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

Status
Not open for further replies.

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,328
The back of your computer

Sources on Thursday confirmed a report by The Athletic that said the Padres and Boston Red Sox have discussed a trade that would bring superstar outfielder Mookie Betts to San Diego.

However, as the initial report stated, a deal seems unlikely. Much like Preller showed serious interest in Cleveland Indians shortstop Francisco Lindor last month, the pursuit of Betts does not seem to fit in the Padres’ greater plans.

The team has added almost $20 million in salary since last season and is intent on staying a course of fiscal prudence that doesn’t jeopardize the likelihood of sustained success.

The package of prospects the Red Sox are evidently willing to accept as part of a deal for Betts does not include any of the Padres’ top five minor leaguers, and that is not the hang-up in the potential trade, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Neither is it prohibitively distasteful to the Padres that they would essentially be renting the 27-year-old Betts for one season, as he is due $27 million in 2020 and could command $400 million or more as a free agent next winter.

The primary gap that would need to be bridged is in the portion of outfielder Wil Myers’ salary the Red Sox are willing to pay.

The Padres owe Myers $61 million over the next three seasons and have looked to move the former All-Star for the past two offseasons. It is not known how much the Red Sox have offered to pay or what the Padres would require, but sources said it needs to be much closer to the full value of the contract.

The motivation the Red Sox have to move Betts is in their desire to shed payroll.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,676
I'm sure they did.
This is a really specific case, no team who won't be a contender in 2020 would give up young talent for one year of Mookie just to see him leave next winter hence why plenty of teams likely haven't broached this topic at all with Bloom. Due diligence is one thing, wasting people's time for no reason is another.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,115
A lot here have said it but the idea of trading Mookie Betts so a billionaire doesn't have to shell out luxury tax is insulting. Layer on top of that not leveraging a generational talent for the best talent package and it makes it hard to think I'll be watching the Red Sox for the near future.
Exactly.

The prospect addicts here have been salivating at the prospects of a Yankees-style farm system rebuild since the talk of a Mookie trade first arose, but this seems a lot closer to the Stanton deal, with the Sox assuming the position of the Marlins.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,440
This is a really specific case, no team who won't be a contender in 2020 would give up young talent for one year of Mookie just to see him leave next winter hence why plenty of teams likely haven't broached this topic at all with Bloom. Due diligence is one thing, wasting people's time for no reason is another.
I dunno. Maybe. If I'm Elias, I'm calling to offer Chris Davis for Mookie Betts knowing full well what is going to happen.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
360
A lot here have said it but the idea of trading Mookie Betts so a billionaire doesn't have to shell out luxury tax is insulting.
Good thing this has nothing to do with the Luxury Tax and everything to do with knowing Betts is not going to look back next winter. I don't get it, the Sox are trying to give Betts a contract and he wont take it, why is this hard to understand? People are looking to hate on the biggest spending owners in MLB, it's idiotic.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,398
Myers' AAV is only 13.5M, so it would make a significant savings in trying to get under the tax
so if the Padres kicked in $39.5 million of the $63 million they owe him, does that mean he’d be free from a luxury tax standpoint, and only a bit more cost in actual dollars as Moreland and Pierce were the past two seasons?

That would put them under the cap, and if you get 3 players from outside the top 5, equivalent to what the D’Backs got for Goldschmidt, or maybe Margot to allow them to turn around and trade Bradley too, maybe we get somewhere.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
15,690
Good thing this has nothing to do with the Luxury Tax and everything to do with knowing Betts is not going to look back next winter. I don't get it, the Sox are trying to give Betts a contract and he wont take it, why is this hard to understand? People are looking to hate on the biggest spending owners in MLB, it's idiotic.
it has a great deal to do with the luxury tax, they may have tried walking it back, but it was clear from the outset that whether Betts, Bradley or elsewhere they wanted to get under. Betts is the move because he wants to go to Free Agency, as he should. There is no reason he should sign an offer without knowing his market. The team both wants to cut salary to re-set the tax AND make sure they get something for Betts.
 

Jeff Van GULLY

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,357
Good thing this has nothing to do with the Luxury Tax and everything to do with knowing Betts is not going to look back next winter. I don't get it, the Sox are trying to give Betts a contract and he wont take it, why is this hard to understand? People are looking to hate on the biggest spending owners in MLB, it's idiotic.
Why is Betts a sure thing to leave as a free agent? Does Betts hate Boston?

Or do you mean that Henry is unwilling to pay the market rate to keep him? Seems like that comes back to the luxury tax.

