Not sure where it stands now, but:Sorry for the diversion but what is the story here?
https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/10/02/fbi-investigation-mlb-atlanta-braves-los-angeles-dodgers
Not sure where it stands now, but:Sorry for the diversion but what is the story here?
Yes, I think -- whichever team he's on in 2020 -- if Margot doesn't show this year he can hit he is a prime non-tender candidate after the season.Why would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
i think this must be why the Dodgers are the front runner. The Padres arent going to give us close to MLB talent that is worth anything, just some of their high ceiling minor league guys and some shitty "major league" OFs that dont really deserve a starting job. Bringing the Dodgers in when they are offering Verdugo+ might force the Padres to offer more but I think I would rather have Verdugo than Grisham anyway. Preller may not be as desperate as we think, the Betts deal never really made much sense with them. Dodgers have a loaded farm and really need to get a WS ASAP. Nobody likes winning the regular series and the prospect rankings, only to lose in heartbreaking fashion every postseason, especially when they have entered most of them as the presumptive favorite. The Dodgers just make more senseWhy would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
they should get one top prospect for the year of Betts, they should get another prospect equal in value to the compensation pick they’ll get, and then anotherprospect to hedge the prospect uncertainty.They should be, Betts is the second best player in baseball. That’s worth a ton, even for only one year.
Just to play this out, if I'm SD and I know Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect is on the table, I offer the #35 pick in the 2020 draft if the Red Sox take a subsidized Myers and upgrade Quantrill to Patino, SD's best RHP prospect, to close the deal. My best and final SD offer is:Interesting that there's a possiblity of doing a SD deal without taking Myers back.
#35 p
Depending on the fraction of the Price contract, I would think the Red Sox would keep him and take their chance of trading him or Eovaldi at the deadline. I wouldn't think the Red Sox would bear any more than $14mm per year (which would lower the Dodgers' obligation to $18mm cash/$17mm AAV per year).
I'd rather trade Betts to LAD for Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect than to SD for Naylor, Quantrill and Campusano.
The Pads LOVE Patino, he has Ace potential. He's the #15 overall prospect at BP, #18 at BA. The kid ALREADY projects on ZIPS as a 103 ERA+ at AGE 20. No way the Pads trade Patino for one year of Betts. They have a lot of good prospects to put in a deal but he's untouchable and SD media has stated that he's untouchable. Quote from ProspectsLive: "Explosive starting pitcher, type of arm speed you dream of."Just to play this out, if I'm SD and I know Verdugo, Gonsolin and a third player/prospect is on the table, I offer the #35 pick in the 2020 draft if the Red Sox take a subsidized Myers and upgrade Quantrill to Patino, SD's best RHP prospect, to close the deal. My best and final SD offer is:
Betts for Myers (subsidized with $6mm per year in cash), Patino, Campusano, Naylor and SD's comp pick (#35).
That's an offer that I would take over the purported LAD offer. Removing Myers (while retaining $6mm) and adding Betts adds $10.5mm next year to SD's payroll.
I'm not saying they'll do it. I'm saying that, to leapfrog in front of the projected LAD offer, that might be needed to seal the deal.The Pads LOVE Patino, he has Ace potential. He's the #15 overall prospect at BP, #18 at BA. The kid ALREADY projects on ZIPS as a 103 ERA+ at AGE 20. No way the Pads trade Patino for one year of Betts. They have a lot of good prospects to put in a deal but he's untouchable and SD media has stated that he's untouchable. Quote from ProspectsLive: "Explosive starting pitcher, type of arm speed you dream of."
They pay for his surgeries for our benefit.Would the pads throw in Anderson Espinoza? Full circle.
I would flip if Margot is somehow in the deal. He’s not that cheap, there’s nothing there to suggest an offensive breakout, and there are numerous capable defense-first outfielders still on the market (Pillar, Dyson, Lagares, Hamilton) and other bounce-back candidates (Maybin, Jay, Martin) if we wanna go that route.Why would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
I agree. If the goal is to save money, then taking on Margot is a bad, bad idea.I would flip if Margot is somehow in the deal. He’s not that cheap, there’s nothing there to suggest an offensive breakout, and there are numerous capable defense-first outfielders still on the market (Pillar, Dyson, Lagares, Hamilton) and other bounce-back candidates (Maybin, Jay, Martin) if we wanna go that route.
