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

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. dave h Posted: February 04, 2020 at 09:59 PM (#5921686)
They have done a really remarkable job of completely destroying all the goodwill they have built up, especially from 2018. I'm also a diehard, and one way that I describe that is by pointing out that I didn't really sleep the night after the 2003 ALCS. But I actually feel similarly now as I did then - I just want nothing to do with baseball. I can't really imagine even watching a game on TV at this point, and 100% have no desire to buy tickets.
   2. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:00 PM (#5921687)
It’s really going to be amazing to hear how they spin this as a deal they feel will be a good one.
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:02 PM (#5921688)
This sucks for baseball. I legitimately feel bad for Red Sox fans, and I can't freaking stand the Red Sox. It's an embarrassment.
   4. The Duke Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:02 PM (#5921689)
hard to believe they don’t have room for Mookie. I guess they can re-sign him next year but when does that ever work?

Dodgers certainly going all-in. A nice juxtaposition to the Red Sox.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:04 PM (#5921691)
hard to believe they don’t have room for Mookie. I guess they can re-sign him next year but when does that ever work?

Why would he, if they're going to do cheap ass stuff like this? He'll get his $350M from someone.

   6. APNY Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:10 PM (#5921693)
Verdugo will be 24 and is a former consensus top 40 prospect but between the defense and BABIP aided reverse platoon split last year seems fluky.

Graterol is apparently a top 100 prospect despite everyone seemingly agreeing he'll be a reliever.

I assume there's more coming
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:13 PM (#5921695)
I assume there's more coming

Sounds like that's it.
   8. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:14 PM (#5921696)
Rosenthal said "significant money" is going to LA so Henry is paying millions of Price's contract to get all this badwill.

And Kenta Maeda and his super-friendly contract (4/$12.5m) are going to the Twins so it's nice to see multiple teams getting better from the Red Sox punting the World fuking Series.
   9. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:15 PM (#5921699)
Oh they have "room" for Mookie. They just chose to not make room for him, even tho he is a goddam superstar.
   10. chrismhamilton@gmail.com Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:17 PM (#5921702)
Allegedly this is the deal:
Red Sox: Alex Verdugo and Brusador Graterol
Twins: Kenta Maeda
Dodgers: Mookie Betts and David Price (Boston pays roughly half of the remaining $96M)

The Dodgers are also sending Joc Pederson to the Angels for Luis Rengifo in a separate transaction.

I would not be very happy if I were a Sox fan.

   11. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:18 PM (#5921703)
Half?!?!?!?!??! jfc
   12. craigamazing Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:21 PM (#5921704)
There's no baseball argument here. We're not talking about Albert Pujols in 2011. It's a superstar in the prime of his career. A high character guy who is beloved. In a huge market where revenue flows as easily as tap water. This doesn't even make sense if you think Betts is probably leaving.

If I were a Sox fan I wouldn't set foot in Fenway this year. John Henry would not see a dime of my $$$.
   13. Lassus Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:22 PM (#5921705)
I don't even think the Mets would have done this.
   14. RJ in TO Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:44 PM (#5921709)
I don't even think the Mets would have done this.
Give them time. Alonso is still cheap at the moment.
   15. Textbook Editor Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:44 PM (#5921710)
I’m very disappointed. So basically the Red Sox clear something like $43 million from payroll in 2020 as a result of 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.

I got through dark days before. I will again. But man this is a dark day.
   16. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 10:59 PM (#5921715)
If they're going to be stripped of draft picks then won't they need the comp pick they'd get from letting Mookie go that much more?
   17. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:09 PM (#5921719)
I'm done with this team. #### John Henry, #### the poindexter new GM, #### the entire franchise. I hope we go 84 years before winning another world series.

As Lassus points out, even the Mets would be hard pressed to #### up more. So I'll root for them instead, and I hope John Henry chokes on his billions.
   18. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:10 PM (#5921720)
The Dodgers didn't just upgrade from Joc Pederson to Mookie Betts, they eliminate having to platoon him against LHP and give them extra flexibility with the extra roster spot.
   19. Jay Seaver Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:26 PM (#5921722)
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.


