Article: BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

And BTW, Pedro Martinez is taking Raffy's side and saying Big Papi isn't handling things the right way. 🤔

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

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

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

Devers is happy now. Maybe he could have? 

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Devers is happy now. Maybe he could have? 

There are many parallel universes we can visit.

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Manny Ramirez has also taken Devers's side.  Could have a beauty roundtable discussion with those three. 

Might be more watchable than the current Red Sox.

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

There are many parallel universes we can visit.

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

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He told the Red Sox that he'd play 1b. He just didn't want to be yanked around and he wanted to be permanently made the 1b. 

Oh, then that makes it all so much better!

I wouldn't call playing 1B and DH being "yanked around" or asked to "play every position."

He certainly never said "I'll play wherever you want me to play," like he said to his new team.

At this point, I'm not sure what exactly was said between Devers and Brez and Devers and Cora or between Devers and anyone else, including Campbell, when he asked to play 1B.

I hate losing the guy's bat, and this is a big gut punch to our 2025 chances and maybe beyond, but I'm firmly in the camp, now, of being glad we traded him.

I'm off the fence and across the yard.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Oh, then that makes it all so much better!

I wouldn't call playing 1B and DH being "yanked around" or asked to "play every position."

He certainly never said "I'll play wherever you want me to play," like he said to his new team.

At this point, I'm not sure what exactly was said between Devers and Brez and Devers and Cora or between Devers and anyone else, including Campbell, when he asked to play 1B.

I hate losing the guy's bat, and this is a big gut punch to our 2025 chances and maybe beyond, but I'm firmly in the camp, now, of being glad we traded him.

I'm off the fence and across the yard.

Campbell didn't ask to play 1B. The org asked him. 

[notin]

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, there were and still are some posters who agreed with not paying Mookie what he wanted and/or thought what he really wanted was out of town.

Zack Scott, who was in the Sox FO back then, has said very firmly that Mookie would absolutely have stayed if they paid what he thought was market value, that there were never any indications that Mookie 'wanted out'.

I do recall some reports that Mookie wanted to test free agency, which is not the same as wanting out of town…

[drewski6]

7 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Oh, then that makes it all so much better!

I wouldn't call playing 1B and DH being "yanked around" or asked to "play every position."

He certainly never said "I'll play wherever you want me to play," like he said to his new team.

At this point, I'm not sure what exactly was said between Devers and Brez and Devers and Cora or between Devers and anyone else, including Campbell, when he asked to play 1B.

I hate losing the guy's bat, and this is a big gut punch to our 2025 chances and maybe beyond, but I'm firmly in the camp, now, of being glad we traded him.

I'm off the fence and across the yard.

Then you are being misled.  It would be one thing if we Devers had crapped the bed with his bat, or there were multiple comparable bats we could acquire, or if the team was losing

But none of that is the case.  Not only is the bat not replaceable for 2025, top 10 hitters in the mlb jsut arent available for anything close to 280M, and I doubt the Sox will suddenly become a team willing to pony up 500m for a vlad.  And we were starting to win.

The Red sox, in year 6 of a rebuild, just set the clock back 3 years.  And Im not even certain that we'll be able to replace Devers within 3 years. You had a top 10 bat, which is one of the hardest things to find/acquire.

This money will get spread among #4 pitchers who will get hurt or have ERAs in the 4s.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, notin said:

I do recall some reports that Mookie wanted to test free agency, which is not the same as wanting out of town…

It's the same thing for us as JH wasn't going to ever match the Dodgers as the Sox stick to their "valuation" on players and won't go over it. That's why they've struggled to bring in top FA since DD left. 

[moonslav59]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Campbell didn't ask to play 1B. The org asked him. 

I said I wasn't sure if I can believe everything, and I'm not sure I believe Cora or the guy who claims Devers said he'd play 1B, if we promised his fragile ego, we'd not "jerk" him around- all the way from 1B to DH. Poor guy. I feel so badly for Devers, now that "the truth" has come out.

[notin]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's the same thing for us as JH wasn't going to ever match the Dodgers as the Sox stick to their "valuation" on players and won't go over it. That's why they've struggled to bring in top FA since DD left. 

But from Mookie’s point of view, it’s different because he presumably would have accepted bids from Boston.

Of course this is all on the assumption that these reports wet accurate…

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Then you are being misled.  It would be one thing if we Devers had crapped the bed with his bat, or there were multiple comparable bats we could acquire, or if the team was losing

But none of that is the case.  Not only is the bat not replaceable for 2025, top 10 hitters in the mlb jsut arent available for anything close to 280M, and I doubt the Sox will suddenly become a team willing to pony up 500m for a vlad.  And we were starting to win.

