Article: BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

[jdc69]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

Soto was a rarity - one of the best active hitters reaching free agency at age 25.  I think interest was genuine but there were too many wealthy suitors.  And reportedly Cohen was NOT going to be overbid.  I don’t fault them there.  As for Alonso, he only solved problems once Casas got hurt.  The Sox still had faith in Triston and weren’t out to replace him.  If they were, Devers probably gets asked to play 1b in March…

True but I guess that's when Devers became expendable, when they value Casas over Devers. Ideally, if I was the GM, I would've gotten Alonso and then either executed the trade sending Casas to Seattle for Castillo or put either Casas or Alonso as DH and put Yoshida as RF. Sure it's a crap defense but the offense would've been stellar and it's building upon the year before instead of constantly rebuilding.

[notin]

4 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

True but I guess that's when Devers became expendable, when they value Casas over Devers. Ideally, if I was the GM, I would've gotten Alonso and then either executed the trade sending Casas to Seattle for Castillo or put either Casas or Alonso as DH and put Yoshida as RF. Sure it's a crap defense but the offense would've been stellar and it's building upon the year before instead of constantly rebuilding.

I don’t think it was a matter of valuing Casas over Devers.  It was a matter of Devers prioritizing his feelings over the needs of the team.

When Casas went down, the Sox needed a 1b., and there wasn’t one on the horizon Save a couple AAAA options (one of whom, Toro, has been stellar so far) If Devers moved to first, it becomes easier to fill the DH role.  Maybe they activate Yoshida.  Maybe they call up Anthony sooner. But neither of those guys is an option for 1b…

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, jdc69 said:

I read somewhere they didn't want that contract as soon as they signed it. They did it to appease the fans. Any way you slice it though, why does the same management that went after Soto, cut Devers?

Because of the issues Devers's attitude was causing.  

[dgalehouse]

The Sox didn't sign Devers with the intention of trading him to cut payroll. That makes no sense. Actually, the big contract made it harder to trade him and lowered the return. It was Devers attitude, lack of hustle and lack of cooperation that caused the trade. 

[mvp 78]

59 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Because of the issues Devers's attitude was causing.  

They got a new CBO that wouldn't have signed that contract. 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, notin said:

Didnt Ben once have to trade Marco Scutaro in order to afford Cody Ross?  That’s a level of economic constraint DD didnt have…

Yes, until 2019, when DD was not allowed to replace Kimbrel & Kelly- only Pearce. He was also nearly force to tarde Betts.

I still think the Sox-DD separation was mutually desirable, at that point.

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They got a new CBO that wouldn't have signed that contract. 

...and also one with balls enough to move Devers off 3B.

[mvp 78]

14 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

...and also one with balls enough to move Devers off 3B.

But not enough balls to talk to the guy. 🚪

[dgalehouse]

15 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, until 2019, when DD was not allowed to replace Kimbrel & Kelly- only Pearce. He was also nearly force to tarde Betts.

I still think the Sox-DD separation was mutually desirable, at that point.

In 2019, Sox management apparently thought that Barnes and Brasier could handle the late inning roles. But they couldn't and the blown saves were costly.   Eventually , they turned to Workman. To make it worse, injuries and underperformance by the starting rotation pretty much doomed the season.  

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

But not enough balls to talk to the guy. 🚪

Apparently, he talked to him, but Cora didn't or wouldn't.

[dgalehouse]

You are not going to find anybody who will be able to match Devers' production in the lineup. It is up to several of the other guys to pick up the slack and produce some runs. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, dgalehouse said:

The Sox didn't sign Devers with the intention of trading him to cut payroll. That makes no sense. Actually, the big contract made it harder to trade him and lowered the return. It was Devers attitude, lack of hustle and lack of cooperation that caused the trade. 

Exactly.

[notin]

6 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

You are not going to find anybody who will be able to match Devers' production in the lineup. It is up to several of the other guys to pick up the slack and produce some runs. 

Devers is a topflight hitter.  In the last 3 years, he ranked 15th in wOBA and 20th in wRC+ among qualified hitters, and I was surprised he was that low.  
 

And I think it became more of a matter of giving more respect to the ones who finished above him.  Who knew Brent Rooker was THAT good?

[moonslav59]

20 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

You are not going to find anybody who will be able to match Devers' production in the lineup. It is up to several of the other guys to pick up the slack and produce some runs. 

I agree. We could maybe trade for a 1Bman, 2Bman or DH that could give us more than we can expect, now. That could help take a chunk out of the replacement pie needed from those already on the roster.

Either way, the task is daunting.

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, notin said:

Devers is a topflight hitter.  In the last 3 years, he ranked 15th in wOBA and 20th in wRC+ among qualified hitters, and I was surprised he was that low.  
 

And I think it became more of a matter of giving more respect to the ones who finished above him.  Who knew Brent Rooker was THAT good?

The time he played injured knocked him down a few slots, but maybe other players could say the same.

[notin]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The time he played injured knocked him down a few slots, but maybe other players could say the same.