Wanting to test the market and maximize his value doesn’t mean he isn’t open to re-signing.
 

santadevil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,425
Saskatchestan
I agree with E5 and JA, this seems more like Preller trying to show people he is doing something

In the article amfox1 posted, San Diego was looking to trade for Lindor too?
I'm fairly certain they have their shortstop of the future

It all smoke coming from a SW direction
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
10,594
A lot here have said it but the idea of trading Mookie Betts so a billionaire doesn't have to shell out luxury tax is insulting. Layer on top of that not leveraging a generational talent for the best talent package and it makes it hard to think I'll be watching the Red Sox for the near future.
Totally agreed. I don't care what else they have to do, keep Mookie.
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,063
Rossland, BC
Good thing this has nothing to do with the Luxury Tax and everything to do with knowing Betts is not going to look back next winter. I don't get it, the Sox are trying to give Betts a contract and he wont take it, why is this hard to understand? People are looking to hate on the biggest spending owners in MLB, it's idiotic.
I'm down with JBJ.
I love Mookie Betts, but I love the Red Sox more. This isn't about John Henry's money but about the competitive disadvantage they are facing. I'm glad they are doing due diligence and I will hope for the best.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
it has a great deal to do with the luxury tax, they may have tried walking it back, but it was clear from the outset that whether Betts, Bradley or elsewhere they wanted to get under. Betts is the move because he wants to go to Free Agency, as he should. There is no reason he should sign an offer without knowing his market. The team both wants to cut salary to re-set the tax AND make sure they get something for Betts.
Sure there is, which is why plenty of players are like Xander and don't go to Free Agency. Liking where you are and feeling that the offer is enough/fair is a good reason for some. It's clearly not for Betts. That is completely his right, and that's fine. But not everyone "should" go to free agency, or feels the need to go to free agency and are perfectly happy with their reasoning and decision.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,440
At the time of the trade, Webster was ranked 49th, 71st and 69th by BA, MLB and BP. RDLR lost prospect status in 2011 but he was generally considered to be around Webster's talent.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
10,594
But what if trading Mookie now makes it more possible that they can sign him long-term next winter?
I just don't see the situation working out like that. It's possible I guess, but I think once he leaves he's gone for good.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
2,696
Gross. None of the top 5 prospects? If it's Gore I could live with taking Myers' full contract but that's never going to happen for a rental.
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
Totally agreed. I don't care what else they have to do, keep Mookie.
Hypothetically, how would you feel if the Red Sox gave Mookie a Trout-like contract and, as a result, had an Angels-like playoff record for the duration of that contract?

I’m not advocating that they trade Mookie, but it seems that devoting a substantial portion of your payroll to one player who’s performance is expected to decline, may not be a great idea if the goal is to make the playoffs year after year.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
11,725
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
A lot here have said it but the idea of trading Mookie Betts so a billionaire doesn't have to shell out luxury tax is insulting. Layer on top of that not leveraging a generational talent for the best talent package and it makes it hard to think I'll be watching the Red Sox for the near future.
What if it's about the billionaire's team getting a shot at early round draft picks sometime before my grandson moves into assisted living?
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,210
I wish there was a way to prove this, because I'd love to see you make a donation to the Jimmy Fund
Mike Zarren once told me that you could accurately report at any time that the Celtics were in trade talks with any other team because every team is always calling other teams about their guys. So unless MLB is a lot different, I think you're wrong.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,035
Portsmouth, NH
Mike Zarren once told me that you could accurately report at any time that the Celtics were in trade talks with any other team because every team is always calling other teams about their guys. So unless MLB is a lot different, I think you're wrong.
Wait - so because 1 team talks to, presumably here, every other team, that means all teams check in with one particular one? That logic seems faulty to me, especially when considering a single player.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
360
Athletic Boston reports tonight reports Cal Quantrill has been in trade talks, he tired at the end of last year and had 3 horrible starts before being shut down, but he was really good most of the spring and summer. That could be six years of a mid roattion starter with premium stuff.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
If Myers is in the deal, Mookie should bring back two of those two four prospects, not zero.

