.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 8, 2019 11:58:21 GMT -5
And they also get Mookie's 2020 season, which is worth a lot. They do not just get a 4th round pick. It has value of course, but let's face it. If the starting pitching is where it was in 2019 the Red Sox aren't going far even if Betts has a year that exceeds 2018. So much of the upcoming season depends on two of Sale, Price, and Eovaldi being highly productive and the Sox doing a good job of filling in Rick Porcello's innings. As we've seen the starting pitching staff can lift the team to a World Series and it can doom them to non-contention. Depending upon Sale's health, the Sox have one spot to fill in and might need to add another. That's two spots with little in the way of prospects (can Houck be more than a reliever? Can Mata make a huge jump?) and little in the way of money to improve. So yes, on paper Betts' 2020 season has a ton of value. So does Mike Trout's, but unless the rest of the Angels around him play better, what difference does it make to the big picture? I'm not trying to argue with you that Betts' 2020 season has no value, because it does - if the starting staff bounces back somewhat then the Sox most definitely need Mookie to go anywhere in 2020, but if we find out that Sale isn't right come spring training....and well, who knows which way Bloom goes to improve the rotation?The point is that Mookie's real value for 2020 for the Red Sox matters most in the context of the team's expectations for the upcoming season. But the starting staff severely underperformed in 2019. They're a very good bet to bounce back somewhat. And if they don't - if, say, Sale comes back in spring training and it becomes clear he needs Tommy John, or the starters just generally suck again - then they'd have until the trade deadline to move Betts. So why not split the difference? See how things develop, and if at some point 2020 looks like a lost cause then make the trade. But it would seem crazy to me to go into the season with a roster including Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Martinez, Sale, Price, Rodriguez, and, if they keep him, Betts, and not at least try to compete.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 12:17:37 GMT -5
I think the Sox should offer Mookie $210 for 6 years. Set it up $10 for 2020, $40 for 2021-2025. That gives him an AAV of $35 per. If he rejects, then deal him. Package him along with Price. I’m not as worried as much about what’s coming back as I am the financial relief. He knows he can probably get somewhere in the vicinity of 10 years and $350 million so why in the world would he settle for a 6 year $210 million? The answer is he wouldn't and the Sox might as well trade him now if that's their proposal to him. I doubt it would be.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 12:25:41 GMT -5
It has value of course, but let's face it. If the starting pitching is where it was in 2019 the Red Sox aren't going far even if Betts has a year that exceeds 2018. So much of the upcoming season depends on two of Sale, Price, and Eovaldi being highly productive and the Sox doing a good job of filling in Rick Porcello's innings. As we've seen the starting pitching staff can lift the team to a World Series and it can doom them to non-contention. Depending upon Sale's health, the Sox have one spot to fill in and might need to add another. That's two spots with little in the way of prospects (can Houck be more than a reliever? Can Mata make a huge jump?) and little in the way of money to improve. So yes, on paper Betts' 2020 season has a ton of value. So does Mike Trout's, but unless the rest of the Angels around him play better, what difference does it make to the big picture? I'm not trying to argue with you that Betts' 2020 season has no value, because it does - if the starting staff bounces back somewhat then the Sox most definitely need Mookie to go anywhere in 2020, but if we find out that Sale isn't right come spring training....and well, who knows which way Bloom goes to improve the rotation?The point is that Mookie's real value for 2020 for the Red Sox matters most in the context of the team's expectations for the upcoming season. But the starting staff severely underperformed in 2019. They're a very good bet to bounce back somewhat. And if they don't - if, say, Sale comes back in spring training and it becomes clear he needs Tommy John, or the starters just generally suck again - then they'd have until the trade deadline to move Betts. So why not split the difference? See how things develop, and if at some point 2020 looks like a lost cause then make the trade. But it would seem crazy to me to go into the season with a roster including Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Martinez, Sale, Price, Rodriguez, and, if they keep him, Betts, and not at least try to compete. I'm in favor of hanging onto him and going for it. Frankly I'd rather that the Sox re-sign him, period. I'm just trying to point out that with SO much attention being paid to Mookie Betts, that the fact is the Sox will go as far as their starting staff will take them. And the problem with the Sox' starting staff is questionable health to key pitchers, a lack of minor leaguers truly ready to step in and become mainstays, and a lack of cash to spend on available starters to replace departing/injured starters, and a lack of depth in general. Brian Johnson, Hector Velazquez, and Steven Wright turned out to be excellent depth options in 2018. They were useless in 2019 - worse than replacement level, and what they have now for depth is in question, with the only good thing being that at least Houck and Mata are