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

Status
Not open for further replies.

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
6,205
NJ
Mookie is great, but not even close to Trout great.

That being said, I see no reason to move him to SD, or anyone, unless someone is willing to provide premium prospects, or young, cost controlled MLBers who are already stars. Which will not happen.
 

24redsox

lurker
Nov 18, 2013
20
Per Rob Bradford: https://weei.radio.com/media/audio-channel/bradfo-sho-ep-144-the-mookie-betts-david-price-conundrums

Last spring training the Red Sox offered Mookie Betts more than Manny Machado, presumed to be 10 years, 320 million. Betts rejected that, and word was he wanted 420 million. We do not know what the Red Sox offered this winter, but Tom Werner said the Red Sox have made new offers, and last weekend Sam Kennedy said that Mookie Betts rejected their offers and told them he is now focused on playing out the 2020 season.

So we know Betts has rejected over the last few years: 5-100, 8-200, 10-320.
If this is true and Mookie wants over $400 I say bye bye Mookie. Get the most you can for him in a trade.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Per Rob Bradford: https://weei.radio.com/media/audio-channel/bradfo-sho-ep-144-the-mookie-betts-david-price-conundrums

Last spring training the Red Sox offered Mookie Betts more than Manny Machado, presumed to be 10 years, 320 million. Betts rejected that, and word was he wanted 420 million. We do not know what the Red Sox offered this winter, but Tom Werner said the Red Sox have made new offers, and last weekend Sam Kennedy said that Mookie Betts rejected their offers and told them he is now focused on playing out the 2020 season.

So we know Betts has rejected over the last few years: 5-100, 8-200, 10-320.
They’re leaking the offers they made, now? This trade just went to 50/50 in my mind, at least.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,784
The wrong side of the bridge....
That being said, I see no reason to move him to SD, or anyone, unless someone is willing to provide premium prospects, or young, cost controlled MLBers who are already stars. Which will not happen.
The reason is that if you don't move him now you get essentially bupkis in a year.

Of course, you do get one more year of Mookie Betts, which is certainly not bupkis, even at $27M per. So it boils down to GFIN vs. building for the next push. And on that score, it seems to me that the organization has already signaled their choice by replacing Dombrowski with Bloom. Therefore I'll be surprised if Mookie stays.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,705
They really didn't learn a damn thing from the Lester mess, did they?
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
11,613
Washington
They really didn't learn a damn thing from the Lester mess, did they?
If they offered over what Machado got (somewhere around 10/$320) and Betts countered with $420 million, I don't think the Lester criticism is fair at all. The Sox letting fans know that they tried is important. Easier to move on, at least for some fans.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,143
CT
They really didn't learn a damn thing from the Lester mess, did they?
Not sure what you mean.....They made Lester an under valued offer that upset him. The offers they have been rumored to have made Mookie seem to be reasonably fair, especially to open negotiations.
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,147
From SoxScout on Twitter “It sounds like it's not just San Diego the Red Sox have been in more substantial Betts trade talks with ”
Nothing Earth shattering, I just heard tonight that all the stories being written about BOS-SD could be duplicated about a handful of different teams. The Sox are in real discussions with a few. Not exactly a bidding war, but they would have their pick of competing offers.
 
Jul 31, 2005
34
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.
100%! This cannot be the outcome. If it is, fuck them and all the BS contracts they signed so that they won't sign the contract that actually makes sense to do so. Ugh!
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,289
St. Louis, MO
Nothing Earth shattering, I just heard tonight that all the stories being written about BOS-SD could be duplicated about a handful of different teams. The Sox are in real discussions with a few. Not exactly a bidding war, but they would have their pick of competing offers.
Wouldn’t be surprised if this was leaked by the Sox to tweak LAD.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
46,343
deep inside Guido territory
Nothing Earth shattering, I just heard tonight that all the stories being written about BOS-SD could be duplicated about a handful of different teams. The Sox are in real discussions with a few. Not exactly a bidding war, but they would have their pick of competing offers.
Am I right in thinking that there’s a real possibility of Betts being traded?
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,705
My point is that they lowballed Lester, then made sure to leak how outrageous his demands were so that he had bad feelings about the team after being traded, making a return impossible. Stop leaking salary discussions.
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,147
Am I right in thinking that there’s a real possibility of Betts being traded?
It's always "going to be unlikely..." until it finally happens, I guess, but this feels real to me. I don't think it's a coincidence that this is coming out days after Kennedy said "Betts wants to focus on 2020." I honestly believe this would be happening independent of the CBT stuff. They offered him what they think he is worth, he wasn't interested, so they are seeing if they can get something they value more than 1 year of Betts and a 4th round draft pick.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,784
The wrong side of the bridge....
My point is that they lowballed Lester, then made sure to leak how outrageous his demands were so that he had bad feelings about the team after being traded, making a return impossible. Stop leaking salary discussions.
If in fact the salaries are being leaked by the top brass, then that sounds as if they've pretty much resigned themselves to the impossibility of signing Mookie next winter, and they've decided if they can't win the bidding war they might as well win the PR war.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
65,450
Oregon
I'm interested in the mystery teams that might actually fit the bill.

