Betts or Martinez?

[Jack Flap]

Teams that want to take their best prospects "off the table" in any Mookie trade talks should be told to go pound sand. I don't care if that's rational or not. You're not getting Mookie Freakin Betts for a bunch of spare parts.

[harmony]

Actually the moderate overpay quantifier still means it's actually still roughly equal...

indeed .. the framework is there.

[notin]

$orry, I a$$umed Toma$e wa$ $peaking about thi$ $ea$on...

 

GMs can't just look at "this season."

 

Would you have dealt Betts and Swihart for Hamels? Or Nomar for Denny Naigle?

[notin]

Teams that want to take their best prospects "off the table" in any Mookie trade talks should be told to go pound sand. I don't care if that's rational or not. You're not getting Mookie Freakin Betts for a bunch of spare parts.

 

The Braves have plenty of prospects besides Pache.

 

I think Sox fans might be a bit overzealous about what the right to pay Mookie Betts $30mill is worth to other teams...

[Jack Flap]

I think Sox fans might be a bit overzealous about what the right to pay Mookie Betts $30mill is worth to other teams...

 

No, I get it, and I'd feel the same way if I was a fan of the team on the other side of the table. But I acknowledged that I'm not being strictly rational about this. My preference is not to trade Mookie at all, but if they do decide to explore the idea, they should be asking for the moon (at least initially). The worst that can happen is that you can't make a deal and he ends up back in RF at Fenway for a big contract year...I'm fine with taking my chances with that.

[Bellhorn04]

No, I get it, and I'd feel the same way if I was a fan of the team on the other side of the table. But I acknowledged that I'm not being strictly rational about this. My preference is not to trade Mookie at all, but if they do decide to explore the idea, they should be asking for the moon (at least initially). The worst that can happen is that you can't make a deal and he ends up back in RF at Fenway for a big contract year...I'm fine with taking my chances with that.

 

Don't trade him, and in fact stop talking about trading him and wasting your time and everyone else's with a jillion proposals run through the Trade Simulator. That's my simple solution.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The Braves have plenty of prospects besides Pache.

 

I think Sox fans might be a bit overzealous about what the right to pay Mookie Betts $30mill is worth to other teams...

 

I don't think anyone trades for Betts unless they have a side agreement for an extension, which we pretty much know he won't sign... which means he's stays (for now).

 

As for Pache, I'm not saying he's the guy I want, I just can't believe there's not one GM willing to part with a top prospect for someone they believe will put them over the top. I mean, Dombro traded the Sox Number One pitching prospect for freaking Pomeranz because he thought he'd be the starter to boost Boston to the top... and well, they did finish first.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Don't trade him, and in fact stop talking about trading him and wasting your time and everyone else's with a jillion proposals run through the Trade Simulator. That's my simple solution.

 

Right now I'm busy analyzing my firewood-simulator. I need to take down the dead tree the gypsy moths ate. But even if I get two cords of surplus firewood, my pocket will be out a negative-$600.

[notin]

Don't trade him, and in fact stop talking about trading him and wasting your time and everyone else's with a jillion proposals run through the Trade Simulator. That's my simple solution.

 

 

 

So we can back to some productive posting on this Red Sox forum!!!!

[Bellhorn04]

So we can back to some productive posting on this Red Sox forum!!!!

 

Exactly.

[notin]

 

As for Pache, I'm not saying he's the guy I want, I just can't believe there's not one GM willing to part with a top prospect for someone they believe will put them over the top. I mean, Dombro traded the Sox Number One pitching prospect for freaking Pomeranz because he thought he'd be the starter to boost Boston to the top... and well, they did finish first.

 

I think you might be oversimplifying this.

 

Pomeranz was controlled for 2 1/2 seasons and didn't cost $30mill. Given that he had recently appeared in an All Star game and was having a breakout season for very little money, he did make sense as an acquisition for that cost.

 

When the Orioles dealt Machado to the Dodgers, did the Orioles get Keibert Ruiz or Alex Verdugo? Those were the Dodgers two prospects at the time.

 

The O's did get Yusniel Diaz, their 4th ranked prospect, and a lot of spare parts. Diaz was #73 on Baseball Prospectus list, and unranked by anyone else.

 

If teams require an extension - and certainly some will - then Betts will be in RF and the Sox might look elsewhere for salaries to move...

[notin]

I don't think anyone trades for Betts unless they have a side agreement for an extension, which we pretty much know he won't sign... which means he's stays (for now).

 

As for Pache, I'm not saying he's the guy I want, I just can't believe there's not one GM willing to part with a top prospect for someone they believe will put them over the top. I mean, Dombro traded the Sox Number One pitching prospect for freaking Pomeranz because he thought he'd be the starter to boost Boston to the top... and well, they did finish first.

 

It's also easy to get behind the trade where the guy we gave up got injured and has not pitched since and might even retire within the next 24 months.

