Do 3 years 3.5 aav deals even exist? Players who are only worth that much money aren't worth committing to long term. He's either a utility guy who will play on a string of one year deals or a stop-gap/part-time starter who gets 1 year + an option.
Betts and Price to the Dodgers for Buehler and Pollock.If Betts needs to be traded, and the goal is to shed salary, do you think there is a team who would take him, plus one of our big dollar pitchers? Not sure the return would be great, but it would reset the balance sheet quickly.
It doesn't seem like there are many teams that would take on that much salary/risk.
The problem with this is that it assumes the Dodgers can extend Mookie. Why would we assume that, unless we think that Mookie's refusal to sign an extension with the Sox represents a specific rejection of this franchise (which he has said it doesn't, and I see no reason not to believe him). If he's telling the truth, and he's determined to go to free agency no matter what, then he's a one-year rental. So then this deal basically is trading a one-year superstar rental for a cost-controlled stud kid pitcher (leaving the other leg out for the moment, which I think we can).Betts and Price to the Dodgers for Buehler and Pollock.
If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.You guys are correct. This deal won't happen for a ton of reasons, as I stated in the previous post. Just like nearly every other trade idea put out there. It's just that someone wondered whether a team would trade for Betts AND one of the Sox' high priced starting pitchers (i.e., Price or Sale) and this is the kind of deal that would have to happen. I mean, based even on 2019 bWAR, the Dodgers get better. Considerably better. Giving up Buehler would be the price to pay for that, and yes of course the assumption is that they somehow feel that by trading for Betts, they also would be the team that lands him in free agency (or persuades him to sign an extension worth about what he'd get in free agency).
Put it this way: I don't see why a team would trade for Betts AND Price or Sale, but if someone were to do it, it'd have to be a team like the Dodgers with an asset like Buehler that the Sox could get in return. The Sox can't deal Betts and Price and get a bucket of balls in return. I don't care what the cost savings would be...that would be absurd.
I don't know...would the Dodgers do that deal if the Sox don't throw in Chris Owings, a.k.a. the 2019 version of Nick Punto?If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.
Here's what confuses me. In the starting pitching thread (or other threads where starting pitching is discussed), when I bring up Price as a disappointment, people reply that Price has been the same guy he's pretty much always been. Solid starter. Last two years he's put up 6.2 bWAR. And as others have mentioned, on the FA market (which was the contract he signed), that's worth about $9m per WAR. That would mean that the last two years, in terms of free agent dollars, he's "earned" $55.8 million, just under what he got paid for those two years. The argument has been that he's been good.If the Dodgers take Betts and Price/Sale, they will give up the 2020 equivalents of Webster, Sands, Loney, Rubby and De Jesus (is there a DeJesus III?). I dont see the Sox doing that.
I see your point. But as of now, both pitchers especially Sale, are damaged goods. Price has had 2 of the last 3 seasons cut short. Sale the last 2. But even if its more than the Punto return, it's not going to approach the Chapman return, which itself, might haver been a desperation-aided overpay by the Cubs.Here's what confuses me. In the starting pitching thread (or other threads where starting pitching is discussed), when I bring up Price as a disappointment, people reply that Price has been the same guy he's pretty much always been. Solid starter. Last two years he's put up 6.2 bWAR. And as others have mentioned, on the FA market (which was the contract he signed), that's worth about $9m per WAR. That would mean that the last two years, in terms of free agent dollars, he's "earned" $55.8 million, just under what he got paid for those two years. The argument has been that he's been good.
So the Dodgers, in this fanciful scenario, are getting the 2nd best player in baseball who is "worth" (in FA dollars) upwards of like $63 million a year (at $9m x 7 WAR) plus a starting pitcher who helped propel the Sox to a WS championship and who has been "worth" just about what his salary would command on the FA market.
It can't be true at the same time that he's been this good starting pitcher essentially worth his contract AND that he's an oft-injured waste of money that a contending team should only acquire as a salary dump for the Sox.
Anyway, I don't see the Sox unloading Betts and Price to a team only to get a few lottery tickets in return. I mean when the Yankees traded away 2 months of Chapman to the Cubs, they got 4 prospects, including Torres and Warren. Torres, of course, is amazing, and Warren has been a very good reliever. Betts is WAY more valuable than Chapman, and Betts has a full year to go, not 2 months. Plus throwing in Price as well?
