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
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,053
|
Post by cdj on Feb 4, 2020 11:43:50 GMT -5
I can't see a scenario where Patino and Campusano have been offered and Bloom is still negotiating. I can see a scenario where Bloom is dragging his feet because the return will be straight trash. But ownership is leaking out the deal is close as a way to put pressure on him to make the deal for luxury tax purposes. This certainly has the feel of a GM wanting whats best for the future of the team vs whats best for the finances of the team. So basically you’re accusing ownership of sabotaging their months old GM Yeah, I don’t see it
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 4, 2020 11:44:35 GMT -5
Interested in your theory as to why leaking stuff would put more pressure on Bloom to make a trade. Seems like the pressure is all on the other coast now that it's come out that they're pushing so hard for a deal.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 4, 2020 11:52:47 GMT -5
It's posturing by the Red Sox. They're reminding the Dodgers and Padres that they don't really need to trade him.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Feb 4, 2020 11:53:16 GMT -5
I can see a scenario where Bloom is dragging his feet because the return will be straight trash. But ownership is leaking out the deal is close as a way to put pressure on him to make the deal for luxury tax purposes. This certainly has the feel of a GM wanting whats best for the future of the team vs whats best for the finances of the team. So basically you’re accusing ownership of sabotaging their months old GM Yeah, I don’t see it It’s their team they can just go to him and tell him directly. Bloom is taking his time because as James said the pressure is on LAD and SD to come up with something now that it’s obvious that both teams are pushing hard. For Bloom the longer the better until he gets what he is looking for from either team.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 4, 2020 11:55:45 GMT -5
Seems like more reports are coming out that the Sox are not in a rush to trade Mookie. Apparently this was all a big waste of a week. Speier is usually spot on with these things. Good. Don't trade Mookie. We're the f*cking Red Sox, stop this nonsense already.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 4, 2020 12:04:15 GMT -5
I can see a scenario where Bloom is dragging his feet because the return will be straight trash. But ownership is leaking out the deal is close as a way to put pressure on him to make the deal for luxury tax purposes. This certainly has the feel of a GM wanting whats best for the future of the team vs whats best for the finances of the team. So basically you’re accusing ownership of sabotaging their months old GM Yeah, I don’t see it Not sabotage. But just reminding Bloom who really runs the show. Its pretty obvious that the ownership wants to trim payroll by any means necessary. As a result it might hurt the on field product which in turn would make Bloom look bad. I mean the scenario laid out is kind of what happened to Dombrowski. Wanting to build a winner as opposed to slashing payroll which is what ownership wanted.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 4, 2020 12:21:27 GMT -5
Seems like more reports are coming out that the Sox are not in a rush to trade Mookie. Apparently this was all a big waste of a week. Speier is usually spot on with these things. Good. Don't trade Mookie. We're the f*cking Red Sox, stop this nonsense already. The Yankees don't go over the luxury every year. It doesn't matter if they're the Red Sox. No team will continually go over. This is because they handed Chris Sale and Nathan Eovaldi stupid contracts.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 12:24:08 GMT -5
My guess in general: Mookie and Price for Verdugo, an IF prospect, a pitcher, and a bad contract. My guess in specific: Verdugo, Downs, Stripling, and Pollock. No extra cash besides taking Pollock, who becomes our RHH 4th OF and is either mediocre or got the right personal trainer and rebounds. Stripling contributes well. Dinnertime tonight, but physicals come later. You're probably right. But this would more or less be the equivalent of 50 cents on the dollar. Basically so JWH can avoid paying the tax again. Stripling is 30. The contract is fine but he's a JAG. If thats the deal then I'd much rather have Ferguson over him. Seems like Gonsolin and Grey aren't coming which leaves us with this. If the power uptick last year was real then I guess Downs might make this trade more even than what it would seem on paper. Actually, it doesn't get us under the tax limit, unless the Dodgers eat virtually all of Pollack's contract. The Sox would have to trade JBJ as well if they don't, and Pollock would become the CFer.
