Should be a big fine when Commissioner Manfred eventually realizes you’ve traded Bryan Bello twice. Way back in the George Allen era, the Redskins did that with a draft choice, but that was in the paper & pencil days, long before computers, so the fine should be higher now.

Cool post. As you allude to, it's tough to propose hypothetical trades without people being overly critical.

The Matt Olson idea is intriguing. I know it's sometimes distasteful (or something) when fans of high-spending teams just assume good players on other teams are just available. But the fact of the matter is that lower-spending teams trade guys like Olson at this stage of their careers.

The Royals already have an heir for Salvy - MJ Melendez - he led all the minors in HR and I'm not sure what they're going to do with him next year with Salvy signed long term. They're also not trading Whit Merrifield, they're going to be in "let's win now" mode.

I can see Cleveland dealing Ramirez, and it will probably be for less than that, they always seem to do a move trade that has everyone scratching their heads, but it works out for them.

Thanks for the info RR. What do you think the Royals would want for Merrifield?

Cool post. As you allude to, it's tough to propose hypothetical trades without people being overly critical.

Thanks. I'd rather get mocked than just say "hey the Sox should get these really good players." Like so many things the devil is in the details and while getting Olson for example is a great idea the question becomes what do you give up?

Thanks for the info RR. What do you think the Royals would want for Merrifield?

They're in "win now" mode. They're not trading him.

I also appreciate these articles, its easy to say "we should trade for this guy", it's harder to say "we should give up these guys to get this guy" and have it not just be three bums you don't want anymore.

Red Sox Get: P Jon Gray
Rockies Get: IF Jeter Downs, a minor league pitcher

Gray has only 1 more year before free agency, so maybe he's available?

I thought about Gray, couldn't make it work in my mind. I think you might have something there though.

These trade proposals are interesting and all, but I fail to see how any of this provides answers to the incredibly urgent questions about the state of cancel culture.

I don't think I'd give up anything for Gray.

When did Keith Hernandez and Clyde Frazier take over Darren's account?

I don't think I'd give up anything for Gray.

Is it because he actually is a free agent this off-season? I agree that is a good reason to not give anything to the Rockies for him.

Should be a big fine when Commissioner Manfred eventually realizes you’ve traded Bryan Bello twice. Way back in the George Allen era, the Redskins did that with a draft choice, but that was in the paper & pencil days, long before computers, so the fine should be higher now.

About 5 years ago they traded Luis A. Basabe in two separate deals.

As I recall the one that went to the Diamondbacks for Ziegler was the "wrong" one. The DBack GM was confused as to which one to ask for and asked for the wrong one.

Is it because he actually is a free agent this off-season? I agree that is a good reason to not give anything to the Rockies for him.

Yes, I'm old fashioned that way.

Trading for free agents is the new market inefficiency

The A's do appear to be in a bit of a tear-down mode, so who else might be available there? Chapman seems almost untouchable or at least too costly in terms of return for the Sox taste. Laureano is about to start costing actual money and could fill CF, moving Hernandez back to a super-utility role. Taking on Andrus's contract might help you get something else, but a poor fielding shortstop is the complete opposite of what this team needs.


I guess, in general, I've had a hard time even considering substantial trades because a) the Sox, like many teams, seem very intent on protecting their prospects of value; and b) everything that the Sox really need is available in free agency. If they want to go big at 1B, there's Freeman, Rizzo, or Belt. Or, as I'd prefer, if they are looking to sure up their defense by getting a good SS, there are a ton of those: Correa, Seager, Semien, Story, Baez, Simmons, etc. In terms of pitching, there are 4 HOFs available, a bunch of good starters that could slot well at #2 or #3, and health-related flyers like Syndergaard. Throw in some other wildcards like Taylor and Schwarber, and it's all out there for the getting.

The one place of need that I don't really see a lot of good free agent options is catcher. I'm not sure what they could acquire for some combination of Dalbec and some of the non-top prospects, though.

I'm really intrigued by what Jose Ramirez would be worth. My immediate reaction to the package above is NO WAY! but that has more to do with emotional attachment to homegrown guys than logic. I also can't imagine that the Red Sox would want to undo pretty much all the work they've done rebuilding the farm system to get a (great) player for 2 years.

But all that aside, what does a player like Ramirez cost in a trade? The most recent comps would be Mookie and Lindor. But both those guys were only signed for 1 year at close to market price. I think you'd have to go back to maybe Miguel Cabrera, who dragged along Dontrelle Willis's contract and still netted a top 10 prospect, a newly graduated top 10 prospect, and other interesting pieces. And prospects have become even more valuable since then! All of this makes me think there's very little chance that someone out there has enough, and is willing to part with it, for Ramirez. Perhaps after 2022.

