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 humanbeingbean on Feb 6, 2020 16:18:32 GMT -5
If it's purely a financial decision with no hard feelings getting in the way, the Red Sox should absolutely be all-in on signing him next offseason. All we can hope for is that Mookie is serious about wanting to test free agency, so we get the opportunity. If he doesn't sign an extension and waits to sign until next offseason, then the Red Sox need to be right there until the end. If the dollar amount is reasonable (say, 35 million for 10 years rather than 12, though I'm personally not averse to giving Mookie a blank check), the Sox will be in a good position to offer that. But if Mookie signs an extension prior to the offseason, it'd be clear that he didn't want to stay in Boston after all and the whole 'needing to test free agency' thing wasn't as serious as it was made out to be. The opportunity for a Benintendi/Verdugo/Betts outfield in 2021 is all we can hope for at this point, but you can't exactly consider re-signing a player you traded away a likely outcome. Bridges burn. But it'd sure be nice.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 6, 2020 16:21:03 GMT -5
Call off this deal Henry. F*ck you. Do the right thing. can you explain why you are upset with Henry? Because he wants to be like every other team in baseball and not go over the main luxury tax 3 years in a row? He’s spoiled you with 4 World Series titles while spending just as much as any team. This is ridiculous "Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,688
|
Post by cdj on Feb 6, 2020 16:23:05 GMT -5
can you explain why you are upset with Henry? Because he wants to be like every other team in baseball and not go over the main luxury tax 3 years in a row? He’s spoiled you with 4 World Series titles while spending just as much as any team. This is ridiculous "Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about. Then it’s more of a league problem than a team problem right? I think the guys said it on the podcast, it’s basically an excuse for owners to save some money every few years But at the end of the day the penalties go beyond fiscal penalties and that’s really why you’ll never see anybody go over it a 3rd time imo
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 6, 2020 16:24:29 GMT -5
If it helps you in anyway, people treating this as anything but an unmitigated catastrophe also annoy me greatly. I hope you get your wish and the Red Sox give Mookie 420 million dollars and can’t give anyone else out there any money. Goodbye devers and Martinez and benintedi. But giving Mookie 420 million is the right thing to do! This team has no other holes that can fill that 420 million with $208m a year in payroll, minus $35-40m for Mookie, what's that work out to... let's see here, carry the one, calculate the compound interest, divide by the gravitational constant... ok yeah, your math checks out, zero dollars left in the budget.
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Feb 6, 2020 16:32:22 GMT -5
I was going through a couple of ESPN+ stories on the deal today, and there were some reoccurring themes. I'll link to the articles if you have a subscription... Joon Lee: Why Red Sox fans are angry about the Mookie Betts trade -- and why they shouldn't be www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28626763/why-red-sox-fans-angry-mookie-betts-trade-why-beBuster Olney: Here's what's next for Red Sox after trading Mookie Betts, David Price www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28607225/here-next-red-sox-trading-mookie-betts-david-price"Once Boston's primary rivals got the ace they needed, and once the Red Sox lost their most important staffer, the Red Sox situation gained clarity: It's going to be a year of turnover, the crossroad to the next big thing." Bradford Doolittle and David Schoenfeld: Did the Los Angeles Dodgers just win the winter? How bad is this for the Boston Red Sox? Grading the Mookie Betts trade www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28601321/did-los-angeles-dodgers-just-win-winter-how-bad-the-boston-red-sox-grading-mookie-betts-tradeFor what it's worth, one of them gave the Red Sox a B+ on the deal and said his biggest beef with the deal was the idea that the Red Sox were punting on a season in which they had a chance to make the postseason, but acknowledged the team has "questions" and conceded that management saw those questions as well. The other writer gave Bloom an A. Said he could easily see Verdugo becoming a 4-5 WAR player and that Graterol has the kind of arm that the Red Sox should be taking a chance with. Kiley McDaniel: The great Mookie irony: How the Red Sox are actually copying the Dodgers www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28641130/the-great-mookie-irony-how-red-sox-actually-copying-dodgers"A dozen cheap years of strong contributors -- split between outfielder Alex Verdugo and pitcher Brusdar Graterol -- is a solid return for one year of an elite player and dumping a bad