No doubt. One year of control is not going to bring multiple blue chip prospects.One thing I do know. The inevitable trade will inevitably leave us disappointed with the return.
Yeah, the curve is the high spin rate pitch. The Dodgers took him away from it for some reason in 2018 and early 2019.Brooks shows that he used his curve more and his FB less in the second half--maybe that was part of the fix:
View attachment 28325
Yes, Gammons used that phrase in his original tweet. Rob is saying that Gammons' tweet is wrong about the specifics of the people involved, presumably he is implying that BOS would not actually get that much in return.What does Rob mean here? Is the "consensus deal" the one Peter Gammons tweeted? What about it is "unrealistic" and from whose side? Really weird tweet.
It's the perfect way to replace a guy named Mookie.A shortstop who wears No. 2 and a second baseman named Jeter?
Verdugo, Downs and Ferguson would be a good haul. I assume Verdugo and Ferguson would start at MLB and Downs would go to high A or AA?I'd be THRILLED with that return. It's way more than I was expecting to get from 1 year of Betts.
Jesus, don't do that!!!I would guess the hang up is the extra prospect(s) beyond Downs and Verdugo and the amount Boston has to send with Price (or perhaps LA is demanding they take back JK or AJP in the deal).
He has turned down ten year deals from the Red Sox multiple times.I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
Where have you been ????I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
Mookie might be cheaper for the acquiring team from a salary perspective, but in every other respect, he'll have less value to other teams in July than he will now. Two months of Mookie is not worth more than 6 months of Mookie. Acquiring Mookie now also comes with the benefit of being able to give him a qualifying offer and netting a compensation pick if he leaves via free agency. You don't get that if you get him in July instead.I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
Wow.I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
Only 1 team needs to give him that so why's it matter how many teams will? A 5 year deal would have to be like $270 million if not more.I know they've offered him 10 year deals. But on the other side what team other then Stankees or Dodgers would give him that. And Cashman has said they are avoiding the luxury tax.
Cashman has absolutely not said that, but NY is not going to be in the market for Betts with Judge/Stanton on board, same way they were not in the Bryce Harper market.I know they've offered him 10 year deals. But on the other side what team other then Stankees or Dodgers would give him that. And Cashman has said they are avoiding the luxury tax.
I like your optimism, but I don't like the gamble of being stuck with a 4th round compensatory pick. Plus keeping Betts doesn't achieve the payroll shedding mandate.If thats the best they can do, I'd rather roll with Betts in 2020 and see if they can make a playoff run
The Padres, Phillies, and Angels have all signed players to 10+ year deals in excess of $300M in the last 18 months. The idea that only the Yankees or Dodgers could pony up for Mookie is ludicrous.I know they've offered him 10 year deals. But on the other side what team other then Stankees or Dodgers would give him that. And Cashman has said they are avoiding the luxury tax.
Let's see now...I know they've offered him 10 year deals. But on the other side what team other then Stankees or Dodgers would give him that. And Cashman has said they are avoiding the luxury tax.
Yeah, I don't think the Padres deal for Betts without the hope of being able to retain him.The Padres, Phillies, and Angels have all signed players to 10+ year deals in excess of $300M in the last 18 months. The idea that only the Yankees or Dodgers could pony up for Mookie is ludicrous.
I know I'm going to regret this, but just out of curiosity, what do you think the AAV on a five year deal would have to be for anyone in Mookie's camp to regard it as being "decent?"I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
There are a few obvious truths at play and none of them involve Betts and a 5 year deal.Why in the world would Mookie take a five-year deal and be a free agent again at 32 -- when teams more and more are not offering long-term, big money to guys that age?
Agreed.There are a few obvious truths at play and none of them involve Betts and a 5 year deal.
1. Mookie Betts wants to be a free agent. He has made this clear a long time ago when he chose arbitration over buying out his arb years.
2. Why does he want to be a free agent? He wants to get paid. Hitting the free agent market is the best way to get paid full freight.
3. The Red Sox want/need/have determined it to be in the best interest of the team to get under the luxury tax.
4. You'd have to be a magician to get under the luxury tax without trading Mookie. I guess you could try and package Devers with Price and/or Eovaldi but the options aren't pretty.
