Article: BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

[Duran Is The Man]

28 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Dang, how'd I miss him? 

it's ok, we all want to forget him. 

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

And he replied that he would play wherever the team needed him to play.  Imagine that.

What's the big deal about maybe playing some 1B and some DH? It's not we asked him to play SS and CF.

DH is not even a defensive position.

I know it sounds like we are making excuses to explain why trading Devers was what we had to do, but I feel like saying he said he'd play 1B only is doing the same thing from the other end of the issue.

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

Pedro more or less said he could have fixed  the Devers' problem in 24 hours. Gee, that sounds familiar.

This highlights how our FO should not be let off the hook on this.

Once again, they expose themselves as having little or no foresight or people skills.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

32 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

I understand Yaz.  I really do.  We get attached to our players, and it stinks when they get traded.

I was not a fan of the contract, but I was thrilled that we would seemingly have Raffy on our team for the long term.  I could live with the contract.  I can't live with the selfish attitude.  Maybe other teams put up with it and even thrive, but it's not something that I can condone or even accept.

Idealy yes you want more of a team guy.  But again teams put up with diva attitudes from their stars all the time.  

As for the contract again they were paying only 42% of their revenue on player salaries, which ranked 23rd in the league.  It's pretty clear they could have afforded the contract, instead they have decided to remain near the bottom of that list which is pretty much a ranking of how much the teams are committed to winning.  

When fans of AL East teams are laughing at your team that's never a good sign.  They have just written off 2025 and will struggle in 2026 and for the immediate future now.  

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

Idealy yes you want more of a team guy.  But again teams put up with diva attitudes from their stars all the time.  

As for the contract again they were paying only 42% of their revenue on player salaries, which ranked 23rd in the league.  It's pretty clear they could have afforded the contract, instead they have decided to remain near the bottom of that list which is pretty much a ranking of how much the teams are committed to winning.  

When fans of AL East teams are laughing at your team that's never a good sign.  They have just written off 2025 and will struggle in 2026 and for the immediate future now.  

Yes, they could afford Devers, but I think they view it as not an either or thing.

It's do we pay $31M x 8.5 years for a DH only pouter/complainer/dogger or on someone else?

[jdc69]

35 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Agreed on all counts, Moon.  If the Red Sox had to eat any decent chunk of Devers' contract, I would be way more upset with the trade.  Now, as many have said, the key lies in what the FO does with that freed up money to improve the team for this year and beyond. 

I don't want the FO to spend money just to appease the fan base, but I'm thinking they almost have to do something fairly significant before the deadline to avoid riots.  LOL  Just make it smart move, nothing rash.

The thing that irks me is a team should have at least two dangerous bats to protect one another. We had one and all we had to do is....add another. Simple, easy. Unfortunately though, the one we added cancelled out the one we had. Forehead smack!

They say they didnt want Devers contract. Ok then why spend all that time going after after Soto, who would've been way more? They say they didn't want to pay a DH all that money. Ok, then why make moves that put him there in the first place? Even if Devers is a selfish diva, theres no angle to look at that makes the FO look like they have, or ever had a plan.

[vjcsmoke]

11 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

This highlights how our FO should not be let off the hook on this.

Once again, they expose themselves as having little or no foresight or people skills.

The real problem is that our front office is player-hostile.

Get Pedro martinez or Big Papi as an ambassador and Devers problem could have been solved quietly and smoothly.

Instead it become a war in the press.

I strongly suspect that the real motivation was Red Sox salary dump and they wanted an excuse to dump Devers on another team while saving face. They got themselves out from under a 300 million dollar contract they never wanted to give. Never mind that Devers has been our best offensive player the past 3 years since signing the contract.

[vjcsmoke]

11 hours ago, jdc69 said:

The thing that irks me is a team should have at least two dangerous bats to protect one another. We had one and all we had to do is....add another. Simple, easy. Unfortunately though, the one we added cancelled out the one we had. Forehead smack!

