2019-20 Offseason Discussion

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Honestly, I think we need Price much more than we need Martinez, if the Sox think he's healthy--and if they don't, the trading partner will presumably get access to the information that judgment is based on before a deal is finalized, so there goes his market.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
I continue to cross my fingers that Bloom can figure this out. I want both JDM and Betts on my team.

Would either of these work?

1. Trade Price to the Cubs for Heyward (saves $8m in AAV; adds another year under contract) Heyward takes right, Betts moves to center. Sign Avisail Garcia and turn Chavis, Benintendi and Bradley into two good starters (Archer? Desclafani? Civale?). Sign two of cheap guys like Cron, Brad Miller, Dozier, Zobrist, or Sogard to rotate though 1B/2B.

2. Trade Price to LAD for Pollock and Kelly, saving $10+ million in AAV. Follow the same plan as above, adding Workman to the trade chits.

I like either of these more than trading Eovaldi/Price for Choo and/or Odor. Odor is already pretty bad but would be even worse hitting in Fenway.
Heyward would be an interesting target, as we would really appreciate his plus defense in our big RF, but it's worth noting two things:

One is that he has substantial no-trade protection: he can block a trade to any of 12 teams; presumably, we're on that list.

And two, the J-Hey kid is basically a more expensive Jackie Bradley on a longer contract commitment. Bradley over his last five seasons has posted a 100 OPS+ (an average that masks a lot of ups and downs) and great defense. Heyward's OPS+ over the same span is 93, a record comparable to Bradley's more recent seasons.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
Heyward would be an interesting target, as we would really appreciate his plus defense in our big RF, but it's worth noting two things:

One is that he has substantial no-trade protection: he can block a trade to any of 12 teams; presumably, we're on that list.

And two, the J-Hey kid is basically a more expensive Jackie Bradley on a longer contract commitment. Bradley over his last five seasons has posted a 100 OPS+ (an average that masks a lot of ups and downs) and great defense. Heyward's OPS+ over the same span is 93, a record comparable to Bradley's more recent seasons.
This is all true. Heyward’s most interesting because he’s a plus right fielder and his contract would be a semi-even swap for Price (and both have full 10/5 NTCs after this year) that still shaves off some AAV.

I’d rather extend JBJ a couple years at modest dollars if possible, but trading him could slide Betts into center, slotting Heyward in. I’m stuck on JBJ+ to the Reds for Desclafani, but the Phillies, as you suggested, could work too. Maybe for Pivetta?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,060
Sale's status going forward has prime importance. If he ends up getting surgery, Bloom & Co. will have complete freedom to deal away players since contending in 2020 without Sale seems farfetched.

O'Halloran's statement on Oct. 28th:

“We really anticipate ultimately he’ll have a pretty normal offseason. We expect that he’ll see Dr. Andrews in mid-November and then begin his throwing program shortly thereafter,”
 

canderson

Fomenting voting confusion and angst since 2016
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
25,850
Harrisburg, Pa.
Rusney also opted in to his $13.5 million option, so you can see him again in Pawtucket in 2020
This, to me, is one of the worst contracts ever signed. I forget he is still on the roster and then bam, he's taking the salary of a very good reliever.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,710
This, to me, is one of the worst contracts ever signed. I forget he is still on the roster and then bam, he's taking the salary of a very good reliever.
No he's not. He's just taking money from Henry. His money doesn't count towards part of the ML salary, so he's not blocking any money going anywhere. Been discussed far too many times already
 

canderson

Fomenting voting confusion and angst since 2016
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
25,850
Harrisburg, Pa.
No he's not. He's just taking money from Henry. His money doesn't count towards part of the ML salary, so he's not blocking any money going anywhere. Been discussed far too many times already
D'oh, I totally blacked out on his salary counting toward the tax. Apologies.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,448
Bangkok
No he's not. He's just taking money from Henry. His money doesn't count towards part of the ML salary, so he's not blocking any money going anywhere. Been discussed far too many times already
Henry has said that the team has lost money for two years in a row. That may be part of why there is now an attempt to reset the tax level.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
Let's say the Red Sox deal Mookie this offseason. It would break my heart, but let's say they do. He has one year left on his deal. They'd get SOMETHING useful for him. Let's say they deal him to the Dodgers for OF Alex Verdugo and another prospect (I'll throw out Diego Cartaya, their #2 catching prospect). Verdugo is their #1 rated prospect (or at least was going into 2018), and he hit .294/.342/.475/.817 (114 ops+) in 343 at bats this past year with the Dodgers. They are definitely a "win now" team and even though Verdugo is a nice promising player, he's obviously no Mookie Betts. JD stays with the Sox. So here's their basic core.

