Should the Red Sox Look into Punto Pt. 2?

[Marbleheader]

Since the hot stove has been on the chilly side in Boston, here's my question :

Should the Red Sox consider trading Betts and Price to the Dodgers?

The Dodgers have been bridesmaids in the postseason for quite a while. The big name free agents are off the board. There's no one left that could be considered a big splash. The Kluber trade would seem to free up money for the Indians to lock up Lindor. There is rumored interest in Price.

The return wouldn't be overwhelming given the amount of money involved. However, it would free up a significant amount of salary and would give a boost to the weak farm system.

A lot of this hinges on whether you are of the mind that Mookie is still in play long term or if he is likely to walk.

From the Dodgers side, would they be willing to take on that much salary to make a run in 2020 and what prospects would they be willing to part with?

 

[JimD]

The speculation seems to be that Andrew Friedman would only deal for Mookie if there is an opportunity to lock him up beyond 2020, so that would certainly change the calculus regarding what the Sox could get back.

It also makes a deal tough to sell if you are the Red Sox - it's one thing to trade Mookie because he's determined to go to free agency and the door is theoretically open for a possible return; it's very different if he signs a long-term deal elsewhere right now (as in, 'If the Dodgers could sign him to a giant contract before free agency, why didn't the Sox do this?').

 

[Pablo's TB Lover]

I mean the second best player in that trade (behind Punto of course) was Adrian Gonzalez. He had turned 30 and in 2012 was at only 15 homers and an .800 OPS through 500+ at-bats before the trade. You could at least make an argument at the time that it was possible Adrian had peaked as a player, and it turns out this was true.

To plug a prime player like Mookie into a trade like this is way above and beyond the magnitude of the Punto trade IMO.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The speculation seems to be that Andrew Friedman would only deal for Mookie if there is an opportunity to lock him up beyond 2020, so that would certainly change the calculus regarding what the Sox could get back.

It also makes a deal tough to sell if you are the Red Sox - it's one thing to trade Mookie because he's determined to go to free agency and the door is theoretically open for a possible return; it's very different if he signs a long-term deal elsewhere right now (as in, 'If the Dodgers could sign him to a giant contract before free agency, why didn't the Sox do this?').

The issue is the perceived timeline of the Dodgers core to compete for a title. Friedman might believe its 5-7 years but a lot of that rides on Kershaw Bellinger and Buehler. As we recall with the Cubs pretty much everyone looked at that team like we do the Astros back when they won. That hasn't quite panned out. Dodgers have a great farm system that could keep churning out young talent but that won't help the Dodgers get over the hump until they cash in some of their chips. At some point, you pretty much owe it to your fan base and the current players to go for it. For that reason I wouldn't consider them out on Mookie by any means. I still think Price will end up with the Angels however.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

To plug a prime player like Mookie into a trade like this is way above and beyond the magnitude of the Punto trade IMO.

A prime player rental.

 

[chawson]

The Dodgers seem like a preferred spot to send Price if only because the Angels are now one of our most direct competitors for the postseason.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Since the hot stove has been on the chilly side in Boston, here's my question :

Should the Red Sox consider trading Betts and Price to the Dodgers?

The Dodgers have been bridesmaids in the postseason for quite a while. The big name free agents are off the board. There's no one left that could be considered a big splash. The Kluber trade would seem to free up money for the Indians to lock up Lindor. There is rumored interest in Price.

The return wouldn't be overwhelming given the amount of money involved. However, it would free up a significant amount of salary and would give a boost to the weak farm system.

A lot of this hinges on whether you are of the mind that Mookie is still in play long term or if he is likely to walk.

From the Dodgers side, would they be willing to take on that much salary to make a run in 2020 and what prospects would they be willing to part with?

I suggested this very thing at the start of the offseason. I said they should go for it all and offer Betts and Price to the Dodgers for AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May. According to Cots', the Red Sox would be saving $41.75 million against the CBT in 2020(plus savings in 2021 and 2022 with the difference in Price's deal to Pollack/Muncy) plus getting an OF, a 1B, and a top prospect. The Dodgers would get a dynamic middle of the order bat to pair with Bellinger and a heck of a #3 starter to put behind Buehler and Kershaw. Now, I don't think you'd get either Lux or May but that's what I'd ask for. Jeter Downs or Keibert Ruiz would suffice.

