The JD opt out

[Bellhorn04]

i am shocked. apparently the market for a .304/.383/.557 DH only type is less then $60MM / 3 years. maybe that makes sense as we basically were bidding against ourselves for JD's contract a couple years ago when he was younger/sort of played OF. in hindsight we paid the greatest DH of all time far less $$ and he didn't embarrass himself when he needed to don a glove in an NL park....

the winners of this decision: JD, TB, NYY, Tor, Bal

the losers: RedSox

 

we now have to cut/trade 2 of the greatest outfielders to ever wear a red sox uniform. thanks Dave!!!!

 

JD was instrumental to the parade. It was an excellent signing by DD, and for a lot less than expected.

 

We can trade JD now if we choose.

[Maxbialystock]

I'm inclined to think that JDM staying works well for both sides and that keeping Mookie at his projected salary works far better for Mookie than for the Sox.

 

One example to make my point--Bryce Harper. The Nationals were wise not to offer him what he could get elsewhere (thanks to his rapacious agent) because, lo and behold, in their first season without him their win percentage went up and they managed a very gritty postseason that took them all the way. The team that got Wonder Boy finished one game better, 81-81 vs. 80-82, with Bryce than than the year before without him.

 

Here's another. The Sox won 108 games and the WS in 2018 and with basically the same team barely cleared .500 in 2019. Why? Because the pitching collapsed in 2019 even while the hitting was still pretty good. Why spend a king's ransom on a rightfielder when, no matter who great his season, he is still a small part of the whole. Half of a team's active roster is 12 pitchers--and in 2019 for most of the season Cora went with 13 pitchers.

 

Here's another. JDM made a huge difference in the offense last year, 2018, when they won it all. It was like the return of Big Papi because his solid hitting seemed to make everyone else better. Mookie deserved the MVP award, but to me JDM was the catalyst of that MLB-leading offense in 2018.

 

I also happen to think Mike Trout is overpaid, but at least in his case he delivers every year for several years running plus there is no way he is not the fan favorite for the Angels--he puts butts in seats. I'm not sure Mookie does that for the Sox.

 

Finally, an admission. I am unalterably opposed to the gargantuan salaries now consistently praised by the vast majority of sportswriters. I think $25M/year is just about optimal for both sides, player and team). I do think Curt Flood breaking the reserve clause was good for baseball (and long overdue after the Black Sox scandal, which was caused mainly by the penuriousness of the owner Wrigley). Let's not forget that, thanks to the MLBPA, almost everything in today's contracts is guaranteed even though owners continue to ignore the dictum, caveat emptor. I cite $25M becauseI recently read that Strasburg, who had such a great 2019 and especially the postseason, is trying the free agent market at age 31 because his rapacious agent has convinced him that $25M is simply inadequate and "not what he is worth." Baloney.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Maxbialystock

[Slasher9]

JD was instrumental to the parade. It was an excellent signing by DD, and for a lot less than expected.

 

We can trade JD now if we choose.

 

1. expected by whom? what other teams even made him an offer? and if so, terms of offer? (i still say DD bid against himself).

2. where can we trade JD? and for what? are we simply going to salary dump him? (i'm ok with this) or are we going to eat $$$? (i am very much not OK with this).

based on what happens with #1 and #2, i reserve the right to retract my "thanks DD" comment. but until then...thanks DD!

[Slasher9]

also, i was on record last year stating that we would still have won the division and still have won the WS if you replaced JD with player xyz.

we ran away with the division so you could put a negative WAR or eyetest average player in his place and we still win the division.

our pitching in the postseason was nails + a few timely hits from players not named JDM fired up the duckboats.....

[Elktonnick]

While there is a great deal of chatter concerning trading either Betts or JD or both, I think the Sox will take a real.hit with its fan base unless they net a real haul that keeps them in contention.

There is already a backlash against the Sox raising ticket prices yet again. Trading one of these two will further antagonize fans without solid return. It is hard to imagine Boston getting solid value for essentially a one year rental that would keep the fans happy paying the exorbitant ticket prices for a team unlikely to contend.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

While there is a great deal of chatter concerning trading either Betts or JD or both, I think the Sox will take a real.hit with its fan base unless they net a real haul that keeps them in contention.