C - Vazquez (28) - 482 ab, 23 hr, .276/.320/.477/.798, 103 ops+
1b - ?
2b - Chavis (23) - 347 ab, 18 hr, .254/.322/.444/.766, 96 ops+
3b - Devers (22) - 647 ab, 32 hr, .311/.361/.555/.916, 133 ops+
SS - Bogaerts (26) - 614 ab, 33 hr, .309/.384/.555/.939, 140 ops+
LF - Benintendi (24) - 541 ab, 13 hr, .266/.343/.431/.774, 100 ops+
CF - Bradley (29) - 494 ab, 21 hr, .225/.317/.421/.738, 90 ops+
RF - Verdugo (23) - 343 ab, 12 hr, .294/.342/.475/.817, 114 ops+
DH - Martinez (31) - 575 ab, 36 hr, .304/.383/.557/.939, 140 ops+

I really really hate to see Mookie go. I hope he doesn't go. But if they can get something like Verdugo (and who knows about that) in return, they should absolutely be able to field a very very good offense and use the money to improve other needed areas of the club.
Depending how you count Will Smith, Cartaya would be the third best catching prospect in the Dodgers’ system behind defensive wiz Ruiz. I’d push for him; you’re right they can surely afford to deal one.

Regarding Verdugo, he looks like a decent fit value-wise, but I’m wary of low-power LHH in Fenway Park (which is the bulk of the reason I’ve been bearish on Benny.) Verdugo’s a good contact guy who appears to do a nice job hitting to all fields, but increased defensive shifts leaguewide plus Fenway’s deep right field make me wary of committing to any lefty hitter that isn’t a true bopper.

It’s entirely possible I’m overstating the concern here, but I have a pet theory that the juiced ball was partly MLB’s reaction to the shift. They can’t dictate where teams position their fielders, but they can give hitters more incentive to try to hit it over everyone’s heads.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,060
Henry has said that the team has lost money for two years in a row. That may be part of why there is now an attempt to reset the tax level.
Henry also said Sandoval was down to 17% body fat.
 
This could draw some strong opinions, but just throwing it out there...thoughts on dealing Vazquez as part of a larger deal that offloads one of our larger-salaried players? I love Vazquez and was thoroughly impressed by his play last year, but I'm not sure whether this is truly his potential, or if he over-performed last year. This could be a prime time to sell high on him. Not necessarily advocating for this, just seeing what everyone thinks.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Vaz took to the launch-angle gospel in 2018, but was still an opposite-field FB hitter, and he doesn't have that kind of power, so the results weren't good. This year he tweaked his approach to pull the ball in the air more (pull rate on FB almost doubled compared to 2018). I think the positive results of that change were for real; however, pitchers did adjust, and his second-half wRC+ of 88 may be closer to his true talent level going forward than his season mark of 102. Still, for a reasonably competent defensive catcher, a 90-ish wRC+ is fine. And he's wrapped up for the next three years at a very team-friendly price. The only thing I'm wary of with Vazquez is his work as a batterymate. I'm not convinced he's good at that, but it's a hard thing to measure.

So, on the one hand, you could probably get good value for him; OTOH, since the Sox are woefully thin at that position throughout the organization, you could argue that we should instead be trading for a catcher (preferably a young guy on the cusp of the bigs, who could start to slot in over the next few years as Vaz's backup and then take over in 2022 or 2023). Certainly if we trade him, we need a catcher back as part of that deal or a different one.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
This could draw some strong opinions, but just throwing it out there...thoughts on dealing Vazquez as part of a larger deal that offloads one of our larger-salaried players? I love Vazquez and was thoroughly impressed by his play last year, but I'm not sure whether this is truly his potential, or if he over-performed last year. This could be a prime time to sell high on him. Not necessarily advocating for this, just seeing what everyone thinks.
It’s a compelling idea, but you’d need to find someone who believes in that .201 ISO, and I don’t see many teams who need catching badly enough to give up value for him. A lot of interesting stopgap catchers on the wire too (Castro, Chirinos, Martin, Maldonado, Gomes, Cervelli, d’Arnaud, Avila, maybe even Wieters) available for likely very cheap.