The Dodgers have money coming off the books soon with Kershaw's deal coming up after 2021, Jansen's deal is up after 2022 and Joc Pederson, Justin Turner, and Blake Treinen FAs after 2020. They have the money to re-sign Betts long term because they have Bellinger and Buehler cheap for another 4-5 years.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I won't pollute every thread with this, but the Sox unloading Mookie, and one year of Mookie for limited return at that, may make me stop watching MLB. All the tax stuff was done on JWH's watch, and getting rid of our best asset because of other errors stinks. I just want to say this once. Trading Mookie sucks and is close to malpractice.

 

[jon abbey]

I won't pollute every thread with this, but the Sox unloading Mookie, and one year of Mookie for limited return at that, may make me stop watching MLB. All the tax stuff was done on JWH's watch, and getting rid of our best asset because of other errors stinks. I just want to say this once. Trading Mookie sucks and is close to malpractice.

What if they traded him in part to reset the tax number, and then signed him back after the season a la NY and Chapman?

 

[Van Everyman]

What if they traded him in part to reset the tax number, and then signed him back after the season a la NY and Chapman?

Yeah, I wouldn't remotely hold it against Bloom if they did some version this deal. I get why people are emotional about Mookie -- I'd be sad too. But the driving factor here isn't the luxury tax stuff from Henry -- it's that Mookie has said repeatedly that he is determined to test free agency.

I know that's hard for people to swallow -- it sucks for me too. But if that's the case, then all options should be on the table -- from winning with him in his final year under contract to moving him for pieces (and tax relief) we need to build the next winner.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I suggested this very thing at the start of the offseason. I said they should go for it all and offer Betts and Price to the Dodgers for AJ Pollock, Max Muncy, and either Gavin Lux or Dustin May.

And as I pointed out when you suggested it before, this is ridiculously one-sided. Price + Betts for Pollock and any one of Muncy, Lux or May might be more or less a fair deal, though it probably favors the Sox. Two of them? Fuhgeddabout it.

 

[RedOctober3829]

And as I pointed out when you suggested it before, this is ridiculously one-sided. Price + Betts for Pollock and any one of Muncy, Lux or May might be more or less a fair deal, though it probably favors the Sox. Two of them? Fuhgeddabout it.

All depends on how motivated the Dodgers are to win a World Series. Do they think Betts and Price puts them in a better position to do so? There has to be considerable pressure on the organization to do whatever it takes to do so. Now with a number of top starters already gone, Price is looking better and better especially if the Red Sox offer to pay down some of the contract. Not every trade is fair for both sides.

 

[joe dokes]

And as I pointed out when you suggested it before, this is ridiculously one-sided. Price + Betts for Pollock and any one of Muncy, Lux or May might be more or less a fair deal, though it probably favors the Sox. Two of them? Fuhgeddabout it.

To me, that would be the point. Make the *Dodgers* say fuhgeddabout it. Until they actually do, you don't know they will.

 

[chawson]

Price and Betts for Pollock, Kelly and one of May/Ruiz/Lux seems fair to both sides. Maybe Hembree also heads the other way, and maybe LAD throws in a lesser prospect like DJ Peters.

Sox wouldn’t need to pay anything else down in that scenario.

 

[jon abbey]

Price and Betts for Pollock, Kelly and one of May/Ruiz/Lux seems fair to both sides. Maybe Hembree also heads the other way, and maybe LAD throws in a lesser prospect like DJ Peters.

Sox wouldn’t need to pay anything else down in that scenario.

Betts, Price and Darwinson (who the Dodgers could certainly use) for Pollock, Kelly and Ruiz works in the Baseball Trade Values trade simulator.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

So this is going to make me a very hated person here. It makes me hate myself. But it occurs to me that one quick, simple way for the Sox to make a deal with the Dodgers that would drastically reduce our payroll while making us not that much worse a team, at least for the medium term, is a deal built around Bogaerts for Lux.

It's a deal that makes sense for both teams because of the two, Bogaerts is the one I pick if my goal is to win a championship in 2020; but obviously, Lux is the one I pick if my goal is to get under the tax limit in 2020. The downside for the Dodgers is the long-term contract; but that's an acceptabe risk because it's a very reasonable contract. The downside for the Sox is the risk that Lux doesn't pan out; but that's an acceptable risk because almost nobody seems to think that a plausible scenario.

I suspect that deal would pretty much work one-up, or with very minor sweetening.

