Article: BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, notin said:

Exactly.

Replacing Devers with Yoshida would be like if the Padres tried to replace Tatis with Arraez…

I am just not a fan of Yoshida. He looks old, slow and unathletic.

Does he "align" with our future? I don't think so. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

The culture of the Red Sox was so poor that there have been zero quotes from current Red Sox expressing frustration with Raffy. The only quotes were from Crochet and Duran basically saying "we have to move on" and "he was just one of 26 guys" that is being interpreted by some as Raffy being horrible for the clubhouse somehow. 

What would you like players to say right now about the situation?  Is there anything anyone can say that will do anyone any good?

[Bellhorn04]

5 minutes ago, Nick said:

I am just not a fan of Yoshida. He looks old, slow and unathletic.

Does he "align" with our future? I don't think so. 

I feel much the same, but I'd also like to see him in the lineup as DH soon, possibly in a platoon with Refsnyder and/or Gonzalez. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

What would you like players to say right now about the situation?  Is there anything anyone can say that will do anyone any good?

No one wants to say anything that can get them fired like the Red Sox scout or shipped 3,000 miles away like Raffy.

Luckily, they have fans who can post for them, and never let liars get away with how their deflection points just don't seem to malign with their malignments.

[moonslav59]

I'm not sure I can believe anything I read, these days, but there is a report that multiple sources confirmed that Devers was upset at Campbell for volunteering to play 1B, and that this undermined him.

Either way, I think more was going on than we are aware of.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. He needs to actually use the Devers savings and "flexibility" to make the team better now. 

Agreed. There are high and higher priced players out there that are still very good players. We could add one or two, very soon or at the deadline to help, now, and then also spend heavily this winter. 

For the past couple winters, I've been saying "I'll believe it when I see it," but I did see it, this past winter, so I guess I have more hope the money will be spent.

Spent wisely? That's another debate.

[Bellhorn04]

11 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure I can believe anything I read, these days, but there is a report that multiple sources confirmed that Devers was upset at Campbell for volunteering to play 1B, and that this undermined him.

Either way, I think more was going on than we are aware of.

Raffy was not a happy camper, that much is pretty clear.  

 

[a700hitter]

On 6/16/2025 at 10:55 AM, mvp 78 said:

They aren't going to spend that this year. They spent that on one of the best hitters in MLB. With their history, that money is not going to be wisely spent. You know this. The cost to replace his production? 30M or more! 

Definitely more!

[Nick]

25 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I feel much the same, but I'd also like to see him in the lineup as DH soon, possibly in a platoon with Refsnyder and/or Gonzalez. 

Platooning I can live with. Not full time and I certainly don't want to see him ever in the outfield.

What the hell was Bloom thinking?

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Raffy was not a happy camper, that much is pretty clear.  

 

The whole situation is so sad. There are certainly many issues with the way the organization is run and has been run for many years. This isn't the only business that has issues dealing with their employees, but this is THE GUY they paid. Until this spring, I had no idea about any issues with Devers or with the team about Devers.

From my perspective, his move to 1B or DH/1B was something that should have been tried years ago- perhaps with kid gloves or whatever, but it should not have evolved into this mess.

Looking at this line-up without Devers hurts my eyes.

Are we toast? No. Are we a better team on the field without Devers? No. It's hard to look beyond this and find any good thing about this thing. Maybe, someday we will think differently, kinda like we did after the Bogey thing, but I don't see a Devers decline happening, anytime soon. Who knows, maybe SF found their next Pablito.

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, Nick said:

Platooning I can live with. Not full time and I certainly don't want to see him ever in the outfield.

What the hell was Bloom thinking?

Scouts let him down, I guess.

[Nick]

Here is my useless stat. Team's record with the starters this year. Our current five has combined 28-21 team record. Can someone enumerate power ranking for our relievers? I'll take #1 and say its Chapman (lol). I am just curious how Houck and couple of other relievers we acquired recently rank.

1	Crochet	15	9	-	6
2	Dobbins	9	6	-	3
3	Bello	11	6	-	5
4	Giolito	9	6	-	3
5	Buehler	11	7	-	4
6	Fitts	5	0	-	5
7	T Houck	9	2	-	7
8	Newcomb	5	2	-	3
		74	38	-	36

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, Nick said:

Platooning I can live with. Not full time and I certainly don't want to see him ever in the outfield.

Both Romy and Ref platoon vs LHPs, so only one can be the DH platoon, if that is how we go. I still don't see Yoshida in the plan, despite DH being opened up, now.