If that Price-to-Texas swap gains traction, maybe Váz is included there for a better return, but I don’t know why they wouldn’t just sign Maldonado themselves.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,639
Vaz's HR production may well have been a product of the juiced ball. His passed balls infuriate me. I would definitely explore a deal.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,767
deep inside Guido territory
I am dead set against trading Betts, but the Dodgers would make a ton of sense as a trade partner. To get Betts, you have to take either Price or Eovaldi as well. A package of AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May would be far. The Sox take back some salary back, fill a hole at 1st cheaply for 3 years, and get a top prospect. Dodgers are set to lose Ryu and Rich Hill so they need to fill a spot in the rotation and could GFIN with Betts and Bellinger in the middle of the lineup for a year. A top 3 rotation of Buehler, Kershaw, and Price would be very good.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
I am dead set against trading Betts, but the Dodgers would make a ton of sense as a trade partner. To get Betts, you have to take either Price or Eovaldi as well. A package of AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May would be far. The Sox take back some salary back, fill a hole at 1st cheaply for 3 years, and get a top prospect. Dodgers are set to lose Ryu and Rich Hill so they need to fill a spot in the rotation and could GFIN with Betts and Bellinger in the middle of the lineup for a year. A top 3 rotation of Buehler, Kershaw, and Price would be very good.
I could see it if they lose out on Cole, who may not sign until March if Boras has his way with things.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,857
I am dead set against trading Betts, but the Dodgers would make a ton of sense as a trade partner. To get Betts, you have to take either Price or Eovaldi as well. A package of AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May would be far. The Sox take back some salary back, fill a hole at 1st cheaply for 3 years, and get a top prospect. Dodgers are set to lose Ryu and Rich Hill so they need to fill a spot in the rotation and could GFIN with Betts and Bellinger in the middle of the lineup for a year. A top 3 rotation of Buehler, Kershaw, and Price would be very good.
I think that the Dodgers make the most sense if only because Betts going to free agency in the first place is to see what they’re willing to pay. So they’re the one team I could see getting Betts to ink an extension in a trade scenario. And have Betts and Bellinger in the middle of their lineup for the foreseeable future.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
I am dead set against trading Betts, but the Dodgers would make a ton of sense as a trade partner. To get Betts, you have to take either Price or Eovaldi as well. A package of AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May would be far-fetched.
FTFY

Price for Pollock one-up would be a fair deal -- two capable but injury-plagued and overpriced 30-somethings, with the Dodgers getting the edge in on-field upside and the Sox getting salary relief.
Betts for either Lux or May one-up would be a good deal for the Sox -- close enough to fair to be realistic, but I think most observers would say the Sox are getting the better of it in terms of long-term value.

So far, it's a valid and intriguing swap. But you want the Dodgers to complete it by throwing in a multi-position power hitter just hitting arb?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
FTFY

Price for Pollock one-up would be a fair deal -- two capable but injury-plagued and overpriced 30-somethings, with the Dodgers getting the edge in on-field upside and the Sox getting salary relief.
Betts for either Lux or May one-up would be a good deal for the Sox -- close enough to fair to be realistic, maybe, but I think most observers would say the Sox are getting the better of it in terms of long-term value.

So far, it's a valid and intriguing swap. But you want the Dodgers to complete it by throwing in a multi-position power hitter just hitting arb?
I don’t know if they’d go for that, there’s a $50m gap between Price and Pollock’s guaranteed money.

If Kelly’s packaged with him that deal might work. I don’t think he’s loved in L.A., which masks the fact he had a pretty solid year.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
I don’t know if they’d go for that, there’s a $50m gap between Price and Pollock’s guaranteed money.
Right, but also a significant gap in their potential ROI, I think. Maybe not quite $50M worth, but enough to make it a more or less reasonable deal. Then again, you may be right, which makes the original proposal even less plausible.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
Henry has said that the team has lost money for two years in a row. That may be part of why there is now an attempt to reset the tax level.
I don’t think Rusney’s $13 million moves the needle on Henry’s $3 billion investment. He’s not trying to make money on baseball year over year — he’s trying to break even and boost the value of an asset that has already appreciated ~10x in like 15 years.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
Right, but also a significant gap in their potential ROI, I think. Maybe not quite $50M worth, but enough to make it a more or less reasonable deal. Then again, you may be right, which makes the original proposal even less plausible.
Pollock took a serious step back defensively last year and is probably only a fit in left field at this point. Maybe he returns to form, but his injuries have really piled up.

