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
5,305
The back of your computer
I'm guessing these articles (Lin, Speier, Rosenthal) are coming out because the Red Sox have signaled that they are planning on moving forward with a trade and are beginning to prep the public for it.

Keep in mind that, as of now, the Red Sox are projected to be $21-23mm over the luxury tax threshold. A Mookie trade alone is unlikely to get the Red Sox under the threshold, given the salaries they may be taking back. The threshold is not calculated until the end of the year, so it is still reasonably likely that a Price trade occurs during the year, if not now.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,599
And the fact of the matter is this: if they do trade Mookie, and he is 100% committed to going to free agency, and such a trade helps them get under the luxury tax (thus resetting it), they could, if they wanted to, shell out max dollars for Mookie after 2020. They'll have some big money coming off the books in the next couple of years so it is not an absolutely crazy thought. If they trade him and tell him they want him back and trading him now allows them to pay him what he wants as a free agent, and he still has a sense that being here is a good thing for him, it could possibly work.

In other words, trading him doesn't *necessarily* take them out of the Mookie 2020 FA sweepstakes. In fact, it might actually strengthen their position to sign him.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,272
Oregon
How exactly does offering Mookie $400M next season allow they to stay under the luxury tax?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,113
Did I miss the start of the wishcasting? This is my favorite part of SoSH when the asks become more and more ridiculous.

I don’t even know what a SP ho is, but that sounds AMAZING
Lamet was mentioned earlier in the thread long before. I just think in a bidding war, it's probably more realistic.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,113
And the fact of the matter is this: if they do trade Mookie, and he is 100% committed to going to free agency, and such a trade helps them get under the luxury tax (thus resetting it), they could, if they wanted to, shell out max dollars for Mookie after 2020. They'll have some big money coming off the books in the next couple of years so it is not an absolutely crazy thought. If they trade him and tell him they want him back and trading him now allows them to pay him what he wants as a free agent, and he still has a sense that being here is a good thing for him, it could possibly work.

In other words, trading him doesn't *necessarily* take them out of the Mookie 2020 FA sweepstakes. In fact, it might actually strengthen their position to sign him.
I'm sure the luxury tax is part of why they want to trade him, but the other part is they don't want to pay him $380 million. He's gone after this season regardless imo.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,171
St. Louis, MO
Yeah I think they likely, and correctly, believe allocating 15% or so of a team payroll to a single player isn’t how to remain successfully competitive.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,305
The back of your computer
Possible trades (per Speier)

Padres - Betts for Myers (with Padres contributing some cash) and some combination of prospects such as Grisham, Campusano, Cronenworth, one of Baez, Quantrill or Lucchesi and maybe the #35 pick in the 2020 draft.

Dodgers - Betts and one of Price or Eovaldi for one of Pederson or Pollock and a pupu platter of prospects not named Lux or May
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,113
Possible trades (per Speier)

Padres - Betts for Myers (with Padres contributing some cash) and some combination of prospects such as Grisham, Campusano, Cronenworth, one of Baez, Quantrill or Lucchesi and maybe the #35 pick in the 2020 draft.

Dodgers - Betts and one of Price or Eovaldi for one of Pederson or Pollock and a pupu platter of prospects not named Lux or May
That latter deal saves a lot of money. I'd much rather have Pederson than Myers, even if it's only for a year. Depends on the pupu platter but being able to move Price or Eovaldi without eating any salary is tempting.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,851
Lamet was mentioned earlier in the thread long before. I just think in a bidding war, it's probably more realistic.
Lucchesi’s name keeps coming up in reports. I’m a little skeptical how successful he’d be for us. He sits 90, throws mostly sinky two-seamers and changeups with a decent curve and iffy cutter.

Considering we already have four(!) lefties in the rotation I’d rather have Lamet, a power righty with better breaking pitches.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,929
And the fact of the matter is this: if they do trade Mookie, and he is 100% committed to going to free agency, and such a trade helps them get under the luxury tax (thus resetting it), they could, if they wanted to, shell out max dollars for Mookie after 2020. They'll have some big money coming off the books in the next couple of years so it is not an absolutely crazy thought. If they trade him and tell him they want him back and trading him now allows them to pay him what he wants as a free agent, and he still has a sense that being here is a good thing for him, it could possibly work.

