Should the Red Sox Look into Punto Pt. 2?

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,252
LA isn't moving Lux for anyone, it seems, they love him. They wouldn't include him for two years of Lindor either.
I'm aware, but Mookie is going to worst-case put up 6 WAR next season. a fair deal would be Lux & May, but Price's negative value...
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
I'm aware, but Mookie is going to worst-case put up 6 WAR next season. a fair deal would be Lux & May, but Price's negative value...
Mookie will put up 6 WAR and then hit free agency, those other guys are under control for 6 or 7 years. I know you understand this.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,252
Mookie will put up 6 WAR and then hit free agency, those other guys are under control for 6 or 7 years. I know you understand this.
but how likely are either of these two to actually hit 6 WAR? that'd be the argument in asking for a premium return.

a rock & a hard place, I know.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
I'm aware, but Mookie is going to worst-case put up 6 WAR next season. a fair deal would be Lux & May, but Price's negative value...
A fair deal would absolutely not be Lux and May. A fair deal would be Lux or May for Betts. One year of Betts is worth $60m-ish and he'll be paid $30m-ish. A top 50 prospect offers $30m-ish in projected surplus value.

We are in a position to insist on LAD taking Price and (most of) his money too because there aren't many players comparable to Mookie Betts out there, and they are under pressure to actually win a title instead of just cruising to the top of the NL West again. So any deal we should do should be one that is objectively lopsided in our favor.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
How bad do the Dodgers want to maximize their odds of wining the WS next year? Isn't this the ying to the Sox wanting to shed salary yang?

Is sucks that the wasted annual cost of Panda and Hanley combined is not available to lock up Mookie with change to spare... years be damned!
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
As loathe as I am to trade Mookie, I'm fine with trading him for major league ready talent and prospects. Build around Xander and Devers at this point and get the best you can for him if he's insisting on hitting the market before signing an extension. Then, make your best play for him in free agency. If he likes it here, but not enough to not test the market, he should be open to returning if we make a solid offer. I just hate to think of getting nothing for him when (if) he moves on. If I had more faith in our rotation, I'd be in the "keep him" camp, but I don't think we compete this year even with him.

Move Price and JBJ for whatever we can get, even if it's just some salary relief to make a serious run for Mookie in 2021.

If he doesn't sign with us, we'll still have a good core with Xander, Devers, Benny and some of the kids like Dalbec, Chavis, and Casas plus whoever we get from a Mookie deal. Take the money Mookie turns down and build a rotation around a (hopefully) healthy Sale and ERod.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
I understand the need/desire on the part of the owners to reset the luxury tax.

But on a related note, ticket prices at Fenway have gone up about 30% in the last decade. So just go ahead and "reset" those, too. Then I'm on board.
They will sell every ticket at current prices even if Mookie is traded.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
The Red Sox owners know that the cartel that is MLB has given them a territory that is highly populous and incredibly wealthy, no team is going to encroach on this territory anytime soon, and even if there is some short-term fan revolt from trading Mookie, they just need to make a playoff run or two and everyone will come back. I think it is definitely the wise decision from a strict business perspective to reset the luxury tax even if it drops their chances at winning for 2020 and maybe 2021, because it would likely increase that chance for the subsequent years and save them money overall. For the few fans that swear off the team forever there will be new people who move into the area and take their place. We basically saw this happen with the last place teams in 2014 and 2015, and don't forget they lost a hometown favorite around that time in Jon Lester because they lowballed him. Mookie's better than that, but that didn't really hurt them.

But it sucks for sure, because they could blow through the luxury tax every year and all the owners would still be very very rich. We make fun of the old school owners like Jerry Jones or Mike Ilitch for giving out "dumb" contracts from an analytical perspective...but you know they probably wouldn't be doing things like this.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,252
A fair deal would absolutely not be Lux and May. A fair deal would be Lux or May for Betts. One year of Betts is worth $60m-ish and he'll be paid $30m-ish. A top 50 prospect offers $30m-ish in projected surplus value.
how many top 50 prospects bust? I'd be terrified of picking the wrong prospect and getting nothing
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,463
They will sell every ticket at current prices even if Mookie is traded.
This is very false. They didn't even sell close to "every ticket at current prices" last year coming off a World Series, with slightly lower prices, with Mookie. They needed to do a lot of those 4/99 hot dog and drink and parking specials that included normally $52 tickets.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,463
The Red Sox owners know that the cartel that is MLB has given them a territory that is highly populous and incredibly wealthy, no team is going to encroach on this territory anytime soon, and even if there is some short-term fan revolt from trading Mookie, they just need to make a playoff run or two and everyone will come back. I think it is definitely the wise decision from a strict business perspective to reset the luxury tax even if it drops their chances at winning for 2020 and maybe 2021, because it would likely increase that chance for the subsequent years and save them money overall. For the few fans that swear off the team forever there will be new people who move into the area and take their place. We basically saw this happen with the last place teams in 2014 and 2015, and don't forget they lost a hometown favorite around that time in Jon Lester because they lowballed him. Mookie's better than that, but that didn't really hurt them.

