Sox talking Mookie trade with Dodgers, Padres - News & Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
5,635
If they trade Betts, people will be mad for a few days. And then in July the interest in the Red Sox will be in direct proportion with whatever their record is at the time. They traded Nomar for a SS with a career best OPS+ of 105 and defense-first 1B.
It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that a lot of the bloom had come off the Nomar rose by the time he was traded, including being excoriated in the press for refusing to PH or something in a big game against the Yankees (if I'm remembering correctly) that wound up being an extra innings loss or something like that. He was sullen and moody with the media because of his contract situation, his wrist injury had turned him from an offensive powerhouse to a guy for whom "swing and a pop-up" on the first pitch was becoming an increasingly heard call. He would even visibly pout in the dugout. By the time he was traded, I don't think it was as shocking a move as it might have been even one season earlier.

In other words, I think a Betts deal would draw a much more negative response among hardcore fans. But I could be wrong.
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
909
Quincy
It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that a lot of the bloom had come off the Nomar rose by the time he was traded, including being excoriated in the press for refusing to PH or something in a big game against the Yankees (if I'm remembering correctly) that wound up being an extra innings loss or something like that. He was sullen and moody with the media because of his contract situation, his wrist injury had turned him from an offensive powerhouse to a guy for whom "swing and a pop-up" on the first pitch was becoming an increasingly heard call. He would even visibly pout in the dugout. By the time he was traded, I don't think it was as shocking a move as it might have been even one season earlier.

In other words, I think a Betts deal would draw a much more negative response among hardcore fans. But I could be wrong.
That was the "Jeter dives into the stands" game
 

Teachdad46

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Oct 14, 2011
121
Vermont
If the Merloni tweet is right, then it's almost certain that Mookie has made it clear that he won't take any less than $400 million in this next contract. He absolutely has the right to look for that much, and he absolutely has the right to get himself into free agency to maximize his potential earnings. 100% support that.

So if you're the Red Sox, either (1) that money is just too much, period, and you move on. You trade him for as much as you can get and don't look back. Or (2) you eat the money, go WAY over the luxury tax, and just go for it. Or (3) you try to find a way to reset the luxury tax, with the hopes of freeing up your money situation such that you can have the best chance at signing him in free agency.

I think, sadly, perhaps the only way that (3) is possible is to...trade Betts now. So deal him, get under the tax threshold, and then offer him the massive contract he wants after 2020. If it's not enough, so be it...you gave it the best chance you could. If it IS enough...now you have all the things you got back in the trade, plus you have Mookie.

So it appears, to my thinking, that a trade just might be the best way to go. As horrible as that sounds to me because I love love Mookie.
[/QUOTE

This is where I landed back in late July when it became clear that the 2019 season was going to end (Oh! The Horror!) on Sunday, Sept 29th. Mookie was going to go before 2020.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,083
New York City
"Rivals are starting to think..." Cashman must be grinning ear to ear.

Signed a stud, readying to watch arch rival trade not only a stud but an all time great. Couldn't get any better for the Yanks.

But we get to reset the tax and build organizational depth. How exciting...
I really don't think this is how GMs think - "OMG we signed Cole and they lost Mookie so we win the offseason!!"

It's entirely plausible that 5 years from now the Cole contract is an absolute albatross for the Yankees, Mookie is putting up good but not great numbers in SD or LA, and we are all super excited about [prospect X] we got from the Mookie trade who looks to be a star in the making. (It's also entirely plausible that 5 years from now Cole has joined the ranks of all-time great Yankees pitchers, Mookie has won 3 MVPs and the return from a Mookie trade amounted to virtually nothing for the Sox - but the point is, these deals can't be evaluated until many years from when they occur.)
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
1,988
Scituate, MA
The bolded is where I diverge from the realpolitik of this discussion. The payroll is not fixed. Ownership can pick a payroll target, and there are suggestions they want to get below the luxury threshold. That is a choice.

Betts could get 10/350 and that would only be 10% of the payroll if John Henry would be satisfied with making less money in 2020. He makes money every year. The choice to go to the luxury threshold will result in more money for the owners and less talent for the Sox.

As far as what next if they ship Betts out and "reset" the tax?

Not much on the macro level. Fenway will still sell out, because is it a small ballpark in a big city. The Red Sox have enviable brand equity that can survive a down year, or even three down years.

On the micro level, a trade of Betts would be devastating. Like Teddywingman, I will withdraw in anger. Instead of following the Sox closely and going to 2-6 games (I live out of state), I will mostly ignore the Sox and do other things this summer.

I will spend time with my children, a development that will alarm them and confuse their mother. That late attempt at half-assed parenting, far too inconsistent to make a difference, will be emotionally damaging, and remind them of the time I tried to be a decent father in the fall of 2008 because I didn't like Matt Cassell's throwing motion.

