Betts/Price to LA for Verdugo/Jeter Downs/TBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,643
one year of Mookie is NOT as valuable as many are making it out to be, especially with Price's contract attached. the Dodgers did not fleece us... but I am wondering why they are giving up Stripling when they had to give up Maeda for this deal.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,892
St. Louis, MO
This isn't a great return. This is a borderline laughable return. If I tried to make this trade in MLB the show one of the virtual players would beat me over the head with a baseball bat. Kind of a cool time to join this place though.
See Savin Hillbilly’s trade simulator link. Bloom won on value massively.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,892
St. Louis, MO
one year of Mookie is NOT as valuable as many are making it out to be, especially with Price's contract attached. the Dodgers did not fleece us... but I am wondering why they are giving up Stripling when they had to give up Maeda for this deal.
Dodgers are giving up a ton of SP depth. They’ve lost Ryu, Maeda, Hill and Stripling and have added Price and Wood. They are actually really thin after Buehler. Kershaw and Price are fragile.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,360
AZ
I guess in reading through the comments since I left the thread last night there are two separate points:

1) Management screwed up to get us to the point where this was the best option.

2) Given the position we were in, this was a good move and maybe even a necessary one.

There was a metaphor above about how when you're at the bottom of a well you don't really want to be focusing on how you got there. I think that was probably the best point in the thread. Not to cross the streams and bring football into baseball threads but it is sort of one of the things I have always respected about Belichick. He succeeds in part because he doesn't ever focus on the past. I mean other than maybe to learn from it. But, he seems keenly aware that the only thing he control is what's in front of him at the time. Whether it's a bad trade, a bad signing, a bad call, a bad play it doesn't matter. You play the ball as it lies.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
50,989
Dodgers are giving up a ton of SP depth. They’ve lost Ryu, Maeda, Hill and Stripling and have added Price and Wood. They are actually really thin after Buehler. Kershaw and Price are fragile.
Besides those four, they have Urias, May and Gonsolin, but agreed they have lost depth.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,643
Dodgers are giving up a ton of SP depth. They’ve lost Ryu, Maeda, Hill and Stripling and have added Price and Wood. They are actually really thin after Buehler. Kershaw and Price are fragile.
that's my thought. In order to remain staying under LT and sealing the deal on Betts, they have an amazing lineup but their rotation has completely 180'd on depth. I'd be concerned.

May I guess starts in the rotation now, good luck to him. Urias is still young but has been inconsistent.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
38,583
I’m just hoping that Mookie has a slight down year playing a ton of games in NL West stadiums as opposed to Fenway/Camden/Rogers/Toilet and the Sox re-sign him for Harper money. He’s my favorite player ever and I don’t care if it looks ugly towards the end.
This is a perfectly understandable viewpoint but I will say that many of us thought the same about Pedroia and his contract is part of the reason things are where they are.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,755
Saskatchestan
This is a perfectly understandable viewpoint but I will say that many of us thought the same about Pedroia and his contract is part of the reason things are where they are.
There's a bigger argument that things are the way they are now, due to signing Pablo and Hanley
Those contracts kept the team over the luxury tax thresholds
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,755
Saskatchestan
Just playing devil's advocate for a minute, but most of us will recall the last Red Sox player who was determined to hit free agency and set a new market for relievers
His career after leaving the Sox didn't turn out quite as he'd imagined either

Mr. Jonathan Papelbon
Granted, he was older he hit FA, but still some similar circumstances there
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
38,583
There's a bigger argument that things are the way they are now, due to signing Pablo and Hanley
Those contracts kept the team over the luxury tax thresholds
Certainly. In general I think the Red Sox should steer clear of any massive long-term contracts that take a player deep into their 30s. You can afford a few bloated contracts—we wouldn't be sweating Pedroia's money in the slightest with better management of other contracts—but clearly we reached a critical mass that makes each individual piece look worse in retrospect.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,858
I’d argue that the one time that it makes sense for a team to pay a huge amount for a player is during their arbitration years so that the inevitable decline at the end of the contract is offset by the early bargain years. I think WAR is a slippery stat, but, for the sake of argument, Mookie has been worth 42 WAR over his 5 ½ seasons and he’s been paid $32 million while being worth more than $300 million in value. He’s been massively underpaid. Ideally, Sox would have signed him to a huge deal 2 years ago. I think they tried to do that but maybe didn’t try hard enough. Or, maybe Mookie simply decided he was going to be a free agent.

