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

Status
Not open for further replies.

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
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?
Yes, I think -- whichever team he's on in 2020 -- if Margot doesn't show this year he can hit he is a prime non-tender candidate after the season.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
3,620
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?
i think this must be why the Dodgers are the front runner. The Padres arent going to give us close to MLB talent that is worth anything, just some of their high ceiling minor league guys and some shitty "major league" OFs that dont really deserve a starting job. Bringing the Dodgers in when they are offering Verdugo+ might force the Padres to offer more but I think I would rather have Verdugo than Grisham anyway. Preller may not be as desperate as we think, the Betts deal never really made much sense with them. Dodgers have a loaded farm and really need to get a WS ASAP. Nobody likes winning the regular series and the prospect rankings, only to lose in heartbreaking fashion every postseason, especially when they have entered most of them as the presumptive favorite. The Dodgers just make more sense
 
Last edited:

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
They should be, Betts is the second best player in baseball. That’s worth a ton, even for only one year.
they should get one top prospect for the year of Betts, they should get another prospect equal in value to the compensation pick they’ll get, and then anotherprospect to hedge the prospect uncertainty.

this is not as hard as they’re making it by trying to include Price. Just get the best prospect package available and shed the $27 million To get under the cap. M

don’t f’ing turn this into Lackey for Craig and Kelly.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Interesting that there's a possiblity of doing a SD deal without taking Myers back.
#35 p
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.
Just to play this out, if I'm SD and I know Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect is on the table, I offer the #35 pick in the 2020 draft if the Red Sox take a subsidized Myers and upgrade Quantrill to Patino, SD's best RHP prospect, to close the deal. My best and final SD offer is:

Betts for Myers (subsidized with $6mm per year in cash), Patino, Campusano, Naylor and SD's comp pick (#35).

That's an offer that I would take over the purported LAD offer. Removing Myers (while retaining $6mm) and adding Betts adds $10.5mm next year to SD's payroll.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,133
Just to play this out, if I'm SD and I know Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect is on the table, I offer the #35 pick in the 2020 draft if the Red Sox take a subsidized Myers and upgrade Quantrill to Patino, SD's best RHP prospect, to close the deal. My best and final SD offer is:

Betts for Myers (subsidized with $6mm per year in cash), Patino, Campusano, Naylor and SD's comp pick (#35).

That's an offer that I would take over the purported LAD offer. Removing Myers (while retaining $6mm) and adding Betts adds $10.5mm next year to SD's payroll.
The Pads LOVE Patino, he has Ace potential. He's the #15 overall prospect at BP, #18 at BA. The kid ALREADY projects on ZIPS as a 103 ERA+ at AGE 20. No way the Pads trade Patino for one year of Betts. They have a lot of good prospects to put in a deal but he's untouchable and SD media has stated that he's untouchable. Quote from ProspectsLive: "Explosive starting pitcher, type of arm speed you dream of."
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
The Pads LOVE Patino, he has Ace potential. He's the #15 overall prospect at BP, #18 at BA. The kid ALREADY projects on ZIPS as a 103 ERA+ at AGE 20. No way the Pads trade Patino for one year of Betts. They have a lot of good prospects to put in a deal but he's untouchable and SD media has stated that he's untouchable. Quote from ProspectsLive: "Explosive starting pitcher, type of arm speed you dream of."
I'm not saying they'll do it. I'm saying that, to leapfrog in front of the projected LAD offer, that might be needed to seal the deal.

As to RR's question, I agree that the pick could be problematic with the results of the investigation pending, but I'd assume the Red Sox would have an inkling of the punishment before the trade is consummated.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
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?
I would flip if Margot is somehow in the deal. He’s not that cheap, there’s nothing there to suggest an offensive breakout, and there are numerous capable defense-first outfielders still on the market (Pillar, Dyson, Lagares, Hamilton) and other bounce-back candidates (Maybin, Jay, Martin) if we wanna go that route.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
I would flip if Margot is somehow in the deal. He’s not that cheap, there’s nothing there to suggest an offensive breakout, and there are numerous capable defense-first outfielders still on the market (Pillar, Dyson, Lagares, Hamilton) and other bounce-back candidates (Maybin, Jay, Martin) if we wanna go that route.
I agree. If the goal is to save money, then taking on Margot is a bad, bad idea.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
The pick may be less attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.
The pick may be more attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.

