A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[notin]

I'm 99.99% certain everyone wants, but no one will get, Trout money.

 

It's an icebreaker, a starting point -- or maybe the only Godfather offer that Betts would consider to sign an extension... sort of the reverse when the Sox lowballed Lester (or Mookie's version of a hometown discount, as in "Pay up or I'll discount staying home").

 

I can see his agents telling him if he's supposedly the next best thing to Trout -- and the latter got X amount in 2019 -- then Betts should ask for the same two years later (or when the bidding opens)...

 

If nothing else, it’s the cost to sign him today. Offer him Trout money and he extends. Maybe.

 

But once he hits the open market, it just becomes best offer. And if best offer is, say, Manny Machado money, then maybe that’s what he signs for...

[kenmeister]

If nothing else, it’s the cost to sign him today. Offer him Trout money and he extends. Maybe.

 

But once he hits the open market, it just becomes best offer. And if best offer is, say, Manny Machado money, then maybe that’s what he signs for...

 

And notice the Angels don't win with Mike Trout. I think overpaying one player is a recipe for failure. I love Betts, but it seems to me that when a player gets beyond $25 million per year, it degrades the rest of the roster.

[Bellhorn04]

And notice the Angels don't win with Mike Trout. I think overpaying one player is a recipe for failure.

 

But if the Angels do a better job putting players around him it's a whole different story.

 

Plus I assume a lineup with Trout puts more people in the stands and watching on TV than a lineup without him.

[moonslav59]

And notice the Angels don't win with Mike Trout. I think overpaying one player is a recipe for failure. I love Betts, but it seems to me that when a player gets beyond $25 million per year, it degrades the rest of the roster.

 

Here are the players that made $25M+ in the past:

 

Greinke

Price

Kershaw

Scherzer

deGrom

Lester

Verlander

Stasburg

Arrieta

 

Miggy

Goldschmidt

Howard

Arenado

Machado

ARod

Trout

Cespedes

Harper

Hamilton

[notin]

But if the Angels do a better job putting players around him it's a whole different story.

 

Plus I assume a lineup with Trout puts more people in the stands and watching on TV than a lineup without him.

 

A big part of his point is they cannot afford to put better players around him while paying him that much. And his salary makes any free agent contract risky, as it has to work out or it makes the whole situation that much more difficult.

 

Their ridiculous run of pitching injuries doesn't help matters, either.

[notin]

Here are the players that made $25M+ in the past:

 

Greinke

Price

Kershaw

Scherzer

deGrom

Lester

Verlander

Stasburg

Arrieta

 

Miggy

Goldschmidt

Howard

Arenado

Machado

ARod

Trout

Cespedes

Harper

Hamilton

 

And it is worth pointing out that NONE of these players won a title with that salary.

 

None!! As is NOT ONE of these players won a title while making that much money.

 

Except Price.

 

And ARod.

 

And Strasburg and Scherzer,

 

But that's it!!!

 

 

 

Oh, and Lester. But THAT is it. End of list!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Verlander...

[OH FOY]

If I was Mookie I would be asking for more then Trout at this POINT. If not I'm walking. We'll see what happens after season, in the Open Market. Makes sense to me. Mookie got all the leverage.

He has an outstanding Season, he'll even have more.

Its a Gamble by both parties, that's all it is.

Edited January 8, 2020 by OH FOY!

[Bellhorn04]

A big part of his point is they cannot afford to put better players around him while paying him that much.

 

Simply not true.

[Bellhorn04]

And it is worth pointing out that NONE of these players won a title with that salary.

 

None!! As is NOT ONE of these players won a title while making that much money.

 

Except Price.

 

And ARod.

 

And Strasburg and Scherzer,

 

But that's it!!!

 

 

 

Oh, and Lester. But THAT is it. End of list!!

 

Also, Verlander...

 

Winning titles isn't the critical factor, of course.

 

Kershaw hasn't won any but has contributed to a lot of playoff appearances.

 

As have many of the others.

[Elktonnick]

Winning titles isn't the critical factor, of course.

 

Kershaw hasn't won any but has contributed to a lot of playoff appearances.

 

As have many of the others.

 

"Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing" Vince Lombardi.

[Bellhorn04]

"Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing" Vince Lombardi.

 

That seals it then.

[kenmeister]

If I was Mookie I would be asking for more then Trout at this POINT. If not I'm walking. We'll see what happens after season, in the Open Market. Makes sense to me. Mookie got all the leverage.

