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 sibbysisti on Feb 9, 2020 16:06:07 GMT -5
If getting below the “cap” is key, wouldn’t they have already done that with Betts(-27,000,000)? So it’s so important to get $42,000,000? Can’t see it. This whole trade was made into a huge public relations boondoggle by Bloom. Almost has me longing for Larry Lucchino. How so? You’ll note the smilie. Never a big fan of LL, but he was a master at negotiation and selling projects. Witness fleecing the good citizens of Worcester playing them off against the Pawtucket owners. He blew it on Lester, but it doesn’t dismiss his acumen in building new ballparks for Baltimore and San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 9, 2020 16:08:43 GMT -5
Heyman is reporting that talks between the Sox and Dodgers are progressing. I think we'll see the trade completed today, pending medicals for the new piece(s) of the deal. I think I've heard this said in this thread 100 times in the last few weeks!!! FWIW, I did say the week before the initial trade occurred that it would happen the Tuesday after Superbowl weekend, and I did have that right. It won't be finalized today because of medicals, etc, but we'll hear about an agreement tonight and who the Sox are getting. They don't want this to drag into spring training. I think the clubs involved are tired of this as well. It'll get done real soon. And if I'm right on this, I'll be wrong on a 100 other things!!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2020 16:10:33 GMT -5
The media apparently thinks this is all our fault. Gee, when would the media write a story to fit their agenda?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2020 16:14:24 GMT -5
Im in the rare group that is totally fine with trading Betts. My issue is selling low on Price to save ownership money. It's only selling low on Price if you assume his value is going to go up. There's a real possibility that he's hurt and/or ineffective again this season and his value continues to go down. The Dodgers checked him out, he's not currently hurt or they don't make the deal and trade away two decent starters to get him. So I certainly take the gamble he can stay healthy for half a season so you can trade him. We're basically selling him at his lowest point in the last two years. That is never a good thing. I'd agree if he wasn't pitching as well as he was the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Feb 9, 2020 16:17:09 GMT -5
It's only selling low on Price if you assume his value is going to go up. There's a real possibility that he's hurt and/or ineffective again this season and his value continues to go down. I do believe his value will go up. He was hurt at the end of last year and view it as more likely then not his value will increase. I hate putting Price in there to decrease the Mookie return. I agree wholeheartedly. Forcing LA to include Price was not only a greedy move by Bloom but reduced the return the Sox could have realized by a Mookie only trade to the Dodgers. Mookie was owed $27,000,000 this season. Sox wanted to get to $208,000,000 for a payroll. This would have been achieved by the Mookie trade alone. L.A. wouldn’t have done the deal if there were medical issues of a severe nature with Price. Bloom could have held onto him and found a taker at or before the deadline and recoup another prospect or two and still have reduced their payroll further. Poor management, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2020 16:17:16 GMT -5
The media apparently thinks this is all our fault. Gee, when would the media write a story to fit their agenda? It seems kinda right on to me. If this wasn't leaked I bet they just complete the deal. Sure feels like the Red Sox are reacting to the massive negative fan reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Ryanod1 on Feb 9, 2020 16:19:26 GMT -5
Im in the rare group that is totally fine with trading Betts. My issue is selling low on Price to save ownership money. It's only selling low on Price if you assume his value is going to go up. There's a real possibility that he's hurt and/or ineffective again this season and his value continues to go down. I think this is kind of my issue when looking at the trade. I tend to lean towards this being mid to high value on Price. At least when considering the risk involved (bad year or injury). I obviously want to maximize returns, but there is similar value with money (compared to prospects) when talking rebuild. Getting under the cap recovers draft pick penalties, and allows you flexibility. So getting Price's contract out is the same as landing a prospect + whatever else the money is used on What im saying is I SHOULDN'T look at it this way, but I do. If we get halfway through the season and something is really bad with Price is concerning. What do we do if we trade Betts, and it comes to the trade deadline...the Sox may not be able to move him. Then we are in a situation where the only way to dump him is by attaching a good player to a trade. We may not want to trade anyone that it would take to accomplish it. So attaching to Betts is the "safe" way to be sure it happens.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2020 16:22:03 GMT -5
Gee, when would the media write a story to fit their agenda? It seems kinda right on to me. If this wasn't leaked I bet they just complete the deal. Sure feels like the Red Sox are reacting to the massive negative fan reaction. Does it really, really matter at all?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2020 16:26:02 GMT -5
It's only selling low on Price if you assume his value is going to go up. There's a real possibility that he's hurt and/or ineffective again this season and his value continues to go down. I think this is kind of my issue when looking at the trade. I tend to lean towards this being mid to high value on Price. At least when considering the risk involved (bad year or injury). I obviously want to maximize returns, but there is similar value with money (compared to prospects) when talking rebuild. Getting under the cap recovers draft pick penalties, and allows you flexibility. So getting Price's contract out is the same as landing a prospect + whatever else the money is used on This confuses me, there aren't draft pick advantages to getting under the cap unless we let Betts walk. We get a 2nd compared to a 4th pick. You only get negative draft pick value by going 40 million over the 208 line. It also doesn't make sense because trading Betts alone gets you under the 208 line. Which is why tons of us don't get having to include him. All trading him does it get you well below the tax line and adds tons of dead money for three years.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 9, 2020 16:27:35 GMT -5