Couple of thoughts:

- As its currently configured, my guess is that Dinelson Lamet would be in the deal. Great velocity and his slider, curve and changes are all plus pitches. Quantrill and Perdomo are fringe guys I could see Bloom being interested in too.
- Paddack would of course go a long way toward making up the difference, but that’s not happening.
- I wonder if the video replay reports have cast a bit of doubt over other teams’ perceptions of Mookie’s true talent.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,527
Oregon
Wait - so because 1 team talks to, presumably here, every other team, that means all teams check in with one particular one? That logic seems faulty to me, especially when considering a single player.
Well, you know if one team rep say it ... all teams do the same thing
 

high cheese

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2001
115
Should we get Myers there would be the "Bloom's specialty is unearthing gems" crowd noting that his EBSR (Exit Back Spin Rate) and his RTQ (Rotational Torque Quotient) have been trending upward for the last three seasons and that he is on the cusp of breaking out big time in Beantown. Classic Bloom buy low move - remember the Rays won almost as many games as the Red Sox over the last 5 years!
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
1,921
If Bloom follows his Rays blueprint there are going deals that will initially be shocking. He's not afraid to shake things up.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,035
Portsmouth, NH
Athletic Boston reports tonight reports Cal Quantrill has been in trade talks, he tired at the end of last year and had 3 horrible starts before being shut down, but he was really good most of the spring and summer. That could be six years of a mid roattion starter with premium stuff.
I think you mean 5 years, but apologies for being pedantic.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
20,634
Athletic Boston reports tonight reports Cal Quantrill has been in trade talks, he tired at the end of last year and had 3 horrible starts before being shut down, but he was really good most of the spring and summer. That could be six years of a mid roattion starter with premium stuff.
I'd be more OK with Quantrill (would prefer Lamet as stated above) and one top prospect... but still, eating Myers deal would suck and shouldn't be the basis of this deal
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,189
Quantrill, Morejon, Trammell, and Myers* would be a very good return. Quantrill, as mentioned, offers six years of mid-rotation starting pitching with some upside beyond that. Trammell becomes your JBJ successor, with plus athleticism, on-base ability, and power potential. Morejon would become our #1 pitching prospect (although I don't love him as much as a lot of writers).

The * on Myers is that I'd want the Padres to pick up enough of his contract so that we wouldn't have to trade Price or JBJ to get under the threshold -- thus making the 2020 team as competitive as possible in Mookie's absence.

(Actually, come to think of it, you could also use the flexibility to pick up a bunch more of Price's contract and get a good return for him, too, and just plug Quantrill into his spot. I assume the reason we haven't traded Price yet is because Bloom is waiting to see whether a Mookie trade will change the calculus on payroll.)

BTW: It's obnoxious to have an overpaid Myers on the team, but he isn't a total zero in terms of production and it doesn't really matter how much he costs in 2021/2022, because they don't need to be under the top threshold again until 2023.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,189
By the way, the Padres have a guy I'm mildly obsessed with named Jake Cronenworth -- a shortstop/pitcher who hit 334/429/520 in AAA last year and also pitched as an "opener." He seems like a Bloom Guy, and MLB has him ranked 17 in the Padres' system. Sign me up for him as the last piece in a deal.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,676
By the way, the Padres have a guy I'm mildly obsessed with named Jake Cronenworth -- a shortstop/pitcher who hit 334/429/520 in AAA last year and also pitched as an "opener." He seems like a Bloom Guy, and MLB has him ranked 17 in the Padres' system. Sign me up for him as the last piece in a deal.
Definitely a Bloom guy, SD just got him from TB a month or two ago so Bloom must know him very well.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,169
If the Red Sox want to avoid the luxury tax this year they could just make Mookie a coach and then try to re-sign him after the year.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,618
Maine
It truly is the deadest part of the year if we're getting nearly 100 posts in less than 12 hours about a rumor of a trade that is not going to happen, put out by bored reporters looking for clicks and attention. Get it together people. :)
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,077
I don't see how any deal that is palatable for the Red Sox makes sense for the Padres - are they going to subsidize Myers, send multiple prospects to Boston *and* pay Mookie's full 2020 salary for what might be a one-year rental?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,676
I don't see how any deal that is palatable for the Red Sox makes sense for the Padres - are they going to subsidize Myers, send multiple prospects to Boston *and* pay Mookie's full 2020 salary for what might be a one-year rental?
It’s not impossible, they have a lot of prospects, a GM under pressure to get to 85 wins at least this year, and they’d get a high draft pick back after he left.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,739
The wrong side of the bridge....
If I'm trading Betts to SD, I want Tatis and one of him or Boegarts can move to 2b or 3b with Devers to 1st.
I'm beginning to think we need one of those filters like we used to have for misspellings of Buchholz, where every time someone types "trading Betts" it comes out as "trading one year of Betts and his $27 million salary." Because the second phrase is the reality we're talking about, and it sounds very different that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.