Sox owners want to be under cap in '20

Ford Frick's Asterisk

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
563
Do 3 years 3.5 aav deals even exist? Players who are only worth that much money aren't worth committing to long term. He's either a utility guy who will play on a string of one year deals or a stop-gap/part-time starter who gets 1 year + an option.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
If Betts needs to be traded, and the goal is to shed salary, do you think there is a team who would take him, plus one of our big dollar pitchers? Not sure the return would be great, but it would reset the balance sheet quickly.
It doesn't seem like there are many teams that would take on that much salary/risk.
Betts and Price to the Dodgers for Buehler and Pollock.

Betts: Obviously the stud of the deal. 2nd best player in baseball. Just 27. Already an MVP. Made $20m this year, due for raise through arb for 2020. Then will obviously get a huge FA deal for 2021 and beyond.

Price: Very expensive ($32m/yr) through 2022, but still a solid starting pitcher (when healthy) and would do well in the NL. Career inter-league stats of: 15-12, 3.42 era, 1.19 whip, 9.4 k/9.

Buehler: Young stud pitcher making minimum for years. Obviously the key guy the Sox would be getting back.

Pollock: Serviceable OF (108 ops+ the last two seasons), making $15m, $18m, and $13m the next three seasons (plus $10m player option for 2023).

If we assume that Betts ends up getting something like 9/315 ($35m per) on top of $25m in arbitration for 2020, then the Dodgers would be adding:

2020: $42m
2021: $49m
2022: $54m

I assume they'd have some big money coming off the books. Honestly, that team would be, I think, significantly better for the Dodgers with that trade. The delta between Betts and Pollock is greater than the delta between a healthy Price and Buehler.

bWAR numbers for these four players from 2018-2019:

Name: 2018, 2019 = total
Betts: 10.9, 6.8 = 17.7
Price: 4.4, 1.8 = 6.2
Buehler: 3.4, 2.2 = 5.6
Pollock: 2.5, 0.2 = 2.7

So even if you just go by 2019 numbers (which includes a "down" year for Betts and an injured Price), the Dodgers give up 2.4 bWAR and receive 8.6 bWAR, an improvement of 6.2 bWAR. That's worth $42 million.

Now is this a pipe dream? Of course, as are almost all trade ideas presented on SoSH. But to answer the question of whether a team would possibly take on Betts plus a high-priced starting pitcher, this is one possible scenario. The benefit for the Sox is that they get a useful OF, a total stud young pitcher on the cheap for years, and shed a ton of payroll.

Not that I want to trade Betts, of course. Just trying to answer the question.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,840
I have no idea why the Dodgers would be giving up Buehler in this deal. Betts has one year of control at around $30m. Price is extremely expensive and often injured. Then you have Buehler, who you acknowledge is a stud, under team control for 5 more years.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,826
Your proposal is that the Dodgers are going to trade their future #1 starter, whom they have under control through 2023, for a very highly-paid starter with chronic wrist issues and a one-year rental at a position where they are have plenty of talent already. This seems extremely unlikely.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Betts and Price to the Dodgers for Buehler and Pollock.
The problem with this is that it assumes the Dodgers can extend Mookie. Why would we assume that, unless we think that Mookie's refusal to sign an extension with the Sox represents a specific rejection of this franchise (which he has said it doesn't, and I see no reason not to believe him). If he's telling the truth, and he's determined to go to free agency no matter what, then he's a one-year rental. So then this deal basically is trading a one-year superstar rental for a cost-controlled stud kid pitcher (leaving the other leg out for the moment, which I think we can).

That trade simulator app agrees with me, FWIW, and thinks this trade is comically lopsided, with the Sox giving up -29.8 and getting 70.8.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
I am taking them at their latest word that with respect to 208M "like to" doesn't mean "have to no matter the impact on the product." As people have said, JD is the wild card here. If he opts in, they wont get under 208. There is no way that this ownership is going to be intentionally tearing down a team that has JD, Betts, Bogaerts, and Devers UNLESS two of Price, Sale and Eovaldi are unable to play next year (in which case they'll suck even if they add 1927 Ruth and Gehrig to the lineup).