But it sucks for sure, because they could blow through the luxury tax every year and all the owners would still be very very rich. We make fun of the old school owners like Jerry Jones or Mike Ilitch for giving out "dumb" contracts from an analytical perspective...but you know they probably wouldn't be doing things like this.
Lester plays every 5 days. It's not the same as a fan favorite everyday positional player like Mookie (or Beni).if they go.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
C’mon. Think how much we’ll enjoy watching Cameron Maybin or Steve Sousa Jr. in right next season.
how many top 50 prospects bust? I'd be terrified of picking the wrong prospect and getting nothing
Coincidence that these two posts were near each I think about Cam Maybin every time a big trade happens or is being discussed. Your classic five tool can’t miss stud prospect. In his 2nd game he hit a laser HR off Roger Clemens. His next didn’t come until two years later, after being traded with Andrew Miller to Florida for Miguel Cabrera. Neither player did anything for the Marlins.

Heck, even with the Sale trade the 2nd main piece racked up all of 14 MLB innings before tearing his elbow.

I think the best you can do is get a pre-arb high upside talent who has flashed in the bigs already and build around that. But even then it’s not a certainty.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,252
it just amazes me that is the 30M surplus. the variance is too high vs. what Mookie's baseline now is.

but our ownership was shortsighted, so our tax line.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
On the business side, I suspect that they figure that the short-term losses they sustain from a down season or two while they get under the cap and lose Mookie and Price will be more than offset by the savings from doing so, along with the gains from building a competitive team that's financially-sustainable for the long haul. They are essentially pivoting back to LL calling the MFY "the Evil Empire" and playing the underdog card.

In their defense, they tried to have it both ways this year and it was a disaster. They paid for top talent while also staying under the top-most cap, and built a team that couldn't win. So now they're going to try it another way.

Losing Mookie really hurts, and I'll enjoy baseball less this year if he's on another team, but if they find a way to use Mookie's (and Price's, and hopefully Sale's) money to build a championship team the way the Nats did with Harper's, I can live with it. Not a small "if," that.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I would not be OK as a Red Sox fan trading Mookie Betts for prospects. Betts is a player you break the bank for. Getting major league talent back for him plus prospects would be a must. If not, roll the dice, let him go to FA, and be the highest bidder.
Why not get value for him now, then be the highest bidder next winter anyway, which will be easier if you’re not also paying other teams a 40% revenue sharing premium on that contract.

Even with Mookie, the Red Sox are, at best, an underdog contender for the 2nd wild card. They shouldn’t be making decisions based on what’s best for 2020.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
One thing about Mookie Betts is that it might be the case that his defensive value is diminishing.

His defensive WAR the last four years has gone from 2.9 in 2016 to 2.6 in 2017 to 1.8 in 2018 to 1.1 last year. The fielding bible numbers for runs saved look very similar. They have him saving 32 runs in 2016 then 31 in 2017 then 20 in 2018 then 15 last year.

That sort of fits the eye test as my admittedly not very precise recollections are of fewer exceptional catches by him the last couple years. That's not a great trend, is it? What do we think of when we think of Mookie Betts? Do we think of him as a transcendent outfielder and one of the top four hitters in the league? What if he's a very good outfielder and one of the top 40 hitters in the league?

What's the record of guys who were truly exceptional fielders sliding and ever getting back to that initial, jaw dropping level? Does it happen? 50% of the time? Seldom? Almost never? My unscientific guess is that the answer is seldom.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Well, yes. I'd also be happy with my own private Caribbean island.

