Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Wednesday, February 05, 2020

Counterpoint: Also Not OK

Jose already covered the main topic well. I just want to step back and reconsider the following statement:

It’s not official but There is no baseball case for moving Mookie.  If the Sox wanted to cut payroll they should never have offered a contract to Jackie Bradley and traded JD Martinez.  Or they could have traded David Price with quite literally no return and gotten contract relief that way.

I believe there is a solid baseball case for making this trade. That doesn’t make it OK.

Let’s start with the options as presented. Yes, they could have non-tendered Bradley. We know that alone wouldn’t get them under the payroll threshold. We’ve worked the math on this before: the oft-repeated sentiment that to get under the threshold they’d need to move either Mookie or Martinez was effectively true, because the alternative would be to move so many players that keeping Mookie and JDM would have been a Pyrrhic victory at best. (While one might still prefer to have Betts with this team because he’s awesome, fan service is a business decision, not a baseball decision.)

I think we’ve also handled whether JDM has trade value right now. The short answer is that he doesn’t, There is too great a downside risk to a team trading for him, because of his opt-out clause. If he does well in 2020, then you probably only have him for one year, just like Betts; but if he does poorly or gets injured there’s a real good chance he doesn’t opt out. Trading partners will want something in return for that, be it salary relief or prospects or both. Trading JDM is effectively not an option, if the objective is salary relief and getting something in return.

Likewise, trading Price with literally no return is literally not possible. I mean, if that were possible, then we could break down this actual trade into three trades:

LA gets: David Price and the entirety of his contract
Boston gets: open roster spot and salary relief

LA gets: Mookie Betts and the $27 million he’s owed
Boston gets: open roster spot

LA gets: $21 million
Boston gets: Alex Verdugo and Brusdar Graterol, and their contracts.

Like, neither of those latter two deals make any sense from Boston’s perspective. But those two deals that on their own make no sense are the cost to make the Price trade happen. That is a pretty good gauge of Boston’s ability to get salary relief from trading Price. That’s such a bad deal for the team receiving Price that nobody would have accepted it without being offset by something equally ludicrous in their favor. I don’t think there was a viable path to trading Price that didn’t involve trading Betts with him. One could argue Sale instead of Betts, and I’m open to that argument.I’m just not going to make it here because my objective was to argue a baseball rationale for making this trade, and I’m pretty deep into this without even starting on that part. My only point with the above is that the easy answers (other than perhaps just paying the man) aren’t viable, and the viable answers aren’t easy.

From a baseball perspective, Boston exchanged wins concentrated in 2020 for wins spread throughout the next 5 years or so. That’s the most obvious way to describe it. Using Fangraps ZiPS projected WAR, here’s how the years shake out:

2020 -4.9 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price-Betts)
2021 +2.4 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price)
2022 +2.7 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price)
2023 +3.9 (Verdugo+Graterol)
2024 +3.9 (Verdugo+Graterol)
2025 +1.8 (Graterol)
——————————-
Total +9.8

For these additional wins they are paying around $48 million of Price’s remaining salary, let’s say $25 million for Verdugo through his cost-controlled years, and $22 million for Graterol, or $95 million in total, versus the $123 million for Betts and Price had they retained them. Ten more wins and a $28 million savings. Not even counting tax savings and draft pick benefits from staying under the threshold, that’s a great trade on paper.

Now of course that’s not necessarily how things will work out. Betts might have another Trout-like year; Price might have more than 23 starts in him, and might be back to his old self; prospects might flame out. Any one of these players might get injured, or in Price’s case more injured. I mean, Boston traded for a pitcher, and that usually means we’re only 4 months away from a season-ending injury. But just working with ZiPS-projected WAR as a rough but objective framework for understanding the value of the players exchanged, Boston comes out way ahead here. Not for 2020, of course; in 2020 they might have a winning record and still end up in 4th place in the division.

I think it’s reasonable to ask what 2020 will have looked like had they retained Betts and Price. In 2018 they won 108; with much the same team in 2019 they won 84. That’s a wide variance, with the truth for 2020 (with Betts and Price) probably being on the low end of the range in between. While they have done some work this offseason to address one of the weaker parts of the 2019 squad (the bullpen) again the team would have been much the same but one year older. I’m going to throw a guess of 90 wins as a reasonable view of their 2020 chances had they not made this deal.

Folks, that’s a third-place team in this division. The Yankees and Rays will be better than 90 wins. The Blue Jays are improved, and while they might not be improved enough to take over third place they will provide further headwinds for the third place team in the AL East to get enough wins to take the second wild card (assuming the second-place team gets the first wild card - which is not a lock, either). So, even retaining Price and Betts we could reasonably expect Boston to miss the playoffs in 2020. That’s something they could accomplish without Price and Betts, frankly.

On top of all that are the cap considerations, which we’ve been through aplenty in other threads. I won’t rehash it here, other than to acknowledge there are benefits to the team in the long term from getting under the threshold. Whether they need to do this is a separate discussion from whether it makes sense to do this.

...and that’s where I still feel like it’s not OK. I mean, I get why they did it. We can wail about John Henry’s greed, but any argument that this trade should not have happened, from Boston’s perspective, was also greedy. We wanted Mookie Betts never to leave Boston. And if Mookie were to choose to leave Boston, we wanted to have this one final season. We wanted it because we’re greedy. He’s awesome and we wanted that awesomeness for us. We all knew the team didn’t have a reasonable shot at the playoffs even with him, but his presence gave us a reason to watch them this season anyway. We wanted that for ourselves.

When we talk about running a baseball team, trading Betts with Price was a sensible baseball decision. But we don’t run a baseball team. We root for a baseball team. The definition of “baseball decision” is different for us. At the end of the day, for us it’s about decisions that impact our desire to root for the team. This trade hurt, a lot. It’s not OK.

villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:15 AM | 117 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

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 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:57 PM (#5922013)
Very nicely done.

I mean, Boston traded for a pitcher, and that usually means we’re only 4 months away from a season-ending injury.


