All Betts Are Off: The Sox If Mookie Is Traded

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
Ok, we all love Mookie. Honestly. I don't know a single Red Sox fan that doesn't want him back. The only reason some might balk at that is if the price is Trout-like.

But let's say he does get traded. Let's say it's a Price-Mookie combo deal and they get back: Wil Myers (OF/1b), Taylor Trammell (OF), and Adrian Morejon (LHP). We all groan at Mookie's departure, but let's just say that's what the deal is.

How good could the Red Sox be in 2020 and 2021?

Myers replaces Mookie - massive massive downgrade in RF. They don't have anyone to replace Price at the moment - but, of course, they have a bunch of money freed up now to get someone. But who is left to get?

I'd suggest that the 2020 Red Sox would be worse by a considerable margin, unless guys really took a giant leap forward. Maybe JBJ finally puts together a good offensive season. Maybe Devers becomes a 38 hr, 130 rbi guy. Maybe Benintendi hits 20-25 homers and bats .320. Maybe JD puts up another .310/410/.690/1.000 season with 43 bombs. Maybe Chavis hits 25 homers and Dalbec comes up and hits 15 in half a season. Maybe Myers reverts back to his best form and gives you 3.5 WAR and an .800 ops. These aren't impossible things. Maybe they have enough offense and patch the pitching together to be competitive.

But what about 2021? Having been under the luxury tax and therefore have gotten a reset, maybe they can actually pursue Mookie with gusto and sign him. And maybe if Myers has a good year they can spin him for something else. Maybe Trammell is fully ready to be a good, legit big-league OF and replaces JBJ and outperforms him on an annual basis. Maybe Morejon emerges as a legit MLB starting pitcher. I dunno.

I'm trying to be hopeful here without TOO much wish casting. Long story short: what is the legitimate outlook for the Sox moving forward if they make this kind of trade involving Mookie, and maybe Price?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Ok, we all love Mookie. Honestly. I don't know a single Red Sox fan that doesn't want him back. The only reason some might balk at that is if the price is Trout-like.

But let's say he does get traded. Let's say it's a Price-Mookie combo deal and they get back: Wil Myers (OF/1b), Taylor Trammell (OF), and Adrian Morejon (LHP). We all groan at Mookie's departure, but let's just say that's what the deal is.

How good could the Red Sox be in 2020 and 2021?

Myers replaces Mookie - massive massive downgrade in RF. They don't have anyone to replace Price at the moment - but, of course, they have a bunch of money freed up now to get someone. But who is left to get?

I'd suggest that the 2020 Red Sox would be worse by a considerable margin, unless guys really took a giant leap forward. Maybe JBJ finally puts together a good offensive season. Maybe Devers becomes a 38 hr, 130 rbi guy. Maybe Benintendi hits 20-25 homers and bats .320. Maybe JD puts up another .310/410/.690/1.000 season with 43 bombs. Maybe Chavis hits 25 homers and Dalbec comes up and hits 15 in half a season. Maybe Myers reverts back to his best form and gives you 3.5 WAR and an .800 ops. These aren't impossible things. Maybe they have enough offense and patch the pitching together to be competitive.

But what about 2021? Having been under the luxury tax and therefore have gotten a reset, maybe they can actually pursue Mookie with gusto and sign him. And maybe if Myers has a good year they can spin him for something else. Maybe Trammell is fully ready to be a good, legit big-league OF and replaces JBJ and outperforms him on an annual basis. Maybe Morejon emerges as a legit MLB starting pitcher. I dunno.

I'm trying to be hopeful here without TOO much wish casting. Long story short: what is the legitimate outlook for the Sox moving forward if they make this kind of trade involving Mookie, and maybe Price?
They could win the WS in 2020. Crazy things happen all the time. They could also finish last.
 

billy ashley

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,228
Washington DC
It will suck, Mookie is awesome. But it will also be recoverable. Elite players don't make bad teams good in baseball. They got to figure out how to produce the best team possible... hopefully with Betts... but yeah, possibly without him.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
It will suck, Mookie is awesome. But it will also be recoverable. Elite players don't make bad teams good in baseball. They got to figure out how to produce the best team possible... hopefully with Betts... but yeah, possibly without him.
Mike Trout is the greatest player of this generation and he has exactly one postseason hit in his career. Let that sink in.

Losing Mookie would obviously suck, but the Red Sox will continue on.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Could we please clarify in the title that Mookie has not been traded (yet)? Because I clicked here assuming he had been, based on the phrasing.

edit: nominations include...