They say they didnt want Devers contract. Ok then why spend all that time going after after Soto, who would've been way more? They say they didn't want to pay a DH all that money. Ok, then why make moves that put him there in the first place? Even if Devers is a selfish diva, theres no angle to look at that makes the FO look like they have, or ever had a plan.

I'm convinced that the Soto courting was all posturing. They never intended to outbid the Mets or whoever the ultimate winner of the sweepstakes were. They just wanted to appear to be making an effort to appease the fans but would always end up a few million dollars short of signing the potential franchise talent player. They just wanted to be able to say, "See, we tried, but we just couldn't get there. You can't blame us for lack of effort!"

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

16 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, they could afford Devers, but I think they view it as not an either or thing.

It's do we pay $31M x 8.5 years for a DH only pouter/complainer/dogger or on someone else?

Yeah well color me skeptical that they will reinvest the entire $31 million.  And even if they did it would probably end up being a few B players and nobody with the impact of Raffy Devers.  

Sports is about stars, you need stars to compete at the highest levels. Devers with his faults was a star, a true impact player.  One of the very few this team has had for several seasons.  And they gave him away for nothing, just as they did with Mookie, while continuing their pattern of being one of lowest paying teams with regard to payroll vs revenue in the entire league. 

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to accept this after what has been happening for years now.

[Bellhorn04]

20 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Sounds exhausting. I can barely deal with this one sometimes. 

I let moon do the heavy lifting. 😄

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

Yeah well color me skeptical that they will reinvest the entire $31 million.  And even if they did it would probably end up being a few B players and nobody with the impact of Raffy Devers.  

Sports is about stars, you need stars to compete at the highest levels. Devers with his faults was a star, a true impact player.  One of the very few this team has had over the past few seasons.  And they gave him away for nothing while continueing their pattern of being one of lowest paying team with regard to revenue in the entire league.  I'm not sure why I'm supposed to accept this after what has been happening for years now.

I criticized them heavily the last few years too.  But they have done some spending lately.  Crochet, Bregman, Buehler, extensions for kids, even the extension for Cora.

I'm calling it right now - this trade will be a big win for the Sox and a big loss for the Giants.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

17 minutes ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

Yeah well color me skeptical that they will reinvest the entire $31 million.  And even if they did it would probably end up being a few B players and nobody with the impact of Raffy Devers.  

Sports is about stars, you need stars to compete at the highest levels. Devers with his faults was a star, a true impact player.  One of the very few this team has had for several seasons.  And they gave him away for nothing, just as they did with Mookie, while continuing their pattern of being one of lowest paying teams with regard to payroll vs revenue in the entire league. 

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to accept this after what has been happening for years now.

Like how they successfully reinvested the money they saved by trading mookie instead of paying him.......

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I criticized them heavily the last few years too.  But they have done some spending lately.  Crochet, Bregman, Buehler, extensions for kids, even the extension for Cora.

I'm calling it right now - this trade will be a big win for the Sox and a big loss for the Giants.

None of the extensions have looked good so far, including Cora's. The Giants are psyched about this trade as they are unable to lure big time FA hitters to their team and this was a way to get a bat into their lineup. I don't think they are worried about the last 3-4 years of that contract. Posey may not be GM by then. They've only had 1 playoff appearance in the last 8 years. They are hoping to reverse that trend. We'll see how Posey's old school style works in comparison to Breslow's. 

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

None of the extensions have looked good so far, including Cora's.

It's good if you want the team to spend, which has been the biggest point of frustration Sox fans have had the last few years.

[vjcsmoke]

35 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Like how they successfully reinvested the money they saved by trading mookie instead of paying him.......

Yes the Red Sox wisely reinvested that money by signing injury prone pitchers or position players who either were injured often or performed very poorly or at best mediocre when they were actually healthy.