Which is where I’m frustrated with the Sox. If they knew Mookie was going to walk at the end of this year, I think they should have played this season out and considered trading him at the deadline if they were out of contention in order to potentially recoup some value. The problem is that a mid-season trade would not have put them under the luxury tax threshold, so, they decided to pull the trigger now. I don’t have a problem with potentially trading Mookie but I hate the timing. And I do blame ownership for that timing… they should eat the fallout for their bad decisions rather than punting this season.
They should have dealt him at the deadline last year, that was the time they were getting the king's ransom for him. Even if they were stapling him to Eovaldi or Price.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,941
1) Management screwed up to get us to the point where this was the best option.
This isn’t fully true. The Sox committed to a plan well before the CBA was signed in November of 2016, and part of that was to spend more than they ever had.

That CBA agreement exacted very strict team-building penalties, not just monetary penalties, for exceeding the luxury tax. The problem was that this agreement squeezed the Sox FO’s plan that had already been set into motion.

I don’t want to defend billionaires, even the more relatively benevolent ones (among MLB owners) like John Henry. But we’d have a different team today if it weren’t for that CBA, and I believe Mookie would be on it.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,879
Right Here
This isn’t fully true. The Sox committed to a plan well before the CBA was signed in November of 2016, and part of that was to spend more than they ever had.

That CBA agreement exacted very strict team-building penalties, not just monetary penalties, for exceeding the luxury tax. The problem was that this agreement squeezed the Sox FO’s plan that had already been set into motion.

I don’t want to defend billionaires, even the more relatively benevolent ones (among MLB owners) like John Henry. But we’d have a different team today if it weren’t for that CBA, and I believe Mookie would be on it.

Well... That and the downside of the 2018 World Series is that the Sox brain-trust fell in love with the team. Re-signed Eovaldi, Pearce, and gave Sale a megabucks contract extension. This current scenario is why I may be a little more forgiving should they be more cold-hearted if/when the Sox win another championship.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,643
This isn’t fully true. The Sox committed to a plan well before the CBA was signed in November of 2016, and part of that was to spend more than they ever had.

That CBA agreement exacted very strict team-building penalties, not just monetary penalties, for exceeding the luxury tax. The problem was that this agreement squeezed the Sox FO’s plan that had already been set into motion.

I don’t want to defend billionaires, even the more relatively benevolent ones (among MLB owners) like John Henry. But we’d have a different team today if it weren’t for that CBA, and I believe Mookie would be on it.
and the owners weren't aware of this new CBA? not sure I buy that.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,360
AZ
In retrospect the jig was up as soon as JDM opted in. I think they could have made it under the cap if that hadn't happened.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,823
The Red Sox weren't a threat to win anything in 2020 with Mookie.
I disagree with this, and it is something that isn't being discussed enough, imo. The Red Sox were not a 100 loss team last year, despite being a massive disappointment last season, they were an 84 win team. This season, if they kept Mookie (and it is possible this is true without Mookie) they would be looking at a loaded offense with a bunch of players in their prime with a few guys possibly making a leap. They had the fourth best offense in MLB last season, and arguably could have been even better in 2020 with Mookie.

If they got slightly better health from their starting rotation, this could have been a 90+ win team easily, and made the playoffs. Yes, there is a question about the manager and what effect that will have on the team, but to act like the 2020 Red Sox with Mookie had no chance of being a contending team is complete bullshit.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,749
Boston, MA
Are we all in agreement on a few basic facts, namely...(4) the penalties for being over for them at this point aren't just financial; they're real in terms of drafting, etc.
Forgive me for not reading through the entire thread, but could someone articulate for me how being over the Luxury tax hamstring's the club in the drafting context?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
Forgive me for not reading through the entire thread, but could someone articulate for me how being over the Luxury tax hamstring's the club in the drafting context?

There may be more to it than this, but this is helpful anyway.

