BREAKING: Rafael Devers Traded To San Francisco Giants

On 6/18/2025 at 4:19 PM, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

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

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

I'm sure Devers felt very respected by the Red Sox when he signed his extension.  He had been with his new team all of 2-3 days when he agreed to play anywhere they want him to.  Give it a some time.  He may end up not feeling so respected if he's asked to do something that doesn't suit him.  Or maybe he'll have learned his lesson about being a good teammate.

On 6/18/2025 at 4:31 PM, 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.  

I know the Red Sox can afford Devers contract.  Personally, I'm glad that they were able to get rid of it, but that's just me.  As many have said, we'll have to see what Henry and Breslow are willing to do with that money.  I don't think they have written off 2025, and I certainly don't think they will struggle in 2026.  

On 6/18/2025 at 4:42 PM, 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 understand the frustration.  I'm in agreement with the FO on trading Devers, but I am really going to miss his bat in the line up.  I really wish we could go back to the beginning of spring training.  I would have kept Devers at 3B, put Bregman at 2B, and rotated the DH spot until Yoshida was ready to come back.  Yes, I know that weakens defense at 3B, but in hindsight, it probably would have greatly strengthened our 2B defense.  And most importantly, Devers would be happy and would still be with the Red Sox.

The FO is hardly blameless in all of this.  I think they had a plan.  They did a poor job of executing it, or more appropriately, a poor job of communicating it.

On 6/18/2025 at 4:42 PM, 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 understand the frustration.  I'm in agreement with the FO on trading Devers, but I am really going to miss his bat in the line up.  I really wish we could go back to the beginning of spring training.  I would have kept Devers at 3B, put Bregman at 2B, and rotated the DH spot until Yoshida was ready to come back.  Yes, I know that weakens defense at 3B, but in hindsight, it probably would have greatly strengthened our 2B defense.  And most importantly, Devers would be happy and would still be with the Red Sox.

The FO is hardly blameless in all of this.  I think they had a plan.  They did a poor job of executing it, or more appropriately, a poor job of communicating it.

Just now, Kimmi said:

I understand the frustration.  I'm in agreement with the FO on trading Devers, but I am really going to miss his bat in the line up.  I really wish we could go back to the beginning of spring training.  I would have kept Devers at 3B, put Bregman at 2B, and rotated the DH spot until Yoshida was ready to come back.  Yes, I know that weakens defense at 3B, but in hindsight, it probably would have greatly strengthened our 2B defense.  And most importantly, Devers would be happy and would still be with the Red Sox.

The FO is hardly blameless in all of this.  I think they had a plan.  They did a poor job of executing it, or more appropriately, a poor job of communicating it.

And speaking of Bregman, when he was signed with the team, he stated that he would play wherever the team wanted him to play.  He would have happily played second base to keep Raffy at 3B.

43 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

I really don't disagree with most of what you have posted here.  In a perfect world, those standout players that you speak of would be home grown, thereby being inexpensive, relatively speaking.  We're hoping we'll see that in Anthony, Mayer, and/or Campbell.

While I hate to trade away our players, I understand that part of the reason for building a strong farm is to use prospects in trades.  I had zero problem with trading Teel (and others) to get Crochet.  I do have a problem with trading so heavily for the short term that it depletes the farm, though.

As far as the mega contracts go, I am just fundamentally against them.  

I don't really disagree with anything, here, either.

Ideally, we should try to avoid maga deals, especially long term ones, and even the one for Bregman might have been avoidable, had we put our faith in Meidroth and found another prospect to include in the Crochet deal.

I'm not for trading higher prospects for short term gains. The Aldo Ramirez for Schwarber deal is about the highest we've gone since Beeks for Nate in 2018- both seemed to work well.

IMO, we need a solid #2 SP'er. I doubt Dobbins, Houck, Crawford or anyone else in the system can step into that roile, shortly or even in a year or two. Houck and Sandoval probably have the best chance, unless Buehler comes around. I do not want us trading a top 8 or so prospect for a rental, but I would like to see a longer term addition that fills that role, and would be willing to pay for it in money and or higher level prospects.

14 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I don't really disagree with anything, here, either.

Ideally, we should try to avoid maga deals, especially long term ones, and even the one for Bregman might have been avoidable, had we put our faith in Meidroth and found another prospect to include in the Crochet deal.

I'm not for trading higher prospects for short term gains. The Aldo Ramirez for Schwarber deal is about the highest we've gone since Beeks for Nate in 2018- both seemed to work well.

IMO, we need a solid #2 SP'er. I doubt Dobbins, Houck, Crawford or anyone else in the system can step into that roile, shortly or even in a year or two. Houck and Sandoval probably have the best chance, unless Buehler comes around. I do not want us trading a top 8 or so prospect for a rental, but I would like to see a longer term addition that fills that role, and would be willing to pay for it in money and or higher level prospects.

I keep hoping that Bello is going to figure it out and become a bona fide #2 behind Crochet.  He's making small strides, but I can't place my confidence in him yet.  I agree.  I would say my priority for this team is getting a solid #2 starter.  I'm hopeful that our offense will take care of itself.

13 minutes ago, jdc69 said:

What I haven't seen too much of around here but have heard is that Devers, in the meeting with JH said he would play 1st base if he was given a season to practice. How much would that solve if we have Bregman at 2nd for only one season, and then go to 3rd. It would've made things much more seamless with everything including the prospects. I was just looking to get toe into the postseason this year and then after that think about going all the way. So yes, I agree with you about starting over in ST. 

We do have to question why Devers hadn't been taking reps at first base all along, knowing that our depth at that position was not good.  Anyway, the damage is done.  We all just have to hope that the effects won't be long lasting.

4 minutes ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

maybe, maybe not.......

I can't argue with that.  😀

6 hours ago, Yaz Fan Since 67 said:

I think there is equal blame.  They did a poor job but Raffy was selfish. And as fans we get caught in the middle and eventually we get screwed. I'll no longer get to see Rafael Devers mash in a Red Sox unform, something I have enjoyed for 7+ years and after the extension I had every reason to believe this would continue for many years. When teams are forced to trade a star the return never matches what they gave up,.  Color me skeptical that they will find another Raffy Devers.  

I really can't disagree with anything posted here.

In terms of finding another Devers through free agency, I see a nearly zero percent chance of that happening.  However, if Anthony can live up to what the scouting reports say, he could be our next Devers.  Time will tell.

6 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

devers should have been given a 1B's mitt the day they signed bregman. You don't move the far superior defensive player off 3rd base.

It's not as simple as that.  There are several other factors in play.  Do you know how bad our 2nd base defense has been?

That said, the decision, one way or another, should have never been an issue to begin with.