There is already a backlash against the Sox raising ticket prices yet again. Trading one of these two will further antagonize fans without solid return. It is hard to imagine Boston getting solid value for essentially a one year rental that would keep the fans happy paying the exorbitant ticket prices for a team unlikely to contend.

 

I think this is a bigger factor in what happens than most posters and lurkers realize. The Red Sox are in the entertainment business -- and yes, winning sells -- but "fan identification" drives sports marketing. If Betts is indeed traded I will never believe it was because the Boston Red Sox were unable or unwilling to outbid the competition for his services.

 

This is a club that signed David Freakin Price and Chris Sale -- starting pitchers who play once every five days when healthy -- to long contracts worth $30+ million a year. Fans can try to put numbers on Mookie's value, but does anyone honestly believe that the Sox aren't prepared to invest in their best homegrown regular in decades, the Face of the Franchise and future Hall of Famer who plays every game?

 

If Betts is traded, it will be because he no longer wanted to work in New England.

[kenmeister]

I'm inclined to think that JDM staying works well for both sides and that keeping Mookie at his projected salary works far better for Mookie than for the Sox.

 

One example to make my point--Bryce Harper. The Nationals were wise not to offer him what he could get elsewhere (thanks to his rapacious agent) because, lo and behold, in their first season without him their win percentage went up and they managed a very gritty postseason that took them all the way. The team that got Wonder Boy finished one game better, 81-81 vs. 80-82, with Bryce than than the year before without him.

 

Here's another. The Sox won 108 games and the WS in 2018 and with basically the same team barely cleared .500 in 2019. Why? Because the pitching collapsed in 2019 even while the hitting was still pretty good. Why spend a king's ransom on a rightfielder when, no matter who great his season, he is still a small part of the whole. Half of a team's active roster is 12 pitchers--and in 2019 for most of the season Cora went with 13 pitchers.

 

Here's another. JDM made a huge difference in the offense last year, 2018, when they won it all. It was like the return of Big Papi because his solid hitting seemed to make everyone else better. Mookie deserved the MVP award, but to me JDM was the catalyst of that MLB-leading offense in 2018.

 

I also happen to think Mike Trout is overpaid, but at least in his case he delivers every year for several years running plus there is no way he is not the fan favorite for the Angels--he puts butts in seats. I'm not sure Mookie does that for the Sox.

 

Finally, an admission. I am unalterably opposed to the gargantuan salaries now consistently praised by the vast majority of sportswriters. I think $25M/year is just about optimal for both sides, player and team). I do think Curt Flood breaking the reserve clause was good for baseball (and long overdue after the Black Sox scandal, which was caused mainly by the penuriousness of the owner Wrigley). Let's not forget that, thanks to the MLBPA, almost everything in today's contracts is guaranteed even though owners continue to ignore the dictum, caveat emptor. I cite $25M becauseI recently read that Strasburg, who had such a great 2019 and especially the postseason, is trying the free agent market at age 31 because his rapacious agent has convinced him that $25M is simply inadequate and "not what he is worth." Baloney.

 

All well said. I used to be inclined to say pay more for starting pitchers than fielders, but with the way Sale/Price/Eovaldi have broken down, I just don't know who's worth the money any more. But that Scherzer guy, I still don't know why we didn't go after him when we had the chance!

[moonslav59]

If that’s what he’s looking for, though, then he is gonna go to FA and dealing him to get under the LT makes more sense

 

That's a separate issue. My point was to trade Betts and then sign him for 2021 and beyond AFTER WE RESET.

 

All we have to do is match or top the highest bidder. If that number is not Trout-like, then we have a chance.

[moonslav59]

I see this as being the least likely scenario now. If the Sox are looking to cut payroll and look to the future at the same time now is the time to part with Mookie. While keeping "a pretty good offense" is undoubtedly important at the same time so is keeping a pretty good defense.

 

Now that JDM has opted in the Sox have a choice to make.

- Divesting themselves of both JBJ & & Mookie will decimate the outfield. Given the propensity for launch angle & the Manfred Missile this may not be a wise choice for a team that has any ideas of being a contender.