"If He Did It: What the Sox would look like if Chaim trades Mookie"
"Bloom off the Rose: Theoretical Sox roster if Mookie traded"
"One Ticket to Paradise: Sox roster if Mookie were shipped to SoCal"
 
Last edited:

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
Two things pertinent to this discussion:

1. If the Red Sox manage to get under the luxury tax threshold in 2020, they can do whatever they want in 2021 and 2022 and then get back under in 2023, by which time Price, Martinez, and Eovaldi will all be off the books. In fact, their only guaranteed contracts for 2023 are Bogaerts and Sale, although I hope they have Devers, Rodriguez, and Benintendi locked up by then, as well. In 2023, you can envision Casas playing 1B cheaply and at least one or two of the pitching prospects contributing in the majors, as well. Even if a new CBA doesn't negate this whole concern, you could see them making it under the threshold in 2023 without having to skimp on competitiveness. So they can go outside to fill holes the system can't: likely pitching, a middle-of-the-order outfield bat, a second baseman and/or a catcher...

2. The free agent class after 2020 isn't great. It's basically Betts, Springer, and then a bunch of guys who aren't really franchise-changing talents. But the post-2021 class is a whole different story. Lindor, Baez, Correa, Seager, and Story, all in their primes, with the entire industry chasing them while we sit pretty with Bogaerts. Plus pitchers like Syndergaard, Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, Grienke. . . outfielders like Conforto, Pham, Marte, Schwarber. . . obviously, some guys will get locked up, but that's a huge class.

So: If they trade Betts and get under the threshold, it's easy to see them focusing in 2020 and maybe even 2021 on accumulating and developing assets. Lots more 40-man roster churn to see if you can find contributors for cheap. Figure out if you have a starter or two out of Mata, Groome, etc. You may still be able to compete with the existing core, but, if not, you look to trade guys like Barnes and Workman for additional prospects.

Then: If you can sign Betts or Springer after 2020, great -- the new window opens. If not, the focus is to figure out where you spend your chips after 2021. That could be a major free agent investment, or it could be packaging up some of the chips you've accumulated through trades and development to get a star. After all, after 2022, Trea Turner, Aaron Nola, and Jake deGrom will all be in their contract years...
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,078
Concord, NH
I think with cheating scandals and money crunches, combined with the level of competition in the division right now, I think there's no better time to fold and restock. With the caveat that I don't know what's out there for available talent, and that could throw off the equation.

Will that help them in 2021? No. But it could mean a lot more for 2023 - 2028 (man, we in the future...). Obviously no one wants to see the team in the basement, but as a fan, I really can't see a better time. I have a hard time enjoying Mookie if he's just going to be gone soon anyway. If it's true you've got players speaking out against what Cora's Sox were doing last year, you've already got a recipe for clubhouse chemistry issues because clearly there are camps.

This is not a good recipe for success. Sell. Develop. Reinforce the core. Come back with a whole new spirit.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
If the choice is between having Mookie this year with a low chance of having him in future years, versus not having him this year but increasing the chances of being able to lock him up in free agency, I guess I choose the latter. Especially with this season starting shitty And with the latter possibly including something for the trade.

i don’t know if that is the choice though. I also think Mookie is more likely to fetch something good as a mid-year rental to a team in contention.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,945
New Hampshire
Mike Trout is the greatest player of this generation and he has exactly one postseason hit in his career. Let that sink in.
And it's part of the reason that even though Mookie is awesome, NOBODY is 400 million awesome. The Angels pay Trout what he deserves, but then they can't afford a team to play around him (granted, the Pujols contract has been a huge albatross....). If Mookie ends up anywhere other than the Dodgers, it's conceivable he'll never play in another playoff game in his career.

He's cool, and really fun to watch, but I'd rather win.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
And it's part of the reason that even though Mookie is awesome, NOBODY is 400 million awesome. The Angels pay Trout what he deserves, but then they can't afford a team to play around him (granted, the Pujols contract has been a huge albatross....). If Mookie ends up anywhere other than the Dodgers, it's conceivable he'll never play in another playoff game in his career.