It's only selling low on Price if you assume his value is going to go up. There's a real possibility that he's hurt and/or ineffective again this season and his value continues to go down. I think this is kind of my issue when looking at the trade. I tend to lean towards this being mid to high value on Price. At least when considering the risk involved (bad year or injury). I obviously want to maximize returns, but there is similar value with money (compared to prospects) when talking rebuild. Getting under the cap recovers draft pick penalties, and allows you flexibility. So getting Price's contract out is the same as landing a prospect + whatever else the money is used on We dont need to trade Price to get under the cap. So its not the same as landing a prospect. We might not even have a first round pick in the next draft anyway.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 9, 2020 16:29:24 GMT -5
I think this is kind of my issue when looking at the trade. I tend to lean towards this being mid to high value on Price. At least when considering the risk involved (bad year or injury). I obviously want to maximize returns, but there is similar value with money (compared to prospects) when talking rebuild. Getting under the cap recovers draft pick penalties, and allows you flexibility. So getting Price's contract out is the same as landing a prospect + whatever else the money is used on We dont need to trade Price to get under the cap. So its not the same as landing a prospect. We might not even have a first round pick in the next draft anyway. Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble.
|
|
|
Post by Ryanod1 on Feb 9, 2020 16:30:01 GMT -5
I think this is kind of my issue when looking at the trade. I tend to lean towards this being mid to high value on Price. At least when considering the risk involved (bad year or injury). I obviously want to maximize returns, but there is similar value with money (compared to prospects) when talking rebuild. Getting under the cap recovers draft pick penalties, and allows you flexibility. So getting Price's contract out is the same as landing a prospect + whatever else the money is used on This confuses me, there aren't draft pick advantages to getting under the cap unless we let Betts walk. We get a 2nd compared to a 4th pick. You only get negative draft pick value by going 40 million over the 208 line. It also doesn't make sense because trading Betts alone gets you under the 208 line. Which is why tons of us don't get having to include him. All trading him does it get you well below the tax line and adds tons of dead money for three years. Your right, and I'm wrong. Wasn't thinking about the negative draft value limit. Regardless, I added an edit to the original comment that explains why I think he should be added. Obviously its just an opinion. This was my add on. Im sure im still wrong though haha. What im saying is I SHOULDN'T look at it this way, but I do. If we get halfway through the season and something is really bad with Price is concerning. What do we do if we trade Betts, and it comes to the trade deadline...the Sox may not be able to move him. Then we are in a situation where the only way to dump him is by attaching a good player to a trade. We may not want to trade anyone that it would take to accomplish it. So attaching to Betts is the "safe" way to be sure it happens.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2020 16:34:48 GMT -5
It seems kinda right on to me. If this wasn't leaked I bet they just complete the deal. Sure feels like the Red Sox are reacting to the massive negative fan reaction. Does it really, really matter at all? Absolutely, you shouldn't let the fans influence your decision making. It's like signing Hanley and Sandoval because the fans demanded we get better. You should have better long-term plans and not do 180s all the time. Heck it's why so many GM candidates didn't want to even interview for the job, Henry always changes his mind!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2020 16:38:27 GMT -5
We dont need to trade Price to get under the cap. So its not the same as landing a prospect. We might not even have a first round pick in the next draft anyway. Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble. I like him, and I think another team is wise to get him at half price... AND I am anxious to get rid of him. The Sox are going nowhere in a time frame in which Price has a real role. So that money can definitely be better applied, even if it is, say, next off season. I’d take a bag of balls for him, and that is, again, with the expectation that he might be good this year. Price for a full year at a good level doesn’t gee the Sox to 90 wins.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2020 16:44:42 GMT -5
This confuses me, there aren't draft pick advantages to getting under the cap unless we let Betts walk. We get a 2nd compared to a 4th pick. You only get negative draft pick value by going 40 million over the 208 line. It also doesn't make sense because trading Betts alone gets you under the 208 line. Which is why tons of us don't get having to include him. All trading him does it get you well below the tax line and adds tons of dead money for three years. Your right. Wasn't thinking about the negative draft value limit. Regardless, I added an edit to the original comment that explains why I think he should be added. Obviously its just an opinion. This was my add on. Im sure im still wrong though haha. What im saying is I SHOULDN'T look at it this way, but I do. If we get halfway through the season and something is really bad with Price is concerning. What do we do if we trade Betts, and it comes to the trade deadline...the Sox may not be able to move him. Then we are in a situation where the only way to dump him is by attaching a good player to a trade. We may not want to trade anyone that it would take to accomplish it. So attaching to Betts is the "safe" way to be sure it happens. I hate that though, if attaching Price means you get less for Betts. I'm not against trading him, but the goal should be get as much as possible. Not using him to get rid of a contract. So we can then sign someone else who might not even be as good next year. See Eovaldi as an example. I'm more than okay with the risk that Price gets injured, every pitcher has that risk. He can help you this year and I like my chances to get a better deal than what is currently happening. If he gets injured, we can still move him next year. For me the minute he proves he's healthy and pitching well his value doubles. So the risk vs reward seems like it's worth it. You could have clubs fighting over him at the deadline if he costs 7 million for the rest of the year, with two years 30 million left. Or maybe you get very little but a team takes the full deal or you have to pay down less.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 9, 2020 16:47:13 GMT -5
