Betts/Price to LA for Alex Verdugo, Jeter Downs, and Connor Wong

Status
Not open for further replies.

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
I think we need to embrace his Jeterness. If the MFY's had a highly-regarded catching prospect named Fisk, it would be annoying to us Sox fans. Just think of how they'll feel about having to share their hero's unique name with their hated rival.
Agree 100%. I have a good buddy who is a Yankee fan and I can see him cringe when I said "Sox traded for Jetes!!"
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
I think we need to embrace his Jeterness. If the MFY's had a highly-regarded catching prospect named Fisk, it would be annoying to us Sox fans. Just think of how they'll feel about having to share their hero's unique name with their hated rival.
I've got to be honest, I'm already looking forward to when I can legitimately post "Past a diving Jeter!" in a Sox-Yankees game. Just for fun.

I hope the kid has a solid career though. He looks like a decent prospect.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,713
Almost 11 million over. Trading Pederson and Stripling would've only lowered their payroll by almost 9 million.
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/
So does this put them in a position to not only have to shed payroll in the short term to not stay over, but also shed enough payroll to be in the running to sign Mookie long term?

Who out there can actually pony up a $420 million spicy meatball come next November?
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,250
realistically the number of teams caps out at...
-any big market team (both LAs, both Chicagos, both New Yorks, Boston)
-maybe the Phillies, Braves
 

Teachdad46

New Member
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
So does this put them in a position to not only have to shed payroll in the short term to not stay over, but also shed enough payroll to be in the running to sign Mookie long term?

Who out there can actually pony up a $420 million spicy meatball come next November?
So does this put them in a position to not only have to shed payroll in the short term to not stay over, but also shed enough payroll to be in the running to sign Mookie long term?

Who out there can actually pony up a $420 million spicy meatball come next November?
The question is more..who can and also wants to?
 

LesterFan

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2010
15,046
Boston, MA
realistically the number of teams caps out at...
-any big market team (both LAs, both Chicagos, both New Yorks, Boston)
-maybe the Phillies, Braves
Giants will have money and they went hard after Harper (offered $310 million and were willing to go higher). That fanbase could use some excitement with Bumgarner gone and Posey entering the final 2 years of his contract and no longer the same player. Could see them making a run. There will be no shortage of suitors, that's for sure.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
Giants will have money and they went hard after Harper (offered $310 million and were willing to go higher). That fanbase could use some excitement with Bumgarner gone and Posey entering the final 2 years of his contract and no longer the same player. Could see them making a run. There will be no shortage of suitors, that's for sure.
And they’d probably love to steal him from the LAD.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
So does this put them in a position to not only have to shed payroll in the short term to not stay over, but also shed enough payroll to be in the running to sign Mookie long term?

Who out there can actually pony up a $420 million spicy meatball come next November?
Your second question is answered. As for your first question, the Sox, I believe are under enough of the tax they can add somebody. If they aren't too expensive. I don't know who it would be. Maybe Brock Holt.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
Nationals wont have the money for Mookie Betts. Eaton isnt a superstar but the Nats future hinges on Soto/Robles/Kieboom.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,283
I like the trade. Figured Bloom would get it figured out.

I have no problem rooting for a guy named Jeter. I just hope one day ours can be half as overrated.

Probably use the room taking a couple flyers on high upside pitchers with team options for 2nd year?
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,440
Haiku
His mother says: "Really his full name is Jeter Deion Downs. I loved Deion Sanders with the Atlanta Braves then, too. So made him Jeter Deion. But he doesn’t like his middle name that much."

He better start liking it!!!

J. Deion Downs? ... J.D. Downs? ... CI Downs?
The Red Sox can always use another Juris Doctor. JD Downs it is.

I said something similar in the other thread and got yelled at.


I think this package has much less upside than the first version did.

It’s also about what I expected for a deal with Mookie *alone*, so I think Chaim did really well here, given the direction chosen.
The first package had great upside because a starter who can throw 100 mph is a rare beast. It turns out he was too good to be true.

This does make it look like the Twins were trying to unload Graterol before his shoulder blows up on him, and whomever is stuck with his contract.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
The Red Sox can always use another Juris Doctor. JD Downs it is.