contract, even if it hurts for Boston to officially commit to the opposite of the Dave Dombrowski approach to team building." This was my favorite article. It talks about how the ultimate goal is to become more of a perennial contender that doesn't experience the extreme ups and downs that the Red Sox have gone through over the past 15+ years. Moving forward, the focus will be on taking a sound approach to payroll/roster flexibility, depth, and building the farm system. They feel that this trade will kick start a change of direction away from the Dave Dombrowski model towards the Andrew Friedman model. And that's what I think it came down to. In Chaim Bloom's mind, beginning the process of building a sustainable winner was more important than fielding the best possible team they can in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Feb 6, 2020 16:36:57 GMT -5
I hope you get your wish and the Red Sox give Mookie 420 million dollars and can’t give anyone else out there any money. Goodbye devers and Martinez and benintedi. But giving Mookie 420 million is the right thing to do! This team has no other holes that can fill that 420 million with $208m a year in payroll, minus $35-40m for Mookie, what's that work out to... let's see here, carry the one, calculate the compound interest, divide by the gravitational constant... ok yeah, your math checks out, zero dollars left in the budget. do you not think this team has plenty of holes? The Red Sox just got Verdugo for nowhere near the price Mookie is going to be paid and have plenty of extra money to fill other holes now. Giving Mookie 420 million wasn’t the way for this team to go as they need a lot of money for other areas. All about flexibility and signing Mookie would give the Red Sox 0 of that in the future
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 6, 2020 16:45:14 GMT -5
I was going through a couple of ESPN+ stories on the deal today, and there were some reoccurring themes. I'll link to the articles if you have a subscription... Joon Lee: Why Red Sox fans are angry about the Mookie Betts trade -- and why they shouldn't be www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28626763/why-red-sox-fans-angry-mookie-betts-trade-why-beBuster Olney: Here's what's next for Red Sox after trading Mookie Betts, David Price www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28607225/here-next-red-sox-trading-mookie-betts-david-price"Once Boston's primary rivals got the ace they needed, and once the Red Sox lost their most important staffer, the Red Sox situation gained clarity: It's going to be a year of turnover, the crossroad to the next big thing." Bradford Doolittle and David Schoenfeld: Did the Los Angeles Dodgers just win the winter? How bad is this for the Boston Red Sox? Grading the Mookie Betts trade www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28601321/did-los-angeles-dodgers-just-win-winter-how-bad-the-boston-red-sox-grading-mookie-betts-tradeFor what it's worth, one of them gave the Red Sox a B+ on the deal and said his biggest beef with the deal was the idea that the Red Sox were punting on a season in which they had a chance to make the postseason, but acknowledged the team has "questions" and conceded that management saw those questions as well. The other writer gave Bloom an A. Said he could easily see Verdugo becoming a 4-5 WAR player and that Graterol has the kind of arm that the Red Sox should be taking a chance with. Kiley McDaniel: The great Mookie irony: How the Red Sox are actually copying the Dodgers www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28641130/the-great-mookie-irony-how-red-sox-actually-copying-dodgers"A dozen cheap years of strong contributors -- split between outfielder Alex Verdugo and pitcher Brusdar Graterol -- is a solid return for one year of an elite player and dumping a bad contract, even if it hurts for Boston to officially commit to the opposite of the Dave Dombrowski approach to team building." This was my favorite article. It talks about how the ultimate goal is to become more of a perennial contender that doesn't experience the extreme ups and downs that the Red Sox have gone through over the past 15+ years. Moving forward, the focus will be on taking a sound approach to payroll/roster flexibility, depth, and building the farm system. They feel that this trade will kick start a change of direction away from the Dave Dombrowski model towards the Andrew Friedman model. And that's what I think it came down to. In Chaim Bloom's mind, beginning the process of building a sustainable winner was more important than fielding the best possible team they can in 2020. You all these sports writer guys need to stop being so reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 6, 2020 16:47:14 GMT -5
Day 3 of my melancholy. The more I think of it, and i am not sure I have been totally fair to Bloom, but he was put in a tough spot. He pulled the trigger, it was likely all he could get, and he desert some credit for having to make a tough decision.