Substitute Gray for May and it's still probably an overpay for the Dodgers, but at least sounds possible.
I’m probably lower on May than most. I think Ruiz would be the prize of that lot, I see May as a 3/4 starter and Downs as decent starting middle infielder.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
Why not get value for him now, then be the highest bidder next winter anyway, which will be easier if you’re not also paying other teams a 40% revenue sharing premium on that contract.

Even with Mookie, the Red Sox are, at best, an underdog contender for the 2nd wild card. They shouldn’t be making decisions based on what’s best for 2020.
That worked so well with Lester.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
That worked so well with Lester.
Fortunately, Larry Lucchino is no longer involved in Boston Red Sox affairs. All indications are that the front office has maintained a very positive working relationship with Betts and his aents, and that the organization has made multiple attempts to sign Mookie to what would likely be a near-record contract extension. There would always be the risk that the Dodgers somehow get Mookie to sign an extension and avoid free agency, but if Mookie is true to his word, he will become a free agent and I find it doubtful that the Red Sox having traded him this offseason would be viewed as a negative by him and his representation - if anything, the Sox will likely be seen as key to establishing his contract value in the Troutosphere.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
That worked so well with Lester.
The Red Sox were outbid by the Cubs pretty significantly for Lester. So, that’s not really a good example of the strategy being proffered. If Mookie is for sale to the highest bidder, and that’s certainly the message he’s sending, then that’s what it will take, trade or no trade.

If Mookie has a second goal, it is probably to go to a team that is well set up to win for the next decade. That would also not favor the Red Sox, with no cost controlled young pitching and Already a step behind the Yankees.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I’m probably lower on May than most. I think Ruiz would be the prize of that lot, I see May as a 3/4 starter and Downs as decent starting middle infielder.
Fair enough, but whichever of them you rate higher, there's no way we're getting both May and Ruiz in the same Betts deal.

One thing about Mookie Betts is that it might be the case that his defensive value is diminishing.
<snip>
That's not a great trend, is it?
No, but it's a normal trend. As I've said in other threads, Mookie is entering the back nine of his prime years. And I've read here and elsewhere that players peak defensively even younger than offensively, especially players at speed-dependent positions like the outfield. So for Mookie to have peaked defensively at age 23 and declined just a bit since then seems like a dog-bites-man story. I don't think it's reasonable to hope he becomes the eye-popping 2016-17 guy again. But it's reasonable to hope the decline slows or stabilizes for a while and he makes it into his early 30s as an excellent though no longer generational outfielder.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
The deal I'd be comfortable with seeing the Sox pull off if they had to make one for Betts is one that includes the following

Dustin May
Kenta Maeda
Ruiz/Downs
Verdugo

I think that either Boston needs to greatly subsidize the Price contract or just move Mookie alone for the return to be worth it. I'm not sure that the Dodgers do all of that for one year alone of Mookie let alone Mookie and Price at say 17-20 million per year, but again the Dodgers are the team feeling the pressure of constantly coming up short.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
The deal I'd be comfortable with seeing the Sox pull off if they had to make one for Betts is one that includes the following

Dustin May
Kenta Maeda
Ruiz/Downs
Verdugo

I think that either Boston needs to greatly subsidize the Price contract or just move Mookie alone for the return to be worth it. I'm not sure that the Dodgers do all of that for one year alone of Mookie let alone Mookie and Price at say 17-20 million per year, but again the Dodgers are the team feeling the pressure of constantly coming up short.
I think you might -- might -- be able to get one of May or Ruiz for Betts straight up. We are talking about one year of Betts. And we are dealing from a position of weakness, because the ball is so much in Betts's court: If he has any interest in staying with the Red Sox on a market-level contract, all he has to do is indicate as much, and it'll get done. If they're trading him, it's only because he won't re-sign, and teams know that, because we're not top-tier contenders and lack the payroll room to change that, it doesn't take much of a return to make it worth our while.

If that's what happens, I think a deal like Betts and Price for Verdugo, Tony Gonsolin, and some flotsam and jetsam makes sense. You get five years of a solid, if not Bettsian, corner outfielder, plus an interesting pitcher who fits with Bloom's creative usage model. You get under the tax this year with room to do Devers/ERod extensions and clear out space to rebuild the team for 2021 and beyond by adding major pieces next off-season (George Springer?).