I will fill the hours with drink and the non-Sox part of SoSH (brace yourselves --I have never posted in TBLTS, but I am brimming with bad advice).

Adrift, I will probably watch the goddam NBA Summer League and start a new thread in the Port Cellar called "Time (Lord) for a Comeback."

Sans Betts, I will speak to my neighbors, which will do no credit to me and give no pleasure to my neighbors.

My excess energy, not longer needed to shout incoherently at Andrew Cashner, will likely curdle in my libido, which will do no credit to me and give no pleasure to my wife.

I know John Henry lurks on SoSH. Message sent, moneybags.
You win one internets.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,360
Given their farm system, relative lack of salary commitments (by their own standards) and recent history of making deals like this, the Dodgers are the ideal partner. (Given that they have a ton of young studs on their roster and have traded for Darvish and Machado in the past few years, I'm not sure how they could still have a halfway decent farm system, but supposedly they do.)
 

DisgruntledSoxFan77

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2015
909
Quincy
Given their farm system, relative lack of salary commitments (by their own standards) and recent history of making deals like this, the Dodgers are the ideal partner. (Given that they have a ton of young studs on their roster and have traded for Darvish and Machado in the past few years, I'm not sure how they could still have a halfway decent farm system, but supposedly they do.)
Probably because they traded for them at the deadline when prices were cheaper
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,398
Or there wasn't a problem as the 99 Sox were better than the 98 Sox...
Because that’s the only year that mattered? They should have been just from normal progression of Duke’s farm system (Varitek matured and Nixon emerged in 1999) and filling gaping holes in the 1998 roster with above replacement level players, especially Steve Avery and the cavalcade of suck they trotted out in the 5th starter role.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,350
Hingham, MA
Because that’s the only year that mattered? They should have been just from normal progression of Duke’s farm system (Varitek matured and Nixon emerged in 1999) and filling gaping holes in the 1998 roster with above replacement level players, especially Steve Avery and the cavalcade of suck they trotted out in the 5th starter role.
Well considering Mo missed all of 2001 then declined in 2002 and thereafter.. I guess 2000 also mattered but IMO it wasn’t a mistake to let Mo walk.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,398
Well considering Mo missed all of 2001 then declined in 2002 and thereafter.. I guess 2000 also mattered but IMO it wasn’t a mistake to let Mo walk.
I didn’t say anything about not resigning Mo. And I agree with no irony or sarcasm at all the “replacing his OBP” with Offerman was1/2 of a perfectly good strategy. They just needed to replace his power at some point, and they never really did.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,350
Hingham, MA
I didn’t say anything about not resigning Mo. And I agree with no irony or sarcasm at all the “replacing his OBP” with Offerman was1/2 of a perfectly good strategy. They just needed to replace his power at some point, and they never really did.
True - in 99 and 00 they had similar 2B but definitely fewer HR. Then of course the Manny era began in 2001 and the HR returned.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
525
Brooklyn by way of Orono
...edited to remove a misquote...


I’ve heard the argument we should trade him and resign after resetting, but if we assume next year isn’t competitive anyway, isn’t the best way to actually just sign him now and slash viciously every where else to reset?

I mean it’s a 10 year deal for Mookie...against sucking a little or a lot for a year. Is there some long term damage to team or brand that I’m missing if they go this route?

Also much love to BCs post.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,517
Oregon
I guess the Dodgers would play Bellinger in center if Olney's 8.5 becomes a 10
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I’ve heard this argument, but if we assume next year isn’t competitive anyway, isn’t the best way to actually just sign him now and slash viciously every where else to reset?

I mean it’s a 10 year deal for Mookie...against sucking a little or a lot for a year. Is there some long term damage to team or brand that I’m missing if they go this route?

Also much love to BCs post.
Well,

1. There is really no reason to assume next year won't be competitive
2. Mookie won't sign now
3. He's looking for a 12 year deal
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,875
I’ve heard this argument, but if we assume next year isn’t competitive anyway, isn’t the best way to actually just sign him now and slash viciously every where else to reset?

I mean it’s a 10 year deal for Mookie...against sucking a little or a lot for a year. Is there some long term damage to team or brand that I’m missing if they go this route?

Also much love to BCs post.
Well if they got rid of Mookie and replaced him with, say, Wil Myers, why do you say the Sox couldn't be competitive this coming season? They'd still have three guys coming off .300/30/100 seasons (JD, Bogaerts, Devers), the latter two of whom are rising towards their peak seasons. They have other quality young guys who could put up good numbers (Benintendi, Vazquez, Chavis). They have a potentially helpful bat possibly ready for the majors this year in Dalbec. They should still score a lot of runs.

