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

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,323
The problem is that because Price and Eovaldi both have negative value right now, it will be hard to line up a separate trade involving them that doesn't also involve Betts.
Yeah, it's a tough spot for Bloom. Do you tie Price/Eovaldi to Betts and take a lesser return to clear as much money as possible? Or can you find a creative way to deal Betts by himself for the best return possible and then eat some money or tie a prospect to one of the pitchers? Ideally, you hang on to both pitchers and they have strong first halfs to rebuild some trade value, but that doesn't help them get under the luxury tax.

Weren't the Angels rumored to have interest in Price earlier in the offseason? Would a Price for Upton deal make sense if Mookie was gone, particularly if Verdugo/Pollock weren't part of the return?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,749
The wrong side of the bridge....
I know you mean based on performance versus contract, and I don't disagree when you talk about Eovaldi. But in real dollars--which is to say how people actually construct teams--Price does not have negative value. He simply has less value than he would with a less burdensome contract. But there are teams out there who would gladly bring him aboard based on his performance two postseasons ago and his reputation as a teammate. That stuff actually matters, even if it's hard to calculate.
Price at this point in his career is basically a #3 who's paid like a #1. Now a #3 is a useful commodity. But when you pay him like a #1, you create a situation where to compensate for the overpay, you need to find somebody who provides the production of a #1 starting pitcher for the price of a #3 starting pitcher. You essentially have to add additional surplus value in order to break even. So in that sense, you've added negative value to your roster.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,094
The problem with hanging onto Price is that his trade value likely disappears if he spends any time on Injured Reserve before July 31st. Then he gets 10/5 rights at the end of the season and all trade flexibility is gone.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,396
Price at this point in his career is basically a #3 who's paid like a #1. Now a #3 is a useful commodity. But when you pay him like a #1, you create a situation where to compensate for the overpay, you need to find somebody who provides the production of a #1 starting pitcher for the price of a #3 starting pitcher. You essentially have to add additional surplus value in order to break even. So in that sense, you've added negative value to your roster.
My druthers WRT Price is that they just pick up 40%-50% of the tab, because he’s got a lot of positive trade value in the $16-$18 million range. There are more than a few contenders that would give value for Price on that sort of deal.
 

bohous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,006
Framingham
The problem with hanging onto Price is that his trade value likely disappears if he spends any time on Injured Reserve before July 31st. Then he gets 10/5 rights at the end of the season and all trade flexibility is gone.
or the flip side where he pitches well enough to keep them in the playoff race and they can't reasonably make a case for trading him. Either way, holding on to him with intentions of trading him late in the season in order to get under the threshold is a big gamble.

Edit to add, I would personally prefer to staple Price to Mookie now and eat some of the contract with a better package of players, than have to take Pollock and his money in order to include Price. I mean, if that's an option.
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
13,317
I put Mookie for Gonsolin, Jeter-Downs, Ruiz, Gray and Pollock in the trade simulator and it's within 4 points. It really gives you a sense of how much big contracts weigh down value. It's a fun tool to give you some context but I have a hard time imagining they take on Pollock just to get a larger return. Hopefully I'm wrong and JM3 has a better feel for their motives.
Pollock could fill an OF spot for us this year, and taking him should let us get a lot more prospect capital.

The trade simulator is just a tool to play with, and won't let you add more than 5 guys from one team, but using the values they have for each, then Betts (+50.7) for all nine of these guys would technically "work":

Pollock (-25.3), Gonsolin (19.3), Gray (17.7) , Ruiz (23.4), Dennis Santana (2.7), Jeren Kendall (2.5), Gerardo Carillo (2.3), Edwin Uceta (0.9) and Ryan Pepiot (.08).

In real life, we clearly wouldn't get all those guys, but the goal should be trying to get as many of their prospects as possible who would make our top 15. They have plenty of guys in their top 30 who would be in our top 15, or in their top 20 who would be in our top 10. They're so deep, we shouldn't focus on trying to get the best one we can, but go for volume.

If we're going to trade Betts to the Dodgers then we should really restock the farm system with depth. At that point, we would have more ammo to make a couple further moves to get under the tax.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
2,696
Pollock could fill an OF spot for us this year, and taking him should let us get a lot more prospect capital.