The pick may be more attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.The pick may be less attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.
I think the lesson from the Patriots’ experience is that if you have 2 high draft picks at the time of punishment, it’s easier to have one stripped.The pick may be more attractive with the cheating investigation/penalty unresolved.
If you think you may lose a high pick, you need another one.
Totally agree, "hamstrung" as in this moment now in terms of not building the next decade around Betts. I should have been clearer. As per your last line, we just need to deal with itAt the same time that I totally hear where you're coming from, I would just point out that the "hamstrung" franchise we're talking about is one of only two that have won multiple titles in the past decade (and we're in a lot better shape than the other one). Most franchises' fans would gladly trade with us.
I don't think there's a magic formula for avoiding situations like this. They just have to be dealt with.
Go back to when we traded him. There's a thread here with (likely) hundreds of posts explaining why we need this man on our teamWhy would we want Margot? He's about to start costing real money and his OPS+ his first 3 years has gone 91 . . 87 . . 83. Do you want to pay money to see the next number in that series? He's got a weak arm which drags his overall fielding down to +8, +9 and +6 the last 3 years. That's good but does it make up for that bat to make him worth paying arb salary rates?
He hasn’t pitched in 3 years. Can he even be considered a baseball player anymore?Would the pads throw in Anderson Espinoza? Full circle.
How did that work out with Lester? Once Betts leaves, he gone.So, if the Red Sox get below the cap this year, I assume that opens up the possibility of re-signing Betts as a FA in 2021 for megabucks without paying a compounding penalty, right? I never get this stuff straight.
There is no reason to think the probability of BOS signing Betts after 2020 has any connection with who he plays 2020 with.How did that work out with Lester? Once Betts leaves, he gone.
They traded for Machado two years ago and made no attempt to resign him after the season. Also there is no reason to think that this close to FA that Mookie is signing an extension with anyone, unless it is for like $450M or something and even then he might not.If he goes to LA and they give up legit prospects for him, they’re signing him to a mega extension. They’re one of two or three teams that can flex on Mookie with a market rate extension this spring.
To be fair, they only traded for Machado because their regular SS, Seager, was out for the year. They knew they’d be getting him back this year, so no need for Manny.They traded for Machado two years ago and made no attempt to resign him after the season. Also there is no reason to think that this close to FA that Mookie is signing an extension with anyone, unless it is for like $450M or something and even then he might not.
That's true, but they gave up prospects for him. If LAD does this, they may just want him for the one season and not want to commit to the massive long-term deal.To be fair, they only traded for Machado because their regular SS, Seager, was out for the year. They knew they’d be getting him back this year, so no need for Manny.
That and Jon Lester has nothing to do with Mookie Betts.That's true, but they gave up prospects for him. If LAD does this, they may just want him for the one season and not want to commit to the massive long-term deal.
My real point is there's no reason to link who he plays for in 2020 with who he signs with next winter, I really think there is close to zero relation there, whether he stays or is traded.
If there's something Betts has been consistent on, it's his desire to hit the market. It would have to be one hell of a flex (say, more than the reported 12/420 he's asked for) to get him to sign this spring as opposed to next fall/winter.If he goes to LA and they give up legit prospects for him, they’re signing him to a mega extension. They’re one of two or three teams that can flex on Mookie with a market rate extension this spring.
And if either one of those things are true then there is no way the Sox will be able to hold onto him past next year anyway.Assuming that LA can sign Mookie to an extension where the Sox couldn't is assuming that either (a) Friedman is willing to spend silly money while negotiating against himself, which does not seem like his MO, or (b) Mookie has been entirely disingenuous with the public about his approach to his upcoming free agency, which does not seem like his MO either.