The first package had great upside because a starter who can throw 100 mph is a rare beast. It turns out he was too good to be true.



This does make it look like the Twins were trying to unload Graterol before his shoulder blows up on him, and whomever is stuck with his contract.
Yeah it definitely puts a hole in the “SOX GOT COLD FEET” line of thinking.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Verdugo, Downs, Wong, and dumping Price's contract for one season of Betts? Today is a great day in the retooling of this team. Adding a couple Top-50 prospects (not even sure I can still call Verdugo a prospect as he had 400 PA last year) and probably the best catcher in our ML system for a rental is max value. I don't have the same venom for DD as some as he was brought here to do whatever it took to win a Championship and accomplished this feat. I hated the Sale and Eovaldi contracts after the fact but we still have a ton of young players as a core group so we aren't in a gutted situation by any means. As far as the Verdugo hate, the only thing I've read was his questionable judgement of hanging out with some weird people who committed a crime when he wasn't even there. I'm pretty sure I can get past that if it's his only off the field blemish.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
Verdugo, Downs, Wong, and dumping Price's contract for one season of Betts? Today is a great day in the retooling of this team. Adding a couple Top-50 prospects (not even sure I can still call Verdugo a prospect as he had 400 PA last year) and probably the best catcher in our ML system for a rental is max value. I don't have the same venom for DD as some as he was brought here to do whatever it took to win a Championship and accomplished this feat. I hated the Sale and Eovaldi contracts after the fact but we still have a ton of young players as a core group so we aren't in a gutted situation by any means. As far as the Verdugo hate, the only thing I've read was his questionable judgement of hanging out with some weird people who committed a crime when he wasn't even there. I'm pretty sure I can get past that if it's his only off the field blemish.
Half of Price's contract (for clarity).
That'll always be annoying.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Half of Price's contract (for clarity).
That'll always be annoying.
I agree but that's part of the cost of having another World Series ring. I'm more annoyed at the Sale and Eovaldi contracts after the fact...….that is where my primary annoyance comes from and in the case of Sale wasn't necessary at that time.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
I agree but that's part of the cost of having another World Series ring. I'm more annoyed at the Sale and Eovaldi contracts after the fact...….that is where my primary annoyance comes from and in the case of Sale wasn't necessary at that time.
Agreed. Let's hope they are truly 'in the best shape of their careers'.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
870
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Verdugo, Downs, Wong, and dumping Price's contract for one season of Betts? Today is a great day in the retooling of this team. Adding a couple Top-50 prospects (not even sure I can still call Verdugo a prospect as he had 400 PA last year) and probably the best catcher in our ML system for a rental is max value. I don't have the same venom for DD as some as he was brought here to do whatever it took to win a Championship and accomplished this feat. I hated the Sale and Eovaldi contracts after the fact but we still have a ton of young players as a core group so we aren't in a gutted situation by any means. As far as the Verdugo hate, the only thing I've read was his questionable judgement of hanging out with some weird people who committed a crime when he wasn't even there. I'm pretty sure I can get past that if it's his only off the field blemish.
Like you, I hated the Sale contract in the offseason following the 2018 World Series. He was clearly a huge injury risk, and his 2018 postseason track record as a starter was concerning. And clearly you don't re-sign a pitcher for a 5 year $29MM AAV to be anything but a starter. It was a completely unnecessary and hasty signing. As with the Price signing, Dombrowski made this move with his pants appearing to be on fire.

In comparison, I didn't have the foresight you did with the Eovaldi signing. After his 2018 regular season and postseason performance with the Sox as a starter against really good teams (especially the Yankees, Twins and Astros), he felt to me as the pitching equivalent of Adrian Beltre. A guy who put it all together and elevated his performance in Boston, and who could build on that higher level for years to come. Obviously, 2019 threw a bunch of cold water on that thesis.

If we didn't re-sign Sale last offseason and tender JBJ this offseason, I believe we could have kept Mookie and reset the luxury tax. Nevertheless, Bloom did masterful work with the cards he was dealt and the mandate to get under the luxury tax threshold. According to the Baseball Trade Calculator, Verdugo for one year of Mookie is close to a wash. Jettisoning Price before his 10/5 rights kick in and adding two other young, cost-controlled prospects for positions of need in our farm system is very strong work.
 