The trade simulator is just a tool to play with, and won't let you add more than 5 guys from one team, but using the values they have for each, then Betts (+50.7) for all nine of these guys would technically "work":

Pollock (-25.3), Gonsolin (19.3), Gray (17.7) , Ruiz (23.4), Dennis Santana (2.7), Jeren Kendall (2.5), Gerardo Carillo (2.3), Edwin Uceta (0.9) and Ryan Pepiot (.08).

In real life, we clearly wouldn't get all those guys, but the goal should be trying to get as many of their prospects as possible who would make our top 15. They have plenty of guys in their top 30 who would be in our top 15, or in their top 20 who would be in our top 10. They're so deep, we shouldn't focus on trying to get the best one we can, but go for volume.

If we're going to trade Betts to the Dodgers then we should really restock the farm system with depth. At that point, we would have more ammo to make a couple further moves to get under the tax.
I'd love to get some of LA's high upside lower minor players. Luis Rodriguez (17 year old top IFA out of Venezuela in 2019, signed for $2.7M) should be a target.
 

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
53
The problem is that because Price and Eovaldi both have negative value right now, it will be hard to line up a separate trade involving them that doesn't also involve Betts.
There's tons of ways to move Price (& to a lesser extent Eovaldi). It's just a matter of what the balance is between money eaten, bad contracts taken on & prospects given up. If another team is more enamored with 1 of those pitchers than the Dodgers, & you know you have something else lined up to create that payroll flexibility that's less burdensome than the discount the Dodgers would need, taking on Pollock without trading Price can make perfect sense. It's basically just a 2-part 3-team trade at that point.

I agree with the premise that they're never trading just Mookie for Pollock + prospects unless there's another domino lined up, though.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,070
Twin Cities
Can't imagine there would be much else besides Verdugo if true. Verdugo + Gonsolin + a prospect outside of their top 10 perhaps. I could live with it.
Hmmm. I'm not a trade Betts guy, but if they can get 5 years each of Verdugo and Gonsolin for one year of Mookie, AND trade Price or Eovaldi with a <30% subsidy for a usable piece/prospect, getting the team well under the LT limit, then they should probably do it. Verdugo steps into RF and Gonsolin into the rotation, the team takes a step back this year but doesn't stink, and they've reset for next year and beyond.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,955
Rogers Park
Hmmm. I'm not a trade Betts guy, but if they can get 5 years each of Verdugo and Gonsolin for one year of Mookie, AND trade Price or Eovaldi with a <30% subsidy for a usable piece/prospect, getting the team well under the LT limit, then they should probably do it. Verdugo steps into RF and Gonsolin into the rotation, the team takes a step back this year but doesn't stink, and they've reset for next year and beyond.
I agree with every word of this post.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
43,030
deep inside Guido territory
Buster Olney will be on with OMF on WEEI in moments to discuss the Betts situation. It will be interesting to hear if he has any additional details.

Olney:
--If I had to bet the family farm back in Vermont, I'd say Betts will be traded before spring training to the Dodgers.
--Very deep system. Dodgers are widely rated as top system. Financially flexible.
--Name mentioned a lot is Alex Verdugo. Friedman will put guys out of bounds and won't fluctuate. Haven't heard from other teams that Verdugo is off the board.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,083
New York City
Hmmm. I'm not a trade Betts guy, but if they can get 5 years each of Verdugo and Gonsolin for one year of Mookie, AND trade Price or Eovaldi with a <30% subsidy for a usable piece/prospect, getting the team well under the LT limit, then they should probably do it. Verdugo steps into RF and Gonsolin into the rotation, the team takes a step back this year but doesn't stink, and they've reset for next year and beyond.
Agreed, that would be a Punto trade-level coup in terms of basically addressing all of the team's salary issues in a single swoop (and arguably better than the Punto trade given the likely return here vs. the flotsam we got then).
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,565
Oregon
when is Keith Law ever right?
So, beyond being hot-take tough guy, what's your point here?

That you disagree with him and think those two, plus a couple non-100 types will get it done? Or he's wrong in thinking that there are more than one team talking to the Sox?
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,839
Santa Monica, CA
I know you mean based on performance versus contract, and I don't disagree when you talk about Eovaldi. But in real dollars--which is to say how people actually construct teams--Price does not have negative value. He simply has less value than he would with a less burdensome contract. But there are teams out there who would gladly bring him aboard based on his performance two postseasons ago and his reputation as a teammate. That stuff actually matters, even if it's hard to calculate.
You're saying that there are teams that take Price with his existing contract? There's not a team in baseball that would do that.