It's an interesting wrinkle if the Dodgers pay a lot of Pollock's contract.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Feb 4, 2020 12:26:27 GMT -5
It is nice to see Gammons active in this one as relevant again and would be nice to see him close with the kids coming to Boston for old time's sake.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 4, 2020 12:33:11 GMT -5
The more reports you see, the more it seems to come into focus. The Dodgers package is Verdugo, Downs, a pitcher and another prospect. You certainly start with Gray, then Gonsolin, Ferguson, then maybe even Stripling. I'm fine with what seems like buying low with Ferguson, yet prefer Gonsolin as I don't see them including Gray. Verdugo, Downs, Gonsolin, and Cartaya I think that should be the package, but I don't think that is the package right now. Both Rob Bradford and Bowden now called the Gonsolin inclusion a non starter. I believe Downs, Verdugo, and that 4th prospect is on the table, but the Dodgers are being stingy once again like they always do in deals (they need 10 starters, not just 9 starters). I really believe they haven't offered a pitcher yet in the deal. The thing that's further complicating matters is San Diego is sort of floating around this idea that Patino might not be untouchable after all. Patino has never been a part of the equation until maybe recently. You're not getting Patino in a straight salary dump to get Myers after either. So trading Betts to San Diego might be the only chance you have to get him. All of these things is strictly my thinking and theory, but it makes sense based off of what we've heard so far. As a fan, it stinks waiting this long to find out and excruciating, but you can understand what Bloom is doing. He needs to do it too. This is like a 3 week long root canal. The three burning questions I have in order for this deal to get done- Which team blinks first or the most? (Most important question) How much do the Dodgers want to pay for Price? How much do the Padres want to unload Myers? I ask about Price because it's obvious that the Dodgers are going to make this painful to even ask for a third significant piece because Price is a part of the deal. I get the feeling they draw the line at Gonsolin, which is why I included Cartaya. I'm fine going with Ferguson or Stripling if they include him. I'll admit that seems a little high, but it's Betts and we have a bidding war going on versus division rivals. So it should be a little high. We need a guy to be a 6th starter next year and depth going forward. Heck if Price is included you almost need two pitchers back.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 12:34:16 GMT -5
Good. Don't trade Mookie. We're the f*cking Red Sox, stop this nonsense already. The Yankees don't go over the luxury every year. It doesn't matter if they're the Red Sox. No team will continually go over. This is because they handed Chris Sale and Nathan Eovaldi stupid contracts. As far as we know now, the Eovaldi contract may turn out to be the best contract in history, as he wins the CY in every remaining year. That's a point stated sarcastically, but I'm still optimistic that the deal will end up being reasonable. Sale, OTOH ... they acquired him despite a career track record of never being anything special by the time September rolled around, let alone October. Not only did they never fix that, he went in the other direction and started developing physical problems mid-season as he wore down, instead of just ordinariness.
And then they signed him to an extension that put us over the tax limit a year before he hit free agency, to a deal he would never have gotten if they had waited. I was already assuming he was a goner.
So one of the "stupid" contracts may have been smart. We don't know yet. To paraphrase A Fish Called Wanda, to call the other "stupid" would be an insult to stupid contracts.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,053
|
Post by cdj on Feb 4, 2020 12:34:24 GMT -5
So basically you’re accusing ownership of sabotaging their months old GM Yeah, I don’t see it Not sabotage. But just reminding Bloom who really runs the show. Its pretty obvious that the ownership wants to trim payroll by any means necessary. As a result it might hurt the on field product which in turn would make Bloom look bad. I mean the scenario laid out is kind of what happened to Dombrowski. Wanting to build a winner as opposed to slashing payroll which is what ownership wanted. Leaking stuff behind Blooms back to lessen the possible package he gets is absolutely sabotage. I get that they are easy to dislike but let’s get a grip now. It’s their team, they can do whatever they want with it. They hired bloom to rebuild the system and build a sustainable winner, they aren’t going to stand in the way of him doing so
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 4, 2020 12:44:20 GMT -5
A couple thoughts:
1. The pressure should be on Bloom. He needs to trim payroll and is running out of time. But he's taking his time and likely leaking some info to get the Padres and Dodgers to increase their offers. Good work so far on his part to shift the narrative. (No, he doesn't have to trade Mookie but he does have to make a trade)
2. I keep hearing striplings name come up. He's put up good numbers over the past 2 years, but he's a 30 year old spot starting in his first year of arbitration. May fill immediate need but unlikely to be a long term SP solution, which the Red Sox need. The extra 2.1 million coming back means more money than Mookie needs to be going out.
