Bloom move your asssssss

[mvp 78]

Sox haven’t punted a season before a season in recent memory. This is the first year where after an underachieving season, the Sox did nothing that I can remember

 

2012. Adding Valentine was punting the year. No doubt. It was solely to put the wood to those uppity players, Popeye's Chicken and Xbox.

[mvp 78]

And the front office has been insistent that they're not punting this season.

 

Sox punting this year like: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000560750/The-Colts-fourth-down-fake-goes-horribly-wrong

[Swiharts Ghost]

Sox punting this year like: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000560750/The-Colts-fourth-down-fake-goes-horribly-wrong

 

Cooooooooome onnnnnn and make the trade with the Dodgers already what is the issue ??? Get seager and a Pitching prospect and Joc for Price and Betts just freaking do it so we can start talking s*** to the Yankees

[mvp 78]

Cooooooooome onnnnnn and make the trade with the Dodgers already what is the issue ??? Get seager and a Pitching prospect and Joc for Price and Betts just freaking do it so we can start talking s*** to the Yankees

 

The issue is the Dodgers don't want to pay that much for Betts AND Price.

[Swiharts Ghost]

The issue is the Dodgers don't want to pay that much for Betts AND Price.

 

They Print money and keep losing in the World Series ....they can afford it .

[moonslav59]

Cooooooooome onnnnnn and make the trade with the Dodgers already what is the issue ??? Get seager and a Pitching prospect and Joc for Price and Betts just freaking do it so we can start talking s*** to the Yankees

 

Can we stop the Joc talk? Please!

 

The guy has one year left and gets us nowhere. Plus, he's basically a platoon player. His estimated $9M arb does not sweeten the financial burden all that muc for the Dodgers.

 

The obvious stumbling block is the money. As much as I don't really want Pollock and Kelly, they do have a chance at rebounding and are better than just sending cash to LA to offset Price's bloated contract.

 

Pollock is owed $51M/3, but his $12M x 3 luxury tax burden is a big help for the Sox budget plans. Kelly is owed $21M/2 (assuming he gets the $4M buyout on a $12M 3rd year), but his lux number is $8.3M x 2. Together, these two cost $73M, which is more than what is needed to offset Price's value and contract of $96M/3. Betts is worth more than $27M, so no offset is needed there. The problem is, the Dodgers don't want to pay mega taxes either.

 

Dodger cost:

Year 1: $59M (Price $32M + Betts $29M/ Lux tax cost is $58M)

Year 2: $32M Price ($31M LUX)

Year 3: $32M Price ($31M LUX)

 

Sox cost:

Year 1: $23.5M (Pollock $15M + Kelly $8.5M/ Lux is $20.3M)

Year 2: $26.5M (Pollock $18M + Kelly $8.5M/ Lux is $20.3M)

Year 3: $22M (Pollock$13M + $5M buyout + $4M Kelly buyout/ Lux is $12M)

 

The Differential (Dogers pay this much more than the Sox):

Year 1: $35M ($28M on Lux line) Essentially, the Dodgers are paying $27M for Betts and $8M for Price but no longer have Pollock & Kelly.

Year 2: $5M ($11M Lux) Dogers are paying $5M for Price in 2021 (no Pollock/Kelly)

Year 3: $10M ($9M Lux) Dodgers are paying $10M for Price (no Pollock)

 

To me, including Pollock & Kelly cancels out the Price contract vs worth, so we need some good prospects returned in the deal.

[notin]

No one really wants Joc Pederson. Except maybe Mrs. Pederson. Maybe.

 

The only reason to include him is to offset some cash. And he is cheaper than Pollock

[moonslav59]

No one really wants Joc Pederson. Except maybe Mrs. Pederson. Maybe.

 

The only reason to include him is to offset some cash. And he is cheaper than Pollock

 

Taking Pollock improves the cash flow for the Dodgers and allows us to get a better prospect(s).

 

I doubt Betts & Price for Pederson gets us anything more.

[notin]

Taking Pollock improves the cash flow for the Dodgers and allows us to get a better prospect(s).

 

I doubt Betts & Price for Pederson gets us anything more.

 

And that’s the only reason to take the oft-injured Pollock. But that also depends how generous LA gets.