Ugh. I do indeed hate myself.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

With the Dodgers reputed to be interested in Lindor, if they want to "go for it," why wouldn't they simply trade for him and re-sign Ryu? Lindor's a year younger, cheaper, and controllable for a year more than Mookie, and nearly as good. He'd cost a lot in prospects, but if they're in GFIN mode... Ryu has been better than Price and will likely be far cheaper, and LA knows his medicals better than Price's.

 

[Murderer's Crow]

Price and Betts for Pollock, Kelly and one of May/Ruiz/Lux seems fair to both sides. Maybe Hembree also heads the other way, and maybe LAD throws in a lesser prospect like DJ Peters.

Sox wouldn’t need to pay anything else down in that scenario.

They wouldn't need to pay anything down but I don't know that the Dodgers can/will actually take on ~$60m+ in salary or AAV.

 

[jon abbey]

They wouldn't need to pay anything down but I don't know that the Dodgers can/will actually take on ~$60m+ in salary or AAV.

They wouldn't be, Pollock and Kelly make about $24M this year.

 

[RedOctober3829]

They wouldn't need to pay anything down but I don't know that the Dodgers can/will actually take on ~$60m+ in salary or AAV.

If they take Price and Betts back with no subsidization and send Pollack and Muncy out, they'd only be slightly over the first luxury tax threshold.

 

[chawson]

Betts, Price and Darwinson (who the Dodgers could certainly use) for Pollock, Kelly and Ruiz works in the Baseball Trade Values trade simulator.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/

Darwinzon skews it a bit too much, but maybe Walden, which is right on the nose for that site’s purposes.

I’m a routine Price defender, but a strong case could be made that that site is undervaluing him. He held hitters to a .286 xwOBA until getting hurt on 7/19, a Top 20 mark among starters in that time. He then likely tried to pitch over it the next four games since the Sox were already so depleted in the rotation. That blasted his ERA considerably. His injury doesn’t seem serious going forward, and it’s reasonable to expect him to resume pitching the way he did the first 3 1/2 months of last season.

OTOH, the Dodgers could argue similar about Pollock, but his own decline defensively seems like a harder rebound.

 

[Traut]

Fundamentally, LA is a star driven town and Mookie is a star. It has been apparent for sometime that the Red Sox will not retain his services. Sending him to the National League and to a city where he can realize his value makes a lot of sense for all involved.

 

[Marbleheader]

With the Dodgers reputed to be interested in Lindor, if they want to "go for it," why wouldn't they simply trade for him and re-sign Ryu? Lindor's a year younger, cheaper, and controllable for a year more than Mookie, and nearly as good. He'd cost a lot in prospects, but if they're in GFIN mode... Ryu has been better than Price and will likely be far cheaper, and LA knows his medicals better than Price's.

They just took a huge PR hit with the Kluber trade and have more room now with his salary off the books. A Lindor trade seems much more unlikely now.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

A-Gon proved to not fit in the Boston market and we had a lot more committed to him than Betts currently. this doesn't feel like a comparable deal to me.

also just because Mookie is going to FA doesn't mean he's gone, if we can make room for the deal he's going to get. (I guess that is the question.)

 

[RedOctober3829]

The Los Angeles Dodgers have engaged in exploratory trade talks with the Boston Red Sox about former MVP outfielder Mookie Betts, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussions.
The officials spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the talks publicly.
The Dodgers’ top priority remains Cleveland Indians shortstop Francisco Lindor, but if the two sides can’t agree on a package for the All-Star, the Dodgers could turn its attention to Boston.
The Red Sox are much more inclined to trade Betts – who’s projected to earn $27-30 million in his final year before free agency – than Cleveland is with Lindor. The Red Sox, who had baseball’s highest payroll at $244 million, and will pay $13 million in luxury tax penalties, want to slash their payroll to be under the $208 million tax threshold in 2020.

Los Angeles has included shortstop Corey Seager in trade talks with Boston and Cleveland, but are much more reluctant to part with prized prospect Gavin Lux, their shortstop of the future. Potential trade partners also covet Dodgers catcher Will Smith, who impressed as a rookie in 2019, hitting 15 homers with 42 RBI in 54 games.
The Dodgers outfield has been mix-and-match for years, but NL MVP Cody Bellinger is the only outfielder with an everyday spot locked down, despite A.J. Pollock signing a five-year, $60 million contract last winter. If Los Angeles was to acquire Betts, the club could turn around and flip other outfielders like Alex Verdugo or Joc Pederson.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/12/17/mookie-betts-dodgers-red-sox-trade/2675699001/

 

[nattysez]

All depends on how motivated the Dodgers are to win a World Series. Do they think Betts and Price puts them in a better position to do so? There has to be considerable pressure on the organization to do whatever it takes to do so. Now with a number of top starters already gone, Price is looking better and better especially if the Red Sox offer to pay down some of the contract. Not every trade is fair for both sides.

