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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,484
AZ
The fact that he opted in is probably a good indication that there wasn't much of a trade market for him at that price either.
Yep. I don't think JD was straight tradable. They would have needed to subsidize a little or give up and asset I think. And even then, they still would have been one move short. JD would have gotten them just a tiny smidge under the tax cap and so they still needed something else to get done. If they had had since the end of last season to get it done I think it happens but they just couldn't be in position where they traded him and got close to the cap relief but then couldn't get the rest of the way there.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,756
Newton
Here's a question:

Do people feel that if the Sox had not extended Sale and re-signed Eovaldi that they would have given Mookie the $420M he was apparently asking for?
 
Nov 23, 2010
8
If they got slightly better health from their starting rotation, this could have been a 90+ win team easily, and made the playoffs.
It's also possible that Bloom knows a lot more about the realistic projections for the health/recovery of Sale, Price, and Eovaldi, and determined that they were collectively too fragile to be counted on to make the team a contender this year.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,628
Maine
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.
Wait, so if they didn't have Eovaldi and Sale on the payroll currently, you still think they trade Betts? And you think his trade value would be more in such a case? Or are you suggesting that due to not paying Eovaldi and Sale, they'd keep Price and it was Price's inclusion that lessened the return on Betts?

The only point I was trying to make is that even if Eovaldi and Sale aren't on the roster this winter, the team would still be up against the tax cap and they'd have two holes to fill in the rotation. Maybe they still trade Betts, but I think they might have been more inclined to keep him for the year and take their chances with him in free agency. But the reality would still be that he wasn't guaranteed to be around long term.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,484
AZ
Here's a question:

Do people feel that if the Sox had not extended Sale and re-signed Eovaldi that they would have given Mookie the $420M he was apparently asking for?
I think they would have made an offer that had a chance of getting a deal done whether that number or not.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,360
Here's a question:

Do people feel that if the Sox had not extended Sale and re-signed Eovaldi that they would have given Mookie the $420M he was apparently asking for?
My guess is DD might have but Bloom's perspective is that a bad deal is a bad deal. If he thought it was a good deal, he would have found some way to shed other salary and make it work for the 25% of the deal while Eovaldi is still on the books.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,569
Oregon
My guess is DD might have but Bloom's perspective is that a bad deal is a bad deal.
I think there's too much being laid at the feet of Bloom in this deal. Yes, he ultimately got what he thought was the best deal, but he likely didn't interview for the job by saying "you need to trade Mookie."

Ownership weighed the options and made it decision, and Bloom took it from there. If Dombrowski were still the GM, the result might very well have been the same
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
23,274
Here
Here's a question:

Do people feel that if the Sox had not extended Sale and re-signed Eovaldi that they would have given Mookie the $420M he was apparently asking for?
No, otherwise they’d have kept Dombrowski. Hiring Bloom is an indication we’re getting back to basics in the FO.

And DD did put together arguably the best Sox team we’ll see in our lifetimes, so hard to call him too much of a failure.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,776
Yep. I don't think JD was straight tradable. They would have needed to subsidize a little or give up and asset I think. And even then, they still would have been one move short. JD would have gotten them just a tiny smidge under the tax cap and so they still needed something else to get done. If they had had since the end of last season to get it done I think it happens but they just couldn't be in position where they traded him and got close to the cap relief but then couldn't get the rest of the way there.
I believe Sox can cut JBJ in ST and pay him only 30-45 days of his 2020 salary. His contract operates under final year of arb-eligible terms.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,083
New York City
Here's a question:

Do people feel that if the Sox had not extended Sale and re-signed Eovaldi that they would have given Mookie the $420M he was apparently asking for?
No, but (a) as other have said, the Sox might have upped their offer and been more willing to negotiate between 300m and 420m this offseason and (b) they almost certainly would have been more willing to just let Mookie play out the season here if they were already under the tax threshold this season and didn't need to reset before offering something to Mookie after he became a free agent.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,628
Maine
I believe Sox can cut JBJ in ST and pay him only 30-45 days of his 2020 salary. His contract operates under final year of arb-eligible terms.
That is not true.

That only applies to deals that actually go to and are decided by arbitration. Since he and the Red Sox agreed to a deal and avoided the arbitration process, it's a guaranteed contract same as any other.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,776
That is not true.

