DD fired

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,600
St. Louis, MO
The mention of Luhnow is interesting. He presided over a wildly successful tank and build, and is connected to Cora.

On a somewhat separate note, I wonder how invested emotionally Henry is with the franchise. You can go months without a peep out of him, he barely looked alive being presented with the WS trophy in October. He’s a chill guy, but just wonder how competitive he is now. And if he’s signing off on a full teardown, is this an early tell that he’s looking to sell sometime soon?
 

Gdiguy

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,401
San Diego, CA
Letting Betts walk without even trying to keep him would be an absolutely insane decision, I can't possibly believe that's on the table.
I'd read that as more they've had preliminary discussions and know the ballpark range he's looking for (and possibly even know that other teams will be in the vicinity of that) and aren't willing to go anywhere close, not that they wouldn't keep him for some ludicrously low price.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
4,892
I'd read that as more they've had preliminary discussions and know the ballpark range he's looking for (and possibly even know that other teams will be in the vicinity of that) and aren't willing to go anywhere close, not that they wouldn't keep him for some ludicrously low price.
But if they know he's going to have offers in a vicinity they aren't willing to get close to then they have to trade him. If they think they can keep him and are willing to pay top dollar and they lose him then so be it, but letting him walk for certain instead of a trade would be a terrible use of value.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,254
Insane thought: What if rather than getting full value for Mookie, they want to use him to pull another Punto trade, and jettison one of Sale/Price/Eovaldi?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
again I ask, if ownership was that concerned about keeping JD & Mookie, why did they sign off on Sale & Eovaldi?
Perhaps they thought they could win again this year with those deals (although Sale didn't require an extension to win this year) and thought that would make losing the two of them more palatable?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,537
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I actually think it’s more debatable than others apparently do. In 2003, I viewed the Red Sox season as the 84th consecutive failure. In 2008 I viewed the Red Sox season as a highly enjoyable ride that came up a few outs/hits short of the World Series.

In 2019, I just want to watch as many Red Sox games each year as I can. If they make the playoffs I get to watch more games. If they lose game 7 of the World Series, then at least the offseason is a month shorter than it would have been otherwise. This season was effectively over in the second week of April. That sucked.
A very good point. I wonder how the 2011-2019 Sox look to the youngest generation of fans.

Insane thought: What if rather than getting full value for Mookie, they want to use him to pull another Punto trade, and jettison one of Sale/Price/Eovaldi?
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OcMQOR-xYHrwUpdsq26gmvViPGCjhGF87jPwQZ_yTqo/pub?output=html


That would be a very rough analogy, since there's likely a lot of value left in Sale/Price/Eovaldi, and Mookie is a one year rental at this point. It would be more like Boegarts, Price, Eovaldi, and Owings, for not much, then dealing with Mookie (Ellsbury) on his own.

But regardless of the configuration, who would be the trading partner?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
In isolation, there is justification for the reported moves. If JDM opts out, it's because he thinks he can do better than the 3/$62M he'll get if he doesn't. And I can see the Red Sox being unwilling to go there for a 32 year old player who is every day become more and more of a DH.

Betts is a tougher one, but given that Machado just got 10/$300M, Betts floor is certainly well above that. And so I can see the Sox deciding not do do that with Betts, which is really a separate decision on what to do with Sale. And it's clear that not everyone was on board with the Sale extension, so there's that.

So, rationally, both moves make sense, and could very well take place. It's just that I don't believe for a minute that the Sox would (a) widely broadcast their intentions in such a manner; and (b) suddenly feel the need to slash payroll and tank.

And there is no way Bogaerts is going anywhere anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,003
CT
I wonder if the Nightengale leak could actually be from the Red Sox front office with the idea of encouraging JDM/Boras to opt out of his contract (don't want to be part of a rebuild). That would free up some considerable cash to make a serious run at a Mookie extension. From the Sox perspective if they can only afford one it would have to be Mookie given his age and defense..... Of course this plan could backfire and have the same effect on Mookie's thinking.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
594
There seems to be a lot of people angling to trade Mookie this off-season because it's better to get *something* in value from him rather than let him walk for nothing. This argument presumes that Red Sox can't, won't, or shouldn't sign Betts long-term, but even leaving that aside, that basis of that argument is that the long-term value of whatever prospects Mookie nets, as well as whatever near-term financial flexibility this wins the team in 2020 and beyond, is greater than the value Betts has to the Sox 2020.