Betts has made it clear that he's going to be a FA. I think he plays with the Sox in 2020.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
You guys are correct. This deal won't happen for a ton of reasons, as I stated in the previous post. Just like nearly every other trade idea put out there. It's just that someone wondered whether a team would trade for Betts AND one of the Sox' high priced starting pitchers (i.e., Price or Sale) and this is the kind of deal that would have to happen. I mean, based even on 2019 bWAR, the Dodgers get better. Considerably better. Giving up Buehler would be the price to pay for that, and yes of course the assumption is that they somehow feel that by trading for Betts, they also would be the team that lands him in free agency (or persuades him to sign an extension worth about what he'd get in free agency).

Put it this way: I don't see why a team would trade for Betts AND Price or Sale, but if someone were to do it, it'd have to be a team like the Dodgers with an asset like Buehler that the Sox could get in return. The Sox can't deal Betts and Price and get a bucket of balls in return. I don't care what the cost savings would be...that would be absurd.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
You guys are correct. This deal won't happen for a ton of reasons, as I stated in the previous post. Just like nearly every other trade idea put out there. It's just that someone wondered whether a team would trade for Betts AND one of the Sox' high priced starting pitchers (i.e., Price or Sale) and this is the kind of deal that would have to happen. I mean, based even on 2019 bWAR, the Dodgers get better. Considerably better. Giving up Buehler would be the price to pay for that, and yes of course the assumption is that they somehow feel that by trading for Betts, they also would be the team that lands him in free agency (or persuades him to sign an extension worth about what he'd get in free agency).

Put it this way: I don't see why a team would trade for Betts AND Price or Sale, but if someone were to do it, it'd have to be a team like the Dodgers with an asset like Buehler that the Sox could get in return. The Sox can't deal Betts and Price and get a bucket of balls in return. I don't care what the cost savings would be...that would be absurd.
If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.
I don't know...would the Dodgers do that deal if the Sox don't throw in Chris Owings, a.k.a. the 2019 version of Nick Punto?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,941
Other than a salary dump for the Sox, It's hard to imagine any trade of Betts being done unless the acquiring team has an "understanding" with the Betts camp about a long-term contract.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.
Here's what confuses me. In the starting pitching thread (or other threads where starting pitching is discussed), when I bring up Price as a disappointment, people reply that Price has been the same guy he's pretty much always been. Solid starter. Last two years he's put up 6.2 bWAR. And as others have mentioned, on the FA market (which was the contract he signed), that's worth about $9m per WAR. That would mean that the last two years, in terms of free agent dollars, he's "earned" $55.8 million, just under what he got paid for those two years. The argument has been that he's been good.

So the Dodgers, in this fanciful scenario, are getting the 2nd best player in baseball who is "worth" (in FA dollars) upwards of like $63 million a year (at $9m x 7 WAR) plus a starting pitcher who helped propel the Sox to a WS championship and who has been "worth" just about what his salary would command on the FA market.

It can't be true at the same time that he's been this good starting pitcher essentially worth his contract AND that he's an oft-injured waste of money that a contending team should only acquire as a salary dump for the Sox.

Anyway, I don't see the Sox unloading Betts and Price to a team only to get a few lottery tickets in return. I mean when the Yankees traded away 2 months of Chapman to the Cubs, they got 4 prospects, including Torres and Warren. Torres, of course, is amazing, and Warren has been a very good reliever. Betts is WAY more valuable than Chapman, and Betts has a full year to go, not 2 months. Plus throwing in Price as well?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
Here's what confuses me. In the starting pitching thread (or other threads where starting pitching is discussed), when I bring up Price as a disappointment, people reply that Price has been the same guy he's pretty much always been. Solid starter. Last two years he's put up 6.2 bWAR. And as others have mentioned, on the FA market (which was the contract he signed), that's worth about $9m per WAR. That would mean that the last two years, in terms of free agent dollars, he's "earned" $55.8 million, just under what he got paid for those two years. The argument has been that he's been good.

So the Dodgers, in this fanciful scenario, are getting the 2nd best player in baseball who is "worth" (in FA dollars) upwards of like $63 million a year (at $9m x 7 WAR) plus a starting pitcher who helped propel the Sox to a WS championship and who has been "worth" just about what his salary would command on the FA market.

