Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?

[mvp 78]

I am not your research assistant look it up yourself. It isn't hard. That is what I did.

 

^^^ guy who complained wikipedia was a bad link.

[Swiharts Ghost]

^^^ guy who complained wikipedia was a bad link.

 

Mookie gets traded tomorrow before Super Bowl just a hunch and we get a big return .

[Swiharts Ghost]

Strippling, Gonsolin and Cartaya, by themselves, are all better than the comp pick.

 

All three together would be way better.

 

Gonsolin and Strippling are better than anything we have on the farm or just called up. Maybe DHern outdoes both of them, but as of now, both are better, IMO.

 

We may be able to get Ruiz & Gonsolin and maybe Strippling or Downs added on.

If Verdugo is healthy moon don’t we need this kid in the trade ? I’m holding out hope for Atleast May ,Verdulgo and Gonso for Betts and A subssidzed Price .

Edited February 2, 2020 by Swiharts Ghost

[a700hitter]

1. None of the players Sox will get will be as good as Betts.

 

2. Whoever the Sox draft as a compensation pick is extremely likely to not be as good as any of the Dodgers coming back.

 

3. Stripling was an All Star in 2018. Cut him some slack.

 

4. It’s possible the entire point of dealing Betts is to reset and allow the Sox to position themselves to offer him a record-setting contract. Trade or not, rumor has it the only way to keep him off the market is with a 12 year $420 mill contract.

Stripling was picked by his manager Dave Roberts for the 2018 All Star team after a hot run. He's 30, and probably has little upward potential. He's a serviceable bullpen depth arm, but imo that is not worth 1 year of Betts. It's a spare part in return for a salary dump. You say that whoever we get from the Dodgers is likely to be better than the draft pick we would get a year later. You don't know that. In any event, the spare part or seedlings that the Dodgers would send over are not worth 1 year of Betts imo.

[a700hitter]

Strippling, Gonsolin and Cartaya, by themselves, are all better than the comp pick.

 

You can't possibly know this and even if the comp pick is a zero, getting one of these is not worth 1 year of Betts imo.

[a700hitter]

Correct, but not so absurd now, is it?

It was absurd at the time, and what happened afterward doesn't change that.

[moonslav59]

You can't possibly know this and even if the comp pick is a zero, getting one of these is not worth 1 year of Betts imo.

 

Of course nobody knows but every GM in MLB would not trade any one of these guys for that comp pick, so their current value is higher.

[moonslav59]

It was absurd at the time, and what happened afterward doesn't change that.

 

LOL.It was reasonable, at the time, as many of us claimed.

 

You just can never admit having the wrong view.

[moonslav59]

If Verdugo is healthy moon don’t we need this kid in the trade ? I’m holding out hope for At least May ,Verdulgo and Gonso for Betts and A subssidzed Price .

 

I'd rather have a healthy Verdugo than any of the 3-4 guys I mentioned, but I'd be fine with getting an extra player.

 

Verdugo + Gonsolin or Stripling = Ruiz, Gonsoli & Stripling

[a700hitter]

LOL.It was reasonable, at the time, as many of us claimed.

 

You just can never admit having the wrong view.

It wasn't a logical wish. But you don't get logic.

[moonslav59]

It wasn't a logical wish. But you don't get logic.

 

Doing your best, again, I see.

[a700hitter]

Doing your best, again, I see.

Here's is what I was saying at the time, and what has happened since doesn't change what I said at that time. Price was only going to opt out if he was worth more than $30 million/year on the open market. For him to do otherwise would have been irrational. With many millions of dollars on the line, I would not expect him to act irrationally. He would only opt out of $30 million/ year if he and his agent were confident that he was worth substantially more than $30 million/year meaning that we had an undervalued asset at $30 million/year. To wish that he would opt out was illogical -- a fool's errand. That was my point.

[moonslav59]

I know what your point was, and many of us felt like even if Price had a great season before the opt out, his age and projected production would likely mean he would not earn the remainder of his salary and the money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

It's not an absurd position, and despite the fact that he ended up not having a great season, those of us hoping he'd opt out were not wrong.

 

BTW, I said the same about HRam. I said even if he hits .300 35 120, we should trade him. He actually had a decent second year, and we should have traded him.

 

Of course, using your logic, I was wrong on that one,too.

 

Let's face the only fact known only to you: you are never wrong.

[a700hitter]

I know what your point was, and many of us felt like even if Price had a great season before the opt out, his age and projected production would likely mean he would not earn the remainder of his salary and the money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

It's not an absurd position, and despite the fact that he ended up not having a great season, those of us hoping he'd opt out were not wrong.

 

BTW, I said the same about HRam. I said even if he hits .300 35 120, we should trade him. He actually had a decent second year, and we should have traded him.

 

Of course, using your logic, I was wrong on that one,too.