He's cool, and really fun to watch, but I'd rather win.
Well come on, you hint at the problem. It's not that the Angels can't afford to put enough of a team around him to win. It's that they weren't smart enough to. If you put the Tampa roster around Mike Trout the Angels payroll would go down and they'd have a really good team. (To be clear, I mean that the other 24 guys on the Angels cost more than the 25 of the Rays) The Angels' management wasn't smart enough to build a good roster with the money they have. Other teams have done it. It's not Mike Trout preventing the Angels from being a really good team. It's Angels management's handling of the rest of the roster.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,347
The gran facenda
Not sure this is a good call for a new thread.
New threads for new news =? Not new threads for not news?
I broke it out from the Mookie thread because it's a discussion that we can have about what the team could perform like if he's traded. And because we don't need to have this discussion in the thread discussing trade rumors. Not all threads need to be about news.
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
8,945
New Hampshire
Well come on, you hint at the problem. It's not that the Angels can't afford to put enough of a team around him to win. It's that they weren't smart enough to. If you put the Tampa roster around Mike Trout the Angels payroll would go down and they'd have a really good team. (To be clear, I mean that the other 24 guys on the Angels cost more than the 25 of the Rays) The Angels' management wasn't smart enough to build a good roster with the money they have. Other teams have done it. It's not Mike Trout preventing the Angels from being a really good team. It's Angels management's handling of the rest of the roster.
Good point. The only problem is, to put a $400 million player on a Tampa Bay-like roster means you'd have to dispose of all your other expensive assets before you sign your superstar. Hard to do in the Red Sox situation.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Ok, we all love Mookie. Honestly. I don't know a single Red Sox fan that doesn't want him back. The only reason some might balk at that is if the price is Trout-like.

But let's say he does get traded. Let's say it's a Price-Mookie combo deal and they get back: Wil Myers (OF/1b), Taylor Trammell (OF), and Adrian Morejon (LHP). We all groan at Mookie's departure, but let's just say that's what the deal is.

How good could the Red Sox be in 2020 and 2021?

Myers replaces Mookie - massive massive downgrade in RF. They don't have anyone to replace Price at the moment - but, of course, they have a bunch of money freed up now to get someone. But who is left to get?

I'd suggest that the 2020 Red Sox would be worse by a considerable margin, unless guys really took a giant leap forward. Maybe JBJ finally puts together a good offensive season. Maybe Devers becomes a 38 hr, 130 rbi guy. Maybe Benintendi hits 20-25 homers and bats .320. Maybe JD puts up another .310/410/.690/1.000 season with 43 bombs. Maybe Chavis hits 25 homers and Dalbec comes up and hits 15 in half a season. Maybe Myers reverts back to his best form and gives you 3.5 WAR and an .800 ops. These aren't impossible things. Maybe they have enough offense and patch the pitching together to be competitive.

But what about 2021? Having been under the luxury tax and therefore have gotten a reset, maybe they can actually pursue Mookie with gusto and sign him. And maybe if Myers has a good year they can spin him for something else. Maybe Trammell is fully ready to be a good, legit big-league OF and replaces JBJ and outperforms him on an annual basis. Maybe Morejon emerges as a legit MLB starting pitcher. I dunno.

I'm trying to be hopeful here without TOO much wish casting. Long story short: what is the legitimate outlook for the Sox moving forward if they make this kind of trade involving Mookie, and maybe Price?
I counted 8 maybes in your post, so maybe not.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Well come on, you hint at the problem. It's not that the Angels can't afford to put enough of a team around him to win. It's that they weren't smart enough to. If you put the Tampa roster around Mike Trout the Angels payroll would go down and they'd have a really good team. (To be clear, I mean that the other 24 guys on the Angels cost more than the 25 of the Rays) The Angels' management wasn't smart enough to build a good roster with the money they have. Other teams have done it. It's not Mike Trout preventing the Angels from being a really good team. It's Angels management's handling of the rest of the roster.
Honestly, it's a combination of the late-period Pujols deal and some terrible luck with young pitchers — including two deaths in the past decade! — that have done in the Angels. Only some of that is management's fault.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Honestly, it's a combination of the late-period Pujols deal and some terrible luck with young pitchers — including two deaths in the past decade! — that have done in the Angels. Only some of that is management's fault.
Honestly, it's a combination of the late-period Pujols deal and some terrible luck with young pitchers — including two deaths in the past decade! — that have done in the Angels. Only some of that is management's fault.
Throw in Hamilton.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
I broke it out from the Mookie thread because it's a discussion that we can have about what the team could perform like if he's traded. And because we don't need to have this discussion in the thread discussing trade rumors. Not all threads need to be about news.
Well, it was more about the original title when I had made the post - which made it sound like news.
But anyway, moving on.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
The Sox aren't in a market where they will be forced to play like Tampa.... or even Oakland. Fans expect a contender year in and year out, so there's no real chance that Bloom could build a "Betts plus the Tampa team" sort of construction. Perhaps in theory... but they'd need to completely erase the entire roster and start from scratch and have years of drafting perfectly and then have Betts come up for FA the same exact time that all their draftees are turning into cost controlled plus players.
I'm starting to lean towards moving Betts... for 2020 and if he's expecting a Trout contract after 2020, he'll be disappointed. Getting under the LT threshold is starting to feel dire rather than optional.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The Sox aren't in a market where they will be forced to play like Tampa.... or even Oakland. Fans expect a contender year in and year out, so there's no real chance that Bloom could build a "Betts plus the Tampa team" sort of construction. Perhaps in theory... but they'd need to completely erase the entire roster and start from scratch and have years of drafting perfectly and then have Betts come up for FA the same exact time that all their draftees are turning into cost controlled plus players.
I'm starting to lean towards moving Betts... for 2020 and if he's expecting a Trout contract after 2020, he'll be disappointed. Getting under the LT threshold is starting to feel dire rather than optional.
We may expect a contender year in, year out but most of us are ok with a bridge year here and there. Plus just because we expect it, doesn't mean we get it. 2012, 2014 and 2015 happened.


