Question of the week: Was trading Devers the right call?

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

It's kind of crazy that of all the people the Giants might choose to work out with Devers at 1B, they go with Will Clark, a man obviously still capable of saying incredibly dumb stuff.    

I guess Will Clark has just taken IF with the team for years and years and it's very common for him to do so. It was nothing special planned or anything. Will was already going to be there and just thought Devers was going to take 1b with him. 

If I was PR for the Giants, I'd be nervous as Hell having that guy around for sure. Great story teller though. 

[Hitch]

9 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

People need to move on, especially Will Flemming. 

People are complaining daily about Devers being traded. I'd love for people to move on. There's little chance of it. 

[mvp 78]

Just now, Hitch said:

People are complaining daily about Devers being traded. I'd love for people to move on. There's little chance of it. 

I got it out of my system the first week or so. It's just so weird that Will Flemming needs to keep bringing it up like he's been personally slighted somehow. 

[Hitch]

39 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I got it out of my system the first week or so. It's just so weird that Will Flemming needs to keep bringing it up like he's been personally slighted somehow. 

He was asked the question on Devers and how the players view him post trade. It's not weird to answer these questions. As much as you and I might like this conversation to die down, it isn't, and people will continue asking questions around it. People will give answers. Such is the way of the world,

It would be weird if he kept producing blogs out of nowhere about it. But that isn't happening. 

[Nick]

Yes, and Hell yes.

[drewski6]

Hes just the flavor of the weeeeeeek

[drewski6]

I almost fought that dude once (lead singer of the flavor of the week song, American Hi-Fi I think the band was called)

Her boyfriend
He dont know
Anything, about her

[Soxlover]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

People need to move on, especially Will Flemming. 

We’re still talking about Betts.

Granted, losing Betts is up there with the Babe, but the Devers loss is bigger than losing Bogey. That one went on for months and only ended when Bogey’s decline made complaining look silly.

[drewski6]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

People need to move on, especially Will Flemming. 

From Devers? Yes. From Eddie Guerrero? No

(I wore a "Latino Heat" shirt to Raw in Providence on Monday)

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

From Devers? Yes. From Eddie Guerrero? No

(I wore a "Latino Heat" shirt to Raw in Providence on Monday)

The GOAT. I watched a lot of WCW back in the 90's. 

I went to a house show at the Fleet Center that was:

Rey Mysterio/Billy Kidman vs Benoit/Malenko

Sting vs Bam Bam

Goldberg vs Meng (Haku)

Flair vs Hogan

No Eddie or Chavo tho... 

[Maxbialystock]

Great discussion of a variety of perspectives--thanks, everyone.

I loved Devers as the DH, the perfect slot for him.  He played every game and had an OPS of .905 with the Sox. Unlike most of the rest of you, I never saw him as a whiny malingerer.  

On the other hand, I honestly don't think he is missed much--nor did the Giants get a season-changer, at least not yet.  DH is now a handy spot to use Anthony, Ref, and others.  Without Devers and Bregman both, the Sox have been scoring 5.7 runs per game for 20 games.  

The publicity generated is another story because from the outset the Giants were credited with genius and the Sox with imbecility. 

Right now--and this is more hope than certitude--I see a pretty good Sox team emerging with good hitting, good defense, a decent rotation, and an up and down bullpen. 

Up ahead, from now to the trade deadline on July 31, the Sox play 13 games against tough teams:  Rays, @Cubs, @Phillies, and Dodgers.  @ Minnesota could also be tough.  That will be a great test of just how good these 2025 Sox are--and inform Bregman about what deals he should make.  

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The GOAT. I watched a lot of WCW back in the 90's. 

I went to a house show at the Fleet Center that was:

Rey Mysterio/Billy Kidman vs Benoit/Malenko

Sting vs Bam Bam

Goldberg vs Meng (Haku)

Flair vs Hogan

No Eddie or Chavo tho... 

Awesome card.

[Bellhorn04]

22 games in.  .706 OPS 2 HR 9 RBI 0.0 bWAR

Dealing with groin and back issues.  Will not play any 1B until after the ASB at least.

[Hitch]

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

22 games in.  .706 OPS 2 HR 9 RBI 0.0 bWAR

Dealing with groin and back issues.  Will not play any 1B until after the ASB at least.