 

Let's face the only fact known only to you: you are never wrong.

He had a good season. He didn’t have a $30 million plus season— not even close. The open market would take into account his health and durability. They gauged that the open market would not pay him $30 million plus, so he stayed. An opt out is completely for the benefit of the player to capitalize on his increased value. It is not for the benefit of the team at all. Here’s why, if Price’s performance and health had boosted his value to $40 million a year, the Red Sox would be better off if he did not have an opt-out provision, even if the Sox wanted to shed payroll. The reason is that if he would be worth $40 million on the open market and the Sox has him for $30 million, they could trade him and offload his whole salary and get something of substantial value in return. If he is worth $40 million and opts out, they get nothing in return. The opt out isn’t designed to benefit the team that gives it. Hoping for him to opt out was just foolishness.

[a700hitter]

I know what your point was, and many of us felt like even if Price had a great season before the opt out, his age and projected production would likely mean he would not earn the remainder of his salary and the money could be spent better elsewhere.

 

It's not an absurd position, and despite the fact that he ended up not having a great season, those of us hoping he'd opt out were not wrong.

 

BTW, I said the same about HRam. I said even if he hits .300 35 120, we should trade him. He actually had a decent second year, and we should have traded him.

 

Of course, using your logic, I was wrong on that one,too.

 

Let's face the only fact known only to you: you are never wrong.

HanRam did not have an opt out provision. It is a completely different situation. Trading a player after having a big season could be very beneficial. I would have traded Bradley after the season when he hit 26HRs. His value was very high after that, and since then he has been streaky and inconsistent. That is a very different situation than an opt out.

[moonslav59]

HanRam did not have an opt out provision. It is a completely different situation. Trading a player after having a big season could be very beneficial. I would have traded Bradley after the season when he hit 26HRs. His value was very high after that, and since then he has been streaky and inconsistent. That is a very different situation than an opt out.

 

I never said it was the exact same, and as always, you missed my obvious point.

 

Like Hram, had Price had a great year, it still would have (or at least might have) been good for us, if he opted out. I get your point that technically, he'd be worth $32M a year had he been great, but it's still a valid position to think he'd regress with age and to hope he opts out.

 

The fact that he did not have a great season makes the answer speculative, but certainly his following seasons and injuries don't hurt our position or help yours.

[moonslav59]

He had a good season. He didn’t have a $30 million plus season— not even close. The open market would take into account his health and durability. They gauged that the open market would not pay him $30 million plus, so he stayed. An opt out is completely for the benefit of the player to capitalize on his increased value. It is not for the benefit of the team at all. Here’s why, if Price’s performance and health had boosted his value to $40 million a year, the Red Sox would be better off if he did not have an opt-out provision, even if the Sox wanted to shed payroll. The reason is that if he would be worth $40 million on the open market and the Sox has him for $30 million, they could trade him and offload his whole salary and get something of substantial value in return. If he is worth $40 million and opts out, they get nothing in return. The opt out isn’t designed to benefit the team that gives it. Hoping for him to opt out was just foolishness.

 

Certainly not foolishness. Just because a pitcher does great one year does not mean it is expected he continue for 3 more. Both positions were based on speculation.

 

His contract was for too many years. Hoping he did well and opted out is a valid position to hold. It's fine to disagree, but it's certainly not a foolish position based on past histories of pitchers after his age at the time of the opt out.

[a700hitter]

I never said it was the exact same, and as always, you missed my obvious point.

 

Like Hram, had Price had a great year, it still would have (or at least might have) been good for us, if he opted out. I get your point that technically, he'd be worth $32M a year had he been great, but it's still a valid position to think he'd regress with age and to hope he opts out.

 

The fact that he did not have a great season makes the answer speculative, but certainly his following seasons and injuries don't hurt our position or help yours.

The 2 situations are completely different. I agree with you on HanRam. My obvious point on the other issue is that the opt out is a player friendly provision that will never benefit the team from a value standpoint at the time of the decision. Anything unforeseen can happen afterward. Worries about Price’s health was not great foresight. It was a prominently known issue and it factored into him being worth much less than $30 million/yr at the time of his decision.

[a700hitter]

Certainly not foolishness. Just because a pitcher does great one year does not mean it is expected he continue for 3 more. Both positions were based on speculation.

 

His contract was for too many years. Hoping he did well and opted out is a valid position to hold. It's fine to disagree, but it's certainly not a foolish position based on past histories of pitchers after his age at the time of the opt out.

I’ll try to state more clearly why wishing for his opt out was silly. If Price was worth $40 mil/yr on the open market, the possibility of his inconsistent future performance would be irrelevant, because The Red Sox would have had an in the money asset. They could trade that asset while it is in the money and offload his entire salary plus get a premium in the form of other talent. If this “in the money” asset has an opt out provision, he leaves voluntarily and they get nothing. I think we agree that Contracts are assets with values. A contract during an opt out year can only have a negative value to a team. It can never have a positive value.