I kind of figure that if that's the case, you kind of have to go harder on Mookie. If the farm's going to be dry, lock down your superstar.
   20. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:35 PM (#5921723)
How much would it cost to put up a \"#### you, John Henry" billboard near Yawkey Way?
   21. Textbook Editor Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:36 PM (#5921724)
#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.

Of course all my speculation here is merely trying to think “worst case scenario”... so maybe it’s all fever dream ramblings. But if that DID happen, it might explain a lot of what’s going on.

And I know “postseason ban” in a professional league in the US seems absurd, but the soccer leagues abroad have “points deductions” that essentially operate (usually) as a ban against promotion (soccer’s somewhat equivalence to playoff success)... If the commish wanted to REALLY come down on the Red Sox (and this delay in announcing punishment makes me think he will), then I think “postseason ban” might be the kind of unprecedented penalty he might employ to get the point across loud and clear.

I’m gonna miss Mookie. And hell, I’m even gonna miss Price. We’re it not for sportswriters grudges against him, he’s the clear MVP of the 2018 WS, and I’m not even sure it’s close. He was Beckett in 2007 that playoff run.
   22. RJ in TO Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:46 PM (#5921726)
#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.
The Astros did not receive a post-season bad. Why would the Red Sox?
   23. Dock Ellis Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:47 PM (#5921727)
Because supposedly the Red Sox punishment is going to be worse than what the Astros got
   24. RJ in TO Posted: February 04, 2020 at 11:54 PM (#5921728)
Why would it be?
   25. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:01 AM (#5921730)
And *poof* there goes all my interest in the 2020 Sox and, by extension, the 2020 MLB season. If they don't care, neither do I.

And #### John Henry.
   26. Dock Ellis Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:01 AM (#5921731)
Even though the investigation has not been concluded, the general rumor has been that the Red Sox have behaved so egregiously that their punishment will be worse than the Astros.
   27. Textbook Editor Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:04 AM (#5921732)
#24–because of Apple Watch-gate in 2017. They were publicly named/shamed and at the time the message was “you do not want to be a repeat offender.” The Red Sox would be repeat offenders, having been caught already. The Astros were not (I don’t believe) warned in the same way the Red Sox were after the Apple Watch thing. That’s why I’m suspecting the hammer of all hammers will be brought down. And basically the reason they’re dumping as much salary as they can is—perhaps—because they know now 2020 will be a bloodbath at the ticket office.
   28. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:33 AM (#5921739)
2020 will already be a bloodbath league-wide because of this Astros-####....except maybe the Yanks and how much room do they even have to expand ratings and attendance-wise?


I'm with Kennedy. I'll keep an eye on Betts and root for him but thats it, my fandom was already on life support. Hope its not too late to cancel MLB.com...if i recall it renews around now.

Edit: And cancelled.
   29. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:56 AM (#5921740)
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.
   30. Chip Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:12 AM (#5921743)
My sister-in-law just last week had secured Jet Blue Park tickets for the four of us (incl. her husband & my wife/her sister) for Yankees-Red Sox the last weekend of this month (the in-laws are both Yankee fans). I’ll go, but I’ll be depressed & annoyed most of the time, and I’ll boo/accost anyone from ownership if I happen to see them.

In other words, I’m with José.

   31. Phil Coorey. Posted: February 05, 2020 at 03:46 AM (#5921750)
How did it get to this - un ####### believable.
   32. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 05, 2020 at 03:58 AM (#5921752)
I have said elsewhere, but I will not be watching a minute of Red Sox baseball this season. They can #### off with this bullshit.

This would be embarrassing if it was the Marlins doing it.
   33. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 07:15 AM (#5921759)
#### the Red Sox.
   34. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 07:26 AM (#5921761)
Just woke up, still furious.

Vaux, it's trading the best home grown Red Sock since at LEAST Yaz- and frankly Mookie could very easily end up having a better career. It speaks to the type of stupidity that led to selling Ruth exactly 100 years ago. We deserve another curse.

If you want to dump salary, eat 50m of Price's contract and get nothing back. Do the same with Eovaldi and Martinez. Don't tender JBJ. There, I've just gotten you under the salary cap (and it IS a salary cap, and it IS an excuse for billionaire owners to put more money in their pockets) and you have plenty of money to extend your best ####### player in a lifetime.