If you think you may lose a high pick, you need another one.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
The pick may be more attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.

If you think you may lose a high pick, you need another one.
I think the lesson from the Patriots’ experience is that if you have 2 high draft picks at the time of punishment, it’s easier to have one stripped.
 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Moderator
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,397
Moving the Line
Here’s what I came up with for a deal, any reason to think this is unreasonable? Granted it includes Price, which Friedman may be less inclined to do, but think it makes sense from Boston’s perspective if they’re going to really shed salary:

LAD receives: Betts, Price, and Barnes.
BOS receives: Downs, Gonsolin, Pollock, and Kody Hoese.

Hoese, which rhymes with rosey, was LA’s first rounder (1-25) last year, 55 PV in power. Plays 3rd now but profiles decently to be a corner OF if need be. Good eye for plate discipline, adequate but not great glove.
 

Airdrie Redsox

New Member
Jul 21, 2005
14
Scotland
At the same time that I totally hear where you're coming from, I would just point out that the "hamstrung" franchise we're talking about is one of only two that have won multiple titles in the past decade (and we're in a lot better shape than the other one). Most franchises' fans would gladly trade with us.

I don't think there's a magic formula for avoiding situations like this. They just have to be dealt with.
Totally agree, "hamstrung" as in this moment now in terms of not building the next decade around Betts. I should have been clearer. As per your last line, we just need to deal with it
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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?
Go back to when we traded him. There's a thread here with (likely) hundreds of posts explaining why we need this man on our team
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
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.
How did that work out with Lester? Once Betts leaves, he gone.

If he goes to LA and they give up legit prospects for him, they’re signing him to a mega extension. They’re one of two or three teams that can flex on Mookie with a market rate extension this spring.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
How did that work out with Lester? Once Betts leaves, he gone.
There is no reason to think the probability of BOS signing Betts after 2020 has any connection with who he plays 2020 with.

If he goes to LA and they give up legit prospects for him, they’re signing him to a mega extension. They’re one of two or three teams that can flex on Mookie with a market rate extension this spring.
They traded for Machado two years ago and made no attempt to resign him after the season. Also there is no reason to think that this close to FA that Mookie is signing an extension with anyone, unless it is for like $450M or something and even then he might not.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
They traded for Machado two years ago and made no attempt to resign him after the season. Also there is no reason to think that this close to FA that Mookie is signing an extension with anyone, unless it is for like $450M or something and even then he might not.
To be fair, they only traded for Machado because their regular SS, Seager, was out for the year. They knew they’d be getting him back this year, so no need for Manny.
 

thestardawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2005
862
Section 38, Row 13
I feel like any trade with LA should include Ruiz. He is essentially blocked now by the development of Will SMith, and there's a non zero chance that Ruiz is major league ready by 2021. Verdugo/Ruiz/Downs or Gray would be palatable.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
To be fair, they only traded for Machado because their regular SS, Seager, was out for the year. They knew they’d be getting him back this year, so no need for Manny.
That's true, but they gave up prospects for him. If LAD does this, they may just want him for the one season and not want to commit to the massive long-term deal.

My real point is there's no reason to link who he plays for in 2020 with who he signs with next winter, I really think there is close to zero relation there, whether he stays or is traded.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That's true, but they gave up prospects for him. If LAD does this, they may just want him for the one season and not want to commit to the massive long-term deal.

My real point is there's no reason to link who he plays for in 2020 with who he signs with next winter, I really think there is close to zero relation there, whether he stays or is traded.
That and Jon Lester has nothing to do with Mookie Betts.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
If he goes to LA and they give up legit prospects for him, they’re signing him to a mega extension. They’re one of two or three teams that can flex on Mookie with a market rate extension this spring.
If there's something Betts has been consistent on, it's his desire to hit the market. It would have to be one hell of a flex (say, more than the reported 12/420 he's asked for) to get him to sign this spring as opposed to next fall/winter.

I think it's fair to say that if the Sox trade him, he's gone forever. But I don't think that will be because he never hits the free agent market.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Assuming that LA can sign Mookie to an extension where the Sox couldn't is assuming that either (a) Friedman is willing to spend silly money while negotiating against himself, which does not seem like his MO, or (b) Mookie has been entirely disingenuous with the public about his approach to his upcoming free agency, which does not seem like his MO either.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,391
New Mexico
Assuming that LA can sign Mookie to an extension where the Sox couldn't is assuming that either (a) Friedman is willing to spend silly money while negotiating against himself, which does not seem like his MO, or (b) Mookie has been entirely disingenuous with the public about his approach to his upcoming free agency, which does not seem like his MO either.
And if either one of those things are true then there is no way the Sox will be able to hold onto him past next year anyway.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
If there's something Betts has been consistent on, it's his desire to hit the market. It would have to be one hell of a flex (say, more than the reported 12/420 he's asked for) to get him to sign this spring as opposed to next fall/winter.