So last year for example, the Red Sox didn't have a first round pick because of the tax penalties.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,749
Boston, MA

There may be more to it than this, but this is helpful anyway.
Thanks. So is this the only penalty re: draft picks?:

"Beginning in 2018, clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead."

i.e. Their highest pick in the draft not inside the top 6 (but only the one pick) is moved back 10 spaces if you are $40MM over the threshold?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
Thanks. So is this the only penalty re: draft picks?:

"Beginning in 2018, clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead."

i.e. Their highest pick in the draft not inside the top 6 (but only the one pick) is moved back 10 spaces if you are $40MM over the threshold?
I said there may be more, I don’t fully know. But it’s at least that.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,466
Maine
Well... That and the downside of the 2018 World Series is that the Sox brain-trust fell in love with the team. Re-signed Eovaldi, Pearce, and gave Sale a megabucks contract extension. This current scenario is why I may be a little more forgiving should they be more cold-hearted if/when the Sox win another championship.
I don't think not signing Pearce or Eovaldi, and not extending Sale, changes a lot of where they are right now. Without those deals, they're still over the luxury tax last season so they'd still likely be looking to get under the cap now. Sure, they might have been able to do that without trading Mookie or Price, but they'd also still be in a position where they'd need to fill those two rotation spots at the very least, with little to no room under the cap to do so.

Differing minds can debate whether that puts the team in a better position for 2020 and beyond or not.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,393
Rogers Park
Thanks. So is this the only penalty re: draft picks?:

"Beginning in 2018, clubs that are $40 million or more above the threshold shall have their highest selection in the next Rule 4 Draft moved back 10 places unless the pick falls in the top six. In that case, the team will have its second-highest selection moved back 10 places instead."

i.e. Their highest pick in the draft not inside the top 6 (but only the one pick) is moved back 10 spaces if you are $40MM over the threshold?
No, that isn't all.
  • There is also a draft budget reduction associated with shifting the top pick back; that is likely the most important part of that penalty.
  • There is also a penalty in terms of a considerably reduced budget for signing IFAs for teams that have signed FAs who turned down a QO.
  • There are also hard-to-understand penalties connected to refunds that are part of the revenue sharing system. I have read that these are the biggest deal of any of this.
  • edited to add: Also, the penalties for signing QO'd FAs are worse if you were over the cap the previous season.
  • edited to add: Also, clubs losing a QO'd FA get a post-4th round comp pick instead of a post-1st round comp pick.
  • Also the tax rates for overages are way higher than they used to be.
The penalties seem to have gotten harsh enough that all of the teams are now trying hard to stay under. The high-spending Dodgers just acquired Price and Betts, right? And they were under the threshold last season. They should be going all in, right? Blowing past the cap to try to win a title! But no: instead, they're trading away from their SP and OF depth in order to clear payroll and stay under the cap.
 
Last edited:

Reardons Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,442
Cambridge
I was tempted to reply upthread when you referred to the ownership group that has won 4 world championships a total disgrace, but then you go and throw in this WSJ nonsense...the 2020 team coming back is for all intents and purposes the same or a worse group than the 2019 team that was barely over .500, nevermind the fact that their chief rivals are demonstrably better while the second place team can also be expected to be just as competitive. So no, they weren't likely to be all that capable, but hey, Babe fucking Ruth.

Or maybe we can actually use our brains and look at the facts:
You are right. That WSJ rag has nothing to contribute on the perspective of money and business. This move had to be done. Period. The Fenway Sports Group (valued at 6.6 billion dollars) would have gone bankrupt if they had to pay Mookie Betts his market rate as one of the best players in all of baseball. It was unsustainable. Absolutely. This was not about maximizing profit in what was going to be a down year. Storied, competitive, historic teams in baseball do not need the best players. Not necessary to win or draw fans that invest their time, money, and attention to the game. The single dads who pay extortion rates to take their sons to see the greats of the day can look forward to the immortal Alex Verdugo who was allegedly present for the assault of an underage girl in 2015. You are right.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
SoSH Member
You are right. That WSJ rag has nothing to contribute on the perspective of money and business. This move had to be done. Period. The Fenway Sports Group (valued at 6.6 billion dollars) would have gone bankrupt if they had to pay Mookie Betts his market rate as one of the best players in all of baseball. It was unsustainable. Absolutely. This was not about maximizing profit in what was going to be a down year. Storied, competitive, historic teams in baseball do not need the best players. Not necessary to win or draw fans that invest their time, money, and attention to the game. The single dads who pay extortion rates to take their sons to see the greats of the day can look forward to the immortal Alex Verdugo who was allegedly present for the assault of an underage girl in 2015. You are right.