- Keeping Mookie and letting JBJ go may be the best option but it's also the most expensive one.

- Keeping JBJ and letting Mookie go is less expensive but we lose Mookie's offense. Defensively, it's already been established that we can replace Mookie's defense because MLB is loaded with great glove - no hit outfielders who can be signed for chicken feed. So the net loss is his offense. Is Mookie's offense worth his salary?

- JBJ's arb salary + JDM's salary will about equal what it will cost to keep Mookie.

 

The choice is pretty clear if the team wants to be somewhat competitive in 2020 and yet cut salary: Mookie has to go.

 

Isn't trading JD & letting JBJ go another option?

 

How about keeping JD & Betts by trading Price and/or Eovaldi?

 

We have many ways to get under the tax line.

 

We can even just let JBJ & Hembree go and be under the line- keeping everybody else and signing nobody.

[Bellhorn04]

1. expected by whom? what other teams even made him an offer? and if so, terms of offer? (i still say DD bid against himself).

 

MLBTR predicted 6/150 for JD.

 

And no one knows what other teams were in on him. We rarely do know these things.

[moonslav59]

All well said. I used to be inclined to say pay more for starting pitchers than fielders, but with the way Sale/Price/Eovaldi have broken down, I just don't know who's worth the money any more. But that Scherzer guy, I still don't know why we didn't go after him when we had the chance!

 

The injuries suck, but when a starter starts 32 games, he faces over 750 or 800 batters. That's way more than Betts or JD PAs in a season.

[notin]

Isn't trading JD & letting JBJ go another option?

 

 

Not for S5

[moonslav59]

Not for S5

 

Maybe his post was operating on the assumption that Merloni is 100% correct.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

That's a separate issue. My point was to trade Betts and then sign him for 2021 and beyond AFTER WE RESET.

 

All we have to do is match or top the highest bidder. If that number is not Trout-like, then we have a chance.

 

This may make sense to us fans -- and a lot of posters here and elsewhere agree -- but I think there are other factors to consider. Trading a valued member of an organization is literally uprooting and relocating the employee for six months or a year, with risks beyond just inconvenience... like bruised egos and the chance of him liking his change of scenery even better. There is also some speculation that team, player and agent have an agreement in place beforehand, ala Chapman and NY. But it's also hard to see a player agreeing to such a deal in the best interests of the club; "Hey, Mook, do us a solid and move 3,000 miles away in exchange for a prospect that we can use to replace your minor league roommate and buddy, then come back to work for us next year."

 

Unless, of course, it's only about the money.

Edited November 5, 2019 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75
typo

[Bellhorn04]

1. expected by whom? what other teams even made him an offer? and if so, terms of offer? (i still say DD bid against himself).

 

Is there a database somewhere that shows all the offers made by teams on free agents?

 

If so, it would be cool to know what the competing offers were on some of these signings by Ben-what he had to beat:

 

Shane Victorino

Ryan Dempster

Pablo Sandoval

Hanley Ramirez

Justin Masterson

 

[notin]

Is there a database somewhere that shows all the offers made by teams on free agents?

 

If so, it would be cool to know what the competing offers were on some of these signings by Ben-what he had to beat:

 

Shane Victorino

Ryan Dempster

Pablo Sandoval

Hanley Ramirez

Justin Masterson

 

 

Are yuo going to rip the Victorino deal? The same guy who has maintained it's wrong to say Dombrowski "decimated" or "destroyed" the farm system because we got a ring?

 

The Flyin' Hawaiian was amazing in that championship season of 2013, and rightly even earned MVP votes.

[Bellhorn04]

Are yuo going to rip the Victorino deal? The same guy who has maintained it's wrong to say Dombrowski "decimated" or "destroyed" the farm system because we got a ring?

 

That's not my point at all. Slash is speculating that DD 'bid against himself' on JDM. I'm just saying we have no clue who bid what.

[notin]

That's not my point at all. Slash is speculating that DD 'bid against himself' on JDM. I'm just saying we have no clue who bid what.