It's also just possible that the Red Sox simply don't value Betts as highly as other teams. Which is not to say they think he's garbage -- they've offered him the biggest contract in franchise history and a bigger contract than anyone in the game who isn't Mike Trout. But they have their own model of player evaluation and projection, and if they see him as being worth, say, $350m over 10 years, and they believe other teams value him at, say, $400m over 10 years, then he is leaving, period. They're not going to blow past their valuation of the player, not now and not next winter.If there's something Betts has been consistent on, it's his desire to hit the market. It would have to be one hell of a flex (say, more than the reported 12/420 he's asked for) to get him to sign this spring as opposed to next fall/winter.
I think it's fair to say that if the Sox trade him, he's gone forever. But I don't think that will be because he never hits the free agent market.
Potentially losing Mookie and Brady in the same month is enough to make anyone dizzy.All this Verdugo talk is giving @NickEsasky PTSD flashbacks
I’ll always remember him for his 2007 WS prediction when he was the only national writer of note to pick the Rockies.when is Keith Law ever right?
Would you be willing to take out a six year loan on a car that you might be driving for 7-8 months?If it's the Dodgers, I want May. If it's the Padres, I want Patino. Otherwise, no deal. To trade Mookie, they should get something special back - pretty good is not good enough.
Depends on the interest rate & the size of the payments.Would you be willing to take out a six year loan on a car that you might be driving for 7-8 months?
I have a bridge for sale. I'll make the payments low and interest at 0%Depends on the interest rate & the size of the payments.
You beat me to it.Depends on the interest rate & the size of the payments.
does the loan give me a chance to win a World Series?Would you be willing to take out a six year loan on a car that you might be driving for 7-8 months?
That's the pertinent question. The Dodgers need to get over that hump, so the value is worth the loandoes the loan give me a chance to win a World Series?
Unfortunately I already have a lot of bridges in my portfolio so I would need to find someone to take on one of my current bridges which may or may not be positive assets before I consider adding another bridge.I have a bridge for sale. I'll make the payments low and interest at 0%
You already have a chance to win a World Series. The loan will make that chance a little better, but it won't guarantee anything.does the loan give me a chance to win a World Series?
My point exactly in responding to Dewey's Cannon saying either May or Patino or no deal. Perhaps it's worth it to LA or SD and if there is a true bidding war maybe Chaim gets one of those guys, but I just don't see it. Mookie probably nets SD a wild card spot and that gets them into the tournament, but doesn't guarantee anything. LA has a better shot with Mookie, but IMO their pitching still needs a bit of help.Depends on the interest rate & the size of the payments.
I wasn't saying that either SD or LA would, or should include those guys in the deal. I was just saying, from my perspective, I don't think they should make the deal unless one of those guys is coming back. The other prospects being discussed are not enough (for me) to justify trading Betts. An A-ball catcher is just too far away, and too much risk that he never pans out. And it just doesn't seem that Verdugo has a very high ceiling - maybe a solid everyday player, but unlikely to be more than that. YMMV.My point exactly in responding to Dewey's Cannon saying either May or Patino or no deal. Perhaps it's worth it to LA or SD and if there is a true bidding war maybe Chaim gets one of those guys, but I just don't see it. Mookie probably nets SD a wild card spot and that gets them into the tournament, but doesn't guarantee anything. LA has a better shot with Mookie, but IMO their pitching still needs a bit of help.
If it's the Dodgers, I want May. If it's the Padres, I want Patino. Otherwise, no deal. To trade Mookie, they should get something special back - pretty good is not good enough.
What if I throw in the option to select a future bridge of your choice from a short list? Would that get you into this bridge today?Unfortunately I already have a lot of bridges in my portfolio so I would need to find someone to take on one of my current bridges which may or may not be positive assets before I consider adding another bridge.
Maybe we could exchange bridges? I have some older, more expensive, high-performing ones & wouldn't mind adding some younger, cost-controlled bridges in return.
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you guys. It's a real nice investment.What if I throw in the option to select a future bridge of your choice from a short list? Would that get you into this bridge today?
Bridges? We don't need no stinkin' bridges!I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you guys. It's a real nice investment.