He is younger than Price but he is also the least durable "front line" starter signed in recent memory. I would think that deal helps the Sox move Price a little bit but not as much as it would on the surface. Price has the elbow and wrist issues so it's not like he's Porcello in the durability department either. Boston will still have to eat some money for a decent return, however the chances of them getting a decent return probably just went up a tick.Does Hyun-Jin Ryu getting 4/80 from the Jays moot the premise of this thread?
There are obviously examples of teams that, for whatever reason, paid a free agent far more than anyone else was willing to pay. But if this isn’t one of those cases, and 4/80 is the going rate for a player like Ryu, it would seem that the Sox could move the 3/96 left on Price’s contract with a modest subsidy at most, and certainly wouldn’t need to staple Mookie to him to make it happen.
Is your friend John Henry?Once the ownership group value gets over $6 Billion, does that make all of the draft penalties for going over the top limit go away?
Asking for a friend.
Somehow I have trouble getting excited about the notion that increasing the proportion of players on the Sox' roster making half a million a year, as opposed to $30 million a year, qualifies as "The Man's work".Draft slotting is a canard so MLB can keep as much of the fan-generated dough as possible away from the players who deserve it. Don't do The Man's work for him, shaggydog.
Nice of the owners to think of the little guys.Somehow I have trouble getting excited about the notion that increasing the proportion of players on the Sox' roster making half a million a year, as opposed to $30 million a year, qualifies as "The Man's work".
There is also the draft pool money being reduced which can be significant in affecting the players you can draft and sign for over-slot amounts, etc. We've gone through this argument before. And I don't see any reason why the value of the other teams this guy owns should matter in the conversation. There is no magic number where the penalties to competitiveness don't matter. I think this is like people who think the NFL cap is just an excuse for cheap owners and you can go over any time you feel like it, because such and such a team did it.Is your friend John Henry?
A team with the resources of this franchise should be able to overcome the draft slotting penalties. Last year the Sox were "supposed" to pick at #33. They took a ten-spot hit for being over the tax and picked at #43. Their subsequent picks were unaffected (so second round was #69, third round #107, fourth round #137, etc).
For the curious, #33 was a high school pitcher named Brennan Malone. Too early to tell if he's got a future for the D-backs.
Down at 43, the Sox took an infielder named Cannon Cameron. Too early to tell if he's got a future for the Red Sox.
Neither you nor I know if the Sox were actually penalized by draft slotting in 2019. In ten years we'll know. I would hope a team with the resources of the Red Sox would have so many advantages in scouting, facilities, nutritionists, specialized instructors, and medical support that they can overcome the slotting issue.
I am willing to take the chance that Brennan Malone will make it as a valuable bullpen arm and we'll have to settle for Cannon Cameron topping out as backup SS for the WooSox in order to enjoy Mookie Betts right now. We may both be dead by the time the Sox are able to measure the infinitesimal competitive disadvantage of #33 vs #43.
Draft slotting is a canard so MLB can keep as much of the fan-generated dough as possible away from the players who deserve it. Don't do The Man's work for him, shaggydog.
Every word of this is the truth. I am shocked that people are so blasé about trading Betts just so we get “something” for him.I lived through Lynn for Renko, Rudi and Tanana. It was bullshit then and this is bullshit now.
Betts is a transcendent talent, a guy your build around, the type you keep even if you're determined to tear down the rest of the team to get under an imaginary salary line. I can't understand the Henry apologists on this board who accept that a franchise worth 5.2 billion dollars must reduce payroll. There is no must.
Let me have one more season with the best Sox outfielder since Yaz. Then offer him Trout money. If he walks after that, so be it. But to trade him now, so we can cherish some AA arm and a middle reliever and some okayish OF? I value my (potentially last) 162 games of Mookie in a Sox uniform more than I value getting to know Alex Verdugo and the pu pu platter with which he'd be packaged.
What is Verdugo to me or me to Verdugo?
Nobody said the owners are thinking of the little guys. But wanting more players to be making tens of millions is not "thinking of the little guys" either, and it's ridiculous to pretend that it is.Nice of the owners to think of the little guys.
