Red Sox Trade Deadline 2022

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.
The other way to look at it is if it cost, say, $72Million/year between the two of them as your 3-4 hitters, is Bloom capable of building a competitive team around them with the remaining $160Million?

I am not advocating a Soto signing, and I don’t think anyone is signing him until after 2024 anyway.

I do advocate an immediate signing of Devers.

I’m just saying, you can start with one or two big stars and a creative GM should be able to make it work.Or you can get a boatload of Wachas and Kikés. One way or another they are spending that billion dollars.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
23,347
The gran facenda
The other way to look at it is if it cost, say, $72Million/year between the two of them as your 3-4 hitters, is Bloom capable of building a competitive team around them with the remaining $160Million?

I am not advocating a Soto signing, and I don’t think anyone is signing him until after 2024 anyway.

I do advocate an immediate signing of Devers.

I’m just saying, you can start with one or two big stars and a creative GM should be able to make it work.Or you can get a boatload of Wachas and Kikés. One way or another they are spending that billion dollars.
I agree it can be done. And that Devers is priority one.
The main issues I have with that is what it would cost in cheap prospects and how long it would take to rebuild the farm. Plus, if one of the two has a significant injury they probably wouldn't have the resources to work a trade for a good player.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
Didn’t Cashman go fire sale when the Yankees were still kind of in it? Was it when they sold off miller and Chapman? I feel like we are in a similar spot.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
If you’re going to spend $75m on two players, guys like Soto and Devers, given their ages and production, are exactly the kinds of guys you spend it on.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I agree it can be done. And that Devers is priority one.
The main issues I have with that is what it would cost in cheap prospects and how long it would take to rebuild the farm. Plus, if one of the two has a significant injury they probably wouldn't have the resources to work a trade for a good player.
Yes it’s a gamble. And it’s also a gamble in a different way to get more middling players. I have a long-standing bias towards retaining star players that is based on emotion more than analytics.

I have no desire for them to gut the farm for 2.5 years of Soto, especially since the pitching is such a mess

But, I will be apoplectic if they don’t sign Devers. Especially after giving $20Million to Story
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,371
I agree with everyone who is saying sell except for Devers who should be signed.

That said, doesn't selling make the Sox a less desirable place for him to sign? Especially if Xander is the one sold?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Sure, they can do that if they want to tie up close to $1 billion in salary on two players.
If you’re going to spend $75m on two players, guys like Soto and Devers, given their ages and production, are exactly the kinds of guys you spend it on.
you can say that about the Angels.

and look at their postseason (lack of)success.

i am with others and do not want us to gut the farm for anyone.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
The Yankees have $65m tied up in Cole and Stanton. They seem to be doing okay.

Having two huge contracts doesn’t at all guarantee success. But it doesn’t preclude it either.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
The Yankees have $65m tied up in Cole and Stanton. They seem to be doing okay.

Having two huge contracts doesn’t at all guarantee success. But it doesn’t preclude it either.
Stanton's actual AAV for NY is $22M per, so really it is $58M combined per season for those two.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Didn’t Cashman go fire sale when the Yankees were still kind of in it? Was it when they sold off miller and Chapman? I feel like we are in a similar spot.
They were 4.5 games behind Toronto for the second wildcard on July 25 when they traded Chapman.
They were 5.5 games behind the Red Sox for the second wildcard on July 31 when they traded Miller, as well as 5.5 out on August 1 when they traded Carlos Beltran and Ivan Nova.

Worth noting that the only regular they had in the lineup with an OPS+ over 100 was Beltran. The next best was Brian McCann at 99, though a rookie Gary Sanchez produced in the second half (168 OPS+) The lineup featured the rotting corpses of Teixiera (74 OPS+), Ellsbury (88 OPS+) and ARod (58 OPS+). As Jeckyl and Hyde as the Sox offense has been, they've got three hitters performing way better than any regular on that Yankee team.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Stanton's actual AAV for NY is $22M per, so really it is $58M combined per season for those two.
Wait until next year when they sign Judge.