:) Thanks for the laugh today. Much needed.
   2. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:01 PM (#5922015)
An even-headed and thoughtful take. Thank you.
   3. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:38 PM (#5922031)
I think the Red Sox fault lies with trading Betts without ever having moved beyond the $300M/10 year offer they reportedly made after 2018. Lots of people here and elsewhere thought there was a middle ground between the two camps that might have got a deal done. Unless all the reporting is wrong, Boston only wanted Betts if they could underpay him.
   4. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:40 PM (#5922032)
I think the Red Sox fault lies with trading Betts without ever having moved beyond the $300M/10 year offer they reportedly made after 2018. Lots of people here and elsewhere thought there was a middle ground between the two camps that might have got a deal done. Unless all the reporting is wrong...
All the reporting that said they never moved beyond that offer? I'm sure you can gladly supply us a link to all that reporting.
   5. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:49 PM (#5922033)
Is there any reporting indicating that the Red Sox made another offer? Haven’t seen it anywhere, and you’d think such news would eventually leak as part of the “We Really Tried To Sign Mookie” defense.
   6. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:52 PM (#5922035)
Let's start with all the reporting. First, there's Merloni who says the Sox offered $300M and Mookie wanted $420M, with nothing really further. Then there's what?
   7. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:53 PM (#5922036)
Is there any reporting indicating that the Red Sox made another offer? Haven’t seen it anywhere, and you’d think such news would eventually leak as part of the “We Really Tried To Sign Mookie” defense.
I'm not sure what you are asking. I thought you already saw the reporting? I was just asking for a link.
   8. villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 04:05 PM (#5922054)
I generally wouldn't hang my hat on the notion that we have perfect information. There's no reason why we would have it.

The only leaked information on the offers came from Lou Merloni, who had what YC called the “We Really Tried To Sign Mookie” defense, as well as the counteroffer that's widely been interpreted as a top-of-FA-market-but-pretty-fair-for-Mookie contract. If Boston is leaking both of those then they're not really mounting a defense. If Mookie is leaking both of those he's mounting not just a defense for not having signed, but he's offering a hint at what it would take for any team trading for him to sign him. If a source is leaking both sides' offers, the motivation for leaking both of them comes sooooo much stronger for Mookie than it does for Boston. But hey, people looking for Serious Concerns to express gotta lean toward the one that causes the most concern.

(I think it's unlikely the two leaks came from different sources, since it's damn unlikely that Lou F'ing Merloni was the only one who was able to get negotiation details from either side, let alone both independently. At a minimum he was the only one who was willing to share it, which means basic journalism stuff like confirmation from independent sources probably didn't happen here. Caveat emptor, res ipsa loquitur, et cetera.)
   9. villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 04:07 PM (#5922057)
Just as a shorter version of what I wrote in #8, "Unless all the reporting is wrong" translates to "Unless Lou Merloni is wrong". That kinda says it all, doesn't it?
   10. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 04:29 PM (#5922068)

Is there any reporting indicating that the Red Sox made another offer? Haven’t seen it anywhere, and you’d think such news would eventually leak as part of the “We Really Tried To Sign Mookie” defense.


I don't think any additional leaks about what the Sox offered or what Mookie was willing to sign for will come until AFTER Mookie signs an extension with LA or signs as a FA somewhere. There's no benefit to either side for anything to come out early.

Unless I am forgetting #### we didn't learn about Lester's lowball offer until after he had signed with the Cubs, correct?
   11. Chip Posted: February 05, 2020 at 05:25 PM (#5922092)
There’s also the factor that Trout not going the FA route may have prompted the MLBPA and other agents to stress even harder to Mookie and Veltman how important it is for the second best player in the game to hit the open market—and set a new top end for everyone else to aim at.
   12. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 06:24 PM (#5922102)
There’s also the factor that Trout not going the FA route may have prompted the MLBPA and other agents to stress even harder to Mookie and Veltman how important it is for the second best player in the game to hit the open market—and set a new top end for everyone else to aim at.
I assume people would be just as outraged by this type of collusion as they were when free agents weren't getting enough money the last couple years, right?
   13. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 06:51 PM (#5922107)
No, why would they?
   14. Chip Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:21 AM (#5922168)
It’s quite the troll.
   15. Darren Posted: February 06, 2020 at 08:46 AM (#5922192)
One criticism I will make of this trade without enough information to back it up: the Sox may have overplayed their hand here. Who knows what offers looked like 3-4 months ago, but I wonder if they could have done something quite similar to this back in, say, December, but waited in hopes of someone getting more desperate. If they had pulled the trigger then, they could have used some of this payroll savings to add another starter like Gibson or Gio, and another/better 1B or 2B like Shaw or Flores.
   16. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:02 AM (#5922247)
I'm (non-facetiously) confused about a lot of this. Why are Price's future wins not accounted for in years 2021+ of this exercise? Or are they, and I'm missing them somewhere?
For these additional wins they are paying around $48 million of Price’s remaining salary, let’s say $25 million for Verdugo through his cost-controlled years, and $22 million for Graterol, or $95 million in total, versus the $123 million for Betts and Price had they retained them. Ten more wins and a $28 million savings. Not even counting tax savings and draft pick benefits from staying under the threshold, that’s a great trade on paper.

It should also be clearly stated that, for some reason, we're assuming in this exercise that there is no scenario in which Betts would have been on the team accounting for wins in future years at some unknown cost, and I'm not sure why it makes sense to do that. I'm reading this as you crediting all of the future years of Verdugo but none of the future years of Price/Betts.

   17. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:21 AM (#5922257)
(While one might still prefer to have Betts with this team because he’s awesome, fan service is a business decision, not a baseball decision.)

This is also day two of this framing being extremely irritating to me (sorry, I know it was all in one day for everyone else but I ended up having to be out of the office for lame work reasons mid-firestorm yesterday).

