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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teachdad46

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Oct 14, 2011
127
Vermont
Interesting video of Verdugo talking about his back. Not super encouraging.

edit: video originally posted Dec 13, 2019


(also not encouraged by the Scumbag Steve cosplay)
[/QUOTE

Not super encouraging is for sure.
Super discouraging is closer to my read.
I was kinda looking forward to having a Bennie clone bookending the OF but now I'm not so much..
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,902
Oregon
The problem with things such as this is you just don't know how old the intel is that the talking heads have. Gammons might be right; he might be 8 hours behind.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,393
Rogers Park
other tweet in this thread is we'd pay more of Myers' contract for Patino.

View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1224546930551857153
I worship Pedro, but what's his batting average on predicting successful pitchers?
I'd be delighted to take some of Myers' contract to get Luis Patiño.

This kid, in his age 19 season, just threw 87 IP of 2.69 ERA, 11.7 K/9, 3.5 BB/9 ball in the California league, and ended up with two starts in AA. At 19! I know it was just a cup of coffee in AA, but there has literally never been a 19 year old pitcher on the Portland Sea Dogs — not even when they were a Marlins affiliate.

Good fastball, well developed slider, changeup in progress, but they kept promoting him because he kept dominating. His fangraphs writeup includes this sentence: "Conservatively, Patiño has mid-rotation upside, but how the changeup and breaking ball command develop matter because that’s where there’s room for significant growth."

edit: Seriously, it was hard for me to believe that we would be able to get a package for one year of Betts that would include a prospect this good, so I'm not sure I actually believe these reports from Gammons. But... Bloom might just know what he's doing.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
50,989
Bloom definitely knows what he’s doing, but Gammons has not for quite some time, sad to say.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,902
Oregon
Bloom definitely knows what he’s doing, but Gammons has not for quite some time, sad to say.
When I see him on TV now, I wish he had retired some time ago, and spent his time playing guitar in a blues trio at bars on weekends while writing mystery novels on the side
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,705
Which is why no one should believe Lou Merloni knows anything
This. 1,000,000 times this.

Even if the source is well-placed, he may telling Loumer because he knows he'll bark it out all over the airwaves.

When I see him on TV now, I wish he had retired some time ago, and spent his time playing guitar in a blues trio at bars on weekends while writing mystery novels on the side
Only if he has a good editor.

I hope and trust that Chaim Bloom will walk away if he doesn't get what he wants.
 
Jan 31, 2020
69
I'd be delighted to take some of Myers' contract to get Luis Patiño.

This kid, in his age 19 season, just threw 87 IP of 2.69 ERA, 11.7 K/9, 3.5 BB/9 ball in the California league, and ended up with two starts in AA. At 19! I know it was just a cup of coffee in AA, but there has literally never been a 19 year old pitcher on the Portland Sea Dogs — not even when they were a Marlins affiliate.

Good fastball, well developed slider, changeup in progress, but they kept promoting him because he kept dominating. His fangraphs writeup includes this sentence: "Conservatively, Patiño has mid-rotation upside, but how the changeup and breaking ball command develop matter because that’s where there’s room for significant growth."

edit: Seriously, it was hard for me to believe that we would be able to get a package for one year of Betts that would include a prospect this good, so I'm not sure I actually believe these reports from Gammons. But... Bloom might just know what he's doing.
I think everyone who cares about the product on the field would. The big question is will John Henry allow this to happen. If the goal is to get under $208 then Boston would need to send another contract if they take the amount of the Myers contract needed to get Patino in the mix. This is why ultimately I feel Gasper was right all along in his thoughts that we are going to be disappointed in the return for Mookie. The plan it seems at least is to get rid of Mookie to get some tangible assets for him that is more valuable than a 4th round pick. Also to use him to dump a bad contract such as David Price. Hopefully this comes to a conclusion today.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
693
Maryland
If we're trading Mookie in large part to reset the CBT, then we don't get there unless we also trade Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JBJ, but I think that's unlikely). I think that's why this is taking so long. Bloom not only has to explore packages with the Dodgers and Padres that include one of these pitchers, but he also has to see whether he can move one of them separately if not in the Betts deal, which is probably pretty difficult without eating a significant part of salary (or taking a bad contract back).