In other words, trading him doesn't *necessarily* take them out of the Mookie 2020 FA sweepstakes. In fact, it might actually strengthen their position to sign him.
This is exactly what some of us have been saying - it would be incredibly expensive to be a competitive suitor for Mookie without resetting the cap. A trade and reset is arguably the only chance of keeping him in Boston long term.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I understand that I'm on a sparsely populated island with this, but I'm actually sort of excited by this. I've loved watching Mookie play for the Sox, but I have no interest in paying him $350+ million.
I know that many here have doubted that the Sox could extract real value for him, but I've never been convinced of that. If Bloom can get a good package for him, I'm ready for the next chapter.
I'm swimming to shore. Call Ginger and Maryann, would you?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,292
That latter deal saves a lot of money. I'd much rather have Pederson than Myers, even if it's only for a year. Depends on the pupu platter but being able to move Price or Eovaldi without eating any salary is tempting.
If Betts and Price netted them Pederson, Downs, Gray, and Ruiz they’d be doing well. RF might be a problem for them, and Joc a likely deadline deal for more prospects, but it would reset the luxury tax, give them some low priced talent, and jumpstart the rebuild around Bogaerts and Devers.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,385
I'd love to get rid of that Eovaldi contract.
It is worth noting that the best way by far to beat this and presumably future Yankee editions is with RH SPs who have elite fastballs (Verlander, Cole, Glasnow, Syndergaard) and Eovaldi is one of the handful of players who fits this description.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
2,536
I've said it before but if Mookie is getting traded, it's not like this roster is set up for serious WS contention in 2020 anyways. May as well trade Brandon Workman coming off a career year too. Staple him to Mookie if it gets you a better prospect.

I can understand trading Mookie, but if the Padres can somehow keep their top 5 prospects and the centerpiece is a 20 year old catcher in A ball, I'm not sure it's really worth it.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It is worth noting that the best way by far to beat this and presumably future Yankee editions is with RH SPs who have elite fastballs (Verlander, Cole, Glasnow, Syndergaard) and Eovaldi is one of the handful of players who fits this description.
You have to actually be off the injured list, however.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,502
I don’t usually advocate this strategy, but if I’m the Dodgers, I’d probably just wait and sign him next year. Maybe they’re just allowing themselves to be used by Bloom to extract a better return from the Padres (or someone).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
11,113
I've said it before but if Mookie is getting traded, it's not like this roster is set up for serious WS contention in 2020 anyways. May as well trade Brandon Workman coming off a career year too. Staple him to Mookie if it gets you a better prospect.

I can understand trading Mookie, but if the Padres can somehow keep their top 5 prospects and the centerpiece is a 20 year old catcher in A ball, I'm not sure it's really worth it.
I mean, the Padres 6th prospect is about on equal terms with their 4th and 5th. I agree with the sentiment tho. A prospect in the 70-100 range for Mookie isn't that appealing.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,292
I don’t usually advocate this strategy, but if I’m the Dodgers, I’d probably just wait and sign him next year. Maybe they’re just allowing themselves to be used by Bloom to extract a better return from the Padres (or someone).
So what do they do with all the spare prospects that don’t have a path to playing in LA? Hold them until they reach minor league free agency?
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
399
Melrose MA
Since Speier mentions the possibility of the Sox receiving the #35 draft pick from SD in a Mookie trade, does anyone know what happens if the Sox have to forfeit their 1st and 2nd rounders as Houston did? Since it's another team's draft pick does that not get affected?
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,305
The back of your computer
Since Speier mentions the possibility of the Sox receiving the #35 draft pick from SD in a Mookie trade, does anyone know what happens if the Sox have to forfeit their 1st and 2nd rounders as Houston did? Since it's another team's draft pick does that not get affected?
Given the pending investigation, the Red Sox would not likely make a trade involving a draft pick until the punishment, if any, is announced.
 