5. Trading Mookie now is the best way to maximize his return to the Red Sox for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread.
6. The Red Sox know better than anyone the health of their pitchers. They understand the strengths of the competition. And they've determined that it is highly unlikely they content for anything more than a WC spot in 2020.
Look it sucks. In a perfect world Mookie retires a member of the Red Sox. Though decisions made prior to this year by both Betts and the Sox have made trading him near inevitable.
Ignoring the 5 year offer part, the other issue with waiting til July is if the Sox are in the race. You think it's a potential PR hit now, imagine what it would be if the Sox are in the East or WC hunt.I always thought the consensus is the Sox will get more if they wait until the trade deadline. Otherwise let's just keep him if we really can't get much for him. I know it's a longshot but offer him a decent 5 year deal and see if he wants to stay here.
I'd be pretty happy with a Betts for Verdugo/Downs/Ferguson deal. Verdugo could be a 4+ WAR guy they'll have all the control years on. Downs could easily be a high .700's/low .800's OPS 2B by 2021, a gaping hole in teh org. if you assume Chavis isn't going to have the footwork to stick there. Ferguson is probably a #4/#5 SP at best, but maybe a strong late inning guy.One thing I do know. The inevitable trade will inevitably leave us disappointed with the return.
Or it could mean that Bradford is hearing a real SP capable prospect is a pre-req. Both the most mentioned San Diego proposals (Quantrill) and the most floated Dodgers deals (Gonsolin) included an MLB ready SP.Yes, Gammons used that phrase in his original tweet. Rob is saying that Gammons' tweet is wrong about the specifics of the people involved, presumably he is implying that BOS would not actually get that much in return.
Not being in the WC hunt is going to take some work with the second wild card now.Ignoring the 5 year offer part, the other issue with waiting til July is if the Sox are in the race. You think it's a potential PR hit now, imagine what it would be if the Sox are in the East or WC hunt.
But what are his intangibles?Jeter Downs sounds like a good fit for Fenway. Every scouting report I’m reading about him says average power that plays above-average to pull, and fewer ground balls than you’d think for a littler guy.
With the revelation that Betts is looking for $35 million on a long term deal, I think the Dodgers would be comfortable given the system depth. They could afford to sign him to an 11 year extension that would get him to his desired plateau (the $400 million one) given their ability to plug new guys in. Put another way I don’t think the Dodgers are worried about losing him.Only 1 team needs to give him that so why's it matter how many teams will? A 5 year deal would have to be like $270 million if not more.
I have the oppo sense. Lack of updates tells me they're locked in the inner rooms and no one gets out until the deal is dead or done.The lack of any updates big or small make me feel like this isn't gonna happen
Well, since the Phillies and the Padres just gave out such...what's to make you think the Twins, ChiSox, Rangers, Braves, Dodgers, or D'Backs etc won't?I know they've offered him 10 year deals. But on the other side what team other then Stankees or Dodgers would give him that. And Cashman has said they are avoiding the luxury tax.
$40-45MI know I'm going to regret this, but just out of curiosity, what do you think the AAV on a five year deal would have to be for anyone in Mookie's camp to regard it as being "decent?"
If 12/420 is really on the deal, 5/225 wouldn't cause them to think about it. 6/300 might not even get it done. That would still require him to get 6/120 at age 34.Yeah, I feel like a 5/225 offer would at least make Mookie and his people think about it for a minute, but at that point, is that really better for the team as opposed to upping their reported offer of 10/300 to 10/350?
which makes a very good case for why 12/420 would be insane.If 12/420 is really on the deal, 5/225 wouldn't cause them to think about it. 6/300 might not even get it done. That would still require him to get 6/120 at age 34.
Actually, the key question is whether the $9M per WAR valuation is even remotely realistic.Mookie put up 35.4 fWAR in his first 5 full years with the Sox (2015 - 2019, age 22 - 26); at $9M per WAR that's $318.6 M in "value." The questions then in the exercise are then:
I linked this piece from a few weeks ago earlier in the thread, I think it answers your questions.Actually, the key question is whether the $9M per WAR valuation is even remotely realistic.
That figure gets thrown around like it's holy writ, and yet no one seems to know (or is able to explain) what it's based on and whether it has any relevance in contract negotiations.