Last edited:

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,250
even if the luxury tax was not an issue, they may have traded Betts [alone] the way negotiations have turned out. but the media will now just ignore this
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
and resetting the tax is only a "small increase"? give me a break.
The media pretty much across the board refuses to accept/acknowledge the non-financial penalties associated with going over the tax limits, which I think is at least partly because they're not so easy to explain or understand. But writers seem to prefer the thesis of all 30 owners essentially colluding and using the limits as a hard cap and being 'cheap' instead of trying to analyze why 30 incredibly rich owners would abide by unwritten rules if they didn't actually have a real impact on a team's ability to stockpile talent going forward (and this is what the CBA tried to do, discourage owners from going nuts without flat-out banning it).
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
and resetting the tax is only a "small increase"? give me a break.
Most of the analytics people on baseball twitter seem to be completely ignoring that no teams are perpetually spending over the tax, in fact the 2 teams the best set up right now are set up largely because they stayed under the tax, built a farm system, and are now cashing in and spending. So apparently every team disagrees with them that staying over the tax makes sense. Those same teams were also spending like crazy going over the tax year after year before the last CBA changed the rules, they didn't all of a sudden get cheap just because.


Also basically what JA beat me to by a minute
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
The media pretty much across the board refuses to accept/acknowledge the non-financial penalties associated with going over the tax limits, which I think is at least partly because they're not so easy to explain or understand. But writers seem to prefer the thesis of all 30 owners essentially colluding and using the limits as a hard cap and being 'cheap' instead of trying to analyze why 30 incredibly rich owners would abide by unwritten rules if they didn't actually have a real impact on a team's ability to stockpile talent going forward (and this is what the CBA tried to do, discourage owners from going nuts without flat-out banning it).
It has been disappointing to me that even some of the better writers are stuck on the concept that a 'large market' team should ever want to take a step back for one year in order to potentially improve their position in future seasons. I'm not saying they have to agree that doing so is correct, but it should be at least understandable that cashing in the final year of a superstar's contract (when said player has given every indication that the team will not receive favorable treatment in free agency negotiations) and getting out from under a bad contract has value. You would think from some of the pieces being written that the Red Sox were trading a player with years of team control remaining just to avoid paying him.

Most of the analytics people on baseball twitter seem to be completely ignoring that no teams are perpetually spending over the tax, in fact the 2 teams the best set up right now are set up largely because they stayed under the tax, built a farm system, and are now cashing in and spending. So apparently every team disagrees with them that staying over the tax makes sense. Those same teams were also spending like crazy going over the tax year after year before the last CBA changed the rules, they didn't all of a sudden get cheap just because.
If the bolded is referring to the Dodgers and Yankees (as I assume you are), it is even more to to the point that both of those teams cut payroll to get under the tax themselves, just as the Red Sox are doing now. I guess it's easier just to take potshots like the Fangraphs writer did, though.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
Most of the analytics people on baseball twitter seem to be completely ignoring that no teams are perpetually spending over the tax, in fact the 2 teams the best set up right now are set up largely because they stayed under the tax, built a farm system, and are now cashing in and spending. So apparently every team disagrees with them that staying over the tax makes sense. Those same teams were also spending like crazy going over the tax year after year before the last CBA changed the rules, they didn't all of a sudden get cheap just because.


Also basically what JA beat me to by a minute
I’m in the boat of the Sox ownership not necessarily being cheap. Mookie did the Sox a favor by indicating he was testing free agency after this year. The Sox could have made Betts an extraordinary offer and Mookie could have still chosen another destination. If the Sox then had a void in RF, Price still on the roster, and lack of major league ready prospects, they would be in a world of hurt. They picked up two very big pieces to their current and future roster by filling RF and 2B (in a year or two) as well as a good potential backup C for Vazquez. Now the Sox can focus on drafting pitching and adding to the rotation and bullpen in the future . This year is going to be a down year in terms of record but the Sox can quickly become a contender again.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
So does this put them in a position to not only have to shed payroll in the short term to not stay over, but also shed enough payroll to be in the running to sign Mookie long term?
The short answer: Yes.

