Gammons said the same yesterday, so that's 2 grains of salt.He just said he wasn't in the deal. Again huge grain of salt.
Gammons said the same yesterday, so that's 2 grains of salt.He just said he wasn't in the deal. Again huge grain of salt.
That's fine, but I'm not signing an extension. I intend to test the market. My hopes are not high.It's Jim Bowden. For five bucks and a cheese danish, he'll say that you're part of the package
Interesting video of Verdugo talking about his back. Not super encouraging.
edit: video originally posted Dec 13, 2019
(also not encouraged by the Scumbag Steve cosplay)
[/QUOTE
Not super encouraging is for sure.
Super discouraging is closer to my read.
I was kinda looking forward to having a Bennie clone bookending the OF but now I'm not so much..
That's a good question.I worship Pedro, but what's his batting average on predicting successful pitchers?
other tweet in this thread is we'd pay more of Myers' contract for Patino.
View: https://twitter.com/redsoxstats/status/1224546930551857153
I'd be delighted to take some of Myers' contract to get Luis Patiño.I worship Pedro, but what's his batting average on predicting successful pitchers?
When I see him on TV now, I wish he had retired some time ago, and spent his time playing guitar in a blues trio at bars on weekends while writing mystery novels on the sideBloom definitely knows what he’s doing, but Gammons has not for quite some time, sad to say.
This. 1,000,000 times this.Which is why no one should believe Lou Merloni knows anything
Only if he has a good editor.When I see him on TV now, I wish he had retired some time ago, and spent his time playing guitar in a blues trio at bars on weekends while writing mystery novels on the side
I think everyone who cares about the product on the field would. The big question is will John Henry allow this to happen. If the goal is to get under $208 then Boston would need to send another contract if they take the amount of the Myers contract needed to get Patino in the mix. This is why ultimately I feel Gasper was right all along in his thoughts that we are going to be disappointed in the return for Mookie. The plan it seems at least is to get rid of Mookie to get some tangible assets for him that is more valuable than a 4th round pick. Also to use him to dump a bad contract such as David Price. Hopefully this comes to a conclusion today.I'd be delighted to take some of Myers' contract to get Luis Patiño.
This kid, in his age 19 season, just threw 87 IP of 2.69 ERA, 11.7 K/9, 3.5 BB/9 ball in the California league, and ended up with two starts in AA. At 19! I know it was just a cup of coffee in AA, but there has literally never been a 19 year old pitcher on the Portland Sea Dogs — not even when they were a Marlins affiliate.
Good fastball, well developed slider, changeup in progress, but they kept promoting him because he kept dominating. His fangraphs writeup includes this sentence: "Conservatively, Patiño has mid-rotation upside, but how the changeup and breaking ball command develop matter because that’s where there’s room for significant growth."
edit: Seriously, it was hard for me to believe that we would be able to get a package for one year of Betts that would include a prospect this good, so I'm not sure I actually believe these reports from Gammons. But... Bloom might just know what he's doing.
I think this is more about not wanting to commit to 12Y/$420M than the CBT per se.If we're trading Mookie in large part to reset the CBT,
I think that may be part of it (assuming that's what he's looking for), but even if they don't want to pay that they could just keep him this year AND TRY TO WIN, and then try to resign him, or sign somebody else. I don't think they'd make this move, and make the team demonstrably worse this year, without the goal of resetting the CBT.I think this is more about not wanting to commit to 12Y/$420M than the CBT per se.
I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.I think this is more about not wanting to commit to 12Y/$420M than the CBT per se.
Seems like Stripling would be a solution for the 5th SP slot. Have always thought he’d be involved in this.If we're trading Mookie in large part to reset the CBT, then we don't get there unless we also trade Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JBJ, but I think that's unlikely). I think that's why this is taking so long. Bloom not only has to explore packages with the Dodgers and Padres that include one of these pitchers, but he also has to see whether he can move one of them separately if not in the Betts deal, which is probably pretty difficult without eating a significant part of salary (or taking a bad contract back).
The other complicating factor is that we probably need to get a SP back - preferably young but close to MLB-ready.
The Dodgers are apparently willing to take Price in a deal for Mookie, but want the Sox to eat some of the money. I don't think that's the problem. It seems that the issue is whether they will give us a pitcher we want in the deal - May would be ideal, Gonsolin might be acceptable with Verdugo, but Dodgers apparently haven't offered that.
With the Padres, getting Patino would be great, even if we have to take Myers. But apparently they don't want to take Price, so that means we have to deal Price or Eovaldi separately to get under the CBT.
If that's where things stand, I can understand why there's still no deal.
The Pats have had plenty. Seymour jumps to mind.I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.
What sucks is that the Sox are being financially disciplined with arguably one of the best players in the game just a few years after entering into a series of ill advised contracts. I'm not saying that I don't understand or even agree with the decision. It just feels a bit like an over correction. And at bottom, watching the Red Sox without Mookie Betts is going to be a lot less exciting.
When was the last time a top of the game star was traded in his prime by a Boston team in any sport?
He's 30. There is not a lot of upside with him. At this point, he's probably at best a 4th to 6th SP on the roster. I'd rather have someone more projectable in this deal where you could have them under control for 5 years. Probably asking for too much but if you're giving up Price and Mookie you need someone coming back that you can say has the potential of an SP3.Seems like Stripling would be a solution for the 5th SP slot. Have always thought he’d be involved in this.