Define "for".Trading Mookie right now is all about putting an lesser team on the field in 2020 so that the Sox can be worth 6.7 billion instead of 6.6 billion. Why is anyone for this?
Emphasis added.So this is going to make me a very hated person here. It makes me hate myself. But it occurs to me that one quick, simple way for the Sox to make a deal with the Dodgers that would drastically reduce our payroll while making us not that much worse a team, at least for the medium term, is a deal built around Bogaerts for Lux.
It's a deal that makes sense for both teams because of the two, Bogaerts is the one I pick if my goal is to win a championship in 2020; but obviously, Lux is the one I pick if my goal is to get under the tax limit in 2020. The downside for the Dodgers is the long-term contract; but that's an acceptabe risk because it's a very reasonable contract. The downside for the Sox is the risk that Lux doesn't pan out; but that's an acceptable risk because almost nobody seems to think that a plausible scenario.
I suspect that deal would pretty much work one-up, or with very minor sweetening.
Ugh. I do indeed hate myself.
Deciding to go over the threshold in the midst of the winningest season in team history, resulting in a World Championship, made all kinds of sense. Much of the taxes paid were probably a wash with the added playoff revenue. The draft penalty cost them 10 slots (from 33 to 43) and losing roughly $500K in bonus pool money. Again, not the end of the world.Many of us thought that the Sox wouldn’t go past the CBT threshold and reduce their draft slot in 2018. Then they did, with the reasoning being that the Sox’s draft team wasn’t seeing a significant loss of value in those picks, because the players they wanted were still there. It also doesn’t look like the difference has affected who they sign in these slots. I think the bottom line is that fungibility of draft talent (outside of the first few elite guys), coupled with the suppression of negotiating leverage/ contracts for draftees enacted by the slotting system has served to make sure the cost of these penalties is less than they would be under previous CBAs.
If the team was able to accept the draft talent penalties in 2018, I have a hard time swallowing that they’re the reason to slash payroll now; this just looks like a way to save the team money, and the difference is just how much money they’ll make.
It looks to me like the team is trying to add elite talent at below market rates where it can; the Sale and Bogarts contracts look really good in light of the current FA market inflation, and I can see not wanting to pay Mookie $40M/yr for 10+ years out of his prime, but selling the moves as forced cost cutting looks disingenuous at best.
Why is this relevant? This includes the value of the soccer team and the NASCAR franchise. Would you be ok if fans of the soccer team demanded that Henry use the Red Sox as collateral to buy a player for them?Forbes just estimated Henry's group (including other franchises) at $6.6 billion, if I recall correctly.
Answer C: We don't know, and John Henry does. Which I suppose is sort of a grown-up version of Answer A.Emphasis added.
Why do the Red Sox need to "drastically reduce" their payroll?
Answer A: It is John Henry's money and he has a right to it! Scrooge McDuck vaults don't fill themselves and you should be grateful for the rings.
Answer B: Without the ability to over-slot in the draft the Sox are doomed.
Answer C: ???
Well, in theory an ownership group could get around the draft penalties by spending money to get prospects from other teams. For example, they could go out and sign a bunch of better than average relievers and then trade one of them with a mostly subsidized salary to a team for a prospect. In theory that could work. Of course, it may make it harder to sign those relievers if they knew they were likely to be traded with little control of where they go. Other teams might avoid dealing with the Sox due to a sentiment that they were skirting the luxury tax. It would get expensive fast. But it could, at least theoretically, be done.
According to major league sources, this is the reality when it comes to how Chaim Bloom and Co. are approaching the situation involving their star outfielder this offseason.
This does not mean the Red Sox aren't listening to offers regarding Betts -- who has one year left on his current contract and figures to cost the team between $27-30 million in arbitration for 2020 -- which is why there have been rumblings about proposed deals and interest from around the majors. This isn't Dave Dombrowski definitively saying the Red Sox aren't entertaining offers for Eduardo Rodriguez, as the former President of Baseball Operations once declared.
But the notion that part of the Red Sox' Plan A when it comes to getting below the $208 million luxury tax threshold involves trading Betts doesn't appear to be accurate.