It can't be true at the same time that he's been this good starting pitcher essentially worth his contract AND that he's an oft-injured waste of money that a contending team should only acquire as a salary dump for the Sox.

Anyway, I don't see the Sox unloading Betts and Price to a team only to get a few lottery tickets in return. I mean when the Yankees traded away 2 months of Chapman to the Cubs, they got 4 prospects, including Torres and Warren. Torres, of course, is amazing, and Warren has been a very good reliever. Betts is WAY more valuable than Chapman, and Betts has a full year to go, not 2 months. Plus throwing in Price as well?
I see your point. But as of now, both pitchers especially Sale, are damaged goods. Price has had 2 of the last 3 seasons cut short. Sale the last 2. But even if its more than the Punto return, it's not going to approach the Chapman return, which itself, might haver been a desperation-aided overpay by the Cubs.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
Anyway, I don't see the Sox unloading Betts and Price to a team only to get a few lottery tickets in return. I mean when the Yankees traded away 2 months of Chapman to the Cubs, they got 4 prospects, including Torres and Warren. Torres, of course, is amazing, and Warren has been a very good reliever. Betts is WAY more valuable than Chapman, and Betts has a full year to go, not 2 months. Plus throwing in Price as well?
The financial landscape has changed quite a bit in the last four years. Prospects have more value (whether that's true or not, that's the way teams operate). Also, the Cubs were in a rather unique position of both being desperate to "break the curse" and having an extremely deep well of prospects to trade. Is there a team that fits that same bill for whom Betts would represent the same sort of "final piece of the puzzle" that Chapman did for the Cubs? Because that's likely the only scenario in which Betts yields a four prospect package with a Gleyber Torres level headliner. Chapman also only cost ~$4M as a rental versus $25-30M for Betts. That's a factor, too.

I have to say that the biggest downside to the Punto trade is that it raised and continues to raise the hopes of fans who think it's the sort of thing that can be repeated. That was a once in a lifetime "get out of jail free" card that the Dodgers handed the Red Sox, fueled by a new ownership group desperate to make a big splash. The chances of all the necessary factors coming together again to bail the Red Sox out of their current financial pickle with minimal pain and suffering are astronomical.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
12,896
I have to say that the biggest downside to the Punto trade is that it raised and continues to raise the hopes of Red Sox owners who think it's the sort of thing that can be repeated. That was a once in a lifetime "get out of jail free" card that the Dodgers handed the Red Sox, fueled by a new ownership group desperate to make a big splash. The chances of all the necessary factors coming together again to bail the Red Sox out of their current financial pickle with minimal pain and suffering are astronomical.
Fixed that for you.

Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,959
Twin Cities
Fixed that for you.

Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.

Boston has been more profligate than prudent. If they can't trim payroll (as the MFYs and Dodgers did in the past couple of years), remain in the top 5 of spending, and still contend, then they're in the wrong freakin' business.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
The financial landscape has changed quite a bit in the last four years. Prospects have more value (whether that's true or not, that's the way teams operate). Also, the Cubs were in a rather unique position of both being desperate to "break the curse" and having an extremely deep well of prospects to trade. Is there a team that fits that same bill for whom Betts would represent the same sort of "final piece of the puzzle" that Chapman did for the Cubs? Because that's likely the only scenario in which Betts yields a four prospect package with a Gleyber Torres level headliner. Chapman also only cost ~$4M as a rental versus $25-30M for Betts. That's a factor, too.

I have to say that the biggest downside to the Punto trade is that it raised and continues to raise the hopes of fans who think it's the sort of thing that can be repeated. That was a once in a lifetime "get out of jail free" card that the Dodgers handed the Red Sox, fueled by a new ownership group desperate to make a big splash. The chances of all the necessary factors coming together again to bail the Red Sox out of their current financial pickle with minimal pain and suffering are astronomical.
I hear you. But it just makes no sense to me at all intuitively that two months of a closer would get a better return than a full year of the second best player on the planet.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
Fixed that for you.

Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
No, I wasn't referring to ownership. I don't think they believe that Punto trades are easy at all.