And if Price and Sale and EdRo and Eovaldi do what we hope they can (doesn't have to be the "best-case" scenario...just something between 2018 and 2019), they could have enough starting pitching.

In other words, it's not THAT hard to see even a Mookie-less team being competitive.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,676
I think I’d come close to saying yes. Throw in one more ML ready player. Pederson? Do they have a RHP?
I recommend spending some time on the baseballtradevalues.com site, Betts (1 year of control at $27M) and Verdugo (5 years of control) are valued almost identically.

 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
525
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Well if they got rid of Mookie and replaced him with, say, Wil Myers, why do you say the Sox couldn't be competitive this coming season? They'd still have three guys coming off .300/30/100 seasons (JD, Bogaerts, Devers), the latter two of whom are rising towards their peak seasons. They have other quality young guys who could put up good numbers (Benintendi, Vazquez, Chavis). They have a potentially helpful bat possibly ready for the majors this year in Dalbec. They should still score a lot of runs.

And if Price and Sale and EdRo and Eovaldi do what we hope they can (doesn't have to be the "best-case" scenario...just something between 2018 and 2019), they could have enough starting pitching.

In other words, it's not THAT hard to see even a Mookie-less team being competitive.
Yes, that’s fair. I suppose I’m giving up too early: January is a new record even for me.

My reasoning is that Mookie is just part of the reset and I’ve understood other salary must be cut, likely on the pitching staff. Overall I do remain bullish on the bats but very bearish on the starting rotation and pen. Pens are a dice shot, and could surprise to the upside I suppose next year, but the starting seems dependent upon all the names you listed returning to previous (though admittedly not peak) form.

Hopefully they will succeed in rebuilding while competing.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
689
Maryland
I recommend spending some time on the baseballtradevalues.com site, Betts (1 year of control at $27M) and Verdugo (5 years of control) are valued almost identically.

May's value is pretty much the same as Vedugo's and Betts' - I'd rather get May, given the lack of SPs at the top of our farm system. Especially since we're still looking at the likelihood that they'd still have to trade Price or Eovaldi to get under the CBT.If the Dodgers want to send us Pollock, we should try to get them to take one of those guys back.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I recommend spending some time on the baseballtradevalues.com site, Betts (1 year of control at $27M) and Verdugo (5 years of control) are valued almost identically.

This point needs to be made more often.
Maybe it would be clearer if the deal was listed as:
2020 Betts for
2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 Verdugo
etc etc.

That Olney tweet was very interesting. Of course, it could be that Sox and/or Dodger sources are trying to put the screws to Preller to up his offer. We'll find out.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,955
Rogers Park
Given their farm system, relative lack of salary commitments (by their own standards) and recent history of making deals like this, the Dodgers are the ideal partner. (Given that they have a ton of young studs on their roster and have traded for Darvish and Machado in the past few years, I'm not sure how they could still have a halfway decent farm system, but supposedly they do.)
Remember the thing like eighteen months ago about how insanely corrupt the Dodgers‘ international scouting department was?

(The idea that Dodgers fans are getting upset at the Astros over cheating is frankly absurd. The Astros were cheating, but I’m not aware that their cheating violated federal law.)

But anyways, yeah: their system’s really deep.
 

SoxFanInPdx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,529
Portland, OR
Hypothetically, for those that have advanced knowledge on here of the Padres and Dodgers farm - what are the preferred pieces that would facilitate a reasonable return for Betts?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,676
I changed the title, Olney just tweeted a Dodgers lineup with Mookie so there's at the least a lot of smoke here, and they make much more sense for a rental than SD does, and like the Yankees, they have enough talent to overpay some in the interests of consolidation for the right superstar.

Buster Olney

@Buster_ESPN


If the Dodgers get Mookie Betts, their lineup could look something like this:

RF Betts
1B Muncy
3B Turner
CF Bellinger
SS Seager
LF Pollock/Pederson
2B Lux
C Smith

View: https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1222839576118644737
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,326
The back of your computer
I read something about Verdugo, Gray and Ruiz
I don't think we'd get all three. More likely we'd get Joc Pederson or AJ Pollack back to help offset some of Price's salary.

Betts ($27mm AAV) and Price ($31mm AAV)

for

(A) Pollack ($12mm AAV), Ruiz, Gonsolin (min) and 3rd prospect
or
(B) Pederson ($8.5mm AAV), Taylor ($5mm AAV), Ruiz, Gonsolin (min) and 3rd prospect

BOS saves $45.4mm (A)/$44.5mm (B) in this deal, getting them approx. $20mm under the 2020 luxury tax threshold. Gonsolin slots into the rotation, Pollack(A)/Pederson (B)becomes the third OF. Taylor (under B) becomes the 2B. Ruiz becomes the catcher-in-waiting.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,207
This is from the Athletic this morning

In recent days, though, dialogue with Boston has approached a resolution on Betts.