In regards to potential prospects won in a trade, what can we realistically expect to get for one year of Betts at $27-30M? The market for that deal would be limited to a handful of teams that have the cash and that are in GFIN mode in 2020 (or who wants the inside track on signing Betts long-term in 2020). I'm no expert, but I don't think the Red Sox get a haul that meaningfully rebuilds the farm or that nets a high-probability impact talent.

In regards to financial flexibility, they would have more resources to allocate elsewhere on the 2020 roster, but they lose a ton of roster efficiency by replacing a 6-8 WAR player at one position with whatever cheaper solution they find to backfill. In theory, they can make marginal improvements with that money at other positions (SP, RP, maybe 1B) that could offset that lost value, but there's a good chance that spending 27-30M on a bunch of mediocre guys on a handful of positions is less efficient than spending 27-30M on Betts in one position and then going with dirt-cheap options everywhere else. (A more compelling argument might be to reset that LT threshold immediately and regain financial flexibility for 2021 and beyond).

Assuming the Red Sox return much of the same team in 2020 that it had in 2018, and assuming that they can make *some* kind of marginal improvements to RP and SP depth, Mookie could be the difference between a championship-caliber club and one that fails to make the playoffs. I'm not sure how the Sox value that in dollars and cents, but the difference in gross revenue for a team that fizzles out in August vs one that plays meaningful games deep into October has to be comparable to the money the Sox would save if Mookie is traded.

In other words, I'm struggling to see how the expected value of trading Betts this offseason exceed the expected value of keeping him through 2020, even if he walks.
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
13,605
Astoria
There seems to be a lot of people angling to trade Mookie this off-season because it's better to get *something* in value from him rather than let him walk for nothing. This argument presumes that Red Sox can't, won't, or shouldn't sign Betts long-term, but even leaving that aside, that basis of that argument is that the long-term value of whatever prospects Mookie nets, as well as whatever near-term financial flexibility this wins the team in 2020 and beyond, is greater than the value Betts has to the Sox 2020.

In regards to potential prospects won in a trade, what can we realistically expect to get for one year of Betts at $27-30M? The market for that deal would be limited to a handful of teams that have the cash and that are in GFIN mode in 2020 (or who wants the inside track on signing Betts long-term in 2020). I'm no expert, but I don't think the Red Sox get a haul that meaningfully rebuilds the farm or that nets a high-probability impact talent.

In regards to financial flexibility, they would have more resources to allocate elsewhere on the 2020 roster, but they lose a ton of roster efficiency by replacing a 6-8 WAR player at one position with whatever cheaper solution they find to backfill. In theory, they can make marginal improvements with that money at other positions (SP, RP, maybe 1B) that could offset that lost value, but there's a good chance that spending 27-30M on a bunch of mediocre guys on a handful of positions is less efficient than spending 27-30M on Betts in one position and then going with dirt-cheap options everywhere else. (A more compelling argument might be to reset that LT threshold immediately and regain financial flexibility for 2021 and beyond).

Assuming the Red Sox return much of the same team in 2020 that it had in 2018, and assuming that they can make *some* kind of marginal improvements to RP and SP depth, Mookie could be the difference between a championship-caliber club and one that fails to make the playoffs. I'm not sure how the Sox value that in dollars and cents, but the difference in gross revenue for a team that fizzles out in August vs one that plays meaningful games deep into October has to be comparable to the money the Sox would save if Mookie is traded.

In other words, I'm struggling to see how the expected value of trading Betts this offseason exceed the expected value of keeping him through 2020, even if he walks.
The crux of your question is identifying the true expected value of this roster. 2017 wasn't a drastically different roster than 2018 or 2019 so management has 3 decent sample sizes to review. I personally don't think the Sox need to blow it up or trade Mookie. If JDM leaves, you trade JBJ, get rid of Porcello and use some of that on low cost players, you will gain flexibility and only lose some power. There is a deeper SP group this year than last with a lot of upside picks. Cahill, Chacin, Miley, Roark, Wacha, Wheeler, Wood....A couple of these guys will hit and not cost what Cole or potentially Strasburg (if he opts out) will. I think the Astros are gonna have a feast. I would even consider Michael Pineda who will cost next to nothing, had questions surrounding his suspension, and was on an absolute tear. From a position standpoint, it's slightly less deep but you should be able to find a defensive minded player with some pop to blunt some of the loss of JDM.

