Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 4 pages
So you're not buying Michael Silverman's source?
On paper the Sox got a guy who was younger in AGon and cleared the way for one of their top prospects in Middlebrooks, which looks like a fairly orderly transition to a younger core.
The main factor is how do you like Beltre in his later '30s vs AGon's mid '30s?
You heard it here first:
this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.
I believe 10/5 rights allow a player to block a waiver claim, too - 10/5 rights apply to 'contract assignment', which includes waiver claims.
But they Will. Never. Agree. On the money.
MC, you have to admit that some far more sure-thing deals involving the Red Sox have fallen through.
But the path the took also ended up in them blocking their top prospect.
Beltre is signed through 36 (37 if his option kicks in) for $16 mil/year.
Gonzalez is signed through 36 at $20-22 mil/year.
I'd bet on the more athletic guy aging better (not that I was saying so then, IIRC).
There are a good number of reports that have the Red Sox taking on less than $20M of the money owed. Alex Speier reports it's just $10M.
Wait, who? Bogarts? At the time this deal was done had he even had his break out yet? Looking at the tools in question I'm fine with Middlebrooks at 3B and Xander in RF.
Well, someone tweeted something.
Great trade. Who'd we get?
It would be professional suicide for Colleti to take on that much payroll for that many years on the wrong side of 30.
I don't read "beat reporters." I like to watch the games, not worry about gossip.
Again, if the trade negotiations led to the players being put on waivers instead of the other way around, then the Dodgers would basically have no choice but to put in "blocking" claims.
Oh, no doubt. It absolutely could fall through.** I'm just making fun of the Crazy Ira and the Douche act Ray is trying out.
He doesn't write gossip. He reports on the actual ballclub. He does everything that a sports reporter is supposed to do.
Well, I suppose they could - Epstein did sign Crawford to a dumb megadeal, so these things do happen - but one of them would be foolish.
This entire subject is gossip.
If it does go through with LA taking almost all of the salary does it steal the gold from the Vernon Wells trade in the stupid olympics?
Well, fine. But there's a reason that this deal sounds WTF crazy. Because it is.
EDIT: And, hilariously, I now see from your Sox Therapy post that you agree with this. You wrote: "This is bugnuts insane, but also totally fascinating."
You're acting like baseball teams never make "insane deals", which is clearly false.
And you're also ignoring the factors that push the Dodgers toward making this deal, despite any "insanity": namely the fact that they have new ownership that is trying to buy back the credibility that Frank McCourt spend most of the last decade pissing away.
It would seem an odd way to go about that.
What deals of the past couple of decades would be as bad as this one? I'll spot you Vernon Wells.
But not that odd. The CW believed before the season started that the Dodgers were likely to make a big splash at the trade deadline. They were off by one month.
Trading for Hanley Ramirez isn't making a big splash?
They're paying a crapton of money, but they're getting valuable baseball players. This is nothing like the Wells deal, where the Angels actively made themselves worse while also taking on massive contractual obligations.
For Beckett though I'm not sure I can make that argument too well. There are lots of teams that could use a "true $15 M" starter.
Unless LA is just counting on money flowing like water from a new TV deal and doesn't care about eating most of this money in 3 years, this is batshit insane.
Whether this trade goes trough or not it really shows that the Dodgers have absolutely no plan.
Isn't it pretty clear they have a plan? The Steinbrenner Plan? George edition? Spend and spend.
That is exactly what is happening. The new TV deal is going to be enormous and they don't have to pay revenue sharing on the increase.
With even the Yankees seemingly determined to decrease payroll because of the new harsh luxury tax is now really the time to pick up the plan they themselves have now abandoned?
This is not a justification for stupidity.
The Steinbrenner kids--Hal--decided they wanted to take more money out of the business and this met the luxury tax threshold, and so they have cut spending so the family can make more money. That's their right. But they didn't do it because they thought spending money didn't work.
How are the Giants not beating down Seligs door screaming about "All but buying players for cash"?