That was the best laugh i've had in a while. very nice
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,858
I don't think not signing Pearce or Eovaldi, and not extending Sale, changes a lot of where they are right now. Without those deals, they're still over the luxury tax last season so they'd still likely be looking to get under the cap now. Sure, they might have been able to do that without trading Mookie or Price, but they'd also still be in a position where they'd need to fill those two rotation spots at the very least, with little to no room under the cap to do so.

Differing minds can debate whether that puts the team in a better position for 2020 and beyond or not.
Eovaldi and Sale will cost $3 million more this year than they saved in the Betts/Price salary dump. I'd argue that had they let Eovaldi walk after 2018 and Sale after last year, they'd've gotten a hell of a lot more for Betts alone than a prospect on the verge of eating his way out of the game and a massive douchebag that might not survive the coming year in the stapling deal.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
30,949
Dodgers are giving up a ton of SP depth. They’ve lost Ryu, Maeda, Hill and Stripling and have added Price and Wood. They are actually really thin after Buehler. Kershaw and Price are fragile.
Braves were thin after Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz and only won once.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
6,084
NJ
Just catching up with the thread after sleeping through all the drama. Glad to find this post near the end, as it sums up my views pretty well.

Maybe I'm jaded, maybe I'm just mellowing with age, but I've been numb to the "business" of sports for a while. I just can't over-react one way or the other to anything any more. Disappointed that Mookie and Price are gone, but I get it and it's not the end of the world. They're still going to play the games and I'm still going to watch because I love baseball.
Yup, at the end of the day does it suck he is gone? Absolutely, but it isn't like he was making it easy, or even possible for the Sox to sign him to an extension.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
14,779
Unreal America
I guess in reading through the comments since I left the thread last night there are two separate points:

1) Management screwed up to get us to the point where this was the best option.

2) Given the position we were in, this was a good move and maybe even a necessary one.

There was a metaphor above about how when you're at the bottom of a well you don't really want to be focusing on how you got there. I think that was probably the best point in the thread. Not to cross the streams and bring football into baseball threads but it is sort of one of the things I have always respected about Belichick. He succeeds in part because he doesn't ever focus on the past. I mean other than maybe to learn from it. But, he seems keenly aware that the only thing he control is what's in front of him at the time. Whether it's a bad trade, a bad signing, a bad call, a bad play it doesn't matter. You play the ball as it lies.


If we're invoking Belichick, then it's fair to suggest that he likely would never have signed Eovaldi and extended Sale.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
693
Maryland
[
The only part of it I hate is that we had to pay so much for Price.
I'm disappointed that they didn't find a way to make the amount of the payments dependent on the number of starts or IP by Price (more starts or more innings reduce the payment).

In retrospect the jig was up as soon as JDM opted in. I think they could have made it under the cap if that hadn't happened.
I think this is true. Plan A for getting under the CBT was JD opting out (and maybe non-tendering JBJ). Plan B was trading Price, Eovaldi and/or JBJ - which, I think it's safe to assume, they tried but were unable to do without eating most of the money. Plan C was the combo with Betts, which under the circumstances was probably preferable from a long-term perspective than a combo with Devers, EdRo or Beni.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,879
Right Here
Five games due to cheating (somebody calculated).
That calculation was flawed though. Didn't account for home/away splits (Sox had an advantage at Fenway due to the layout as opposed to other stadiums). Also didn't account for the production of players that started with Boston in 2018 (notably JDM). Plus... young hitters get better.

All that though, I have to believe that the Sox were going to be looking up at NY this year now with or without Mookie. NY was one buzzer beater away from pushing Houston to a Game Seven; they've added Cole to replace the walking corpse of CC Sabathia; and a repeat of last year's injury bug would be historic. The converse is the Sox are still looking for a manager and the Truck is already on its way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.