Once all is said in done, people cheer for the laundry. Eric Van said he'd stop being a Sox fan if they traded Jose Iglesias, he just moved boards.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
We may expect a contender year in, year out but most of us are ok with a bridge year here and there. Plus just because we expect it, doesn't mean we get it. 2012, 2014 and 2015 happened.


Once all is said in done, people cheer for the laundry. Eric Van said he'd stop being a Sox fan if they traded Jose Iglesias, he just moved boards.
Just because it's interesting to follow up on these things, Detroit got five seasons out of Iglesias in which he averaged more than 2 WAR per season: in other words, not a star, but a big league regular at SS. They gave up a good outfield prospect in Avisail Garcia, but he really only had the one good season in Chicago, and they had JDM and Castellanos for that role anyways. So on paper, Detroit won the trade.

Chicago gave up three months of Jake Peavy and got five seasons of Garcia, including one all star season. That's not terrible.

We gave up five seasons of a starting caliber big league SS and got a few months of Jake Peavy, but he helped stabilized the pitching staff of what proved to be a WS-winning team. So... you'd have to say we came out considerably ahead, also. If we'd fallen short in the post-season, people might see it differently.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Just because it's interesting to follow up on these things, Detroit got five seasons out of Iglesias in which he averaged more than 2 WAR per season: in other words, not a star, but a big league regular at SS. They gave up a good outfield prospect in Avisail Garcia, but he really only had the one good season in Chicago, and they had JDM and Castellanos for that role anyways. So on paper, Detroit won the trade.

Chicago gave up three months of Jake Peavy and got five seasons of Garcia, including one all star season. That's not terrible.

We gave up five seasons of a starting caliber big league SS and got a few months of Jake Peavy, but he helped stabilized the pitching staff of what proved to be a WS-winning team. So... you'd have to say we came out considerably ahead, also. If we'd fallen short in the post-season, people might see it differently.
The Sox also had Bogaerts in the pipeline to replace him.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
We may expect a contender year in, year out but most of us are ok with a bridge year here and there. Plus just because we expect it, doesn't mean we get it. 2012, 2014 and 2015 happened.


Once all is said in done, people cheer for the laundry. Eric Van said he'd stop being a Sox fan if they traded Jose Iglesias, he just moved boards.
I think my first post via phone was pretty unclear. I was meaning to say that while the Sox fans expect a contender.... I don't think that they/us would accept a full Tampa/Oakland team that perpetually has to cycle through 3 year stretches of good players in order to stay under a tough budget. Adding a $35+ million per season player to that budget might work for a year or two (especially if that player is older than 28) into that budget with a bunch of kids in their early pre-arb years... but would be a catastrophe for the following years.
I was responding to a comment that IF Tampa added Mookie Betts to their team, they'd have been close to unstoppable. (paraphrasing)
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
So then according to that tweet, Mookie has a price that he would accept to stay in Boston?

Not saying that the Red Sox should pay it, it will be ridiculously high, but if the team's offers were $100 million short, then he must have told the team that there is a specific dollar amount that he would sign for and the team must know it.

Which is different from what I've seen written before, that he will not sign any extension before hitting the market, period.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
"Make me an offer I can't refuse."

There has to be a number he'd sign, but it might have to be a number that's so ridiculously high that he knows no one could ever beat it next year.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
So then according to that tweet, Mookie has a price that he would accept to stay in Boston?

Not saying that the Red Sox should pay it, it will be ridiculously high, but if the team's offers were $100 million short, then he must have told the team that there is a specific dollar amount that he would sign for and the team must know it.

Which is different from what I've seen written before, that he will not sign any extension before hitting the market, period.
From what's been reported, that's around $400-420 million. $400 is a nice round, milestone setting number. Well, Trout.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Have there been any rumors about JD Martinez? It seems that the Sox were (not-so) secretly hoping he'd opt out. I'm wondering where he might go, with or without subsidy. Cleveland?