That only applies to deals that actually go to and are decided by arbitration. Since he and the Red Sox agreed to a deal and avoided the arbitration process, it's a guaranteed contract same as any other.
I believe someone in the media said otherwise this winter, but you could eaily be right.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,360
I think there's too much being laid at the feet of Bloom in this deal. Yes, he ultimately got what he thought was the best deal, but he likely didn't interview for the job by saying "you need to trade Mookie."

Ownership weighed the options and made it decision, and Bloom took it from there. If Dombrowski were still the GM, the result might very well have been the same
You might be right about that, but it's tough not to think that left to their own inclinations, DD is far more likely to have given him 420 mil than Bloom.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,840
Santa Monica, CA
I keep reading about how dumping Price's salary was a benefit of this trade and lowered the return from the Dodgers.

The Sox are paying half of his salary. That takes the Dodgers' obligation to somewhere around $15.5 million annually. Tanner Roark just signed for $12m annually. Dallas Keuchel signed for $18m. The Dodgers got Price at just about his market value.

That's not value added for the Red Sox, anyway you slice it. They could have moved him to any number of teams with that subsidy, and gotten something (small) positive back.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,071
Twin Cities
No, but (a) as other have said, the Sox might have upped their offer and been more willing to negotiate between 300m and 420m this offseason and (b) they almost certainly would have been more willing to just let Mookie play out the season here if they were already under the tax threshold this season and didn't need to reset before offering something to Mookie after he became a free agent.
Wouldn't (b) also depend on how competitive they felt the 2020 team would be? Who else would be in the current rotation? If they thought it would be more advantageous to use Mookie's last year of control to get controllable talent and restock the shelves rather than GFIN, a trade could/would have still happened.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,840
Santa Monica, CA
Also, I can't believe that in my time as a Red Sox fan, I've seen them trade Jeff Bagwell's entire career for a one month rental of a middle reliever, and now on the flip side, trade away a full season rental of an MVP candidate for two middling prospects.

Thanks again, Lou Gorman
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
14,286
I keep reading about how dumping Price's salary was a benefit of this trade and lowered the return from the Dodgers.

The Sox are paying half of his salary. That takes the Dodgers' obligation to somewhere around $15.5 million annually. Tanner Roark just signed for $12m annually. Dallas Keuchel signed for $18m. The Dodgers got Price at just about his market value.

That's not value added for the Red Sox, anyway you slice it. They could have moved him to any number of teams with that subsidy, and gotten something (small) positive back.
If I'm reading this right (admittedly no guarantee), this assumes that some team would pay half of Price salary and give up something AND that LA would have traded 2 guys for just Mookie. I'm not sure how your suggestion does anything different than what happened: give up 2 players, get 2 players, pay half of Price's salary.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,367
St. Louis, MO
I keep reading about how dumping Price's salary was a benefit of this trade and lowered the return from the Dodgers.

The Sox are paying half of his salary. That takes the Dodgers' obligation to somewhere around $15.5 million annually. Tanner Roark just signed for $12m annually. Dallas Keuchel signed for $18m. The Dodgers got Price at just about his market value.

That's not value added for the Red Sox, anyway you slice it. They could have moved him to any number of teams with that subsidy, and gotten something (small) positive back.
Which teams? All ears.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,398
Wait, so if they didn't have Eovaldi and Sale on the payroll currently, you still think they trade Betts? And you think his trade value would be more in such a case? Or are you suggesting that due to not paying Eovaldi and Sale, they'd keep Price and it was Price's inclusion that lessened the return on Betts?
I have no way of knowing whether or not they would trade Betts if they’d re-set the luxury tax last year as there would still be reasons to trade him even if the luxury tax implications weren’t a consideration. But, if they’d decided that they didn’t want to get into the Betts bidding war and were trading just Betts to the Dodgers, they’d‘ve gotten a lot more.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
25,680
me either, but still a funny quote to come out. I think Mookie's known for about a week he was going to the Dodgers.
Yeah. I just can't shake the feeling that Mookie will be a Lebron type of player. Incredibly talented, always respected, but will never be that 'sports hero' that a player like Trout has become.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,685
Yeah. I just can't shake the feeling that Mookie will be a Lebron type of player. Incredibly talented, always respected, but will never be that 'sports hero' that a player like Trout has become.
This seems exactly opposite to me, meaning the Trout/LeBron parts.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,628
Maine
I have no way of knowing whether or not they would trade Betts if they’d re-set the luxury tax last year as there would still be reasons to trade him even if the luxury tax implications weren’t a consideration. But, if they’d decided that they didn’t want to get into the Betts bidding war and were trading just Betts to the Dodgers, they’d‘ve gotten a lot more.
They wouldn't have re-set the tax last year even if they chose not to re-sign Eovaldi and Pearce. That's $23M in salary and they finished the year about $34M over the cap. So the re-set would still have had to happen now. It absolutely would still be a factor in the trade.