It's fans that think that Punto trades not only are easy to pull off, but also can be used to both shed payroll and improve the overall talent in one fell swoop. Even the Punto trade itself didn't do that. It took not only the improbable trade coming together in the first place, but also using the savings to sign a bunch of free agents and make a couple trades that all hit the jackpot in the following season.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
12,896
Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.

Boston has been more profligate than prudent. If they can't trim payroll (as the MFYs and Dodgers did in the past couple of years), remain in the top 5 of spending, and still contend, then they're in the wrong freakin' business.
The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.

I mean we could just let all free agents walk and try to fill every hole with minimum salary players. That might get us under the threshold but I highly doubt that we would be contending if we did that.

They probably should have been more efficient in recent offseasons, but that did not seem to be the plan 8 or so months ago when they gave out big money to Sale, Bogaerts and Eovaldi. Now it is-- okay good, but this change in direction doesn't remove the problem of the payroll that's already committed. The time to cut a bunch of money off the 2020 payroll was last offseason, but they added to it instead.

Being smarter and more efficient going forward is necessary, but that alone won't carve $30 million off the payroll this offseason.


No, I wasn't referring to ownership. I don't think they believe that Punto trades are easy at all.

It's fans that think that Punto trades not only are easy to pull off, but also can be used to both shed payroll and improve the overall talent in one fell swoop. Even the Punto trade itself didn't do that. It took not only the improbable trade coming together in the first place, but also using the savings to sign a bunch of free agents and make a couple trades that all hit the jackpot in the following season.
Fans are trying to come up with "Punto trades" because ownership has announced that they want to try to shed a ton of money this offseason but still plan on contending. That seems really unlikely, and no one I've seen has come up with any sort of convincing scenario where we can do both right now.

Ownership's announced strategy is confusing and contradictory. Fans are just trying to figure out some way that it could work. We aren't finding any, because it's really really unlikely to work unless other teams miraculously take our bad contracts.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.

I mean we could just let all free agents walk and try to fill every hole with minimum salary players. That might get us under the threshold but I highly doubt that we would be contending if we did that.

They probably should have been more efficient in recent offseasons, but that did not seem to be the plan 8 or so months ago when they gave out big money to Sale, Bogaerts and Eovaldi. Now it is-- okay good, but this change in direction doesn't remove the problem of the payroll that's already committed. The time to cut a bunch of money off the 2020 payroll was last offseason, but they added to it instead.

Being smarter and more efficient going forward is necessary, but that alone won't carve $30 million off the payroll this offseason.




Fans are trying to come up with "Punto trades" because ownership has announced that they want to try to shed a ton of money this offseason but still plan on contending. That seems really unlikely, and no one I've seen has come up with any sort of convincing scenario where we can do both right now.

Ownership's announced strategy is confusing and contradictory. Fans are just trying to figure out some way that it could work. We aren't finding any, because it's really really unlikely to work unless other teams miraculously take our bad contracts.
They can shed money. Just not enough to get below 208M.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,161
Oregon
Ownership's announced strategy is confusing and contradictory. Fans are just trying to figure out some way that it could work. We aren't finding any, because it's really really unlikely to work unless other teams miraculously take our bad contracts.
That's the key phrase right there. Ownership knows they can't tell fans the truth in this scenario -- that they want to slash payroll and are willing to accept that it means the team won't be as competitive as it has been in recent years -- because they can't risk the P.R. backlash (if they even care about that).

So, they announce that they want to do something that, on its face, is improbable at best ... and it kicks the can of inevitability down the road.

Maybe, and it's a big maybe, someone would be willing to take leveraged Price deal. But after the past couple of seasons, no one is touching that Sale extension or the Eovaldi contract.

If Martinez opts out, they have a shot at keeping Mookie once he hits free agency. But more than likely they'll be outbid ... given their stance.

Trying to make the "announced strategy" make sense is really a fool's errand ... because it simply can't be the actual strategy
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,959
Twin Cities
The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.
Sure it's hard, but not impossible. We talk about the Punto trade being eons ago but overlook the fact that LA pulled off its own Punto trade in 2018, moving A-Gon/Kazmir/McCarthy for the warm corpse of Kemp. They saved $8M total and, by spreading their cost over Kemp's two years v. the one year of each of their outgoing guys, knocked about $30M off their LT number. Smart. If the Sox focus on accounting more than cheap talent acquisition, they can move Price and JBJ, save money, and still likely fill a hole by taking back a long but lower-$ contract.
 