I think what is disconcerting is the feeling that we are running this club like a small market club. The notion that you have to get return on assets because before they inevitably leave or you'll left holding your you know what in your hand. That doesn't sit well with me. However, in this case, it does buttress up against the fact that they have been taxed recently, because ownership has really always tried hard for us fans. I wonder if the cycles are driving people's anger
In the end Mookie, as great and popular as he is and deserves, is just one guy, in one era, on a franchise that so much history and is so beloved. The letters on the front of the jersey are more important, that is how I have always felt about the Sox. I am gonna give Bloom my full backing and I think this year's team is gonna play their ass off and may surprise us.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 6, 2020 16:48:35 GMT -5
$208m a year in payroll, minus $35-40m for Mookie, what's that work out to... let's see here, carry the one, calculate the compound interest, divide by the gravitational constant... ok yeah, your math checks out, zero dollars left in the budget. do you not think this team has plenty of holes? The Red Sox just got Verdugo for nowhere near the price Mookie is going to be paid and have plenty of extra money to fill other holes now. Giving Mookie 420 million wasn’t the way for this team to go as they need a lot of money for other areas. All about flexibility and signing Mookie would give the Red Sox 0 of that in the futureAgain I'm failing to see how $168m represents zero flexibility or ability to fill holes.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 6, 2020 17:35:21 GMT -5
"Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about. Just to add to that, it's not like we're talking about spending any amount of money to keep the Mets core together. This is one special Red Sox core, we should have seen these guys playing together for another 10 years. If any team in the league has any incentive to stop pretending like there's a hard cap in place, it's the current Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Feb 6, 2020 17:42:05 GMT -5
do you not think this team has plenty of holes? The Red Sox just got Verdugo for nowhere near the price Mookie is going to be paid and have plenty of extra money to fill other holes now. Giving Mookie 420 million wasn’t the way for this team to go as they need a lot of money for other areas. All about flexibility and signing Mookie would give the Red Sox 0 of that in the future Again I'm failing to see how $168m represents zero flexibility or ability to fill holes. what are you confused about? If the Red Sox chose to go the route of giving Mookie 240 million there’s no route of getting under the hard cap in the next few years and they will be getting taxed and losing draft picks for years. If you want to give Mookie that you will have a significantally weak team around him
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Feb 6, 2020 17:43:47 GMT -5
"Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about. Just to add to that, it's not like we're talking about spending any amount of money to keep the Mets core together. This is one special Red Sox core, we should have seen these guys playing together for another 10 years. If any team in the league has any incentive to stop pretending like there's a hard cap in place, it's the current Red Sox. So after watching last year your good with the same team they had last year? Because if they sign Mookie to this extension they can’t fill any other holes for awhile. If you want to give Mookie 420 million to be on a losing team every year you’ve got some weird thinking. But at least Mookie would be a Red Sox for life on a team that tops the luxury tax every year right!
