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.
Mookie Betts traded as part of a three-team deal
|
Post by manfred on Feb 5, 2020 11:17:54 GMT -5
Are their names Bloom and Dombrowski?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2020 11:22:08 GMT -5
Maybe I'm too credulous, but I really do believe that rival American League execs think the Red Sox trading Mookie Betts to the National League is commendable.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Feb 5, 2020 11:25:23 GMT -5
1). Hammering ownership for being cheap is stupid. They are consistently one of the top spending teams, year in and year out.
2). Betts’ stance on free agency leaves me cold. I cannot begrudge him the right to go after top dollar, but I don’t think it is particularly noble. I don’t care if he gets 30-35- or 40 million a year, it’s not exactly a compelling social justice issue.
3). The 2020 team is still really good, and they finally have flexibility to pick up someone mid-season, if they need to. Writing them off for 2020 is pretty ironic after the Nationals won it all in 2019 with a pretty flawed team.
4). I am pretty freaking sure that the Red Sox won this trade based on future WAR. They got 2 really good players/prospects for a one year rental and an overpriced old pitcher with a lot of miles (high stress miles) on his arm and a long injury history.
5). I am happy to root for home grown, young stars like Devers and Bogaerts. The team is still compelling. While Betts’ mercenary attitude leaves me cold, Bogaerts taking the extension creates a good feelings. And I love Devers’ style, his youth, and his amazing future potential. This is still a really likable team (even if Verdugo makes me nervous in that regard).
Shame on you all who seem to believe the Sox began and ended with Mookie Betts.
6). If the Sox are in contention by the trade deadline, my prediction is that the 2020 payroll ends up right around the tax limit, because ownership has proved over and over again that they will spend. Even if they spend the money in ways that people don’t like, they still spend it.
7). If the Sox had managed to extend Betts at a gajillion dollars/year, we would be going through this same song and dance in the next few years with Devers, Erod, or Bogaerts (he has opt outs). Maybe we still will. But it is not cheap to reset the tax penalty, it is necessary (in a practical sense, if not an absolute sense). Draft penalties, tax paying, losing potential revenue sharing (this year, with Oakland’s penalty), has real effects on team building. The hyperbolic angst on the board has been pretty gross and unreasonable. I get needing an emotional release, but come on, this board is supposed to be better than that.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 5, 2020 11:34:56 GMT -5
1). Hammering ownership for being cheap is stupid. They are consistently one of the top spending teams, year in and year out. 2). Betts’ stance on free agency leaves me cold. I cannot begrudge him the right to go after top dollar, but I don’t think it is particularly noble. I don’t care if he gets 30-35- or 40 million a year, it’s not exactly a compelling social justice issue. 3). The 2020 team is still really good, and they finally have flexibility to pick up someone mid-season, if they need to. Writing them off for 2020 is pretty ironic after the Nationals won it all in 2019 with a pretty flawed team. 4). I am pretty freaking sure that the Red Sox won this trade based on future WAR. They got 2 really good players/prospects for a one year rental and an overpriced old pitcher with a lot of miles (high stress miles) on his arm and a long injury history. 5). I am happy to root for home grown, young stars like Devers and Bogarts. The team is still compelling. While Betts’ mercenary attitude leaves me cold, Bogarts taking the extension creates a good feelings. And I love Devers’ style, his youth, and his amazing future potential. This is still a really likable team (even if Verdugo makes me nervous in that regard). Shame on you all who seem to believe the Sox began and ended with Mookie Betts. 6). If the Sox are in contention by the trade deadline, my prediction is that the 2020 payroll ends up right around the tax limit, because ownership has proved over and over again that they will spend. Even if they spend the money in ways that people don’t like, they still spend it. 7). If the Sox had managed to extend Betts at a gajillion dollars/year, we would be going through this same song and dance in the next few years with Devers, Erod, or Bogarts (he has opt outs). Maybe we still will. But it is not cheap to reset the tax penalty, it is necessary (in a practical sense, if not an absolute sense). Draft penalties, tax paying, losing potential revenue sharing (this year, with Oakland’s penalty), has real effects on team building. The hyperbolic angst on the board has been pretty gross and unreasonable. I get needing an emotional release, but come on, this board is supposed to be better than that. The Nats comp is not a good one. They didn’t play in the same division as the Yankees, who will devour the Sox. This team will not compete for a wild card. As for the future WAR... seems virtually impossible that the Sox get that out of this trade. Betts is 27 and the 2nd best player in baseball. Price has remaining value. There is a near zero chance the Sox don’t lose badly on the OF exchange, and they need to pray first that a 20-year old 2-pitch guy pans out at all, much less heaps value. If the argument is that they get more WAR than one more year of Price and Mookie, I’d say... maybe, but not guaranteed. I hardly think it emotional to look at trading away a generational player and a still-solid starter for about as poor a return as you could imagine getting and expressing contempt.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 5, 2020 11:44:18 GMT -5
The business side of baseball is complicated and largely misunderstood by the "fan". Chill, it is what it is, and if it "offends" your concepts of fairness, social justice, etc. Take the offseason "off" and come back when the boys of summer take to the field. Investing oneself in issues beyond ones' control or ability to influence is madness.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 5, 2020 12:03:28 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season.
Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay
This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense.
If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts?
I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that?
The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 5, 2020 12:10:41 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season. Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense.If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts? I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that? The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative. Uh...theres about 208 million reasons why John Henry told him to trade both.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 5, 2020 12:12:07 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season. Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense. If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts? I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that? The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative. You really think Henry was not involved in the actual return?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 5, 2020 12:14:12 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season. Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense. If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts? I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that? The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative. You see the 19 year old kid thrown into the Angels deal? Why do the Angels get a prospect like that and the Red Sox couldn't wrangle a Jeter Downs or an A ball player like that? That's the part that really annoys me about the deal. Yes, if you're stuck dealing Betts, Verdugo is a good get. Graterol is a gamble. Closers are nice, but this failure to produce starters is a huge problem and then if they don't acquire a good one...I hope Graterol saves this deal. But even with them, not picking up any lottery pieces or guys to dream on in A ball or AA ball, it's rather disappointing. The Dodgers gave up oh so little to at least rent the a player in the game who is generational and secure a pitcher at a very reasonable price (no pun intended) who actually upgrades their rotation. I mean, Verdugo is tough to lose, but he's no superstar waiting to happen. He's going to be a good solid player, but for Betts, I drive him to the airport. You can always create more Alex Verdugos, but getting a Mookie Betts - just about impossible to replicate. It really sucks. This franchise should have been built around Mookie Betts. Period. Pay him whtat he's worth. And for those saying, "Good now we can extend Devers - what if he doesn't want the hometown discount? Dump him, too.
At some point when they have money burning a hole in their pockets, do you want to see them investing in an older George Springer or in a prime time Mookie Betts? Mookie IS the guy you spend the money on. Everything else is pales in comparison.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,020
|
Post by mobaz on Feb 5, 2020 12:14:12 GMT -5
Another (minor) note in all this: what a weird contract Kenta Maeda signed! $3M a year for 8 years??? But then up to $10M a year in incentives?
Annual roster bonus of $150,000 if he was on the 25-man opening-day active roster. $1 million each for 15 and 20 starts, and $1.5 million apiece for 25, 30 and 32 starts. $250,000 for 90 innings pitched and each additional 10 through 190, and $750,000 for 200.
By my math that puts him at $9m, 5M, 3M and 5.4M the last four years in incentives. Still a bargain, but a weird one. Anyone see the Twins keeping him to 24 starts?
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 5, 2020 12:14:42 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale reporting Stripling going to angels as part of Pederson deal.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 5, 2020 12:19:03 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale reporting Stripling going to angels as part of Pederson deal. I laughed when I saw that. This is just a major screw up all around. The Sox couldn't grab one of the 50 SPs the Dodgers have?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,142
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 5, 2020 12:25:54 GMT -5
Claims that the Red Sox should have traded Betts either not at all or in July are interesting. Feeling disappointed that they did not get more is reasonable. Felling absolutely certain that they SHOULD have gotten more, because of some rumor you read, or because just in general you are smarter than they are, just strikes me as childish and unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 5, 2020 12:39:48 GMT -5
Yeah my friends, having a player like Mookie Betts will inevitably lead to your team crashing.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 5, 2020 12:40:29 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale reporting Stripling going to angels as part of Pederson deal. Aside from Rengifo, the Dodgers are also getting at least one prospect back (some reports are saying two). It will be interesting to see what prospects they get as the Dodgers didn't give up any in their Sox trade. Friedman is adding big names and to the farm at the same time. Would have liked to see Bloom pry away at least one more piece from the Dodgers system.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 5, 2020 12:44:00 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season. Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense. If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts? I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that? The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative. You really think Henry was not involved in the actual return? What do you mean by involved? I'm sure he had to okay it and get filled in about the players. I don't for a second think he was telling Bloom who or what to get.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Feb 5, 2020 12:49:40 GMT -5
Yeah my friends, having a player like Mookie Betts will inevitably lead to your team crashing. Yea that's why the Tigers are still so good with Miguel Cabrera. The Tigers (who Dombrowski made a bunch of short term deals and drained the farm) are exactly who they are referencing
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2020 12:51:21 GMT -5