3. Although Pollock has a contract that's underwater due to interested, he's a good bounce back candidate and could play CF if the Red Sox flipped JBJ for a reliever. But losing both Verdugo and Pollock would make the Dodgers this in the OF with 2 starters headed to next year's free agency.
4. Enrique Hernandez and Chris Taylor haven't been mentioned, but one of their inclusion would offset some of Price's cost and would greatly improved the Red Sox bench. Hernandez is especially apt as an OF defender and is a free agent next year.
5. Kanley Jansen is another name who hasn't been brought up. He is owed 38mil (but only 32 for tax) over the next two years, which exceeds his value, and it's possible the Dodgers feel one of their young pitchers could take over closer duties. One additional way of offsetting some of Price's contract. (Easier for Bloom to sell management on a bad contract than to request then to write an 8 figure check door another team)
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Feb 4, 2020 12:47:07 GMT -5
No ownership is perfect but to sit here and bash Henry is an absolute joke. I guess you guys weren't around to watch your Dad cry in 75 or 78, or refuse to go back to High School in 86 cause kids/teachers in NYC were a$$es. Nope this ownership is not perfect but I am glad they bought this team, shit they even got my dad (before he passed) and I to watch and embrace Soccer. So enough with conspiracy theories and let's just watch CB do his magic.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 12:47:36 GMT -5
The more reports you see, the more it seems to come into focus. The Dodgers package is Verdugo, Downs, a pitcher and another prospect. You certainly start with Gray, then Gonsolin, Ferguson, then maybe even Stripling. I'm fine with what seems like buying low with Ferguson, yet prefer Gonsolin as I don't see them including Gray. Verdugo, Downs, Gonsolin, and Cartaya Downs is a guy that ranks anywhere from 3rd to 8th on Dodger prospect lists, and there's a clear path to an MLB job for him, so if we're with the folks that rate him highly, he does become the obvious second player. And that would seem to eliminate Gray as their giving up too much. However ...
I still don't buy that the Padres end up the destination, because the Dodgers can outbid them. But it does seem as if Bloom is using them to up the price. The longer this goes, the more optimistic you can be about the SP prospect involved.
And speaking of prices, I just don't see how also dealing Price makes much sense. You want to balance contending in 2020 with long-term improvements, and trading Price puts you out of balance there.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 4, 2020 12:47:53 GMT -5
Take as much time as you need, seems to be a bidding war going on and you have to love that.
That being said the Padres are going to have a hard time topping Verdugo and Downs because they want us to take Myers. Just my two cents but Patino and Campusano seem rather equal to the top of the Dodgers offer. They would need to include a lot more on the backend to top the Dodgers. I do love it though because at minimum it should get the Dodgers to increase the 3rd and 4th pieces.
I know we need pitching, I just feel the Dodgers offer is safer. I like the pitcher being the third piece, over being the top piece because as we have seen injuries can easily happen.
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 4, 2020 12:57:13 GMT -5
Question: If the Sox enter the year over whatever tax line they're over and then trade Mookie mid-season, do they still pay the tax? What is the cutoff for dumping salary?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 13:00:07 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: 2. I keep hearing striplings name come up. He's put up good numbers over the past 2 years, but he's a 30 year old spot starting in his first year of arbitration. May fill immediate need but unlikely to be a long term SP solution, which the Red Sox need. The extra 2.1 million coming back means more money than Mookie needs to be going out. 4. Enrique Hernandez and Chris Taylor haven't been mentioned, but one of their inclusion would offset some of Price's cost and would greatly improved the Red Sox bench. Hernandez is especially apt as an OF defender and is a free agent next year.