The longer answer: Yes, but it's not so much about shedding payroll, as it is quite possible that even after resetting this year the Sox may end up paying the luxury tax if they were to resign Mookie next offseason to a market-rate $350-400 million contract amidst making other signings. It is about avoiding the onerous draft-pick and international bonus penalties that will hamstring the team's ability to assemble a consistently competitive team. The Red Sox have to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Yankees and other teams that have been much more active in the international market in recent years and hopefully grab a few stud players there instead of having one or both arms tied around their backs because of massive contracts being given out to veterans. The $48 million being sent to the Dodgers to pay half of David Price's remaining contract doesn't bother me, for example - if it was the price to be paid to get under out from under the tax penalties and let's Bloom do his thing in the international sandbox, it will be money well-spent.

Edit: Alex Speier's excellent article about the Sox luxury-tax implications from December explains why this goes beyond just the tax:
■ BIGGER DRAFT/INTERNATIONAL PENALTIES FOR SIGNING FREE AGENTS: Teams that go past the threshold in one year and then sign a free-agent who receives a qualifying offer the following offseason face greater losses in draft picks and international bonus pool money than teams that stay below the threshold.

If the Sox go past the luxury tax threshold in 2020 with Mookie Betts on the roster, watch Betts leave in free agency after the season, and want to sign (for instance) fellow free agent George Springer to replace him, the team would have to give up a second- and fifth-round pick while also losing $1 million in international bonus pool money to add Springer. If the Sox wanted to sign Springer after staying below the threshold in 2020, their penalty would be a second-round pick and $500,000 in international pool money.

■ LESS DRAFT COMPENSATION FOR DEPARTING FREE AGENTS: A team that spends beyond the luxury tax threshold gets less draft-pick compensation for a departing free agent who receives a qualifying offer. If the Sox spend beyond the threshold in 2020 with Betts on the roster and then watch him leave in free agency, they’d get a draft pick between the fourth and fifth rounds. If the Sox get under the threshold in 2020, a departure by Betts would net the team a pick between the second and third rounds.

■ MORE DRAFT PICK PENALTIES FOR BIG SPENDERS: Teams that spend beyond the third and highest threshold ($248 million in 2020) face a 10-pick penalty with their highest draft pick.
 
Last edited:

Teachdad46

New Member
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
"The deal serves principally to increase the Red Sox’s profits with a small increase in their competitive position some years down the line."
Who wrote this? A Boras intern?
 
Last edited:

iddoc

New Member
Nov 17, 2006
137
Is anyone else a bit surprised that they didn’t hold on to Price until July, to see if he could rebuild positive value, such that a contending team would pick up the entire remainder of his contact? Perhaps this trade speaks to the front office’s lack a confidence in the soundness of his left arm.
 

Teachdad46

New Member
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
Is anyone else a bit surprised that they didn’t hold on to Price until July, to see if he could rebuild positive value, such that a contending team would pick up the entire remainder of his contact? Perhaps this trade speaks to the front office’s lack a confidence in the soundness of his left arm.
I believe the numbers get too tight when you cut half of the salary relief trading him now offers, plus there is every chance he could have decreased his value even further if he'd either sucked or gotten injured playing Pac-Man.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Is anyone else a bit surprised that they didn’t hold on to Price until July, to see if he could rebuild positive value, such that a contending team would pick up the entire remainder of his contact? Perhaps this trade speaks to the front office’s lack a confidence in the soundness of his left arm.
I don't think there's a world where David Price recovers enough value to convince another team to take his remaining contract in full, and I'm someone who fully believes he is still an effective middle of the rotation guy (absent the luxury tax implications, I'd rather have him for $32M/year than pay him $16M/year to pitch somewhere else). He'd need to return to 26-27 year old David Price levels, which is that of a top 3 in MLB pitcher with no history of arm trouble to date. That's not going to happen for a 34 year old. Even if he pitches like his 26 year old self in April/May, is anyone really going to believe it's sustainable?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Sox will pay Price 7/169 after dumping the 48 million. It sucks to pay someone who doesn’t play for you but the 48 million is more than fair. That and the player compensation, Bloom did very well.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Is anyone else a bit surprised that they didn’t hold on to Price until July, to see if he could rebuild positive value, such that a contending team would pick up the entire remainder of his contact? Perhaps this trade speaks to the front office’s lack a confidence in the soundness of his left arm.
No. No team was picking up the entirety of the contract, as his value has fallen based on age and injury risk. Market value was somewhere between $15-$18mm per year, based on other comps. Price would be a 10/5 guy if not traded by the deadline and any injury before July could limit the ability of the team from trading Price at any price. The team had to trade Price now, for financial reasons. It has little to do with his current health; it has much to do with the risk of waiting.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
I had no animus towards Price, before or after joining the Red Sox, but his contract really revealed the problem with giving big dollars to over-30 pitchers. Scherzer and Verlander are exceptions that prove the rule.