It’d be an interesting move if there’s a decent trade out there for Benny, but it’d almost have to be in return for a pitcher and I’m less sure what available pitchers at the major league level line up be anymore.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,767
deep inside Guido territory
FTFY

Price for Pollock one-up would be a fair deal -- two capable but injury-plagued and overpriced 30-somethings, with the Dodgers getting the edge in on-field upside and the Sox getting salary relief.
Betts for either Lux or May one-up would be a good deal for the Sox -- close enough to fair to be realistic, but I think most observers would say the Sox are getting the better of it in terms of long-term value.

So far, it's a valid and intriguing swap. But you want the Dodgers to complete it by throwing in a multi-position power hitter just hitting arb?
If all I'd be getting back for Betts and Price is Pollack, a prospect, and salary relief I don't do the deal. From a front office perspective, it would be hard enough to sell trading Betts at all to the fanbase let alone getting back just Pollack, an unproven prospect, and salary relief. If it came down to it and ownership is telling me I had to trade Betts, then I'd accept Pollack and Muncy plus the salary relief because at least Muncy is a cost-controlled proven player that you could sell that he'd replace some of Betts' power.

Betts for 1 prospect straight up is a terrible deal IMO. Betts is a top 5 player in the game and is only 27. IMO his value is going to be sky high even with an enormous contract for years to come. The Red Sox would be skewered for this deal if Lux or May did not pan out.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
There is zero chance of Bloom taking this job if there was any chance what so ever of Betts being involved in a salary dump. None.

Betts will probably get traded but the team will get a solid return. Not AJ Pollack.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,463
Maine
Betts for 1 prospect straight up is a terrible deal IMO. Betts is a top 5 player in the game and is only 27. IMO his value is going to be sky high even with an enormous contract for years to come. The Red Sox would be skewered for this deal if Lux or May did not pan out.
Betts is a valuable player, no question, but a team trading for him is trading for ONE YEAR of Betts, not many years of Betts. That is going to have a significant impact on what he brings back in return.

It would be a different story if Betts were signed for multiple years or if he'd expressed the least bit of interest in signing a long term extension without testing the free agent market. No team, even one in a GFIN mode, is going to pay handsomely in terms of prospects for a player that may well bolt next winter.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,892
Oregon
Is there a scenario under which the Red Sox pare so much salary that they can afford to add Rusney's contract to the payroll
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,767
deep inside Guido territory
Betts is a valuable player, no question, but a team trading for him is trading for ONE YEAR of Betts, not many years of Betts. That is going to have a significant impact on what he brings back in return.

It would be a different story if Betts were signed for multiple years or if he'd expressed the least bit of interest in signing a long term extension without testing the free agent market. No team, even one in a GFIN mode, is going to pay handsomely in terms of prospects for a player that may well bolt next winter.
I get the 1 year with Betts, but if I'm the Red Sox front office and I don't get an offer that blows me away then I'm hesitating on whether to trade him or not at this point. I believe they could get a top prospect for Betts at the deadline as well.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,857
FTFY

Price for Pollock one-up would be a fair deal -- two capable but injury-plagued and overpriced 30-somethings, with the Dodgers getting the edge in on-field upside and the Sox getting salary relief.
Betts for either Lux or May one-up would be a good deal for the Sox -- close enough to fair to be realistic, but I think most observers would say the Sox are getting the better of it in terms of long-term value.