We dont need to trade Price to get under the cap. So its not the same as landing a prospect. We might not even have a first round pick in the next draft anyway. Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble. To me, the more believable scenario is ownership just wants to dump as much of that salary as possible, and they’re not patient enough to wait a few months While its possible Price has a terrible Spring... I think its more likely he has a good one.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 9, 2020 16:48:25 GMT -5
Your right. Wasn't thinking about the negative draft value limit. Regardless, I added an edit to the original comment that explains why I think he should be added. Obviously its just an opinion. This was my add on. Im sure im still wrong though haha. What im saying is I SHOULDN'T look at it this way, but I do. If we get halfway through the season and something is really bad with Price is concerning. What do we do if we trade Betts, and it comes to the trade deadline...the Sox may not be able to move him. Then we are in a situation where the only way to dump him is by attaching a good player to a trade. We may not want to trade anyone that it would take to accomplish it. So attaching to Betts is the "safe" way to be sure it happens. I hate that though, if attaching Price means you get less for Betts. I'm not against trading him, but the goal should be get as much as possible. Not using him to get rid of a contract. So we can then sign someone else who might not even be as good next year. See Eovaldi as an example. I'm more than okay with the risk that Price gets injured, every pitcher has that risk. He can help you this year and I like my chances to get a better deal than what is currently happening. If he gets injured, we can still move him next year. For me the minute he proves he's healthy and pitching well his value doubles. So the risk vs reward seems like it's worth it. You could have clubs fighting over him at the deadline if he costs 7 million for the rest of the year, with two years 30 million left. Or maybe you get very little but a team takes the full deal or you have to pay down less. Thank you! This is exactly where I am coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Ryanod1 on Feb 9, 2020 16:49:01 GMT -5
Your right. Wasn't thinking about the negative draft value limit. Regardless, I added an edit to the original comment that explains why I think he should be added. Obviously its just an opinion. This was my add on. Im sure im still wrong though haha. What im saying is I SHOULDN'T look at it this way, but I do. If we get halfway through the season and something is really bad with Price is concerning. What do we do if we trade Betts, and it comes to the trade deadline...the Sox may not be able to move him. Then we are in a situation where the only way to dump him is by attaching a good player to a trade. We may not want to trade anyone that it would take to accomplish it. So attaching to Betts is the "safe" way to be sure it happens. I hate that though, if attaching Price means you get less for Betts. I'm not against trading him, but the goal should be get as much as possible. Not using him to get rid of a contract. So we can then sign someone else who might not even be as good next year. See Eovaldi as an example. I'm more than okay with the risk that Price gets injured, every pitcher has that risk. He can help you this year and I like my chances to get a better deal than what is currently happening. If he gets injured, we can still move him next year. For me the minute he proves he's healthy and pitching well his value doubles. So the risk vs reward seems like it's worth it. You could have clubs fighting over him at the deadline if he costs 7 million for the rest of the year, with two years 30 million left. Or maybe you get very little but a team takes the full deal or you have to pay down less. I like the way you look at it. I'm clearly too concerned with the thought of being handcuffed due to a contract. Price could just as likely have great season, and I wouldn't be happy with a contract dump in that case. This isn't being sarcastic or anything if it comes off that way. Im legit wrong.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Feb 9, 2020 16:54:52 GMT -5
We dont need to trade Price to get under the cap. So its not the same as landing a prospect. We might not even have a first round pick in the next draft anyway. Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble. There’s a difference between being under the cap and having enough space to be flexible in signing younger players to extension, add at the deadline if the need arises and signing free agents the following offseason, be it Betts or anyone else. Yes Betts alone was enough to get under the cap this year but there are advantages to having Price's partial salary relief the next two seasons. Maybe they sign Puig to a 1 year deal with the thought of competing or trading him at the trade deadline for more prospect or years of control value. Maybe they extend Devers and/or Erod. Maybe they resign Holt as a versatile bench option. Maybe they do none of this and are just setting a three year plan. There are many possibilities. One of which is Price is healthy and looks terrific for LA. One is also Price comes down with an injury and misses half the season destroying his trade value. I’m not going to crap on Bloom for this decision even if we see more value in Price than the outside world does. My biggest concern is that the deal leaves us in a tough spot in not just completing the rotation but the rotation depth. I suspect we are going to see multiple openers this season.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 9, 2020 16:58:34 GMT -5
Signing Puig or Brock Holt doesn’t justify selling low on Price.