I wholeheartedly agreed with every word of your post and subsequent posts, but this is nonsense. Mookie's the best Sox outfielder since Ted Williams.Let me have one more season with the best Sox outfielder since Yaz.
If the best thing out of a Betts/Price trade is Dustin May or Tony Gonsolin and salary relief, count me out. My original proposal of Betts/Price for Pollack/Muncy/top prospect would be the minimum."The possibility of Francisco Lindor joining the Dodgers has tantalized the baseball industry for the past few months, as observers wonder how emotionally -- or logically -- the Dodgers will respond to their latest October disappointment.
But as the New Year begins, sources say discussions between the Dodgers and Indians remain in roughly the same place they’ve been throughout the offseason: The Indians want infielder Gavin Lux to be part of the Lindor trade, and the Dodgers have refused to include him in any offer for Lindor alone.
As a result, sources say the Dodgers’ negotiations with the Red Sox about acquiring Mookie Betts have become at least as frequent -- and perhaps even more involved -- than their talks with the Indians about Lindor.
The Dodgers’ conversations with the Red Sox are said to be more dynamic than the Dodgers-Indians talks, because Boston appears less insistent on Lux. Also, there exists a very real possibility that a Dodgers-Red Sox deal would include multiple players heading to Los Angeles.
Along with the Dodgers’ desire for an impactful right-handed bat, they would like to add a proven starting pitcher to replace some of the 42 starts they lost with the free-agent departures of Hyun-Jin Ryu and Rich Hill. Boston left-hander David Price, who pitched for Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman in Tampa Bay, is one such possibility.
Price is owed $96 million over the next three seasons. The Red Sox would like to trim that sum from their current and future obligations -- so much so that they may find suitable value in a trade with the Dodgers that does not include Lux.
Still, new Red Sox chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom is unlikely to part with a former MVP (Betts) and a former Cy Young Award winner (Price) in his first major move if salary relief is the only benefit. Boston likely would ask that one young starting pitcher, Dustin May or Tony Gonsolin, be part of the trade.
My minimum for Price/Betts is Bellinger+prospect(s) or Buehler plus Pederson plus prospect(s)Morosi
If the best thing out of a Betts/Price trade is Dustin May or Tony Gonsolin and salary relief, count me out. My original proposal of Betts/Price for Pollack/Muncy/top prospect would be the minimum.
the Dodgers will respond to their latest October disappointment. But as the New Year begins, sources say discussions between the Dodgers and Indianswww.mlb.com
I would not be OK as a Red Sox fan trading Mookie Betts for prospects. Betts is a player you break the bank for. Getting major league talent back for him plus prospects would be a must. If not, roll the dice, let him go to FA, and be the highest bidder.Who won't commit to your team and you're not improving for the season in which you'd control him while being blown away by more serious contenders.
Does your opinion change if you know he doesn’t want to sign here even if they are the highest bidder? It’s possible we don’t have the whole storyI would not be OK as a Red Sox fan trading Mookie Betts for prospects. Betts is a player you break the bank for. Getting major league talent back for him plus prospects would be a must. If not, roll the dice, let him go to FA, and be the highest bidder.
Depends what you'd like to do and how you view the chances of winning a title in 2020. If you feel like this team will only be a wild card contender and get bounced in the play in game then obviously you make the deal. Still, its nuts to think its coming to this.Does your opinion change if you know he doesn’t want to sign here even if they are the highest bidder? It’s possible we don’t have the whole story
Unless you think he’s lying, his public comments haven’t given the idea he’s out the door no matter what. After raising ticket prices yearly, trading the franchise player for salary cap reasons is utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face to the fan base who pays those prices.Does your opinion change if you know he doesn’t want to sign here even if they are the highest bidder? It’s possible we don’t have the whole story
I really like May but if the Sox feel like they can contend then you need to keep Mookie. Its still kind of nuts to me that you have a young core of Xander Devers and Benny and you're looking to potentially rebuild or bridge year this thing.
Yes, and it's one year of Mookie at $30m instead of 6 years of May for ~$25m.