Keeping the 2nd or 3rd or whatever best player in baseball on your team is not fan service, and reacting negatively to your team trading said player is not (just) emotional or sentimental or whatever else. Having the best baseball players on your team is excellent, baseball-wise! Always. Adding in the homegrown factor, fan favorite status, historical place within the franchise, etc., sure, that's more on the emotional/sentimental side of things.
   18. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:25 AM (#5922260)
It does credit Price through 2022:

2020 -4.9 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price-Betts)
2021 +2.4 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price)
2022 +2.7 (Verdugo+Graterol-Price)


It only credits one year of Betts, because that's what was traded, not Mookie Betts himself, but rather exclusive rights to exactly one year of Mookie Betts. The only additional value that might be appropriate to consider is the exclusive negotiating window you get for the next 9 months, but as it seems clear that Mookie intends to test the market, that window is probably worthless, or nearly so. Possibly if you think the trade poisons the relationship with Betts and it is now impossible to sign him as a FA, you could assign some (impossible to quantify) negative value to that.

   19. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:32 AM (#5922263)
Ahh, thanks on the Price bit, I misread that entirely.
   20. Fancy Pants Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:36 AM (#5922267)
Keeping the 2nd or 3rd or whatever best player in baseball on your team is not fan service, and reacting negatively to your team trading said player is not (just) emotional or sentimental or whatever else. Having the best baseball players on your team is excellent, baseball-wise! Always. Adding in the homegrown factor, fan favorite status, historical place within the franchise, etc., sure, that's more on the emotional/sentimental side of things.

I went and had a bit of a google. Best I can tell, when the betting lines came out at the start of December, the Red Sox opened at around 94.5 wins, and around 11-1 to 12-1 to win the World Series. Now they are at 84.5 - 85.5 wins, and around 33-1 to 40-1 to win the World Series.

This trade is absolutely, entirely, totally indefensible on baseball grounds. And people need to stop pretending it is. You don't punt mid-90s win seasons under any fucking circumstances.
   21. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:36 AM (#5922269)
It's possible to think both that

1. The Red Sox are absolutely, absolutely awful for trading Betts;
and
2. They made a pretty good trade here.
   22. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:38 AM (#5922271)
2. They made a pretty good trade here.

But you don't seriously believe the reason that people are upset about this is the return, right? Has the entire past 36 hours on this website happened because there is confusion on that front?
   23. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:41 AM (#5922272)
You don't punt mid-90s win seasons under any ####### circumstances.


I think this is a good rule of thumb but not an absolute. A very smart and disciplined team could reasonably decide to "re-tool" in a year where they might have otherwise won 90+ games if they are confident that it will make them much better in Years X+1, X+2, X+3, and so forth.

I have no idea if this is what the Red Sox are doing or not. Certainly the other decisions this offseason have not seemed smart and disciplined.
   24. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:45 AM (#5922274)
But you don't seriously believe the reason that people are upset about this is the return, right? Has the entire past 36 hours on this website happened because there is confusion on that front?


Of course not. Why do you think I think that? I didn't say that.

I will echo a comment from yesterday. There's a repeated pattern in these threads:

Person A: This trade is totally unjustifiable!
Person B: I get why you hate it, but actually I think it is justifiable. Here is why.
Person A: Don't talk to me about stats and dollars!!

   25. villageidiom Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:47 AM (#5922275)
Keeping the 2nd or 3rd or whatever best player in baseball on your team is not fan service, and reacting negatively to your team trading said player is not (just) emotional or sentimental or whatever else. Having the best baseball players on your team is excellent, baseball-wise!

"Excellent" does not mean "can't be improved by changing".

Setting aside the cap-specific financial motives for the moment, the Red Sox are, baseball-wise, worse off for 2020 than they were before the trade. They are also better off for 2021 through 2025, and in total, than they were before the trade. They went from "excellent" to "better". The cost, in baseball terms, of this improvement was to be worse in 2020. If we're not bringing emotion into it, that's what happened here.

Any argument that says the team is worse off after the trade - that doesn't rely on sentiment or emotion to make the case - has yet to be made. Feel free to start.
   26. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:48 AM (#5922276)
Person A: Don't talk to me about stats and dollars!!

Yeah this is definitely something you and others have said (repeatedly) but it's also not a thing that's really happening.
   27. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:54 AM (#5922277)
I co-sign #25 as a rebuttal to #20, "You don't punt mid-90s win seasons under any ####### circumstances."
   28. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:58 AM (#5922278)
Any argument that says the team is worse off after the trade - that doesn't rely on sentiment or emotion to make the case - has yet to be made. Feel free to start.

So I genuinely don't get the commitment to being antagonistic in a community of people who have engaged in these conversations for more than a decade. What gives? This has been you and Darren throughout these threads (and PF, who is also a prince among men but not a Red Sox fan so whatever).

The only baseball case to be made is to assume that preemptively taking themselves out of the business of employing Mookie Betts is not part of the baseball case. I think your post here is great. It doesn't say this, that's fine, but yes, if you assume that it doesn't make sense to pay Mookie market-value into the future, then they have likely made a solid baseball move with this transaction. But you're handwaving that decision away, and pretending it's not part of the baseball-side of this discussion.
   29. villageidiom Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:00 PM (#5922279)
Best I can tell, when the betting lines came out at the start of December, the Red Sox opened at around 94.5 wins, and around 11-1 to 12-1 to win the World Series. Now they are at 84.5 - 85.5 wins, and around 33-1 to 40-1 to win the World Series.
The average MLB team in the opening betting lines was going to win 82 games.
   30. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:01 PM (#5922281)
Christ at this point I can't even tell if the second half of that makes sense. Here's my point: preemptively taking yourselves out of the Mookie Betts discussion is a terrible baseball move. Like, nearly without precedent terrible (as we went through yesterday in the other thread).

Once that decision was already made? Sure, this looks like a decent move. But I don't think that point was really broadly being argued (there are a couple comments here and there to that point, I acknowledge).
   31. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:05 PM (#5922282)
It doesn't say this, that's fine, but yes, if you assume that it doesn't make sense to pay Mookie market-value into the future, then they have likely made a solid baseball move with this transaction


No, what the case actually assumes is that the trade has zero impact on Mookie signing with the Sox for 2021. It assumes that what Mookie does in 2021 is immaterial, because the Sox never had an inside track to signing him, and so this trade doesn't change anything.
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:07 PM (#5922283)
I won't make any baseball arguments.