Sure, lots of teams would take him at various rates of subsidy by the Sox. But teams would take almost anyone (including Eovaldi and Price) with the right financial incentive.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,778
so is verdugo basically a RF version of Benintendi? solid defense, not much power, great hit tool?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
2,696
From Olney on WEEI:

"I've got to believe that if the Red Sox trade Mookie, their focus is going to be on guys who are right on the cusp of the big leagues or maybe have one or two years of service time."

"I think in this case - and I'm speculating - I think [the Red Sox] are going to do better than people expect. The Dodgers are really, really motivated."
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,749
The wrong side of the bridge....
so is verdugo basically a RF version of Benintendi? solid defense, not much power, great hit tool?
Looking at Statcast, he hits the ball a bit harder, but more horizontally -- launch angle under 10% (though it's increased each year he's been in the bigs) compared to Benintendi's mid-teens. He's also a bit better contact hitter--K rates consistently below league average so far. He might also be a slightly better fielder, by the numbers--but they both seem to basically fit in the same good-not-great tier.

FWIW, Verdugo does not have quite Beni's pedigree -- #62 vs. #7 overall pick -- and didn't hit nearly as well in the minors, though he wasn't bad.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,465
My druthers WRT Price is that they just pick up 40%-50% of the tab, because he’s got a lot of positive trade value in the $16-$18 million range. There are more than a few contenders that would give value for Price on that sort of deal.
The part I'm confused about is if you really value David Price at less than $16M for the next three years. If you pick up 50% for him not to play for you, then you are choosing $16M No Price over $32M Yes Price.

In my mind that is too steep a subsidy if you have any optimism about his potential three year health.

His starts have gone:
34, 32, 35, 11, 30, 22

His bWAR per 10 starts has gone
1.26, 1.94, 0.86, 1.45, 1.47, 0.82

Some variation, but generally pretty useful when he takes the ball, something he has been really good at outside of his (important) 17 and 19 years with injuries.

Now I know we are dealing with some complex issues with our luxury tax that complicate things, but we are talking about someone who won the World Series MVP two years ago (sorry Pearce and actual facts) with a 4.4 bWAR.

If we put a WAR conservatively at $8M for round math too (some definite variation to this is fine), he would need to be 12 WAR over three years to live up to his salary (three healthy 2018s), but to be better to keep than pay half to go elsewhere, he has to be worth 6 WAR. If he peforms at 1.0 win per 10 starts (pretty conservative given his last six years), he needs to get to 60 starts to be worth that half his contract, which to me seems pretty conservative without a TJ type injury. Even with some 4-6 week DL time mixed in, we are talking about needing fewer starts and a lot less WAR over his next three seasons than his last three.

I don't expect enough healthy erosion of performance for a lefty pitcher who has already come to terms with declining velocity and throws a good changeup over his 34-36 year old seasons, so I think a 50% subsidy is likely to be a net loss for us barring a major injury, and I would not want to include $48M with Price to get rid of him. I think everybody sees him as a #3 getting paid #1 money, and the subsidy I would be willing to pay to get rid of that underperformance is a lot less than half.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,749
The wrong side of the bridge....
The part I'm confused about is if you really value David Price at less than $16M for the next three years. If you pick up 50% for him not to play for you, then you are choosing $16M No Price over $32M Yes Price.

In my mind that is too steep a subsidy if you have any optimism about his potential three year health.
Is it still too steep a subsidy if it's $16M No Price + <$1M Tony Gonsolin vs. $32M Yes Price + bupkis?

Or to put it another way, is $32M Price a better deal than $17M Gonsolin? Never mind the fact that of course at this point in his career Gonsolin couldn't command that kind of money. But is he more likely, next year, to provide $17M worth of value -- i.e., about 2 WAR -- than Price is to provide $32M worth of value -- i.e., about 4 WAR?
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Would Betts for Verdugo, Gray, and Ruiz be possible? People seem to be much higher on Gonsolin than I am. I'll admit I've only read a little about him but control issues seem to be a big part of the story. Randy Johnson had solid velocity and control issues and turned out pretty good, but I'm not as optimistic and would rather go with Gray and a possible C for the future. Is it too steep an ask, though?
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,535
Vancouver Island
As someone else mentioned, a Mookie-less team is slowly sinking in. Sigh ...