Cardinals?
Dodgers?
Giants? (Although they're shy on prospects)
Mets?
Athletics?
Reds?
Rangers?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,947
I'm interested in the mystery teams that might actually fit the bill.

Cardinals?
Dodgers?
Giants? (Although they're shy on prospects)
Mets?
Athletics?
Reds?
Rangers?
I think this is the full list after Atlanta signing Ozuna. Could squint and maybe see Cleveland and Philadelphia too.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,947
Getting Beane involved would be interesting. Renting Betts would be right out of his playbook.
Maybe, but Oakland doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Unless Luzardo, Puk or Murphy are in play — and Beane seems too smart for them to be — there’s no one else valuable enough to make sense as a return.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,371
I'm interested in the mystery teams that might actually fit the bill.

Cardinals?
Dodgers?
Giants? (Although they're shy on prospects)
Mets?
Athletics?
Reds?
Rangers?
Patriots too. They need a QB for when Brady goes to the Vega$ Raiders. As we all know, Mookie has a cannon and is pretty mobile.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,947

Oddly framed info from Gammons.

2 NL execs last night asked if Boston trades Betts, would they be better off doing a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski) and working out Price deal w/ another team(Angels?), relieve $ and take a lesser prospect(Thaiss?).
- @pgammo, 6:03 am, 1/25/20
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,143
CT

Oddly framed info from Gammons.

2 NL execs last night asked if Boston trades Betts, would they be better off doing a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski) and working out Price deal w/ another team(Angels?), relieve $ and take a lesser prospect(Thaiss?).
- @pgammo, 6:03 am, 1/25/20
Gammons is always a bit cryptic to decipher but to me this would indicate that they are currently packaging Betts/Price together in the same deal. That would seem to be consistent with the Myers rumor. No other reason for him to be included if it is for Mookie alone.
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
387
Would Pollack, Josiah Gray, Keibert Ruiz and maybe a Julio Urias or Jeter Downs for Mookie and Price be reasonable?

E: Clarity
 
Last edited:

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
387
I debated putting first names into the post originally. That's my bad for not being specific, I was talking about Julio Urias like Kramer's intern pointed out.
 

johnlos

lurker
Aug 22, 2014
12
It’s the only thing we can hope for. I’m pretty disappointed no one is talking about how we should clearly keep him and no one should care how much it costs the owners. How much money have they made off the Red Sox? Honest question, if anyone has an idea.

There was a great BP article about this re: the Astros and Cole: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/55152/the-visible-hand-baseball-economy/
Owner had the money, he just “prefers not to” sign him. It’s borderline cartel action that every one of these owners treats their team like a business now. Do they treat their yachts like a business?

If the Sox reset, it's fair to assume they would be right at the negotiating table with Mookie next year, right? Has there been any bad blood or just normal indicators that he'll look for the biggest contract?

Little bit of a gamble but we would all be calling Bloom brilliant if he somehow manages to field a competitive team in 2020, trade Mookie, and resign him. Yankee fans worst nightmare.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
22,033
I’m pretty disappointed no one is talking about how we should clearly keep him and no one should care how much it costs the owners.
there's been plenty of talk. Bradford has said they offered 10 years, 320M. 32M AAV. that's a hefty commitment, but it's rumored Mookie wants Trout money. which would be quite an overpay.

go read this thread again. or are you saying they Sox should pay Trout money? because the luxury tax penalties do get pretty insane, even for a billionaire, and also in the draft.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,354
Twin Cities
there's been plenty of talk. Bradford has said they offered 10 years, 320M. 32M AAV. that's a hefty commitment, but it's rumored Mookie wants Trout money. which would be quite an overpay.

go read this thread again. or are you saying they Sox should pay Trout money? because the luxury tax penalties do get pretty insane, even for a billionaire, and also in the draft.
Agreed. If that offer is accurate, then that’s more than a good faith effort (and no where close to how they handled Lester). At this point, they have to wait to see where the FA bidding goes. And the only remaining (though still significant) question is whether they get an offer for him that outweighs his value to the 2020 team, in the team’s eyes.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,506
Portsmouth, NH
It’s the only thing we can hope for. I’m pretty disappointed no one is talking about how we should clearly keep him and no one should care how much it costs the owners. How much money have they made off the Red Sox? Honest question, if anyone has an idea.