He has an outstanding Season, he'll even have more.

Its a Gamble by both parties, that's all it is.

 

I can't blame Mookie for going for $35 million plus. All I'm saying is I hope the Sox either move on, or ignore the luxury cap if they pay that. As long as they try to stay under the cap, they can't build a good enough team around him.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The more I ponder all the crap since the postseason, the more I think both the Red Sox and Astros need to make some kind of major moves to at least show their fans they're sincere about moving forward. Staying status quo -- or stagnant -- for either can project a stubborn look, like, "But we like who we are right now" (which they don't).

 

So here is my simulator-accepted blockbuster: Betts for Springer and Urquidy.

 

Houston probably can't sign Mookie, but who knows -- he may already prefer the southwest to the northeast. At least his salary drive season could bump the Astros to another title (they already won one without Cole).

 

Boston would be able to reach its reset goal, and get the second-best free agent outfielder for 2021. Springer is from Connecticut and just might like to finish his career back home. He'll be 31 in September and cost a lot less than Betts. And getting a young pitcher with promise like Urquidy is as good as it gets at this point.

 

A deal like this could be feasible for two clubs that need to make changes soon...

[Hitch]

Unless Mookie has a very big year this year, I think he might find his demands are going to be nowhere near what he gets offered. Well, I say nowhere near, relatively speaking. Unless he has an incredible season, he is not getting Trout money or close to it.

[notin]

Simply not true.

 

No?

 

They have tried, and Pujols’ contract has been a detriment. But they have a payroll commitment of $176 million for 2020 and I’m not sure how much higher they are willing to go. But right now, Trout is about 1/4 of the 2020 payroll...

[Bellhorn04]

No?

 

They have tried, and Pujols’ contract has been a detriment. But they have a payroll commitment of $176 million for 2020 and I’m not sure how much higher they are willing to go. But right now, Trout is about 1/4 of the 2020 payroll...

 

They just signed Rendon for 7 @ 35, so money is not a problem.

 

Trout and his salary certainly aren't the problem either. According to Fangraphs he was worth about $70 million in 2019.

[fxkatt]

They just signed Rendon for 7 @ 35, so money is not a problem.

 

Trout and his salary certainly aren't the problem either. According to Fangraphs he was worth about $70 million in 2019.

 

You mean, it wasn't a problem, but now it is.

 

But back to the 25m plus salaries being detrimental to a team... I would love to see some team other than the Tampa Bays of baseball, announce their own individual salary limit of say 25m. A team like this, with some commitment to player equality, is a team I could root for because it's putting team before star. And I've always been opposed to the Star esp in baseball and football which rely on from 25-50 players. The more team-like they are, the more I favor them. (BB was a huge advocate of this for years... perhaps a little less so recently)

[Bellhorn04]

You mean, it wasn't a problem, but now it is.

 

Well, they only have the Albert-tross on the books 2 more years.

[moonslav59]

And it is worth pointing out that NONE of these players won a title with that salary.

 

None!! As is NOT ONE of these players won a title while making that much money.

 

Except Price.

 

And ARod.

 

And Strasburg and Scherzer,

 

But that's it!!!

 

 

 

Oh, and Lester. But THAT is it. End of list!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Verlander...

 

lol

[moonslav59]

The more I ponder all the crap since the postseason, the more I think both the Red Sox and Astros need to make some kind of major moves to at least show their fans they're sincere about moving forward. Staying status quo -- or stagnant -- for either can project a stubborn look, like, "But we like who we are right now" (which they don't).

 

So here is my simulator-accepted blockbuster: Betts for Springer and Urquidy.

 

Houston probably can't sign Mookie, but who knows -- he may already prefer the southwest to the northeast. At least his salary drive season could bump the Astros to another title (they already won one without Cole).

 

Boston would be able to reach its reset goal, and get the second-best free agent outfielder for 2021. Springer is from Connecticut and just might like to finish his career back home. He'll be 31 in September and cost a lot less than Betts. And getting a young pitcher with promise like Urquidy is as good as it gets at this point.

 

A deal like this could be feasible for two clubs that need to make changes soon...

 

I don't get why people keep suggesting we trade Betts for 1 and done players. There's no purpose. Yes, Urquidy would be here longer, but that's not enough for losing Betts.

[kenmeister]

I don't get why people keep suggesting we trade Betts for 1 and done players. There's no purpose. Yes, Urquidy would be here longer, but that's not enough for losing Betts.