The other complicating factor is that we probably need to get a SP back - preferably young but close to MLB-ready.

The Dodgers are apparently willing to take Price in a deal for Mookie, but want the Sox to eat some of the money. I don't think that's the problem. It seems that the issue is whether they will give us a pitcher we want in the deal - May would be ideal, Gonsolin might be acceptable with Verdugo, but Dodgers apparently haven't offered that.

With the Padres, getting Patino would be great, even if we have to take Myers. But apparently they don't want to take Price, so that means we have to deal Price or Eovaldi separately to get under the CBT.

If that's where things stand, I can understand why there's still no deal.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
693
Maryland
I think this is more about not wanting to commit to 12Y/$420M than the CBT per se.
I think that may be part of it (assuming that's what he's looking for), but even if they don't want to pay that they could just keep him this year AND TRY TO WIN, and then try to resign him, or sign somebody else. I don't think they'd make this move, and make the team demonstrably worse this year, without the goal of resetting the CBT.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
175
I think this is more about not wanting to commit to 12Y/$420M than the CBT per se.
I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.

What sucks is that the Sox are being financially disciplined with arguably one of the best players in the game just a few years after entering into a series of ill advised contracts. I'm not saying that I don't understand or even agree with the decision. It just feels a bit like an over correction. And at bottom, watching the Red Sox without Mookie Betts is going to be a lot less exciting.

When was the last time a top of the game star was traded in his prime by a Boston team in any sport?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,892
St. Louis, MO
If we're trading Mookie in large part to reset the CBT, then we don't get there unless we also trade Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JBJ, but I think that's unlikely). I think that's why this is taking so long. Bloom not only has to explore packages with the Dodgers and Padres that include one of these pitchers, but he also has to see whether he can move one of them separately if not in the Betts deal, which is probably pretty difficult without eating a significant part of salary (or taking a bad contract back).

The other complicating factor is that we probably need to get a SP back - preferably young but close to MLB-ready.

The Dodgers are apparently willing to take Price in a deal for Mookie, but want the Sox to eat some of the money. I don't think that's the problem. It seems that the issue is whether they will give us a pitcher we want in the deal - May would be ideal, Gonsolin might be acceptable with Verdugo, but Dodgers apparently haven't offered that.

With the Padres, getting Patino would be great, even if we have to take Myers. But apparently they don't want to take Price, so that means we have to deal Price or Eovaldi separately to get under the CBT.

If that's where things stand, I can understand why there's still no deal.
Seems like Stripling would be a solution for the 5th SP slot. Have always thought he’d be involved in this.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,892
St. Louis, MO
I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.

What sucks is that the Sox are being financially disciplined with arguably one of the best players in the game just a few years after entering into a series of ill advised contracts. I'm not saying that I don't understand or even agree with the decision. It just feels a bit like an over correction. And at bottom, watching the Red Sox without Mookie Betts is going to be a lot less exciting.

When was the last time a top of the game star was traded in his prime by a Boston team in any sport?
The Pats have had plenty. Seymour jumps to mind.
 
Jan 31, 2020
69
Seems like Stripling would be a solution for the 5th SP slot. Have always thought he’d be involved in this.
He's 30. There is not a lot of upside with him. At this point, he's probably at best a 4th to 6th SP on the roster. I'd rather have someone more projectable in this deal where you could have them under control for 5 years. Probably asking for too much but if you're giving up Price and Mookie you need someone coming back that you can say has the potential of an SP3.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,892
St. Louis, MO
He's 30. There is not a lot of upside with him. At this point, he's probably at best a 4th to 6th SP on the roster. I'd rather have someone more projectable in this deal where you could have them under control for 5 years. Probably asking for too much but if you're giving up Price and Mookie you need someone coming back that you can say has the potential of an SP3.
In addition to someone like Ferguson.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,781
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.
Or to sort of sum up all these factors into one formula: trading Betts is the only way the Sox can exercise any control over their destiny in this situation. If they don't trade him, there's massive uncertainty about what the team looks like in 2021 and beyond, as well as a real chance of losing a high-end asset and getting little of value in return. That's an outcome worth avoiding.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
175
The Pats have had plenty. Seymour jumps to mind.
That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.

The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,747
Mobile, AL
That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.