Hicks 2.2 IP, 6.75 ERA, 2.25 WHIP

Harrison 13 IP, 7.62 ERA, 1.92 WHIP

Tibbs 18 G, 1 HR, 5 RBI, 737 OPS

[mvp 78]

Will Clark: "FU Will Flemming." 

I don't know why Flemming felt the need to bring this up. Especially if Clark wasn't onboard. 🙃

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Hicks 2.2 IP, 6.75 ERA, 2.25 WHIP

Harrison 13 IP, 7.62 ERA, 1.92 WHIP

Tibbs 18 G, 1 HR, 5 RBI, 737 OPS

The guys we've used at DH, since the trade have done pretty well, so that should be a factor in judging the post trade results. One player, each game, would not have played, had Devers not been traded. Their results matter, too.

Refsnyder has not done as well as I expected, when DH'ing. but Anthony & Abreu have a 1.167 OPS as a DH,. Although Anthony was called up days before the trade, he may not have had a place to play, or some other OF'er would have been benched: look at the last 28 days OPS of our OF'ers/DHs:

1.750 Yoshida (4 PAs)

.999 Abreu (57)

.963 Rafaela (83)

.832 Anthony (98)

,786 Duran (96) and .833 since June 15th

.754 Refsnyder (42)

I still wish Devers was our DH/1Bman, but we've done fine with his replacements.

 

.

[mvp 78]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I still wish Devers was our DH/1Bman, but we've done fine with his replacements.

It's been fine. I just think we don't know how Devers would produce if he was still here. We don't know how the guys we acquired will produce going forward. It's clear that this trade wasn't about being "won" for Breslow. It was a problem that had to be solved. They didn't believe they could handle it internally, so they traded him.

I don't remember tracking Mookie's stats in 2020 though. 

[Bellhorn04]

25 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

It's been fine. I just think we don't know how Devers would produce if he was still here. We don't know how the guys we acquired will produce going forward. It's clear that this trade wasn't about being "won" for Breslow. It was a problem that had to be solved. They didn't believe they could handle it internally, so they traded him.

I don't remember tracking Mookie's stats in 2020 though. 

Mookie was totally different.  And 2020 was a total lost season for Sox fans.  And a very strange season period.

I think the Devers trade was a much more divisive one for Sox fans, with a lot of people going ballistic about it and a fair number thinking it was the right move.  

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

It's been fine. I just think we don't know how Devers would produce if he was still here. We don't know how the guys we acquired will produce going forward. It's clear that this trade wasn't about being "won" for Breslow. It was a problem that had to be solved. They didn't believe they could handle it internally, so they traded him.

I'm not sure the trade was made to be "won" with the returns. I think they viewed Devers as a problem and thought freeing up the money would allow them to replenish higher need areas over the next 8+ years.

That being said, I think all 4 of the return players show some sort of promise. Harrison probably has the highest hope of giving something very meaningful. Tibbs gives us some minor league depth (maybe 1B could help..) J Bello is promising but too far away to get hopes up. Hicks could be a force from the pen, but questions linger.

IMO, if and how we spend the money will be what makes or breaks this trade, and of course how Devers ages. We all saw how we failed to replenish the Betts money, as well as half  Prices's, Porcello's and others afterwards. If we follow that same path, it's hard to imagine this trade working well for us, unless Devers implodes.

[mvp 78]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

IMO, if and how we spend the money will be what makes or breaks this trade, and of course how Devers ages. We all saw how we failed to replenish the Betts money, as well as half  Prices's, Porcello's and others afterwards. If we follow that same path, it's hard to imagine this trade working well for us, unless Devers implodes.

How will we know which of the payroll is allocated from Devers's salary though? Right now, we'd have to deduct Hicks's salary for a few years, but a TON of salary is coming off the books this offseason. There is no way to really parse out what FA acquisition is really taking the place of Devers's salary. They just need to be able to extend their young players and bring in outside help using their financial might the way they did prior to 2019. No more excuse making or season punting. The top prospects are here. This offseason is the time to get everything in place and build a real winner. 