I could see us starting with a Ref-Duran platoon at DH with "rest days" given to others playing DH, here and there. With Devers gone, we can't afford giving full days off to our remaining better hitters all that often. Narvaez, Anthony, KC, Mayer and Story can all DH a day or so. Abreu, Toto, Romy and others are not FT players and don't need to DH for "rest."

v R

DH: mostly Duran

LF: Anthony, CF: Rafaela, RF: Abreu

vs L

DH: Refsnyder

LF: Duran, CF: Rafaela, RF: Anthony

 

When Bregman returns, start cycling in some infielders at DH, more often, or make a trade to free up their logjam. We do have some holes to plug.

[mvp 78]

36 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

What would you like players to say right now about the situation?  Is there anything anyone can say that will do anyone any good?

I don't need them to say anything. I'm just dubious on the idea that Raffy was ruining the Red Sox clubhouse culture. 

[jad]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He was never the "face" before. Their expectations were misguided IMO. They paid him a lot of money to produce and he produced. 

Exactly right.  He was never 'a leader' and the RS traded away many who were:  Betts, Bogaerts, Eovaldi ...  the list goes on.  The arg. that management expected him to fill this role is b.s.  They already proved they don't give a rat's a*s about 'leadership'.   All they do is find other euphemisms like 'alignment' for 'we want money in ownership pockets and we want employees to be absolutely subservient'.

[illinoisredsox]

35 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I don't need them to say anything. I'm just dubious on the idea that Raffy was ruining the Red Sox clubhouse culture. 

That’s because you love the guy.  You aren’t objective about him, and that’s fine.

It does not speak well of Devers if he felt threatened by a 21 year old rookie with less than 2 months in the show volunteering to give 1st base a try to help out the team (assuming those reports are true).

I’m putting the whole fiasco at 65% on upper management, 30% on Devers and 5% on Cora (he’s this low because he had the impossible task of trying to satisfy the needs of both sides). All parties could and should have done more to make it work.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

29 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Scouts let him down, I guess.

"Chaim, we discovered this guy in Japan who is half the size of Ohtani and hits the ball half the distance!"

"Classic! If I can sign a player half as good as Ohtani for 1/10th of Ohtani money, it will make me look like I got my Yale degree in Classics."

[illinoisredsox]

13 minutes ago, jad said:

Exactly right.  He was never 'a leader' and the RS traded away many who were:  Betts, Bogaerts, Eovaldi ...  the list goes on.  The arg. that management expected him to fill this role is b.s.  They already proved they don't give a rat's a*s about 'leadership'.   All they do is find other euphemisms like 'alignment' for 'we want money in ownership pockets and we want employees to be absolutely subservient'.

Disagree.  Devers isn’t a leader; it’s not in his makeup.  Not everyone is (I am certainly not one); no sin in that. The FO was stupid in assuming he could be one.

In a way, Devers is a bit like Yaz.  They are introverts who, their given their druthers, would rather be left alone to just go out and play.  Yaz very reluctantly accepted the role, but he wasn’t comfortable in it.  Devers had the additional barrier of language, but I don’t think that played a big role.  He just didn’t want the role.

BTW, Betts was the only one of those players traded.  Bogaerts reached free agency and Eovaldi left the Sox twice via free agency.  Betts would have as well.

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The whole situation is so sad. There are certainly many issues with the way the organization is run and has been run for many years. This isn't the only business that has issues dealing with their employees, but this is THE GUY they paid. Until this spring, I had no idea about any issues with Devers or with the team about Devers.

From my perspective, his move to 1B or DH/1B was something that should have been tried years ago- perhaps with kid gloves or whatever, but it should not have evolved into this mess.

Looking at this line-up without Devers hurts my eyes.

Are we toast? No. Are we a better team on the field without Devers? No. It's hard to look beyond this and find any good thing about this thing. Maybe, someday we will think differently, kinda like we did after the Bogey thing, but I don't see a Devers decline happening, anytime soon. Who knows, maybe SF found their next Pablito.

He needed to be approached after the World Series and told that "hey, we maybe looking at a third baseman". I think he at least deserved that. Hell he's under team contract for 8 years.

Poor communication.

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Nick said:

He needed to be approached after the World Series and told that "hey, we maybe looking at a third baseman". I think he at least deserved that. Hell he's under team contract for 8 years.

Poor communication.

The problem with being upfront is that they might not have succeeded in signing Bregman and might have needed Devers to stay at third.  

[Bellhorn04]

38 minutes ago, jad said:

Exactly right.  He was never 'a leader' and the RS traded away many who were:  Betts, Bogaerts, Eovaldi ...  the list goes on.  The arg. that management expected him to fill this role is b.s.  They already proved they don't give a rat's a*s about 'leadership'.   All they do is find other euphemisms like 'alignment' for 'we want money in ownership pockets and we want employees to be absolutely subservient'.

Well, they did put 313.5 million dollars of guaranteed money in Devers's pocket with the extension.