(Also, Chaim, please: Could you do this deal without getting any players back from LA named Jeter? :confused: Thanx.)
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,778
thanks for the info on verdugo. im not too familiar with the dodgers system outside of cursory internet searches for prospect profiles. Looking at Gonsolin, he seems to be a pretty good piece? He did pretty well when he was with LA last year. His minors numbers outside of last year in the PCL are pretty fantastic. My understanding of the PCL is that it it inflates hitters' numbers, with last year being even more of an outlier due to the juiced balls. I am pretty firmly in the trade Mookie camp since I really dont think we will be able to re-sign him and I dont think this team has much of a shot at anything but a WC(1 game playoff which is even more of a crap shoot than the playoffs ususally are). A RF starter through 2024, a potential 3-4 starter through 2025, and maybe some lottery tickets doesnt seem like a terrible return for Betts.

edit: after reading Yaz4ever's post, went back and took a look at his BB/9 numbers. I can see the control problems being an issue.

 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,823
Looking at Statcast, he hits the ball a bit harder, but more horizontally -- launch angle under 10% (though it's increased each year he's been in the bigs) compared to Benintendi's mid-teens. He's also a bit better contact hitter--K rates consistently below league average so far. He might also be a slightly better fielder, by the numbers--but they both seem to basically fit in the same good-not-great tier.

FWIW, Verdugo does not have quite Beni's pedigree -- #62 vs. #7 overall pick -- and didn't hit nearly as well in the minors, though he wasn't bad.
Verdugo hits like a lefty Xander Bogaerts before Xander realized he shouldn't hit grounders half the time. Verdugo really hits the ball hard (39% med%, 43.7% hard % on fangraphs) but has a well below average launch angle of 7.2. He also hits the ball to all fields (23.7% opposite field). He really does just hit a million worm burners. 52% gb% for his career and that results in a .167 ISO.

For comparison sake, Xander in 2016 had a .152 ISO, hit the ball on the ground 52.9% and had 48.9% medium hit balls and 30.6% hard hit balls at a launch angle of 8.2. Xander hit the ball to the opposite field 24.2% of the time that year.

So, if they get Verdugo, maybe they can teach him to hit the ball in the air. He wont turn into this guy, but Max Muncy had the same avg exit velocity and hard hit% as Verdugo, but had a launch angle of 14.2 and had an iso of .265. If Verdugo could just make half that progress he could be a really above average hitter.

Lots of work to get there.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
11,251
Somewhere
From Olney on WEEI:

"I've got to believe that if the Red Sox trade Mookie, their focus is going to be on guys who are right on the cusp of the big leagues or maybe have one or two years of service time."

"I think in this case - and I'm speculating - I think [the Red Sox] are going to do better than people expect. The Dodgers are really, really motivated."
They should be, Betts is the second best player in baseball. That’s worth a ton, even for only one year.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
10,225
Miami (oh, Miami!)
They should be, Betts is the second best player in baseball. That’s worth a ton, even for only one year.
Especially to the Dodgers. They've won their division for the past 7 years, and have been to the world series twice, losing both times. Their last championship was in '88.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
43,030
deep inside Guido territory
Alex Speier's latest.

--He says in recent days, the view of the future of Betts in the organization has shifted. His sources say it's likelier than not that he gets traded, potentially in the near future.
--It's a two team race between SD and LA, moreso LA.
--They need to do something before Feb. 11 to avoid a mess in ST.
--They've been pessimistic about signing him long-term for a while now.
--Sources say there is a wide enough gap in negotiations that it's difficult to imagine bridging that gap outside the context of free agency.
--Talks with SD and LA have centered around a major league outfielder. SD is open to discussing any OF besides Pham and Grisham. Margot and Naylor are the targets with SD. Quantrill, Lucchesi, and Campusano are also in play. The 35th overall pick is in play as well but only if they take Wil Myers back.
--With LA, talks have centered around Verdugo and multiple top prospects not named May or Lux. They've discussed Price, but the Dodgers would only pay a fraction of the cost of his contract which would compromise the amount of prospects they get back in return.
--Speier sees them not standing pat with Betts because of their stated desire to cut payroll and them saying it would be very difficult to retain both Betts and JD long-term.

 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,749
Seattle, WA
So, if the Red Sox get below the cap this year, I assume that opens up the possibility of re-signing Betts as a FA in 2021 for megabucks without paying a compounding penalty, right? I never get this stuff straight.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,565
Oregon
Alex Speier's latest.