Dewey'sCannon

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
613
Maryland
If JD opts out, trade JBJ and let their FAs walk, they have a reasonable chance to get under $208 and a reasonable chance to be competitive, depending on the health of their SPs. But if JS doesn't opt out, they would have to trade JBJ, lets and FAs walk AND make a Punto-type deal involving one or more of the SPs, which is what Sam Kennedy probably means when he says it would be "difficult" to get under 208 with both JD and Mookie (and I don't think they really have any intention of trading Mookie). And if they make that Punto-type deal, that also probably kills any chance at competitiveness in 2020 because of the resulting holes in the pitching staff. Which is maybe why they are leaving themselves wiggle room on the 208 (a goal not a mandate).

So I think they are really hoping that JD opts out.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.

Boston has been more profligate than prudent. If they can't trim payroll (as the MFYs and Dodgers did in the past couple of years), remain in the top 5 of spending, and still contend, then they're in the wrong freakin' business.
That's great advice for the long haul, but it doesn't help solve the specific problem of trimming $30M this winter.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
4,983
Is it remotely possible that the desire to get under the luxury tax has anything to do with a desire to start prepping for a sale of the team? JWH has owned the team for over 15 years now and isn't getting any younger. With Lucchino already gone, is it possible Henry is thinking of getting out of the baseball game (in Boston, anyway) and moving on to retirement as a sports owner? Or do we expect him to own the team until he dies and leaves it to his young wife (like Rachel Phelps in Major League, minus the showgirl background)? At some point there has to be an exit strategy for he and Werner, right? Is it possible that the comment about wanting to get under the luxury tax is a warning sign? I don't recall many times in the past where Henry, et al, have opined about the luxury tax being an issue for team construction, even when a high-priced team underperformed.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,441
New York City
So I think they are really hoping that JD opts out.
Wouldn’t the ideal situation be that JD opts in and then they trade him? I assume they couldn’t get much back and would have to find an AL team that needs a DH and has the financial ability to pay him (or an NL team stupid enough to try him in the OF full time), but if they could find a trading partner they’d at least be getting something back, as opposed to an opt-out where they get nothing.
 

Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Is it remotely possible that the desire to get under the luxury tax has anything to do with a desire to start prepping for a sale of the team? JWH has owned the team for over 15 years now and isn't getting any younger. With Lucchino already gone, is it possible Henry is thinking of getting out of the baseball game (in Boston, anyway) and moving on to retirement as a sports owner? Or do we expect him to own the team until he dies and leaves it to his young wife (like Rachel Phelps in Major League, minus the showgirl background)? At some point there has to be an exit strategy for he and Werner, right? Is it possible that the comment about wanting to get under the luxury tax is a warning sign? I don't recall many times in the past where Henry, et al, have opined about the luxury tax being an issue for team construction, even when a high-priced team underperformed.
What's the correlation between the luxury tax threshold and a potential sale of the team? Do you really think that the bidding for the Boston Freaking Red Sox is going to take a hit because the 2020 payroll is at $220 million?
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,583
What about Price and Benintendi to the Angels for Justin Upton and Brian Goodwin? That might work for both teams. The Angels needed pitching anyway but desperately do after Skaggs.