There was a great BP article about this re: the Astros and Cole: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/55152/the-visible-hand-baseball-economy/
Owner had the money, he just “prefers not to” sign him. It’s borderline cartel action that every one of these owners treats their team like a business now. Do they treat their yachts like a business?
Jesus H Christ, it's more than just money, there's significant draft implications and if the Sox want to keep the train rolling, they need to restock the farm. Beyond that, if you do want o focus on money, it's a business at end of day. Henry may be a billionaire but he didn't get to be that because he was sentimental.

I love Mookie, but committing close to half a billion dollars to one player makes little sense, neither in business nor in team building.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
51,908
Thank you PP, and that linked BP article was pretty lousy.

The sentiment being expressed is especially dumb in the case of HOU/Cole, since HOU took on a big salary commitment mid-season in Greinke to (kind of) replace Cole since they knew he was leaving.

Also I'm sick of reading "why didn't they just keep him?" posts/articles about free agency, as if this was solely up to the team. It seems fairly clear at this point that Cole wanted to go to the Yankees if they were willing to go to the top end of the market, this is why the Dodgers and Angels stopped bidding at the end. HOU could have offered the same deal as the Yankees and it seems unlikely even that would have been enough to keep Cole there.
 

johnlos

lurker
Aug 22, 2014
12
Like I said as a reply to the previous post: I’m okay with getting under the luxury tax!and then signing him. And at that point what’s the difference between $32 and $38 AAV for a guy consistently posting >5 WAR even in a down year?

And I feel like you missed my point re: Henry. Sports teams didn’t used to be a thing you bought and sold to make money. Or to make a profit off every year. They were like yachts, that you can brag about owning and give you something to sink money (you don’t need) into.

Henry’s asset has increased by $2.42b since he bought it (2.8b estimated worth and paid $0.38b). Why does he need to keep making MORE money off the investment??? He could easily pay Mookie $400m and we make excuses about him being a “smart businessman” as if the Sox aren’t a top-3 grossing franchise. Then you can still “team build” around him.

Jesus H Christ, it's more than just money, there's significant draft implications and if the Sox want to keep the train rolling, they need to restock the farm. Beyond that, if you do want o focus on money, it's a business at end of day. Henry may be a billionaire but he didn't get to be that because he was sentimental.

I love Mookie, but committing close to half a billion dollars to one player makes little sense, neither in business nor in team building.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,784
The wrong side of the bridge....
And I feel like you missed my point re: Henry. Sports teams didn’t used to be a thing you bought and sold to make money. Or to make a profit off every year. They were like yachts, that you can brag about owning and give you something to sink money (you don’t need) into.
Treating a sports team like a personal toy is just as bad as treating it like a cash cow. I want an owner who treats the team like a public trust that they were fortunate enough to have the resources to take on. I want an owner who approaches their role in terms of stewardship, who manages the organization on behalf of the city and its fanbase in a way that's calculated to keep it operating successfully -- both in business and on-field terms -- for the foreseeable future. I think by and large, John Henry has been that guy, and he totally gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,769
Treating a sports team like a personal toy is just as bad as treating it like a cash cow. I want an owner who treats the team like a public trust that they were fortunate enough to have the resources to take on. I want an owner who approaches their role in terms of stewardship, who manages the organization on behalf of the city and its fanbase in a way that's calculated to keep it operating successfully -- both in business and on-field terms -- for the foreseeable future. I think by and large, John Henry has been that guy, and he totally gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this.
5 division titles, 10 playoff appearances, and 4 world series championships ought to engender you to your fan base a little. Especially one that went 86 years without a championship.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,289
St. Louis, MO
Treating a sports team like a personal toy is just as bad as treating it like a cash cow. I want an owner who treats the team like a public trust that they were fortunate enough to have the resources to take on. I want an owner who approaches their role in terms of stewardship, who manages the organization on behalf of the city and its fanbase in a way that's calculated to keep it operating successfully -- both in business and on-field terms -- for the foreseeable future. I think by and large, John Henry has been that guy, and he totally gets the benefit of the doubt from me on this.
Well put. I’m confident that if Mookie is traded he will find a way to win another championship. He’s flexible in shifting his philosophies on how to win and knows he has to put a winner on the field to keep the massive fan base engaged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.