 

But I asked earlier - would you have traded Betts and Swihart for Hamels? Or Nomar for Denny Neagle? (I think I botched his name earlier.) Both were real trade proposals (per the Boston media) at a time when the Sox had a serious need for pitching...

[mvp 78]

So we can back to some productive posting on this Red Sox forum!!!!

 

Clutch exists.

[notin]

Clutch exists.

 

Very true. I have one in my car...

[moonslav59]

Teams that want to take their best prospects "off the table" in any Mookie trade talks should be told to go pound sand. I don't care if that's rational or not. You're not getting Mookie Freakin Betts for a bunch of spare parts.

 

Well, if we get a good, low-cost ML player or two with 3+ years of team control as part of the return, I can see not including a "top prospect."

[mvp 78]

Very true. I have one in my car...

 

Hard to find these days.

[notin]

Hard to find these days.

 

Even in Florida? Figured they'd be a bigger deal there since the biggest hill in south Florida is the pitcher's mound at Marlins Park...

[mvp 78]

Even in Florida? Figured they'd be a bigger deal there since the biggest hill in south Florida is the pitcher's mound at Marlins Park...

 

Most automakers aren't putting them into anything worthwhile anymore.

 

I'm not handy enough to get an old Chevelle or something.

[notin]

Most automakers aren't putting them into anything worthwhile anymore.

 

I'm not handy enough to get an old Chevelle or something.

 

The 2019 Porsche 911 GT3 still has one. I take it you're more of a Ferrari guy...

[mvp 78]

The 2019 Porsche 911 GT3 still has one. I take it you're more of a Ferrari guy...

 

Not a mid life crisis kinda guy.

[notin]

Not a mid life crisis kinda guy.

 

That's ok. I have a 2016 Volkswagen Golf. It's almost like a Porsche 911 GT3. Just a few differnence. Like for starters, it's a station wagon...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's also easy to get behind the trade where the guy we gave up got injured and has not pitched since and might even retire within the next 24 months.

 

But I asked earlier - would you have traded Betts and Swihart for Hamels? Or Nomar for Denny Neagle? (I think I botched his name earlier.) Both were real trade proposals (per the Boston media) at a time when the Sox had a serious need for pitching...

 

Sorry, was away from the laptop (I still have a flip phone). I don't recall Betts' name in trade proposals for Hamels, but looked up the timeline for the rumors -- winter after 2014 -- and after Mookie's first 52 games in which he had a 2.3 WAR, which multiplies to about a 7.0 for an entire season. He was an untouchable for me even then, because of all his tools it was his wrists that looked quicker than any I'd ever seen (and only read about on a young Hank Aaron).

 

I do remember Swihart's as the most prevalent name in Hamels trade talks, and obviously in hindsight we'd all do that swap... but I was ok with it, because Boston needed an ace after basically dumping an entire rotation, and catcher was a position of prospect depth; even though some predicted Blake would be the next Posey, we still had Vazquez, who was billed as the next Molina, and worked out with the brothers in offseasons (I also remember Shaugnessey saying, "if you don't want to give up Swihart, then give them Vazquez"). According to Cafardo, here's the Sox actual proposal -- and why they didn't land Hamels: Allen Craig and Daniel Nava?!?!

 

I don't remember the Nomar for Neagle talk, but have basically been against trading good position players for pitchers. I hated Reddick for a reliever, but didn't care that Manny for ARod included a throw-in minor leaguer named Lester. It's not hard to imagine that if that deal had stood, Boston might still be looking to break a -- what, 100+ year old curse...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And today, yet another pro writer proposes a Betts trade - this one with Eovaldi, to the Cardinals - for a outfielder worse than JD, a pitcher who can't pitch, a infielder who can't grow a mustache, and an outfield prospect who, once again, is not the team's top outfield prospect...

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28211999/one-blockbuster-move-all-30-mlb-teams

 

I understand that speculation is keeping these guys (and us guys) busy, but such scenarios -- no matter what the dollar values say -- are just not happening because they will be unacceptable. to. the. Nation. Forgetaboudit.

 

Unless a team is confident they can extend Betts and is thus willing to part with actual top prospects -- who there's a 99% chance will never be as good as Mookie -- he's in Boston for 2020.

 

In other news, the Angels traded FOUR minor league pitchers to Baltimore for Bundy, he of the lifetime 4.67 ERA.

[Bellhorn04]

And today, yet another pro writer proposes a Betts trade - this one with Eovaldi, to the Cardinals - for a outfielder worse than JD, a pitcher who can't pitch, a infielder who can't grow a mustache, and an outfield prospect who, once again, is not the team's top outfield prospect...

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28211999/one-blockbuster-move-all-30-mlb-teams

 

I understand that speculation is keeping these guys (and us guys) busy, but such scenarios -- no matter what the dollar values say -- are just not happening because they will be unacceptable. to. the. Nation. Forgetaboudit.