Even at 15-20, it’s still impressive to be that high on those lists.   And it’s not s off the names above his are so readily available.  Except maybe Rooker…

[moonslav59]

Just now, notin said:

Even at 15-20, it’s still impressive to be that high on those lists.   And it’s not s off the names above his are so readily available.  Except maybe Rooker…

The problem is, we have nobody else even close. Our closest players are all platoons:

Abreu-Refsnyder

Romy-Toro.

Bregman counts, for sure, but when is he due back?

Narvaez has done the job, but he still has to show he can do this over a full season (or more.)

[harmony]

32 minutes ago, notin said:

Devers is a topflight hitter.  In the last 3 years, he ranked 15th in wOBA and 20th in wRC+ among qualified hitters, and I was surprised he was that low.  
 

And I think it became more of a matter of giving more respect to the ones who finished above him.  Who knew Brent Rooker was THAT good?

Rafael Devers stood out as the best hitter on mediocre teams the past three seasons.

[moonslav59]

For those of you who like to play down platoons, where would we be without these 2 sets>

.792 Abreu/.900 Refsnyder in RF

.835 Toro/ .819 Romy at 1B

If you combine the two as one, our OPS leaders would be:

.938 Bregman

.905 Devers (gone)

~.840 Abreu/Refsyder

~.825 Toro/Romy

.814 Narvaez

(.751 Mayer)

.724 Duran

.681 Rafaela

.638 Story

[jdc69]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Because of the issues Devers's attitude was causing.  

Attitude sure but was it warranted? Do they only want "yes men," and then when they say "jump" and the player doesnt say "how high," trade them for someone desperate.

[Hitch]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

But not enough balls to talk to the guy. 🚪

Oh come on.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

7 hours 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.

When I started to read this I thought your opener was sarcastic.  But instead you spelled out my thoughts precisely.

This game like all games is about stars.  You have to have them.  They shipped out a star for nothing and have proven with the list of signings recently (Story, Yoshida, Giolito) that they will probably use this savings (if they use it all) on players who will not be nearly as productive. 

This lineup does not have one single bat that teams need to account for and has multiple black holes, it's a terrible lineup.  Winning is simply not sustainable given this handicap.

I too believe he was traded mostly due to his attitude.  But again teams coddle stars all the time.  Just put him at DH, accept you are overpaying a bit which can be made up elsewhere and understand that you will have a proven very productive DH for years.  They won't have to roll the dice on another guy who may not work out.  Instead we have a very inconsidtant Yoshida who will file this role which is a big dropoff..      

[mvp 78]

16 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Apparently, he talked to him, but Cora didn't or wouldn't.

Where'd you see this? I always saw that it was the opposite.

[Bellhorn04]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Where'd you see this? I always saw that it was the opposite.

My best guess is moon meant Cora didn't talk to him about moving to first base.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

My best guess is moon meant Cora didn't talk to him about moving to first base.

It'll be nice to have the SF series behind us. That's all I'm going to say! Almost better that we're hit with it now and can move on. 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

My best guess is moon meant Cora didn't talk to him about moving to first base.

Yes, I meant that, but I did mistakenly say Brez talked to Devers. My bad.

The only "talk" was, sadly, through the media.

Do these guys ever learn anything? They keep rinse and repeating the same mistakes.

[Bellhorn04]

53 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, I meant that, but I did mistakenly say Brez talked to Devers. My bad.

The only "talk" was, sadly, through the media.

Do these guys ever learn anything? They keep rinse and repeating the same mistakes.

What same mistakes?  Devers was a pretty tricky situation IMHO.  It's quite possible that once they decided they had to get him off third base, the rest was inevitable.

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

What same mistakes?  Devers was a pretty tricky situation IMHO.  It's quite possible that once they decided they had to get him off third base, the rest was inevitable.

It may have been inevitable. However, they should have tried to massage the relationship in case they were unable to trade Devers this season and didn't make the problem even worse. If it's as bad as the Sox are now portraying it to the media (eye roll), they are lucky all this didn't get out while he was still on the team TBH. 

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It may have been inevitable. However, they should have tried to massage the relationship in case they were unable to trade Devers this season and didn't make the problem even worse. If it's as bad as the Sox are now portraying it to the media (eye roll), they are lucky all this didn't get out while he was still on the team TBH. 

I dunno, the situation was pretty ominous right from Raffy's "lost in translation" press conference.  

[drewski6]

20 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

They got a new CBO that wouldn't have signed that contract. 

Also , 2 years were burned. Expected value is not the same every year. Nobody thought he would be worth the contract in the final few years, so you sign it because you think its worth it because of the front half. But in a 10 year contrct, lets assume the last 4 would be underwater. So that  leaves 6 "good value" years, and we had already burned 2 full and chances of making playoffs this year were below 50% even before trade, so a good chunk of the "good value years" had been burned and thats worth factoring in.

And this is my concern with kicking the can too far down the road, we really dont have that much time until the prospects start getting more expensive, and I really dont want to waste a year on Crochets contract , especially if he stays healthy (knock on wood)