The Red sox, in year 6 of a rebuild, just set the clock back 3 years.  And Im not even certain that we'll be able to replace Devers within 3 years. You had a top 10 bat, which is one of the hardest things to find/acquire.

This money will get spread among #4 pitchers who will get hurt or have ERAs in the 4s.

I know exactly what we lost. I'm not misled on that.

I clearly stated, I'm not sure what is true on the Campbell thing and who said and did not say what to each other.

Devers did not play 1B, when we needed him to. He did great at DH and we lucked out by seeing the Toro-Romy platoon work at 1B. This does not change the facts.

I have stated that our offense took a gut punch. Does that show I was misled?

This whole think sucked and still sucks. I still think Devers had to go. I doubt any other team would take him without us paying a bunch of money or including other players. Our offense will be much worse for at least the remainder of 2025, even if we trade for Hoskins or some other rental(s.)

Maybe by the time Devers told the Sox "I'll play 1B," it was too late. We'd already found a solution that was working. I'm not being misled in thinking he should have jumped at the idea of doing what was best for the team Day 1, Day 2, Day 3...

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, notin said:

But from Mookie’s point of view, it’s different because he presumably would have accepted bids from Boston.

Of course this is all on the assumption that these reports wet accurate…

We'll never know the answer to this, even if Betts says he would or would not have.

I doubt he'd take the offer he ended up getting, had we offered it before COVID and before we traded him. Just my opinion, since we will never know.

[dgalehouse]

Can't compare Devers to Betts. Not only is Mookie a far better player than Devers, but he is a far better teammate and employee.  And he is a winner. Trading Devers was not strictly a salary dump. He was becoming a no-hustle malcontent. And you don't need that, especially around the younger guys. 

[drewski6]

52 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I know exactly what we lost. I'm not misled on that.

I clearly stated, I'm not sure what is true on the Campbell thing and who said and did not say what to each other.

Devers did not play 1B, when we needed him to. He did great at DH and we lucked out by seeing the Toro-Romy platoon work at 1B. This does not change the facts.

I have stated that our offense took a gut punch. Does that show I was misled?

This whole think sucked and still sucks. I still think Devers had to go. I doubt any other team would take him without us paying a bunch of money or including other players. Our offense will be much worse for at least the remainder of 2025, even if we trade for Hoskins or some other rental(s.)

Maybe by the time Devers told the Sox "I'll play 1B," it was too late. We'd already found a solution that was working. I'm not being misled in thinking he should have jumped at the idea of doing what was best for the team Day 1, Day 2, Day 3...

So we had to trade him because by the time he told the sox he would play 1b , the need for a first baseman was no longer there?

He never needed to play 1b.  He should have, and hes not blameless.  But thats in the past.  To summarize, what I am gathering from your posts:

This hurts us a lot going forward, but Im good with the move because there was a window (that has since been closed) where it would have helped the team to have him play 1b, and even though its old news now and no longer important he didnt step up then - so i am now fully convinced he needed to be moved because something in the past that no longer applies.

Team was rounding a corner with him at DH. There was simply no need to move him.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Then you are being misled.  It would be one thing if we Devers had crapped the bed with his bat, or there were multiple comparable bats we could acquire, or if the team was losing

But none of that is the case.  Not only is the bat not replaceable for 2025, top 10 hitters in the mlb jsut arent available for anything close to 280M, and I doubt the Sox will suddenly become a team willing to pony up 500m for a vlad.  And we were starting to win.

The Red sox, in year 6 of a rebuild, just set the clock back 3 years.  And Im not even certain that we'll be able to replace Devers within 3 years. You had a top 10 bat, which is one of the hardest things to find/acquire.

This money will get spread among #4 pitchers who will get hurt or have ERAs in the 4s.

I want to have faith that they will spend it wisely, but we just haven't really had that history with this org. It's fair to ignore the bad Bloom signings.

Under Breslow:

Bregman - GREAT'

Sandoval - TBD

Buehler - 25M should have been better spent TBH

Chapman - GREAT

Wilson - Good

Bello extension - Fine?

Rafaela extension - No bueno IMO

Giolito - 50M should have been better spent TBH

So maybe they'll spend the money wisely? Hard to really say for sure. 

 

[moonslav59]

Just now, drewski6 said:

So we had to trade him because by the time he told the sox he would play 1b , the need for a first baseman was no longer there?

He never needed to play 1b.  He should have, and hes not blameless.  But thats in the past.  To summarize, what I am gathering from your posts:

This hurts us a lot going forward, but Im good with the move because there was a window (that has since been closed) where it would have helped the team to have him play 1b, and even though its old news now and no longer important he didnt step up then - so i am now fully convinced he needed to be moved because something in the past that no longer applies.