Do I like it? I do not. But if Betts doesn't want to commit to the Red Sox and Henry doesn't want to pay hundreds of millions in luxury taxes to make the 2020 team better, we are in a weak position and a deal like that might be our best option.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
I don't see them getting a huge return for Betts. I think the Goldschmidt trade is a bad comparison because he was willing to sign an extension. Betts is a better player, but will also be paid more. I don't think we'd get any LA's top 5 prospects. Maybe a few lower ones, but that's not really worth a year of Mookie to me.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
One of them, you mean?
All due respect if you're trading a top 5 player you can't come away without a package of prospects. If you're going to trade him straight up for Ruiz or Jeter Downs you're better off just keeping him and getting the comp pick when he leaves.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
All due respect if you're trading a top 5 player you can't come away without a package of prospects. If you're going to trade him straight up for Ruiz or Jeter Downs you're better off just keeping him and getting the comp pick when he leaves.
The rules here have changed in the current CBA, pretty sure if BOS keeps Mookie and stays over $208M this year, they only get a pick after the fourth round for him, so very minimal value.

"If a qualifying-offer free agent's previous team is over the luxury-tax threshold, said team will receive a compensation pick after the fourth round has been completed."

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
All due respect if you're trading a top 5 player you can't come away without a package of prospects. If you're going to trade him straight up for Ruiz or Jeter Downs you're better off just keeping him and getting the comp pick when he leaves.
NO ONE is going to pay multiple good prospects and/or inexpensive major league talent for one year of Mookie Betts at ~$30M. If the point of moving him is because you fear he's gone in 2021 anyway and you want to cash in his value (i.e. get more than the comp pick), that ship sailed 2 years ago. If you're trading him now, it's to reset the luxury tax penalties and, hopefully, going balls-out to sign him next winter. In which case, a Ruiz or Downs return is likely best case scenario and you jump at it.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
The rules here have changed in the current CBA, pretty sure if BOS keeps Mookie and stays over $208M this year, they only get a pick after the fourth round for him, so very minimal value.

"If a qualifying-offer free agent's previous team is over the luxury-tax threshold, said team will receive a compensation pick after the fourth round has been completed."

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer
But if you end up winning and he leaves then a championship and a 4th round pick is better than no title and Jeter Downs. A return of Jeter Downs for Betts is an underwhelming return that would still be on the table until July.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
One thing about Mookie Betts is that it might be the case that his defensive value is diminishing.

His defensive WAR the last four years has gone from 2.9 in 2016 to 2.6 in 2017 to 1.8 in 2018 to 1.1 last year. The fielding bible numbers for runs saved look very similar. They have him saving 32 runs in 2016 then 31 in 2017 then 20 in 2018 then 15 last year.

That sort of fits the eye test as my admittedly not very precise recollections are of fewer exceptional catches by him the last couple years. That's not a great trend, is it? What do we think of when we think of Mookie Betts? Do we think of him as a transcendent outfielder and one of the top four hitters in the league? What if he's a very good outfielder and one of the top 40 hitters in the league?

What's the record of guys who were truly exceptional fielders sliding and ever getting back to that initial, jaw dropping level? Does it happen? 50% of the time? Seldom? Almost never? My unscientific guess is that the answer is seldom.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/red-sox-star-mookie-betts-uncorks-absurd-305-foot-throw-to-nab-runner-at-third-base/
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,463
NO ONE is going to pay multiple good prospects and/or inexpensive major league talent for one year of Mookie Betts at ~$30M. If the point of moving him is because you fear he's gone in 2021 anyway and you want to cash in his value (i.e. get more than the comp pick), that ship sailed 2 years ago. If you're trading him now, it's to reset the luxury tax penalties and, hopefully, going balls-out to sign him next winter. In which case, a Ruiz or Downs return is likely best case scenario and you jump at it.
If there's any team that would, it would be the Dodgers as they're 1) prospect rich 2) money rich and most importantly, 3) in as GFIN mode as possible due to the last 7 postseasons.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I think we're simultaneously over- and undervaluing one year of Mookie. It's true that he's expensive and controllable only for one-year, so he's not going to bring back a Chris Sale-like haul. However, the Goldschmidt comparisons also fail for me. 27-year-old Mookie is at least a full WAR better than 30-year-old Goldy was. And Mookie's performance, age, and health history make him an uber-reliable bet to provide All-Star+ level production this season. While most teams would not give up a ton for just one-year of $28M Mookie, a wealthy and seemingly anxious-to-win-now team like the Dodgers might be willing to pay up to get that single elite season. After all, Dustin May is not going to impact the 2020 Dodgers the way Mookie Betts would.