In addition to someone like Ferguson.He's 30. There is not a lot of upside with him. At this point, he's probably at best a 4th to 6th SP on the roster. I'd rather have someone more projectable in this deal where you could have them under control for 5 years. Probably asking for too much but if you're giving up Price and Mookie you need someone coming back that you can say has the potential of an SP3.
Or to sort of sum up all these factors into one formula: trading Betts is the only way the Sox can exercise any control over their destiny in this situation. If they don't trade him, there's massive uncertainty about what the team looks like in 2021 and beyond, as well as a real chance of losing a high-end asset and getting little of value in return. That's an outcome worth avoiding.I'm not sure it's that divisible. I think it's more likely a combination of factors such as: Wanting to get out from under the luxury tax and the other implications of being over the line; not wanting to pay the price necessary to keep Mookie; avoiding the risk that he goes elsewhere even if they make an offer in the ballpark; choosing to maximize the return by trading him now rather than waiting until the season starts.
I don't think the Dodgers would give the Sox both. But if they did it would change my perception of Stripling coming back as part of the return.In addition to someone like Ferguson.
That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.The Pats have had plenty. Seymour jumps to mind.
Joe Thornton comes to mind from the Bruins - and/or SeguinThat's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.
The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
Not sure about before. Was Tiant before Lynn? Anyways as for after Fred Lynn, Manny comes to mind. Nomar too.That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.
The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
I don't think you can claim Nomar to still be in his prime by the time he was sent out in 04. Manny maybe is closer.Not sure about before. Was Tiant before Lynn? Anyways as for after Fred Lynn, Manny comes to mind. Nomar too.
I think he was at the tail end of his prime. Wasn't it the following year when he got hurt that his downward spiral began?I don't think you can claim Nomar to still be in his prime by the time he was sent out in 04. Manny maybe is closer.
He got hurt in late 2000. He was never the same again, although he was pretty good in 2002-2006I think he was at the tail end of his prime. Wasn't it the following year when he got hurt that his downward spiral began?
Nomar was 31 when he was traded, Manny was 36. Nomar played 5 more injury-marred seasons, Manny played 2 suspension shortened seasons (plus 5 more games in 2011). Nomar was much closer to his "prime" for sure.I don't think you can claim Nomar to still be in his prime by the time he was sent out in 04. Manny maybe is closer.
Closer to, but not in.Nomar was 31 when he was traded, Manny was 36. Nomar played 5 more injury-marred seasons, Manny played 2 suspension shortened seasons (plus 5 more games in 2011). Nomar was much closer to his "prime" for sure.
A better question would be whether Bloom gives a flying fig about what Pedro has to say here. If the answer is anything other than "Very, very little," then a bad trade in this specific instance would be the least of the team's problems.That's a good question.
He hasn´t been the same since the aneurysm.Bloom definitely knows what he’s doing, but Gammons has not for quite some time, sad to say.
I seem to recall that the waiver thing was prompted by his semi-annual request to be traded, and they did it to show him that no one wanted to take him and his contract for free, let alone trade something for it. What it was not was a naked attempt to shed salary.If we're talking about Manny, let's also remember that the team began to put him on irrevocable waivers in late 2003 at age 30, in order to shed the 5 years and $101.5 million left on his contract, on top of the Manny being Manny stuff.
In some scribe's memorable words they "left him on the side of the road like a bag of rubbish and no one picked him up"..If we're talking about Manny, let's also remember that the team began to put him on irrevocable waivers in late 2003 at age 30, in order to shed the 5 years and $101.5 million left on his contract, on top of the Manny being Manny stuff.
I recall it being reported more than once that the team was motivated to get rid of Manny's contract fairly early after Henry et al. took over, in addition to the other stuff.I seem to recall that the waiver thing was prompted by his semi-annual request to be traded, and they did it to show him that no one wanted to take him and his contract for free, let alone trade something for it. What it was not was a naked attempt to shed salary.
Jon Lester?When was the last time a top of the game star was traded in his prime by a Boston team in any sport?
Richard Seymour and Logan Mankins are two to come to mind pretty immediately for the Patriots; both of those happened previous to the season starting, as well.Jon Lester?
Infamous Sparky Lyle for Danny Cater, although it was more what he became with the Yankees (CYA winner).That's true. No one is as bloodless as Belichick, who left to his own devices might have added Tom Brady to the list a few years ago.
The Sox, Cs and Bs have had very few. Fred Lynn is a good call. Who was before that for the Sox? Babe Ruth? I'm sure that's not right but I can't put my finger on anyone else in between.
Tough to draw equivalencies across different sports, especially given the different economics, but Mankins was traded and retired just two years later (played 9 with the Pats). Seymour played only four more seasons after being traded (after 8 with the Pats). It's questionable given the percentage of their career was in Foxboro versus elsewhere that they were traded away in their midst of their primes...certainly not in comparison to baseball players like Lester or Betts who very well could end up playing more years outside of Boston than in it.Richard Seymour and Logan Mankins are two to come to mind pretty immediately for the Patriots; both of those happened previous to the season starting, as well.