A Realistic View of 2024: Part II

[Old Red]

Of course he isn't. He is, however, a pitcher who has as much ability as anyone in the game. They had very little to lose and possibly much to gain by keeping him.

 

As it’s turned out the starting pitching has been much better than anticipated, but it didn’t look that way when the deal was made. I guess I’m still hung up on that $17M the Red Sox are paying the Braves for Sale to pitch for them, which is pretty well at the moment.

[moonslav59]

I said the deal was Betts-lite. That doesn't mean it's a one for one correlation. Sale was on a HOF track before the injuries. He was Chris Freakin' Sale!

 

I know you just want to argue about everything, but c'mon.........

 

It's not even close to the Betts deal, IMO.

 

Calling it "lite" doesn't take away from the fact that you linked the two together.

 

BTW, it takes two to argue. You are pretty good at it.

[moonslav59]

A big difference which moon and notin are confusing IMO.

 

A very confusing statement.

[Old Red]

It's not even close to the Betts deal, IMO.

 

Calling it "lite" doesn't take away from the fact that you linked the two together.

 

BTW, it takes two to argue. You are pretty good at it.

WOW says the man behind the curtain. Pay no attention to him as the saying goes, and fits like a glove.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not even close to the Betts deal, IMO.

 

Calling it "lite" doesn't take away from the fact that you linked the two together.

 

moon, you linked Devers and Grissom just a few posts ago.

 

It's like you have one set of rules for yourself and one for everyone else.

[Old Red]

moon, you linked Devers and Grissom just a few posts ago.

 

It's like you have one set of rules for yourself and one for everyone else.

 

Ain’t that the truth.

[notin]

I said the deal was Betts-lite. That doesn't mean it's a one for one correlation. Sale was on a HOF track before the injuries. He was Chris Freakin' Sale!

 

I know you just want to argue about everything, but c'mon.........

 

I can't even look at them the same.

 

One deal was a 27yo future Hall of Famer in his prime who had no drawbacks whatsoever except his salary (and only then if you had to pay it).

 

The other was a 35yo with HOF ability who had struggled to stay in the field for the past 5 seasons.

 

The only way the Mookie deal went bad for LA was if he just never signed an extension. With Sale, there was a helluva a lot more risk becuase he was a much older and oft-injured pitcher, and no one would be surprised if he had issues this year. You simply cannot say that last part about Betts and never could...

[Bellhorn04]

I can't even look at them the same.

 

One deal was a 27yo future Hall of Famer in his prime who had no drawbacks whatsoever except his salary (and only then if you had to pay it).

 

The other was a 35yo with HOF ability who had struggled to stay in the field for the past 5 seasons.

 

The only way the Mookie deal went bad for LA was if he just never signed an extension. With Sale, there was a helluva a lot more risk becuase he was a much older and oft-injured pitcher, and no one would be surprised if he had issues this year. You simply cannot say that last part about Betts and never could...

 

It's not a one to one, but there are similarities. In both cases they traded a big talent with one year left on their contract for prospects.

 

It's a similarly small market approach.

 

Sale's age and injury history are a lot different, no one's disputing that.

 

What irks me is that the financial risk of keeping Sale was not that big. They saved $10 million. Big deal. That covers half of Giolito's contract for 2024.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Bellhorn04

[Old Red]

It's not a one to one, but there are similarities. In both cases they traded a big talent with one year left on their contract for prospects.

 

It's a similarly small market approach.

 

Sale's age and injury history are a lot different, no one's disputing that.

 

What irks me is that the financial risk of keeping Sale was not that big. They saved $10 million. Big deal. That covers half of Giolito's contract for 2024.

 

I still can’t believe they shelled out $18M to Gio.

[mvp 78]

It's not even close to the Betts deal, IMO.

 

Calling it "lite" doesn't take away from the fact that you linked the two together.

 

BTW, it takes two to argue. You are pretty good at it.

 

I'm great at arguing on here, but even better at walking away.

[mvp 78]

I can't even look at them the same.

 

One deal was a 27yo future Hall of Famer in his prime who had no drawbacks whatsoever except his salary (and only then if you had to pay it).