Upton ($21.2 AAV) might have to DH at this point, but the Angels don’t have the luxury of putting him there with Pujols and Ohtani. He had a down year from knee injuries but I’d bet he rebounds at the plate in 2020, and he’d make a decent replacement if JDM goes or slot into left if he stays. Goodwin can play all over the outfield and would be a fine center fielder on a team that didn’t employ Mike Trout. The Sox are in no state to trade pitching but this shaves close to $10m in luxury tax payroll.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,083
Is it remotely possible that the desire to get under the luxury tax has anything to do with a desire to start prepping for a sale of the team? JWH has owned the team for over 15 years now and isn't getting any younger. With Lucchino already gone, is it possible Henry is thinking of getting out of the baseball game (in Boston, anyway) and moving on to retirement as a sports owner? Or do we expect him to own the team until he dies and leaves it to his young wife (like Rachel Phelps in Major League, minus the showgirl background)? At some point there has to be an exit strategy for he and Werner, right? Is it possible that the comment about wanting to get under the luxury tax is a warning sign? I don't recall many times in the past where Henry, et al, have opined about the luxury tax being an issue for team construction, even when a high-priced team underperformed.
He also owns Liverpool, 50% of a NASCAR team, and NESN. Do you think they suddenly want to get out of the sports biz entirely, or just Baseball? If he wants to sell all of it, who has the money to buy all of that, plus the associated real estate (Anfield, Fenway)?
 

budcrew08

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2007
5,819
upstate NY
Fixed that for you.

Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
So the question remains, are we punting on 2020 two days after 2019 ends or can we contend?
 
Last edited:

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,409
i think the best case trade we get for betts is one of Wright or Anderson from the braves, and a few guys just outside the top 100 also pitching. if they are trading mookie they should go all in on pitching talent and hope 1 or 2 of those guys stick
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
Who are some of the favorite homegrown stars the Sox have traded away since the Yaz era? Off the top of my head:

Fred Lynn
Carlton Fisk (or was he a FA departure?)
Nomar

Who else?
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,826
Who are some of the favorite homegrown stars the Sox have traded away since the Yaz era? Off the top of my head:

Fred Lynn
Carlton Fisk (or was he a FA departure?)
Nomar

Who else?
Fisk was a FA because the Sox failed to tender his contract on time.
Nomar was a pretty divisive personality at the time he was traded.

Ruth and Lynn are likely the only ones who come close to Mookie, I think.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
Fisk was a FA because the Sox failed to tender his contract on time.
Nomar was a pretty divisive personality at the time he was traded.

Ruth and Lynn are likely the only ones who come close to Mookie, I think.
Yeah Nomar has become a non fan favorite for some people when he was dealt. Lynn was in every way a fan favorite. So the Betts deal would almost certainly be the biggest homegrown traded player since Ruth.

Great. Just great.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Who are some of the favorite homegrown stars the Sox have traded away since the Yaz era? Off the top of my head:

Fred Lynn
Carlton Fisk (or was he a FA departure?)
Nomar

Who else?
Lester? Not as beloved as Mookie, especially after 2011, but it's easy to forget through the chicken-and-beer haze how big a deal he was after coming back from cancer to win the clincher in the 2007 WS, and then tossing the no-no the following year.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,826
What about Price and Benintendi to the Angels for Justin Upton and Brian Goodwin? That might work for both teams. The Angels needed pitching anyway but desperately do after Skaggs.

Upton ($21.2 AAV) might have to DH at this point, but the Angels don’t have the luxury of putting him there with Pujols and Ohtani. He had a down year from knee injuries but I’d bet he rebounds at the plate in 2020, and he’d make a decent replacement if JDM goes or slot into left if he stays. Goodwin can play all over the outfield and would be a fine center fielder on a team that didn’t employ Mike Trout. The Sox are in no state to trade pitching but this shaves close to $10m in luxury tax payroll.
I think this is along the lines of the kind of deal that's going to be required to move Price, Sale or Eovaldi. But I don't think you're going to get a guy as good as Goodwin in a deal like this. More likely you'd have to take Upton plus a AA minor-league pitcher.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,826
Lester? Not as beloved as Mookie, especially after 2011, but it's easy to forget through the chicken-and-beer haze how big a deal he was after coming back from cancer to win the clincher in the 2007 WS, and then tossing the no-no the following year.
Lester wasn't traded. I am a misspelled Buchholz. I was even at Lester's first game as an A. Yikes.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Lester wasn't traded.
Yoenis Cespedes disagrees with you.

In fact, he's arguably the best Mookie comp mentioned so far, because he was traded specifically to get something back because his FA was impending and they couldn't come to an agreement on an extension. (Though the analogy would be better if the Sox trade Mookie next July rather than this winter.)
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,826
Yoenis Cespedes disagrees with you.