4. Yeah, Hernandez would be a great team fit, but he'd put us back over the limit. You'd have to trade JBJ ... unless you were freeing up extra space in a Price for Myers swap.
No wonder why it's taking so long!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 4, 2020 13:03:39 GMT -5
Question: If the Sox enter the year over whatever tax line they're over and then trade Mookie mid-season, do they still pay the tax? What is the cutoff for dumping salary? Yes, contracts are pro-rated. You trade him half way through the year, half his salary comes off, etc.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 13:05:44 GMT -5
Question: If the Sox enter the year over whatever tax line they're over and then trade Mookie mid-season, do they still pay the tax? What is the cutoff for dumping salary? If he were dealt at the deadline, they'd save one-third of the $27M. Just before the ASB, $13M or so. It's prorated.
But they need to shed nearly his whole contract to get under the limit.
It's the same for taking on contracts at the deadline. They'd have about $3M to spend if they trade him now, which means they could add one guy making $9M, or multiple guys adding up to that.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 13:10:44 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: 2. I keep hearing striplings name come up. He's put up good numbers over the past 2 years, but he's a 30 year old spot starting in his first year of arbitration. May fill immediate need but unlikely to be a long term SP solution, which the Red Sox need. The extra 2.1 million coming back means more money than Mookie needs to be going out. I wrote a whole reply to your point 2 that mysteriously disappeared ...
First, as you point out, they can't just include him in the deal, as he would put them too close to going back over the limit. We don't need him for pitching depth, either. So he makes sense only if there's also a Price for Meyers swap that frees up space under the limit, and also opens up a roster spot for him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 4, 2020 13:17:35 GMT -5
Take as much time as you need, seems to be a bidding war going on and you have to love that. That being said the Padres are going to have a hard time topping Verdugo and Downs because they want us to take Myers. Just my two cents but Patino and Campusano seem rather equal to the top of the Dodgers offer. They would need to include a lot more on the backend to top the Dodgers. I do love it though because at minimum it should get the Dodgers to increase the 3rd and 4th pieces. I know we need pitching, I just feel the Dodgers offer is safer. I like the pitcher being the third piece, over being the top piece because as we have seen injuries can easily happen. I think the Padres realize they have zero chance of outbidding the Dodgers for Mookie. So how do they make themselves more of a contender?
Adding Price to their rotation would do that. And that means shedding Myers' salary. And the Sox might do that swap if they get Patino. And that might actually be a smart move for the Padres.
I am not going to do the work of estimating the true worth of Price and Myers to see what the final contract situation might be!
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 4, 2020 13:19:49 GMT -5
You're probably right. But this would more or less be the equivalent of 50 cents on the dollar. Basically so JWH can avoid paying the tax again. Stripling is 30. The contract is fine but he's a JAG. If thats the deal then I'd much rather have Ferguson over him. Seems like Gonsolin and Grey aren't coming which leaves us with this. If the power uptick last year was real then I guess Downs might make this trade more even than what it would seem on paper. Actually, it doesn't get us under the tax limit, unless the Dodgers eat virtually all of Pollack's contract. The Sox would have to trade JBJ as well if they don't, and Pollock would become the CFer.
It's an interesting wrinkle if the Dodgers pay a lot of Pollock's contract.
Hi can you show me where my error is? Mookie 27 + Price 32 = 59, subtract Pollock 12 = we save $47M. How does that not get us below 208?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 4, 2020 13:24:45 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: [...] 2. I keep hearing striplings name come up. He's put up good numbers over the past 2 years, but he's a 30 year old spot starting in his first year of arbitration. May fill immediate need but unlikely to be a long term SP solution, which the Red Sox need. The extra 2.1 million coming back means more money than Mookie needs to be going out. [..] Yeah, Stripling only makes makes sense if Price is gone, leaving a hole in the rotation and room in the budget, but not enough room to do better than Stripling.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,980
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 4, 2020 13:25:51 GMT -5
Sources: The Red Sox have announced that they will announce *half* of the Mookie trade at 5 p.m.
That's an Iowa Caucuses joke, mild enough not to cause offense I hope.
|
|
|