Add that to a rebound from Benintendi and continued growth from Chavis. You guys can easily compete next year. If not, you haven't maxed the payroll and can decide to trade Mookie at the deadline if its not working. The key will be avoiding big contracts. There is virtually no way to get under the cap for next year unless there is a firesale.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
A realistic goal for 2020 is to stay under the final tax threshold and avoid the draft pick penalties, which seems achievable even if JDM stays.

Getting under the 2nd threshold will be tougher if JD is around, but not impossible.

Getting under the base threshold in 2020 is not realistic, and I would seriously question any media reports that claim that is the team's goal for 2020. As noted, having a plan to get under the threshold sometime in the 2021/22/23 timeframe probably does preclude the team from signing Betts, so that is possibly where this reporting is coming from.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,744
The difference is that Punto didn't cost close to $30M in his own right, as Mookie will.
You are joking here? Adrian Gonzalez was the jewel in the Punto trade as Betts would be if he were stapled to some dross in a deal. Of course, Gonzalez had years to go on his contract, and Betts would not in 2020. Anyway, the Punto deal was like Halley's Comet, so it will be some time before its like is seen again.

On a smaller scale, if the Red Sox want to do a reverse Arrojo-Lansing trade, who is leaving town with Betts? JBJ can probably be moved (for limited return) in a deal by himself if salary shedding is the goal. Vazquez could also be moved in his own deal. If it's one of Price/Sale/Eovaldi, that involves multiple difficulties including the Betts+pitcher combined salaries is looking more like the Punto trade than the Arrojo-Lansing one.

Given the limited moves available, it feels like frustrated ownership has flipped over the chessboard (sent DD packing).

Other considerations:
10/5 rights still exist, yes? Price will have non-tradeable 10/5 status at the end of the 2020 season. Per Cot's Contracts, JD can list 3 teams annually that he cannot be traded to, and Xander's new deal grants him a full NTC after the 2020 season.
 
Last edited:

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,003
CT
Henry and Werner are both 70yo, any thoughts as to whether they may have decided to sell the team? Would we expect them to still be active owners at say....75yo? They may see managing long-term financial commitments, re-setting the luxury tax, and a strong farm system as a way of maximizing their return.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,199
The wrong side of the bridge....
You are joking here? Adrian Gonzalez was the jewel in the Punto trade as Betts would be if he were stapled to some dross in a deal. Of course, Gonzalez had years to go on his contract, and Betts would not in 2020. Anyway, the Punto deal was like Halley's Comet, so it will be some time before its like is seen again.
Sorry, I thought you were Hank Scorpio was suggesting that Mookie would be a sweetener in this imagined deal because he will be paid significantly below his market value, which he won't.
 
Last edited:

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,254
The difference is that Punto didn't cost close to $30M in his own right, as Mookie will.
Yes, but Crawford was a disaster, Adrian’s power was AWOL on a huge contract, Beckett was lousy and a distraction, and Punto was Punto.

Sale’s an injury risk on a huge contract that’s not necessarily going to be an albatross. Mookie’s an MVP caliber player.

So there’s around $55M in payroll for 2020 another team would be taking on, and another $25M or so for the remainder of Sale’s contract. It’s a gamble, but the upside is huge. If Mookie is Mookie, and Sale stays healthy, the two should/could put up 12-15 WAR between them. That might be a big “if” with Sale in the equation, but it’s also a shitload of potential excess value.

Assuming a healthy Sale, Price is a worse pitcher for more money, but he might (maybe) be seen as less risky. If healthy, he’s only a slightly bad overpay, and not a total disaster. He might be moveable with Mookie if the Sox can find a team in full GFIN mode.

Eovaldi is simply less good and a lot cheaper, and on a shorter deal.

I think any of those three are moveable in a Mookie package. The return might not be great.

The question is if the Red Sox would rather trade Mookie for maximum return, or if they’d rather trade him for maximum flexibility? Or maybe they don’t actually want to trade him at all.
 