So far, it's a valid and intriguing swap. But you want the Dodgers to complete it by throwing in a multi-position power hitter just hitting arb?
Yeah, there's no way that Muncy would be part of any deal, he's the better version of Chavis. But something like Price/Betts for Pollock/Lux would work for both sides, especially since the Dodgers are the one team that could probably lock Mookie up long term on an extension at the time of the deal. And Bloom can get a lottery ticket or three or solid tier 2 prospect or two added to the return to help fill in.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
I believe they could get a top prospect for Betts at the deadline as well.
If the likelihood of getting a "top prospect" for Betts one-up is borderline now (and I think it is, depending on how you define "top"), then it slips to zero at the deadline. I think the best we will be able to hope for in July 2020 is 2 or 3 second-tier guys that you hope at least one of is an everyday player, and maybe even an above-average player if you get lucky. I.e., guys who would fatten up our current prospect top 10, but not jump to the head of it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,463
Maine
I get the 1 year with Betts, but if I'm the Red Sox front office and I don't get an offer that blows me away then I'm hesitating on whether to trade him or not at this point. I believe they could get a top prospect for Betts at the deadline as well.
I agree with you that they should hold out for an offer that satisfies them rather than simply taking the best available offer. However, I'm of the mind that they're unlikely to get a offer for him that is a significantly better return than a QO compensation pick were he to leave via free agency next winter. So they might as well extract maximum value from him by keeping him for 2020 and then making a good faith effort to re-sign him to a fair deal a year from now.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,389
Rogers Park
Is there a scenario under which the Red Sox pare so much salary that they can afford to add Rusney's contract to the payroll
Sure, but why?

He had a .278/.321/.448 line in Pawtucket last season as a 31-year old. If we wanted to promote a post-prospect OF, Bryce Brentz or Cole Sturgeon have comparable track records and would be much cheaper.

(Hell, at least Marcus Wilson has some upside.)
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,237
Twin Cities
...However, I'm of the mind that they're unlikely to get a offer for him that is a significantly better return than a QO compensation pick were he to leave via free agency next winter.
RHF:
You've expressed this opinion a few times, and I'm wondering why you think this situation would be different from what the MFYs faced with Chapman in '16. Mookie will be more expensive, but he also won't be coming off a domestic violence suspension. The Cubs gave up Torres and other value. For NY, they already knew what Chapman was looking for in FA, as the Sox should know with Mookie, which gave them at least a planning edge over others for resigning Chapman heading into the offseason.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,463
Maine
RHF:
You've expressed this opinion a few times, and I'm wondering why you think this situation would be different from what the MFYs faced with Chapman in '16. Mookie will be more expensive, but he also won't be coming off a domestic violence suspension. The Cubs gave up Torres and other value. For NY, they already knew what Chapman was looking for in FA, as the Sox should know with Mookie, which gave them at least a planning edge over others for resigning Chapman heading into the offseason.
Because the Cubs were desperate to win a championship and overpaid to get Chapman in a competitive trade deadline market (the Dodgers, Giants, and Nationals were all reportedly in on trying to get him). Chapman was also only making $11M and the Cubs were only going to be paying ~$4.3M of it, as opposed to an expected salary for Mookie of $30M. I think that (the salary) is as complicating a factor as the one year thing. I'm not seeing a team with the prospects to burn willing to do so for an expensive one year rental. For example, the Braves are loaded with prospects and look to be lined up to contend for a few years with a young core. Are they really going to come out ahead trading one or two prime prospects for a year of Betts?
 

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
16,563
Richmond, VA
I am dead set against trading Betts, but the Dodgers would make a ton of sense as a trade partner. To get Betts, you have to take either Price or Eovaldi as well. A package of AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May would be far. The Sox take back some salary back, fill a hole at 1st cheaply for 3 years, and get a top prospect. Dodgers are set to lose Ryu and Rich Hill so they need to fill a spot in the rotation and could GFIN with Betts and Bellinger in the middle of the lineup for a year. A top 3 rotation of Buehler, Kershaw, and Price would be very good.
I can't see them adding too much pitching, maybe one guy. They have Buehler, Kershaw, May, Maeda, Urias and some extra bodies like Stripling and Santana. They can afford to lose Ryu and Hill and still have a decent amount of pitching.

RHF:
You've expressed this opinion a few times, and I'm wondering why you think this situation would be different from what the MFYs faced with Chapman in '16. Mookie will be more expensive, but he also won't be coming off a domestic violence suspension. The Cubs gave up Torres and other value. For NY, they already knew what Chapman was looking for in FA, as the Sox should know with Mookie, which gave them at least a planning edge over others for resigning Chapman heading into the offseason.
Chapman and the Cubs was a completely different situation as they were desperate to win their first World Series in over 100 years, so they were going to overpay for an elite talent.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,705
Also, interesting tweet from Speier suggesting that the Sox could explore trades for both Betts *and* JDM if they want to stay under $208.

