A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

"Be realistic ... perhaps Mookie Betts for five years of 23-year-old outfielder Alex Verdugo would work."

 

Ya, I'm not basing my unrealistic expectations on one website that admits their values are "a probalistic model... where nothing here is absolute, but rather, a best guess based on the data available"... because I can't put a number on a player's intrinsic value to his organization and its fanbase.

 

Instead, I was thinking more of the many website hits I got by merely Googling "Betts trade Dodgers". That's where I found several proposals from writers, including professionals who work for MLB.com. Here are just some of their suggested LA packages for Mookie: May, Ruiz, Pederson; Lux or May, Ruiz, Pederson; May, Pederson, Downs; Verdugo, Seager, Cardillo; Lux, Ruiz, Pollock.

 

Another MLB writer listed, "Some Dodgers prospects who could interest the Red Sox would be Jeter Downs, Tony Gonsolin, Josiah Gray, Gavin Lux, Dustin May, Keibert Ruiz — all young, all affordable. They could also be interested in the likes of Matt Beaty, Edwin Ríos, Ross Stripling, Julio Urías and the aforementioned Verdugo".

 

Prospects, suspects, call them what you want -- their teams know they have to give up something to get something. And the Boston braintrust is smart enough to wait them out.

[Bellhorn04]

I think history shows that you're more likely to get an overpay by the other team on a deadline trade. Teams with a shot at a title are often willing to give up more than they're getting.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Agreed. I've seen some beat writers say it'd be best for Bloom to trade Betts asap and just move on from it, so it's not a season-long distraction. But the best approach for the team may just be -- as many here have suggested -- to attempt to improve over the winter via low-cost additions, lottery cards, born-again prospects, etc., then see what happens through the first half of 2020. By then, Chaim will have had plenty of time to get to know Mookie and his intentions... and the front office will have had more than enough time to make best offers to Betts, while also targeting prospective trade partners as a fallback.

[moonslav59]

I think history shows that you're more likely to get an overpay by the other team on a deadline trade. Teams with a shot at a title are often willing to give up more than they're getting.

 

That may be true, but there are plenty of examples of "overpay" in winter trades.

 

We all agreed, the Sale and Kimbrel deals were "big overpays," despite many here liking one or both of the trades.

[moonslav59]

Please retract this asap before someone in LA sees it! Or at least delete Betts' name!!!

 

The last thing we need is past-his-prime Pollock, no hit lefties/no field Joc and half-cooked Jansen (who LA won't even use in big spots anymore). I know you were just trying to make numbers match... and the total of all five of your Sox on that site probably don't add up to just one of Lux, May, Verdugo or Ruiz -- but I have faith those are the types that Bloom is demanding in some combination or no deal.

 

You'll like this one better:

 

To SDP: Price, JBJ & Walden

 

To BOS: Myers & Margot

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

You'll like this one better:

 

To SDP: Price, JBJ & Walden

 

To BOS: Myers & Margot

 

I'm all over that. I'd even drive them, but may not leave San Diego... I wonder if The Bench is still in Mission Beach? Does Joe still own the Beachcomber?

[moonslav59]

I'm all over that. I'd even drive them, but may not leave San Diego... I wonder if The Bench is still in Mission Beach? Does Joe still own the Beachcomber?

 

I'd throw in some cash or take on Garrett Richards' contract. (Maybe we get Kinsler back.)

[jacksonianmarch]

Theyre not letting Richards go. 2020 was why they signed him

[harmony]

That may be true, but there are plenty of examples of "overpay" in winter trades.

 

We all agreed, the Sale and Kimbrel deals were "big overpays," despite many here liking one or both of the trades.

Overpays on what sides?

[notin]

"Be realistic ... perhaps Mookie Betts for five years of 23-year-old outfielder Alex Verdugo would work."

 

Ya, I'm not basing my unrealistic expectations on one website that admits their values are "a probalistic model... where nothing here is absolute, but rather, a best guess based on the data available"... because I can't put a number on a player's intrinsic value to his organization and its fanbase.

 

Instead, I was thinking more of the many website hits I got by merely Googling "Betts trade Dodgers". That's where I found several proposals from writers, including professionals who work for MLB.com. Here are just some of their suggested LA packages for Mookie: May, Ruiz, Pederson; Lux or May, Ruiz, Pederson; May, Pederson, Downs; Verdugo, Seager, Cardillo; Lux, Ruiz, Pollock.