Aug 3, 2014
5
I think it is interesting that the Sox have had 3 different GMs and 3 different managers involved in the four recent World Series titles.
Could it all be the result of the first GM/Manager?
Is it a reflection of changes in baseball?
Or is it more attributable to the Ownership group which has not changed?
 
Sep 1, 2019
13
And yet Cashman has stayed in place with the NYY despite their last title being in 2000 and last WS appearance in 2003. So in this time frame anyways, for these two premier high pressure franchises, greater instability with the Red Sox has correlated with greater success. It's unlikely that is a general rule, but change is sometimes a good thing.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
And yet Cashman has stayed in place with the NYY despite their last title being in 2000 and last WS appearance in 2003. So in this time frame anyways, for these two premier high pressure franchises, greater instability with the Red Sox has correlated with greater success. It's unlikely that is a general rule, but change is sometimes a good thing.
Well, not sure you can really glean much from this train of thought, but it's worth noting that NY has had a winning record every year since 1992. Also Cashman has shown himself capable of recognizing on his own when a drastic change needs to be made: after DET obliterated NY in the 2012 ALCS in four straight, Cashman decided NY was too old and basically dumped the entire team as fast as reasonably possible. This was the right move although not as drastically as he implemented it IMO, but anyway it didn't work and NY had four straight years of 84-87 wins from 2013-2016. At the 2016 deadline was when Cashman famously convinced Hal to sell off pieces, and that helped build the current team.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,436
Well, not sure you can really glean much from this train of thought, but it's worth noting that NY has had a winning record every year since 1992. Also Cashman has shown himself capable of recognizing on his own when a drastic change needs to be made: after DET obliterated NY in the 2012 ALCS in four straight, Cashman decided NY was too old and basically dumped the entire team as fast as reasonably possible. This was the right move although not as drastically as he implemented it IMO, but anyway it didn't work and NY had four straight years of 84-87 wins from 2013-2016. At the 2016 deadline was when Cashman famously convinced Hal to sell off pieces, and that helped build the current team.
I think we generally get the point that you've been hammering here (as often as the "what about the last 7 years!??!?!); the Yankees are WAY better poised to contend for a WS over the next 5-7 years than the Sox are. I can't imagine there's one poster here that will argue that... I think the argument is only that having an awesome farm system really doesn't mean much- and it doesn't mean as much to teams with high payroll and high expectations. The waiting time for prospects to develop at the ML level is much shorter, players that struggle from the initial rookie year and continue through a 2nd year are generally considered "toast". If Devers put up another season like last year, you can be sure almost everyone on SoSH would be looking to package him up with Price or Sale at this point. Massively hyped prospects end up garbage: Lars Anderson!!!! (gah damnit Theo!!!!) and whatsisname Bird for the MFY's that was their guy for the past 3 seasons..... So I just don't know how to get super excited about a Farm System. It can boost the confidence level but REALLY needs to be tempered. Of course.... again... Cashman has done a fantastic job that I'm absolutely envious of- but after the bust of the mid 00's Amazing Yankee Farm System- it's difficult for me to be terribly worried as I was back then. That said.... I think IIRC, they got Marte and Nady!!! for future All Star Jose Tabata! so I should keep quiet.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I'm not really sure how to answer that as it doesn't have much to do with the post I was answering or the one I made. I was just trying to add some detail and nuance to the simplistic NY comparison, and try to explain why Cashman has hung on so long despite his lack of titles since the insane run at the turn of the century. I guess I will answer this part:

I think the argument is only that having an awesome farm system really doesn't mean much- and it doesn't mean as much to teams with high payroll and high expectations.
I think if one believes this, then one is not paying enough attention to how the game has changed in recent years, every year younger cost-controlled players become more valuable assets to an organization. It shouldn't be this way, the current CBA is awful for the sport, but that's the way it is and so having a pipeline of talent these days is more crucial than ever before, and identifying underachieving players on other teams that you can obtain for little cost and then turn around into valuable assets is a huge boost. NY has copied LAD and Friedman on this, but they've been successful doing it also.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
Right, that's another reason that Cashman has kept his job so long, as it took quite some time for ownership to realize they should stop interfering and just let him do his job.