Another (minor) note in all this: what a weird contract Kenta Maeda signed! $3M a year for 8 years??? But then up to $10M a year in incentives? Annual roster bonus of $150,000 if he was on the 25-man opening-day active roster. $1 million each for 15 and 20 starts, and $1.5 million apiece for 25, 30 and 32 starts. $250,000 for 90 innings pitched and each additional 10 through 190, and $750,000 for 200. By my math that puts him at $9m, 5M, 3M and 5.4M the last four years in incentives. Still a bargain, but a weird one. Anyone see the Twins keeping him to 24 starts?I'd forgotten about that, it's probably the weirdest contract since Wakefield? And as to the starts thing, man, whoever proposed that incentive structure sure did not see the opener coming. Awkward situation for everyone really, I wonder if it might get renegotiated at some point.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Feb 5, 2020 12:52:26 GMT -5
So how does this work? Are you telling me the Dodgers wouldn't throw in a Stripling so we actually had a starter for the season. Your telling me The Dodgers wouldn't give up more than Verdugo and Maeda for Betts and Price at three years and 45 million? Don't give me throw in guys have low value so it's okay This is just like what everyone complained about DD for doing in trades, yet in reverse. He wanted a basically ready replacement for both players and that's all he cared about. This is 100% on Bloom until I see something that say Henry demanded he trade both, which makes zero sense.If Betts gets you under why trade Price and eat over half his deal, thus clogging up our cap for three years? You telling me the Dodgers wouldn't trade Verdugo and Maeda for Betts? I kinda in the camp now go trade guys like Workman, yet do we really want Bloom doing that? The trade could workout just fine, yet it's very risky and he left a ton of the table. This isn't what I mean by be creative. Uh...theres about 208 million reasons why John Henry told him to trade both. So what? It's his money, he spends as much or more than 99% of the other teams. And he has 4 Chips to show for it. Something a real Red Sox can appreciate after decades of heartbreaks. This is still a good team and we have a lot more flexibility and some prospects almost ready. If it fails we can trade JD,Sale or Eovaldi and restock even more.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 5, 2020 12:54:50 GMT -5
Yeah my friends, having a player like Mookie Betts will inevitably lead to your team crashing. Yea that's why the Tigers are still so good with Miguel Cabrera. The Tigers (who Dombrowski made a bunch of short term deals and drained the farm) are exactly who they are referencing Right, because he gets paid $150m a year and they're forced to pay everyone else the league minimum. The Tigers suck because they haven't developed anyone good in forever, or signed anyone good in forever, or made any good trades in forever. Miguel Cabrera would arguably be a problem if they were on the cusp but maxed out on spending. They're not, they've been poorly run for a while now to the point where the Cabrera contract is completely irrelevant to anything that's going on with them. Like they would have gone out and gotten Strasburg and been good if not for that darn Miggy contract? Get real, they're just a bad team.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Feb 5, 2020 12:58:56 GMT -5
No the point was the Tigers made a lot of short term deals, drained their farm, and even though they signed their best player to a long term contract they still crashed. He was saying if the Sox had Mookie, they couldn't crash, they absolutely still could, especially because they'd be hamstrung by all their high end contracts
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 5, 2020 13:01:26 GMT -5
Uh...theres about 208 million reasons why John Henry told him to trade both. So what? It's his money, he spends as much or more than 99% of the other teams. And he has 4 Chips to show for it. Something a real Red Sox can appreciate after decades of heartbreaks. This is still a good team and we have a lot more flexibility and some prospects almost ready. If it fails we can trade JD,Sale or Eovaldi and restock even more. I honestly don’t get the “it is still a good team” argument. Nathan Eovaldi is the #3 starter with no one behind him. They have a subpar OF. The right side of the infield is essentially replacement players. They have a pretty poor bullpen. And no manager. What is the brightside?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 5, 2020 13:06:28 GMT -5
I'd argue Martin Perez is the #3 starter.
(No, that wasn't supposed to make you feel better.)
Lest you think I'm kidding, Perez has a 3.5 bWAR over the last four years, Eovaldi has a 2.9. I will always love Eovaldi for what he did in the playoffs, but given the timing, his injury history, and the allocation of resources, that looks like a really horrific signing. I hope he proves me wrong.
I expect the offense to continue to be very good, though there are holes. Betts was the Red Sox best player, but he may have only been their fourth-best hitter last year. Bogaerts/Martinez/Devers is a great core, and I expect Benintendi to bounce back.
They have a lot of innings to figure out though.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 5, 2020 13:07:42 GMT -5
I'd argue Martin Perez is the #3 starter. (No, that wasn't supposed to make you feel better.) Sweet Jesus, you are probably right.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 5, 2020 13:09:02 GMT -5
So what? It's his money, he spends as much or more than 99% of the other teams. And he has 4 Chips to show for it. Something a real Red Sox can appreciate after decades of heartbreaks. This is still a good team and we have a lot more flexibility and some prospects almost ready. If it fails we can trade JD,Sale or Eovaldi and restock even more. I honestly don’t get the “it is still a good team” argument. Nathan Eovaldi is the #3 starter with no one behind him. They have a subpar OF. The right side of the infield is essentially replacement players. They gave a pretty poor bullpen. And no manager. What is the brightside? I agree. Which is why I'm for this trade. Mookie and Price help, obviously, but they don't hide all the warts. This team's budget was horribly mismanaged and now they need to unload and reload. I don't trust Sale, Eovaldi, Price, and E-Rod staying healthy all season and Perez is a very mediocre pitcher. After then, nothing. They're starting off with no 2B and a questionable 1B. Their catcher I'm not sold on as suddenly being a slugger. Then there's just always freak accidents or things that just pop up like hamstrings. Who would fill in for JD Martinez, Mookie Betts, Xander, or Devers should their top flight guys get hurt? Maybe Devers regresses a bit. They still don't even have a manager. It's a down year.
|
|
|