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 RedSoxStats on Nov 6, 2019 19:18:47 GMT -5
Kiley McDaniel had this today in a chat:
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 6, 2019 20:05:39 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. They want to, they’re not desperate to. There’s no way in hell they make a bad deal over money, and the entire industry knows that. I’d have to disagree completely...they’re not going to do bad business over payroll. That’s just not how the team operates under Henry.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Nov 6, 2019 22:52:27 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. Sorry I love Mookie and want him here desperately but I am not dumping Raffy to keep him. Raffy hits the ball way too hard, way too often, and produces way too many runs to wear another teams uniform.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 7, 2019 2:43:01 GMT -5
Kiley McDaniel had this today in a chat:
I would take a trade centered around Madrigal or Waters in a heartbeat. Gorman, maybe. The other two guys I'm less enthused about.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Nov 7, 2019 11:10:17 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. Sorry I love Mookie and want him here desperately but I am not dumping Raffy to keep him. Raffy hits the ball way too hard, way too often, and produces way too many runs to wear another teams uniform. Ok, fair, but I didn’t really factor that since Devers makes no real difference financially (unless, in the exceedingly unlikely case they attached him to a brutal contract). So.... with this.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 7, 2019 11:15:35 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. What's funny is that his early career strikeout and swinging strike rates are like league average now. I do wonder if Middlebrooks came along just a few years too early. Paul DeJong is extremely Middlebrooks-esque in his K/BB numbers, but with way more fly balls.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,434
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 7, 2019 11:23:25 GMT -5
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. What's funny is that his early career strikeout and swinging strike rates are like league average now. I do wonder if Middlebrooks came along just a few years too early. Paul DeJong is extremely Middlebrooks-esque in his K/BB numbers, but with way more fly balls. Yeah it does make you wonder. OTOH... Once the book was out on him, he never adjusted enough. His wrist injury was really poorly timed too. He was on the best run of his career and definitely could have used the reps to firmly lock himself in the zone long term. He comes back, struggles to re-find his footing, the confidence starts to leave, and the rest is history...
|
|
|
Post by splendidsplinter on Nov 7, 2019 13:11:58 GMT -5
Everybody loves Mookie. If he does what he says he’ll do what does it take to sign him? Something like $30-40 Million a year over 10-14 years? Maybe this really works out for someone but we only have to look at our own experience to recognize the risk of these mega deals. My first option would be to package him Price to someone like the Dodgers. Use any savings to tie up some of young core to shorter term deals. Otherwise move on and take what you can get .
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 7, 2019 13:21:49 GMT -5
One things nobody seems to be mentioning about a potential Mookie extension: By being over CBT threshold for as long as we have, and by being potentially $20M-$40M (at least) over the $208M threshold next year, a hypothetical $32M salary for next year would actually cost over $50M once tax penalties are accounted for if my math is correct. This is a large part of the reason why the owners want to reset the penalties.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 14:27:17 GMT -5
One things nobody seems to be mentioning about a potential Mookie extension: By being over CBT threshold for as long as we have, and by being potentially $20M-$40M (at least) over the $208M threshold next year, a hypothetical $32M salary for next year would actually cost over $50M once tax penalties are accounted for if my math is correct. This is a large part of the reason why the owners want to reset the penalties. This is a big reason why I get so frustrated with people crying that ownership is “cheap.” Idk how to describe it, but I don’t like throwing money away either. There’s something about wastefulness there that sort of offends me morally. Paying something like a 50% overage on an already huge contract is just...stupid. I get why they want to reset and get under threshold; this ownership group has never NOT tried to win. There are obviously some inherent issues in the CBT concept, so we’ll se what happens in the coming negotiations. But it’s just odd to me that people so willfully ignore the tax burden. I mean, it’s a calculated risk...maybe they stay over this year and approach it as prep to get under next, so they can chase a WS in ‘20...but spending wildly is, and always has been, stupid business practice. Cautious overspending with clear limits and goals to curb...that’s a lot more defensible.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 7, 2019 14:54:00 GMT -5
Also, in fairness, the push to trade Mookie is about the fact that he’s almost certain to go to FA. I think the real key is the team deciding if they really have a good chance to win a WS...not just “be competitive.” An acquiring team gets to offer a QO and thus nets a draft pick. That’s not the case mid-season. So it should boost return, at least some. I really think that if they can’t get Mookie to sign an extension, they should really consider just moving him and blowing up the team. Keeps guys like Bogey, Raffy, and Beni...but shed as many ungainly contracts as possible. OTOH, if they think the rotation is pretty healthy, and they believe in Houck, Hernandez, and Mata as bulk guys and can go with a 4+.opener strategy...well, suck it up on payroll for one year and take some shots with the kids (including Dalbec at 1b, Chatham at 2b, etc). If the team is floundering or even just at the periphery of the races come July, make a bunch of deadline deals...hell, maybe it turns out like AZ this year and they’re competitive anyway. Whatever happens, I don’t think any of us is remotely surprised given Dombrowski’s MO. It’s going to be an unpleasant few years most likely, but I think Bloom gets them turned around pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 7, 2019 15:01:03 GMT -5
Why is it all on Betts? It's total salary and we are already over. It's not like signing Betts takes you over, you already are. Signings like Eovaldi made sure that was the case.