[Larry Cook]

I do not know why st Louis is not in on Betts. With him in that line up, they could be World Series bound!

[jung]

I do not know why st Louis is not in on Betts. With him in that line up, they could be World Series bound!

 

Are the Cards ever in this "lets sign a guy for a year" stuff or aren't they most often on the "lets see who we can fleece by offing a guy in his last year" side of things?

[notin]

Are the Cards ever in this "lets sign a guy for a year" stuff or aren't they most often on the "lets see who we can fleece by offing a guy in his last year" side of things?

 

They have a couple bad contracts they might insist on including. Hey it’s not our fault you thought Dexter Fowler was good!!

[moonslav59]

I’ll try to state more clearly why wishing for his opt out was silly. If Price was worth $40 mil/yr on the open market, the possibility of his inconsistent future performance would be irrelevant, because The Red Sox would have had an in the money asset. They could trade that asset while it is in the money and offload his entire salary plus get a premium in the form of other talent. If this “in the money” asset has an opt out provision, he leaves voluntarily and they get nothing. I think we agree that Contracts are assets with values. A contract during an opt out year can only have a negative value to a team. It can never have a positive value.

 

You keep acting like I don't get your point- like if I just understood what you mean, I'd have to agree. I totally understand your point, now as I did then, and it's a good one, but it's not the only factor in taking a position on whether it would be good for the Sox, if Price opted out or not, even had he had a great season before the opt out.

 

Try to understand my point, for once. It is just as valid as yours, if not more so.

[notin]

I’ll try to state more clearly why wishing for his opt out was silly. If Price was worth $40 mil/yr on the open market, the possibility of his inconsistent future performance would be irrelevant, because The Red Sox would have had an in the money asset. They could trade that asset while it is in the money and offload his entire salary plus get a premium in the form of other talent. If this “in the money” asset has an opt out provision, he leaves voluntarily and they get nothing. I think we agree that Contracts are assets with values. A contract during an opt out year can only have a negative value to a team. It can never have a positive value.

 

We all knew he wasn’t opting out after he got injured the prior season. Sure we could have hoped he opt out much in the same way I hope I can guess 7 numbers correctly on Mega Millions. But we all knew he wasn’t...

[moonslav59]

We all knew he wasn’t opting out after he got injured the prior season. Sure we could have hoped he opt out much in the same way I hope I can guess 7 numbers correctly on Mega Millions. But we all knew he wasn’t...

 

Yes, but that is a different point than the one we are talking about now, which was the debate before the season began.

 

Some had the position that even if Price had a great year, we hoped he'd opt out.

 

Others did not.

 

Both positions have validity. 700 not only thinks one does not, he calls it foolish to hope for an opt out.

[notin]

Yes, but that is a different point than the one we are talking about now, which was the debate before the season began.

 

Some had the position that even if Price had a great year, we hoped he'd opt out.

 

Others did not.

 

Both positions have validity. 700 not only thinks one does not, he calls it foolish to hope for an opt out.

 

I wanted Price to opt out. I just knew he wouldn’t after barely pitching in 2017. Even if, for some reason, he wanted to opt out just to get out of Boston or his wife insisted he opt out or he just felt lucky, his agent would have locked him in a closet until after the deadline anyway.

 

But I still wanted I’m to. He was not going to get any better but he was going to get older...

[Bellhorn04]

700hitter's point comes into effect if the guy has a strong year before the opt-out decision.

 

Then you would be hoping for him to opt in, because in theory he'd be tradeable for at least as much as what was left on his contract.

[notin]

700hitter's point comes into effect if the guy has a strong year before the opt-out decision.

 

Then you would be hoping for him to opt in, because in theory he'd be tradeable for at least as much as what was left on his contract.

 

I was hoping for the opt out the day he signed. It was the only thing I liked about the contract.

 

But I am an anti-years guy in most cases. I’d rather Price got $217 mill for one year than spread out over 7...

[Bellhorn04]

I was hoping for the opt out the day he signed. It was the only thing I liked about the contract.

 

But I am an anti-years guy in most cases. I’d rather Price got $217 mill for one year than spread out over 7...

 

Well, I agree with 700hitter (I think) - all things equal, opt outs are not a plus for the team.

[notin]

Well, I agree with 700hitter (I think) - all things equal, opt outs are not a plus for the team.

 

 

Well, yes and no.

 

Obviously the player only opts out if he thinks he can get more money, which only happens if he is doing well. But unless the player is under 30, he probably is going to see at least the start of a decline in production, and see it very soon. So while teams will see players walk away with very little compensation (qualifying offers can be extended to players who opt out), the real bonus for the team is the extremely likely scenario of a player simply walking away before he becomes an albatross...