Betts/Price to LA for Alex Verdugo, Jeter Downs, and Connor Wong

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,990
Why would it be highly unlikely the Red Sox leaked Graterol’s medicals? They are the ones in possession of them and they are the only ones benefiting from having to replace him in the deal.

I suggested earlier today in one of these threads that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Bloom originally wanted Graterol in the deal solely for the purpose of killing it to get the better prospects that the Dodgers wouldn’t give up. Leverage 101.
You're basically accusing Chaim of bad-faith negotiating, not to mention how shitty it would be to use a young player like that. That is not how Bloom should be starting out his career as PoBO if he wants to succeed. It might work this time but screwing over two teams and their highly-respected executives would surely backfire. I've done plenty of business deals in my career and if I suspected someone of pulling something like this, it would absolutely affect my willingness to engage in future business discussions.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,783
So if our payroll was $185 you think we’d still have made this trade? Who’s delusional now?
Quite possibly. CBT aside, if Bloom thought Mookie was serious about being a FA, and could make a good deal. He did and he did and he avoided Price's 10/5 in the process.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,783
Do you think the Nationals regret rolling the dice with Rendon and having him leave “for nothing” at the end of the season?
No, the Nats certainly dont. Maybe the Red Sox will win the World Series some day and learn their lessons.

(And I think given their CBT positions, the Nats get a better "nothing" draft pick than the Sox would have. Is that correct?)
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
32,390
Southwestern CT
Right, because using leverage to your advantage is preposterous. Gotcha.
It’s done in literally every negotiation.

Do you truly believe Graterol, coming off TJ and a shoulder, is a better return than Downs and Wong?
It's a preposterous suggestion because Chaim Bloom is not going to destroy his credibility as head of baseball operations for the Sox in his first deal.

There is a massive difference between using leverage to your advantage and dealing in bad faith.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,987
It's a preposterous suggestion because Chaim Bloom is not going to destroy his credibility as head of baseball operations for the Sox in his first deal.

There is a massive difference between using leverage to your advantage and dealing in bad faith.
Meh, I’d consider it more gamesmanship than bad faith. The same type of stuff happened to us in the Pomeranz deal and is going on right now with the sale of the Mets. The Union is investigating the Marlins and Pirates GM for coordinating a plan to scale back contracts. These aren’t choir boys here they are in a vicious cutthroat business looking to gain an edge just as others (Pomeranz) would do to us.

Whatever happened either prior to or as part of a leak it clearly benefitted us in receiving a greater return. Bloom wins his first one.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,262
It's a preposterous suggestion because Chaim Bloom is not going to destroy his credibility as head of baseball operations for the Sox in his first deal.

There is a massive difference between using leverage to your advantage and dealing in bad faith.
And it could be worse than just dealing in bad faith.

The trade was basically completed, subjected to the medicals. If Bloom and the Sox entered into the trade with the express intention of backing out, it certainly would have resulted in Manfred piling on significant penalties. MLB is not going to allow teams to negotiate and submit trades under false pretenses.

If Henry ordered Bloom to do that, Bloom likely would have resigned and reported the team to MLB, a far less risky proposition to his career than attempting to commit fraud.

Meh, I’d consider it more gamesmanship than bad faith. The same type of stuff happened to us in the Pomeranz deal and is going on right now with the sale of the Mets. The Union is investigating the Marlins and Pirates GM for coordinating a plan to scale back contracts. These aren’t choir boys here they are in a vicious cutthroat business looking to gain an edge just as others (Pomeranz) would do to us.
Preller was suspended for 30 days without pay. The Sox have already been docked international free agent pool money for their escapades a few years back, and are likely to lose 1 or more draft picks for the sign stealing, as they were already on double-secret probation. Manfred would have no problem stripping a team of its draft picks for a couple of seasons if it felt that fraudulent trades were being submitted to the MLB office.

What you're talking about is fraud, not gamesmanship.
 