|
|
|
Post by Ryanod1 on Feb 9, 2020 17:03:12 GMT -5
Signing Puig or Brock Holt doesn’t justify selling low on Price. It has been really interesting with all the Price opinions. Only in that I didn't realize how polarizing he is when it comes to value. A lot see him at his low and likewise on the high side.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 9, 2020 17:04:11 GMT -5
Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble. There’s a difference between being under the cap and having enough space to be flexible in signing younger players to extension, add at the deadline if the need arises and signing free agents the following offseason, be it Betts or anyone else. Yes Betts alone was enough to get under the cap this year but there are advantages to having Price's partial salary relief the next two seasons. Maybe they sign Puig to a 1 year deal with the thought of competing or trading him at the trade deadline for more prospect or years of control value. Maybe they extend Devers and/or Erod. Maybe they resign Holt as a versatile bench option. Maybe they do none of this and are just setting a three year plan. There are many possibilities. One of which is Price is healthy and looks terrific for LA. One is also Price comes down with an injury and misses half the season destroying his trade value. I’m not going to crap on Bloom for this decision even if we see more value in Price than the outside world does. My biggest concern is that the deal leaves us in a tough spot in not just completing the rotation but the rotation depth. I suspect we are going to see multiple openers this season. Those extensions can be officially done the 2nd day of the season and not count toward this year's figures.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 9, 2020 17:06:26 GMT -5
Maybe that's the Red Sox' way of saying, "We don't really think Price will bounce back enough to even allow us to get somebody else to pay half his salary". They must be really anxious to get rid of him, that they're not willing to take that gamble. To me, the more believable scenario is ownership just wants to dump as much of that salary as possible, and they’re not patient enough to wait a few months While its possible Price has a terrible Spring... I think its more likely he has a good one. I actually think Price will flourish in LA. I don't think he's done. He'll never be what he was, but i think there's still a very good pitcher there. I just think the Sox didn't want to take the gamble. They want that flexibility next season for future signings and extensions in the 2020-2021 off-season. It'll help them sign George Springer
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2020 17:12:16 GMT -5
Does it really, really matter at all? Absolutely, you shouldn't let the fans influence your decision making. It's like signing Hanley and Sandoval because the fans demanded we get better. You should have better long-term plans and not do 180s all the time. Heck it's why so many GM candidates didn't want to even interview for the job, Henry always changes his mind! They're not the idiots that you're implying they are. And speculating on something that will never be proven either way is just a waste of time. But believe what you want to believe, since that's the new american way.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2020 17:12:52 GMT -5
There’s a difference between being under the cap and having enough space to be flexible in signing younger players to extension, add at the deadline if the need arises and signing free agents the following offseason, be it Betts or anyone else. Yes Betts alone was enough to get under the cap this year but there are advantages to having Price's partial salary relief the next two seasons. Maybe they sign Puig to a 1 year deal with the thought of competing or trading him at the trade deadline for more prospect or years of control value. Maybe they extend Devers and/or Erod. Maybe they resign Holt as a versatile bench option. Maybe they do none of this and are just setting a three year plan. There are many possibilities. One of which is Price is healthy and looks terrific for LA. One is also Price comes down with an injury and misses half the season destroying his trade value. I’m not going to crap on Bloom for this decision even if we see more value in Price than the outside world does. My biggest concern is that the deal leaves us in a tough spot in not just completing the rotation but the rotation depth. I suspect we are going to see multiple openers this season. Those extensions can be officially done the 2nd day of the season and not count toward this year's figures. They can be announced whenever.
|
|
|