Trevor Story 6/140m. 2025 performance: .230 avg .275 obp .363 slg .638 OPS. We don't even need to get into his horrific injury history with the Red Sox, His tepid performance when healthy already makes him a horror show of a signing.

Masataka Yoshida 5/90m. .285 avg .343 obp .433 slg .775 ops. They have done worse than this, but feels like very mediocre return for the money. In fact the Red Sox probably want to get out of his contract if they didn't have to eat so much to send him away it's probably not worth it.

Lucas Giolito contract 2/38.5m. Performance: 2024 0 games played. 2025 45.2 IP 50 hits 87 ERA+ 1.423 WHIP 6.94 FIP. Yeah that deal was a stinker.

Walker Buehler contract 21.05m.  Performance: 2025 59 IP 67 hits 69 ERA+ 1.508 WHIP 5.34 FIP. Another 20 million dollars plus well wasted on broken down pitchers.

I could go on but you get the point. Opening up 31 m in payroll in the Devers trade doesn't mean they are going to use that money wisely. The Red Sox have been wasteful with that money in free agency more often than not.

I would rather pay the elite player that 30m dollar salary than two broken down has-beens that 30m dollars. Let's put it this way would you rather have Betts for 30m or Story + Yoshida for 30m. Or how about Devers for 30m or Giolito and Buehler for 30m?

You take the great player every time. Stop wasting money on has-beens or injury-prone reclamation projects that 'might' turn out to be productive.

 

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's good if you want the team to spend, which has been the biggest point of frustration Sox fans have had the last few years.

I want them to spend money on the right players. Just spending money because you have it is a silly thing to do. 

Crochet? Good extension. Bello, Rafaela and Campbell are up for debate at this point! Giolito? Buehler? You need to be able to find the right players to give the money to. People complain about Masa and Story's contracts all the time. Sox haven't spent money wisely in recent memory.

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

I want them to spend money on the right players. Just spending money because you have it is a silly thing to do. 

Crochet? Good extension. Bello, Rafaela and Campbell are up for debate at this point! Giolito? Buehler? You need to be able to find the right players to give the money to. People complain about Masa and Story's contracts all the time. Sox haven't spent money wisely in recent memory.

Of course.  But getting burned when you spend happens to every team that spends. Including the much-lauded Dodgers, who are paying large sums to Snell and Glasnow to rehab.

[mvp 78]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

Of course.  But getting burned when you spend happens to every team that spends. Including the much-lauded Dodgers, who are paying large sums to Snell and Glasnow to rehab.

Sure it happens, it just feels like it's happening to the Sox at a very high percentage right now. To me, I kinda expect the FA success rate to be 50%. Sox are at the losing end of things over the past few years. When factoring in things like the Sale trade, Breslow's tenure hasn't exactly been a slam dunk either. There's a good reason to remain skeptical and not be all in on their analytics only approach. 

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

Yeah well color me skeptical that they will reinvest the entire $31 million.  And even if they did it would probably end up being a few B players and nobody with the impact of Raffy Devers.  

Sports is about stars, you need stars to compete at the highest levels. Devers with his faults was a star, a true impact player.  One of the very few this team has had for several seasons.  And they gave him away for nothing, just as they did with Mookie, while continuing their pattern of being one of lowest paying teams with regard to payroll vs revenue in the entire league. 

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to accept this after what has been happening for years now.

Yes, yes, yes. Your wisdom is shining through.  In sports you build your roster top down.  You focus on getting the studs/horses/stars, and you do your best to get solid complimentary contributions (whether that be future stars on the way up, former stars on the way down, or career role players - which have a value).  The game is won by the players, and disproportionately by your stars.

All too often, I encounter friends who are just fine with being solid at every position.  But they do not realize that not having stars stacks the deck against you. Im sure a team can win being built "middle out" a focus on assembling a quantity of middle of the road players, but its way harder than having 2 studs hitting in your top 4-5 of your lineup, and 1-2 aces at the top.