[dgalehouse]

We don't know the whole story, but it seems to me that the Sox players are not nearly as upset at the trade as you might think they would be. Certainly not as upset as many of the fans. And they know the situation better than we do.  And I think Breslow knows what he wants and is decisive enough to do what it takes. And I don't think he wanted Devers attitude problem around the young guys and getting in the way of the team he wants to build. We will see how the team does going forward . My guess is that they are going to do very well without Devers. 

[jad]

27 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

Disagree.  Devers isn’t a leader; it’s not in his makeup.  Not everyone is (I am certainly not one); no sin in that. The FO was stupid in assuming he could be one.

In a way, Devers is a bit like Yaz.  They are introverts who, their given their druthers, would rather be left alone to just go out and play.  Yaz very reluctantly accepted the role, but he wasn’t comfortable in it.  Devers had the additional barrier of language, but I don’t think that played a big role.  He just didn’t want the role.

BTW, Betts was the only one of those players traded.  Bogaerts reached free agency and Eovaldi left the Sox twice via free agency.  Betts would have as well.

How are you disagreeing?  This is exactly what I said:  Devers is not a leader, tht's not who he is.   We agree 100%.

For 'traded away' I clearly meant 'got rid of.'  The issue is not 'how' they got away, but that ownership let them get away by refusing to paying what apparently was market value for them.

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The problem with being upfront is that they might not have succeeded in signing Bregman and might have needed Devers to stay at third.  

The also were looking into Arenado. You frame it as "we're looking to upgrade everywhere. We may get a 3b and need you to move DH if they have a great glove. We may get a 1B and need to move Triston instead. We're just trying to put the best ballclub on the field." 

[Bellhorn04]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

The also were looking into Arenado. You frame it as "we're looking to upgrade everywhere. We may get a 3b and need you to move DH if they have a great glove. We may get a 1B and need to move Triston instead. We're just trying to put the best ballclub on the field." 

And there's a pretty good chance that Raffy would just hear this as GM-speak for "We're looking to replace you at third."

[Bellhorn04]

Knowing what we know now, I for one am dubious that there was any way that Raffy wasn't going to be unhappy about this.  

[moonslav59]

23 minutes ago, Nick said:

He needed to be approached after the World Series and told that "hey, we maybe looking at a third baseman". I think he at least deserved that. Hell he's under team contract for 8 years.

Poor communication.

Maybe they did not think Bregman was coming to BOS, until he fell in our laps.

That's no excuse for poor communication, but it seems like Devers was set in his ways and actually thought he was a good defensive 3Bman, and the Bloom promise meant more to him than it should have.

[Nick]

25 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The problem with being upfront is that they might not have succeeded in signing Bregman and might have needed Devers to stay at third.  

I think the Sox ultimately got what they wanted. A short term, higher AAV guy at 3B, who can hit and play better defense, and got rid of 8 1/2 years of 10 year, $313M contract. Bottom line.

I do think Bres is salivating at that prospect of 'repurposing' the freed up money. He did not sign Devers and probably would never do that.

[moonslav59]

10 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The also were looking into Arenado. You frame it as "we're looking to upgrade everywhere. We may get a 3b and need you to move DH if they have a great glove. We may get a 1B and need to move Triston instead. We're just trying to put the best ballclub on the field." 

One weird part of the Arenado talk was that he came out to say he'd play 1B, if they wanted him to.

The idea of moving Devers off 3B has been discussed for over 3 years. It was the elephant in the room for too long, IMO.

The team got better when Bregman bumped Devers off 3B. Casas has always been the worst defensive 1Bman in MLB. The math was simple. The whole DH only talk was a big mistake, assuming that's how they worded it to Devers.

Is that such a horrible mistake, though? As it turned out, yes, but should it have been such a big deal? It became huge, because Devers made it huge. The whole think about Devers getting mad at KC for asking to play 1B made me understand why they felt trading him, now, while they still could, made sense.

I hate seeing Devers gone. He was one of my favorite players since his call up in 2017. I can now see the reasoning behind getting out of the contract, now. Almost every long term deal in the past would fit the model of choosing getting out over staying in. I'm not projecting a quick and or steep decline for Devers, like some are doing. I think he'll be good for 5-6 more years, but $31M for a FT DH keeps jumping into my mind.

A lot needs to be done by the Sox FO to repair what we just lost, but I'm swinging towards thinking this deal will turn out to be a plus, in the long run. I'm not on the fence on many issues, but right now, I still am.

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, Nick said:

I think the Sox ultimately got what they wanted. A short term, higher AAV guy at 3B, who can hit and play better defense, and got rid of 8 1/2 years of 10 year, $313M contract. Bottom line.

I do think Bres is salivating at that prospect of 'repurposing' the freed up money. He did not sign Devers and probably would never do that.

You almost always say what I think in about 1/10th the words.

Good post,  Nick.