I don't even think the Mets would have done this.

The only—ONLY—thing I can think of here that would in any way justify a “white flag trade” on February 4th is if the club knows (or suspects strongly) that even more draconian penalties are coming down as a result of the sign stealing investigation... If they are going to be even more harshly stripped of draft picks (for example) than the Astros were AND maybe lose international FA $$$, then going forward for the next few years all they’ll have is cash to try to build/maintain the franchise—so they need to clear decks to be able to spend $$$.

But that is speculation on my part and a WAG. And even then I’m not sure it justifies this trade.

#19–I’ve wondered if the possible penalty could be a postseason ban. I have no idea how that would work, and it would (as far as I know) be unprecedented for a major US sport, but should that happen, it might also explain this, as there would be no point in having Betts around if that was the case.

I don't understand this reaction. It's one year of the guy, and he wants to be a free-agent.

Baseball people, from franchises big and small, spend their lifetimes driving to small towns, watching thousands of games and tossing countless baseballs into the paths of whooshing bats, all for the purpose of finding and developing a player as good as Mookie Betts.

The Red Sox did it. And now, without even finding out what he could have done for them in 2020, they have sent him packing. It’s the kind of move the Oaklands and Tampa Bays of the world make. A team like the Red Sox is supposed to keep its stars and never give away a season.

I don't understand this reaction. It's one year of the guy, and he wants to be a free-agent. For this, five years of Verdugo and also an apparently pretty good pitching prospect. Paying half of the Price contract is unfortunate, and I don't understand why they wouldn't just keep him and hope for the best under those circumstances, but they seemed set on getting rid of him, and even with that, they got good value in return for the actual value they gave up.

"Oh yeah and then after all that at some point he'll trade away a very expensive star player that had publicly declared his intention to test the market as a free agent, and get back a top rookie and another top prospect."

Just because he wanted to see how free agency was does not in any way mean he actually wanted to leave the Sox.

Goodwill still matters-a lot. There's value in respecting the emotional attachments of your fans (especially in the case of high character superstars who are insanely popular with your fanbase)

I'm just saying that the trade makes enough sense from a baseball standpoint (although I don't like the Price part of it, either)

I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?

I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?

What exactly is the sense of this trade from a baseball standpoint? The Sox traded their best player and their 3rd best starting pitcher for a replacement outfielder who could be half the player Betts is and a prospecty starter-probably-reliever pitcher.

Back in May, Fox’s Ken Rosenthal floated the $400 million number for Machado. Around that time, MLB Network’s Jon Heyman was writing of a possible $500 million price tag for Harper. Heyman has a reputation for knowing what Boras is thinking. That number didn’t come out of thin air or Heyman’s imagination.

I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?

Note: I would never look at transactions only in this way, and agree with a lot of comment #40. But on the face of it, just looking at the assets involved, it doesn't seem like an awful trade. It's awful that they did trade Betts. But the details of the trade itself don't look awful. (I'm ignoring Price for now)

It's awful that they did trade Betts. But the details of the trade itself don't look awful. (I'm ignoring Price for now)

If you’re going to look at this strictly from a GAAP perspective, remind me again what they’ve actually gained in $$$ by avoiding the salary cap penalties next year? Not only the tax that won’t have to be paid, but the value of the draft picks and international free agents they’ll avoid losing because of the cap?

You make an argument that the trade was acceptable, and then immediately say you wouldn't view it in that light.

I don't give a single #### about excess value when one of the people being traded is the 2nd best player in baseball.

It's impossible to fill his shoes with the "excess value" that Verdugo may bring.

The Mets are available!

and Betts is enjoying a $500M contract with the Rangers or Mariners or some other rando team, a contract that no smart team would ever consider.

Correct they were in no danger of any penalty other than money.

109. Copronymus Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:32 PM (#5921707)
People get too excited about flags, it's the payroll flexibility you get from avoiding the consecutive-year luxury tax penalty threshold that actually flies forever.

No one is using the other thread, but this deserves more attention:

109. Copronymus Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:32 PM (#5921707)
People get too excited about flags, it's the payroll flexibility you get from avoiding the consecutive-year luxury tax penalty threshold that actually flies forever.

It's almost as if Moneyball was propaganda and fans have been conditioned to value min. wage prospects and service time over superstars who can help you win a World fcking Series.

Much of this complaining is predicated on the idea that Henry is not putting forth a good faith effort to spend on a winner. But there's no evidence for that in his history.

It's not really, except maybe in an emotional way. Betts is a ~7 WAR player, and Verdugo may well be a ~3 WAR player. They produce X, they're paid Y. That's how the Sox may be looking at it. And this may turn out to be a pretty solid deal for them.

Nate I don't really get your angle here at all, it's ridiculous. You know damn well no one would be upset if they were dumping the equivalent salary in the form of, say, Eovaldi and JBJ or whomever.

I'll refer you to my comment #39.

The NFL is run like a roster turnover machine, and it doesn't seem to kill interest.

The NFL survived Montana to KC, but as good as he was, he'd been with SF a small fraction of TB's tenure.

Betts is a ~7 WAR player that has one year in which he's being paid like a ~4-5 WAR player. It's not a ton of value. And he's offering no discount on his future contract to the team that is currently employing him. You can say he's "the only player this good and this young to be traded in the history of the sport," which is probably not true to begin with, but if you look at his value, it's not exceptional in any way.

Then someone points out the baseball reason only to be told

I'd argue Pedro Martinez was better and younger when he got traded to the Red Sox, although he did not have the track record of Betts.

PF, how dare you interrupt the rending of garments with such things as logic and perspective?

Ha! I was unaware that someone had done that in a convincing manner, but go nuts.

By the way you'll notice Pedro wasn't traded in 2004's preseason. ####....Ellsbury wasn't traded in 2013.

I didn't say convincing. I said they talked about baseball reasons only to dismissed because of emotional reasons. But go nuts.

I didn't say convincing. I said they talked about baseball reasons only to dismissed because of emotional reasons. But go nuts.

Wonder what they would have gotten.

There remain no baseball reasons to trade Mookie. There are financial reasons to trade him, but no baseball reasons.