[harmony]

How did a thread with such an unappealing title draw responses totaling 63 pages ... and counting?

[notin]

How did a thread with such an unappealing title draw responses totaling 63 pages ... and counting?

 

Steady contributions from the West Coast?

 

Or not...,

[notin]

So if the Sox trade Betts and Price, and then deal Bradley in another trade, how long will it take for the first article about the Sox trading away all their black players and who writes it?

[a700hitter]

So if the Sox trade Betts and Price, and then deal Bradley in another trade, how long will it take for the first article about the Sox trading away all their black players and who writes it?

I don't know, but John Henry should be haunted by his own legacy if they make those trades.

[moonslav59]

And that’s the only reason to take the oft-injured Pollock. But that also depends how generous LA gets.

 

Well, it seems like the only reason stopping the deal is the money, so yes- it's the "only reason."

 

Ofcourse, I'd rather have 1 year of Joc than 3 of Pollock, but the Dodgers need more cash or salaries off their books.

[moonslav59]

So if the Sox trade Betts and Price, and then deal Bradley in another trade, how long will it take for the first article about the Sox trading away all their black players and who writes it?

 

Then let's trade 'em for Upton or include Walden or Chavez in the deal... LOL.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Pollock in the 2019 NLCS: 11-for-13... that's STRIKEOUTS (his batting average was .000). My fingers are almost typeless.

 

The worst-case Betts scenarios are picking up steam; Tomase just took a Betts-Price dump that I wont waste time linking because he basically copied and pasted half-a-dozen talksox proposals.

 

Let's just say if Mike Corleone was running the Dodgers, negotiations went something like this: "My offer is this -- nothing."

[notin]

Then let's trade 'em for Upton or include Walden or Chavez in the deal... LOL.

 

Actually the correct answer was “If they trade both Price and Betts, why would they still trade Bradley?”

[notin]

Pollock in the 2019 NLCS: 11-for-13... that's STRIKEOUTS (his batting average was .000). My fingers are almost typeless.

 

The worst-case Betts scenarios are picking up steam; Tomase just took a Betts-Price dump that I wont waste time linking because he basically copied and pasted half-a-dozen talksox proposals.

 

Let's just say if Mike Corleone was running the Dodgers, negotiations went something like this: "My offer is this -- nothing."

 

 

?????

 

Tomase mentions Gonsolin, Ruiz, May, Jeter Downs and Josiah Gray and mentions the Sox could get two of them. The only names he takes out of the equation are Lux and Verdugo.

 

Ruiz was a BA top 20 prospect last year. May was also ranked (BA #82). Gonsolin pitched well in MLB. Gray and Downs had terrific seasons and both would easily crack the top 4 on the Sox prospect rankings. And Downs/Gray might be the WORST option here.

 

If the Sox got Gonsolin and Ruiz for Price and Betts, that’s a good haul...

[jacksonianmarch]

Everything I have read is that the dodgers will not deal Ruiz, Smith, May, Urias or Lux. Gonsolin, Downs, and Gray are in play

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

?????

 

Tomase mentions Gonsolin, Ruiz, May, Jeter Downs and Josiah Gray and mentions the Sox could get two of them. The only names he takes out of the equation are Lux and Verdugo.

 

Ruiz was a BA top 20 prospect last year. May was also ranked (BA #82). Gonsolin pitched well in MLB. Gray and Downs had terrific seasons and both would easily crack the top 4 on the Sox prospect rankings. And Downs/Gray might be the WORST option here.

 

If the Sox got Gonsolin and Ruiz for Price and Betts, that’s a good haul...

 

I didn't see many names in today's Tomase column, just "No top-tier prospects. No impact players"... further down he mentions Gonsolin, but that's it. Here's the link: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/case-packaging-mookie-betts-and-david-price-straight-salary-dump.

 

I can't say I'll believe it when I see it, because if Bloom pulls the trigger on a Betts "dump" -- even at the trade deadline next summer -- I'll still be in disbelief.

[notin]

I didn't see many names in today's Tomase column, just "No top-tier prospects. No impact players"... further down he mentions Gonsolin, but that's it. Here's the link: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/case-packaging-mookie-betts-and-david-price-straight-salary-dump.