Fundamentally, LA is a star driven town and Mookie is a star. It has been apparent for sometime that the Red Sox will not retain his services. Sending him to the National League and to a city where he can realize his value makes a lot of sense for all involved.

I just don't think this is how the new Dodgers' management operates. They are currently in exactly the place Theo always aimed to be with the Sox: strong farm system, ~95 wins a year, and hope for the best in the playoffs. I'd be really surprised if the Dodgers didn't learn a lesson from the Sox -- keep developing your youngsters, fill in with free agents when needed, but don't spend crazily on free agents.

Also, the NL West is probably going to be non-competitive for at least a few more years, so overspending to GFIN doesn't really make sense for them.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I just don't think this is how the new Dodgers' management operates. They are currently in exactly the place Theo always aimed to be with the Sox: strong farm system, ~95 wins a year, and hope for the best in the playoffs. I'd be really surprised if the Dodgers didn't learn a lesson from the Sox -- keep developing your youngsters, fill in with free agents when needed, but don't spend crazily on free agents.

Also, the NL West is probably going to be non-competitive for at least a few more years, so overspending to GFIN doesn't really make sense for them.

Their competition isn't the NL West though. Unless a bomb goes off, they're winning the division. Their competition is Atlanta, St. Louis, Washington, and Philly in the NL and the Yankees in the AL. Their thinking should be how they ultimately match up with the Yankees should they meet in the WS.

 

[curly2]

I just don't think this is how the new Dodgers' management operates. They are currently in exactly the place Theo always aimed to be with the Sox: strong farm system, ~95 wins a year, and hope for the best in the playoffs.

Except that Theo had a world championship in his second year. The Dodgers haven't won one since Reagan was president

I'm not saying that they won't stick to their plan, but having a world title in the bank makes it easier.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Nightengale isn't the best person to use as a source. However, if this is true then the Sox would hypothetically move Seager to 2nd. Right?

 

[chawson]

I don’t think Seager is our guy. Just two years of (pricey) control left and his power — most of it to the RCF alley — would be mitigated by Fenway in the same way Benny’s has been.

 

[chrisfont9]

Nightengale isn't the best person to use as a source. However, if this is true then the Sox would hypothetically move Seager to 2nd. Right?

He has never played there in majors or minors.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don’t think Seager is our guy. Just two years of (pricey) control left and his power — most of it to the RCF alley — would be mitigated by Fenway in the same way Benny’s has been.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Using FG's splits leaderboards, Seager is in the top decile in baseball for percentage of his fly balls to the opposite field (49.7%; cf Beni at 43%), and is well above MLB average for percentage of oppo fly balls in the Hard category (36.4%; cf Beni at 21.1%, J.D. Martinez at 37.3%). That all sounds very Fenway-friendly.

 

[chawson]

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Using FG's splits leaderboards, Seager is in the top decile in baseball for percentage of his fly balls to the opposite field (49.7%; cf Beni at 43%), and is well above MLB average for percentage of oppo fly balls in the Hard category (36.4%; cf Beni at 21.1%, J.D. Martinez at 37.3%). That all sounds very Fenway-friendly.

Hmm, I was looking at his Statcast spray chart visuals and percentages for 2019 coupled with his average fly ball distance. He seems kinda middling according to this list of LHHs hitting line drives and fly balls the other way — but the numbers you’ve got above also seem pretty convincing, at least that it’s not a problem.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

He has never played there in majors or minors.

In theory, it's not that much of a stretch to say he can play there. I'm aware he's been SS more or less his entire career. You could also move Devers to first and Seager to 3rd. I think he would honestly profile very well in Fenway. He'd probably see an uptick in power to opposite field.

 

[teddywingman]

*emotional response warning*

But I'm not kidding. If the Red Sox trade Mookie Betts, I'm not watching next season.

 

[jon abbey]

I just don't think this is how the new Dodgers' management operates. They are currently in exactly the place Theo always aimed to be with the Sox: strong farm system, ~95 wins a year, and hope for the best in the playoffs. I'd be really surprised if the Dodgers didn't learn a lesson from the Sox -- keep developing your youngsters, fill in with free agents when needed, but don't spend crazily on free agents.