Nevermind are we not going to spend again? Using that 32 million, if you reset it's 7.84 million the first year and 11.04 million the second year, compared to 17.44 million if you don't reset the tax. Not a huge savings,heck it's about what we are paying Castillo to not play in the majors this year. Now that is a waste of money.
I don't get why people look at Baseball differently than a sport like Basketball. There tax penalties are crazy, yet owners pay them no problem. Imagine the Celtics saying we can't sign Tatum because his salary with the tax is crazy or the Warriors letting Thompson leave because of the taxes or letting Durant leave for nothing because Russell's salary with taxes is too much. Heck trading Curry to reset lol.
You don't want to pay Betts because he will require a crazy long contract that could be a killer down the road I fully get that. Acting like we have to move on to save tax money? I don't get that. Again why did we sign Eovaldi if like Henry claims 208 was always the goal for this year? Looking at the team and the farm system, the minute you did that you committed to paying the tax.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 7, 2019 15:25:45 GMT -5
I know this won't be a popular opinion, but if the Red Sox expect fans to pay more out of their pockets to support the Red Sox - and last time I checked they raised ticket prices again, then why should I be concerned if the owners have to pay out more tax dollars because they only now realize that they needed to get under the limit as opposed to when they ok'd contracts for Eovaldi and Sale.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Nov 7, 2019 15:45:39 GMT -5
Why is it all on Betts? It's total salary and we are already over. It's not like signing Betts takes you over, you already are. Signings like Eovaldi made sure that was the case... Again why did we sign Eovaldi if like Henry claims 208 was always the goal for this year? Looking at the team and the farm system, the minute you did that you committed to paying the tax. They signed Eovaldi to win back to back championships that Dombrowski apparently thought could be won. We've read that ownership encouraged him to get under the tax threshold, but let him run the baseball team his way even if that conflicted with their guidance to him.
They didn't plan on injuries to Sale, Eovaldi, and Price and that killed the season.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 7, 2019 16:26:52 GMT -5
One things nobody seems to be mentioning about a potential Mookie extension: By being over CBT threshold for as long as we have, and by being potentially $20M-$40M (at least) over the $208M threshold next year, a hypothetical $32M salary for next year would actually cost over $50M once tax penalties are accounted for if my math is correct. This is a large part of the reason why the owners want to reset the penalties. This is a big reason why I get so frustrated with people crying that ownership is “cheap.” Idk how to describe it, but I don’t like throwing money away either. There’s something about wastefulness there that sort of offends me morally. Paying something like a 50% overage on an already huge contract is just...stupid. I get why they want to reset and get under threshold; this ownership group has never NOT tried to win. There are obviously some inherent issues in the CBT concept, so we’ll se what happens in the coming negotiations. But it’s just odd to me that people so willfully ignore the tax burden. I mean, it’s a calculated risk...maybe they stay over this year and approach it as prep to get under next, so they can chase a WS in ‘20...but spending wildly is, and always has been, stupid business practice. Cautious overspending with clear limits and goals to curb...that’s a lot more defensible. What's even worse is that a 50% tax makes it so you're paying like $9-10M for a guy like Brock Holt which is absurd, so you don't sign him, leading to worse/little depth. So instead of Holt and a real bench player for 1B/LF, you've got Lin and Travis which is a good bet to be below replacement level. Spending money like idiots isn't sustainable. They're at the point where they need another Punto trade. The only difference between this current team and the 2012 team is that they have a much better core now. But the depth problems and lack of spending on the edges of the roster is identical.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 7, 2019 17:34:00 GMT -5
Why is the Sale contract not a bigger issue. I see Eovaldi, Price, and others mentioned but for some reason Sale is rarely mentioned. I would advocate trading Sale for nothing. Just find a team which is willing to absorb his contract.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 7, 2019 17:47:30 GMT -5
Why is the Sale contract not a bigger issue. I see Eovaldi, Price, and others mentioned but for some reason Sale is rarely mentioned. I would advocate trading Sale for nothing. Just find a team which is willing to absorb his contract. If he's injured no team is going to want him. If he's healthy he's an ace and for that contract there's no way the team would want to get rid of him. If Sale gives you a season like 2017 or 2018 then you have no qualms about 5 years $145 million when other aces make well in excess of $30 million per year and for longer. But if he's injured nobody is going to want him unless the Sox pay a huge bulk of that contract. The best the Sox can hope for is if he's injured, give him time to heal and hope that he's still an ace. I know that the 17K/0 BB performance he had tells me that it's still in there if he's healthy. Fringy pitchers can't put up that line. What they can't do is have him pitching if he's not right.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 7, 2019 19:24:45 GMT -5
