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.
|
Post by tyler3 on Oct 21, 2020 23:15:42 GMT -5
I don’t understand the “Red Sox owners are screwups” narrative being pushed by some. Fallible sure...but is this not the most successful franchise this century save maybe like the patriots? I mean Jesus every other city would kill for Henry and company”s results...what am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 23:30:56 GMT -5
I don’t understand the “Red Sox owners are screwups” narrative being pushed by some. Fallible sure...but is this not the most successful franchise this century save maybe like the patriots? I mean Jesus every other city would kill for Henry and company”s results...what am I missing? I don't think anybody (or at least most people) think that the Red Sox owners are buffoons. I remember pre-Henry and company and I'll take the past 20 years over anybody else's track record. But that doesn't mean they're infallible. Henry admitted they screwed up the Jon Lester situation. They foisted Bobby Valentine on Ben Cherington when he took over Theo's job. They had a toxic atmosphere that played out between Lucchino and Theo to the point where Henry questioned if he was fit to own the Red Sox. They've made mistakes and if they didn't offer a Trout comparable offer to Mookie and forced themselves into a corner where they had to trade Mookie, then that's another huge mistake. Every team has owners and GMs, even the best of them, that make mistakes. Hell, even the Dodgers let Yordano Alvarez get away. That's irrelevant. But I will say, if and it's a big IF - if what Felger's "source" told him was correct, then the Red Sox did absolutely nothing wrong with Betts. I just don't see why it's a worse look to say that Betts simply didn't prefer to remain in Boston long-term than it would be to say the Sox "cheaped out" and didn't go all out after their franchise player. I mean obviously most players will go where the most money is, but if a player thinks they can get comparable money elsewhere and would enjoy playing elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that every player would feel that way about playing in Boston. Some people loved it that much they took hometown discounts, guys like Ortiz, Pedroia, and Wakefield, and even Xander to an extent. I just don't see why the Sox think the perception would be so bad that Betts didn't want to play there when it's obvious there have been a lot of players who loved to play in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 22, 2020 0:12:21 GMT -5
Yeah, no... Mookie should have been a Red Sox for life and no amount of fake pieces against him will change that. The FO messed up. They know it.
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Oct 22, 2020 0:16:45 GMT -5
Point above is well written. But I have to ask, does anybody think the deal that Betts did sign, was worth it for the Red Sox? You could take this as a WAR question or an organizational question considering that the first 2 or 3 years of the contract the Red Sox figured (probably correctly) that the they would not be favorites for a WS trophy?
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 22, 2020 5:08:11 GMT -5
I really want to know what the final offer was to Mookie. Who knows if the 10/300 was the final offer? I'm saying this as a big skeptic of John Henry too, but hard to criticize without knowing the truth.
I'm pretty sure the Mookie deal that is set up with the Dodgers is for tax purposes. The deferred money over 24 years probably let's him keep more of it in the most taxed state in the country in California. They say the real value is 306 million, but I'm sure this deferment allows him to keep a lot more than that and keeps him paid when he's done playing. Ohh and the 65 million dollar sign on bonus.
Mookie talked like a mercenary (paid services with zero attachment) his entire time here.
Xander talked the exact opposite (how much he loved it here; how Boston feels like home). He signed.
You got to think of Mookie more like Manny Ramirez. Clearly just here in Boston for the money, winning here is nice for them but just a sidenote. These two players can win anywhere. They're that good and they know it (rightfully so).
The Sox just got to treat this like a aberration and just continue to do business like usual. The Sox are getting well set up, need another year or so.
At least Mookie didn't sign in New York. So that's the best takeaway from all this. He's not directly hurting the Sox with his great play. He's on the opposite end of the baseball world in the NL West.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Oct 22, 2020 6:00:18 GMT -5
The Dodgers as of today recieved the two best players in the deal and it's not even close. Graderol looks filthy and Betts is a top 2 player. It speaks volumes on how Andrew Friedman is able to own pretty much everyone he deals with. I get why the Sox made the deal but you can also make a case that Friedman deserves to go to the hall of fame based on his success in Tampa and the Mookie trade.
The Sox boned themselves be reworking the trade unless Downs becomes a multiple time all star. Graderol looks legit. Who knows why Betts wanted to leave. The fact that he's close with Price and the reputation of Boston being the most racist city in the world probably didn't help matters. Not saying that it is but this certainly isn't my original thought either. I remember hearing about something being thrown at his duck boat during the parade and hitting his kid. Was that claim ever substantiated?