In fact, he's arguably the best Mookie comp mentioned so far, because he was traded specifically to get something back because his FA was impending and they couldn't come to an agreement on an extension. (Though the analogy would be better if the Sox trade Mookie next July rather than this winter.)
I am an idiot. Good Lord.

And I agree -- he's a very good comp, though he had lost a little luster with the fanbase given his chicken-and-beer involvement.

This is a tangent, but this current crop of young Sox stars, X and Betts in particular, given how long they've been on the team -- is pretty remarkable in terms of how they've kept their noses clean. No crashes on the way home from Foxy Lady, no PED swirl, no big blow-ups with management, no complaints about having to carry their bags, no chicken and beer, etc. And that's despite being on some losing teams and being in an intense social media era.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is a tangent, but this current young Sox stars, X and Betts in particular, given how long they've been on the team -- is pretty remarkable in terms of how they've kept their noses clean. No crashes on the way home from Foxy Lady, no PED swirl, no big blow-ups with management, no complaints about having to carry their bags, no chicken and beer, etc. And that's despite being on some losing teams and being in an intense social media era.
It's true, and a good point. Especially remarkable considering how young they were when they hit the spotlight. You'd expect some maturity issues from a bunch of early-20s athletes suddenly rich and famous, but the closest any of them have come to being seen as bad actors is JBJ getting a little snarky with Eck on Twitter. One of the things that's been so much fun about rooting for this group of homegrown stars is that they are not only outstanding ballplayers but also (as far as we get to see through the media lens) grownups.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,094
The crazy thing about Nomar was that he had put up this line with the Sox in 2004 before being traded:

.321/.367/.500/.867, 118 ops+

So it wasn't like he was cooked. I think it was the general sourpuss attitude he seemed to show and for whatever reason, he just wasn't as helpful to the club at that point as his numbers suggest he should have been.

Major bummer because Nomar was one of my all-time favorite Red Sox.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
The crazy thing about Nomar was that he had put up this line with the Sox in 2004 before being traded:

.321/.367/.500/.867, 118 ops+

So it wasn't like he was cooked. I think it was the general sourpuss attitude he seemed to show and for whatever reason, he just wasn't as helpful to the club at that point as his numbers suggest he should have been.

Major bummer because Nomar was one of my all-time favorite Red Sox.
He was cooked as a shortstop (either unable to play or diminished play) and it was hurting the team. Cabrera was not only a good shortstop (and a significant defensive upgrade from 2004 Nomar ), he was available every single day to play there.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,811
The crazy thing about Nomar was that he had put up this line with the Sox in 2004 before being traded:

.321/.367/.500/.867, 118 ops+

So it wasn't like he was cooked. I think it was the general sourpuss attitude he seemed to show and for whatever reason, he just wasn't as helpful to the club at that point as his numbers suggest he should have been.

Major bummer because Nomar was one of my all-time favorite Red Sox.
It wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.

But I think he gets a bit unfairly maligned. First, he got swept into the A-Rod trade talk maelstrom during the offseason, something he never asked for nor wanted to be part of. He was "blamed" when A-Rod went to the Yankees while agreeing to move to third base so Jeter could stay at short, even though Nomar had nothing at all to do with any of that. Contract extension talks never got off the ground, and Nomar enters 2004 ready to become a free agent once the season concludes. He struggled at the plate during his first month back in June (0.656 OPS), which was not surprising given that he missed most of spring training. And then was blamed for not coming off the bench during the epic game in Yankee Stadium in which Jeter made The Catch to preserve the tie in a game the Sox would lose in 13 innings.

Nomar seemed very much back to his old self in July: 1.028 OPS while appearing in 21 of the team's 24 games through 7/28, with one of those missed games being the second half of a day/night doubleheader. He scored 2 runs and drove in 2 more in the Varitek/A-Rod fight game that the Sox won 11-10, with one of the runs scored coming in the bottom of the 9th when the Sox were down 2. He also struck out with the bases loaded to end an inning earlier in that same game. Then it got weird: he then told the team that his foot was bothering him again and he may need to miss some time. And Nomar's defense was clearly hampered; the advanced metrics never loved his game, but even the eye test was showing that Nomar's range was limited. So Theo makes the trade to upgrade the defense for the playoff run, as it appeared the team would be battling four teams from the group consisting of the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Twins and Indians for the wild card slot. Then Lucchino goes out and yells to the press about how much of an attitude problem Nomar was before Theo publicly suggests that it's time for the team to move on.

