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.
|
Post by costpet on Feb 6, 2020 10:04:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be sweet if Betts gets the game winning hit to beat the MFY's in the World Series?
Betts wants a 12 year $420 mil contract. That would put him at age 40 in his last year. How good would he be then? The last 4 years on his contract could be a burden. Perhaps he isn't offered anywhere near that when he hits free agency. The Sox could then offer him an 8 year $320 Mil contract, or $40 mil per year. That would end at age 36, which is probably when he starts to decline.
In the meantime, the Rays are noted for developing really good pitching. That's what I'm hoping Bloom can do with us.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 6, 2020 10:08:43 GMT -5
I think it's only a sensational trade for the Dodgers if they either win the World Series or end up re-signing Mookie (either during or after the season). Otherwise it's a tremendous failure because they gave up 2 long term assets for one year of Mookie. They could have easily made the playoffs and not won the WS in 2020 with Verdugo/Maeda (and they probably keep Pederson too). And if they're going into 2021 with no WS title and a hole in RF, what was the point? I sincerely doubt the Dodgers went into the trade thinking that Mookie is just a rental. I'm sure they plan on extending him. If you look around, who else will be able to match the Dodger dollars? I mean, the Red Sox made it pretty obvious they don't want to play in the 400 million neighborhood. The Yankees spent their big bucks on Cole and have their own players getting more expensive. I wouldn't rule them out because isn't it just like the Yankees to do something like that when it comes to Red Sox stars? But I don't think they're going after Betts. The Angels spent their big bucks on Rendon and Trout. The Cubs would love Mookie but are having financial issues of their own. The Mets could be a possibility. Brodie loves his stars. Of course he is now the owner of the hideous Cano contract. The Cards could be a possibility although I don't think they'll play in the Mookie neighborhood any more than the Red Sox would. So who does that leave? The Dodgers, who by the way, have a ton of financial flexibility. And if they have the dollars to spend - which they do - who do you think they'll spend it on? The premier player in the game or some lesser guy? And looking at the market, there's Mookie and a steep drop off to everybody else. The Dodgers traded for Mookie with the intention of giving him a Godfather offer. In their minds, he isn't a 1 year rental. Maybe if the Sox stepped up and competed they'd have a shot for Mookie, but at this point, I don't trust them to do so. I think that's more wishful thinking than anything else. They wanted him at a hometown discount. They weren't willing to pay him market price. So why will that suddenly start to happen? Maybe if the attendance plummets drastically, interest in the team is falls over, and their season is over by Memorial Day, then maybe they'd consider going after him. I expect the Sox to be mediocre, but I don't expect them to lose 90 plus games, so I don't think the above paragraph happens, so I don't think they'll be motivated to get him. Besides, with his Tampa background, I don't think it'll be like Bloom to throw around all that money on one player when they have a lot of other issues to deal with (lack of pitching, mediocre farm system).
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 6, 2020 10:32:33 GMT -5
I disagree that they won't go there for Mookie. I think if you consider the fact that the other guys that have gone into the market with $400M aspirations have ended up well short, and then Trout's AAV came in at closer to $35M, starting with his age 27 season, just caving and handing out a $400M extension seems reckless. Now having reset, they can go after him in free agency, and if the market dictates, consider going to that level.
Will they, I don't know, I'm just not willing to say that they clearly will not pay him.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Feb 6, 2020 11:02:51 GMT -5
If Mookie signs with the Dodgers before hitting Free Agency, then either everything that's been reported on that topic has been an absolute lie (I doubt it) or somehow Mookie did a complete 180 in his mind and fell so in love with LA he never wants to leave (highly unlikely). So the Dodgers HAD to see this trade as a rental, with a possibility to woo Mookie for a year to get him to sign once Free Agency starts
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 6, 2020 11:38:06 GMT -5
If Mookie signs with the Dodgers before hitting Free Agency, then either everything that's been reported on that topic has been an absolute lie (I doubt it) or somehow Mookie did a complete 180 in his mind and fell so in love with LA he never wants to leave (highly unlikely). So the Dodgers HAD to see this trade as a rental, with a possibility to woo Mookie for a year to get him to sign once Free Agency starts I'm not saying that the Dodgers expect to sign Mookie before November 2020. I'm saying they must realized that they're best positioned to get him extended after the season completes. I mean who else has those resources and that flexibility? Nobody really. Really, I can only see the Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, and maybe St. Louis as being able to sign him, and I doubt the Sox really want to at his price, and I don't think the Cards will extend that far, so who does that really leave? The Mets or the Dodgers. With the way they're set up I don't think the Dodgers will let Mookie slip away. They have more financial flexibility than the Mets do thanks to that Cano contract.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Feb 6, 2020 11:46:10 GMT -5
I'm hoping this "snag" affords a chance for the Red Sox to correct what initially seemed like a weak/overly risky return...whether that will actually happen, I don't have much confidence.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 6, 2020 11:49:54 GMT -5