 

Another MLB writer listed, "Some Dodgers prospects who could interest the Red Sox would be Jeter Downs, Tony Gonsolin, Josiah Gray, Gavin Lux, Dustin May, Keibert Ruiz — all young, all affordable. They could also be interested in the likes of Matt Beaty, Edwin Ríos, Ross Stripling, Julio Urías and the aforementioned Verdugo".

 

Prospects, suspects, call them what you want -- their teams know they have to give up something to get something. And the Boston braintrust is smart enough to wait them out.

 

While we would probably never know unless 1). Betts actually gets traded and 2) to the Dodgers, I would think prospects like Lux and May are off the table for one season of Betts. Give his projected salary, we’re in some pretty uncharted waters, trade wise. But I have serious doubts about getting their top prospects for one year of Betts, and finding a precedent will probably prove difficult.

 

The best I could see is maybe Keibert Ruiz, since the Dodgers appear to have settled on a different young catcher....

[harmony]

"Be realistic ... perhaps Mookie Betts for five years of 23-year-old outfielder Alex Verdugo would work."

 

Ya, I'm not basing my unrealistic expectations on one website that admits their values are "a probalistic model... where nothing here is absolute, but rather, a best guess based on the data available"... because I can't put a number on a player's intrinsic value to his organization and its fanbase.

 

Instead, I was thinking more of the many website hits I got by merely Googling "Betts trade Dodgers". That's where I found several proposals from writers, including professionals who work for MLB.com. Here are just some of their suggested LA packages for Mookie: May, Ruiz, Pederson; Lux or May, Ruiz, Pederson; May, Pederson, Downs; Verdugo, Seager, Cardillo; Lux, Ruiz, Pollock.

 

Another MLB writer listed, "Some Dodgers prospects who could interest the Red Sox would be Jeter Downs, Tony Gonsolin, Josiah Gray, Gavin Lux, Dustin May, Keibert Ruiz — all young, all affordable. They could also be interested in the likes of Matt Beaty, Edwin Ríos, Ross Stripling, Julio Urías and the aforementioned Verdugo".

 

Prospects, suspects, call them what you want -- their teams know they have to give up something to get something. And the Boston braintrust is smart enough to wait them out.

Given luxury tax considerations, three questions marks in the starting rotation and Mookie Betts' reported desire to enter free agency in a year, the Red Sox may not be negotiating from a position of strength.

[notin]

Given luxury tax considerations, three questions marks in the starting rotation and Mookie Betts' reported desire to enter free agency in a year, the Red Sox may not be negotiating from a position of strength.

 

How big of a deal is the luxury tax really?

 

Last year, the Sox paid roughly $13.6 mill in luxury tax payments. They paid $27.5 mill to Pablo Sandoval and Rusney Castillo...

[moonslav59]

How big of a deal is the luxury tax really?

 

Last year, the Sox paid roughly $13.6 mill in luxury tax payments. They paid $27.5 mill to Pablo Sandoval and Rusney Castillo...

 

I think the big issue is if we end up going way over on the 3rd year. Resetting would greatly lessen that tax.

[cp176]

That may be true, but there are plenty of examples of "overpay" in winter trades.

 

We all agreed, the Sale and Kimbrel deals were "big overpays," despite many here liking one or both of the trades.

 

We all agreed? The group here who thinks alike might have. lol I could see that data for the rest of time but there is no way that I would agree that those deals were overpays. It might be a different point of view but there you go!

[cp176]

There are obviously people posting here who do an incredible job digging up data with respect to all things Red Sox. I wonder if anyone can suggest to me how much money the franchise will either make or lose by going over the luxury tax limit. In terms of future value, I think that the consensus is that the franchise is worth a whole lot more now than when JH purchased it. Are they making money or not?

[Bellhorn04]

That may be true, but there are plenty of examples of "overpay" in winter trades.

 

We all agreed, the Sale and Kimbrel deals were "big overpays," despite many here liking one or both of the trades.

 

I don't think the Sale trade was considered a big overpay.

[Bellhorn04]

There are obviously people posting here who do an incredible job digging up data with respect to all things Red Sox. I wonder if anyone can suggest to me how much money the franchise will either make or lose by going over the luxury tax limit. In terms of future value, I think that the consensus is that the franchise is worth a whole lot more now than when JH purchased it. Are they making money or not?

 

The Red Sox owners have made piles of money on the increase in the value of the franchise.

 

As far as the profit or loss for 2019, only they really know for sure.

 

We know they had the highest payroll in baseball and paid 13 million + in luxury tax for an 84-78 record.

 

JH's general message seemed to be that he didn't mind spending to that level for a championship team, but for an 84-78 team, not so much. Especially when the Rays spent a fraction and won 96 games.