The trade made sense: Nomar was cooked. But the media and even the team to some extent (except for Theo and Tito) went a bit over the top in their criticisms about his attitude.
 

SoxVindaloo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 20, 2003
911
Titletown of the Aughts
It wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.

But I think he gets a bit unfairly maligned. First, he got swept into the A-Rod trade talk maelstrom during the offseason, something he never asked for nor wanted to be part of. He was "blamed" when A-Rod went to the Yankees while agreeing to move to third base so Jeter could stay at short, even though Nomar had nothing at all to do with any of that. Contract extension talks never got off the ground, and Nomar enters 2004 ready to become a free agent once the season concludes.

The trade made sense: Nomar was cooked. But the media and even the team to some extent (except for Theo and Tito) went a bit over the top in their criticisms about his attitude.
IIRC the contract the Jeter signed, 10/189 before 2001 (the same offseason as A-Rod's 10/250 and Mannhy's 8/160) and the contract Nomar was offered before 2004 4/60, soured the whole thing. There was also a lot of mystery around how he injured the heel/achilles that caused him to miss so much time. He insisted it was off a batted ball that struck him in spring training but rumors persisted it was from offseason soccer. Some of this could be the traditional hatchet job by the Dentist that we saw so often at the time. A sad ending to one of my favorite players ever to wear the laundry, definitely top 5.
 
Jul 15, 2005
1,974
Chicago
It wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.

But I think he gets a bit unfairly maligned. First, he got swept into the A-Rod trade talk maelstrom during the offseason, something he never asked for nor wanted to be part of. He was "blamed" when A-Rod went to the Yankees while agreeing to move to third base so Jeter could stay at short, even though Nomar had nothing at all to do with any of that. Contract extension talks never got off the ground, and Nomar enters 2004 ready to become a free agent once the season concludes. He struggled at the plate during his first month back in June (0.656 OPS), which was not surprising given that he missed most of spring training. And then was blamed for not coming off the bench during the epic game in Yankee Stadium in which Jeter made The Catch to preserve the tie in a game the Sox would lose in 13 innings.

Nomar seemed very much back to his old self in July: 1.028 OPS while appearing in 21 of the team's 24 games through 7/28, with one of those missed games being the second half of a day/night doubleheader. He scored 2 runs and drove in 2 more in the Varitek/A-Rod fight game that the Sox won 11-10, with one of the runs scored coming in the bottom of the 9th when the Sox were down 2. He also struck out with the bases loaded to end an inning earlier in that same game. Then it got weird: he then told the team that his foot was bothering him again and he may need to miss some time. And Nomar's defense was clearly hampered; the advanced metrics never loved his game, but even the eye test was showing that Nomar's range was limited. So Theo makes the trade to upgrade the defense for the playoff run, as it appeared the team would be battling four teams from the group consisting of the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Twins and Indians for the wild card slot. Then Lucchino goes out and yells to the press about how much of an attitude problem Nomar was before Theo publicly suggests that it's time for the team to move on.

The trade made sense: Nomar was cooked. But the media and even the team to some extent (except for Theo and Tito) went a bit over the top in their criticisms about his attitude.
The media really focused on Nomar not getting into the middle of the pile to fight the Yankees like Varitek
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
4,983
He also owns Liverpool, 50% of a NASCAR team, and NESN. Do you think they suddenly want to get out of the sports biz entirely, or just Baseball? If he wants to sell all of it, who has the money to buy all of that, plus the associated real estate (Anfield, Fenway)?
He/they probably don't but I just found it odd that suddenly, a year after a World Series title, the luxury tax is an issue for one of the richest organizations in the game. Just seemed like a weird thing to suddenly key in on for this ownership and leads me to wonder if they've looked down the road a bit and see the potential for some really lean years with all the suddenly-suspect contracts they are responsible for hampering their ability to wheel and deal and are wondering if there's a way to get out of the way so as not to be associated with a down period. It's probably nothing.