If the price for Soto isn't super crazy, I'm all aboard the Soto/Devers train. Can it be done without Mayer? I'd happily trade Casas and Bello, plus a couple of lower ranked guys.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
You can spend a high % of your payroll on a few players and be successful if you have a number of cheap and productive players to offset that. As it is now, the Red Sox don’t have many of those players, and trading those who have the best chance of becoming such players in order to pay Soto a record setting amount of money seems unwise.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Any deadline sell offs need Diekman’s 2023 contract attached to them. I love Chaim, but giving Diekman a two year deal was an atrocious whiff.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Any deadline sell offs need Diekman’s 2023 contract attached to them. I love Chaim, but giving Diekman a two year deal was an atrocious whiff.
He's making 4.5 mil next year (including the buyout). That's what guys like Diekman cost, if he's a negative asset it's not by much.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
You can spend a high % of your payroll on a few players and be successful if you have a number of cheap and productive players to offset that. As it is now, the Red Sox don’t have many of those players, and trading those who have the best chance of becoming such players in order to pay Soto a record setting amount of money seems unwise.
Exactly. The Yankees are experiencing success despite paying top dollar for the likes of Cole and Stanton (and let's not forget Donaldson's $23M salary) because they're paying their best starter by ERA (Cortes) the league minimum and about $24M for the other three guys. They're also getting all star production out of low cost guys like Trevino and Holmes. Getting the re-incarnated Matt Carpenter for next to nothing doesn't hurt either.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,662
Trout’s contract is not the reason the Angels are bad and shouldn't be seen as a cautionary tale. That organization lucked into two of the best players on the planet but haven't been competitive because they're poorly run and, I'd argue, have a silly and preoccupied GM. They had the worst farm system in baseball once Trout graduated in 2012 and its been bottom-five in MLB since. Their best prospects were either traded for rentals (Segura), busted (Cowart, Canning, Adell?) or perpetually hurt (Richards, Heaney) until Taylor Ward's breakout this year. They paid dearly for signing 32-year-old (34-year-old?) Pujols to a 10-year deal, and then signed three more hitters on the wrong side of 30 (Hamilton, Upton and Rendon) who also have been disastrous, plus two other expensive deals for useless players in C.J. Wilson and Zack Cozart. And that's putting aside the sad mess that resulted in Tyler Skaggs' death.

Even with all that, they've never exceeded the luxury tax, and haven't come within $10M of the first threshold since 2017.
 

Looch

New Member
Jul 15, 2021
721
Who are the players it would make the most sense to unload in the next few weeks to get something decent in return? I’d say JD, Verdugo, and Pivetta. They all have served the Sox well but we need to get something meaningful back while recognizing this team now without Sale yet again has zero chance of producing an exciting run this year.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,923
Salem, NH
Half serious question: is there any precedent or rule regarding trading for a PRBNL and having the PTBNL be the guy you traded?

For example, we trade Devers to the Dodgers for a prospect and a PTBNL. The Dodgers send us a prospect, and the day after they beat the Yankees in the World Series, they send Devers back to complete the trade.

Because at this point, I’m all about blowing this squad up. It’s been a complete and utter pants shitting against their divisional rivals, and I think it’s becoming more likely this team finishes in last place than they manage to snatch a wild card spot.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Half serious question: is there any precedent or rule regarding trading for a PRBNL and having the PTBNL be the guy you traded?

For example, we trade Devers to the Dodgers for a prospect and a PTBNL. The Dodgers send us a prospect, and the day after they beat the Yankees in the World Series, they send Devers back to complete the trade.

Because at this point, I’m all about blowing this squad up. It’s been a complete and utter pants shitting against their divisional rivals, and I think it’s becoming more likely this team finishes in last place than they manage to snatch a wild card spot.
I think PTBNLs are usually pre-determined at trade time, or at least narrowed down to a short list and the ultimate choice is conditional. Like if the receiving team makes the post-season, they give up Prospect A, but if they miss the post-season, they give up lesser Prospect B. And those details are made known to the commissioners office for approval but not to the public (mainly for the sake of the prospects). I can't imagine the commissioner approving a trade that is essentially loaning a player out for nothing or next to nothing.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Who are the players it would make the most sense to unload in the next few weeks to get something decent in return? I’d say JD, Verdugo, and Pivetta. They all have served the Sox well but we need to get something meaningful back while recognizing this team now without Sale yet again has zero chance of producing an exciting run this year.
Inexpensive, controlled players like Verdugo and Pivetta are the kind of guys the Sox need to keep, not trade.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
Who are the players it would make the most sense to unload in the next few weeks to get something decent in return? I’d say JD, Verdugo, and Pivetta. They all have served the Sox well but we need to get something meaningful back while recognizing this team now without Sale yet again has zero chance of producing an exciting run this year.
Trading Pivetta is another 175 inexpensive innings to replace next year.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
But of course if you want to keep your best young cost-controlled players, and you don’t want to get into a bidding war over a Boras superstar, maybe signing your own star a bit early would be a good use of your money.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Half serious question: is there any precedent or rule regarding trading for a PRBNL and having the PTBNL be the guy you traded?
I can’t remember the guy but there was a baseball transaction where a player was the PTBNL in the original deal. He was traded for himself.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I can’t remember the guy but there was a baseball transaction where a player was the PTBNL in the original deal. He was traded for himself.
You might be thinking of Dickie Noles. From wiki, it's happened four times