If I'm coming off as a dick here, I apologize and that's really not my intention, it's something I try to always be conscious of on this site (although I am naturally a dick, so it's not easy). As I've said a bunch, three years ago it looked like NY was as hopelessly behind BOS for years to come as it seems in reverse now, maybe even more so. Things can flip in a hurry if ownership brings in the right people, funds them as needed (not just player salaries, but behind the scenes) and stays out of the way.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
16,168
where I was last at
Its a Red Sox forum Jon. You should expect some blowback when you tout a guy that won by mastering checkbook baseball and was very very late to the cost-controlled young player party, and who according to you, couldn't make a forceful case to owners to change strategy for almost 15 years into the job. You'd think a guy as smart as Cashman could lay out a good case.

Again I'm just thankful that given the many advantages that Cashman had as GM of the Yankees, an ability to forecast the future was not one of them.

And fwiw, I wouldn't bury the 2020+ Sox quite yet. as there should be a lot of good young homegrown talent on those teams, maybe more than the Ys have home grown.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
Right, that's another reason that Cashman has kept his job so long, as it took quite some time for ownership to realize they should stop interfering and just let him do his job.

If I'm coming off as a dick here, I apologize and that's really not my intention, it's something I try to always be conscious of on this site (although I am naturally a dick, so it's not easy). As I've said a bunch, three years ago it looked like NY was as hopelessly behind BOS for years to come as it seems in reverse now, maybe even more so. Things can flip in a hurry if ownership brings in the right people, funds them as needed (not just player salaries, but behind the scenes) and stays out of the way.
Cherington totally botched the Lester and Lackey deals, and the Trey Ball unforced error or it would still be much closer.

Not sure how the CBA is responsible for the professionalization of amateur sports from age 6 now, which I’m pretty sure is the reason why every pitcher has tommy john surgery and hitters are able to perform in the majors at younger and younger ages.

The CBA sucks for older players too, but the dominance of youth would be true anyway.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
Not sure how the CBA is responsible for the professionalization of amateur sports from age 6 now, which I’m pretty sure is the reason why every pitcher has tommy john surgery and hitters are able to perform in the majors at younger and younger ages.

The CBA sucks for older players too, but the dominance of youth would be true anyway.
We have a whole thread on it (https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/baseball-is-broken-off-the-field-labor-relations-etc.22257/), but the cheapness and options of younger players make them more valuable to teams than they should be, in relation to older players. If you sign a SP to a FA deal and they are shitty but healthy, you have no real choice but to leave them in the rotation. If you promote a SP from the minors and they are shitty, you can send them back down and try someone else. So, yes, the sport would be getting younger anyway, but it is greatly exacerbated by the CBA.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
14,825
The Eastern Suburbs
In my heart of hearts I can't get past the idea that we are the Red Sox, and if there was a small market team entering a phase with their version of Mookie Betts, we would expect our team to be doing what it needed to be active in any and all trade and subsequent long term contract extension for the player.

That we are at a stage without a GM where Mookie's future is a concern worries me, and I can only hope one of the reasons DD is gone is the possibility under his leadership, Mookie would not be here after he hits Free Agency; that this is much a move about looking back at his payroll management and concerns - Sale, Eovaldi among others - as it is the future.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,555
Mid-surburbia
I really, really, REALLY want to know the sourcing behind Gammons' comment that Betts might be more likely to forego FA and/or resign with the Sox at less than top dollar if Ferreria was named as DD's replacement. It seems unlikely to make a material difference, but even if it's 5% true I'd tilt towards naming her the baseball ops chief with Romero as formal GM underneath.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
We have a whole thread on it (https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/baseball-is-broken-off-the-field-labor-relations-etc.22257/), but the cheapness and options of younger players make them more valuable to teams than they should be, in relation to older players. If you sign a SP to a FA deal and they are shitty but healthy, you have no real choice but to leave them in the rotation. If you promote a SP from the minors and they are shitty, you can send them back down and try someone else. So, yes, the sport would be getting younger anyway, but it is greatly exacerbated by the CBA.
I understand your argument on the options issue, I just think the relative weights on the two factors are the opposite of yours. Teams that want to win aren’t going to play Tzu Wei Lin over Brock Bolt next year. Teams that aren’t trying to win are going to pay Tzu Wei Lin $550,000 instead of paying Brock Holt $4 million.