The one place of need that I don't really see a lot of good free agent options is catcher. I'm not sure what they could acquire for some combination of Dalbec and some of the non-top prospects, though.

If the Cubs don't extend Contreras, I expect they'll trade him. Hell, I could be convinced they should trade him no matter what. Only 1 year of control, so whatever he's traded for will feel underwhelming for Cubs fans.

I'm really intrigued by what Jose Ramirez would be worth.

So am I my friend, so am I.

I'm not sure what's so spectacular about JR anyway. He's coming off a .266/.355/.538 season, he's slightly above average with the glove, and he'll be 29. He may not ever see 6 WAR again. Best players on his thru age 28 comp list are Sheff and Rolen, but he can't hit like the former nor field like the latter; about half had pretty disappointing 2nd halves of their careers, despite Longoria having a shot at winning Comeback PotY.

If the Cubs don't extend Contreras, I expect they'll trade him. Hell, I could be convinced they should trade him no matter what. Only 1 year of control, so whatever he's traded for will feel underwhelming for Cubs fans.

That's interesting. However, the catch is that for one year, I think the Sox are ok with staying with Vazquez and co.

I'm not sure what's so spectacular about JR anyway. He's coming off a .266/.355/.538 season, he's slightly above average with the glove, and he'll be 29. He may not ever see 6 WAR again.

That line plus his defense added up to 6.7 bWAR and 6.3 fWAR. By Steamer, he's projected for 5.7 WAR next year, which is tied for 5th among hitters, and I would guess that ZIPS and other systems see him similarly. His options are for $11 million (2022) and $13 million (2023). WAR and projections are not the end-all, be-all, but that's the argument for his value.

Edit: with that said, Fangraphs put him at #26 on their trade value list, so maybe he's gettable with anyone in that range.

I'm not sure what's so spectacular about JR anyway. He's coming off a .266/.355/.538 season, he's slightly above average with the glove, and he'll be 29. He may not ever see 6 WAR again. Best players on his thru age 28 comp list are Sheff and Rolen, but he can't hit like the former nor field like the latter; about half had pretty disappointing 2nd halves of their careers, despite Longoria having a shot at winning Comeback PotY.

I don't really understand this post. You list a bunch of reasons why he is great, sprinkle in a couple non-sequiturs, and then conclude he is not great.

Either way, I don't think he's a trade target this offseason for the Red Sox even if Cleveland puts him on the market.

don't really understand this post. You list a bunch of reasons why he is great, sprinkle in a couple non-sequiturs, and then conclude he is not great.

It reminds me of Youkilis a little. If you looked at his skills separately, they weren't Earth-shattering. But add it all up and it's a great player.

I'm really intrigued by what Jose Ramirez would be worth.

So am I my friend, so am I.

As you can see, I've basically concluded that Jose Ramirez is priceless. :)

Also, you call those dumb trades? I'll show you some dumb trades:

Red Sox Get: Juan Soto
Nats Get: Devers, Verdugo, Duran

Red Sox Get: Pete Alonso, Jeff McNeil
Mets Get: Devers, Dalbec

Red Sox Get: Eric Hosmer, Campusano
SD Gets: Dalbec, Wong, Ward?

Red Sox Get: Eric Hosmer, Campusano
SD Gets: Dalbec, Wong, Ward?

Ew. Is Campusaro enough of a prospect to take on Hosmer? I would much rather the Sox keep Dalbec and hope he improves than get Hosmer and hope he isn't the massive waste of $$ he is.

I said it was dumb!

Campusano is like top 5 by some rankings. Hosmer could be useful as a platoon 1b.

I said it was dumb!

Darren is stupid!

OK he's not really, just wanted to pile on. Campusano isn't coming here but that framework (stud young player + bad contract) is a way for the Sox to leverage their financial position.

- Schwahbah officially declined his option.

- Tim Locastro signed as a fourth outfielder. Good defense/speed guy. Nice pick up who fits the roster well.

If the Red Sox trade Devers within the next 5 years I will conclude that Chaim Bloom (or whoever is in charge at the time) has taken a handful of crazy pills while being clubbed over the head with a stupid stick.

If the Red Sox trade Devers within the next 5 years I will conclude that Chaim Bloom (or whoever is in charge at the time) has taken a handful of crazy pills while being clubbed over the head with a stupid stick.