Now that I’ve expressed these thoughts, I’m half expecting Price to have a late career Verlander-esque resurgence.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,713
The short answer: Yes.

The longer answer: Yes, but it's not so much about shedding payroll, as it is quite possible that even after resetting this year the Sox may end up paying the luxury tax if they were to resign Mookie next offseason to a market-rate $350-400 million contract amidst making other signings. It is about avoiding the onerous draft-pick and international bonus penalties that will hamstring the team's ability to assemble a consistently competitive team. The Red Sox have to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Yankees and other teams that have been much more active in the international market in recent years and hopefully grab a few stud players there instead of having one or both arms tied around their backs because of massive contracts being given out to veterans. The $48 million being sent to the Dodgers to pay half of David Price's remaining contract doesn't bother me, for example - if it was the price to be paid to get under out from under the tax penalties and let's Bloom do his thing in the international sandbox, it will be money well-spent.

Edit: Alex Speier's excellent article about the Sox luxury-tax implications from December explains why this goes beyond just the tax:
Have the Sox emerged from under the penalties for overspending in the international market under Cherington (or was it DD)? Seems like those penalties have at least a good size portion of the pie when looking at why the Sox farm system is so barren today.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Have the Sox emerged from under the penalties for overspending in the international market under Cherington (or was it DD)? Seems like those penalties have at least a good size portion of the pie when looking at why the Sox farm system is so barren today.
Yes, they were barred from signing players in the 2016-17 period and were allowed to resume in July 2017.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
Yeah I don't understand this at all

"The way it was made public could be a detriment to his career"

I mean, the guy will either be healthy enough to be a starter, or he won't. The fact that the Sox made the medical history more public does not affect that one iota.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I love how that is based on a tweet from Peter Gammons that Twins executives are 'privately upset' about how Boston handled the Graterol concerns. It's clearly not that 'private' if Old Hickory is tweeting about it.

The fact that a straight-up Maeda for Graterol trade didn't go through as originally configured and had to be sweetened by the Twins tells you all you need to know. If this is how Falvey operates, I'm glad we got Bloom.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,278
AZ
If the Red Sox leaked their concern with his medical records instead of just negotiating with the Twins quietly, that’s not cool. The Union’s statement and Boras’ actions do seem to indicate some level of accusation about a leak but who knows.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
It's so hypocritical of people to be upset at how the Sox handled this. They got roasted by the media and fans for accepting damaged goods in Drew Pomeranz. Now, they had pause after reviewing Graterol's medical records and people are upset. Give me a break here.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
Sox will pay Price 7/169 after dumping the 48 million. It sucks to pay someone who doesn’t play for you but the 48 million is more than fair. That and the player compensation, Bloom did very well.
Well technically, they aren't getting any benefit out of the next 3 years from Price, so really from the Sox standpoint the contract WAS 4 / 169. But apples to apples, if the Sox pick up a pitcher via trade/FA/call-up to be with the team the next 3 years, you can then say the Sox spent $XXX million for 7 years total (4 years Price/3 years Pitcher "Y"). This will likely be well under $200 million total or management will have defeated the purpose of the salary dump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.