I think Mookie alone brings back May and another good-not-great player or prospect. Adding in Price complicates things, but only monetarily. He's not Wil Myers, who is both over-priced and lousy - someone that many teams would not want on their roster. In contrast, there aren't many (any?) teams that wouldn't want David Price pitching for them, including LA, who will be replacing Hill and Ryu. So to make a trade work for both teams from both a prospect and financial perspective, maybe the Sox need to take back one bad but usable deal (rather than merely subsidize Price). One option? Bring back JoKe. He's also seriously overpaid, but would be a usable mid-inning arm for us.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
I think we're simultaneously over- and undervaluing one year of Mookie. It's true that he's expensive and controllable only for one-year, so he's not going to bring back a Chris Sale-like haul. However, the Goldschmidt comparisons also fail for me. 27-year-old Mookie is at least a full WAR better than 30-year-old Goldy was. And Mookie's performance, age, and health history make him an uber-reliable bet to provide All-Star+ level production this season. While most teams would not give up a ton for just one-year of $28M Mookie, a wealthy and likely anxious-to-win-now team like the Dodgers might be willing to pay up to get that single elite season. After all, Dustin May is not going to impact the 2020 Dodgers the way Mookie Betts would.

I think Mookie alone brings back May and another good player. Adding in Price complicates things, but only monetarily. He's not Wil Myers, who is both over-priced and lousy - someone that many teams would not want on their roster. In contrast, there aren't many (any?) teams that wouldn't want David Price pitching for them, including LA, who will be replacing Hill and Ryu. So to make a trade work for both teams from both a prospect and financial perspective, maybe the Sox need to take back one bad but usable deal (rather than merely subsidize Price). One option? Bring back JoKe. He's also seriously overpaid, but would be a usable mid-inning arm for us.
I've been saying all offseason that if you have to trade Betts you include him with Price to the Dodgers. AJ Pollack/Max Muncy/prospect.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
913
Why would the Dodgers trade Muncy? He made $575,000 last year, put up 5.7 WAR, and isn't a free agent until 2023?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
Why would the Dodgers trade Muncy? He made $575,000 last year, put up 5.7 WAR, and isn't a free agent until 2023?
Because Red Sox fans are hoping that they can get more for one year a superstar openly committed to hitting free agency than the market would dictate
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
One of Pederson or Pollock would certainly be coming back if Price is involved.
If Betts/Price is headed LA’s way then Pollock is coming back because he has a terrible deal and is no longer capable of playing CF. He is, in essence, Boston’s subsidy for Price. The difference being that Price is still useful for the next three years and Pollock really isn’t. But eating that contract for the Dodgers should improve the return on Boston’s end.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
I think we're simultaneously over- and undervaluing one year of Mookie. It's true that he's expensive and controllable only for one-year, so he's not going to bring back a Chris Sale-like haul. However, the Goldschmidt comparisons also fail for me. 27-year-old Mookie is at least a full WAR better than 30-year-old Goldy was. And Mookie's performance, age, and health history make him an uber-reliable bet to provide All-Star+ level production this season.
But Goldy was also cheaper, and relative age is not a big deal in a one year rental if you expect each player to maintain production over the next season. At 30 years old and putting up 4.9, 5.3, and 5.2 fWAR over his last 3 seasons, Goldy seemed pretty predictable. Mookie at 27 has put up 5.3, 10.4, and 6.6 fWAR, so clearly not in gross decline either. 30 vs 27 increases the chance of regression a bit, but Goldy had a pretty solid track record. He did end up dropping off in performance, but it looks mostly like it was BABIP driven, so maybe it was real and maybe it wasn't? And being half the price and willing to sign an extension made him worth more than one year of Mookie (despite Mookie being a clearly better player). You're relying on desperation from LA to drive return, and that does happen some times, so I can't say it won't again. But it wouldn't be a return based on the underlying values.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
...You're relying on desperation from LA to drive return, and that does happen some times, so I can't say it won't again. But it wouldn't be a return based on the underlying values.
Right, and that's what I was trying to say. LA's had a 7-year hammer lock on its division, but no WS trophy, and the title drought is going on 32 years. It's quite possible that LA has decided it doesn't just want a collection of good players, it wants an elite player who will help it crest the championship hump right now. In that scenario, they're willing to overpay for a prime season of Mookie. (And even to take on most of Price's deal, because he's someone they might want in their post-season rotation.)