Also, the NL West is probably going to be non-competitive for at least a few more years, so overspending to GFIN doesn't really make sense for them.

Yeah, as RedOctober said, they're under a lot of pressure from the fan base to bring in some kind of top talent to try to put themselves over the top. The difference between Friedman or Bloom in TB and Friedman in LA/Cashman in NY is that the big market teams get a few swings at spending big on an impact talent and sometimes they need to take them. The Dodgers have not done this since Friedman has taken over there but it'll be a bit surprising to me if they don't this winter, and the top FAs are all gone, so it would need to be a trade. I still think Lindor is more likely to LA than Betts, but if CLE is demanding what LA considers much too much, Betts could be the move.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I won't pollute every thread with this, but the Sox unloading Mookie, and one year of Mookie for limited return at that, may make me stop watching MLB. All the tax stuff was done on JWH's watch, and getting rid of our best asset because of other errors stinks. I just want to say this once. Trading Mookie sucks and is close to malpractice.

*emotional response warning*

But I'm not kidding. If the Red Sox trade Mookie Betts, I'm not watching next season.

I agree with the sentiment of both of these posts whole heartedly. I mean, I'll still watch baseball, but I am going to be really pissed off if the Boston Red Sox (THE BOSTON RED SOX!) are going to trade the best position player that they've developed in the last 50 years because the financial genius that is supposed to be the one running the team has decided that he's going to cheap out after spending like a poet on pay day six months earlier. That's what gets me, he signs off big money deals to Eovaldi and Sale but now he's cinching the purse strings when it comes to Mookie? Are you kidding me with this?

Yes, I know that if they get to a certain number this year that it will save them $100m over the next few years. I get that. But where was this frugality when you're giving away tens of millions of dollars to one guys who's had two Tommy John surgeries and another guy who looks like he's a pitch away from TJ surgery?

In addition to that, what sucks is that from 2014-2016, we were told that the Red Sox are building their team "the right way", in that these kids are coming through the farm system and they're going to keep the Sox in contention for awhile to come. We get a three-year window and now we have to cash out? Fuck that, that completely sucks. And what happens in a few years when Devers gets his big bucks? Will we also ship him off because John Henry has a hankering for giving Wade Miley $80 million for two years?

The Boston Red Sox make money hand-over-fist. They're one of the elite, and most valued, teams in Major League Baseball. For them to all of a sudden act like the Tampa Bay Rays is ludicrous.

 

[NomarsFool]

Dan Shaughnessy is basically foaming at the mouth waiting for them to make this deal so he can write a whole bunch of articles and books about the 'No No Nanette - the Sequel'

 

[chrisfont9]

Dan Shaughnessy is basically foaming at the mouth waiting for them to make this deal so he can write a whole bunch of articles and books about the 'No No Nanette - the Sequel'

This reminds me of the old saw about how every New Yorker cartoon could be successfully captioned with "Christ, what an asshole"

 

[Van Everyman]

What if Mookie has told the team “I’m not signing for less than $400M/10y”? Does that change the “I’m going to unplug my television AND FOR GOOD” equation at all?

I love Mookie. Possibly more than any player other than Papi. But if he’s told them something to that effect—or told them he’s leaving Boston period—I’m not sure what the team should be doing instead of this.

 

[NickEsasky]

If he told them the former then good luck to him getting it on the open market, but let him know we'll be there with a good deal if he comes to his senses. If he says the latter, then sure things change very quickly. But for all we've heard he doesn't hate it here, nor is he clamoring to leave. He just wants to hit the open market to maximize his earnings.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What if Mookie has told the team “I’m not signing for less than $400M/10y”? Does that change the “I’m going to unplug my television AND FOR GOOD” equation at all?

I love Mookie. Possibly more than any player other than Papi. But if he’s told them something to that effect—or told them he’s leaving Boston period—I’m not sure what the team should be doing instead of this.

If he has told them that, then that will come out. But at this point, it has not. The only thing we know about Mookie is that he's not interested in signing with anyone beyond 2020 until after the 2020 season is over. That is not a justification to trade him.

Right now, the ONLY reason there has been any discussion at all about trading him this winter is because of ownership's apparent desire to cut payroll. Absent that, I don't think there's a chance we're talking about the possibility, let alone the team actually entertaining the idea of trading him.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

What if Mookie has told the team “I’m not signing for less than $400M/10y”? Does that change the “I’m going to unplug my television AND FOR GOOD” equation at all?