--He says in recent days, the view of the future of Betts in the organization has shifted. His sources say it's likelier than not that he gets traded, potentially in the near future.
--It's a two team race between SD and LA, moreso LA.
--They need to do something before Feb. 11 to avoid a mess in ST.
--They've been pessimistic about signing him long-term for a while now.
--Sources say there is a wide enough gap in negotiations that it's difficult to imagine bridging that gap outside the context of free agency.
--Talks with SD and LA have centered around a major league outfielder. SD is open to discussing any OF besides Pham and Grisham. Margot and Naylor are the targets with SD. Quantrill, Lucchesi, and Campusano are also in play. The 35th overall pick is in play as well but only if they take Wil Myers back.
--With LA, talks have centered around Verdugo and multiple top prospects not named May or Lux. They've discussed Price, but the Dodgers would only pay a fraction of the cost of his contract which would compromise the amount of prospects they get back in return.
--Speier sees them not standing pat with Betts because of their stated desire to cut payroll and them saying it would be very difficult to retain both Betts and JD long-term.

Thanks for posting that recap ... it resets the table
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,360
--Speier sees them not standing pat with Betts because of their stated desire to cut payroll and them saying it would be very difficult to retain both Betts and JD long-term.

Seems weird to worry about retaining a guy long term who didn't opt out of a 2 year, $43 million deal.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,484
AZ
So, if the Red Sox get below the cap this year, I assume that opens up the possibility of re-signing Betts as a FA in 2021 for megabucks without paying a compounding penalty, right? I never get this stuff straight.
That's the idea. Of course, once he's on a different team then really all bets are off. (See what I did there?) Mookie could have a close call on a serious injury that makes him suddenly more amenable to an extension that doesn't beat Mike Trout. And the Dodgers would have exclusive bargaining rights.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
3,911
my preference would be to trade Betts just for prospects, which gets them under the cap, and keep Price, who if healthy at the deadline will have positive value.

they are making this too hard. Betts straight up for Verdugo or May if that’s possible.
My preference also.
Betts is the salary dump. Get the best you can for him, dont use him as a tool to dump more salary. Even if it means going cheap everywhere else for role players etc.

The risk with this one is price isnt healthy at the deadline and youre screwed there. But i think youre much more likely to move a pitcher at the deadline to a contender than a prime position player.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,338
The back of your computer
--Talks with SD and LA have centered around a major league outfielder. SD is open to discussing any OF besides Pham and Grisham. Margot and Naylor are the targets with SD. Quantrill, Lucchesi, and Campusano are also in play. The 35th overall pick is in play as well but only if they take Wil Myers back.
--With LA, talks have centered around Verdugo and multiple top prospects not named May or Lux. They've discussed Price, but the Dodgers would only pay a fraction of the cost of his contract which would compromise the amount of prospects they get back in return.
Interesting that there's a possiblity of doing a SD deal without taking Myers back.

Depending on the fraction of the Price contract, I would think the Red Sox would keep him and take their chance of trading him or Eovaldi at the deadline. I wouldn't think the Red Sox would bear any more than $14mm per year (which would lower the Dodgers' obligation to $18mm cash/$17mm AAV per year).

I'd rather trade Betts to LAD for Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect than to SD for Naylor, Quantrill and Campusano.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Alex Speier's latest.

--He says in recent days, the view of the future of Betts in the organization has shifted. His sources say it's likelier than not that he gets traded, potentially in the near future.
--It's a two team race between SD and LA, moreso LA.
--They need to do something before Feb. 11 to avoid a mess in ST.
--They've been pessimistic about signing him long-term for a while now.
--Sources say there is a wide enough gap in negotiations that it's difficult to imagine bridging that gap outside the context of free agency.
--Talks with SD and LA have centered around a major league outfielder. SD is open to discussing any OF besides Pham and Grisham. Margot and Naylor are the targets with SD. Quantrill, Lucchesi, and Campusano are also in play. The 35th overall pick is in play as well but only if they take Wil Myers back.
--With LA, talks have centered around Verdugo and multiple top prospects not named May or Lux. They've discussed Price, but the Dodgers would only pay a fraction of the cost of his contract which would compromise the amount of prospects they get back in return.
--Speier sees them not standing pat with Betts because of their stated desire to cut payroll and them saying it would be very difficult to retain both Betts and JD long-term.

Why would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,452
Why would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
To trade JBJ?

Also JD isn't really here long term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.