 

The other was a 35yo with HOF ability who had struggled to stay in the field for the past 5 seasons.

 

The only way the Mookie deal went bad for LA was if he just never signed an extension. With Sale, there was a helluva a lot more risk becuase he was a much older and oft-injured pitcher, and no one would be surprised if he had issues this year. You simply cannot say that last part about Betts and never could...

 

So about as close as Teddy Ballgame and Troy O'Leary, right?

[Bellhorn04]

So about as close as Teddy Ballgame and Troy O'Leary, right?

 

Some people really know how to keep hyperbole out of it.

[notin]

It's not a one to one, but there are similarities. In both cases they traded a big talent with one year left on their contract for prospects.

 

It's a similarly small market approach.

 

Sale's age and injury history are a lot different, no one's disputing that.

 

What irks me is that the financial risk of keeping Sale was not that big. They saved $10 million. Big deal. That covers half of Giolito's contract for 2024.

 

With Sale, it was clearly not just about the money; they also wanted a player. They probably could have paid none of it and taken back someone much less than Grissom. someone to just fill a roster spot for little to no cash. David Fletcher? Grissom at least has some potential.

 

The Betts trade was to get under the luxury tax limits and included throwing in half of what was left of David Price. This was a much more blatant salary dump...

[Bellhorn04]

With Sale, it was clearly not just about the money; they also wanted a player. They probably could have paid none of it and taken back someone much less than Grissom. someone to just fill a roster spot for little to no cash. David Fletcher? Grissom at least has some potential.

 

Yes, Grissom is a prospect. That's what I said. I think we were kind of led to believe he was an instant 2-3 win guy.

[mvp 78]

Some people really know how to keep hyperbole out of it.

 

People just don't post like they used to anymore.

[notin]

So about as close as Teddy Ballgame and Troy O'Leary, right?

 

Hall of Famer in his prime like Betts vs aging Sale and his 151 IP over the previous 4 seasons, clinging to hope that he magically rediscovers his health in his mid-30s? Exactly how close do you think these deals are? This is not just like trading Betts but with fewer calories.

 

I mean, Williams and O'Leary were both left-handed hitters from southern California who played left field for the Red Sox. Gee, there are parallels there, too. But does that really make them similar?

[mvp 78]

Hall of Famer in his prime like Betts vs aging Sale and his 151 IP over the previous 4 seasons, clinging to hope that he magically rediscovers his health in his mid-30s? Exactly how close do you think these deals are? This is not just like trading Betts but with fewer calories.

 

I mean, Williams and O'Leary were both left-handed hitters from southern California who played left field for the Red Sox. Gee, there are parallels there, too. But does that really make them similar?

 

Betts and Sale trades are more similar than the careers of Williams and O'Leary.

[notin]

Yes, Grissom is a prospect. That's what I said. I think we were kind of led to believe he was an instant 2-3 win guy.

 

We knew he had blasted his way through the Atlanta farm system and was ready for MLB, and had nowhere to pay in Atlanta. And if something led you to believe that, did the first 53 PA negate it completely?

[notin]

Betts and Sale trades are more similar than the careers of Williams and O'Leary.

 

Would you have preferred Greenwell? I lose some of my parallels that way, but Greenwell was the better player.

 

But I still think these trades are miles apart. When Sale got traded, the previous seasons at least made it easy to understand why. When Betts got traded, we knew the previous years had nothing to do with it except that they upped his cost. Betts' trad also came at the tail end of 3 years of failed negotiations for an extension. Sale's trade came at the end of 4 years of frequent IL trips.

 

When I look at those two players, I feared that when Bett's deal was coming to an end, it would mean he was trade bait. With Sale, it was getting to the point where I just wanted that deal to end. Just last year, some story broke about how Bloom turned down the chance to trade Sale and his entire contract for nothing. Pure salary dump. And Bloom turned it down because he was getting nothing in return. And a lot of people still blasted Bloom for not doing it. But they move Sale for a legitimate prospect, and Sale manages to not get injured for his first 8 starts, and suddenly this new trade is mentioned in the same sentence as the Mookie trade because minimal parallels can be drawn?

 

I think you're looking for hyperbole in the wrong place...