 

I can't say I'll believe it when I see it, because if Bloom pulls the trigger on a Betts "dump" -- even at the trade deadline next summer -- I'll still be in disbelief.

 

He still mentions Gonsolin. And if this deal enables the Sox to extend Devers, will it have any merit?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

He still mentions Gonsolin. And if this deal enables the Sox to extend Devers, will it have any merit?

 

Only if Betts admits intentions of not signing in Boston (which, I admit, makes no sense for a player who would lose leverage with suitors of places he prefers). But what if the Sox make an offer that Betts agrees to? It would still be contingent upon the reset, which would likely mean moving a high-priced pitcher and JBJ. Then they'd have to replace at least a starter and an outfielder -- hopefully with young controllables that could help restock depth and sustain contention. At that point, it may be practical instead to deal the one Red Sox with the most trade value: Devers. I hope not, because the kid looks like he could develop into a lefty combo of Cabrera/Beltre...

[moonslav59]

Actually the correct answer was “If they trade both Price and Betts, why would they still trade Bradley?”

 

If Betts is gone, why keep anyone with just 1 year of control, assuming we can get something good for him?

[moonslav59]

Only if Betts admits intentions of not signing in Boston (which, I admit, makes no sense for a player who would lose leverage with suitors of places he prefers). But what if the Sox make an offer that Betts agrees to? It would still be contingent upon the reset, which would likely mean moving a high-priced pitcher and JBJ. Then they'd have to replace at least a starter and an outfielder -- hopefully with young controllables that could help restock depth and sustain contention. At that point, it may be practical instead to deal the one Red Sox with the most trade value: Devers. I hope not, because the kid looks like he could develop into a lefty combo of Cabrera/Beltre...

 

Devers should never be brought up in any trade talks.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Devers should never be brought up in any trade talks.

 

Agreed. NONE of a team's young, core position players that fans identify with should be...

 

But if the Red Sox are going to give up on 2020 -- and no matter how anyone spins it, trading their best player about to enter his prime announces just that -- then the reset becomes a rebuild.

 

And if you're going to blow it up, then no one is untouchable -- especially a guy who could net you the best prospect depth (who also plays an organizational position of strength), which in Chapter One of the modern GM handbook is the first step in expediting club status back to contention.

 

This is how bad this offseason is until something actually happens.

[jacksonianmarch]

I’d purge anyone with two years of control or less who aren’t willing or aren’t good enough to extend.

[Bellhorn04]

Agreed. NONE of a team's young, core position players that fans identify with should be...

 

But if the Red Sox are going to give up on 2020 -- and no matter how anyone spins it, trading their best player about to enter his prime announces just that -- then the reset becomes a rebuild.

 

And if you're going to blow it up, then no one is untouchable -- especially a guy who could net you the best prospect depth (who also plays an organizational position of strength), which in Chapter One of the modern GM handbook is the first step in expediting club status back to contention.

 

And the front office has insisted their top priority is a competitive team.

 

So it's kind of a Catch-22.

[Bellhorn04]

How did a thread with such an unappealing title draw responses totaling 63 pages ... and counting?

 

It became the de facto Red Sox offseason thread.

 

And the relevance of the title has been enhanced by the fact that nothing big has happened yet.

[notin]

If Betts is gone, why keep anyone with just 1 year of control, assuming we can get something good for him?

 

 

Because it’s still a good team lead by CHRIS FREAKIN’ SALE

[notin]

Agreed. NONE of a team's young, core position players that fans identify with should be...

 

But if the Red Sox are going to give up on 2020 -- and no matter how anyone spins it, trading their best player about to enter his prime announces just that -- then the reset becomes a rebuild.

 

And if you're going to blow it up, then no one is untouchable -- especially a guy who could net you the best prospect depth (who also plays an organizational position of strength), which in Chapter One of the modern GM handbook is the first step in expediting club status back to contention.

 

This is how bad this offseason is until something actually happens.

 

I don’t think unloading Betts means the season is over. Either the Sox get back significant, helpful piece(s) or they also dump Price, which frees up enough cash to still add to this team while still resetting...