TimScribble

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
685
I understand that I'm on a sparsely populated island with this, but I'm actually sort of excited by this. I've loved watching Mookie play for the Sox, but I have no interest in paying him $350+ million.
I know that many here have doubted that the Sox could extract real value for him, but I've never been convinced of that. If Bloom can get a good package for him, I'm ready for the next chapter.
I understand this island is getting crowded but I’m here as well. Add on the possibility of dumping Price as well and loading up on young talent to pair with their core. Sign me up.
 
Last edited:

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,720
I understand this island is getting crowded but I’m here as well. Add on the possibility of dumping Price as well and loading up on young talent to pair with their core. Sign me up.
I think Price would be pretty good in LA, SD probably not going to pop for both. But most likely lowers the amount of talent coming back.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,502
So what do they do with all the spare prospects that don’t have a path to playing in LA? Hold them until they reach minor league free agency?
The Dodgers are generally pretty flexible and creative with getting good players into their lineup, but they could also trade them for someone else? With maybe more than one year of control and fewer on-record remarks about testing free agency?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,292
The Dodgers are generally pretty flexible and creative with getting good players into their lineup, but they could also trade them for someone else? With maybe more than one year of control and fewer on-record remarks about testing free agency?
That’s the point, though. If they’re planning on signing him anyway (and let’s be honest, the reason to go the free agency route is to see what the Dodgers will pay), what else are they trading all the spare prospects for? Another place holder? A 4th/5th starter? I mean they can do that by adding in a Pollack for Price swap into the deal.

Prospect depth is great, it allows you to trade for guys like Betts. Hoarding them looking for the perfect deal (a RoY player that put up a 5 win season) just means leaving them to rot in the minors as their value deflates. Jeter Downs will likely be a good middle infielder, but the Dodgers have two far better players on the big league roster now, plus shortstops and second base prospects all through their system.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,272
Oregon
That’s the point, though. If they’re planning on signing him anyway (and let’s be honest, the reason to go the free agency route is to see what the Dodgers will pay), what else are they trading all the spare prospects for? Another place holder? A 4th/5th starter? I mean they can do that by adding in a Pollack for Price swap into the deal.

Prospect depth is great, it allows you to trade for guys like Betts. Hoarding them looking for the perfect deal (a RoY player that put up a 5 win season) just means leaving them to rot in the minors as their value deflates. Jeter Downs will likely be a good middle infielder, but the Dodgers have two far better players on the big league roster now, plus shortstops and second base prospects all through their system.
If they hold onto him and he walks, they get a single lottery ticket

If they trade him, they get somewhere between 3 and 5 lottery tickets ... some of whom they might have scouted before
 

Yaz4Ever

stumps for Trump
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I've met Wil Myers (he's a local kid) and know that he is a lifelong Sox fan. Was hoping we'd draft him originally (he was a 3b/C prospect at the time), but he hasn't done half of what I expected since then. I'd much rather take Joc Pederson back in a deal at this point, but any deal for Mookie should be about prospects. Neither Wil nor Joc is going to propel us to the postseason, so I'm inclined to believe we'd get more in terms of prospects from the Padres (who are flush with prospects) than we will from the Dodgers (who also have some attractive prospects) by taking on the albatross deal for Myers and hope that he finds a resurgence in Boston with the Green Monster.

Hopefully Preller feels the need to outbid the LAD and include one of their top prospects - that's about the best scenario I see at this point.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,851
Adding one year of Joc Pederson, a platoon player whose power would be kinda zapped by our park, doesn’t seem very valuable to me.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
20,524

Prior to this offseason, there were 85 contracts of at least $100 million in big league history, with just under half (42) of those having reached completion through either the expiration of a contract, a player’s decision to opt-out or retire in the middle of it, a team’s decision to release a player (sometimes after he’d been traded), or a mid-contract extension that overrode the initial deal.

Of those 42, 13 (31 percent) produced tremendous payoff, an average of 4.0 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) or better per season in the calculations of Baseball-Reference.com. (Caveat: four of those 13 performances came from players who opted out mid-deal.) That’s at or near Hall of Fame-level production.
only 9 of 42 completed nine-digit contracts averaged 4+ WAR per season and didn't opt out early.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,385
Also if you break that down into position players and pitchers, the deals for pitchers have surprisingly fared much better, especially the largest ones.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,292
If they hold onto him and he walks, they get a single lottery ticket

If they trade him, they get somewhere between 3 and 5 lottery tickets ... some of whom they might have scouted before
No, I meant from the Dodgers perspective. They have Lux and Seager in the middle infield and Will Smith catching. Where do they expect to put Downs and Ruiz? Are they dealing Muncy so that they can move Ruiz or Smith to first? Or letting one of them catch 40-50 games per year and deflate their value?