PhabPhour20

lurker
Jan 5, 2007
179
Spankee Country, CT
But when Chaim Bloom tells me that he likes the return -- essentially three prospects -- for one of the best players in the game...then he starts to lose me.
I agree they are underselling the import of resetting the CBT penalties, but his point, to me, is not entirely implausible.

The Dodgers are only receiving one year of one of the best players in the game. One year at a near-market rate. Mookie is also on record stating that he wants to test free agency. The Dodgers aren't getting two years of Mookie in this trade. Or even one year at a crazy discount. Yes he has excess value, even at $27mm, but we aren't talking about Devers or even Bogaerts-level value. One of the prospects that you mention, Verdugo, has already shown MLB-level skills, so these aren't all lottery tickets.

I would have traded him with or without the CBT too. Of course the team would be better this year with Mookie. His contribution to a team is nearly irreplaceable. But I agree that the best use of team assets was to try and get some valuable pieces for him now. And now that Price is gone too, and you have the cap room, go ahead and try to sign Mookie in the offseason. It stinks that it will likely be a little bit harder when Mookie has already uprooted and tasted a more forgiving media and weather market, but you can still try.

I do like the return here. It is more than fair value. The CBT-stuff is a massive kicker that moves the trade into near-no-brainer territory.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,987
Preller was suspended for 30 days without pay. The Sox have already been docked international free agent pool money for their escapades a few years back, and are likely to lose 1 or more draft picks for the sign stealing, as they were already on double-secret probation. Manfred would have no problem stripping a team of its draft picks for a couple of seasons if it felt that fraudulent trades were being submitted to the MLB office.

What you're talking about is fraud, not gamesmanship.
We can coin it what you want but this is kinda my point. We know it’s prevalent from past incidents unless we want to believe the only time these things occur is when somebody is caught. Maybe it wasn’t premeditated I was only bringing this up as a possibility to gain an advantage (which is certainly would have and did). The leak OTOH almost always comes from the side that is gaining the advantage and the two can certainly be connected.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,275
Hingham, MA
A question to all who are anti Sox / anti ownership right now: if you take it as a given that Mookie would not sign an extension prior to becoming a free agent, and that the Sox have not been eliminated as a contender for his services - in other words if they make him the best offer he will sign in Boston - then do you still hate this deal? They haven’t even truly punted on 2020 - it comes down to starting pitching whether or not Mookie is here (see 2019). So I see this as a shrewd strategic play. If they don’t sign Mookie in a year we can debate that as appropriate. That discussion will likely be about how we value the player. But 1 year of Mookie for all the years on Verdugo and Downs seems like a great return to me.
 

billsleephus1

lurker
Jan 31, 2020
3
Long time lurker (Remember Thanksgiving of 2003?), but first time poster, here. I hate losing Mookie as much as anyone, but consider this: We really didn't sacrifice Mooke for one year, but most likely for ONE GAME in 2020. If you believe that (even with Mookie), we weren't favored as the winner of the American League East, then we were playing the entire year to make it to a single wild card game. Given the possibility of Mookie leaving after 2020, we basically traded ONE GAME of Mookie (the wild card game) and half of D Price's salary burden for years of Verdugo and Downs. We didn't cost ourselves anything re: signing him again next year, so if we choose to do that, we get Mookie AND years of two younger players (albeit at the price of JH's $$). I'm as competitive as anyone, but this move just makes too much sense not to do, my emotions notwithstanding.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,443
I’m not saying this team isn’t worse than 2018. What I’m saying is that many of the things written assume that we are going to be awful and the only thing stopping the Sox from a last place finish in the East is that the Orioles aren’t trying.
Has a credible news outlet actually written or said this?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,638
Oh, I get it and I'm grateful. But they've also made some incredibly horrid decisions as well. Their success does not absolve them of that.
Is there a perfect team out there that you'd like to root for?