closer to the majors, but they're not exactly knocking on the door. And that doesn't even address the bullpen questions. So much regarding Mookie and their payroll but so many issues with their pitching staff and trying to fix that for minimal money while crossing our fingers hoping for their best health, particularly Sale, who could very well be the clear ace of the staff and a top five starter or be ineffective trying to gut out an injury or be on the sidelines for the entire year. It's such a huge range of outcomes. I think that's even a bigger key to what happens in 2020 than Mookie, but is relevant when having a discussion about the value of Mookie on the Red Sox for 2020 with an uncertain pitching staff. The one disadvantage to holding onto him is that the team who acquires him gets nothing if/when he walks away, so they have no QO to give him, so they wouldn't get a draft pick, therefore their trade offer would be lesser because of it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2019 12:34:15 GMT -5
And they also get Mookie's 2020 season, which is worth a lot. They do not just get a 4th round pick. It has value of course, but let's face it. If the starting pitching is where it was in 2019 the Red Sox aren't going far even if Betts has a year that exceeds 2018. So much of the upcoming season depends on two of Sale, Price, and Eovaldi being highly productive and the Sox doing a good job of filling in Rick Porcello's innings. As we've seen the starting pitching staff can lift the team to a World Series and it can doom them to non-contention. Depending upon Sale's health, the Sox have one spot to fill in and might need to add another. That's two spots with little in the way of prospects (can Houck be more than a reliever? Can Mata make a huge jump?) and little in the way of money to improve. So yes, on paper Betts' 2020 season has a ton of value. So does Mike Trout's, but unless the rest of the Angels around him play better, what difference does it make to the big picture? I'm not trying to argue with you that Betts' 2020 season has no value, because it does - if the starting staff bounces back somewhat then the Sox most definitely need Mookie to go anywhere in 2020, but if we find out that Sale isn't right come spring training....and well, who knows which way Bloom goes to improve the rotation? The point is that Mookie's real value for 2020 for the Red Sox matters most in the context of the team's expectations for the upcoming season. The Red Sox have to have a lot of things go right to win in 2020, but that's the case every single year they could win. Either you're trying to win or you're tanking. This isn't a team that should tank.
|
|
|
Post by thealanembreeproject on Nov 8, 2019 12:39:53 GMT -5
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why can’t we trade him and still sign him in FA? If we need to lay out 35 over 10 years anyways then be the highest bidder, save 30 million in 2020 and pony up and get what you can now to retool?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 8, 2019 14:07:31 GMT -5
I think the Sox should offer Mookie $210 for 6 years. Set it up $10 for 2020, $40 for 2021-2025. That gives him an AAV of $35 per. If he rejects, then deal him. Package him along with Price. I’m not as worried as much about what’s coming back as I am the financial relief. This is an awesome idea. Lowball him so he'll never want to sign with the Red Sox, then lose all leverage in trade talks because word of that will naturally get out, then trade him for way less than he's worth! Flawless.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Nov 8, 2019 14:16:56 GMT -5
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why can’t we trade him and still sign him in FA? If we need to lay out 35 over 10 years anyways then be the highest bidder, save 30 million in 2020 and pony up and get what you can now to retool? This is what I've been leaning towards too. Seems as though he will go to the highest bidder next off-season anyway, so let's get some prospects and reset the luxury tax along the way.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 8, 2019 14:45:09 GMT -5
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why can’t we trade him and still sign him in FA? If we need to lay out 35 over 10 years anyways then be the highest bidder, save 30 million in 2020 and pony up and get what you can now to retool? It sounds nice and it's feasible in video games but when you're dealing with real humans it's tough to trade them away and then try to make the claim a year later that you really wanted them all along. These guys aren't thinking in the grand scheme of things most of the time so the "we were trying to build the prospect base to help the team be successful" reasoning normally won't fly unless it's a very special case.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2019 14:46:11 GMT -5
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why can’t we trade him and still sign him in FA? If we need to lay out 35 over 10 years anyways then be the highest bidder, save 30 million in 2020 and pony up and get what you can now to retool? It sounds nice and it's feasible in video games but when you're dealing with real humans it's tough to trade them away and then try to make the claim a year later that you really wanted them all along. These guys aren't thinking in the grand scheme of things most of the time so the "we were trying to build the prospect base to help the team be successful" reasoning normally won't fly unless it's a very special case. They had the same plan with Lester and we know how that turned out. They'd be giving up any advantage they had by being the hometown team.