The Dodgers lack interest in parting with elite prospects like Lux or pitcher Dustin May. But their organization features a plethora of other options — from big-league assets like Enrique Hernández and Chris Taylor to up-and-coming performers like outfielder Alex Verdugo and pitcher Tony Gonsolin to farmhands like catching prospect Keibert Ruiz or pitching prospect Josiah Gray — from which Bloom could build a reasonable package for Betts. The discussions, though, are more complicated than that.

One scenario being discussed would involve former American League Cy Young award winner David Price.
And now this from Olney:

View: https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1222883555560370177?s=19
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,189
I don't think we'd get all three. More likely we'd get Joc Pederson or AJ Pollack back to help offset some of Price's salary.

Betts ($27mm AAV) and Price ($31mm AAV)

for

(A) Pollack ($12mm AAV), Ruiz, Gonsolin (min) and 3rd prospect
or
(B) Pederson ($8.5mm AAV), Taylor ($5mm AAV), Ruiz, Gonsolin (min) and 3rd prospect

BOS saves $45.4mm (A)/$44.5mm (B) in this deal, getting them approx. $20mm under the 2020 luxury tax threshold. Gonsolin slots into the rotation, Pollack(A)/Pederson (B)becomes the third OF. Taylor (under B) becomes the 2B. Ruiz becomes the catcher-in-waiting.
It's hard for me to believe that the Sox prefer the Dodgers' offer to San Diego's if Verdugo isn't on the table. Betts and Price for Pollock, Verdugo, Ruiz, and Gonsolin, with the Sox paying enough of Price's salary that they can get just under the threshold, makes a lot of sense. Verdugo, Ruiz, AND a Gonsolin-or-better third piece for Betts alone would be great.

But if it's just Verdugo and nothing else interesting, or if Ruiz is the best piece in the deal, I think I'd rather get Campusano-plus.

I also wonder about getting Cincinnati involved in the deal such that Seager winds up there and we get Nick Senzel. But I don't know what else would have to be involved, and I doubt a complicated three-team deal would be in the works without anything leaking.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,076
After getting the Padres and maybe other non-LA teams involved, I'll be disappointed if a Betts-to-the-Dodgers deal goes through without Price also being part of the trade. It's going to suck losing Mookie for even a year and probably longer (I think he's not coming back to Boston even if he stays throughout 2020), but this will be offset at least a little by allowing me to feel a lot better about our team's future course if one of the big pitching contracts is offloaded (presuming that the Sox don't get stuck paying some ridiculously high amount of that pitcher's remaining salary). The sooner Chaim can get to work without being shackled by payroll and/or luxury tax limits, the better.
 

21st Century Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2006
584
Well if they got rid of Mookie and replaced him with, say, Wil Myers, why do you say the Sox couldn't be competitive this coming season? They'd still have three guys coming off .300/30/100 seasons (JD, Bogaerts, Devers), the latter two of whom are rising towards their peak seasons. They have other quality young guys who could put up good numbers (Benintendi, Vazquez, Chavis). They have a potentially helpful bat possibly ready for the majors this year in Dalbec. They should still score a lot of runs.

And if Price and Sale and EdRo and Eovaldi do what we hope they can (doesn't have to be the "best-case" scenario...just something between 2018 and 2019), they could have enough starting pitching.

In other words, it's not THAT hard to see even a Mookie-less team being competitive.
Is the consensus now that Price is not a part of Mookie package? I thought the price for getting Mookie involved taking Price?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,616
Maine
Is the consensus now that Price is not a part of Mookie package? I thought the price for getting Mookie involved taking Price?
In the rumors about San Diego that opened this thread, there was no mention of Price at all.

I think a Mookie/Price package is more fan wishcasting than a reality despite the Athletic report nattysez quotes saying that there is one scenario with the Dodgers that could include Price.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
If we can get Verdugo, I'd be pretty happy. He seems like a Benintendi-ish talent.
Or better — or at least better suited to Fenway. Verdugo’s hard-hit rate the opposite way (per Fangraphs) last year was 38.4%, compared to Benintendi at 23.6%.

Verdugo only had less than half a season of data to pull from, but Statcast’s player similarity index, which pulls quality of contact, lists LHH like Brantley and Cano as close comps for Verdugo. Benny isn’t among the top 30 or so names.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
26,117
Lot of Twitter buzz that a deal with the Dodgers is very close.
Is it for prospects mainly or either Buehler or Bellinger coming too? I like Joc more than most, especially for defense at Fenway, but would still be disappointed if no star is coming back. But less so with Joc than Myers.

(Price + Betts, right?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.