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 thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 5, 2019 16:19:18 GMT -5
I know this is a scenario not many people want to face, but it's one that becomes a larger and larger elephant in the room and something that (at least personally) I think is the likelihood at this point. If Mookie does get traded, I'm curious to know the expected return for him would be and, since I'm less engaged with/knowledgeable about baseball as a whole than many posters here, what the precedent is for a trade of this magnitude. For transparency's sake, I voted for option 2.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 5, 2019 16:31:17 GMT -5
The template might be the Paul Goldschmidt deal from last year.
I think the Red Sox can get one really good prospect (#31 - #60) for Betts, a useful cheapish player already in the majors, and a prospect with some upside, but a lot of risk, and a lottery ticket for Betts.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 5, 2019 17:42:50 GMT -5
The template might be the Paul Goldschmidt deal from last year. I think the Red Sox can get one really good prospect (#31 - #60) for Betts, a useful cheapish player already in the majors, and a prospect with some upside, but a lot of risk, and a lottery ticket for Betts. A player who is willing to sign a contract extension (and does so) will fetch a much higher price than one who is certain to test free agency.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 5, 2019 18:16:21 GMT -5
A secondary question: who are the likely teams to inquire? Roughly, I'd expect all of the following teams to be potential candidates: Angels Dodgers Braves Padres White Sox and I'd expect the Yankees to ask but would highly doubt that ever happens.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2019 18:48:53 GMT -5
A secondary question: who are the likely teams to inquire? Roughly, I'd expect all of the following teams to be potential candidates: Angels Dodgers Braves Padres White Sox and I'd expect the Yankees to ask but would highly doubt that ever happens. Once the Yankees big rotation acquisition is Zach Wheeler and they don't even get involved in Cole and Strasburg, will people finally understand that the Steinbrenner kids are just plain cheap? The same team that signed AJ Happ last year as its big rotation move.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 5, 2019 19:27:12 GMT -5
I would not expect much of anything. Teams will wait until he is a free agent next year and then make their move.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 5, 2019 20:36:51 GMT -5
I think his trade value will be higher at the trade deadline then now.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Nov 5, 2019 20:43:46 GMT -5
I think his trade value will be higher at the trade deadline then now. Do you have a analogous precedent for this being the case? I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 5, 2019 21:00:20 GMT -5
An off season trade would give the receiving team a draft pick next year, a mid season trade wouldn't.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Nov 5, 2019 21:20:35 GMT -5
An off season trade would give the receiving team a draft pick next year, a mid season trade wouldn't. The Sox would also run the risk of Betts being injured at the one and only trade deadline, which would leave them with a QO draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 5, 2019 22:43:54 GMT -5
Look to the better teams and the teams looking to spend money. Which of those teams has a priority to score more runs ? It seems to me most if not all of the teams that have a lot of money to spend would be looking to add or retain pitching.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Nov 5, 2019 23:34:33 GMT -5
These threads depress me. I cant believe we are talking about this. Unless Mookie doesnt want to be here, he needs to be here. Its times like this I wish Henry didnt own the local paper or there would be more upset about IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2019 8:30:16 GMT -5
An off season trade would give the receiving team a draft pick next year, a mid season trade wouldn't. The Sox would also run the risk of Betts being injured at the one and only trade deadline, which would leave them with a QO draft pick. And unless you think the Red Sox don't have a chance at making the playoffs next year, they'd be stupid as hell to trade him at the deadline anyway.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 6, 2019 8:48:36 GMT -5
I like the idea of paying and keeping him forever but it is up to Mookie and maybe he doesn't really want to stay, who knows but the Sox should find out if possible.
I like the idea of keeping him next year as they could be very good or bad based on the health and production from the starters. But how does that work for the salary cap, they would still be over.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 6, 2019 9:46:38 GMT -5
Not sure how keeping Mookie in 2020 or gets us much payroll relief and certainly not approaching 208M without us weakening the team elsewhere.
I assume Porcello is gone but does trading any of Eovaldi, Price, Sale and/orJBJ give competent return in mlb players at lower cost or replenish the farm but leave additional rotational holes and another in the OF?
OTOH, Mookie is going to the highest bidder.. (Yankees or not...) so there are only a few teams that would trade for him limiting return there as well.
Bloom needs to be a Rubik's master.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 6, 2019 12:50:17 GMT -5
The template might be the Paul Goldschmidt deal from last year. I think the Red Sox can get one really good prospect (#31 - #60) for Betts, a useful cheapish player already in the majors, and a prospect with some upside, but a lot of risk, and a lottery ticket for Betts. A player who is willing to sign a contract extension (and does so) will fetch a much higher price than one who is certain to test free agency.