Team was rounding a corner with him at DH. There was simply no need to move him.

I have spoken about several reasons beyond the move to DH and proposed move to DH issues.

The "He never needed to play 1B." is irrelevant. They felt he needed to, and so did I, and he was not willing to, when he should have gladly accepted what was best for the team.

He was dogging it, and it wasn't just a one time occurance.

He was not setting good example to the other players, and we have an inordinate amount of rookies and 1-3 year players on the 26.

He was being paid $31M to DH only. I know that doesn't mean we can afford to just let his bat go for very little in return, and replacing his money is something nebulous and speculative, but the fact is, no DH is worth $31M a year. Also, in the whole history of MLB on 8+ year deals, I challenge you to find one where a team would not have chosen to get out of the deal during or after year 2. (Not saying you cant find one or two, but the vast majority makes my point.)

Look, this sucks. I'm not happy about it. I want Devers in our line-up as much as anyone and everyone. I was the guy saying "Devers forevers." Maybe, I'm reaching to try and find a silver lining or something to stay positive about. I get that. I know that about myself and realize my emotions may be clouding my opinions and statements.

I do think Devers was overpaid, but I'm okay with overpaying for players that produce. I felt Papi was underpaid, but the fact is that nobody pays DH's much more than $15-20M a year.

While Devers is still firmly in peak prime or even early peak prime, the majority of  his remaining contract was not within prime years. I've never bought into the overweight talk and he "won't age well" talk, but just normal age progression charts would show, he won't earn the money, starting in about year 5 or 6 of his 10 year deal, and we already got year 1 and part of year 2 from him.

He wasn't happy, here, anymore. I know I got some rightful grief for the "smiling less" comment, but things weren't the same. I know it's easy to say Brez & Co were to blame and they should go- not Devers, but we all know that wasn't going to happen. I think the rub with Devers went higher up than just Brez. It may have even reached JH, and JH ain't firing JH.

The example he was giving to the kids, even discarding the whole Campbell report, which I'm not so sure had zero truth to it, was a factor in my opinion that trading him was needed. 

I also think waiting until later to trade him may not have been possible, or we'd have had tp pay more and or gotten less in return. Call me Mr. Optimistic, but I think we got a pretty nice return- maybe better than what I felt we got for Betts, at the time of that trade, and certainly more than I thought we got for Bogey (a comp pick that ended up being Campbell.)

Again, I am way more bummed than happy, but I would have been bummed had we kept Devers and things continued to unravel, as it seemed they were on pace for happening between him and management, him and his teammates, him and egg shell-walking Cora and more.

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I want to have faith that they will spend it wisely, but we just haven't really had that history with this org. It's fair to ignore the bad Bloom signings.

Under Breslow:

Bregman - GREAT'

Sandoval - TBD

Buehler - 25M should have been better spent TBH

Chapman - GREAT

Wilson - Good

Bello extension - Fine?

Rafaela extension - No bueno IMO

Giolito - 50M should have been better spent TBH

So maybe they'll spend the money wisely? Hard to really say for sure. 

Can't disagree, here.

(I don't think we allow Gio to get to 140 IP, so his cost is $39M, but add the Hendriks signing to the pile of rubbish.)

[Duran Is The Man]

33 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I want to have faith that they will spend it wisely, but we just haven't really had that history with this org. It's fair to ignore the bad Bloom signings.

Under Breslow:

Bregman - GREAT'

Sandoval - TBD

Buehler - 25M should have been better spent TBH

Chapman - GREAT

Wilson - Good

Bello extension - Fine?

Rafaela extension - No bueno IMO

Giolito - 50M should have been better spent TBH

So maybe they'll spend the money wisely? Hard to really say for sure. 

 

Hendricks- AWFUL

[Kimmi]

22 hours ago, Nick said:

Not signing and retaining Betts has cost the organization time, money and effort they never dreamed of....It would have been cheaper to just give him $50M....because we have wasted tons of money trying to recover from that episode.

I'm against those huge contracts, even to Betts, but if the Sox were going to give out a monster contract to one player, it should have been Betts rather than Devers.  And that's not just because of this current fiasco.

That said, I think the Sox were more than fair with their offer to Betts at the time.

[Kimmi]

19 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I do wonder if I'm reaching for reasons to not be so upset about losing our best hitter, but I think there was more going on in the clubhouse that was not good, than we know of.

I'm glad we got something for Devers, and we don't have to pay a penny. The Hicks deal is a little costly, but not by enough to think badly about the contract.

If JH tightens the purse, again, we will back as square one, again, but I'm not as doubtful as I was when the last few winters began.

I'm thinking we may even see a deadline deal or two that costs JH some cash. I'm not talking James Paxton, Luis Garcia and Lucas Sims cash, here.