The financial landscape has changed quite a bit in the last four years. Prospects have more value (whether that's true or not, that's the way teams operate). Also, the Cubs were in a rather unique position of both being desperate to "break the curse" and having an extremely deep well of prospects to trade. Is there a team that fits that same bill for whom Betts would represent the same sort of "final piece of the puzzle" that Chapman did for the Cubs? Because that's likely the only scenario in which Betts yields a four prospect package with a Gleyber Torres level headliner. Chapman also only cost ~$4M as a rental versus $25-30M for Betts. That's a factor, too.Anyway, I don't see the Sox unloading Betts and Price to a team only to get a few lottery tickets in return. I mean when the Yankees traded away 2 months of Chapman to the Cubs, they got 4 prospects, including Torres and Warren. Torres, of course, is amazing, and Warren has been a very good reliever. Betts is WAY more valuable than Chapman, and Betts has a full year to go, not 2 months. Plus throwing in Price as well?
Fixed that for you.I have to say that the biggest downside to the Punto trade is that it raised and continues to raise the hopes of Red Sox owners who think it's the sort of thing that can be repeated. That was a once in a lifetime "get out of jail free" card that the Dodgers handed the Red Sox, fueled by a new ownership group desperate to make a big splash. The chances of all the necessary factors coming together again to bail the Red Sox out of their current financial pickle with minimal pain and suffering are astronomical.
Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.Fixed that for you.
Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
I hear you. But it just makes no sense to me at all intuitively that two months of a closer would get a better return than a full year of the second best player on the planet.The financial landscape has changed quite a bit in the last four years. Prospects have more value (whether that's true or not, that's the way teams operate). Also, the Cubs were in a rather unique position of both being desperate to "break the curse" and having an extremely deep well of prospects to trade. Is there a team that fits that same bill for whom Betts would represent the same sort of "final piece of the puzzle" that Chapman did for the Cubs? Because that's likely the only scenario in which Betts yields a four prospect package with a Gleyber Torres level headliner. Chapman also only cost ~$4M as a rental versus $25-30M for Betts. That's a factor, too.
I have to say that the biggest downside to the Punto trade is that it raised and continues to raise the hopes of fans who think it's the sort of thing that can be repeated. That was a once in a lifetime "get out of jail free" card that the Dodgers handed the Red Sox, fueled by a new ownership group desperate to make a big splash. The chances of all the necessary factors coming together again to bail the Red Sox out of their current financial pickle with minimal pain and suffering are astronomical.
No, I wasn't referring to ownership. I don't think they believe that Punto trades are easy at all.Fixed that for you.
Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.
Boston has been more profligate than prudent. If they can't trim payroll (as the MFYs and Dodgers did in the past couple of years), remain in the top 5 of spending, and still contend, then they're in the wrong freakin' business.
Fans are trying to come up with "Punto trades" because ownership has announced that they want to try to shed a ton of money this offseason but still plan on contending. That seems really unlikely, and no one I've seen has come up with any sort of convincing scenario where we can do both right now.No, I wasn't referring to ownership. I don't think they believe that Punto trades are easy at all.
It's fans that think that Punto trades not only are easy to pull off, but also can be used to both shed payroll and improve the overall talent in one fell swoop. Even the Punto trade itself didn't do that. It took not only the improbable trade coming together in the first place, but also using the savings to sign a bunch of free agents and make a couple trades that all hit the jackpot in the following season.
They can shed money. Just not enough to get below 208M.The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.
I mean we could just let all free agents walk and try to fill every hole with minimum salary players. That might get us under the threshold but I highly doubt that we would be contending if we did that.
They probably should have been more efficient in recent offseasons, but that did not seem to be the plan 8 or so months ago when they gave out big money to Sale, Bogaerts and Eovaldi. Now it is-- okay good, but this change in direction doesn't remove the problem of the payroll that's already committed. The time to cut a bunch of money off the 2020 payroll was last offseason, but they added to it instead.
Being smarter and more efficient going forward is necessary, but that alone won't carve $30 million off the payroll this offseason.