[Jack Flap]

I don't think the Sale trade was considered a big overpay.

 

I certainly never thought of it that way. For three prime years of one of the best pitchers in baseball at an extremely team-friendly salary, we probably gave up about what we should have...maybe even got off a little easy.

[Bellhorn04]

The big question for me is how they can possibly get under the 208 million for 2020 and do it without pissing off a lot of fans.

[S5Dewey]

The big question for me is how they can possibly get under the 208 million for 2020 and do it without pissing off a lot of fans.

 

IMO that may not be as difficult as you think. Being pissed off is a reflection of expectations. Those fans who think that JH has an obligation to spend every penny he has in search of a WSC will be upset but by the time the season starts the trades will have been made and the expectations will be lowered.

 

Who knows? It's possible that by opening day the rational fans will realize that JH is trying to keep his budget under control and that the team needs to lower the payroll for a year or two. Then they'll be back.

 

BTW, do we know that ticket prices have gone up for 2020? I haven't heard from them about my ST tix yet but it's not unusual to not have them in November.

[notin]

I think the big issue is if we end up going way over on the 3rd year. Resetting would greatly lessen that tax.

 

I think the draft penalties are the worst part...

[Bellhorn04]

BTW, do we know that ticket prices have gone up for 2020? I haven't heard from them about my ST tix yet but it's not unusual to not have them in November.

 

They announced that prices will go up and some will go down depending on the classification of the game. Overall the prices will be 1.7% higher.

[cp176]

They announced that prices will go up and some will go down depending on the classification of the game. Overall the prices will be 1.7% higher.

 

So this is what that says to me - fans will be paying more to have a really good experience again in a few years? I understand that it is about making money but that spin doesn't work for me. Paying forward for the future works well I guess for a college scholarship fund but when it comes to my favorite sports teams not so much. I want to at least see some evidence that this year's team is poised to make a run if I'm paying more for a product. In what world does anyone knowingly pay more for less? I will gladly pay more for my "new" rusty car if you promise to repair it for me in a few!

[Bellhorn04]

In what world does anyone knowingly pay more for less?

 

In the entertainment world, I guess.

[cp176]

In the entertainment world, I guess.

 

I think that you are 100% correct. What we willingly pay for entertainment in this country is joke like. As sports salaries continue to sky rocket all I hear being shoved down my throat is the growing divide between the haves and the have nots. No one seems to complain much about elite salaries and now we certainly don't want to see JH to have to pay any of that luxury tax. LOL It is a fact that in this world the rich tend to get richer but not often with this type of blessing from the public.

[notin]

I think that you are 100% correct. What we willingly pay for entertainment in this country is joke like. As sports salaries continue to sky rocket all I hear being shoved down my throat is the growing divide between the haves and the have nots. No one seems to complain much about elite salaries and now we certainly don't want to see JH to have to pay any of that luxury tax. LOL It is a fact that in this world the rich tend to get richer but not often with this type of blessing from the public.

 

It's not a question of what we want to see. It's a question of what we think will happen based on what little info the media feeds us...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's not a question of what we want to see. It's a question of what we think will happen based on what little info the media feeds us...

 

So true. So much of what the public sees or hears is political posturing. And the bored (or paid off, in scoops) media runs with it. The poor Red Sox can't afford the tax and oh no, they'll lose a draft pick? Ok, better trade our future Hall of Famer who is just about to enter his prime because he wants a top-of-the-market salary that he's earned. If we spin it just right, even the discerning public will accept it...

[moonslav59]

We all agreed? The group here who thinks alike might have. lol I could see that data for the rest of time but there is no way that I would agree that those deals were overpays. It might be a different point of view but there you go!

 

Okay, I guess I should never say everyone, but very close to everyone did say they were overpays to some extent. "Necessary," "Worth it," or "Maybe could have done it without adding Allen" were common opinions, at the time.

[moonslav59]

I think the draft penalties are the worst part...

 

That only happens when going over the $40M line. We should be able to avoid that.

 

I know it's not "our money," but paying 50% tax on $39.9M is a lot of money. I think it matters to Henry.

 

I also think Henry does not want his legacy to be remembered as "buying rings."

 

(Just my opinions.)

[harmony]

Okay, I guess I should never say everyone, but very close to everyone did say they were overpays to some extent. "Necessary," "Worth it," or "Maybe could have done it without adding Allen" were common opinions, at the time.

Padre and White Sox fans might have different opinions.

 

This forum carries its inherent biases.