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Oct 22, 2020 6:04:42 GMT -5
I agree with Ray (philsbosoxfan) on this. They had to do what they did. It's an unpopular view - but I couldn't care less about Mookie now. He jumped at a competitive deal from LA for 1 of 2 reasons (or some of both). He really likes LA and/or he saw the writing the on the wall in terms of baseball economics post-COVID. Read between the lines, I don't think he really wanted to stay in Boston. Maybe he was open to it if the Sox blew everyone away on the open market. But I think he preferred out. He got his wish. Good for him. So whatever. Mookie's a great baseball player. He's gone. Some people are just having a hard time moving on. Not me. i think it is absolutely fair to write this, and it is something people have a hard time accepting as being part of his decision making process I'm not sure why. Its pretty clear that for whatever reason Mookie just didn't like Boston. Maybe it was the city. Maybe its ownership. But he was never going to stay and its quite possible that he was always going to go to LA. As mad as we can get about Friedman owning Bloom in this deal which was the equivalent of making chicken salad out of chicken sh*t, it would have been 10 times worse if we all witnessed on Christmas Eve the signing of Mookie Betts by the MFY.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 22, 2020 6:08:07 GMT -5
Graderol is a injury prone reliever who has a hard time getting swings and misses with a 100 mph sinker.
He'll be a good closer for a long time if he stays healthy, but this isn't Craig Kimbrel or Papelbon either.
Downs will probably be a better fit. Right handed player in Fenway who is a solid to great overall player. A mini me of Xander maybe.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 22, 2020 6:09:43 GMT -5
Sorry but I'm of the opinion that Bloom took advantage in the deal by dumping half of Price's salary. The capper came when he had Friedman over the barrel over Graterol's medicals and we got Downs and Wong.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Oct 22, 2020 6:20:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if he did turn them down. This has been interesting in the sense that the team has taken all of the heat and shielding the player from it. But we never got one specific answer as to why the trade really happened other than maybe they needed to get under the luxury tax. This trade still would have occurred if JD opted out and the Sox were able to wiggle free of another contract. I don't believe Felgers story but I do believe something along those lines did happen and the Sox rightfully believe the PR hit would be worse knowing that he wanted out.
The PR conscious Red Sox just had to deal with the whole sign stealing debacle in February. If you're John Henry its better to take a hit and have an out (luxury tax) where everyone can at least sympathize with the decision as opposed to the player hates it here and you'll lose him for nothing and give your team the illusion of a small market NBA team while charging people a premium on tickets.
|
|
|
Post by tomhouse on Oct 22, 2020 7:26:21 GMT -5
I believe Mookie didn’t want to play in Boston. I’m not sure I believe the offer was made.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 22, 2020 8:03:30 GMT -5
Sorry but I'm of the opinion that Bloom took advantage in the deal by dumping half of Price's salary. The capper came when he had Friedman over the barrel over Graterol's medicals and we got Downs and Wong. I don't think Bloom had Friedman "over a barrel". Friedman gave up two guys who were very expendable given what he has in his farm system. I think Downs was less regarded than Gavin Lux prior to this season and he's seen as the future 2b with Seager having SS. As well, Wong was well down on the Dodgers catching depth chart behind a young Will Smith, Ruiz, and Cartagena, who has a higher ceiling. Wong projects as a backup with open questions to if he'll make enough contact to hit enough. For the Dodgers Graterol is a guy with electric stuff who can help them right away in an area that is their biggest weakness, their bullpen. Bloom probably made the right choice given the circumstances (Bloom wanted a young starter with premium stuff, but Graterol's medicals say otherwise), but I don't think Friedman was in such a poor position. As a matter of fact, Friedman hung on to every piece of pitching he had in that deal. The Sox didn't get Gray or Gonsolin (or certainly not May). They didn't even get a guy with a chance like Ferguson. So I think Friedman did pretty well here and wasn't in such a bad position when Graterol wasn't the healthy starter Bloom was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 22, 2020 8:34:19 GMT -5
I see over and over people saying he didn’t want to stay. Since people are so certain, I assume there is solid support. Will someone link to the interview where Mookie expressed reservations, even tacitly, about Boston? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 22, 2020 9:09:48 GMT -5
Ahh OK. That explains Downs top 50 ranking and Graterol entering the Dodgers system at #7 & Wong also a Dodger top 20.
The Dodgers backs were against the wall because they had already announced the trade.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 22, 2020 9:19:18 GMT -5
I always find it interesting that we mock/deny potential information when it goes against our narrative but are more than willing to consume it (despite similar levels of tangibility) when it meets with what we want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 22, 2020 9:43:54 GMT -5
it could, but we don't know his motivation. He could use any Sox offer to leverage more money from the Dodgers. That is fair game in negotiating. it is entirely possible that he set an offer, the Sox matched it, but he had no intention of signing, and instead used that as a barometer for other offers. Remember Mark Texiera. Or how bout David Price. But how do you leverage a $420 million offer into a $365 million one (over 24 years)? That is, er, the opposite of leverage. I cant speak to the 420 million (we dont know the years), but for debate purposes, I will stipulate. Mookie, who knows he has no intention of resigning (that is a premise some people have here) takes that to the Dodgers. The Dodger say....well we cant do that, but we can do......current offer. The Dodgers also point out that the team is set to win now....that LA has better weather....etc...etc.... Mookie, not ever really wanting to sign with the Sox, but wanting to test FA, says screw it. That is good enough for me. He has leveraged the Sox offer to what he feels he can settle for.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 22, 2020 9:47:01 GMT -5
FYI - I merged the two Mookie threads. I don't think there needs to be two threads when people are ultimately discussing the same thing. Let's try to keep all discussion of Mookie Betts to this thread. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Oct 22, 2020 9:52:32 GMT -5
He says over and over how much he loves being in LA and how comfortable the Dodgers employees make him feel. I think the writing on the wall is fairly obvious.