HENRY OUT.
   35. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 07:31 AM (#5921762)
I don't understand this reaction. It's one year of the guy, and he wants to be a free-agent.
True. While I think the idea of the trade is stupid and the steps leading up to it are baffling, I am going to come out and say that some of the reactions I'm reading are downright embarassing.
   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 05, 2020 at 07:49 AM (#5921765)
As a Yankees fan, I hate this move. This is like the Yankees trading Judge or Gleyber if they approached free agency after a succession of All-Star level seasons.

I'm done with this team. #### John Henry, #### the poindexter new GM, #### the entire franchise. I hope we go 84 years before winning another world series.

This sounds a lot like former fans of the Washington Deadskins, contemplating the second 20 years of Dan Snyder. I'm not being in the slightest bit sarcastic when I say I feel your pain.

By trading Mookie Betts to Dodgers, Red Sox seemingly concede AL East to rival Yankees
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.
   37. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:01 AM (#5921770)
The Red Sox have won 4 titles in 15 years after nothing in 86 years, and it had been a whole 1 year since the Red Sox won a title. They had the biggest payroll in baseball last year.

Maybe they got the feeling that Betts didn't want to be in Boston.

This is not the Wilpons turning the Mets to a mid-market team.
   38. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:05 AM (#5921771)
Then Mookie walks after he rejects the largest offer out there. The Red Sox offered 10/300m and Mookie counter-offered for 12/420 last spring, before Machado and Harper signed. You're telling me they couldn't have gotten a deal done?
   39. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:06 AM (#5921772)
I'd be pissed if I were a Sox fan too. But I'm amazed at how little slack people are cutting John Henry and the team. If I told you guys in 2000 that a new owner would come and he would (1) basically save Fenway Park (2) hire Bill ####### James and (3) win 4 titles, it would have been ####### unimaginable, you all would have creamed your pants in an instant.

"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."

You probably wouldn't have heard that part though, through your tears and wails of ecstasy.
   40. craigamazing Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:11 AM (#5921774)
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.


I'm sorry to be rude, but this analysis is the worst sort of pro-transactional blindness where any cromulent return is deemed sufficient for being "proactive" by squinting really hard:

-The return is pretty meh by any standard. You trade a generational superstar and don't extract one of the other team's 6-7 best prospects?
-You hand wave the fact they will be paying Price a lot of money to pitch for the Dodgers. That's significant--Price may still be really good or at least good.
-One 7 or 8 WAR season from Betts (or 9 or 10!) is way way more valuable than say, 12.7 WAR from Verdugo spread out over 5 seasons and a couple of good relief seasons from G. The Red Sox were still legit contenders for 2020. Betts to Verdugo could be the difference between 85 wins and say 91-2 wins...
-From all accounts, there was still a chance you resign Betts if you offered him a market level contract. The Red Sox don't have to be cheap.
-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). If all of baseball is run like a small-market Beane-like roster turnover machine, it will (continue) to kill interest.

   41. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:17 AM (#5921776)

"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."


As I've said before - trade or don't sign basically anybody else on the Sox and the reaction wouldn't be anywhere near what it is. Dump JD, don't sign JBJ, trade Benintendi to dump Price, all of those would be shitty, but ultimately fine. But to trade a once-in-a-generation player, so that you can save some money, is a massive #### you to the team and to the fans. Lost in all this is that Price isn't even a 'bad' pitcher. Sure, he's not worth his contract, but he was easily the 3rd best pitcher on the team. The Sox just lost at least 6 wins because of this trade purely because of money. Again, #### the Red Sox.

And for all this bullshit that Mookie wanted to test free agency, so what! He also WANTED to go to arbitration, so he could see how the experience was. Fine, they went to arb, then the next year they settled ahead of it. Just because he wanted to see how free agency was does not in any way mean he actually wanted to leave the Sox.
   42. John DiFool2 Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:20 AM (#5921777)
I'm done. Maybe I'll be back in 2 years when Papi is up for election.

No idea when I'll be back to this site. Nice hanging with you guys.

Hope they are in the 2nd division for the next 20 years. Harry Frazee, you are finally off the hook. [100 years and 5 weeks later]

Bye.
   43. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:23 AM (#5921778)
Just because he wanted to see how free agency was does not in any way mean he actually wanted to leave the Sox.