View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1191479304925917184?s=19

View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1191477989642514432?s=19
When I saw this in context within my Twitter feed, I read this as Speier's response to all of the "Now Mookie will be traded" tweets.

I don't think he is saying the Red Sox would trade both of them but rather they would also explore trading JDM instead of Mookie.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Heyward would be an interesting target, as we would really appreciate his plus defense in our big RF, but it's worth noting two things:

One is that he has substantial no-trade protection: he can block a trade to any of 12 teams; presumably, we're on that list.

And two, the J-Hey kid is basically a more expensive Jackie Bradley on a longer contract commitment. Bradley over his last five seasons has posted a 100 OPS+ (an average that masks a lot of ups and downs) and great defense. Heyward's OPS+ over the same span is 93, a record comparable to Bradley's more recent seasons.
But if you are removing Price and JBJ (ouch) for Heyward, that's like a $20m savings (although you then have to add another SP). Something to consider though.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,237
Twin Cities
...Chapman and the Cubs was a completely different situation as they were desperate to win their first World Series in over 100 years, so they were going to overpay for an elite talent.
Maybe. But there are a lot of teams desperate to make the playoffs and win the World series, and they make GFIN moves at the deadline all the time. We got Rodriguez from the Orioles for Andrew Miller. O's got 4 prospects including top 50 guy Diaz from LA for Machado, who was less expensive than Betts will be but still not cheap. And LA remains pretty desperate for that title.

There won't be many (any?) better position players available at the deadline than Mookie Betts. Cost will be a factor, but any contender with a position player opening (from injury or underperformance) and $11M or so in cap space/spending ability will be in on Betts. I'm pretty sure the Sox could easily beat the comp pick's value in a deadline deal.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,113
It all depends on how the Sox are doing at the deadline, of course. Given their roster, A LOT of things would have to go wrong for them to be completely out of it. Heck, they had pretty disastrous start to the season last year and they still weren't out of it by deadline time.

If the Sox are actually out of contention next summer, I'm sure the overwhelming majority of the fans would be supportive of trading Betts for the best available package. But, trading him now I think would be a mistake.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Henry has said that the team has lost money for two years in a row. That may be part of why there is now an attempt to reset the tax level.
Yes. There absolutely must be an all-in budget and Rusney is sucking up 8-figures worth of it. Just because there’s no added luxury tax hit doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter at all, just that it matters 30% less.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
JD opting in and the Yankees declining to give Gregorious a QO seem to be pointing toward another retrenchment in the market for non-elite players, doesn’t it?

I think we’ll see some real bargains this offseason. The Sox brought in Bloom to make room to sign some, and then get the right ones. Settle in for a bumpy ride. I bet this roster turns over a ton.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,647
Charleston, SC
Yes. There absolutely must be an all-in budget and Rusney is sucking up 8-figures worth of it. Just because there’s no added luxury tax hit doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter at all, just that it matters 30% less.
30% less understates it - it's not just about the tax paid on his salary, it's also the space under the cap and triggering/resetting/etc.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,141
CT
Is Jenrry Mejia still in the Sox organization or has he been released? Not listed on the 40man and I don't see anything since he was assigned to AAA in August
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,148
CT
If Betts were to be traded at the deadline, he'd be a rental - but one of the best deadline rentals of all time.

What is the customary acquisition for a quality rental over the last few years. We'd obviously top it.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,647
Charleston, SC
If Betts were to be traded at the deadline, he'd be a rental - but one of the best deadline rentals of all time.

What is the customary acquisition for a quality rental over the last few years. We'd obviously top it.
Let's see.

2019:
  • Greinke & cash for Houston's 3/4/5/22 prospects. Greinke has 3 more seasons beyond that one.
2018:
  • Archer for Glasnow & 2 others
  • Machado for 5 prospects
2017:
  • Darvish for 3 middling (?) prospects
  • JD Martinez for AZ's 4/15/30+ prospects
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,463
Maine
Is Jenrry Mejia still in the Sox organization or has he been released? Not listed on the 40man and I don't see anything since he was assigned to AAA in August
He's a free agent. He was never on the 40-man roster and he has more than enough minor league service time to not be under team control once his current (2019) contract expires, which it has.