Mookie Betts is the single-greatest combination of skill and appeal in a player the Red Sox have developed in my lifetime, and several lifetimes before me. I would have had no problem with either the Sox or Mookie if, after the end of the 2020 season, he opted to test the market and went elsewhere. I'd wish him good luck (unless he signed with the Yanks), and look forward to what came next for him and the team.

But dealing him away a year before that happens absolutely sucks. And I'm less interested in the Sox because of it. Sure, it may be irrational, but rooting for grown men in pajamas I've never met and probably wouldn't like to outscore similarly clothed men in a totally frivolous pursuit is inherently irrational anyway, so that's not much of an argument.

   33. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:13 PM (#5922288)
No, what the case actually assumes is that the trade has zero impact on Mookie signing with the Sox for 2021. It assumes that what Mookie does in 2021 is immaterial, because the Sox never had an inside track to signing him, and so this trade doesn't change anything.

And I don't see any reason to make those assumptions. A. By at least one account, he's put out a counter-offer (perhaps that is total BS, I can't know). This would show a willingness to talk longterm contract, and they would have been the only team with the ability to have those talks. And B. If the Red Sox were committed to doing what they could to keep him, they wouldn't have made themselves significantly worse in 2020 before doing so.
   34. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:21 PM (#5922293)
#32 - Absolutely fair and well-state.

#33 - We're all just guessing on this factor. The reporting is not much to go on. But this is why I point to Henry's history as an exemplary owner in multiple sports - perhaps Henry does know something. He could know two things: he could know that the Sox will never sign Betts. He could also know that the Sox have a terrific chance of signing Betts, and that trading him in the meantime doesn't reduce that chance in any way.
   35. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:35 PM (#5922298)
#33 - We're all just guessing on this factor. The reporting is not much to go on. But this is why I point to Henry's history as an exemplary owner in multiple sports - perhaps Henry does know something. He could know two things: he could know that the Sox will never sign Betts. He could also know that the Sox have a terrific chance of signing Betts, and that trading him in the meantime doesn't reduce that chance in any way.

I mean there's guessing and there's guessing. Do you agree that it's more likely than not that making a trade that will probably make them worse in 2020 is a pretty strong signal they're taking themselves out of the Mookie sweepstakes?
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:45 PM (#5922299)
Do you agree that it's more likely than not that making a trade that will probably make them worse in 2020 is a pretty strong signal they're taking themselves out of the Mookie sweepstakes?
You weren't asking me, but I'll respond. Trading Mookie at all means it is very likely that they will not be signing him for 2021 and beyond, especially with the trade return being a guy who plays the same position.

But trading him in a way to duck under the luxury tax this year makes it sliiiiiiightly more likely they take a run at him than if they traded him in a way that did not duck under the threshold.
   37. villageidiom Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:47 PM (#5922300)
But you're handwaving that decision away, and pretending it's not part of the baseball-side of this discussion.
I'm not pretending it's not part of it. It's expressly part of it. Like, the team has admitted all along the financial motivation for even considering trading Betts, let alone actually doing it. The financial motivation is not in dispute.

But that's not the only motivation. If it were, they could have made a move months ago. Back then I was saying that the reason they hadn't made any move was that they were holding out for the best baseball deal available. Because while they were clear this was a business decision, they were also clear that they want to compete; and this deal helps them to compete next year and beyond. To demonstrate that, I had to set aside the obvious financial motivation to see if there is an actually sensible baseball deal here, which there is.
   38. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:51 PM (#5922301)
You weren't asking me, but I'll respond. Trading Mookie at all means it is very likely that they will not be signing him for 2021 and beyond, especially with the trade return being a guy who plays the same position.

And therefore, while I acknowledge there are a lot of angles from which one can look at this, one way to frame it is that one of the richest teams in baseball has (likely!) preemptively taken themselves out of the bidding for a guy who will be the best and youngest free agent to actually hit the open market since maybe ARod.

EDIT: And I think we would all be pretty upset about the Red Sox doing that even if the guy in question wasn't Mookie.
   39. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:54 PM (#5922302)
But that's not the only motivation. If it were, they could have made a move months ago. Back then I was saying that the reason they hadn't made any move was that they were holding out for the best baseball deal available. Because while they were clear this was a business decision, they were also clear that they want to compete; and this deal helps them to compete next year and beyond. To demonstrate that, I had to set aside the obvious financial motivation to see if there is an actually sensible baseball deal here, which there is.

That's not the only motivation for making this specific trade among many other options, but it is the only motivation for trading him at all. I think that you think I'm just making a pedantic point, and maybe I'm just doing a bad job of articulating it, but I think that decision (to trade him, period) was a very bad baseball decision.
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 12:56 PM (#5922303)
And therefore, while I acknowledge there are a lot of angles from which one can look at this, one way to frame it is that one of the richest teams in baseball has (likely!) preemptively taken themselves out of the bidding for a guy who will be the best and youngest free agent to actually hit the open market since maybe ARod.
Well, you should remove the word "preemptively" because they already were in the bidding.

Edit: So either they did bid (unsuccessfully) on a guy who will be the best and youngest free agent to actually hit the open market since maybe ARod. Or, if he 100% wouldn't even listen to offers, then we can throw out the assumption that they won't bid on him as a free agent.
   41. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 06, 2020 at 01:01 PM (#5922304)
You weren't asking me, but I'll respond. Trading Mookie at all means it is very likely that they will not be signing him for 2021 and beyond, especially with the trade return being a guy who plays the same position.
I think the Occam's Razor is that the new Red Sox administration has realized that, although the fans will understandably hate it in the short term, there are better baseball ways to allocate around $400 million than to tie it up in one player until he's approaching 40, no matter how good he is now. The history of these types of contracts is abundantly and depressingly clear on this. Yes, you can argue that Mookie is and will be one of the very few exceptions -- and there is some support for that position -- but one of the most fundamental principles we "enlightened" baseball fans have espoused here for years is that it's smart to operate probabilistically, and teams benefit from it overall.
   42. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 01:07 PM (#5922308)
Edit: So either they did bid (unsuccessfully) on a guy who will be the best and youngest free agent to actually hit the open market since maybe ARod. Or, if he 100% wouldn't even listen to offers, then we can throw out the assumption that they won't bid on him as a free agent.