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.

[mvp 78]

19 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

Hendricks- AWFUL

Dang, how'd I miss him? 

[moonslav59]

Here are the highest 1Bman OPS, this year. This is the only position besides pitching, we might look to make a trade for:

.961 Alfonso (not happening)

.960 Soderstrom (Hmmm....)

.953 Freeman (zero chance)

.951 Aranda (highly doubtful)

.848 Busch (Cubs aren't looking to sell)

.826 Pasquantino (Name is too long and hard to spell)

.819 Olsen (I doubt ATL is retooling)

.800+ Vladdy, Torkelson & B Harper (doubtful)

Hoskins is at .747 (Toro & Romy are doing better)

Naylor is  at .725 (see above & AZ may not be sellers)

Arraez is at .714, this year.

 

If we do anything major, via trade(s) this summer, it has to be upgrading our pitching, and IMO rental pitchers cost too much. Our hope lies with the returns of Bregman, Abreu, Houck, Crawford, Slaten and our first look at Sandoval, or perhaps some comeback by Fitts, Hendriks, Murphy or Buehler.

 

 

 

[Kimmi]

7 hours ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

Again I clearly remember posters here taking the same position about Mookie.  Obviously the diva attitude was not there but poster after poster said they were smart not to put so much money into one player  I remember thinking these posters are more knowledgeble than I am so perhaps they are right, they almost had me convinced. Those same posters are very critical of the trade now and have been for a while. When the team moves a star player in his prime over money and attitude it rarely works out for the fan.

I get it his attitude pissed people off. But again teams have accepted diva attitudes from their stars for longer than we have been fans.   Yes 31 is an overpay for a DH.  But we would be foolish to believe that JH will take that money and turn that into comparable talent.  So we are left with a lineup without one bat that scares an opponent and a bunch of stiff pitchers in return for a top 10 hitter.  I know they are winning now but with this lineup that is somply not sustainable. 

Raffy was the biggest reason I watch these games, I always pay extra attention when he steps up because he has provided so many magical moments for us.  I watched him homer for the 6th game in a row so many times I can recite the call "This has never been done in the history of the Boston Red Sox"  "All those great hitters, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski, Jim Rice, David Ortiz, none of them did that" still sends chlls down my spine.

And now, like Mookie, I've be forced to watch him produce for another team while my team hovers around .500.  Fans who wanted him gone because he was a pain in the butt (after the Sox totally bungled the position change discussions), didn't run out a ground ball or didn't talk with reporters appear to be just butt hurt at the expense of actually winning something significant.    

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.

[Kimmi]

7 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

"He shouldn't have listened to his mom and taken the extension! He's probably not going to sign for that much! How much money does a person need anyway?!?!?" 

That was me, among others, I'm sure.  I posted every one of those statements.  I would post every one of those statements over again.

[Kimmi]

7 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He told the Red Sox that he'd play 1b. He just didn't want to be yanked around and he wanted to be permanently made the 1b. 

That's still not the right attitude.  He's not the manager.  He doesn't get to decide where he wants to play.

The right attitude is, I will play wherever you need me to play.  Period.

[Kimmi]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Campbell didn't ask to play 1B. The org asked him. 

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

[moonslav59]

8 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.

While I totally get your position on avoiding mega contracts, there is an unavoidable dilema with the Sox. I'm sure I'll get some push back, here, but I think we have a very solid and deep roster & farm. Our weakness lies in the lack of standout players that are head and shoulders better than what most teams have at any given position, except our ace and 3Bman, whn healthy.

To get a top player, we have to pay top dollar, Over the last few years, we had so many holes to fill that it made sense to not spend it all on 1-2 players but to instead try and spread the wealth and risk over several player additions. I don't see us in that boat anymore. This winter, I think we'd become a much better team with just 2-3 targeted major signings or trade additions:

1. A second ace.

2. A top closer to replace Chapman (maybe just bring him back.)

A far #3 would be another solid arm or a big bat for 1B. (I would not pay for a mostly DH profile player.) Maybe we could trade for a significant bat or pitcher. I know many here have given up on Casas and don't want us to count on or younger players to blossom quickly and fully, but I think we have to.

SP:  Cease or Framber/Gallen or maybe M King/Ra, Suarez/Flaherty/Lugo

Closer: Helsley or Ro Suarez/ E Diaz

Maybe trade Casas and an OF'er for a 1Bman or sign Hoskins/Naylor or Alfonso, if he opts out. (Take a chance on Murakami?) I would not sign a DH like Schwarber or Ozuna.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

4 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

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

Much like devers has said with his new team that respects their players.......

https://www.mlb.com/news/rafael-devers-giants-press-conference