Should the Red Sox Look into Punto Pt. 2?

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
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.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
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.
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.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,908
South Carolina via Dorchestah
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?
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,968
Forbes just estimated Henry's group (including other franchises) at $6.6 billion, if I recall correctly.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,384
Forbes just estimated Henry's group (including other franchises) at $6.6 billion, if I recall correctly.
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.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,908
South Carolina via Dorchestah
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.
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.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
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.
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".
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,908
South Carolina via Dorchestah
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".
Nice of the owners to think of the little guys.

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?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,384
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.
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.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
283
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
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?
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.

If that Dodger package is accurate (and I think it’s about the best the Sox will do) roll the dice. And I’m not sure if I trust a rookie GM (which would be his first trade)with a deal of this magnitude. I know thats petty AF but I don’t know anything about Bloom’s track record and this is a really important decision that could make or break his career.

Hell, when Theo traded Nomar he had 18 months of transactions behind him. And Bloom might trade with his mentor? I’m skeptical.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
Nice of the owners to think of the little guys.
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.

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?
Define "for".
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
2,908
South Carolina via Dorchestah
Define "for".
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.
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: ???
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,418
Answer C: So they can put the best team around Mookie should they have the good fortune to be the ones paying him $400 million in 2021 and beyond.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,263
Maine
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.
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.

Doing it again in 2019 when the team was not on track to win the division and failed to make the playoffs (so no extra revenue), and the resulting draft position/penalty would be going from 17 to 27 and a loss of roughly $1M in bonus pool money, made no sense at all. (I'm not sure they did exceed $40M+ over the cap)

It's also understandable that as those penalties continue to escalate, they want to get under the cap and reset the penalties. It does not and should not be at the expense of trading Mookie Betts, however. Trade Price, trade JBJ, trade JDM, whatever works. Trading Mookie does not have to happen and frankly shouldn't.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Forbes just estimated Henry's group (including other franchises) at $6.6 billion, if I recall correctly.
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?

Also, Betts could easily be asking for Harper’s contract length at Cole’s AAV. That’s almost 9% of that value. In a world where you need at least 7 above average regulars, 3 above average starting pitchers, and 3 above average relievers to compete, does it make sense to put all those eggs in that one basket?

When you’re talking that much money for that long, you have to go back and look at baseline probabilities of getting nothing at all for multiple years of the contract. Imagine Dustin Pedroia’s situation now, at 2.5X his AAV.

The bottom line is that the economics of baseball make having a superstar the worst thing you can have on your franchise. The Angels went all out for Pujols and Trout. And they haven’t made the playoffs since.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
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: ???
Answer C: We don't know, and John Henry does. Which I suppose is sort of a grown-up version of Answer A.

I don't understand the intricacies of running any baseball franchise as a business operation, never mind this franchise in particular, anywhere near well enough to be in a position to judge whether Henry is exercising reasonable prudence in insisting on getting below the tax limit this winter (if he is, in fact, doing that). And I am extremely skeptical that anyone else on this board understands the Sox's finances that well either, though I'm sure most of you understand them better than I do.

Regardless, I don't think it's either fruitful or necessary to judge the reasons why Henry wants to trim payroll now. It is, in every sense, not my business. As a fan, I would feel justified in getting into red-ass mode about it only if I thought it was evidence that Henry doesn't care about putting a winning team on the field and is strictly using the franchise as a cash cow or a vanity investment. Which, given the events of the past 18 years, is beyond ridiculous. Yeah, they made a mistake extending Eovaldi and Sale. Shit happens.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
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.

This is actually ingenious and I’m surprised no one has tried it yet scale. It doesn’t help you get under the cap in the year you do it, but it could be helpful in building a below-cap roster in the future.

Suppose they traded Betts’ and subsidized $10 million to the A’s or Rays to make it worth them parting with prospects the equivalent value as the Glebar Torres / Chapman trade or the Frazier / Miller trade. Then you can plug those prospects in cheaply for 2021-2025 to make a $35 million a year free agent offer to Mookie feasible.

You could do it on a lesser scale by trading Bradley to somebody and eating the whole $10 million if they give you $17 million in prospect value back (the $10 million cash and $7 million for Bradley’s on field performance.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,418
Per Rob Bradford, "the Red Sox are not actively shopping Mookie Betts"

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.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
14,115
Pittsburgh, PA
Let me have one more season with the best Sox outfielder since Yaz.
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.

I'm going to be devastated if the guy is traded for some Padres prospects and salary relief. I bet your kids will be, and I bet you would have been if Yaz was traded in 1967. If he walks in 2021, fine, but let me enjoy this guy a little longer.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,327
deep inside Guido territory
Morosi

"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.
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.

 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
28,638
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.

My minimum for Price/Betts is Bellinger+prospect(s) or Buehler plus Pederson plus prospect(s)
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,327
deep inside Guido territory
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.
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.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,004
Santa Monica, CA
I understand the need/desire on the part of the owners to reset the luxury tax.

But on a related note, ticket prices at Fenway have gone up about 30% in the last decade. So just go ahead and "reset" those, too. Then I'm on board.
 

Kramerica Industries

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,008
nh
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.
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
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
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
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.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
44,327
deep inside Guido territory
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.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Mookie is a top 5 player in baseball.
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.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
21,008
I hope this is somewhat bullshit. not insistent on Lux? We need a long-term 2B badly, you do not back down from that.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,897
I hope this is somewhat bullshit. not insistent on Lux? We need a long-term 2B badly, you do not back down from that.
LA isn't moving Lux for anyone, it seems, they love him. They wouldn't include him for two years of Lindor either.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,193
Rogers Park
Mookie is a top 5 player in baseball.
Yes, and it's one year of Mookie at $30m instead of 6 years of May for ~$25m.

I don't think we should trade Betts for basically all the reasons people are saying, but it isn't at all crazy to trade him for a package built around Dustin May, especially if LA is taking a ton of money off our books as the rumors seem to suggest. May is 22, and pitched well in the National League last season after cruising through the high minors. He throws 97 with a cutter at 93.

Basically, Betts is +$30m in surplus value, and Price might be around -$20. May is worth considerably more than that, but I think we'd all agree LA should do an objectively lopsided trade like that. Adding Betts and Price makes them heavy favorites for the NL pennant, and they haven't won a title since the 1980s.