To the first part, I am understanding contract negotiations to be an ongoing thing until they are resolved one way or another. So I look at this as them saying uncle and bowing out.

But yes, your second sentence might be true. I don't have access to Clapper's many sources so it's possible the offer/counteroffer report is not at all accurate and he was never willing to talk. If that's the case, I suspect we'll hear about it in the press relatively soon.
   43. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 01:28 PM (#5922328)
jmurph, I guess I don't understand why it's worse to bow out from contract negotiations now as opposed to one year from now. Either way he wouldn't be on the team from 2021 onwards. Or do you think Mookie was bluffing and would have accepted some big extension in March of this year?

And let me take this chance to reiterate that they should have kept him for 2020 (or at least until mid-summer) even if it was 100% set in stone that he was gone afterwards. And that the trade is stupid.
   44. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 01:41 PM (#5922336)
jmurph, I guess I don't understand why it's worse to bow out from contract negotiations now as opposed to one year from now. Either way he wouldn't be on the team from 2021 onwards. Or do you think Mookie was bluffing and would have accepted some big extension in March of this year?

And let me take this chance to reiterate that they should have kept him for 2020 (or at least until mid-summer) even if it was 100% set in stone that he was gone afterwards. And that the trade is stupid.

A. Because of your last paragraph, and B. because, yes, I think keeping him on the team would have given them the best possible shot to sign him long term. They shouldn't have been outbid by a rival team next winter anyway, and this would have given them 9 or however many months to try to get out ahead of it. (So no, not "bluffing," but if there was a number that they could get to to make it work, yes, I see no reason to think he wouldn't have signed).
   45. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 02:04 PM (#5922352)
Thank you for the reply.
   46. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2020 at 02:36 PM (#5922374)
I think keeping him on the team would have given them the best possible shot to sign him long term.
How many teams would the Red Sox be bidding against? While many of us think more teams could handle at least one mega-contract, the fact remains that only a few teams have been willing to venture into that territory. Some of them won’t want to take on another mega-contract, and/or don’t have that much need for an outfielder. With another Mookie-level season, the Dodgers are presumably going to make an attractive offer, but who else? The Yankees seem unlikely, based on their current contracts and what Judge, Sanchez & Torres will add in the coming years. The Angels already have Trout & Rendon, would they really be in on Betts? The Cubs now seem reluctant to spend money. If Boston had offered something in the midpoint range between its reported offer and Betts’ counter-offer, which many here pegged as fair market value, that would have been awfully difficult for Betts to turn down.
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 06, 2020 at 02:46 PM (#5922380)
The Yankees seem unlikely, based on their current contracts and what Judge, Sanchez & Torres will add in the coming years.

Torres should be signed for 10 years tomorrow.

But I'd much, much, much rather sign Mookie Betts for ages 28-37, than sign Judge for ages 31-37, or Sanchez for ages 30-36. The Yankees control Judge and Sanchez through the 2022 season already.

   48. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 02:47 PM (#5922381)
If Boston had offered something in the midpoint range between its reported offer and Betts’ counter-offer, which many here pegged as fair market value, that would have been awfully difficult for Betts to turn down.
Stop being so stingy with the reports that have all the negotiation details. Share them with us!
   49. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2020 at 02:59 PM (#5922391)
Stop being so stingy with the reports that have all the negotiation details. Share them with us!
Is there the slightest indication from the behavior of any of the parties that the Red Sox moved past their reported 2018 offer? I realize many here are still in the denial phase, but it seems clear the Red Sox prioritized getting under the threshold this year to retaining Betts. They said as much, and then acted.
   50. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:02 PM (#5922393)
Who needs indicatons? You have reports based on sources. I'm curious to read them, all I've gotten to see are the vague Lou Merloni quotes. Why won't you link to them?
   51. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:10 PM (#5922400)
How many teams would the Red Sox be bidding against? While many of us think more teams could handle at least one mega-contract, the fact remains that only a few teams have been willing to venture into that territory. Some of them won’t want to take on another mega-contract, and/or don’t have that much need for an outfielder. With another Mookie-level season, the Dodgers are presumably going to make an attractive offer, but who else?


The top 30 biggest baseball contracts in history have been signed by:

Angels
Phillies
Marlins
Yankees
Padres
Yankees
Rockies
Rangers
Tigers
Nationals
Mariners
Angels
Reds
Red Sox
Dodgers
Tigers
Nationals
Diamondbacks
Yankees
Twins
Cubs
Yankees
Tigers
Mariners
Nationals
Giants
Yankees
Orioles

Other than a whole lotta Yankees, not much of a pattern there. No A's or Royals, to be sure, but I think it's clear that random mid-market teams will almost invariably emerge as suitors for major FAs.
   52. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:18 PM (#5922410)
Who needs indicatons? You have reports based on sources. I'm curious to read them, all I've gotten to see are the vague Lou Merloni quotes. Why won't you link to them?
Again, there are no reports that Red Sox Ever upped their offer. Those fantasizing that Mookie rejected a long-term, fair market offer are the ones with the burden of proof here. Given what they’ve said and done this off-season, the Red Sox priorities seem pretty clear, but I would be willing to revise my opinion if any new information turns up.
   53. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5922418)
Sorry for the confusion, I'm not claiming anything about the Sox' offer(s). I'm asking about all the reporting that you refer to in post #3?

I find it hard to believe that someone would make up a thing like that. If someone actually took the time to go on a baseball message board and make up facts about rumored contract offers, it would certainly be very concerning.
   54. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:25 PM (#5922419)
but I would be willing to revise my opinion if any new information turns up.