We all get this sucks now, EVERYONE loves Mookie. But at some point you're beating a dead horse here.
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,493
Saskatchestan
We can coin it what you want but this is kinda my point. We know it’s prevalent from past incidents unless we want to believe the only time these things occur is when somebody is caught. Maybe it wasn’t premeditated I was only bringing this up as a possibility to gain an advantage (which is certainly would have and did). The leak OTOH almost always comes from the side that is gaining the advantage and the two can certainly be connected.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? How is it prevalent, when as far as we know, it's happened ONE time? You keep posting in different threads around here saying "Well, this is my opinion and I think it's right because....", even when multiple people point out how flawed your reasoning and then line of thinking is

I guess it's good that you stand your ground, but man, you never really try and see it from anyone else's perspective either

Has a credible news outlet actually written or said this?
I think they were referring to the general feeling on this board, rather than news stories. It's either 100% we're doomed because we traded Mookie, or, this trade makes sense from a business of baseball perspective
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Quite possibly. CBT aside, if Bloom thought Mookie was serious about being a FA, and could make a good deal. He did and he did and he avoided Price's 10/5 in the process.
A lot of people are making the point about Price’s 10/5 eights but to me that was a red herring. Price wasn’t going to have the leverage to use the 10/5 rights to squeeze an extension out of a new team and he wasn’t going to demand to stay in Boston through a rebuild rather than go to a contender. I hope they weren’t weighing that anywhere near as heavily as a half dozen or more posters here were.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,990
The word 'unprecedented' has been thrown around by many in the media regarding this trade, but I wouldn't be surprised if other large-market baseball teams begin making the same calculation about their FA-bound superstars that the Boston front office did about Mookie. Prior to 2013, it made sense to hang onto an elite player in most cases because the team would receive a first-round draft pick and a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds as compensation if the player signed elsewhere. Now, at best a team will receive a compensation pick that occurs between the second and third rounds (and takes place after two rounds of 'competitive balance' picks awarded to small-market teams). In other words, the compensation for losing a draft pick is a lottery ticket. Between these changes and the limits placed on bonuses that can be paid to draft picks, it's a very different world right now - if you're going to hang onto these guys for their final year, it really better be worth it, the way it was this past season for the Nationals with Rendon and Strasburg and the Astros with Cole. Anyone think the Giants and Mets are having second thoughts about their decisions a year ago to hang onto Madison Bumgarner and Zack Wheeler, respectively?
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
25,353
Saskatoon Canada
A lot of people are making the point about Price’s 10/5 eights but to me that was a red herring. Price wasn’t going to have the leverage to use the 10/5 rights to squeeze an extension out of a new team and he wasn’t going to demand to stay in Boston through a rebuild rather than go to a contender. I hope they weren’t weighing that anywhere near as heavily as a half dozen or more posters here were.
You know his intentions how? You can be sure he would be fine getting traded to Colorado or Florida as they fight for the 8th wildcard spot next year?
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
6,102
I'm going home
A lot of people are making the point about Price’s 10/5 eights but to me that was a red herring. Price wasn’t going to have the leverage to use the 10/5 rights to squeeze an extension out of a new team and he wasn’t going to demand to stay in Boston through a rebuild rather than go to a contender. I hope they weren’t weighing that anywhere near as heavily as a half dozen or more posters here were.
I have to agree that the 10/5 thing is a bit overblown. Definitely far less of a risk factor than the possibility that his age and fragility could lead to poor performance (or injury) out of the gate, leaving him virtually untradeable going forward, regardless.

It seems like that (coupled with the financial aspect) was a huge part of the reason for the chosen approach.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,987
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? How is it prevalent, when as far as we know, it's happened ONE time? You keep posting in different threads around here saying "Well, this is my opinion and I think it's right because....", even when multiple people point out how flawed your reasoning and then line of thinking is

I guess it's good that you stand your ground, but man, you never really try and see it from anyone else's perspective either
I literally listed 3 instances of similar fraud/gamesmanship off the top of my head in the post. What about the Dyson trade with the Twins when the team didn't disclose an injury? We can go on and on about how fraud/gamesmanship are a daily occurrence in negotiations. This was certainly not a one-time angle and I'm not naïve to believe that high level negotiations with job performances on the line have hard line rules that are followed. Look no further than all of these sign-stealing investigations as more evidence. PEDs are another one. But hey, if you don't want to believe that shady stuff happens in baseball that is fine.......I'm simply showing instances of it not being the case while bringing up what seems like an obvious opportunity for a crafty GM to take advantage of a situation to his benefit. And he DID benefit which is why it is fascinating to me.
 