|
|
|
Post by thealanembreeproject on Nov 8, 2019 15:36:41 GMT -5
I agree..my only point is if you have to be the highest bidder anyways, then be the highest bidder and get something for this year. The difference with Lester is he didn't say I'm going to whoever pays the most. He felt disrespected by the offer the Sox put on the table and went where he was both paid and respected.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2019 15:47:04 GMT -5
I agree..my only point is if you have to be the highest bidder anyways, then be the highest bidder and get something for this year. The difference with Lester is he didn't say I'm going to whoever pays the most. He felt disrespected by the offer the Sox put on the table and went where he was both paid and respected. Lester went to the highest bidder. Everything else was posturing by his agents to make it so Red Sox fans didn't boo him when he comes back to Fenway. Literally every contract negotiation will have offers on both sides that start out as insulting. Most don't become public because it's a business and is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 17:26:07 GMT -5
I think the Sox should offer Mookie $210 for 6 years. Set it up $10 for 2020, $40 for 2021-2025. That gives him an AAV of $35 per. If he rejects, then deal him. Package him along with Price. I’m not as worried as much about what’s coming back as I am the financial relief. This is an awesome idea. Lowball him so he'll never want to sign with the Red Sox, then lose all leverage in trade talks because word of that will naturally get out, then trade him for way less than he's worth! Flawless. $35 per year AAV lowball. 😂😂😂 Mookie isn’t the only player on this team. I love Mookie as much as anyone but any 10 year deal for the amount of money he’s going to command to is ridiculous if you want long term success. Please name one contract like that it’s worked out for.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 17:51:43 GMT -5
This is an awesome idea. Lowball him so he'll never want to sign with the Red Sox, then lose all leverage in trade talks because word of that will naturally get out, then trade him for way less than he's worth! Flawless. $35 per year AAV lowball. 😂😂😂 Mookie isn’t the only player on this team. I love Mookie as much as anyone but any 10 year deal for the amount of money he’s going to command to is ridiculous if you want long term success. Please name one contract like that it’s worked out for. Nobody is saying that a 10 year contract is wise. The question is how many years of waste do you get and contrast it against how many strong years of contributions he gives the team. The point that was being made is that you might as well trade him than offer him a six year deal for $210 million. He KNOWS he can get a better offer on the free agent market, one that probably gets him $300 - $350 million or maybe even more. Why should he accept that deal? If you make that offer you have to know he's not accepting it. So you might as well trade him. What's the point of, "I'd offer him X" when you know damn well he's not signing it. Just trade him if that's the best offer you're giving him. I'm not even saying you're wrong that the Red Sox should DEFINITELY sign him. I think they should, but can understand arguments that they shouldn't. Totally get it. That said, you'll never sign an upper echelon free agent with that mindset. The question for free agency isn't if you're going to get actual value. Most likely you won't. The question is will you get enough to make it worthwhile? Was Shane Victorino worth 3 years and $39 million? Or Foulke worth 3 years and $24 million? Not really, but certainly there can't be regrets. They impacted two championship teams that may not have won if not for their contributions. If Betts gives the Sox 2 MVP caliber seasons, 2 all-star seasons, 3 good seasons, and 3 mediocre/below average seasons, is it worth it? Probably so.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 17:55:30 GMT -5
I agree..my only point is if you have to be the highest bidder anyways, then be the highest bidder and get something for this year. The difference with Lester is he didn't say I'm going to whoever pays the most. He felt disrespected by the offer the Sox put on the table and went where he was both paid and respected. Lester went to the highest bidder. Everything else was posturing by his agents to make it so Red Sox fans didn't boo him when he comes back to Fenway. Literally every contract negotiation will have offers on both sides that start out as insulting. Most don't become public because it's a business and is meaningless. Depending upon your definition, I think the Giants might have offered Lester more money than the Cubs. I think it was something like 7 years $168 million compared to 6 years $156 million for the Cubs. Higher AAV for the Cubs, but longer and more $ for the Giants. Basically an extra year at $12 million (which might not be bad for a 37 year old). Probably would have made more overall had he went to SF, but it's reasonably comparable and I'm sure the Theo factor had something to do with his decision, as Lester was familiar with Theo and the way they run an organization.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 18:24:43 GMT -5
$35 per year AAV lowball. 😂😂😂 Mookie isn’t the only player on this team. I love Mookie as much as anyone but any 10 year deal for the amount of money he’s going to command to is ridiculous if you want long term success. Please name one contract like that it’s worked out for. Nobody is saying that a 10 year contract is wise. The question is how many years of waste do you get and contrast it against how many strong years of contributions he gives the team. The point that was being made is that you might as well trade him than offer him a six year deal for $210 million. He KNOWS he can get a better offer on the free agent market, one that probably gets him $300 - $350 million or maybe even more. Why should he accept that deal? If you make that offer you have to know he's not accepting it. So you might as well trade him. What's the point of, "I'd offer him X" when you know damn well he's not signing it. Just trade him if that's the best offer you're giving him. I'm not even