You wouldn't, you would just shift the terms slightly, that's your deal.
   55. jmurph Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:26 PM (#5922420)
Ahh, equilibrium. If there's one thing Red Sox fans here can agree on it's that it's lame that Clapper is constantly trolling Red Sox threads.
   56. villageidiom Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5922451)
Do you agree that it's more likely than not that making a trade that will probably make them worse in 2020 is a pretty strong signal they're taking themselves out of the Mookie sweepstakes?
Making themselves worse in 2020 is about making themselves better beyond 2020. Signing Free Agent Mookie is also about making themselves better beyond 2020. I wouldn't rule it out.

That said, acquiring _______ instead of signing Free Agent Mookie could also be about making themselves better beyond 2020, depending on how the blank is filled. It's entirely possible they don't sign him. Hell, it's entirely possible they never get the chance, as the Dodgers have 9 months to prevent Free Agent Mookie from happening. That's the part I find second-most disappointing. (Most disappointing, of course, is that Betts is not on the Red Sox this year.)
   57. villageidiom Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:55 PM (#5922454)
Again, there are no reports that Red Sox Ever upped their offer.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Huh. You're an imbecile. However, I would be willing to revise my opinion if any new information turns up.
   58. pikepredator Posted: February 06, 2020 at 04:01 PM (#5922458)
That's the part I find second-most disappointing. (Most disappointing, of course, is that Betts is not on the Red Sox this year.)


there is plenty to be disappointed about. I just read about Verdugo's possible involvement with/presence at some sort of assault. Details appear somewhat hazy in part because "alcohol was involved" but it just makes it that much harder to root for him if he's a total #########.
   59. PreservedFish Posted: February 06, 2020 at 04:12 PM (#5922464)
He looks like an #######
   60. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2020 at 05:36 PM (#5922499)
Sorry for the confusion, I'm not claiming anything about the Sox' offer(s). I'm asking about all the reporting that you refer to in post #3?
Really? You seem to be desperately holding out hope that the Red Sox made another offer to Mookie after 2018, and criticizing me for noting that seems like an unlikely scenario. There’s no reporting suggesting that there was another offer, and the Red Sox actions don’t seem consistent with that either. Apparently, that’s a sensitive point here, but I think everyone will be surprised if Mookie turned down something in the midpoint range between the reported offers and it didn’t leak given how thoroughly the story has been covered.
   61. Nasty Nate Posted: February 06, 2020 at 05:51 PM (#5922502)
and criticizing me for noting that seems like an unlikely scenario
I'm not criticizing you at all, merely asking for you to pass along all the reporting you alluded to. Was it Robothal? LA Times? Cafardo? I don't understand the secrecy.
   62. Darren Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:01 PM (#5922545)
Managers, GMs, stars all come and go, but some things never change:

--Yankee fans coming to Sox Therapy to troll
--Every Red Sox transaction has to be dragged out beyond all reasonable expectation
   63. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:10 PM (#5922554)
BBTF has always had fans of many teams, it’s not a private club for sensitive fans who don’t wish to deal with other views.
   64. jmurph Posted: February 07, 2020 at 09:09 AM (#5922580)
BBTF has always had fans of many teams, it’s not a private club for sensitive fans who don’t wish to deal with other views.

Crucially, no one is accusing snapper, PF, or ElRoy, the first three other non Red Sox fans posting in this thread, of trolling. Just you.
   65. Dock Ellis Posted: February 07, 2020 at 09:18 AM (#5922583)
   66. jmurph Posted: February 07, 2020 at 09:38 AM (#5922589)
Delightful.
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 07, 2020 at 09:57 AM (#5922591)
Ugh. Talk about pouring salt in the wounds. Now I hope he has a career ending injury in the first game of Spring training.
   68. Nasty Nate Posted: February 07, 2020 at 10:00 AM (#5922593)
Ugh. Talk about pouring salt in the wounds. Now I hope he has a career ending injury in the first game of Spring training.
Yeah. At this point, it would have been better if the Sox had just configured the trade to have the Dodgers eaten more of the Price contract and gotten nothing in return. It was a salary dump anyway.
   69. Dock Ellis Posted: February 07, 2020 at 10:01 AM (#5922595)
Also convenient that John Henry owns the Boston Globe so Alex Speier isn't exactly going to be in a rush to mention it.
   70. Nasty Nate Posted: February 07, 2020 at 10:02 AM (#5922596)
BBTF has always had fans of many teams, it’s not a private club for sensitive fans who don’t wish to deal with other views.
So because we're mean, you were afraid to label your views as your own, and had to invent "reporting" to attribute those opinions? Is that what happened?
   71. J. Sosa Posted: February 07, 2020 at 10:42 AM (#5922607)
I really, really, really hope they did due diligence on Verdugo. If not... I have been critical of the “distressed asset” mindset infecting front offices across sports for a long time. It is ugly.

People talk about not watching if Mookie’s gone, I understand it, but for me rooting for laundry always end up winning out when it comes to losing players. But stuff like this, yeah, not watching if it is true.
   72. Nasty Nate Posted: February 07, 2020 at 10:59 AM (#5922610)
Hey fans, we may have downgraded from a superstar, but at least his replacement is a scumbag!
   73. jmurph Posted: February 07, 2020 at 11:31 AM (#5922619)
I really, really, really hope they did due diligence on Verdugo.

I sort of hope they didn't? Because this seems pretty straight forward. So if they were okay with these allegations, rather than merely incompetently negligent in their research, that might be worse?
   74. jmurph Posted: February 07, 2020 at 11:34 AM (#5922620)
Also, to circle back to one of the main defenses of ownership put forth by people:
Do people think Henry and co. turned into tone-deaf idiots all of a sudden?

Turns out, maybe?
   75. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 07, 2020 at 11:35 AM (#5922621)
I sort of hope they didn't? Because this seems pretty straight forward. So if they were okay with these allegations, rather than merely incompetently negligent in their research, that might be worse?