There may be details here that we are unaware of.

Henry would appear to be one of the best and most successful owners in the sport. Perhaps in all sports, given Liverpool's very similar ascendance from beloved perennial also-ran to globally elite team.

It's difficult to express how entitled people here look posting things like "I'm done with this team" and "HENRY OUT."

I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?
   44. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:28 AM (#5921779)
I get the emotional attachment to Betts, of course, but this is "baseball for the thinking fan," too. 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) that the over-the-top reaction seems, well, over the top, especially given how sucessful this Red Sox ownership has been. They have some idea how to value players, and that's not only in relation to how good the players are, but also what other franchises are and will be willing to pay. Betts's counter offer quoted above is pretty eye-popping. Maybe someone will pay him that much, but until they have a chance to, we won't know. They also have some idea how to project the future development of markets. The 12-year contract is predicated on the idea that after the first 5 or 6 years, the declining/declined/non-existant production will be offset by continued salary inflation. But that's a lot of continued salary inflation to rely on, with cord-cutting and with teams clearly treating the luxury tax draft penalty threshhold as a salary cap.

The only reason Verdugo isn't on the Dodgers prospect list is that he's already a productive major league player.

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

   45. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 08:28 AM (#5921780)
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)
Yes, we can clearly see all the goodwill that the Bogaerts extension etc bought...
   46. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:03 AM (#5921789)
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)


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. They most definitely will be worse in 2020 because of this trade. And while I may be pleasantly surprised by an off season signing of Betts next year, if this decreases any chances the Sox had with re-signing him then it makes the Sox worse in 2021, 2022, 2023, etc...

This trade was to save money. That sucks.
   47. Answer Guy. Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:03 AM (#5921790)

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'm not going say "I'm done with this team."

But I'm at least going to say "Some years this team deserves a lot of my attention and I find myself developing emotional attachments to their fortunes. 2020 will not be such a year, and 2021 probably won't be one either."
   48. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:10 AM (#5921792)
I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?


This is on top of Dombrowski...on top of Cora...and just punting away a season in Bogaerts, Betts and Devers prime....not that JD and Sale are getting any younger either.

1/2 a season of a 36 year old Manny Ramirez got a similar return (IMHO) You keep Betts and see what happens in 2020.

And all this "Ownership HAD TO trade him" narrative is just pissing me off.
   49. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:13 AM (#5921794)
To be clear;

- I’m not done with the Sox
- I don’t want Henry out, he’s the best owner in club history and one (massive) mistake doesn’t change that

But I’m allowed to be pissed off. The Sox just traded off a once in a generation talent to save a couple of bucks. I expect the Sox to be decent this year and competitive in the years to come, it’s a good organization that is well run and frankly that Bloom landed a couple of decent players makes me feel confident in him. But this pisses me off.
   50. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:14 AM (#5921795)
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.


If you just look at surplus value, Verdugo + Brusdar is probably greater than Betts.

Betts is earning $27M this year. He is likely to be "worth" $50+ and so let's say he's a +$30M or a +$40M asset. But Verdugo was already a +$15M asset last year, using the same numbers, and therefore must project to earn more than $50M value over the next 5 years. And a top 100 prospect must be worth some tens of millions too.

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)
   51. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:36 AM (#5921805)
Betts's counter offer quoted above is pretty eye-popping.

This is from a random article prior to Machado and Harper signing. Sometimes the asking prices are a bit high. It's almost like that's how negotiations work.


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.
   52. craigamazing Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:39 AM (#5921806)
I think it's a bad move and obviously a very sad and disheartening one. But come on. "I'm done with this team"?


It may be a bit rash to swear off the Red Sox forever, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to refuse to invest time and emotion into a big market team that conducts business this way. This is not banishing a scrappy fan favourite or an aging star...you're essentially trading Cal Ripken or Mike Schmidt or Frank Robinson at age 27. It's insane to trade a player like that--who is not remotely a malcontent or head case--without exhausting all avenues. Sounds like a reasonable deal-breaker to stop going to the ballpark in 2020.