I love Mookie. Possibly more than any player other than Papi. But if he’s told them something to that effect—or told them he’s leaving Boston period—I’m not sure what the team should be doing instead of this.

Baseball more than any other sport has shown that the sum of the parts are greater than the actual superstar. I'm fine with the team not keeping Mookie provided that they have a legitimate backup plan and he's not being used as a tool to dump Price or Eovaldi.

 

[JimD]

This is all likely Friedman using his good pal Bloom to get the Indians to give in Lindor - bonus points if Chaim gets someone to write a piece on how the Sox listened to the Dodgers as part of due diligence, but wouldn't part with Betts without getting an overwhelming ransom in return ...

 

[Van Everyman]

If he has told them that, then that will come out. But at this point, it has not. The only thing we know about Mookie is that he's not interested in signing with anyone beyond 2020 until after the 2020 season is over. That is not a justification to trade him.

Right now, the ONLY reason there has been any discussion at all about trading him this winter is because of ownership's apparent desire to cut payroll. Absent that, I don't think there's a chance we're talking about the possibility, let alone the team actually entertaining the idea of trading him.

Sure. And I get why trading Mookie would suck.

But this is one of the most successful ownership groups in professional sports. They have at times yo-yo’d in their philosophical approach. But they are responsible for what will surely be some of my favorite sports moments during my lifetime. And, in an era where the Yankees have made but a single title run, they have not only competed for but won a title, like, every five years. The “FUCK THOSE GUYS FOR (considering) TRADING MY HERO” sentiment smacks of entitlement at best.

Maybe they fuck it up. But this isn’t Haywood Sullivan, guys.

 

[teddywingman]

What if Mookie has told the team “I’m not signing for less than $400M/10y”? Does that change the “I’m going to unplug my television AND FOR GOOD” equation at all?

I love Mookie. Possibly more than any player other than Papi. But if he’s told them something to that effect—or told them he’s leaving Boston period—I’m not sure what the team should be doing instead of this.

This post is lazy speculation supported by zero evidence.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

But where was this frugality when you're giving away tens of millions of dollars to one guys who's had two Tommy John surgeries and another guy who looks like he's a pitch away from TJ surgery?

It was lacking, of course, which is why they're in the position they're in now, which is why they may need to do this deplorable thing. But the 20-20 hindsight around here gets a little ridiculous. Everybody who's complaining about the Eovaldi and Sale deals now should go back and read the threads on those deals from a year ago. We were over the moon about both, with very very few exceptions. Now, not so much. But nothing that has happened since then was at all implausible or unforeseeable.

And if you answer, well sure, we were foolish about spending that money, but it's not JH's job to be confused as us...well, yeah. Which is why he might end up trading Mookie.

 

[RedOctober3829]

View: https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/1207050840516759556?s=21

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

And if you answer, well sure, we were foolish about spending that money, but it's not JH's job to be confused as us...well, yeah. Which is why he might end up trading Mookie.

We're fans, which is why we're not in charge of the team. And it's probably why Dombrowski isn't here any more. But JH is supposed to be the final word, and his reputation is that he understands marketplaces and why it's a good idea to invest in commodities. You're right, we were pretty happy when Eovalid, Sale and Pearce signed. Who wouldn't be? The Sox won the World Series with those three guys. But the calculus has changed since Henry has pulled the rug out from under us and said in September that the Red Sox are tightening their belts.

If we knew that information in April, my guess is that the shine on the Eovaldi, Pearce and Sale deals wouldn't be so bright.

The “FUCK THOSE GUYS FOR (considering) TRADING MY HERO” sentiment smacks of entitlement at best.

Give me a break with the entitlement bullshit. No one is acting entitled at all. I think that people understand trading JBJ or Price or Vazquez or Benitendi. No one is saying, "Don't trade anyone! I lovez them all!" I think that people are (rightly) up in arms about trading Mookie Betts because, like I said, he's been the best position player that the Sox have developed in decades. These players do not come along every year and what you're going to get from LA or San Diego or Atlanta is going to pale in comparison to what Mookie Betts can do for you today. Basically your hope is that the player you acquire can be half as good as Betts. They won't be.

The Red Sox have money. Mookie Betts deserves his big pay day. I'm not sure why it's "smart" to trade him.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

View: https://twitter.com/pgammo/status/1207050840516759556?s=21

"$ seems big problem". I should think it would be. That trade is so lopsided I think it would break that simulator app.