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

How will we know which of the payroll is allocated from Devers's salary though? Right now, we'd have to deduct Hicks's salary for a few years, but a TON of salary is coming off the books this offseason. There is no way to really parse out what FA acquisition is really taking the place of Devers's salary. They just need to be able to extend their young players and bring in outside help using their financial might the way they did prior to 2019. No more excuse making or season punting. The top prospects are here. This offseason is the time to get everything in place and build a real winner. 

We can't know which money was spent where, but if we spend near what our budget was to start 2026, I'll be thinking we spent the money that replaced all the departing contracts, including $21M for Buehler, $19M for Gio, $12M for Chapman and smaller deals departing as well.

If we use some of all this money to extend Anthony and other younger players beyond the arb window, I'd consider that as using "some" of the Devers savings, too.

Cots has us $76M under the tax line for 2026, with Hicks counting as $10M, so out of the $76M, we can allocate:

$21M Buehler

$19M Devers

$19M Giolito

$12M Chapman

That comes pretty close to $76M. If we bring back Chapman or Gio, count that as saved money spent. (I'm assuming we extend Bregman to near his AAV, now.)

To me, we should try to target the spending on 2 major additions:

SP#2 ($23-28M AAV)

Closer ($13-18M AAV)

Minor additions:

C#2 ($3-5M AAV)

1Bman (assuming we don't move and OF'er, Campbell or Yoshida to 1B) at $5-8M AAV

RP ($3-5M AAV- like Wilson)

That's close to $70M. Do that, and I'll consider the Devers savings were spent.

 

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

On 7/9/2025 at 12:27 PM, Maxbialystock said:

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Regarding Devers I sincerely hope he becomes the Chris Davis of the Giants. The albatross version. He's off to a good start.

[drewski6]

35 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure the trade was made to be "won" with the returns. I think they viewed Devers as a problem and thought freeing up the money would allow them to replenish higher need areas over the next 8+ years.

 

Agree with first part, not second.  I think there were multiple things going on, multiple reasons, and the reason they pulled the trigger was a list.  I dont think they view the hitting secondary to defense and pitching tho, and therefore, I disagree with it being about "higher need areas"

I think first and foremost it was attitude and clubhouse culture
I think secondly, they thought the value of the asset would likely go down from there.  So not they think they needed pitching or defense more than they needed a masher, but more a chance to cash out while getting a + BTV back.
So I think it was the return.  Not these guys specifically , but the fact that the return package had a net + (even if HIcks is underwater), I think they thought better to trade one year early than one year late (like a Belichick trading Richard Seymour type move)
I think they saw the logjam at DH and that contributed
Devers was already aging with the injury lingering. Thats a sign of aging. Also his bodytype
Like someone else said, most of the time when you sign an 8 yr deal, you expect to get surplus value in the front, but have to carry in the back, so the contract gets harder to move when the first 2 years gone, so they were surprised how easily they could move it, and pulled the trigger

Regarding whre the money specifically goes - I dont think about it like that, personally. To me its a pool.  It creates more money in the pool, but Im not concerned about dollar for dollar tracking.

[drewski6]

But I dont think it was financial. I do think it was attitude and egos and they were surprised the giants would take the contract and give a + value back, and they thought that the opportunity to move him - it would be harder in the future.

[mvp 78]

Spending TO the tax line? The Sox should go OVER! 

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Agree with first part, not second.  I think there were multiple things going on, multiple reasons, and the reason they pulled the trigger was a list.  I dont think they view the hitting secondary to defense and pitching tho, and therefore, I disagree with it being about "higher need areas"

I think first and foremost it was attitude and clubhouse culture
I think secondly, they thought the value of the asset would likely go down from there.  So not they think they needed pitching or defense more than they needed a masher, but more a chance to cash out while getting a + BTV back.
So I think it was the return.  Not these guys specifically , but the fact that the return package had a net + (even if HIcks is underwater), I think they thought better to trade one year early than one year late (like a Belichick trading Richard Seymour type move)
I think they saw the logjam at DH and that contributed
Devers was already aging with the injury lingering. Thats a sign of aging. Also his bodytype
Like someone else said, most of the time when you sign an 8 yr deal, you expect to get surplus value in the front, but have to carry in the back, so the contract gets harder to move when the first 2 years gone, so they were surprised how easily they could move it, and pulled the trigger

Regarding whre the money specifically goes - I dont think about it like that, personally. To me its a pool.  It creates more money in the pool, but Im not concerned about dollar for dollar tracking.