saying you're wrong that the Red Sox should DEFINITELY sign him. I think they should, but can understand arguments that they shouldn't. Totally get it. That said, you'll never sign an upper echelon free agent with that mindset. The question for free agency isn't if you're going to get actual value. Most likely you won't. The question is will you get enough to make it worthwhile? Was Shane Victorino worth 3 years and $39 million? Or Foulke worth 3 years and $24 million? Not really, but certainly there can't be regrets. They impacted two championship teams that may not have won if not for their contributions. If Betts gives the Sox 2 MVP caliber seasons, 2 all-star seasons, 3 good seasons, and 3 mediocre/below average seasons, is it worth it? Probably so. I don’t think the $35 AAV per year offer is a slap in the face. If so, then yes if we could move Mookie along with Price in a deal to get some financial flexibility, we should. We need the money to extend Erod, Devers and Benny now.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 18:37:33 GMT -5
Nobody is saying that a 10 year contract is wise. The question is how many years of waste do you get and contrast it against how many strong years of contributions he gives the team. The point that was being made is that you might as well trade him than offer him a six year deal for $210 million. He KNOWS he can get a better offer on the free agent market, one that probably gets him $300 - $350 million or maybe even more. Why should he accept that deal? If you make that offer you have to know he's not accepting it. So you might as well trade him. What's the point of, "I'd offer him X" when you know damn well he's not signing it. Just trade him if that's the best offer you're giving him. I'm not even saying you're wrong that the Red Sox should DEFINITELY sign him. I think they should, but can understand arguments that they shouldn't. Totally get it. That said, you'll never sign an upper echelon free agent with that mindset. The question for free agency isn't if you're going to get actual value. Most likely you won't. The question is will you get enough to make it worthwhile? Was Shane Victorino worth 3 years and $39 million? Or Foulke worth 3 years and $24 million? Not really, but certainly there can't be regrets. They impacted two championship teams that may not have won if not for their contributions. If Betts gives the Sox 2 MVP caliber seasons, 2 all-star seasons, 3 good seasons, and 3 mediocre/below average seasons, is it worth it? Probably so. I don’t think the $35 AAV per year offer is a slap in the face. If so, then yes if we could move Mookie along with Price in a deal to get some financial flexibility, we should. We need the money to extend Erod, Devers and Benny now. Put it to you like this. If I offered you $35 million for 6 years but you were positive you could get $35 million for 10 years, wouldn't you decline my offer? It's not the 35 million annual salary he'd be balking at. It would be the six years versus the ten years he could fetch that annual figure. I think they'll extend Devers regardless, but Benintendi could be vulnerable in a deal if they determine that moving a pitcher is the way to go and the only way to do so is to package a valuable young inexpensive talent. I think Benintendi is better than he showed last year, but last year his numbers were hardly overwhelming, so he'd be the easiest to replace (other than JBJ). I hope it doesn't come down to having to do that. I still think Beni has better years ahead of him.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 8, 2019 18:49:31 GMT -5
Why does Price keep coming up in these discussions rather than Sale ? Price should have been the World Series MVP. The only reason he wasn't is because people are childish. I believe Sale has the warrior mentality. You can't fault the guy. He does not make excuses. His body fails him. Price also has injury issues but Price was there in the World Series and logically should have been the MVP. All I am saying is I am 100% confident that Sale's contract is a short and long term disaster. I have at least some confidence that may not be the case with Price.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 19:05:30 GMT -5
Good point.
I was looking at more of him being the second highest paid player in the game on a yearly basis vs the length of the deal.
The bad contracts are piling up leaving no room for needed improvements. Xander’s deal is the only good one on the books. That has to change.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 19:12:32 GMT -5
Me personally, Sale is $5.4 cheaper per year, 3 years younger and an absolute beast when healthy. I don’t think either of them have much trade value at the moment, but I’d prefer to keep Sale. But if a team would rather take Sale in a deal to give us some space, I’m all for it.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 8, 2019 19:56:32 GMT -5
This is an awesome idea. Lowball him so he'll never want to sign with the Red Sox, then lose all leverage in trade talks because word of that will naturally get out, then trade him for way less than he's worth! Flawless. $35 per year AAV lowball. 😂😂😂 Mookie isn’t the only player on this team. I love Mookie as much as anyone but any 10 year deal for the amount of money he’s going to command to is ridiculous if you want long term success. Please name one contract like that it’s worked out for. I'm not advocating giving him a 10 year deal for the money he's going to command, but that's a great straw man argument. All I'm saying is that if you want to lowball him (and despite your very convincing argument of three laughing emojis, it IS a lowball offer), then just don't even bother offering him a contract because it just makes the organization look bad. Also, you can't really say "name on contract like that it's worked out for" when all of the comparable contracts are in their second or third years and the most comparable contract to what Betts is likely to get on the free market is Trout and that's probably going to work out pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 8, 2019 20:46:31 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge.
But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out?
|
|
|