Giving away an unquestioned lineup anchor, a guy who can hit like Devers can (top 10 in the league) is a huge setback.  And while I get the reasons why the trade was made, I do not think we are set up better. I do not think Devers was overpaid. I do not think theyll use the money better (and its not because of recent swinging and missing on free agents, its because I fully reject the premise that Devers was "only a DH and therefore a bad contract", if he was a below average defensive firstbaseman (Vlad) he would be 500M man.  But hes a DH so instead, hes overpaid at 280M? The difference between being a subpar firstbaseman and a DH is worth that much?

Im not buying it, either 1 of 3 things happen from here.  EIther we go forward next core without an elite hitter, or we get an elite hitter who plays a position (and that dude is NOT coming at 28 yrs old for 280M, hes either going to be 4 years older or 200M more expensive - and hes prob not going to be a great defender either). Or 3, we acquire a stud hitter on the cheap (maybe its Anthony, maybe its via trade) - but 3 could have happened anyways and we'd have that 1-2 punch which worked so well in 2004,2007.

You guys were so willing to pay 700m for Soto, but are celebrating getting out from under a bad contract (Raffy owed 280M). You realize that if Soto was on the team right now, he'd be a DH right? And honestly so little of his 700m came from being a lousy defensive outfielder. It wasnt even one of the 7 hundred millions.

None of this is adding up.  Sotos bat is worth 700m, Vlads bat is worth 500m, Raffys bat was NOT a bad contract at 280m.  Maybe there will be someone who will hit 80% as good as Raffy that we can get at double the price tag of Raffy, but at least that dude will be a lousy defensive player and prob better suited at a DH, but we'll force him into the field, probably at our own detriment, and for that reason - that next player is worth 600m but Raffy was overpaid at 280M? No, no no

This team is just averse to long-term contracts and players who deserve them.  And again, who even wants a team of year-to-year mercenaries.  I just read a great article by Maddie talking about that human feeling.  Well part of that is connection that doesnt develop with year to year mercs.

Doing everything you can to avoid big contracts (that yes, often fall underwater, is not winning baseball).  If you never miss, you arent swinging enough.

[drewski6]

^respectfully

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

54 minutes ago, vjcsmoke said:

Yes the Red Sox wisely reinvested that money by signing injury prone pitchers or position players who either were injured often or performed very poorly or at best mediocre when they were actually healthy.

Trevor Story 6/140m. 2025 performance: .230 avg .275 obp .363 slg .638 OPS. We don't even need to get into his horrific injury history with the Red Sox, His tepid performance when healthy already makes him a horror show of a signing.

Masataka Yoshida 5/90m. .285 avg .343 obp .433 slg .775 ops. They have done worse than this, but feels like very mediocre return for the money. In fact the Red Sox probably want to get out of his contract if they didn't have to eat so much to send him away it's probably not worth it.

Lucas Giolito contract 2/38.5m. Performance: 2024 0 games played. 2025 45.2 IP 50 hits 87 ERA+ 1.423 WHIP 6.94 FIP. Yeah that deal was a stinker.

Walker Buehler contract 21.05m.  Performance: 2025 59 IP 67 hits 69 ERA+ 1.508 WHIP 5.34 FIP. Another 20 million dollars plus well wasted on broken down pitchers.

I could go on but you get the point. Opening up 31 m in payroll in the Devers trade doesn't mean they are going to use that money wisely. The Red Sox have been wasteful with that money in free agency more often than not.

I would rather pay the elite player that 30m dollar salary than two broken down has-beens that 30m dollars. Let's put it this way would you rather have Betts for 30m or Story + Yoshida for 30m. Or how about Devers for 30m or Giolito and Buehler for 30m?

You take the great player every time. Stop wasting money on has-beens or injury-prone reclamation projects that 'might' turn out to be productive.

 

100%!!