Last edited:

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I think they were referring to the general feeling on this board, rather than news stories. It's either 100% we're doomed because we traded Mookie, or, this trade makes sense from a business of baseball perspective
At least for 2020, both of these things can be true. I think they’re a likely 4th place team in the AL East this year. People are underestimating the young pitching the Blue Jays are unveiling because they are Blue Jays prospects and not Yankees prospects. If Nate Pearson were a Yankee, Abbey would be planning on slotting him in ahead of Cole by the All-Star break. ;)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,774
I literally listed 3 instances of similar fraud/gamesmanship off the top of my head in the post. What about the Dyson trade with the Twins when the team didn't disclose an injury? We can go on and on about how fraud/gamesmanship are a daily occurrence in negotiations. This was certainly not a one-time angle and I'm not naïve to believe that high level negotiations with job performances on the line have hard line rules that are followed. Look no further than all of these sign-stealing investigations as more evidence. PEDs are another one. But hey, if you don't want to believe that shady stuff happens in baseball that is fine.......I'm simply showing instances of it not being the case while bringing up what seems like an obvious opportunity for a crafty GM to take advantage of a situation to his benefit. And he DID benefit which is why it is fascinating to me.

Have GMs submitted false medical reports before to sell other teams on trades before? Sure. But that didn’t happen here. Minnesota submitted Graterol’s actual medical reports and a team that had previously been burned by fake medicals evaluated them more cautiously.

The reports pre-trade were that Boston wanted an every day player and a real pitching prospect that was near to major league ready for Betts. The Dodgers weren’t willing to part with any of their SP prospects, but did bring them one from Minnesota that Bloom found acceptable until the team medical staff warned him that Graterol’s shoulder wouldn’t stand up to the workload. At which point Bloom tried to work out an acceptable alternative.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,987
Have GMs submitted false medical reports before to sell other teams on trades before? Sure. But that didn’t happen here. Minnesota submitted Graterol’s actual medical reports and a team that had previously been burned by fake medicals evaluated them more cautiously.