Fans are trying to come up with "Punto trades" because ownership has announced that they want to try to shed a ton of money this offseason but still plan on contending. That seems really unlikely, and no one I've seen has come up with any sort of convincing scenario where we can do both right now.
Ownership's announced strategy is confusing and contradictory. Fans are just trying to figure out some way that it could work. We aren't finding any, because it's really really unlikely to work unless other teams miraculously take our bad contracts.
That's the key phrase right there. Ownership knows they can't tell fans the truth in this scenario -- that they want to slash payroll and are willing to accept that it means the team won't be as competitive as it has been in recent years -- because they can't risk the P.R. backlash (if they even care about that).Ownership's announced strategy is confusing and contradictory. Fans are just trying to figure out some way that it could work. We aren't finding any, because it's really really unlikely to work unless other teams miraculously take our bad contracts.
Sure it's hard, but not impossible. We talk about the Punto trade being eons ago but overlook the fact that LA pulled off its own Punto trade in 2018, moving A-Gon/Kazmir/McCarthy for the warm corpse of Kemp. They saved $8M total and, by spreading their cost over Kemp's two years v. the one year of each of their outgoing guys, knocked about $30M off their LT number. Smart. If the Sox focus on accounting more than cheap talent acquisition, they can move Price and JBJ, save money, and still likely fill a hole by taking back a long but lower-$ contract.The problem is, we already have so much money already committed for this coming season. Smart signings this offseason aren't going to reduce payroll by $30 million overnight, the only way to do that and still contend is to move bad contracts. And that is going to be very hard to do.
That's great advice for the long haul, but it doesn't help solve the specific problem of trimming $30M this winter.Or they're thinking they could be a little smarter this offseason. We signed Eo to a 4 year, $17M per deal. Tampa signed Morton to a 2 yr, $15M per deal. We signed Pearce to a 1 yr, $6.25M deal, Tampa signed Avisail Garcia to a 1 yr, $3.5M deal. Tampa got a little more out of their two guys than we got from ours.
Boston has been more profligate than prudent. If they can't trim payroll (as the MFYs and Dodgers did in the past couple of years), remain in the top 5 of spending, and still contend, then they're in the wrong freakin' business.
Wouldn’t the ideal situation be that JD opts in and then they trade him? I assume they couldn’t get much back and would have to find an AL team that needs a DH and has the financial ability to pay him (or an NL team stupid enough to try him in the OF full time), but if they could find a trading partner they’d at least be getting something back, as opposed to an opt-out where they get nothing.So I think they are really hoping that JD opts out.
What's the correlation between the luxury tax threshold and a potential sale of the team? Do you really think that the bidding for the Boston Freaking Red Sox is going to take a hit because the 2020 payroll is at $220 million?Is it remotely possible that the desire to get under the luxury tax has anything to do with a desire to start prepping for a sale of the team? JWH has owned the team for over 15 years now and isn't getting any younger. With Lucchino already gone, is it possible Henry is thinking of getting out of the baseball game (in Boston, anyway) and moving on to retirement as a sports owner? Or do we expect him to own the team until he dies and leaves it to his young wife (like Rachel Phelps in Major League, minus the showgirl background)? At some point there has to be an exit strategy for he and Werner, right? Is it possible that the comment about wanting to get under the luxury tax is a warning sign? I don't recall many times in the past where Henry, et al, have opined about the luxury tax being an issue for team construction, even when a high-priced team underperformed.
He also owns Liverpool, 50% of a NASCAR team, and NESN. Do you think they suddenly want to get out of the sports biz entirely, or just Baseball? If he wants to sell all of it, who has the money to buy all of that, plus the associated real estate (Anfield, Fenway)?Is it remotely possible that the desire to get under the luxury tax has anything to do with a desire to start prepping for a sale of the team? JWH has owned the team for over 15 years now and isn't getting any younger. With Lucchino already gone, is it possible Henry is thinking of getting out of the baseball game (in Boston, anyway) and moving on to retirement as a sports owner? Or do we expect him to own the team until he dies and leaves it to his young wife (like Rachel Phelps in Major League, minus the showgirl background)? At some point there has to be an exit strategy for he and Werner, right? Is it possible that the comment about wanting to get under the luxury tax is a warning sign? I don't recall many times in the past where Henry, et al, have opined about the luxury tax being an issue for team construction, even when a high-priced team underperformed.