On April 25, 1962—before he played a game for the Indians—Chiti was acquired by the expansion New York Mets for a player to be named later. However, he was sent back to the Indians on June 15, 1962, after 15 games and a .195 batting average.[3] Chiti was the "player to be named later"; he became the first MLB player to be traded for himself. Three other players have been traded for themselves: Dickie Noles, Brad Gulden, and John McDonald. Chiti never played another major league game, spending two more years at Triple-A before retiring in 1964.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,163
Another PTBLN involved Greg Goose Goossen (the guy Casey Stengel once said about "This is Greg Goossen. He's 19 years old, and in 10 years . . . he's got a chance to be 29") . Traded from the Mets to the Seattle Pilots and the PTBLN was Jim Goose Gosger. So one goose for another.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,872
Right Here
I think PTBNLs are usually pre-determined at trade time, or at least narrowed down to a short list and the ultimate choice is conditional. Like if the receiving team makes the post-season, they give up Prospect A, but if they miss the post-season, they give up lesser Prospect B. And those details are made known to the commissioners office for approval but not to the public (mainly for the sake of the prospects). I can't imagine the commissioner approving a trade that is essentially loaning a player out for nothing or next to nothing.
I think this came up before, but there is no way that this would get past the league office if it was the intent from the beginning. And all Hell would break loose if it was someone of Devers' caliber.
 

rlcave3rd

New Member
Nov 5, 2005
199
Portland, Maine
I agree with everyone who is saying sell except for Devers who should be signed.

That said, doesn't selling make the Sox a less desirable place for him to sign? Especially if Xander is the one sold?
If it is just a matter of Devers wanting to play with Xander because of their friendship, then that is probably true to some extent, although it might be balanced by his familiarity with the organization and the city. Unless the Sox sign both of them, however, it seems unlikely that they would end up in the same place anyway. Most players follow the money. If the Sox give Devers the money he is looking for, he would sign with them, I expect.
 

FloridaSoxFan11

New Member
Jul 30, 2019
109
I think the only option here is a blow up

Sale's contract can't be moved

Really the only guys on the big league roster that should be considered safe are Rafi, Duran, Houck, Whitlock, Downs

Everyone else has a price
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Just another reminder that Bogaerts has a full no-trade clause. It might not matter who might want him if he isn't interested in them.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Just another reminder that Bogaerts has a full no-trade clause. It might not matter who might want him if he isn't interested in them.
The thread title should be renamed with this in it, although that might not help
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Just another reminder that Bogaerts has a full no-trade clause. It might not matter who might want him if he isn't interested in them.
True, but Bogaerts gets a benefit if he agrees to be traded. The team that signs Bogaerts as a FA would not have to lose a comp pick for signing him, by virtue of the fact that Bogaerts was traded midyear and is therefore not covered by the compensation pick rules. Those rules may, however, go away in a week if the MLB and MLBPA agree to an international draft, in which case it is hard to see Xander agreeing to any trade.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
I'm not going to get into the "Buy or sell?" question, but I think it's worth getting this out there. Here, as of this moment, are the 2023 Red Sox if they don't make any additional moves between now and next Opening Day, as best as I can figure:
C - Hernandez/Wong
1B - Casas*/Dalbec/Cordero
2B - Story/Downs/Arroyo
SS - Story/Downs
3B - Devers
LF - Verdugo/Refsnyder
CF - Duran
RF - Cordero/Refsnyder/Verdugo
DH - Dalbec/Casas/Cordero

SP - Sale
SP - Paxton
SP - Pivetta
SP - Whitlock
SP - Winckowski/Bello/Crawford/Walter

There are a lot of relief options, including Houck, Barnes, Sawamura, Diekman, Davis, Schreiber, D. Hernandez, Brasier, Taylor, etc. etc.