And I disagree that Betts alone would yield a better return from the Dodgers than Betts plus half-price Price.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,323
If I'm reading this right (admittedly no guarantee), this assumes that some team would pay half of Price salary and give up something AND that LA would have traded 2 guys for just Mookie. I'm not sure how your suggestion does anything different than what happened: give up 2 players, get 2 players, pay half of Price's salary.
I suppose there is a situation where just trading Mookie to LA nets you something like Verdugo and maybe a pitching prospect like Gray or Gonsolin. That assumes LA was willing to trade one of these arms for 1 year of Mookie, which we don't know.

But then you have to find someone to take Price. He's been available all offseason and no one made an offer Bloom liked enough to ship him out on his own. Do you want to take on Justin Upton's contract to get rid of him? Or eat a similar amount of money to get an A ball prospect or two?

LA was in a good position to make this deal. They had the money to take on Price and Mookie. They had the depth to deal Maeda for a pitching prospect Bloom likes, with just as much upside as Gray or Gonsolin. MIN was in the market for SP, something they could've addressed elsewhere if BOS waited to move Mookie. And Bloom did well to avoid taking back contracts like Wil Myers and AJ Pollock.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,955
Rogers Park
I have heard a couple of different numbers. Does anyone know now what the is total Sox budget for 2020 and how far beneath the cut-off it is?
It looks like we're just a tic above $187m, or about $21m under the $208m limit. I think we need another starting pitcher, but there might be room for a Brock Holt reunion.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
20,640
what all the analysis about how rare it is for a player of Mookie's caliber to be traded is the analysis of how often or not a player of Mookie's caliber at this point of career keeps it going or falls apart.

there probably aren't any data points, but where's that analysis?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,398
They wouldn't have re-set the tax last year even if they chose not to re-sign Eovaldi and Pearce. That's $23M in salary and they finished the year about $34M over the cap. So the re-set would still have had to happen now. It absolutely would still be a factor in the trade.
Sale and Eovaldi make a combined $46 million AAV this year. Boston just saved $43 million to get under the cap. There would have been no luxury tax pressure to move Betts minus those extensions. And there would be no luxury tax pressure to deal Betts, even though there would still be reasons to move him.
 

brandonchristensen

mad photochops
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
25,680
No, I’m not talking about Mookie, I think that LeBron is way more widely respected than Trout, who I think is barely known outside of baseball.
Oh I understand.
LeBron is widely respected, but not loved. Like, he'll never be beloved like Kobe.
 

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
995
Oh I understand.
LeBron is widely respected, but not loved. Like, he'll never be beloved like Kobe.
I don't want to derail the thread but to echo a few other posters who responded to you, I think this train of thought is really off base. I think LeBron is plenty loved around the world and is one of the few athletes who transcends their sport.
I don't think Mookie has reached that level yet and I'm not sure he ever will. (Also, LeBron is pretty much the unquestioned best player of his generation which makes him much more like Trout than Mookie)
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
2,187
East Bay
I don't want to derail the thread but to echo a few other posters who responded to you, I think this train of thought is really off base. I think LeBron is plenty loved around the world and is one of the few athletes who transcends their sport.
I don't think Mookie has reached that level yet and I'm not sure he ever will. (Also, LeBron is pretty much the unquestioned best player of his generation which makes him much more like Trout than Mookie)
I would argue that the days of a baseball player reaching that level are gone. Trout hasn't reached that level, and I don't see anyone else in the game today with a chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.