When the Riccardi rudely kicked Delgado to the curb in 04, I lost any appetite to spend emotions or money on the Jays until JP finally left (it helped that JP continued to be such an abrasive prick and a mediocre GM to boot). And CD wasn't even half the player that Betts is right now.
   53. Lassus Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:43 AM (#5921811)
I have said elsewhere, but I will not be watching a minute of Red Sox baseball this season.

The Mets are available!
   54. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:43 AM (#5921812)

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)


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. At some point you need to fill each position with the most WAR possible AND THE SOX HAD THAT!


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)


Yes it is awful, that's what we are all saying. And you are ignoring the fact that the already nebulous health of the rotation just took a major hit by trading their #3 starter? Not sure I follow your logic declaring the trade 'not awful'.
   55. Chip Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:46 AM (#5921813)
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?

Also want to see projected 5-year revenue loss from dropped NESN subs, as well as projected effect on NESN ad revenue to due to expected decline in 2020 ratings.

And how much of a goodwill writedown do we have to factor in?

What other effects on the quarterly and annual P&L statements am I missing?
   56. craigamazing Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:53 AM (#5921818)
   57. craigamazing Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:55 AM (#5921821)
To beat a dead horse and underline the utter disgrace that this trade is:

Ben Lindbergh-The Mookie Betts Trade Is Unprecedented in Baseball History
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2020/2/5/21123817/mookie-betts-trade-red-sox-dodgers-historic-war

You shouldn't do this sort of thing with a Manny-level headcase, much less someone as beloved as Mookie.
   58. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 05, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5921825)
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?

They were not going to lose any draft picks. The line for losing picks is $248m. They didn't need to trade Mookie to stay under that.
   59. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:00 AM (#5921826)
You make an argument that the trade was acceptable, and then immediately say you wouldn't view it in that light.


I said I would never view it only in that light. I agree that trading Betts is disgusting, regardless of the return. But trading Betts for a good package is less disgusting than trading him for a bad one.

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


You might, if in a few years Verdugo is still a productive player on a good Sox team, 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.

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

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.
   60. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:01 AM (#5921828)
The Mets are available!


GF is a lifelong Braves fan and my fave player is Dale Murphy....but they made a soulless move into a new park so...its a reluctant pass.

I'm super-invested into football (soccer) this year anyway. I'll just hang out in that sphere.
   61. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:02 AM (#5921829)
They were not going to lose any draft picks. The line for losing picks is $248m. They didn't need to trade Mookie to stay under that.

Correct they were in no danger of any penalty other than money.
   62. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:02 AM (#5921830)
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.

True, it does look better if you pretend that Betts was asking for a much bigger contract than he actually asked for.
   63. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:04 AM (#5921832)
Correct they were in no danger of any penalty other than money.

And the amount was pretty close to the value of JBJ's 2020 salary- and as a reminder, that was a salary which they could have unilaterally avoided paying by just non-tendering him.
   64. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:07 AM (#5921834)
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.
   65. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5921840)
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.
Yes, we can clearly see all the goodwill that the 2018 flag etc bought...
   66. Dock Ellis Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:18 AM (#5921843)
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.
   67. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:20 AM (#5921844)
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.
   68. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:21 AM (#5921845)
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.

That's SBB's argument.

The quote in #64 is clever but the payroll flexibility, of course, is supposed to win you more flags.

The Red Sox have won multiple world serieses and are consistently among the biggest spenders in the game. 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.
   69. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:22 AM (#5921846)
People are saying "goodwill is important!" and then acting as if the single most gloriously successful team of the last two decades has earned absolutely none of it.
   70. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:22 AM (#5921847)
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.

Wait until you find out he just traded Mookie Betts.
   71. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:24 AM (#5921848)
I'll refer you to my comment #39.
   72. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:26 AM (#5921850)
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.

There is an opportunity cost with playing lesser players. You only have so many PAs, and IPs to go around each season. And if you have to invest more of them to just get back to the 7-8 WAR from Mookie that you just punted, it decreases your other options and opportunities. Also, successful teams very rarely have replacement level holes just waiting around waiting to be filled. So you tend to have to replace 1-2 WAR players, which ends up costing you even more.
All of which is why a linear payscale along WAR never made sense, and there is plenty of evidence that MLB teams have begun to figure that out. Hence why the middle class of players has had their legs cut out from under them in FA the past few seasons.