Edit: And this was back in July, FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Oct 22, 2020 9:54:23 GMT -5
I think to be fair you can’t just say Mookie is better than Verdugo and Downs combined. You also have to say Mookie is better than Verdugo, Downs, and what ever they can get for 30 million, (45 million if you count savings on Price) and the difference between who we pick at 4 and who would have been there at say pick 11 (Mookie this year probably gets 3 /5 extra wins for us).
So another way to look at it Mookie and Price, pick 11 (potentially 21 if we havnt reset luxury tax) vs say Verdugo, Downs, Wong, Corey Seager (substitute your all star free agent here), Jaden Hill (or whoever’s at 4), and Devers extension.
In my opinion perhaps they painted themselves into a corner. But once they did they were right to trade Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 22, 2020 10:03:43 GMT -5
I think to be fair you can’t just say Mookie is better than Verdugo and Downs combined. You also have to say Mookie is better than Verdugo, Downs, and what ever they can get for 30 million, (45 million if you count savings on Price) and the difference between who we pick at 4 and who would have been there at say pick 11 (Mookie this year probably gets 3 /5 extra wins for us). So another way to look at it Mookie and Price, pick 11 (potentially 21 if we havnt reset luxury tax) vs say Verdugo, Downs, Wong, Corey Seager (substitute your all star free agent here), Jaden Hill (or whoever’s at 4), and Devers extension. In my opinion perhaps they painted themselves into a corner. But once they did they were right to trade Mookie. He is obviously better than Verdugo and Downs, the latter of whom has yet to play in the majors. What we don’t know is what that will look like 5 years from now. But for now? It’s math. If you acknowledge Mookie would’ve gotten 3-5 extra wins, it seems you are admitting he is, in fact, better (for now) than AV and two guys who are not playing. Yes, you “save” on Price, but you also lose your #2 starter. I’m not against dumping his salary, but it isn’t like Price is Pedey.... he is still an above average pitcher. So the question is the money. But before you get surplus value, you need to replace the loss: make up the gap between Verdugo and Betts, Price and.... jesus. Whoever was pitching this year. Once that is done, what money is left? Hard to say. But a #2 starter won’t be cheap. As for the pick. Yeah. Of course, if they’d traded ALL their good players, they’d have certainly gotten the first pick. Would that be good or bad? Maybe the trade works in the future, but you are banking on things to come: Downs shines; they spend effectively; their pick pans out. None of those are layups. Add: I get and am even sympathetic to the argument the Sox simply couldn’t pay Mookie and had to make the best of a bad option. But when people try to present the trade as a “win,” it feels a bit like being fed a s—t sandwich and having the waiter swear it is french dip. A less crap option is a crap option nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 22, 2020 10:16:48 GMT -5
Ahh OK. That explains Downs top 50 ranking and Graterol entering the Dodgers system at #7 & Wong also a Dodger top 20. The Dodgers backs were against the wall because they had already announced the trade. No, it wasn't. The Red Sox were the ones with their backs up against the wall. What were the Sox going to do? Keep Mookie and watch him leave for a draft pick? Take a lesser deal with San Diego? What great choices did the Red Sox have? And again, I'm not saying that Graterol > Downs plus Wong or even that Graterol < Downs plus Wong. What I'm telling you is that Graterol actually fits the Dodgers' needs (this year and going forward, as I suspect he'll eventually close for the Dodgers) better than Downs or Wong did. Once the Sox announced the deal, there was no way Mookie was not getting traded, nor was there any way some team was going to step forward and give the Sox a better deal.