Why is the Sale contract not a bigger issue. I see Eovaldi, Price, and others mentioned but for some reason Sale is rarely mentioned. I would advocate trading Sale for nothing. Just find a team which is willing to absorb his contract. If he's injured no team is going to want him. If he's healthy he's an ace and for that contract there's no way the team would want to get rid of him. If Sale gives you a season like 2017 or 2018 then you have no qualms about 5 years $145 million when other aces make well in excess of $30 million per year and for longer. But if he's injured nobody is going to want him unless the Sox pay a huge bulk of that contract. The best the Sox can hope for is if he's injured, give him time to heal and hope that he's still an ace. I know that the 17K/0 BB performance he had tells me that it's still in there if he's healthy. Fringy pitchers can't put up that line. What they can't do is have him pitching if he's not right. Price and Eovaldi played a huge role in the Sox post season and their winning the World Series. Sale didn't. At his best his track record shows he fades badly and can't be counted on in the second half of a season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 7, 2019 20:20:13 GMT -5
If he's injured no team is going to want him. If he's healthy he's an ace and for that contract there's no way the team would want to get rid of him. If Sale gives you a season like 2017 or 2018 then you have no qualms about 5 years $145 million when other aces make well in excess of $30 million per year and for longer. But if he's injured nobody is going to want him unless the Sox pay a huge bulk of that contract. The best the Sox can hope for is if he's injured, give him time to heal and hope that he's still an ace. I know that the 17K/0 BB performance he had tells me that it's still in there if he's healthy. Fringy pitchers can't put up that line. What they can't do is have him pitching if he's not right. Price and Eovaldi played a huge role in the Sox post season and their winning the World Series. Sale didn't. At his best his track record shows he fades badly and can't be counted on in the second half of a season. Yeah, Price and Eovaldi were dominant for 2 weeks. That doesn't make them better pitchers than Sale. I'll put up Sale's track record against Eovaldi any day of the week and I'll even put up the past five years or so against Price. Price hasn't been dominant at all since joining the Red Sox. He's been very good at times, and was great in the ALCS and Series, but he hasn't dominated anywhere near as much as Sale has. If he is healthy Sale is a better pitcher than both Price and Eovaldi, regardless if you look at first half/second half. In the totality of an entire season Sale is better. And it's not like Price and particularly Eovaldi haven't dealt with injuries themselves.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Nov 8, 2019 6:03:52 GMT -5
Joel Sherman suggests a Betts for Thor trade. He calls it a possible pipe dream. Would you do this?https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/11/07/mets-center-field-fixes-mookie-betts-pipedream-to-a-cheaper-red-sox-trade/amp/
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 8, 2019 7:25:47 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.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Nov 8, 2019 9:12:38 GMT -5
I still maintain that for the next 10 years, the Sox will regret losing Betts. Match whatever offer he gets and suck it up. Then see if he wants to play here.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 9:35:54 GMT -5
I still maintain that for the next 10 years, the Sox will regret losing Betts. Match whatever offer he gets and suck it up. Then see if he wants to play here. 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. I think the Red Sox want to get a real sense of if they match, would he take it? If they feel that he wouldn't, then it becomes very likely he's traded so that the Red Sox can recoup as much value as possible. Like in a pipe dream scenario of Betts for Thor - if the Sox get the sense that Betts wouldn't come back to Boston unless the Sox blew away the field, I'm sure they would deal Betts for Thor if that were a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Nov 8, 2019 10:28:01 GMT -5
Joel Sherman suggests a Betts for Thor trade. He calls it a possible pipe dream. Would you do this?https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/11/07/mets-center-field-fixes-mookie-betts-pipedream-to-a-cheaper-red-sox-trade/amp/ I would definitely think about this Betts/Thor trade, as it's gets the Red Sox closer to full value for the 1 year rental of a great player in Betts - while at the same time lowering the team's overall pricetag. In a follow up move the F.O. could conceivably trade Eovaldi to get even further below the tax threshold etc. His thoughts on trading Bradley Jr. to the Mets isn't a horrible idea either.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 8, 2019 10:32:55 GMT -5
I still maintain that for the next 10 years, the Sox will regret losing Betts. Match whatever offer he gets and suck it up. Then see if he wants to play here. 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.
|
|
|