I agree. I doubt they make this trade with zero return or just Bello & Tibbs.

I agree on the "pool" analogy, as well, but that increased pool ($20M for 2 years then $30M more for 6 more) will translate into tangible players, as long as JH doesn't go cheap, along the way (again.)

I'm hoping JH spends even more than the estimated $76M we may have below the tax line, this winter. I'd like to see him get just below the 1st tier, minimum, so about $95M to spend:

$30M SP

$18M Closer

$25M 1B 

$22M back-up Catcher plus extensions to Anthony & Mayer. (Take some from 1B, if we need more for extensions.)

Trade Duran or Abreu for a key piece (Maybe with prospects for Ryan.)

SP: Crochet, Cease, Ryan, Bello, Sandoval, Dobbins, Harrison, Fitts, Tolle & Early

RP Helsley, Whitlock, Slaten, Houck, Hicks, Murphy, Perales, Sandlin, Weissert, Alcara, Guerrero, Kelly, I Campbell

1. L Mayer 2B

2. R Bregman 3B

3. L Abreu RF/ R Romy DH 

4. L Anthony LF

5. R Story SS

6. L Yoshida DH/ R Refsnyder RF

7. R Hoskins 1B (L Casas/ S Toro)

8. R Narvaez C (_____?)

9. R Rafaela CF (R Jh Garcia?)

This looks damn good, to me.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Agree with first part, not second.  I think there were multiple things going on, multiple reasons, and the reason they pulled the trigger was a list.  I dont think they view the hitting secondary to defense and pitching tho, and therefore, I disagree with it being about "higher need areas"

I think first and foremost it was attitude and clubhouse culture
I think secondly, they thought the value of the asset would likely go down from there.  So not they think they needed pitching or defense more than they needed a masher, but more a chance to cash out while getting a + BTV back.
So I think it was the return.  Not these guys specifically , but the fact that the return package had a net + (even if HIcks is underwater), I think they thought better to trade one year early than one year late (like a Belichick trading Richard Seymour type move)
I think they saw the logjam at DH and that contributed
Devers was already aging with the injury lingering. Thats a sign of aging. Also his bodytype
Like someone else said, most of the time when you sign an 8 yr deal, you expect to get surplus value in the front, but have to carry in the back, so the contract gets harder to move when the first 2 years gone, so they were surprised how easily they could move it, and pulled the trigger

Regarding whre the money specifically goes - I dont think about it like that, personally. To me its a pool.  It creates more money in the pool, but Im not concerned about dollar for dollar tracking.

I agree. I doubt they make this trade with zero return or just Bello & Tibbs.

I agree on the "pool" analogy, as well, but that increased pool ($20M for 2 years then $30M more for 6 more) will translate into tangible players, as long as JH doesn't go cheap, along the way (again.)

I'm hoping JH spends even more than the estimated $76M we may have below the tax line, this winter. I'd like to see him get just below the 1st tier, minimum, so about $95M to spend:

$30M SP

$18M Closer

$25M 1B 

$22M back-up Catcher plus extensions to Anthony & Mayer. (Take some from 1B, if we need more for extensions.)

Trade Duran or Abreu for a key piece (Maybe with prospects for Ryan.)

SP: Crochet, Cease, Ryan, Bello, Sandoval, Dobbins, Harrison, Fitts, Tolle & Early

RP Helsley, Whitlock, Slaten, Houck, Hicks, Murphy, Perales, Sandlin, Weissert, Alcara, Guerrero, Kelly, I Campbell

1. L Mayer 2B

2. R Bregman 3B

3. L Abreu RF/ R Romy DH 

4. L Anthony LF

5. R Story SS

6. L Yoshida DH/ R Refsnyder RF

7. R Hoskins 1B (L Casas/ S Toro)

8. R Narvaez C (_____?)

9. R Rafaela CF (R Jh Garcia?)

This looks damn good, to me.

[dgalehouse]

With each passing day, it becomes more and more apparent that the team is better off without Devers.