I think that's more than 25 players, and surely you all will find some errors on my part. But that's the basic idea.

It's... better than I expected it to be? But it seems like they’ll be in no-man’s land, not good enough to compete but not bad enough to fully tank. At minimum, they'll need a starting-quality catcher and probably another bat, preferably one who can man a corner OF spot, ideally another who’s ok with DHing full-time**. I would argue - I have argued - that this should be a serious consideration as we enter Transacting Season, and surely it is.

* - I mean, right? They have to throw him out there at some point and if not next year then when?
** - if you want to read that as “Mike Zunino, Brandon Nimmo, and Jose Abreu,” then that’s the concept, if not necessarily those specific names.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
It's... better than I expected it to be? But it seems like they’ll be in no-man’s land, not good enough to compete but not bad enough to fully tank. At minimum, they'll need a starting-quality catcher and probably another bat, preferably one who can man a corner OF spot, ideally another who’s ok with DHing full-time**. I would argue - I have argued - that this should be a serious consideration as we enter Transacting Season, and surely it is.

* - I mean, right? They have to throw him out there at some point and if not next year then when?
** - if you want to read that as “Mike Zunino, Brandon Nimmo, and Jose Abreu,” then that’s the concept, if not necessarily those specific names.
Now add the $100m+ in free agent signings that are almost certainly coming and see how they look
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
Now add the $100m+ in free agent signings that are almost certainly coming and see how they look
Not even remotely suggesting that they won’t make additional moves, but are you proposing to fill all of those holes via free agency? That was my point.
 

Bread of Yaz

New Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
I'm not going to get into the "Buy or sell?" question, but I think it's worth getting this out there. Here, as of this moment, are the 2023 Red Sox if they don't make any additional moves between now and next Opening Day, as best as I can figure:
C - Hernandez/Wong
1B - Casas*/Dalbec/Cordero
2B - Story/Downs/Arroyo
SS - Story/Downs
3B - Devers
LF - Verdugo/Refsnyder
CF - Duran
RF - Cordero/Refsnyder/Verdugo
DH - Dalbec/Casas/Cordero

SP - Sale
SP - Paxton
SP - Pivetta
SP - Whitlock
SP - Winckowski/Bello/Crawford/Walter

There are a lot of relief options, including Houck, Barnes, Sawamura, Diekman, Davis, Schreiber, D. Hernandez, Brasier, Taylor, etc. etc.

I think that's more than 25 players, and surely you all will find some errors on my part. But that's the basic idea.

It's... better than I expected it to be? But it seems like they’ll be in no-man’s land, not good enough to compete but not bad enough to fully tank. At minimum, they'll need a starting-quality catcher and probably another bat, preferably one who can man a corner OF spot, ideally another who’s ok with DHing full-time**. I would argue - I have argued - that this should be a serious consideration as we enter Transacting Season, and surely it is.

* - I mean, right? They have to throw him out there at some point and if not next year then when?
** - if you want to read that as “Mike Zunino, Brandon Nimmo, and Jose Abreu,” then that’s the concept, if not necessarily those specific names.
Rotation seems extraordinarily concerning.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
Not even remotely suggesting that they won’t make additional moves, but are you proposing to fill all of those holes via free agency? That was my point.
That's 1 middle infielder, 1 maybe 2 outfielders, a catcher, a DH, and a couple relievers? Yeah I'm pretty sure $100m+ can cover that.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
$100m in 2023 commitments sounds reasonable, I guess, but what kind of total commitment would that likely equate to? You aren’t going to find a lot of top tier players willing to sign one year deals- so that kind of outlay may equal $500-$600m outlay (or far more if you sign one or two of the upper echelon guys available). Further complicated if you have prospects you don’t want to block long term.

Biggest need organizationally seems to be OF. Besides Judge, not a ton out there. Nimmo, Brantley, Gallo, Pederson?