[dgalehouse]

The Mookie Betts trade will live in infamy forever. Hard to compare anything else to it. As for the Sale trade, we should probably wait a while longer to fully evaluate it. But if you told the average fan that the Sox had just traded Chris Sale for Vaughn Grissom, the response would be," Are you kidding me? You can't be serious."

[notin]

The Mookie Betts trade will live in infamy forever. Hard to compare anything else to it. As for the Sale trade, we should probably wait a while longer to fully evaluate it. But if you told the average fan that the Sox had just traded Chris Sale for Vaughn Grissom, the response would be," Are you kidding me? You can't be serious."

 

Well put.

 

The mere fact that the Sale trade takes longer to evaluate is in itself a big difference. Even if Verdugo turned into Dwight Evans Lite and Jeter Downs panned out, we knew that deal was not going to be even. And we knew that the same day it happened...

[moonslav59]

moon, you linked Devers and Grissom just a few posts ago.

 

It's like you have one set of rules for yourself and one for everyone else.

 

IMO, linking judgments made over two 40 PA sample sizes if a lot different than linking two guys traded.

 

The only thing I linked was sample sizes, not production value.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Would you have preferred Greenwell? I lose some of my parallels that way

 

Yes, I would. No, you don't:

 

Greenwell and Williams were two lefthanded batters who played left field for Boston for at least a dozen years. Both were career .300 hitters with sub-8% K-rates (Greenie 7.1, Ted 7.2). Both got ripped off of at least one American League Most Valuable Player Award -- Williams finished second in voting three times when he led baseball in WAR, while Greenwell finished second in 1988 to an admitted cheater. Finally, both were known as fighters: Ted in World War Two and the skies of Korea; Mike with Green Monsters in the swamps of Florida and the Fens...

[moonslav59]

It's not a one to one, but there are similarities. In both cases they traded a big talent with one year left on their contract for prospects.

 

It's a similarly small market approach.

 

Sale's age and injury history are a lot different, no one's disputing that.

 

What irks me is that the financial risk of keeping Sale was not that big. They saved $10 million. Big deal. That covers half of Giolito's contract for 2024.

 

We were looking at extending Betts to 8+ years.

 

Many of us were counting down the days left on Sale's contract.

 

Night and Day in that area, but yes, both were stars, years ago. One kept being one. One is trying to get it back.

[notin]

Yes, I would. No, you don't:

 

Greenwell and Williams were two lefthanded batters who played left field for Boston for at least a dozen years. Both were career .300 hitters with sub-8% K-rates (Greenie 7.1, Ted 7.2). Both got ripped off of at least one American League Most Valuable Player Award -- Williams finished second in voting three times when he led baseball in WAR, while Greenwell finished second in 1988 to an admitted cheater. Finally, both were known as fighters: Ted in World War Two and the skies of Korea; Mike with Green Monsters in the swamps of Florida and the Fens...

 

I like the stretch of equating WWII to gator-wrestling. But it really is just that - a stretch.

 

Bottom line we both agree that the point was neither were in the same class as Williams, which was the whole point...

[moonslav59]

I'm great at arguing on here, but even better at walking away.

 

As Joe Walsh would croon... "Just turn your pretty head and walk away..."

[moonslav59]

Yes, Grissom is a prospect. That's what I said. I think we were kind of led to believe he was an instant 2-3 win guy.

 

I think many felt he could be or maybe someday would be. I'm not sure anyone felt he'd start off like that, for sure.

[moonslav59]

The Mookie Betts trade will live in infamy forever. Hard to compare anything else to it. As for the Sale trade, we should probably wait a while longer to fully evaluate it. But if you told the average fan that the Sox had just traded Chris Sale for Vaughn Grissom, the response would be," Are you kidding me? You can't be serious."

 

At the time of the trade, how would you have felt, if we extended him like ATL did?

[Old Red]

At the time of the trade, how would you have felt, if we extended him like ATL did?

 

Make believe again? That was Never going to happen.

[mvp 78]

Make believe again? That was Never going to happen.

 

We only extend players that are getting ready to s*** the bed like Whitlock, Rafaela and Bello.