1ForTheThumb Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 52 minutes ago, mission27 said: Or if you want to re-sign him long term. Yeah hypothetically he could still come back to Boston in a year. But when's the last time a big name player was traded one year from the place they'd spent their entire career and a year later came back in free agency? Thats pretty unusual. And risk him walking for a measly pick in the 70's range? No thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Pretty sure I read he wanted 15 years, was that substantiated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 29 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: Pretty sure I read he wanted 15 years, was that substantiated? Who Betts? Only an idiot organization is gonna pay a guy till he's 42 when his production will have tailed off well before then - yeah, that's right DET - I'm looking at you. Analytics is putting a target on the back of veteran (position) players and the downward slope of their production in their 30's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, mission27 said: Or if you want to re-sign him long term. Yeah hypothetically he could still come back to Boston in a year. But when's the last time a big name player was traded one year from the place they'd spent their entire career and a year later came back in free agency? Thats pretty unusual. Ridiculously smug of you to pose this question when you know the answer is Aroldis Chapman tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy1609 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 I saw something about Joc in here so im adding to it, also put it in the rumor sect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 13 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said: And tbh, Price is still occasionally good. He’s not a sinkhole like Ellsbury or anything. Price at 3 years/$45MM is totally reasonable. Also he seems like the kind of starter who would be a monster out of the bullpen come playoff time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Guess the deal got done. Wish the Red Sox would have got more than just Verdugo from the Dodgers for Betts and Price. A guy like Betts you should be able to get a excellent return. Not sure Verdugo is that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 11 hours ago, mse326 said: This wasn't about money. It's definitely a little about money, the Red Sox included David Price in this deal precisely because of the financial implications. And even if you argue that they paid Price's deal down enough to where he didn't change the prospect package, at the bare minimum they narrowed the field of teams who they could trade Betts to. There are a lot more GMs who could go to their owner and say "yeah I need $30M now, but you're getting that back in playoff revenue and it's just one year" than there are teams who could take on $45MM+ year 1, then another chunk of change after that. 11 hours ago, mse326 said: This wasn't about money. He was never going to sign an extension. He wanted to test FA. Everyone is ragging on the Sox but to me this is simple 1. Were they going to compete this year with the team they had 2a. If yes then this is stupid 2b. If no then this is smart I think the answer to 1 is no so this smart. The 1, 2a, 2b analysis ignores that the Red Sox didn't have to combine Price and Betts in the deal to get the best return, and ignores that they didn't have to trade Betts today if he was on his own. They easily could have waited until the trade deadline to see if they were in the playoff picture, and then cut bait. The return would be a little lower and there's injury risk, but it's not going to be that drastically different and you keep the option of making a playoff run open. Mookie is the 2nd or 3rd best player in baseball, teams would be falling over themselves to give away big time prospects for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 24 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: It's definitely a little about money, the Red Sox included David Price in this deal precisely because of the financial implications. And even if you argue that they paid Price's deal down enough to where he didn't change the prospect package, at the bare minimum they narrowed the field of teams who they could trade Betts to. There are a lot more GMs who could go to their owner and say "yeah I need $30M now, but you're getting that back in playoff revenue and it's just one year" than there are teams who could take on $45MM+ year 1, then another chunk of change after that. I wasn't talking about the trade, but Mookie not signing an extension. I was responding to those saying it was ridiculous a team like the Red Sox wasn't willing to pay to keep him. Obviously the money implications in the trade changed to prospect package, but that wasn't what I was referencing. 27 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The 1, 2a, 2b analysis ignores that the Red Sox didn't have to combine Price and Betts in the deal to get the best return, and ignores that they didn't have to trade Betts today if he was on his own. They easily could have waited until the trade deadline to see if they were in the playoff picture, and then cut bait. The return would be a little lower and there's injury risk, but it's not going to be that drastically different and you keep the option of making a playoff run open. Mookie is the 2nd or 3rd best player in baseball, teams would be falling over themselves to give away big time prospects for him. Again this was SOLELY about the decision to trade him, not about what package you can get. And I disagree about waiting until the deadline. They wouldn't get anywhere near the same package for him as the will now. Not a chance. Why on earth would 2 months be more valuable than a full season. And especially when one of the big teams in discussions for him was the Padres who likely aren't going to be in a playoff race. And again you are assuming they valued prospects for him, when they valued getting rid of Price more. As for waiting to see if they were in the playoff picture you can always say that, but you play the odds. Their pitching sucks and they know it. Deciding to put Price with him instead of getting more prospects was a decision they made based on what they valued more, and we can debate that. But they didn't decide to trade Betts so they could trade Price. They decided first and independently to trade Betts and then decided unloading Price's contract was more valuable to them than extra prospects. Don't mix cause and effect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: They decided first and independently to trade Betts and then decided unloading Price's contract was more valuable to them than extra prospects. I think this is a reasonable take, but I don't see how from a baseball talent perspective, you could then want to defend the Red Sox conduct here. Effectively, they had a choice to eat Price's deal as a way to buy more baseball talent, and they pocketed the money, with no plans to reinvest that in the team. (Also I deleted the rest of it because we could go down the rabbit hole on the trade deadline, but we're probably not that far off on what we think.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) So in the end we traded Verdugo, Joc, Maeda and a guy in rookie ball and got Betts, Price and two yet to be named Angels prospects. The only issue I see is we’re now depending on A.J. Pollock to be healthy and start in LF. edit: Cicken Strip gone as well. Edited February 5, 2020 by NVRamsFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoleINGout Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 could have and should have happened sooner. called this two years ago. red sox get what they get and good riddance to mookie's demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDez Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Based on last year’s WAR totals they gave up 9.5 and took in 8.9 between Betts/Price. Idk what the projections look like for this year but you have to expect Mookie having a MVP season in a contract year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Ridiculously smug of you to pose this question when you know the answer is Aroldis Chapman tbh. Aroldis doesn’t really fit he’s not nearly the same level of player / dollars and was never loved by the Yankees fans so it wasn’t really a breakup. He’d been here like a year Still one of the smugger moves in history though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle21121 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 I like how it’s being flipped that Mookie is the bad guy for being one of the best players in Baseball and wanting to be paid as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.