So the question remains, are we punting on 2020 two days after 2019 ends or can we contend?Fixed that for you.
Because if ownership thinks they can trim $30 million or whatever in payroll from this current roster and still contend next year, then they must be thinking that "Punto trades" are easy.
Fisk was a FA because the Sox failed to tender his contract on time.Who are some of the favorite homegrown stars the Sox have traded away since the Yaz era? Off the top of my head:
Fred Lynn
Carlton Fisk (or was he a FA departure?)
Nomar
Who else?
Yeah Nomar has become a non fan favorite for some people when he was dealt. Lynn was in every way a fan favorite. So the Betts deal would almost certainly be the biggest homegrown traded player since Ruth.Fisk was a FA because the Sox failed to tender his contract on time.
Nomar was a pretty divisive personality at the time he was traded.
Ruth and Lynn are likely the only ones who come close to Mookie, I think.
Lester? Not as beloved as Mookie, especially after 2011, but it's easy to forget through the chicken-and-beer haze how big a deal he was after coming back from cancer to win the clincher in the 2007 WS, and then tossing the no-no the following year.Who are some of the favorite homegrown stars the Sox have traded away since the Yaz era? Off the top of my head:
Fred Lynn
Carlton Fisk (or was he a FA departure?)
Nomar
Who else?
I think this is along the lines of the kind of deal that's going to be required to move Price, Sale or Eovaldi. But I don't think you're going to get a guy as good as Goodwin in a deal like this. More likely you'd have to take Upton plus a AA minor-league pitcher.What about Price and Benintendi to the Angels for Justin Upton and Brian Goodwin? That might work for both teams. The Angels needed pitching anyway but desperately do after Skaggs.
Upton ($21.2 AAV) might have to DH at this point, but the Angels don’t have the luxury of putting him there with Pujols and Ohtani. He had a down year from knee injuries but I’d bet he rebounds at the plate in 2020, and he’d make a decent replacement if JDM goes or slot into left if he stays. Goodwin can play all over the outfield and would be a fine center fielder on a team that didn’t employ Mike Trout. The Sox are in no state to trade pitching but this shaves close to $10m in luxury tax payroll.
Lester? Not as beloved as Mookie, especially after 2011, but it's easy to forget through the chicken-and-beer haze how big a deal he was after coming back from cancer to win the clincher in the 2007 WS, and then tossing the no-no the following year.
Yoenis Cespedes disagrees with you.Lester wasn't traded.
I am an idiot. Good Lord.Yoenis Cespedes disagrees with you.
In fact, he's arguably the best Mookie comp mentioned so far, because he was traded specifically to get something back because his FA was impending and they couldn't come to an agreement on an extension. (Though the analogy would be better if the Sox trade Mookie next July rather than this winter.)
Youk was clearly at the end of the line when he was traded.Youkilis
It's true, and a good point. Especially remarkable considering how young they were when they hit the spotlight. You'd expect some maturity issues from a bunch of early-20s athletes suddenly rich and famous, but the closest any of them have come to being seen as bad actors is JBJ getting a little snarky with Eck on Twitter. One of the things that's been so much fun about rooting for this group of homegrown stars is that they are not only outstanding ballplayers but also (as far as we get to see through the media lens) grownups.This is a tangent, but this current young Sox stars, X and Betts in particular, given how long they've been on the team -- is pretty remarkable in terms of how they've kept their noses clean. No crashes on the way home from Foxy Lady, no PED swirl, no big blow-ups with management, no complaints about having to carry their bags, no chicken and beer, etc. And that's despite being on some losing teams and being in an intense social media era.
As was Nomar. At least as a shortstop.Youk was clearly at the end of the line when he was traded.
He was cooked as a shortstop (either unable to play or diminished play) and it was hurting the team. Cabrera was not only a good shortstop (and a significant defensive upgrade from 2004 Nomar ), he was available every single day to play there.The crazy thing about Nomar was that he had put up this line with the Sox in 2004 before being traded:
.321/.367/.500/.867, 118 ops+
So it wasn't like he was cooked. I think it was the general sourpuss attitude he seemed to show and for whatever reason, he just wasn't as helpful to the club at that point as his numbers suggest he should have been.