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

This team is just averse to long-term contracts and players who deserve them.  And again, who even wants a team of year-to-year mercenaries.  I just read a great article by Maddie talking about that human feeling.  Well part of that is connection that doesnt develop with year to year mercs.

Doing everything you can to avoid big contracts (that yes, often fall underwater, is not winning baseball).  If you never miss, you arent swinging enough.

Yeah, it goes back to Lester and "not signing pitchers over 30." This ownership just doesn't know how to be a big market ballclub. 

[notin]

27 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Yeah, it goes back to Lester and "not signing pitchers over 30." This ownership just doesn't know how to be a big market ballclub. 

They did at least abandoned that philosophy relatively quickly, giving the then-largest contract in team history to 31yo David Price.

Of course that lead to a whole new arena of mistakes to learn from…

[Bellhorn04]

48 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Yes, yes, yes. Your wisdom is shining through.  In sports you build your roster top down.  You focus on getting the studs/horses/stars, and you do your best to get solid complimentary contributions (whether that be future stars on the way up, former stars on the way down, or career role players - which have a value).  The game is won by the players, and disproportionately by your stars.

All too often, I encounter friends who are just fine with being solid at every position.  But they do not realize that not having stars stacks the deck against you. Im sure a team can win being built "middle out" a focus on assembling a quantity of middle of the road players, but its way harder than having 2 studs hitting in your top 4-5 of your lineup, and 1-2 aces at the top.

Giving away an unquestioned lineup anchor, a guy who can hit like Devers can (top 10 in the league) is a huge setback.  And while I get the reasons why the trade was made, I do not think we are set up better. I do not think Devers was overpaid. I do not think theyll use the money better (and its not because of recent swinging and missing on free agents, its because I fully reject the premise that Devers was "only a DH and therefore a bad contract", if he was a below average defensive firstbaseman (Vlad) he would be 500M man.  But hes a DH so instead, hes overpaid at 280M? The difference between being a subpar firstbaseman and a DH is worth that much?

Im not buying it, either 1 of 3 things happen from here.  EIther we go forward next core without an elite hitter, or we get an elite hitter who plays a position (and that dude is NOT coming at 28 yrs old for 280M, hes either going to be 4 years older or 200M more expensive - and hes prob not going to be a great defender either). Or 3, we acquire a stud hitter on the cheap (maybe its Anthony, maybe its via trade) - but 3 could have happened anyways and we'd have that 1-2 punch which worked so well in 2004,2007.

You guys were so willing to pay 700m for Soto, but are celebrating getting out from under a bad contract (Raffy owed 280M). You realize that if Soto was on the team right now, he'd be a DH right? And honestly so little of his 700m came from being a lousy defensive outfielder. It wasnt even one of the 7 hundred millions.

None of this is adding up.  Sotos bat is worth 700m, Vlads bat is worth 500m, Raffys bat was NOT a bad contract at 280m.  Maybe there will be someone who will hit 80% as good as Raffy that we can get at double the price tag of Raffy, but at least that dude will be a lousy defensive player and prob better suited at a DH, but we'll force him into the field, probably at our own detriment, and for that reason - that next player is worth 600m but Raffy was overpaid at 280M? No, no no

This team is just averse to long-term contracts and players who deserve them.  And again, who even wants a team of year-to-year mercenaries.  I just read a great article by Maddie talking about that human feeling.  Well part of that is connection that doesnt develop with year to year mercs.

Doing everything you can to avoid big contracts (that yes, often fall underwater, is not winning baseball).  If you never miss, you arent swinging enough.

The baseball free agent market is an irrational market.

Was Soto "worth" more than double Mookie Betts?        

 

[Bellhorn04]

8 minutes ago, notin said:

They did at least abandoned that philosophy relatively quickly, giving the then-largest contract in team history to 31yo David Price.