The Cardinals GM said he made the move knowing it might be only one year, but was hopeful they could sign him long-term. Your using hindsight to act like the GM knew he could sign him, but the Cardinals GM said the opposite, he had no clue. Nevermind they paid market rate, heck if we're using hindsight, they paid way above market rate after he posted a 2.8 bwar season and he's making 130 million for his age 32 to 36 seasons. Which is the real kicker, your only getting a Goldschmidt type package because it's assumed Betts won't sign an extension. The players aren't equals, one is going into his age 27 season, the other age 31. Betts could be a 6 to 10 bwar player, Goldy was more like 4-7 bwar. Even with Betts higher salary, he projects to provide you with more excess value.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 6, 2019 13:24:04 GMT -5
Trading Mookie could be the end of my road as a Sox fan. It would be the worst thing in my lifetime. He is one of the 5 best players in baseball, homegrown, loveable etc. they have not produced anyone like him in 40 years. I’d dump anyone ahead of him, eat any contract, pay any tax, mortgage any EPL team... there is nothing I would not do to keep him. Blank contract.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 6, 2019 13:41:55 GMT -5
Is there anyone here who would rather keep Sale than Betts ? I doubt they could get much for Sale but they might be able to find someone to take his contract off their hands.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 6, 2019 13:42:23 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.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2019 13:47:28 GMT -5
A player who is willing to sign a contract extension (and does so) will fetch a much higher price than one who is certain to test free agency.
The Cardinals GM said he made the move knowing it might be only one year, but was hopeful they could sign him long-term. Your using hindsight to act like the GM knew he could sign him, but the Cardinals GM said the opposite, he had no clue. Nevermind they paid market rate, heck if we're using hindsight, they paid way above market rate after he posted a 2.8 bwar season and he's making 130 million for his age 32 to 36 seasons. Which is the real kicker, your only getting a Goldschmidt type package because it's assumed Betts won't sign an extension. The players aren't equals, one is going into his age 27 season, the other age 31. Betts could be a 6 to 10 bwar player, Goldy was more like 4-7 bwar. Even with Betts higher salary, he projects to provide you with more excess value. Do you understand the huge difference between saying that you absolutely are going to test free agency (Betts) and not saying anything (Goldschmidt)?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2019 13:52:32 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. Well, trading Mookie should theoretically save money for them in the future when they get prospects who should be on the 25 man roster not far down the road. This isn't a one year payroll problem. They've run out of prospects who should become future regulars like Mookie, Xander, Devers, Benintendi, etc. who are making league minimum for 3 years. Their system consists of a lot of wishful thinking and filling out the end of the roster types. They need solid to better starting players to fix their payroll in the future. And I hate even bringing up this point because I don't want to trade Mookie. I really think they should flex their financial muscle like the Dodgers did by eating tons of dead money to get the best prospect returns on some of the expensive players.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 6, 2019 15:33:07 GMT -5
Sticking to my guns from years ago, package him, middlebrooks, and others for Stanton. Willing to bet that gets a deal done.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 6, 2019 17:13:03 GMT -5
The Cardinals GM said he made the move knowing it might be only one year, but was hopeful they could sign him long-term. Your using hindsight to act like the GM knew he could sign him, but the Cardinals GM said the opposite, he had no clue. Nevermind they paid market rate, heck if we're using hindsight, they paid way above market rate after he posted a 2.8 bwar season and he's making 130 million for his age 32 to 36 seasons. Which is the real kicker, your only getting a Goldschmidt type package because it's assumed Betts won't sign an extension. The players aren't equals, one is going into his age 27 season, the other age 31. Betts could be a 6 to 10 bwar player, Goldy was more like 4-7 bwar. Even with Betts higher salary, he projects to provide you with more excess value. Do you understand the huge difference between saying that you absolutely are going to test free agency (Betts) and not saying anything (Goldschmidt)? I'm fairly sure I do, it's why I think you get a little more than the Goldy trade and not twice as much as you should based on talent, age and expected production. The GM is on record saying he made the trade based on the one year. Let's not forget the Cards got Hayward years ago with one year and tried the same thing and he didn't sign an extension. Also why that deal looks very good right now, it wasn't looked at that way when it was made. The D-Backs were smart, going after players who's value were low. www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/12/5/18128176/arizona-diamondbacks-st-louis-cardinals-paul-goldschmidt-tradeSo if they trade him what do they get? Without hindsight it seems rather crazy to think no team trades a package like that. Oh man Mookie is going to free agency, no way I'm trading a guy demoted to the bullpen, ERA of almost 5 in the NL, declining strikeout rate. Or a former top 50 catching that hit .158 in the majors and was about to be passed by another catcher on the team rankings. Must be the late second round pick or the semi decent other guy. I mean that's way less than the Kimbrel trade. You got more years, yet Betts likely gives you more war and excess value in one year. He's got to be top 3 or top 5 in war projections for next year. I really don't get it, you seem to be arguing we don't get a package as good as Goldy's. Yet that wouldn't be seen as a ton or some great return. That deal only looks that way using Hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Nov 6, 2019 17:13:50 GMT -5
Sticking to my guns from years ago, package him, middlebrooks, and others for Stanton. Willing to bet that gets a deal done. No way! Didn’t you hear that middlebrooks got contact lenses? Now that he can see his strikeout and lack of contact will disappear. Trust me.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 6, 2019 18:56:34 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. The complication is the Sox front office broadcasted to the world that they are determined to cut payroll and came close to saying that means they can't keep Betts. Not exactly good poker. That sends a message to other teams the Sox are desperate.
|
|
|