Concur.
   76. J. Sosa Posted: February 07, 2020 at 11:54 AM (#5922627)
No, poor phrasing on my part, I mean the only way I see any competence or morality involved is if they investigated and found the allegations were not as described. The alternative, that they either didn’t care or didn’t bother is disturbing.
   77. jmurph Posted: February 07, 2020 at 11:57 AM (#5922630)
I understood Sosa, was just turning the phrasing on its head. In no way did I suspect you were minimizing or anything like that.
   78. J. Sosa Posted: February 07, 2020 at 12:04 PM (#5922632)
Gotcha.

There has been a reckoning coming on front office ethics for a long time and it is long overdue.
   79. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 07, 2020 at 01:37 PM (#5922690)
I sort of hope they didn't? Because this seems pretty straight forward. So if they were okay with these allegations, rather than merely incompetently negligent in their research, that might be worse?


What *should* team policy be? If you are ever accused of sexual assault you cannot play in MLB? Do you have to serve a suspension? What if no charges are ever filed? When is a team allowed to sign a player who's got that on their record? Never? 5 years? 1 year?

I am not in any way trying to minimize sexual/domestic assault, I just want to push a bit and think more on this. "he did that, he is a scumbag, I don't want him on my team" is such an easy, shallow reaction. It's pretty easy to bury some random prospect, but what if it's Kobe Bryant and he's played a huge role on the team before and after the accusations? Were LA fans ever able to cheer for him without cringing?

The assault claims against Verdugo were 5 years ago, he was 18-19 years old, is there any consideration that this was a drunk teenager, not some middle-aged man drunkenly hitting his wife?

Yeah, it's shitty to feel icky about the guy replacing Mookie Betts, I get that, guess I think people can have a tendency to pearl clutch a bit too hard.


And I apologize in advance, that probably came out poorly, not trying to stir #### up, or dismiss anyone, just think you've got to step past that first reaction sometimes. How would you want your cousin, brother, son, nephew viewed if they ###### up once? How *should* they be viewed?
   80. J. Sosa Posted: February 07, 2020 at 02:57 PM (#5922713)
I struggle with this to a degree. I would have to be very, very certain that the person was truly remorseful and had changed and was unlikely to commit another offense. It would also involve a sliding scale of “badness” of the offense. But truthfully? No I am not hiring the guy that watched a girl get sexually assaulted and beaten and did nothing if that’s true.

There are a lot of guys that worked hard, deserve a shot, and didn’t participate in such an activity. In the abstract yes, forgiveness and reform is lacking in our society, but in practice, I would not want to be the one to make the leap in an organizational setting. Some mistakes have lifelong consequences. Doesn’t mean the guy can’t go on to be a good human and do great things, but it does mean it will always be a part of his life.

Where I also have a rather large issue is how often the relative talent of the offender is determinative. Distressed asset morality. Is his present character representative of our organization, yes or no, should be the question. Not yes, he committed this act, isn’t really sorry, but is unlikely to commit such an act again and represents value for money.
   81. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2020 at 04:17 PM (#5922733)
The unspoken problem with the Mookie Betts trade - Alex Verdugo was credibly implicated in a sexual assault. Why doesn’t that seem to matter?
”Credibly implicated” is an interesting choice of words. The linked article states Verdugo was present when another person is alleged to have assaulted a woman. There is no mention of any charges ever being filed, much less a guilty finding, as to to that other player, which may suggest that it could have been the accuser with the credibility problem. The article also appears to stretch the law quite a bit in an attempt to paint Verdugo as an accessory to the apparently uncharged assault. Unless there is more info, might want to put the lynch mob on hold.
   82. karlmagnus Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:30 PM (#5922754)
Clapper, I agree. In addition, it is immoral to prevent non-felons from pursuing their normal business to the best of their ability.

I personally look forward to watching Verdugo and Graterol -- they sound like interesting players.
   83. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:37 PM (#5922757)
In addition, it is immoral to prevent non-felons from pursuing their normal business to the best of their ability.

No one is obliged to hire him if they think he's a despicable person.
   84. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:51 PM (#5922762)
No one is obliged to hire him if they think he's a despicable person.

Hiring despicable people that other teams won't touch was actually the Astros's strategy.
   85. Fancy Pants Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:54 PM (#5922764)
It's pretty easy to bury some random prospect, but what if it's Kobe Bryant and he's played a huge role on the team before and after the accusations? Were LA fans ever able to cheer for him without cringing?

Kobe Bryant should have been in jail for 10+ years. The details of the case are absolutely sickening, and the amount of evidence is frankly overwhelming. That he managed to use the press and a horde of sycophantic fans to bully and harass a 19 year old victim into no longer being willing to testify... well that's probably the best defense he played in his career.

As for Lakers fans, they have no shame, so cringing was never in their repertoire.
   86. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 07, 2020 at 05:59 PM (#5922767)
At what point should teams not employ players? That's a rhetorical question. We've seen it from all 30 fan bases, they are content to ignore pretty much anything if it makes the team better. Marlin fans rooted when Ozzie Guillen was manager and he praised freakin' Fidel Castro. Do you understand how hard it is to say something nice about Fidel Castro in Miami and NOT get beaten to death?

Red Sox fans cheered Steven Wright after his incident.

Robbie Alomar spit on an ump and got cheered.

Aroldis Chapman, Roberto Osuna, etc...etc....etc...

There's a line (I hope, I think) but so far fans have indicated that they only care about transgressions when it's the other team's guys. I'm not sure what should be done. I suspect there are a LOT of bad people playing professional sports and that's not even getting into people who have viewpoints we might find reprehensible but just talking about people who have acted badly.

I don't know what the right answer is of what SHOULD be but I do know with some certainty that with the exception of murder fans have so far demonstrated they are willing to rationalize all manner of horrible behavior* if the player is good enough.

* except kneeling during the national anthem. That of course is unforgivable.
   87. Darren Posted: February 07, 2020 at 06:07 PM (#5922769)
”Credibly implicated” is an interesting choice of words. The linked article states Verdugo was present when another person is alleged to have assaulted a woman.


I agree, that's a terribly misleading description. The story is that Baldwin and the teen were in the room alone when the sexual assault happened. From the account I read, Verdugo was in the room when the teen vomited on the bed, then was forcibly removed by two other women, who punched and kicked her while doing it.