Put it this way, let's say Mookie is a 7 WAR player, and Verdugo is a 2 WAR player, which is where FG has him projected on their LAD projection page. So now we have to make up 5 wins somewhere. Now they miraculously find a 3 WAR player at 2B, yay, so only 2 more wins to find right? But 2B, their worst position on the field, was still projected at about 1 WAR... so rats, still need to find 3 wins. Ok, so we miraculously found a 4 win CF. Yay, now we are in the black! Oh wait, JBJ, is projected at 2.2... so still about 1.2 WAR short. So maybe we find a 2.4 WAR SP, to replace Perez in the rotation then! Who is projected at 1.2 WAR, so whew, finally done!

So 2 WAR from Verdugo, 3 WAR from your new 2B, 4 WAR from your new CF, and 2.4 WAR from your new pitcher... So all it took to replace 7 WAR Mookie, and get back to level, was 11.4 WAR. (And obviously we haven't even started to figure out how they are paying for ANY of that, OR accounted for the 2.4 WAR Price is projected for) Plus punting on the chance that Chavis, JBJ, or Perez develop or have a breakout year.
   73. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:27 AM (#5921851)
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'm just pointing out that winning championships and big contracts doesn't buy much lasting goodwill. Fans are fickle, and us Red Sox fans have a, uh, complicated relationship with the team. Even the '04 championship bought a grace period of, what, 16 months? I hope the ownership doesn't chase their tails trying to court fan goodwill that will just evaporate before the next turn of the moon anyway.

All that being said, this trade is stupid and I hate it.
   74. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:28 AM (#5921852)
And the amount was pretty close to the value of JBJ's 2020 salary- and as a reminder, that was a salary which they could have unilaterally avoided paying by just non-tendering him.

Let's remember, the Red Sox voluntarily entered into all these contracts this offseason (Steamer proj. WAR in parens):

Mitch Moreland $3M (0.7)
Jose Peraza $3M (0.6)
Martin Perez $6M (1.8)
Jackie Bradley $11M (2.0)

So that's $23M and 4 roster spots for 5.1 proj. WAR rather than $27M and one spot for 6.0 proj. WAR in Betts.

Why on earth would any sane team just not sign those guys and get under the tax threshold that way?
   75. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:29 AM (#5921853)
I think complaining about the reactions are being a bit unreasonable. Emotional responses are a natural in a situation like this. I don’t expect there to be a huge attendance drop off (assuming the team is good as they should be) but I think some outrage is to be expected.
   76. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:30 AM (#5921854)
I'll refer you to my comment #39.

Non-responsive, this has nothing to do with 2004 et al, for which fans will forever be grateful.
   77. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:30 AM (#5921855)
Snapper - Yeah, I don’t get that. It’s why all winter I’ve felt that this wasn’t going to happen. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Non-tender JBJ and trade half of Price’s salary for a bag of balls. That pretty much gets you there.
   78. SandyRiver Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:31 AM (#5921856)
The NFL is run like a roster turnover machine, and it doesn't seem to kill interest.

That may get tested soon, depending on what Mr. Brady chooses to do. The NFL survived Montana to KC, but as good as he was, he'd been with SF a small fraction of TB's tenure.
   79. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:33 AM (#5921857)
The NFL survived Montana to KC, but as good as he was, he'd been with SF a small fraction of TB's tenure.

He's extremely old and on the verge of retirement. Which is also why the trade of 32 year old Tom Seaver, mentioned somewhere as a comparison, also isn't relevant.

Betts is, literally, the only player this good and this young to be traded in the history of the sport.
   80. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:38 AM (#5921859)
79 - Um....I refer you to the Red Sox off-season of 100 years ago
   81. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:38 AM (#5921863)
Sure, throw in the word "modern" prior to history.
   82. SandyRiver Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:39 AM (#5921864)
Since Ruth?
(And though your comment is perfectly logical, Pats fans might behave illogically.)
   83. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:42 AM (#5921865)
Look, I hate that MLB has turned into an accounting exercise. In MLB today the teams view players as the confluence of two numbers, expected WAR and salary.

It sucks for us fans. But the unfortunate truth is that they are largely correct to look at players like this.