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Feb 6, 2020 17:44:31 GMT -5
Again I'm failing to see how $168m represents zero flexibility or ability to fill holes. what are you confused about? If the Red Sox chose to go the route of giving Mookie 240 million there’s no route of getting under the hard cap in the next few years and they will be getting taxed and losing draft picks for years. If you want to give Mookie that you will have a significantally weak team around him 420 million*
|
|
|
Post by soxfan2015 on Feb 6, 2020 17:54:20 GMT -5
do you not think this team has plenty of holes? The Red Sox just got Verdugo for nowhere near the price Mookie is going to be paid and have plenty of extra money to fill other holes now. Giving Mookie 420 million wasn’t the way for this team to go as they need a lot of money for other areas. All about flexibility and signing Mookie would give the Red Sox 0 of that in the future Again I'm failing to see how $168m represents zero flexibility or ability to fill holes. In what world would the Red Sox be at $168 m after giving Mookie at least $35m it would take to sign him aav
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 6, 2020 18:01:25 GMT -5
can you explain why you are upset with Henry? Because he wants to be like every other team in baseball and not go over the main luxury tax 3 years in a row? He’s spoiled you with 4 World Series titles while spending just as much as any team. This is ridiculous "Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about. If that were the thing you're complaining about, you would've complained about it long before Mookie got traded. But you didn't. So no, you're just complaining about it because it's finally affecting your favorite team.
|
|
taftreign
Veteran
Posts: 1,155
Member is Online
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 6, 2020 18:13:15 GMT -5
To be fair to Bloom, it’s Dombrowski we should be mad at the most. His deals left the team with an inflexible payroll and a roster short on depth which was further thinned by his extra pieces added on in trades. Sure ownership could just keep spending penalties be damned but that’s not really how any good business operates and really shouldn’t be expected.
Yes Mookie probably was going to free agency anyway but you would have had payroll to keep him and play it out and even add a piece. You also would have had the option to increase your offer above the $300 million. I’d have run a shorter term deal at him with a high AAV and added an opt out. Something like 7 years and 266 mil with an opt out after 4. Gives you a chance to lock up his prime years and him a chance to get another long term deal after 4 to once again push higher earnings for the players and union. Guess I’d still see if this could be an option after this season.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Feb 6, 2020 18:14:10 GMT -5
Perhaps Chris or one of the other admin would explain that there is more at stake than money when it comes to going over the limit. This would be particularly important to a team, like the Sox, judged to have a poor farm system.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 6, 2020 18:21:10 GMT -5
What is at stake is the team thinks Betts is walking away next winter, an outcome they find unacceptable, so they are trading him. It boils down to that. Price and the luxury tax are an addition out of opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 6, 2020 18:22:50 GMT -5
Perhaps Chris or one of the other admin would explain that there is more at stake than money when it comes to going over the limit. This would be particularly important to a team, like the Sox, judged to have a poor farm system. I'm not sure what there is to explain. If you go over the third CBT limit your first pick drops 10 spots. It's pretty simple. The 2018 Red Sox are the only team to ever have done this. Given that this is the last year of the CBA, it's also not worth worrying about because the system may change starting next year.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 6, 2020 18:27:09 GMT -5
Buster Olney @buster_ESPN · 9m Mookie Betts understands his importance to the union and wanted to get to free agency, as Gerrit Cole did, to push the free agent $ ceiling for the union brethren. That is his right. Leaving Red Sox with a choice: deal him, or get almost nothing for him if he walked away. There are so many issues wrapped up in this statement that I have to respond to this. For the last two CBAs, the MLBPA - in what must have been bouts of pure madness - allowed the owners to yoke spending to draft selections. Think about what that means. There are hundreds of millions in excess value provided by draft choices that pan out. That's because of the remnants of the reserve clause embodied in the first years of a players MLB life. That's where the real money is, that's the incentive to get under the cap. Moreover, as Hatfield and Cundall point out on the emergency podcast the game has changed dramatically from the early part of the millenium, where you'd get two draft choices for each free agent. Those were gold and those days are gone forever. Henry isn't cheap, he's just playing under the rules the MLBPA agreed to. All the owners do it and they can just point to the CBA for justification. Call it implicit collusion which the players