The reports pre-trade were that Boston wanted an every day player and a real pitching prospect that was near to major league ready for Betts. The Dodgers weren’t willing to part with any of their SP prospects, but did bring them one from Minnesota that Bloom found acceptable until the team medical staff warned him that Graterol’s shoulder wouldn’t stand up to the workload. At which point Bloom tried to work out an acceptable alternative.
This is all fair but the one red flag I have is that Bloom wanted a STARTING pitcher in his explanation and once the medicals were viewed they deemed Graterol a reliever. Two things...….one, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest Graterol's shoulder was going to prevent him from being a reliable starter being that he not only wasn't stretched out to start upon return last year but never threw more than 25 pitches in any single game. And two, Bloom's desire to rework the deal was based him expecting a starting pitcher to be part of the original deal obviously due to our dire starting pitching...….yet we received two minor-league non-pitching prospects in return. IF your excuse to rework the deal is due to your need to have a starting pitcher included why would you accept two minor league non-pitchers?
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,108
Windham, ME
This is all fair but the one red flag I have is that Bloom wanted a STARTING pitcher in his explanation and once the medicals were viewed they deemed Graterol a reliever. Two things...….one, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest Graterol's shoulder was going to prevent him from being a reliable starter being that he not only wasn't stretched out to start upon return last year but never threw more than 25 pitches in any single game. And two, Bloom's desire to rework the deal was based him expecting a starting pitcher to be part of the original deal obviously due to our dire starting pitching...….yet we received two minor-league non-pitching prospects in return. IF your excuse to rework the deal is due to your need to have a starting pitcher included why would you accept two minor league non-pitchers?
Bloom got that exact question (more or less) in the press conference last night and said that while the team was looking to fill a gap (SP) that in the end the best package was around the best talent (essentially independent of position.) So you can agree or not but basically the man himself was asked and answered the question. Who knows what other offers were out there but this was the best package he thought he could get. I don't think that's nefarious I think it's pragmatic but ymmv.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This is all fair but the one red flag I have is that Bloom wanted a STARTING pitcher in his explanation and once the medicals were viewed they deemed Graterol a reliever. Two things...….one, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest Graterol's shoulder was going to prevent him from being a reliable starter being that he not only wasn't stretched out to start upon return last year but never threw more than 25 pitches in any single game. And two, Bloom's desire to rework the deal was based him expecting a starting pitcher to be part of the original deal obviously due to our dire starting pitching...….yet we received two minor-league non-pitching prospects in return. IF your excuse to rework the deal is due to your need to have a starting pitcher included why would you accept two minor league non-pitchers?
The issue wasn't that the Sox needed a starting pitcher and nothing else was acceptable. The issue was that Graterol with a ceiling of late-inning reliever is significantly less valuable than Graterol with a ceiling of #2 starter, and the Sox thought they were trading for the latter. When the medicals showed this wasn't the case, it was perfectly legit to say "back to the drawing board".
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
57,712
At least for 2020, both of these things can be true. I think they’re a likely 4th place team in the AL East this year. People are underestimating the young pitching the Blue Jays are unveiling because they are Blue Jays prospects and not Yankees prospects. If Nate Pearson were a Yankee, Abbey would be planning on slotting him in ahead of Cole by the All-Star break. ;)
Heh, I think people are getting ahead of themselves with TOR, Pearson only threw 101 innings last year, They’ll be dangerous in 2021 maybe.
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
6,102
I'm going home
IF your excuse to rework the deal is due to your need to have a starting pitcher included why would you accept two minor league non-pitchers?
Come on, man. They didn't "need" a starting pitcher included, but if they acquired Graterol, they needed him to be a starting pitcher. They weren't in this trade for a medically suspect reliever. They weren't going to get Pomeranzed again.

The talent they got back is pretty damn good, all things considered.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,774
This is all fair but the one red flag I have is that Bloom wanted a STARTING pitcher in his explanation and once the medicals were viewed they deemed Graterol a reliever. Two things...….one, there was already plenty of evidence to suggest Graterol's shoulder was going to prevent him from being a reliable starter being that he not only wasn't stretched out to start upon return last year but never threw more than 25 pitches in any single game. And two, Bloom's desire to rework the deal was based him expecting a starting pitcher to be part of the original deal obviously due to our dire starting pitching...….yet we received two minor-league non-pitching prospects in return. IF your excuse to rework the deal is due to your need to have a starting pitcher included why would you accept two minor league non-pitchers?
Because LA was literally unwilling to part with a starter under the age of 30. So when LA rejected every possible SP in their own system that fit the bill, Bloom moved on to other holes in the roster and accepted longer term prospects instead. If Graterol’s shoulder would hold up to 180 innings/year he’s a much better prospect than Downs. Even Downs plus Wong as the latter looks like a backup C with super utility potential.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
21,987
The issue wasn't that the Sox needed a starting pitcher and nothing else was acceptable. The issue was that Graterol with a ceiling of late-inning reliever is significantly less valuable than Graterol with a ceiling of #2 starter, and the Sox thought they were trading for the latter. When the medicals showed this wasn't the case, it was perfectly legit to say "back to the drawing board".
Would Bloom really believe that a 21-year old who can hit 100 with his sinker was going to be available as a complementary piece to a deal without a medical red flag? If I had to choose I'd guess that all 3 teams knew there was a very good chance the deal would need to be reworked. I don't believe that is any type of fraud at all. It's very possible that Bloom was in that grey area and said sure we'll do the deal with Graterol to get the medicals knowing there was a very good chance he wouldn't like them for obvious reasons while knowing he would also have leverage against the Dodgers in the (likely) case that Minnesota was giving up Graterol due to his medicals. I mean, does that not seem reasonable? Posed another way, do you feel the bad medicals surprised Bloom at all based on his shoulder history and the Twins moving such a talented arm?