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.
   84. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:44 AM (#5921867)
Rickey Henderson was as good as Betts.
   85. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:44 AM (#5921869)
Also, honestly, A. that wasn't a trade and B. as outlined here, Betts's previous two seasons surpass even Ruth's at the time of that deal (though the latter was much younger and, obviously, went on to do some things very quickly).

But, big picture, if that's the transaction you're looking to, I think the argument is already lost.
   86. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:45 AM (#5921871)
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.
PF, how dare you interrupt the rending of garments with such things as logic and perspective?
   87. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:46 AM (#5921872)
I'm noticing a pattern here where people are emotionally upset about this trade and also adding something along the lines of 'and there's no baseball reason to make this trade!' Then someone points out the baseball reason only to be told 'but this is Mookie Betts, get your spreadsheets out of here!'

I do understand the emotional side of this. But, some questions: Do people think Henry and co. turned into tone-deaf idiots all of a sudden? Do we believe Lou Merloni has a detailed and nuanced account of the negotiations prior to 2019? Did the ownership sign off on the Sale and Bogaerts deals without realizing that might limit their ability to sign Mookie, or do you think they did those deals because they already realized they were not going to be able to sign him?

   88. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:46 AM (#5921873)
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.
   89. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:47 AM (#5921874)
Then someone points out the baseball reason only to be told

Ha! I was unaware that someone had done that in a convincing manner, but go nuts.
   90. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:49 AM (#5921875)
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.

Cool so, so far, we have three inner circle Hall of Famers to compare this to, at least two of whom were not coming off the same quality of seasons as Betts was. And at least two of those transactions are still considered among the very worst in the game's long history, all of these many years later.

I remain unconvinced, guys!
   91. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:50 AM (#5921877)
Joe Morgan was traded at 28. Steve Carlton was 27. Pedro Martinez at 22 and 25. Reggie Jackson at 29.

With the exception of the Reggie trade, the receiving team got the better end of it.
   92. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:52 AM (#5921879)
PF, how dare you interrupt the rending of garments with such things as logic and perspective?

ElRoy, you're deeply committed to the notion that ownership should not be spending any more than is absolutely necessary, a theme that plays out in every single transaction discussion that takes place here. It's a philosophy that I don't agree with, but I understand where you're coming from. But the "emotions LOL" bullshit is unbecoming (from Darren, too). Sports are dumb, and it is deeply dumb to care about them, but we all do it nonetheless.
   93. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:53 AM (#5921880)
By the way you'll notice Pedro wasn't traded in 2004's preseason. ####....Ellsbury wasn't traded in 2013.
   94. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:53 AM (#5921881)

Ha! I was unaware that someone had done that in a convincing manner, 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.
   95. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:54 AM (#5921882)
By the way you'll notice Pedro wasn't traded in 2004's preseason. ####....Ellsbury wasn't traded in 2013.


Wonder what they would have gotten.
   96. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:55 AM (#5921884)
I didn't say convincing. I said they talked about baseball reasons only to dismissed because of emotional reasons. But go nuts.

Bullshit, they were dismissed because they're not convincing and you know perfectly well he wasn't traded for baseball reasons, so why are you pretending otherwise?
   97. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:03 AM (#5921891)
I didn't say convincing. I said they talked about baseball reasons only to dismissed because of emotional reasons. But go nuts.

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

There are no "baseball reasons" that can justify a team which is projected to be in the midst of a tight and tough playoff fight, to intentionally make itself ~7 wins worse, in order to save a few million dollars. You can justify a team that is comfortably out of contention doing so on baseball reasons, for whom it makes sense to play for future seasons. But not this team.
   98. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:04 AM (#5921892)
I will repeat what I have said before. This is a Marlins move. It clearly signals that the team has no interest in winning. Which is why I have zero interest in watching.
   99. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:08 AM (#5921896)
Wonder what they would have gotten.


FWIW if the Yanks can hold a 6 run lead in the 8th inning or Papelbon can make a save (maybe...that leads to a one game playoff), then Ellsbury would have an MVP two years before 2011. As it was he had to settle for secind.
   100. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:09 AM (#5921897)
There remain no baseball reasons to trade Mookie. There are financial reasons to trade him, but no baseball reasons.


There's a financial aspect to every trade because teams have budgets.
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
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6501 seconds
57 querie(s) executed