Bellhorn04
-
Posts
54,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bellhorn04
-
But we don't know what offers the Red Sox have made to Betts other than the one for $200 million a couple of years back. Maybe their subsequent offers have been a little on the lowball side.
-
The current Dodgers ownership hasn't been in place that long. And of course the first thing they did was the crazy Punto trade. The chances of it may not be high, maybe only 10%. But I think it's fair to say that the Dodgers are in as good a position or better than any other team to do it. They have the money, it's a good place to play, they're loaded with prospects etc.
-
I think most would agree that if the Sox have a chance to win it all without Betts and Price, they have a better chance to win it all with Betts and Price.
-
Trading Betts to the Dodgers, IMO, brings in the risk that they will sign him to an extension. The Dodgers are just the team that could pull that off.
-
But that's not how it works.
-
Take a look at the sweepstakes for Cole. The Yanks got him because they were willing to go to an insane length of 9 years @ 36. The Dodgers reportedly were willing to go 8 @ 36 but then backed out. The Yanks were the team in the much worse tax position for this year. The Dodgers are well under 208. The Yanks are well over 208 and are in the Year Two tax rates.
-
I think what determines how far the Red Sox will go in their offer to Betts is this question: 'How much is too much of an overpay?'
-
But it doesn't. It's a relative drop in the bucket.
-
And my position is I don't think trading him really gives that big a boost to our chances of re-signing him.
-
That seems to be the size of it. It's gentlemen place your bets (please overlook the pun) time. My bet is they don't trade Betts. I fully accept I could be wrong, but if I had to lay money on it that's where it would go.
-
Sure, anything can happen. Sale and Eovaldi might not miss a start between them...
-
If they can re-set this year without trading Betts I'm fine with it. I'm just opposed to trading him.
-
I think that's overstating it.
-
If JD opts out at the end of 2020 it'll be 5 guys.
-
They can afford to keep Betts in spite of Price and Eovaldi. At the end of the 2020 season when Mookie's contract expires, the contracts of Price and Eovaldi will have 2 more years to run at $49 million per year. That's an obstacle, but not a big one.
-
There's really nothing much forcing them to deal Betts or to re-set this year.
-
You're assuming that if they re-set in 2020 they'll get right back to heavy spending in 2021?
-
But my whole argument is about re-setting in 2021. No Price, no JDM, no JBJ.
-
Ideally, yes. Maybe a bit less.
-
I meant trading him before this season starts.
-
Mookie's projected 2020 salary is 27.5 mill. If he signs the same deal as Trout his 2021 AAV would be 35.5 mill, so an increment of 8 mill.
-
Not necessarily, if they trade Price.
-
I'm not saying that a re-set in 2020 wouldn't be beneficial. Obviously it would. But I think the benefits are being exaggerated a bit. If we end up 20 million over the 208 for 2020, we pay 10 million tax. That's actually less tax than in 2018 or 2019. And JDM and JBJ would likely both be gone after 2020, so that's 33 million or so gone for 2021 right there.
-
The other benefit of re-setting which Speier explained in his analysis (the one about the $100 million savings) has to do with a revenue-sharing penalty that is separate from the luxury tax itself.
-
No.