 

There were defintely other intersted teams. Arizona was mentioned quite a bit. Obviously not as interested in the Red Sox. But they were the early off-season favorite to land Martinez as he established himself as a bit of a legend there in less than half a season. Dombrowski had to come as close as he could to Martinez' crazy early demands while still paying as little as possible to make Boston the more attractive option.

 

It's not always about bidding against other teams. A GM also has to make sure a player gets a contract he is comfortable with, because otherwise that player can be very distracted about his deal despite it being the best offer. It's not like we've never seen players complain about their contracts before. It happens in every sport...

[kenmeister]

The injuries suck, but when a starter starts 32 games, he faces over 750 or 800 batters. That's way more than Betts or JD PAs in a season.

 

Heh, trade Betts, trade JDM, sign Strasburg

[moonslav59]

This may make sense to us fans -- and a lot of posters here and elsewhere agree -- but I think there are other factors to consider. Trading a valued member of an organization is literally uprooting and relocating the employee for six months or a year, with risks beyond just inconvenience... like bruised egos and the chance of him liking his change of scenery even better. There is also some speculation that team, player and agent have an agreement in place beforehand, ala Chapman and NY. But it's also hard to see a player agreeing to such a deal in the best interests of the club; "Hey, Mook, do us a solid and move 3,000 miles away in exchange for a prospect that we can use to replace your minor league roommate and buddy, then come back to work for us next year."

 

Unless, of course, it's only about the money.

 

Certainly, I'd tell him we love him, appreciated his input to the team's past success, and will want him back in 2021, but if he holds a grudge, so be it.

 

1) I think we get way more than just one decent prospect by trading him. Yes, the team getting him pays about $28M, but he's worth way more than that for 1 year in the heart of prime, and the one year is less risky injury-wise.

2) Getting just a 4th round draft pick by watching him bolt via free agency would be a kick in the balls.

3) Offer him a great deal after 2020, and if he refuses and signs for ungodly numbers elsewhere, I think Sox fans will not be that upset- not like the Lester fiasco.

4) If we don't get Betts after 2020, it's not like we'll pocket the $30M+ for 8-12 years. We will spend it elsewhere, and I like Bloom's history of spending money wisely. That $30+M alone is more than he had per year with TB to spend on FAs.

 

The worst case scenario is getting nothing for Betts and watching him bolt.

The second worst might be keeping him and resigning him to $36M x 10-12 years and going bust.

Better is to trade him for 2-3 prospects or young ML ready players that are cost controlled and then make a more than fair offer in 2021 and let the chips fall where they may.

[moonslav59]

Heh, trade Betts, trade JDM, sign Strasburg

 

I'd rather do that than lose Betts and JD for nothing next winter.

[S5Dewey]

Maybe his post was operating on the assumption that Merloni is 100% correct.

 

My post was made after JDM declined his option and with the intention of keeping as much of the OF together as possible, i.e. keeping Mookie OR JBJ and staying under the tax threshold. And the fact that I'd consider it unethical to trade JDM after he just indicated that he just declined his option to leave.

 

As I said in another post a few days go, we can keep JDM and JBJ for about the same thing it will cost us to keep just Mookie. IMO JDM + JBJ > Mookie Betts.

[S5Dewey]

Trading a valued member of an organization is literally uprooting and relocating the employee for six months or a year, with risks beyond just inconvenience... like bruised egos and the chance of him liking his change of scenery even better. But it's also hard to see a player agreeing to such a deal in the best interests of the club; "Hey, Mook, do us a solid and move 3,000 miles away in exchange for a prospect that we can use to replace your minor league roommate and buddy, then come back to work for us next year."

 

Isn't this the same conversation we had about Jon Lester? And that worked out about as well as I thought it would.

[moonslav59]

My post was made after JDM declined his option and with the intention of keeping as much of the OF together as possible, i.e. keeping Mookie OR JBJ and staying under the tax threshold. And the fact that I'd consider it unethical to trade JDM after he just indicated that he just declined his option to leave.

 

As I said in another post a few days go, we can keep JDM and JBJ for about the same thing it will cost us to keep just Mookie. IMO JDM + JBJ > Mookie Betts.