None of this is to excuse anything, just clarifying.
   88. J. Sosa Posted: February 07, 2020 at 06:46 PM (#5922774)
There have always been organizations and coaches that think running a guy up some stairs is enough punishment if the talent is there to win some dadgum games. But at some point this seems to have metastasized with the rise of hedge/ analytics sports management strategies. There doesn’t appear to be much consideration at all given by some organizations to ethical concerns.

Process thinking, with ethical concerns only being worth derisive mocking. This isn’t limited to American sports. Liverpool’s head of analytics recently did a Q&A with some lower league personnel. One lower league guy said his club had an don’t bring in an ####### policy. The Liverpool analytics guy’s response was to say your competitors will be obtaining the ########, the implication being that the don’t bring in ######## strategy is for rubes.

Now obviously an “asset”can just be an #######, or maybe the “asset” is a rapist or a murderer. Maybe the Liverpool guy really did just mean ########. Like Jose said the line can be hard to define. But for more and more organizations there doesn’t appear to be a line. *

* I have been careful to say “if true” about Verdugo. If The Red Sox checked it out and he wasn’t involved or the incident didn’t occur that is obviously different.
   89. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 01:30 PM (#5922876)
Since this trade will never, ever be resolved, let's get back to arguing about whether the offer to Mookie was some kind of lowball. I tried to find some other examples of players who were recently locked up before reaching FA. Here's the list (I'm sure I've missed some.):


Name    Age Years Amount Pre-FA FAYrs Yr1WAR Yr1
Acuna    21   8    100      5     3      4   2019
Yelich   23   7     49      5     2      3.8 2015
Albies   22   7     35      5     2      4.3 2019
Bregman  25   6    100      4     2      5.4 2019
Mookie   24   6    100      4     2      5.9 2017
Ramirez  25   5     26      4     1      3.3 2017
Mookie   25   8    200      3     5      5.5 2018
Trout    23   6    144      3     3      9.6 2015
Trout    27  12    426      2    10      5.4 2019
Stanton  25  13    325      2    11      5.4 2015
Mookie   26  10    300      2     8      6.7 2019
Arenado  28   8    260      1     7      4.5 2019
Bogaerts 26   6    120      1     5      3.8 2019 
   90. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 01:42 PM (#5922880)
Damn, that's an ugly table. Sorry, friends.

My takeaway is that the reported offers to Mookie doesn't look out of place here. Only Stanton and Trout were offered more.

More importantly, perhaps, there's so much we don't know about the negotiations:

--When did they take place, exactly? Early enough in the offseason that people were still talking about Machado and Harper getting $400 million? Or later when people were saying that they had overplayed their hands and would not get $300 million? Or after they both did? Or after Trout got $420 million?

--What was in the Red Sox offer? Were there opt outs? A deal that pays 4/$140M in the first 4 years followed by an opt-out is a lot different than a 10/$300M deal with no opt-outs.

--How was Mookie's counteroffer made. Was it, "we're looking for 12/$420M" or "unless you're willing to go 12/$420M, we're going to FA"?
   91. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 02:03 PM (#5922883)
Paging VI, cleanup on post 89!

   92. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 08, 2020 at 02:05 PM (#5922885)
My takeaway is that the reported offers to Mookie doesn't look out of place here. Only Stanton and Trout were offered more
Wasn’t that long ago that many were arguing that only Trout was better than Betts (so far).
   93. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 02:45 PM (#5922891)
I'd guess the Stanton deal was something like the equivalent of 13/$360M-$400M in pre-2019 dollars. As for Trout, yes, I think that was the consensus. Mookie was beneath Trout but ahead of others.
   94. Mayor Blomberg Posted: February 08, 2020 at 03:27 PM (#5922894)
FA Yrs   WAR Signing
Name    Age Yrs  
Pre Post  Yr1 Year
Yelich   23  7  49  5   2    3.8 2015
Albies   22  7  35  5   2    4.3 2019
Bregman  25  6 100  4   2    5.4 2019
Mookie   24  6 100  4   2    5.9 2017
Ramirez  25  5  26  4   1    3.3 2017
Mookie   25  8 200  3   5    5.5 2018
Trout    23  6 144  3   3    9.6 2015
Trout    27 12 426  2  10    5.4 2019
Stanton  25 13 325  2  11    5.4 2015
Mookie   26 10 300  2   8    6.7 2019
Arenado  28  8 260  1   7    4.5 2019
Bogaerts 26  6 120  1   5 3.8 2019 
   95. Mayor Blomberg Posted: February 08, 2020 at 03:45 PM (#5922895)
....................FA Yrs   WAR 
Name    Age Yrs 
$$ Pre Post  Yr.1 Yr.1
Yelich   23  7  49  5   2    3.8 2015
Albies   22  7  35  5   2    4.3 2019
Bregman  25  6 100  4   2    5.4 2019
Mookie   24  6 100  4   2    5.9 2017
Ramirez  25  5  26  4   1    3.3 2017
Mookie   25  8 200  3   5    5.5 2018
Trout    23  6 144  3   3    9.6 2015
Trout    27 12 426  2  10    5.4 2019
Stanton  25 13 325  2  11    5.4 2015
Mookie   26 10 300  2   8    6.7 2019
Arenado  28  8 260  1   7    4.5 2019
Bogaerts 26  6 120  1   5    3.8 2019 
   96. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 08:38 PM (#5922925)
Thanks Mayor Bloomberg! It's amazing what a couple billion dollars can do.
   97. villageidiom Posted: February 08, 2020 at 10:18 PM (#5922930)
Paging VI, cleanup on post 89!
Late, but cleaned up nonetheless.
   98. Darren Posted: February 09, 2020 at 05:20 PM (#5923035)
Thank you!
   99. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 09, 2020 at 05:54 PM (#5923038)
Trade back on. Verdugo and Jeters Downs for Betts and Price. Maeda for Graterol may happen as a separate deal.
   100. Fancy Pants Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: February 09, 2020 at 06:11 PM (#5923039)
Flip
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7241 seconds
40 querie(s) executed