The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
Joe Thornton comes to mind from the Bruins - and/or Seguin
 
Jan 31, 2020
69
That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.

The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
Not sure about before. Was Tiant before Lynn? Anyways as for after Fred Lynn, Manny comes to mind. Nomar too.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
175
Manny, Nomar, Thornton and Seguin are all also good calls. I said "top of the game" and I am not sure any of those players were exactly that. I think of Mookie as the second best player in baseball right now. That may or may not be true, but he's almost definitely a top 5 talent. At the time they were traded, I don't think any of those four players, or Fred Lynn for that matter, were at that level.

The point isn't so much to debate it or turn this into a meta discussion. It's more that trading a player of Mookie's stature over finances and the risk that you cannot retain him is pretty freaking rare. Not that people don't get that. I'm just sort of venting.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,630
Hingham, MA
I think he was at the tail end of his prime. Wasn't it the following year when he got hurt that his downward spiral began?
He got hurt in late 2000. He was never the same again, although he was pretty good in 2002-2006

OPS+ by year
1997 123
1998 140
1999 153
2000 156
2001 114 (only 91 PAs due to injury)
2002 127
2003 121
2004 113
2005 118
2006 120
2007 80
2008 107
2009 85
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,466
Maine
I don't think you can claim Nomar to still be in his prime by the time he was sent out in 04. Manny maybe is closer.
Nomar was 31 when he was traded, Manny was 36. Nomar played 5 more injury-marred seasons, Manny played 2 suspension shortened seasons (plus 5 more games in 2011). Nomar was much closer to his "prime" for sure.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,479
Fred Lynn's career is a good argument for trading Mookie now and maximizing the return, not to sign him to one of the top two or three most expensive contracts in baseball history.
 
Aug 11, 2019
387
2004--Garciaparra had an Achilles heel injury that kept him out until June. He hit well but his fielding was limited and he had frequent days off. July 31st trade deadline.
2005--Torn left groin forced him on DL in late April for more than three months.
2008--Suffered microfracture in his hand after being hit by pitch. A few days after coming back, suffered strained calf muscle and went back on DL, then went on DL on August 1 to make room on roster for Manny Ramirez (Nomar sprained his ankle four days earlier). Wiki
 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
6,135
SS Botany Bay
If we're talking about Manny, let's also remember that the team began to put him on irrevocable waivers in late 2003 at age 30, in order to shed the 5 years and $101.5 million left on his contract, on top of the Manny being Manny stuff.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,466
Maine
If we're talking about Manny, let's also remember that the team began to put him on irrevocable waivers in late 2003 at age 30, in order to shed the 5 years and $101.5 million left on his contract, on top of the Manny being Manny stuff.
I seem to recall that the waiver thing was prompted by his semi-annual request to be traded, and they did it to show him that no one wanted to take him and his contract for free, let alone trade something for it. What it was not was a naked attempt to shed salary.
 

Teachdad46

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Oct 14, 2011
127
Vermont
If we're talking about Manny, let's also remember that the team began to put him on irrevocable waivers in late 2003 at age 30, in order to shed the 5 years and $101.5 million left on his contract, on top of the Manny being Manny stuff.
In some scribe's memorable words they "left him on the side of the road like a bag of rubbish and no one picked him up"..
 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
6,135
SS Botany Bay
I seem to recall that the waiver thing was prompted by his semi-annual request to be traded, and they did it to show him that no one wanted to take him and his contract for free, let alone trade something for it. What it was not was a naked attempt to shed salary.
I recall it being reported more than once that the team was motivated to get rid of Manny's contract fairly early after Henry et al. took over, in addition to the other stuff.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
51,673
San Andreas Fault
That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.

The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
Infamous Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater, although it was more what he became with the Yankees (CYA winner).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,466
Maine
Richard Seymour and Logan Mankins are two to come to mind pretty immediately for the Patriots; both of those happened previous to the season starting, as well.
Tough to draw equivalencies across different sports, especially given the different economics, but Mankins was traded and retired just two years later (played 9 with the Pats). Seymour played only four more seasons after being traded (after 8 with the Pats). It's questionable given the percentage of their career was in Foxboro versus elsewhere that they were traded away in their midst of their primes...certainly not in comparison to baseball players like Lester or Betts who very well could end up playing more years outside of Boston than in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.