Millions of dollars make people do ugly things. Right now the Dodgers have won the waiver claims for Adrian and Beckett. If the Red Sox want to stick it to them they can and there isn't a thing the Dodgers can do about it except whine.
I play poker with guys who borrow thousands from each other at the table just based on reputation and trust, and some have owed each other many times that for significant periods. I've never heard of any not paying, if they didnt they might as well quit playing cause their credit would be finished, and they wouldn't be very welcome even if they showed up with cash. I find it hard to believe that the Red Sox would try to take advantage of a one time opportunity to defraud another team at the expense of their long time reputation.
Millions of dollars make people who don't have millions of dollars do ugly things. People who already have millions often do honorable things. The Red Sox front office would be committing not only career suicide, but wouldn't ever be able to pull off a deal that required any level of trust while still there. Trustworthiness matters in business and elsewhere.
316 - He could demand a trade, but why would he? He's in the best possible situation he could be in: A winning team with deep pockets and a respected players' manager, close to his home in a city where he can become an icon. Any trade would automatically put him in a worse situation.
Now, I'm confused. You were saying that the trade was good because it opened a path for Middlebrooks. But in fact Middlebrooks was still blocked. That's all that I was getting at.
I don't think this is very stupid. The Dodgers are overpaying by 40-50 million or so*, concentrated in the out years. They don't give up talent of note. It's not value for money, but if their aggressive spending spree breaks the NL West and turns them into the Yankees of the West Coast it will be worth it. I think it's pretty much impossible to spend 200 million dollars efficiently in baseball.
This is not an unreasonable evaluation. But to put some numbers behind the "what are the Dodgers doing?" point, I estimate the Red Sox contracts as overpays by ~$130M. At some point, paying lots and lots of money to get talent requires further explanation.
Finally, Gonzalez will be the first Mexican-American star to play for the Dodgers, at least that I can remember (I'm not counting Nomar because he was clearly on the down-side of his career by the time he went to LA).
I don't think the fan base in L.A. is going to see much difference between Mexican and Mexican-American, so Valenzuela will still come first to most of them.
Best trade in Sox history.
Will the Dodgers be up against the luxury tax if this goes through?
If the Sox are willing to let LA, or anyone, just have him...
Whether the Red Sox can just stick the Dodgers with the contracts depends on how the deal went down.
You heard it here first: this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.
The deal is DOA.
It's also bizarre to me that Sox fans are relieved to maybe get out from under Josh Beckett's contract. He's owed all of $31 million for 2013-2014, which is basically nothing - essentially a short two-year deal for not-outrageous money - and there's a good chance he'll be worth it anyway.
Much ado about nothing, all of this is.
(GONZALEZ, CRAWFORD and BECKETT prepare to exit the plane. LACKEY turns to join them.)
Gonzalez: No, they expect one of us in the wreckage, brother!
Lackey: Have we started the fire?
Gonzalez: Yes, the fire rises.
(GONZALEZ turns to RED SOX NATION.)
Gonzalez: Calm down, Boston. Now is not the time for fear. That comes later.
(GONZALEZ presses the trigger. The plane starts to fall with LACKEY and the 2012 Red Sox season in it.)
Texas is getting good, cheap production out of Moreland these days (but not Young so Gonzo works there I guess). Possibly Seattle as a bolt out of the blue.
I have every confidence that Magic Johnson knows how to do that kind of marketing.
Secondly, your notion that rich people are super honorable when it comes to large sums of money, while the unwashed masses will do absolutely anything for a few bucks, is one of the more ridiculous and pathetic things I have read. There are of course innumerable counter examples (e.g. Dykstra, Lenny; Madoff, Bernie; and Wall Street, all of it).
But the funny thing is that your little poker analogy doesn't even show that. It shows some guy acting in rational self interest, who values not facing the negative consequences of not paying over a couple of grand. Me paying my mortgage, because I would rather pay it than have my house foreclosed, does not make me a paragon of virtue.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
#dodgers have sent a plane. a-gon, beckett & punto are now in the air to LA. #trade
Why are people acting like Sands isn't any good?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.0091 seconds, 69 querie(s) executed