Because LA was literally unwilling to part with a starter under the age of 30. So when LA rejected every possible SP in their own system that fit the bill, Bloom moved on to other holes in the roster and accepted longer term prospects instead. If Graterol’s shoulder would hold up to 180 innings/year he’s a much better prospect than Downs. Even Downs plus Wong as the latter looks like a backup C with super utility potential.
Sure but the one organization who had access to his medicals surely wouldn't be moving him if they believed he was going to be a 180-inning starting pitcher.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,774
Teams make bad deals all the time. If they didn’t Jeff Bagwell would have helped those late 90s Boston teams over the hump. Graterol was a two pitch pitcher, whose concerning pitch wasn’t the two seamer but the power slider, with a work-in-progress change-up and a pitching motion that needed correcting. So there were reasons for Minnesota to trade him for competent present starting pitching even if the medicals were clean.

More importantly there were reasons for Boston to consider him a potential 2/3 starter despite the Twins moving him to the pen to work on cleaning up the motion and his third pitch. But then the medicals came back and an organization burnt by fake medicals before got issued a far more conservative evaluation by their team doctors. And when LA refused to part with Gonsolin or Gray Bloom took the best package he could get.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Would Bloom really believe that a 21-year old who can hit 100 with his sinker was going to be available as a complementary piece to a deal without a medical red flag?
It sounds as if you're saying that Bloom should have known Graterol was damaged goods and refused him as a trade piece out of the gate. But if the Twins were claiming his shoulder was healthy, what would be the point of disbelieving them a priori? What if they were right, and Bloom was passing on a future #2? Sounds like you're kind of asking Bloom to not only be the Sox' GM but also the Twins' medical and ethical QA officer. I think that's asking too much. Graterol, as advertised, was a desirable and appropriate piece of the deal. But he wasn't as advertised. The system worked.

Whatever -- this deal is in the rearview mirror now. If Dodgers fans want to think Bloom was somehow underhanded in his approach, they should knock themselves out grousing about it. As my old friend from West Virginia likes to say, "the dog barks, the parade passes by."
 

santadevil

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,493
Saskatchestan
I literally listed 3 instances of similar fraud/gamesmanship off the top of my head in the post. What about the Dyson trade with the Twins when the team didn't disclose an injury? We can go on and on about how fraud/gamesmanship are a daily occurrence in negotiations. This was certainly not a one-time angle and I'm not naïve to believe that high level negotiations with job performances on the line have hard line rules that are followed. Look no further than all of these sign-stealing investigations as more evidence. PEDs are another one. But hey, if you don't want to believe that shady stuff happens in baseball that is fine.......I'm simply showing instances of it not being the case while bringing up what seems like an obvious opportunity for a crafty GM to take advantage of a situation to his benefit. And he DID benefit which is why it is fascinating to me.
Except that you literally didn't and you post the word literally, literally way to often to emphasize your points

One time with the medicals, which was pointed out and the GM was suspended.
The other stuff isn't on the same level of gamesmanship, unless you are taking the 64,000 foot view of the MLB and squint the right way
 

Trlicek's Whip

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2009
4,666
New York City
maybe people will calm down and acknowledge Mookie is not definitely a lock HOFer, definitely best in 50 years from our farm. the hyperbole in the past week was stunning.
Per Baseball Reference: if Mookie manages at least 6 WAR per season (as he's done every year since getting full-time AB's in 2015), and stays healthy enough to play until he's 35, then his career WAR will be just below Carl Yazstremski's and just above Cal Ripken's.

Mookie's at 42 WAR now, which puts him 23rd on the active list with many of the guys above him either topped out or the back nine of their careers and not likely having many more titanic and productive seasons.

So yeah, sure, too soon, not a lock yet. But other than Mike Trout there aren't too many guys with consistency or longevity on yearly WAR lists, and if health cooperates Mookie's steady Eddie at 6 per year is not nothing since he appears to own the skills he's exhibited over the past five years.