Devers is the line too far? What if the Sox decide to go big and sign some really expensive FA pitchers and the team decides it JUST CANT carry the burden of going over the tax threshold too many years in a row and they decide to trade Betts Devers to free themselves of the terrible tax burden their recent and completely foreseeable decisions have left them with?

Or what if they build a consistent contender, win a World Series every few years and regularly have one of the highest payrolls in baseball? What then?

Or what if they build a consistent contender, win a World Series every few years and regularly have one of the highest payrolls in baseball? What then?

Not enough information. In this scenario, did they sell bricks with people's names on them?

What if the Sox decide to go big and sign some really expensive FA pitchers and the team decides it JUST CANT carry the burden of going over the tax threshold too many years in a row

That's not "going big". "Going big" is signing expensive FA pitchers and keeping Devers.


edit...and Devers is cheap right now. Even if he wasn't, even if they sign him to a 10 year deal, he should stay. He isn't anchored to 3b. He can play 1B. He can DH 40 games a year. I don't care, as long as he's batting near the top of the order for the immediate future.

Devers is the line too far? What if the Sox decide to go big and sign some really expensive FA pitchers and the team decides it JUST CANT carry the burden of going over the tax threshold too many years in a row and they decide to trade Betts Devers to free themselves of the terrible tax burden their recent and completely foreseeable decisions have left them with?

That would be a bad idea. I would not endorse it. :)

However, the Red Sox payroll has very little on it for 2023 and beyond. So little, in fact, that even if they went really big in 2022, and went over whatever the tax limit is, they would likely be able get back under it in 2023.

Or what if they build a consistent contender, win a World Series every few years and regularly have one of the highest payrolls in baseball? What then?

I feel like we switched sides over the past 2 years! I agree with you that we really shouldn't ask more of the team than being near or at the top in payroll every year. However, when they dealt Mookie and Price, they pretty clearly sold it as dipping back under the limit so they could reset. Now, they seem to be treating the limit as their upper limit, which is not cool.

I feel like we switched sides over the past 2 years! I agree with you that we really shouldn't ask more of the team than being near or at the top in payroll every year. However, when they dealt Mookie and Price, they pretty clearly sold it as dipping back under the limit so they could reset. Now, they seem to be treating the limit as their upper limit, which is not cool.

I really don't care what they set their limit at, as long as they don't trade good players to get rid of bad contracts.

I really don't care what they set their limit at, as long as they don't trade good players to get rid of bad contracts.

Counterpoint - the Punto trade

Counterpoint - the Punto trade

Fair point, I should clarify to state I don't like trading good, cheap, players (and yes, I will argue that for whatever Betts made in arbitration, one year of him is cheap) as incentive for other teams to take back 'bad' contracts.

Gonzalez would have been a nice piece to have at 1B, but considering his rather large contract, I was fully on board with resetting the team by getting rid of Crawford and Beckett (to a much lesser extent). I have repeatedly said I would have been fine with the Sox trading JD Martinez, understanding that some times big pieces with big anchors need to move.

I think JD is a steal at 19M.

Fair point, I should clarify to state I don't like trading good, cheap, players (and yes, I will argue that for whatever Betts made in arbitration, one year of him is cheap) as incentive for other teams to take back 'bad' contracts.

Not to split hairs, here, but I felt like Price at 3/$48 million was pretty much market value. YMMV though.

Dumb trades aside I'm starting to think the Sox are going to do something big this winter. There have been enough articles in the paper recently that makes me think someone is planting stories to feel out the public sentiment.

...makes me think someone is planting stories...

I knew that Larry Lucchino "retirement" was a smokescreen!

Wait until you see the hatchet piece on Tim Hyers that the Globe is prepping.

Not to split hairs, here, but I felt like Price at 3/$48 million was pretty much market value. YMMV though.

Sure, 3/$48 is pretty reasonable, except Price was on a 3/$92 contract with the Sox. Even after the trade the Sox were on the hook for 3/$48.

What I'm saying is that they didn't use Mookie to get rid of a bad contract. The portion of the contract they got rid of was a market value contract.

What I'm saying is that they didn't use Mookie to get rid of a bad contract. The portion of the contract they got rid of was a market value contract.

Do you think Price - at 3/48 - was a positive, negative, or neutral in that trade? Do you see it as Betts for Verdugo/Downs/Wong and Price was tossed in as a net zero add?

When I wrote the above, I was thinking 3/48 was about market value, so a small positive (a player on a fair contract has some value).

There was some discussion at the time that he was worth more like 3/30, but I disagreed with that. Again, YMMV.

Edit: I should add that from the outside, we are going to have a very hard time determining how the Red Sox and Dodgers saw it, since they had access to his medical records and we didn't.