Of course that lead to a whole new arena of mistakes to learn from…

That "philosophy" lasted about 5 minutes, unless you believe the Sox were just playing PR with their free agent offers to Lester. 

[notin]

18 hours ago, jdc69 said:

The thing that irks me is a team should have at least two dangerous bats to protect one another. We had one and all we had to do is....add another. Simple, easy. Unfortunately though, the one we added cancelled out the one we had. Forehead smack!

They say they didnt want Devers contract. Ok then why spend all that time going after after Soto, who would've been way more? They say they didn't want to pay a DH all that money. Ok, then why make moves that put him there in the first place? Even if Devers is a selfish diva, theres no angle to look at that makes the FO look like they have, or ever had a plan.

When did they say they didn’t want Devers’ contract?  They did say his contract came with certain obligations he refused to live up to, but that’s a very different thing altogether…

[notin]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

That "philosophy" lasted about 5 minutes, unless you believe the Sox were just playing PR with their free agent offers to Lester. 

Huh?

They low-balled Lester, reportedly due to concerns about his age.   But that whole “dont sign pitchers over 30” philosophy was clearly gone by 2015 when they signed Price…

[notin]

13 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The baseball free agent market is an irrational market.

Was Soto "worth" more than double Mookie Betts?        

 

Or fifty Jim Rice’s?

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, notin said:

Huh?

They low-balled Lester, reportedly due to concerns about his age.   But that whole “dont sign pitchers over 30” philosophy was clearly gone by 2015 when they signed Price…

They low-balled Lester on the extension offer.  They offered him $145 million as a free agent.  The Cubs upped it by $20 million and that was it.

[moonslav59]

7 hours ago, vjcsmoke said:

The real problem is that our front office is player-hostile.

Get Pedro martinez or Big Papi as an ambassador and Devers problem could have been solved quietly and smoothly.

Instead it become a war in the press.

I strongly suspect that the real motivation was Red Sox salary dump and they wanted an excuse to dump Devers on another team while saving face. They got themselves out from under a 300 million dollar contract they never wanted to give. Never mind that Devers has been our best offensive player the past 3 years since signing the contract.

I'm not sure kid gloves would have worked, and while battling through the media is a horrible way to try and fix a mess, the fact is Devers felt he was a good defensive 3Bman and was offended and resistant to moving to DH. He criticized the GM and pouted. He dogged a few plays. 

Now, he's making more comments that exposes his what his true intentions were, since apparently, he's now fine playing "anywhere they want" him to play. He was acting like a baby, after we paid him $313M, which enough money to keep all his great-great grandchildren living the high life.

No doubt, they are thrilled to get out from the $313M contract, but I do not think they felt that way in December. Maybe, after the Bregman signing, they had feelings that $31M a year for a DH was too much, but I doubt they were thinking of a way to dump his salary. Devers, himself, brought about the desire to look at dumping him and his salary.

That's not letting Brez & Co off the hook. They certainly should have and could have handled it differently. It is believed that Cora never officially asked him to play 1B, so to me, that is evidence that he was walking on egg shells and WAS TREATING DEVERS WITH KID GLOVES! He was either afraid of offending Devers, or afraid he pout, dog it or demand a trade. How did that end up working out for Cora? Well, he got the pout and dog anyway, and it was Brez that ended up demanding a trade, and he got it.

I do think they could have gotten Devers to agree to share time between DH and 1B, had they did it more smoothly and not through the media. Maybe, Devers would have been upset, for a while, but he doesn't seem like the type of guy that would let it get to him for too long of a time. 

People talk about the "disrespect" we showed towards Devers, but I saw disrespect sent the other way, too. I also think Devers disrespected Bregman's ability to play 3B way better than he can. Nobody talks about that, and notice how Bregman said all the right things, like "I'll play wherever they want me to play," like any team player should say, and not as he final nut kick, Devers is saying that in SF.

I'm sorry to say it, but I agree with Bell: "Good riddance."