|
|
|
Post by tyler3 on Oct 22, 2020 10:19:15 GMT -5
I think to be fair you can’t just say Mookie is better than Verdugo and Downs combined. You also have to say Mookie is better than Verdugo, Downs, and what ever they can get for 30 million, (45 million if you count savings on Price) and the difference between who we pick at 4 and who would have been there at say pick 11 (Mookie this year probably gets 3 /5 extra wins for us). So another way to look at it Mookie and Price, pick 11 (potentially 21 if we havnt reset luxury tax) vs say Verdugo, Downs, Wong, Corey Seager (substitute your all star free agent here), Jaden Hill (or whoever’s at 4), and Devers extension. In my opinion perhaps they painted themselves into a corner. But once they did they were right to trade Mookie. He is obviously better than Verdugo and Downs, the latter of whom has yet to play in the majors. What we don’t know is what that will look like 5 years from now. But for now? It’s math. If you acknowledge Mookie would’ve gotten 3-5 extra wins, it seems you are admitting he is, in fact, better (for now) than AV and two guys who are not playing. Yes, you “save” on Price, but you also lose your #2 starter. I’m not against dumping his salary, but it isn’t like Price is Pedey.... he is still an above average pitcher. So the question is the money. But before you get surplus value, you need to replace the loss: make up the gap between Verdugo and Betts, Price and.... jesus. Whoever was pitching this year. Once that is done, what money is left? Hard to say. But a #2 starter won’t be cheap. As for the pick. Yeah. Of course, if they’d traded ALL their good players, they’d have certainly gotten the first pick. Would that be good or bad? Maybe the trade works in the future, but you are banking on things to come: Downs shines; they spend effectively; their pick pans out. None of those are layups. Add: I get and am even sympathetic to the argument the Sox simply couldn’t pay Mookie and had to make the best of a bad option. But when people try to present the trade as a “win,” it feels a bit like being fed a s—t sandwich and having the waiter swear it is french dip. A less crap option is a crap option nonetheless. Good point, but that works the other way to. I don’t think Price regressing even further as he aged is out of the question. I don’t think Betts throwing in a few decent seasons in there with his MVP seasons is out of the question either since we’ve seen him do it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 22, 2020 10:23:09 GMT -5
Ahh OK. That explains Downs top 50 ranking and Graterol entering the Dodgers system at #7 & Wong also a Dodger top 20. The Dodgers backs were against the wall because they had already announced the trade. No, it wasn't. The Red Sox were the ones with their backs up against the wall. What were the Sox going to do? Keep Mookie and watch him leave for a draft pick? Take a lesser deal with San Diego? What great choices did the Red Sox have? And again, I'm not saying that Graterol > Downs plus Wong or even that Graterol < Downs plus Wong. What I'm telling you is that Graterol actually fits the Dodgers' needs (this year and going forward, as I suspect he'll eventually close for the Dodgers) better than Downs or Wong did. Once the Sox announced the deal, there was no way Mookie was not getting traded, nor was there any way some team was going to step forward and give the Sox a better deal. It doesn't matter what the Dodgers needs were, it only matters what's best for the Sox. If the Sox backs were against the wall, they wouldn't have rejected Graterol. Do you think the Sox fans were as excited about Graterol as the Dodgers fans were about Betts ?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 22, 2020 10:46:20 GMT -5
If you are going to evaluate a trade from the Red Sox point of view, how it works out for the Dodgers doesn't matter. The question becomes are the Red Sox better off having made the swap or aren't they. They are clearly better off when you consider the entire situation.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Oct 22, 2020 10:49:45 GMT -5
He is obviously better than Verdugo and Downs, the latter of whom has yet to play in the majors. What we don’t know is what that will look like 5 years from now. But for now? It’s math. If you acknowledge Mookie would’ve gotten 3-5 extra wins, it seems you are admitting he is, in fact, better (for now) than AV and two guys who are not playing. Yes, you “save” on Price, but you also lose your #2 starter. I’m not against dumping his salary, but it isn’t like Price is Pedey.... he is still an above average pitcher. So the question is the money. But before you get surplus value, you need to replace the loss: make up the gap between Verdugo and Betts, Price and.... jesus. Whoever was pitching this year. Once that is done, what money is left? Hard to say. But a #2 starter won’t be cheap. As for the pick. Yeah. Of course, if they’d traded ALL their good players, they’d have certainly gotten the first pick. Would that be good or bad? Maybe the trade works in the future, but you are banking on things to come: Downs shines; they spend effectively; their pick pans out. None of those are layups. Add: I get and am even sympathetic to the argument the Sox simply couldn’t pay Mookie and had to make the best of a bad option. But when people try to present the trade as a “win,” it feels a bit like being fed a s—t sandwich and having the waiter swear it is french dip. A less crap option is a crap option nonetheless. Good point, but that works the other way to. I don’t think Price regressing even further as he aged is out of the question. I don’t think Betts throwing in a few decent seasons in there with his MVP seasons is out of the question either since we’ve seen him do it. Of course. Price’s elbow and age make him a time bomb. Still, he has to be replaced one way or another, and it is likely going to take half the $45 million annual savings to replace him adequately. And looking at FA pitching, you could easily end up with a different 30+ year old for some 3/$60 or whatever.... another time bomb, much of that money.
|
|
|