And a team with Bo Bichette is going to play Bo Bichette instead of signing Didi Gregorious.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,199
The wrong side of the bridge....
I understand your argument on the options issue, I just think the relative weights on the two factors are the opposite of yours. Teams that want to win aren’t going to play Tzu Wei Lin over Brock Bolt next year. Teams that aren’t trying to win are going to pay Tzu Wei Lin $550,000 instead of paying Brock Holt $4 million.
The luxury tax makes this a more complicated question than you're implying. (Which I think is exactly what it's supposed to do.) It's true that $3.5M doesn't seem like a lot on a scale of $240M, but when you find yourself at the wrong end of that scale, as the Sox are, needlessly paying $3.5M extra for a marginal improvement (if any) in a bench slot is how you stay at that wrong end.
 

BJBossman

lurker
Dec 6, 2016
209
I understand your argument on the options issue, I just think the relative weights on the two factors are the opposite of yours. Teams that want to win aren’t going to play Tzu Wei Lin over Brock Bolt next year. Teams that aren’t trying to win are going to pay Tzu Wei Lin $550,000 instead of paying Brock Holt $4 million.

And a team with Bo Bichette is going to play Bo Bichette instead of signing Didi Gregorious.
I think how the Sox handle the right side of the infield this winter will tell us alot about what their plan is.

They could easily roll over with Marco and Chavis to try and save money for the pitching staff.

the pedroia injury was really a killer. Not only has 2B been awful without him, but Buttrey would've been a decent piece to add to the bullpen for the next few years.
 

BJBossman

lurker
Dec 6, 2016
209
Yes, but Crawford was a disaster, Adrian’s power was AWOL on a huge contract, Beckett was lousy and a distraction, and Punto was Punto.

Sale’s an injury risk on a huge contract that’s not necessarily going to be an albatross. Mookie’s an MVP caliber player.

So there’s around $55M in payroll for 2020 another team would be taking on, and another $25M or so for the remainder of Sale’s contract. It’s a gamble, but the upside is huge. If Mookie is Mookie, and Sale stays healthy, the two should/could put up 12-15 WAR between them. That might be a big “if” with Sale in the equation, but it’s also a shitload of potential excess value.

Assuming a healthy Sale, Price is a worse pitcher for more money, but he might (maybe) be seen as less risky. If healthy, he’s only a slightly bad overpay, and not a total disaster. He might be moveable with Mookie if the Sox can find a team in full GFIN mode.

Eovaldi is simply less good and a lot cheaper, and on a shorter deal.

I think any of those three are moveable in a Mookie package. The return might not be great.

The question is if the Red Sox would rather trade Mookie for maximum return, or if they’d rather trade him for maximum flexibility? Or maybe they don’t actually want to trade him at all.
If you assume Sale is healthy, he's probably moveable without a Punto trade.

Price could be done in a Greinke-type deal. It's just a matter of how much money the Sox are willing to eat and what they'd want in return.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
11,859
The luxury tax makes this a more complicated question than you're implying. (Which I think is exactly what it's supposed to do.) It's true that $3.5M doesn't seem like a lot on a scale of $240M, but when you find yourself at the wrong end of that scale, as the Sox are, needlessly paying $3.5M extra for a marginal improvement (if any) in a bench slot is how you stay at that wrong end.
I agree. The luxury tax become more of a de facto cap is the reason players like Holt are getting squeezed. That has nothing to do with him being out of options, like our resident Yankee fan is saying. What he’s proposing, allowing teams to option major league veterans on guaranteed contracts, would benefit big market teams who are under the luxury tax limits, teams like the Yankees are right now, by allowing them to assemble a high paid taxi squad in AAA. That might get a few more major leaguers and extra million as their careers wind down, but it would be terrible for competitive balance. Essentially making the Rusnay Castillo situation a norm rather than an aberration.
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,466
Pioneer Valley
I think how the Sox handle the right side of the infield this winter will tell us alot about what their plan is.