I think it's fair to say that if the Sox trade him, he's gone forever. But I don't think that will be because he never hits the free agent market.
It's also just possible that the Red Sox simply don't value Betts as highly as other teams. Which is not to say they think he's garbage -- they've offered him the biggest contract in franchise history and a bigger contract than anyone in the game who isn't Mike Trout. But they have their own model of player evaluation and projection, and if they see him as being worth, say, $350m over 10 years, and they believe other teams value him at, say, $400m over 10 years, then he is leaving, period. They're not going to blow past their valuation of the player, not now and not next winter.

I know that analysis triggers some folks who think that, for that one truly special player you want more than anything, "value" shouldn't enter into it. But that's Dombrowski thinking -- that's how Logan Allen wound up with the Padres and David Price got way more than anyone else was offering. And, for better or for worse, I think they've turned the page on that.

So I think it's fair to say that, once Mookie decided he was going to take the highest offer, as is his right, he was gone forever, and it's just a matter of what the Sox can get out of his inevitable departure.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
If it's the Dodgers, I want May. If it's the Padres, I want Patino. Otherwise, no deal. To trade Mookie, they should get something special back - pretty good is not good enough.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
14,285
I have a bridge for sale. I'll make the payments low and interest at 0%
Unfortunately I already have a lot of bridges in my portfolio so I would need to find someone to take on one of my current bridges which may or may not be positive assets before I consider adding another bridge.

Maybe we could exchange bridges? I have some older, more expensive, high-performing ones & wouldn't mind adding some younger, cost-controlled bridges in return.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Depends on the interest rate & the size of the payments.
My point exactly in responding to Dewey's Cannon saying either May or Patino or no deal. Perhaps it's worth it to LA or SD and if there is a true bidding war maybe Chaim gets one of those guys, but I just don't see it. Mookie probably nets SD a wild card spot and that gets them into the tournament, but doesn't guarantee anything. LA has a better shot with Mookie, but IMO their pitching still needs a bit of help.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
870
Maryland
My point exactly in responding to Dewey's Cannon saying either May or Patino or no deal. Perhaps it's worth it to LA or SD and if there is a true bidding war maybe Chaim gets one of those guys, but I just don't see it. Mookie probably nets SD a wild card spot and that gets them into the tournament, but doesn't guarantee anything. LA has a better shot with Mookie, but IMO their pitching still needs a bit of help.
I wasn't saying that either SD or LA would, or should include those guys in the deal. I was just saying, from my perspective, I don't think they should make the deal unless one of those guys is coming back. The other prospects being discussed are not enough (for me) to justify trading Betts. An A-ball catcher is just too far away, and too much risk that he never pans out. And it just doesn't seem that Verdugo has a very high ceiling - maybe a solid everyday player, but unlikely to be more than that. YMMV.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
3,208
Bangkok
Trade Mookie, maximize the prospect haul. Then trade Price, eating as much money as possible to maximize the prospect haul while making sure that the tax is reset. Try to sign Mookie next offseason but if it can't be done then we'll have 2-3 high-end prospects that will graduate into the team next year, and we'll have money to spend on free agents to fill in any gaps. Although next year's free agent crop is all over 30 (except Mookie), this actually means we'll have a good chance to sign them to below-market deals to fill in any holes. Surely the strategy has to be as simple as this?
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,952
Isle of Plum
Unfortunately I already have a lot of bridges in my portfolio so I would need to find someone to take on one of my current bridges which may or may not be positive assets before I consider adding another bridge.

Maybe we could exchange bridges? I have some older, more expensive, high-performing ones & wouldn't mind adding some younger, cost-controlled bridges in return.
What if I throw in the option to select a future bridge of your choice from a short list? Would that get you into this bridge today?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
I was interested by the relative lack of noise yesterday. Speer did a where-things-stand pic; but, overall, it was a very quiet day.

Never quite know what radio silence portends
 
Status
Not open for further replies.