 

I want young starting pitching. Like that E-Rod trade a few years back.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I don't get why people keep suggesting we trade Betts for 1 and done players. There's no purpose. Yes, Urquidy would be here longer, but that's not enough for losing Betts.

 

The purpose of my post was to suggest a way for two franchises in need of a change to make a swap of quality for quality (instead of dumping a Hall of Famer for bad-contract has-beens or never-weres)... and to replace Betts with another All-Star with roots in New England who may want to play in Boston and sign on in '21.

 

One blueprint for success is to try to lock up a solid core to build around that will keep your team in contention for years. Boston had that in 2017, with the thriller Bs, Devers, Vazquez, etc., but now that core may only be together for another year... if that.

 

If Mookie won't re-sign but the Sox can sign Springer for five years, then that's a good position player -- along with Devers and Bogey, at least -- that they don't have to worry about for awhile. Bloom in Boston shouldn't have to keep transitioning regulars or platoon guys on and off the roster every year like he did in Tampa. He needs and wants to focus on pitching.

 

What other available rightfielder would you prefer (I asked this in a thread a few weeks ago... and personally, I won't settle for any Pederson or Pollock)?

[moonslav59]

The purpose of my post was to suggest a way for two franchises in need of a change to make a swap of quality for quality (instead of dumping a Hall of Famer for bad-contract has-beens or never-weres)... and to replace Betts with another All-Star with roots in New England who may want to play in Boston and sign on in '21.

 

One blueprint for success is to try to lock up a solid core to build around that will keep your team in contention for years. Boston had that in 2017, with the thriller Bs, Devers, Vazquez, etc., but now that core may only be together for another year... if that.

 

If Mookie won't re-sign but the Sox can sign Springer for five years, then that's a good position player -- along with Devers and Bogey, at least -- that they don't have to worry about for awhile. Bloom in Boston shouldn't have to keep transitioning regulars or platoon guys on and off the roster every year like he did in Tampa. He needs and wants to focus on pitching.

 

What other available rightfielder would you prefer (I asked this in a thread a few weeks ago... and personally, I won't settle for any Pederson or Pollock)?

 

We can sign Springer in DEC 2021 without using up Betts's trade value getting him for 2020.

 

IMO, the best option is to trade, if we must, him for players under team control at a low cost for several years and then used the money to sign Betts or someone like Springer for 2021 and beyond. That way, we have several players in 2021 not just the guy we sign with Betts's money.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

We can sign Springer in DEC 2021 without using up Betts's trade value getting him for 2020.

 

IMO, the best option is to trade, if we must, him for players under team control at a low cost for several years and then used the money to sign Betts or someone like Springer for 2021 and beyond. That way, we have several players in 2021 not just the guy we sign with Betts's money.

 

I get all that and don't necessarily disagree. But Houston and Boston may both need to make splashes now to appeal to fans' emotional (and not so much practical) interests. They're both having uncomfortable offseasons -- and none of that matters if either club reaches its potential out of the gate in March/April/May... but that won't sell tickets in the winter.

[notin]

We can sign Springer in DEC 2021 without using up Betts's trade value getting him for 2020.

 

IMO, the best option is to trade, if we must, him for players under team control at a low cost for several years and then used the money to sign Betts or someone like Springer for 2021 and beyond. That way, we have several players in 2021 not just the guy we sign with Betts's money.

 

Springer might like coming back to New England. He played his college ball at UConn with Sox reliever Matt Barnes...

[moonslav59]

Springer might like coming back to New England. He played his college ball at UConn with Sox reliever Matt Barnes...

 

Agreed, but why waste some of the trading value of Betts to get him for one more year- probably for a non-contending year?

[notin]

Agreed, but why waste some of the trading value of Betts to get him for one more year- probably for a non-contending year?

 

If the Sox replace Betts with Springer and Urquidy, are they really still non-contenders?

 

I look at it this way - Springer has to be more open to an extension than Betts is...

[jacksonianmarch]

The sox aren't dealing Betts to the Astros for those two. Houston would say no because they love Springer and are inclined to try and extend him. Everyone knows Betts isn't interested in re-signing. Also, the Astros need Urquidy with Cole and Miley gone

[Swiharts Ghost]

Are we ever going to do something Bloom ?

[harmony]

Are we ever going to do something Bloom ?

Likely yes.

 

Friendly advice: calm down.