So maybe it's hyperbolic to call his demonstrable talent hyperbole?
 

jmm57

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,450
I don’t think anyone would argue Mookies Hall if Fame case if you give him 9 more seasons at 6+ WAR.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
19,292
Rogers Park
Right, because using leverage to your advantage is preposterous. Gotcha.
It’s done in literally every negotiation.

Do you truly believe Graterol, coming off TJ and a shoulder, is a better return than Downs and Wong?
I do.

Downs is a good middle infield prospect, but few evaluators think he is a real SS. That's fine. He gets the ball in the air and hits for considerable power, but you can find evaluations out there that think he's more likely to fit in a utility profile than as an everyday player, although to be fair most of those are before his successful 2019 season.

Wong struck out in 30% of his PA in high A. When he hits them, they stay hit, but he's unlikely to make the majors as more than as optionable depth at catcher.

Meanwhile, two months after the shoulder injury, Brusdar Graterol was hitting 101 out of a major league bullpen, and ripping off low 90s back foot sliders to lefties. It looked like it might have just been a scare, and that the Twins shifted him to the pen to help with their playoff run instead of stretching him back out in the second half. Pre-injury, he was really exciting as a 20 y/o starter in AA, pitching efficiently, keeping the ball on the ground, and sustaining his velocity deep into games. The third pitch, a changeup, was a work in progress, but he looked like he had 1/2 starter upside, and a floor as a closer/relief ace, with a most likely projection as a mid-rotation starter. We'll see which doctors turn out to be right, but IMO that's a more valuable piece than a power hitting second baseman and a depth catcher.

(To be clear, once we decide that Brusdar's health limits him to the bullpen, Downs/Wong is a better return.)
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
19,292
Rogers Park
I was starting to like this deal more. The return seemed better with Downs and Wong. I understood the need for a re-set and the consequences of being over the tax line. It sucked hard to lose Mookie but you have to take an overall, long view.

But when Chaim Bloom tells me that he likes the return -- essentially three prospects -- for one of the best players in the game...then he starts to lose me.

Seriously, he can't expect fans to believe that the CBT wasn't a factor and that he would do this deal w/o the need to re-set. Why even try? What does he have to gain by not being straight given how unbelievable on its face his claim is?
I don't know, man. He got a package comparable to what Arizona got for one year of Goldschmidt, and LAD took back Price, an underwater asset.

That's not a terrible deal straight up. Obviously, we're only motivated to do it because of the CBT threshold, so in that sense he's BSing, but it's a fair trade on the merits.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I do.

Downs is a good middle infield prospect, but few evaluators think he is a real SS. That's fine. He gets the ball in the air and hits for considerable power, but you can find evaluations out there that think he's more likely to fit in a utility profile than as an everyday player, although to be fair most of those are before his successful 2019 season.

Wong struck out in 30% of his PA in high A. When he hits them, they stay hit, but he's unlikely to make the majors as more than as optionable depth at catcher.

Meanwhile, two months after the shoulder injury, Brusdar Graterol was hitting 101 out of a major league bullpen, and ripping off low 90s back foot sliders to lefties. It looked like it might have just been a scare, and that the Twins shifted him to the pen to help with their playoff run instead of stretching him back out in the second half. Pre-injury, he was really exciting as a 20 y/o starter in AA, pitching efficiently, keeping the ball on the ground, and sustaining his velocity deep into games. The third pitch, a changeup, was a work in progress, but he looked like he had 1/2 starter upside, and a floor as a closer/relief ace, with a most likely projection as a mid-rotation starter. We'll see which doctors turn out to be right, but IMO that's a more valuable piece than a power hitting second baseman and a depth catcher.

(To be clear, once we decide that Brusdar's health limits him to the bullpen, Downs/Wong is a better return.)
Graterol also had a relatively low spin rate on his fastball and got surprisingly few swings and misses on it. He has his warts even if healthy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.