 

Unless a team is confident they can extend Betts and is thus willing to part with actual top prospects -- who there's a 99% chance will never be as good as Mookie -- he's in Boston for 2020.

 

In other news, the Angels traded FOUR minor league pitchers to Baltimore for Bundy, he of the lifetime 4.67 ERA.

 

Anyone run the Bundy trade through the simulator?

[notin]

Anyone run the Bundy trade through the simulator?

 

Actually it couldn't be done because one of the players the Orioles got was not in the simulator. But it was remarkably underwhelming with the players it did have...

[jacksonianmarch]

The Orioles got 3 guys drafted in 2019 and one guy who likely will be in Baltimore at some point in 2020. They essentially got a Bundy replacement and 3 lottery tix

[Jack Flap]

I wonder how that simulator would have looked upon our 2012 trade with the Dodgers (where we shed an incredible amount of salary AND got two decent prospects in De La Rosa and Webster) or Theo's infamous Torres+ for Chapman swap. It's a fun and useful tool, but obviously these things happen due to a lot of real-world considerations that the tool can't take into account (including whether the teams involved even want/need the players in question, and how much).

 

That said, something like Betts and Chavis/Dalbec to the Dodgers for Verdugo, Gray, and Downs could be tempting. There's my useless trade proposal for the day. (That's a "moderate overpay" according to the system, but I feel like if you can't get a moderate overpay for a player of Mookie's caliber, you might as well not bother.)

[notin]

I wonder how that simulator would have looked upon our 2012 trade with the Dodgers (where we shed an incredible amount of salary AND got two decent prospects in De La Rosa and Webster) or Theo's infamous Torres+ for Chapman swap. It's a fun and useful tool, but obviously these things happen due to a lot of real-world considerations that the tool can't take into account (including whether the teams involved even want/need the players in question, and how much).

 

That said, something like Betts and Chavis/Dalbec to the Dodgers for Verdugo, Gray, and Downs could be tempting. There's my useless trade proposal for the day. (That's a "moderate overpay" according to the system, but I feel like if you can't get a moderate overpay for a player of Mookie's caliber, you might as well not bother.)

 

That simulator just tells you if a trade is fair using projected WAR and projected/guaranteed salaries for the players involved. It can't accomodate whether players are clubhouse leaders/cancers or a GMs desire to keep or deal a player. And hey, sometimes GMs make bad trades. (Actually lots of times.)

 

Really what it does it gives you an idea if a trade is fair for both sides using the criteria previously discussed. I know a lot of people are poo-pooing it, but the old way for fans to propose trades was almost always lopsided. Go to the Yankee thread where Meh proposed the Yankees could get Syndergaard and Edwin Diaz for Miguel Andujar, Clint Frazier, Holder and Mike Ford. That's the classic "we can get anything for one really good player and table scraps that fill holes" proposals that still fill the internet to this day (and I've made them myself).

 

At the very least, BTV is objective and I keep kicking myself for not thinking of it first, especially since I have used a similar one on fantasyp.com for fantasy football trades...

[Jack Flap]

That simulator just tells you if a trade is fair using projected WAR and projected/guaranteed salaries for the players involved. It can't accomodate whether players are clubhouse leaders/cancers or a GMs desire to keep or deal a player. And hey, sometimes GMs make bad trades. (Actually lots of times.)

 

Really what it does it gives you an idea if a trade is fair for both sides using the criteria previously discussed. I know a lot of people are poo-pooing it, but the old way for fans to propose trades was almost always lopsided. Go to the Yankee thread where Meh proposed the Yankees could get Syndergaard and Edwin Diaz for Miguel Andujar, Clint Frazier, Holder and Mike Ford. That's the classic "we can get anything for one really good player and table scraps that fill holes" proposals that still fill the internet to this day (and I've made them myself).

 

At the very least, BTV is objective and I keep kicking myself for not thinking of it first, especially since I have used a similar one on fantasyp.com for fantasy football trades...

 

It's not my intention to pooh-pooh it, just for the record...I do think it helps to add a ground level of realism to the trade proposal game, for all the reasons you mentioned.

 

And the "we can get anything for one really good player and table scraps that fill holes" sort of trade is exactly what I hope we avoid if we get to the point of trading Mookie (something I still can't really see happening regardless)...

[notin]

It's not my intention to pooh-pooh it, just for the record...I do think it helps to add a ground level of realism to the trade proposal game, for all the reasons you mentioned.

 

And the "we can get anything for one really good player and table scraps that fill holes" sort of trade is exactly what I hope we avoid if we get to the point of trading Mookie (something I still can't really see happening regardless)...

 

It does look like one of Betts, Martinez, Price or Eovaldi has to go.

 

From those 4, I prefer it be either Price or Eovaldi. But Betts is clearly the most desirable for any team hoping for a title run in 2020...