 

I don't get the unethical part. Any player knows he may be traded at any time, unless there's a a no-trade clause. I'm sure JD has heard the rumors of trade, if he opts in. He can select some no trade teams, so he negotiated this back then, knowing trades are part of the game.

 

BTW, if he gets traded, it will be to a team that is spending and looking to win, so it's not like he's going to the Marlins.

[moonslav59]

Isn't this the same conversation we had about Jon Lester? And that worked out about as well as I thought it would.

 

We did end up with Porcello by trading Lester and could have outbid the Cubs to get him back. Instead, we spent the money elsewhere.

 

Rings since Lester trade:

 

Cubs 1

 

Sox 1

[S5Dewey]

We did end up with Porcello by trading Lester and could have outbid the Cubs to get him back. Instead, we spent the money elsewhere.

 

Rings since Lester trade:

 

Cubs 1

 

Sox 1

 

But the fact remains that we had this very conversation about Lester. "Let's let him walk, and resign him next year". And it worked out about like I thought it would. Do we really think it's going to work out better with Mookie? I very much believe that if he leaves he's gone for good.

 

Also, the argument can be made that it could have been 2-0 Sox if we'd been able to resign Lester.

[Jack Flap]

The more I think about it, the more I remain unconvinced that the Red Sox are actually going to follow through with getting under $208M this winter. With the amount of talent on this roster, it may make more sense to plug 1B, 2B, and the 5th starter spot with internal options and/or 1-year free agents, make one more push in 2020 with the existing group, and re-set if you must in 2021, when you may lose Betts and Martinez whether you like it or not.

 

I'm probably wrong, but that scenario would personally feel easier to swallow than watching them do something this winter to actively make the team worse, like trading Mookie for an underwhelming return or giving JDM away in some salary dump. It would be nice if there was a magic bullet out there to save us like the 2012 trade with the Dodgers did, but I don't think there is...whatever we're going to need to do to get under the limit this winter is going to hurt.

[moonslav59]

But the fact remains that we had this very conversation about Lester. "Let's let him walk, and resign him next year". And it worked out about like I thought it would. Do we really think it's going to work out better with Mookie? I very much believe that if he leaves he's gone for good.

 

Also, the argument can be made that it could have been 2-0 Sox if we'd been able to resign Lester.

 

The lowball offer to Lester may make this case different.

 

Plus, I don't think we seriously tried to sign him over the Cubs.

 

Look, I'm one of the few here that think we should offer Betts over $300M. If we offer him that in 2021 and he goes elsewhere, it's not the same as Lester leaving.

 

Plus, we got something for Lester, and Porcello helped us for many years.

 

Getting nothing for Betts and then watching him walk away for just 4th round pick would be worse than the Lester fiasco.

[moonslav59]

The more I think about it, the more I remain unconvinced that the Red Sox are actually going to follow through with getting under $208M this winter. With the amount of talent on this roster, it may make more sense to plug 1B, 2B, and the 5th starter spot with internal options and/or 1-year free agents, make one more push in 2020 with the existing group, and re-set if you must in 2021, when you may lose Betts and Martinez whether you like it or not.

 

I'm probably wrong, but that scenario would personally feel easier to swallow than watching them do something this winter to actively make the team worse, like trading Mookie for an underwhelming return or giving JDM away in some salary dump. It would be nice if there was a magic bullet out there to save us like the 2012 trade with the Dodgers did, but I don't think there is...whatever we're going to need to do to get under the limit this winter is going to hurt.

 

Certainly possible, and we might play it halfway and wait until July to decide to have a fire sale or spend and go over the line for one last push.

 

To me, if we know we are losing Betts (and JD to a lesser extent) then trying to win it all in 2020 makes some sense, but so does jumping the gun on the rebuild and making it happen quicker, sooner and better by getting something for Betts & JD (and maybe others, too).

[notin]

But the fact remains that we had this very conversation about Lester. "Let's let him walk, and resign him next year". And it worked out about like I thought it would. Do we really think it's going to work out better with Mookie? I very much believe that if he leaves he's gone for good.

 

Also, the argument can be made that it could have been 2-0 Sox if we'd been able to resign Lester.

 

Did the Sox make Lester the best offer when he was a free agent, only to get eschewed just because they dealt him?