Prospects are only as good as they can produce on the field or trading for talent upgrades. LA has enough depth that they can afford to pay Betts what he needs without crushing the luxury tax barrier (because they can simply trade Pederson for more prospects with DJ Peters in the wings).

We went over this here when people were wringing their hands over the deals for Sale, Kimbrel, et al and the prospect loss. But what was Boston going to do with Margot? Downgrade from Bradley?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,385
No, I meant from the Dodgers perspective. They have Lux and Seager in the middle infield and Will Smith catching. Where do they expect to put Downs and Ruiz? Are they dealing Muncy so that they can move Ruiz or Smith to first? Or letting one of them catch 40-50 games per year and deflate their value?

Prospects are only as good as they can produce on the field or trading for talent upgrades. LA has enough depth that they can afford to pay Betts what he needs without crushing the luxury tax barrier (because they can simply trade Pederson for more prospects with DJ Peters in the wings).

We went over this here when people were wringing their hands over the deals for Sale, Kimbrel, et al and the prospect loss. But what was Boston going to do with Margot? Downgrade from Bradley?
I pretty much agree with this but it's interesting that the Dodgers and Yankees both have this issue now of seeming excess depth and neither has made the 3 for 1 or 4 for 1 consolidation deals expected. This is an area where Dombrowski was superb for you guys, pulling the trigger on move after move to fill in necessary gaps (Kimbrel, Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce) whereas both Friedman and Cashman seem to be better at amassing talent then knowing when to cut bait on some of it, although that could change at any time.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
No, I meant from the Dodgers perspective. They have Lux and Seager in the middle infield and Will Smith catching. Where do they expect to put Downs and Ruiz? Are they dealing Muncy so that they can move Ruiz or Smith to first? Or letting one of them catch 40-50 games per year and deflate their value?

Prospects are only as good as they can produce on the field or trading for talent upgrades. LA has enough depth that they can afford to pay Betts what he needs without crushing the luxury tax barrier (because they can simply trade Pederson for more prospects with DJ Peters in the wings).

We went over this here when people were wringing their hands over the deals for Sale, Kimbrel, et al and the prospect loss. But what was Boston going to do with Margot? Downgrade from Bradley?
I pretty much agree with this but it's interesting that the Dodgers and Yankees both have this issue now of seeming excess depth and neither has made the 3 for 1 or 4 for 1 consolidation deals expected. This is an area where Dombrowski was superb for you guys, pulling the trigger on move after move to fill in necessary gaps (Kimbrel, Sale, Eovaldi, Pearce) whereas both Friedman and Cashman seem to be better at amassing talent then knowing when to cut bait on some of it, although that could change at any time.
All true, and this is apparently something JWH identified in Cherington, which is why he brought in DD in the first place. I think the problem with some of DD's trades isn't necessarily the main body, it was the guys he added at the end of deals, like Logan Allen. The flip side is that sometimes the prospects don't pan out - I'm sure Wil Meyers what put in line for a succession like this, back in the day.

I think you also have to allow that DD's deals look better in this regard since the Sox did when it all; the benefit of hindsight puts a finer point on the benefits of "going all in" vs. "maintaining flexibility long term and treating the playoffs like a crapshoot."
 

IpswichSox

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,535
Suburbs of Washington, DC
I don't understand the proposed Betts deal from the Padres' perspective. Is San Diego a potential playoff team with Betts? Maybe, but fringe-y wildcard at best, I think. So why trade prospects for a player you would likely lose to free agency after 2020 and you wouldn't even make the playoffs in 2020?

I guess San Diego could boost revenue to some degree with ticket sales if you sign Betts. Maybe San Diego thinks they could replenish some of the lost prospect talent by themselves trading Betts at the deadline if they're out of it this summer. I get the Dodgers' rationale, but I don't understand the Padres' interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.