After listening to the podcast I like the trade even more. It sucks trading Betts but we got 11 years of control for two potential all stars. Also getting out of ~16 Million a year of a potential albatross of a contract is more useful than a flier in A-.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Feb 6, 2020 11:52:55 GMT -5
I think you're underestimating the Sox interest to sign Mookie in Free Agency. With the Red Sox getting under the tax this year, they absolutely have the ability to spend more on Mookie. They couldn't do that without getting under this season, so knowing he was always going to FA, they traded him, added future pieces, and got under the tax to overspend and sign a big name FA if they want. Maybe it won't work out that way, but they absolutely can if they want to
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 6, 2020 11:56:45 GMT -5
I think you're underestimating the Sox interest to sign Mookie in Free Agency. With the Red Sox getting under the tax this year, they absolutely have the ability to spend more on Mookie. They couldn't do that without getting under this season, so knowing he was always going to FA, they traded him, added future pieces, and got under the tax to overspend and sign a big name FA if they want. Maybe it won't work out that way, but they absolutely can if they want to I don’t think Mookie wanted to stay in Boston though. If the dollars are equal I think he’d choose LA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 6, 2020 12:05:47 GMT -5
I think you're underestimating the Sox interest to sign Mookie in Free Agency. With the Red Sox getting under the tax this year, they absolutely have the ability to spend more on Mookie. They couldn't do that without getting under this season, so knowing he was always going to FA, they traded him, added future pieces, and got under the tax to overspend and sign a big name FA if they want. Maybe it won't work out that way, but they absolutely can if they want to I don’t think Mookie wanted to stay in Boston though. If the dollars are equal I think he’d choose LA. He literally just said he wanted to stay in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 6, 2020 12:10:00 GMT -5
After listening to the podcast I like the trade even more. It sucks trading Betts but we got 11 years of control for two potential all stars. Also getting out of ~16 Million a year of a potential albatross of a contract is more useful than a flier in A-. “Potential all stars” is using that phrase in the widest way. I mean, everyone is a potential all star. One of these guys has barely pitched above A ball and has a history of arm trouble with no off-speed pitch. I am not putting a cent on him being an all star. The other is well liked by scouts but has never had statistics that are exceptional. Maybe he reaches his ceiling, but I am also willing to bet this pair nets zero all star appearances (unless Hateraid is a closer).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 6, 2020 12:13:02 GMT -5
I think you're underestimating the Sox interest to sign Mookie in Free Agency. With the Red Sox getting under the tax this year, they absolutely have the ability to spend more on Mookie. They couldn't do that without getting under this season, so knowing he was always going to FA, they traded him, added future pieces, and got under the tax to overspend and sign a big name FA if they want. Maybe it won't work out that way, but they absolutely can if they want to This is the big question. I don't believe for one second that the Red Sox are willing to give Mookie the money he seeks. I think that is wishful thinking. If they did parlay the trade into one season of Betts and Price's 3 years into Verdugo and either Graterol plus or somebody else and then they DO sign Mookie, then the Red Sox did really well for themselves, even if they hurt themselves for the 2020 season. But I really don't think that's the case. I get that they'd be in far better position to sign him and not worry about paying the luxury tax on top of it. But with this new financial freedom, I doubt that they want to spend it all on one person and quickly lose that flexibility - of course I'd give Mookie what he's looking for. I just think if the Red Sox really wanted to keep Mookie they would have presented him with market value, regardless of the tax consequences and not take chances like they're taking. Now they have open that Pandora's box so now Mookie will play in LA and if he likes it there, he'll know what to expect and let's say the Sox presented Betts with a similar offer, who's to say he'd choose Boston at this point?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 6, 2020 12:15:30 GMT -5
I don’t think Mookie wanted to stay in Boston though. If the dollars are equal I think he’d choose LA. He literally just said he wanted to stay in Boston. I believe Mookie, that he wanted to stay in Boston. But after he gets to LA, deals with a lot better weather there, and plays on a juggernaut of a team, with a nice manager, who's to say that if all dollars are equal he'd go back to Boston? Honestly I doubt the Sox will offer as much as LA would. I supect it'll play out like Lester did where the Sox showed interest in returning Lester, tugged at his heartstrings a bit, but wouldn't come close to matching what the Cubs did. I think a similar scenario will play out. They'll make an offer but they'll be far short.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Feb 6, 2020 12:17:23 GMT -5
I know other players will be getting a raise, but even if they went to $40M per for Mookie next winter, that's basically Mookie (2020) plus JBJ's money, and you have a pre-arbitration Verdugo to replace JBJ. In the short-term, that wouldn't really cost them flexibility.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 6, 2020 12:49:27 GMT -5
I don’t think Mookie wanted to stay in Boston though. If the dollars are equal I think he’d choose LA. He literally just said he wanted to stay in Boston. That’s a pretty naive read. Jim Rice said he Mookie him that. If Mookie wanted to stay in Boston he would have negotiated an extension, not say that he wanted to test free agency. He’s not dumb, he knew the odds of him being traded were very real if he were to force the Red Sox to risk losing him for nothing. I would have personally rather just gone for another WS this year with Mookie, but his actions showed he cared more about hitting free agency than he did staying here, so rather than letting him walk we got some value back for him. That’s fine, it’s a business, but Mookie can’t put the onus solely on the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 6, 2020 12:52:05 GMT -5