rubber-stamped. Betts' insistence on a $400+ million contract will not change that one bit. If the next CBA has the same provisions, all that does is take money off the top with less for the rest of the team. Do the arithmetic. $40 million/year under the current scenario, amounts to 1/6 th or more of a max team budget (it's not as if teams have been blowing through the cap left and right). Olney either knows this and he doesn't want to talk about the failures of the Player's Assocciation, or he hasn't put 2+2 together. Either way, it's not a good look for him. Hopefully, Betts' has more to offer by supporting tough negotiations with ownership for the next CBA. The players need to get those BS thresholds changed; they need to get all the baseball-related income onto the table or they're playing with half a deck; they need to resist any effort to tie even more of their compensation to the pot of gold provided by pre-arb palyers; they need to stick together - the players at the top and across the talent spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 6, 2020 18:50:30 GMT -5
"Every team in baseball acts like this" is not the argument ender that people think it is. It's literally the thing we're complaining about. If that were the thing you're complaining about, you would've complained about it long before Mookie got traded. But you didn't. So no, you're just complaining about it because it's finally affecting your favorite team. That's absolutely not true, but I invite you to read every single one of my past posts to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Feb 6, 2020 18:51:30 GMT -5
Day 3 of my melancholy. The more I think of it, and i am not sure I have been totally fair to Bloom, but he was put in a tough spot. He pulled the trigger, it was likely all he could get, and he desert some credit for having to make a tough decision. I think what is disconcerting is the feeling that we are running this club like a small market club. The notion that you have to get return on assets because before they inevitably leave or you'll left holding your you know what in your hand. That doesn't sit well with me. However, in this case, it does buttress up against the fact that they have been taxed recently, because ownership has really always tried hard for us fans. I wonder if the cycles are driving people's anger In the end Mookie, as great and popular as he is and deserves, is just one guy, in one era, on a franchise that so much history and is so beloved. The letters on the front of the jersey are more important, that is how I have always felt about the Sox. I am gonna give Bloom my full backing and I think this year's team is gonna play their ass off and may surprise us. The thing that sticks in my craw the most is the trading of an elite homegrown talent. That is exactly what small market teams do. The homegrown Red Sox greats are kept until the end of their careers (i.e. Williams, Yaz) and are properly valued by the club and cherished by the fans. As soon as those types of players are viewed only as assets whose values are based on hard to understand mathematical formulas about possible future performance baseball ceases to be a game and completely becomes just another business...
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 6, 2020 18:52:07 GMT -5
What is at stake is the team thinks Betts is walking away next winter, an outcome they find unacceptable, so they are trading him. It boils down to that. Price and the luxury tax are an addition out of opportunity. Yes, but on top that, they realize they have a weak farm system right now with not a lot of other (good) options to replace Mookie or other potential holes. That makes it all the more more difficult to let him walk for a (not so great) pick.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Feb 6, 2020 19:01:02 GMT -5
Perhaps Chris or one of the other admin would explain that there is more at stake than money when it comes to going over the limit. This would be particularly important to a team, like the Sox, judged to have a poor farm system. I'm not sure what there is to explain. If you go over the third CBT limit your first pick drops 10 spots. It's pretty simple. The 2018 Red Sox are the only team to ever have done this. Given that this is the last year of the CBA, it's also not worth worrying about because the system may change starting next year. I think a lot of people think Henry is just being cheap. That the only reason he won't sign Betts is because of money.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 6, 2020 19:13:58 GMT -5
Perhaps Chris or one of the other admin would explain that there is more at stake than money when it comes to going over the limit. This would be particularly important to a team, like the Sox, judged to have a poor farm system. I'm not sure what there is to explain. If you go over the third CBT limit your first pick drops 10 spots. It's pretty simple. The 2018 Red Sox are the only team to ever have done this. Given that this is the last year of the CBA, it's also not worth worrying about because the system may change starting next year. Big deal. If you look at the odds of players making MLB rosters who are picked 24th-30th (where Sox most often pick since new ownership group took over) vs. those picked 34th to 50th it is a negligible difference. We’ve had that discussion over the years.
|
|
|