They could easily roll over with Marco and Chavis to try and save money for the pitching staff.

the pedroia injury was really a killer. Not only has 2B been awful without him, but Buttrey would've been a decent piece to add to the bullpen for the next few years.
Why not sign BROCKHOLT as second baseman? He makes Pedroia-worthy plays and is hitting over 300. Chavis could platoon, but I thought he was getting pretty good at first base. I think Hernandez is overrated by some here, but maybe it's too early to tell.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,744
Why not sign BROCKHOLT as second baseman? He makes Pedroia-worthy plays and is hitting over 300. Chavis could platoon, but I thought he was getting pretty good at first base. I think Hernandez is overrated by some here, but maybe it's too early to tell.
The way things are going, saving $3.5 million by playing Lin/Hernandez/whoever instead of Holt might be vital to getting the overall payroll in the desired range.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Leaves after the 8th inning
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Why not sign BROCKHOLT as second baseman? He makes Pedroia-worthy plays and is hitting over 300. Chavis could platoon, but I thought he was getting pretty good at first base. I think Hernandez is overrated by some here, but maybe it's too early to tell.
Methinks you have forgotten how Pedroia played the position. Holt is fine, but not in Dustin's league when it comes to defense
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
44,681
I agree. The luxury tax become more of a de facto cap is the reason players like Holt are getting squeezed. That has nothing to do with him being out of options, like our resident Yankee fan is saying. What he’s proposing, allowing teams to option major league veterans on guaranteed contracts, would benefit big market teams who are under the luxury tax limits, teams like the Yankees are right now, by allowing them to assemble a high paid taxi squad in AAA. That might get a few more major leaguers and extra million as their careers wind down, but it would be terrible for competitive balance. Essentially making the Rusnay Castillo situation a norm rather than an aberration.
I'm not suggesting that change in isolation, the main issue is getting younger players paid more while they are earning it, but we shouldn't divert this thread any more.
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,466
Pioneer Valley
Methinks you have forgotten how Pedroia played the position. Holt is fine, but not in Dustin's league when it comes to defense
I haven't forgotten. Pedroia was more consistently wonderful, but on more than one occasion, Holt has made plays that had the guys in the booth comparing him to Pedey. He is better than the cheaper in-house options, in my opinion.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,963
Why not sign BROCKHOLT as second baseman? He makes Pedroia-worthy plays and is hitting over 300. Chavis could platoon, but I thought he was getting pretty good at first base. I think Hernandez is overrated by some here, but maybe it's too early to tell.
Whatever his talent level, Holt, who will be 32, has me pretty convinced that he's a plus-player at 300 PAs and becomes increasingly less so with more playing time.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,770
Maine
Whatever his talent level, Holt, who will be 32, has me pretty convinced that he's a plus-player at 300 PAs and becomes increasingly less so with more playing time.
I think that's the book on him, and part of why I expect him to sign a below market deal to stick around. That, and he's really taken to being in Boston. Living there in the off-season, doing a bunch of stuff with Dana Farber and the Jimmy Fund. I envision him hanging around in much the same way Wakefield did.
 

Manuel Aristides

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2009
36
Several people in this thread suggesting that this is all a beginning of a plan to sell the team. Can we stop with this hot take? It smacks of missing the forest for the tree.

Forbes values the Red Sox at a hair under three billion dollars. Nobody is going to hinge their decision to buy a three billion dollar asset on the specifics of how bloated the contracts on the pitching staff are, or how unpromising the farm system is. All of those things can be resolved within 5 years or so (as the Astros and Cubs have ably proven) and nobody buys a sports team without a 20+ year vision for their ownership. If Henry decides to sell, their will be an absolutely wild bidding war because, even in the fading of the baseball age, The Boston Red Sox are still one of the most iconic brands in sports. It's not about any given player. It's not about players at all: If you swapped all the players on Baltimore and Boston at every level, today, the value of the Red Sox franchise would barely depreciate at all. Fenway Park, Ted Williams, Big Papi: This is what you're buying.

I haven't the slightest idea why it got so bad with DD or what their next move is, but I think we can be relatively confidant that strategic decisions are never being made with an effort to sell in mind. Not because they're too honorable for that, but because they have to know it wouldn't matter.
 
Sep 1, 2019
13
Understood, but wouldn't putting the team in the best possible financial structure (so a 5-year reset wasn't necessary) bring the maximum price? Or is that completely irrelevant in the long-term view?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,587
While the brand matters a lot more than most anything else when it comes to the team's valuation, cash flow matters a lot as well. If the team is committed to paying out large sums in both player salaries and luxury tax penalties for the forseeable future, and if you combine that with a potential drop in TV revenues and other items if the team's performance sags, then buyers will take that into account when making offers.

I don't think Henry is looking to sell, but, if they were, I can see why they would be interested in reducing payroll.