He literally just said he wanted to stay in Boston. That’s a pretty naive read. Jim Rice said he Mookie him that. If Mookie wanted to stay in Boston he would have negotiated an extension, not say that he wanted to test free agency. He’s not dumb, he knew the odds of him being traded were very real if he were to force the Red Sox to risk losing him for nothing. I love my job. If a new company wants to offer me 25% more than what I'm making, I'm inclined to take it. Why isn't he entitled to maximize his value despite liking his employer? Why should he be penalized for liking where he works?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 6, 2020 12:53:15 GMT -5
That’s a pretty naive read. Jim Rice said he Mookie him that. If Mookie wanted to stay in Boston he would have negotiated an extension, not say that he wanted to test free agency. He’s not dumb, he knew the odds of him being traded were very real if he were to force the Red Sox to risk losing him for nothing. I love my job. If a new company wants to offer me 25% more than what I'm making, I'm inclined to take it. Why isn't he entitled to maximize his value despite liking his employer? Why should he be penalized for liking where he works? I didn’t say he should be penalized. I’m saying the world doesn’t revolve around him and both parties have to analyze the risk and make a decision; which they did.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 6, 2020 12:55:34 GMT -5
I love my job. If a new company wants to offer me 25% more than what I'm making, I'm inclined to take it. Why isn't he entitled to maximize his value despite liking his employer? Why should he be penalized for liking where he works? I didn’t say he should be penalized. I’m saying the world doesn’t revolve around him and both parties have to analyze the risk and make a decision; which they did. I'm just saying you can like your job and still want to earn more.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Feb 6, 2020 12:58:08 GMT -5
I didn’t say he should be penalized. I’m saying the world doesn’t revolve around him and both parties have to analyze the risk and make a decision; which they did. I'm just saying you can like your job and still want to earn more. It sounds like you two are just aggressively agreeing with each other.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Feb 6, 2020 13:00:54 GMT -5
I'm just saying you can like your job and still want to earn more. It sounds like you two are just aggressively agreeing with each other. It's just the notion Betts didn't really want to stay because he wanted more money. I just don't get why both things can't be true. That ideally he stays, but only if they're going to give him top dollar. It's better than him saying, "I'm so happy to be out of Boston".
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,926
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 6, 2020 13:01:37 GMT -5
I didn’t say he should be penalized. I’m saying the world doesn’t revolve around him and both parties have to analyze the risk and make a decision; which they did. I'm just saying you can like your job and still want to earn more. In this industry, the job is exactly the same regardless of the company you work for. So in this case, salary mattered more than who he worked for. Totally defensible, but it’s a business decision on the side of both Mookie and the Red Sox. I’m not saying he hated Boston, I’m just saying he cared most about the money and clearly liked the idea of LA + Free Agency more than Staying + giving BOS a contract $ target for them to agree to I'm just saying you can like your job and still want to earn more. It sounds like you two are just aggressively agreeing with each other. Yes it’s a very slight disagreement lol
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 6, 2020 13:03:45 GMT -5
Hey, in the spirit of “can’t we all just get along,” can we agree that the 2020 Sox season is going to suck?
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Feb 6, 2020 13:08:52 GMT -5
Hey, in the spirit of “can’t we all just get along,” can we agree that the 2020 Sox season is going to suck? No, we can't. This team isn't going to lose 100 games lol. It will be a bummer without Mookie but in terms of wins and losses it'll probably not be too far off last year's record as long as the team has better injury luck.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,254
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Feb 6, 2020 13:25:43 GMT -5
Hey, in the spirit of “can’t we all just get along,” can we agree that the 2020 Sox season is going to suck? If the pitching doesn’t stay healthy they will That lineup is more than good enough though imo Verdugo Bogaerts Devers Martinez Moreland Vazquez Benintendi Chavis/Peraza JBJ That’s a Lefty-righty balance with a pretty fantastic 1-4 Some upside in the bottom of the lineup too if Moreland stays healthy, vazquez maintains, and Benintendi/JBJ rebound Whatever we get out 2B is gravy imo. It’s possible Chavis learned how to hit a fastball at his waist!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 6, 2020 13:30:22 GMT -5
Hey, in the spirit of “can’t we all just get along,” can we agree that the 2020 Sox season is going to suck? No, we can't. This team isn't going to lose 100 games lol. It will be a bummer without Mookie but in terms of wins and losses it'll probably not be too far off last year's record as long as the team has better injury luck. Well, a mid-80s win season that begins with firing a good young manager, dumping payroll (and your best homegrown player in half a century) and crossed fingers that aging pitchers can stay healthy (to reach that mid-80s total) while looking forward to a few more years of great uncertainty.... that pretty much defines “no fun” to me.
|
|
|