Major bummer because Nomar was one of my all-time favorite Red Sox.
It wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.The crazy thing about Nomar was that he had put up this line with the Sox in 2004 before being traded:
.321/.367/.500/.867, 118 ops+
So it wasn't like he was cooked. I think it was the general sourpuss attitude he seemed to show and for whatever reason, he just wasn't as helpful to the club at that point as his numbers suggest he should have been.
Major bummer because Nomar was one of my all-time favorite Red Sox.
IIRC the contract the Jeter signed, 10/189 before 2001 (the same offseason as A-Rod's 10/250 and Mannhy's 8/160) and the contract Nomar was offered before 2004 4/60, soured the whole thing. There was also a lot of mystery around how he injured the heel/achilles that caused him to miss so much time. He insisted it was off a batted ball that struck him in spring training but rumors persisted it was from offseason soccer. Some of this could be the traditional hatchet job by the Dentist that we saw so often at the time. A sad ending to one of my favorite players ever to wear the laundry, definitely top 5.It wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.
But I think he gets a bit unfairly maligned. First, he got swept into the A-Rod trade talk maelstrom during the offseason, something he never asked for nor wanted to be part of. He was "blamed" when A-Rod went to the Yankees while agreeing to move to third base so Jeter could stay at short, even though Nomar had nothing at all to do with any of that. Contract extension talks never got off the ground, and Nomar enters 2004 ready to become a free agent once the season concludes.
The trade made sense: Nomar was cooked. But the media and even the team to some extent (except for Theo and Tito) went a bit over the top in their criticisms about his attitude.
The media really focused on Nomar not getting into the middle of the pile to fight the Yankees like VaritekIt wasn't obvious at the time of the trade that Nomar was soon to be cooked. He was dealing with a foot/ankle injury during the first half of the season, and then seemed to withdraw.
But I think he gets a bit unfairly maligned. First, he got swept into the A-Rod trade talk maelstrom during the offseason, something he never asked for nor wanted to be part of. He was "blamed" when A-Rod went to the Yankees while agreeing to move to third base so Jeter could stay at short, even though Nomar had nothing at all to do with any of that. Contract extension talks never got off the ground, and Nomar enters 2004 ready to become a free agent once the season concludes. He struggled at the plate during his first month back in June (0.656 OPS), which was not surprising given that he missed most of spring training. And then was blamed for not coming off the bench during the epic game in Yankee Stadium in which Jeter made The Catch to preserve the tie in a game the Sox would lose in 13 innings.
Nomar seemed very much back to his old self in July: 1.028 OPS while appearing in 21 of the team's 24 games through 7/28, with one of those missed games being the second half of a day/night doubleheader. He scored 2 runs and drove in 2 more in the Varitek/A-Rod fight game that the Sox won 11-10, with one of the runs scored coming in the bottom of the 9th when the Sox were down 2. He also struck out with the bases loaded to end an inning earlier in that same game. Then it got weird: he then told the team that his foot was bothering him again and he may need to miss some time. And Nomar's defense was clearly hampered; the advanced metrics never loved his game, but even the eye test was showing that Nomar's range was limited. So Theo makes the trade to upgrade the defense for the playoff run, as it appeared the team would be battling four teams from the group consisting of the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Twins and Indians for the wild card slot. Then Lucchino goes out and yells to the press about how much of an attitude problem Nomar was before Theo publicly suggests that it's time for the team to move on.
The trade made sense: Nomar was cooked. But the media and even the team to some extent (except for Theo and Tito) went a bit over the top in their criticisms about his attitude.
He/they probably don't but I just found it odd that suddenly, a year after a World Series title, the luxury tax is an issue for one of the richest organizations in the game. Just seemed like a weird thing to suddenly key in on for this ownership and leads me to wonder if they've looked down the road a bit and see the potential for some really lean years with all the suddenly-suspect contracts they are responsible for hampering their ability to wheel and deal and are wondering if there's a way to get out of the way so as not to be associated with a down period. It's probably nothing.He also owns Liverpool, 50% of a NASCAR team, and NESN. Do you think they suddenly want to get out of the sports biz entirely, or just Baseball? If he wants to sell all of it, who has the money to buy all of that, plus the associated real estate (Anfield, Fenway)?