sk7326

Given his two about faces in three years - who knows what his beliefs are. What is clear is that he did this for money. What they got for Mookie was a steep discount - they traded the sort of player who teams NEVER trade and got nothing close to the equivalent ceiling back. They chose lining investors pockets over getting proper baseball value back. Like, the Red Sox got more pitching ceiling back from dealing Andrew Miller at the trade deadline. They did get some 2020 help back - Verdugo might not be an all-star but he projects to be a perfectly acceptable corner outfielder. The pitcher looks like a guy with a ton of injury history who could be a starter if you squint really hard. You'd like to think Mookie Betts would at least cause a ripple in the Dodgers' prospect rankings - but there you go.

3) keep negotiating because people say lots of things - and the deal you had now (a relief prospect and an outfielder) would likely have been there at the deadline

at least one controllable starter/high minor prospect as valuable as Eduardo Rodriguez, and at least one pitcher who might take up a mid-back rotation spot in 2020.

Not a comparison. Betts was arguably the best player in the league not named Mike Trout. Edwin Diaz was a good player at an unessential position. Players of Mookie's ilk are people you build around.

They had one great asset to help the procurement of pitching and chose to use it as a sweetener to sell half of David Price's contract.

It reminds me of the time the Yankees dealt Derek Jeter for middle relief help.

Of course I should be surprised - the team is well run for the most part. But when ownership greenlighted the Sale extension, we knew this reckoning was very possible. I advocated last offseason the team should have been sniffing around for offers for Bogaerts - again, assuming that they were concerned about future payroll (which would not make them unique - and is going to be the main battlefield for the next CBA, but does not mean that I have to accep the premise). The team had a lack of organizational pitching depth - and so they took their best trade asset and ended up not fixing it in a meaningful way. The kid they got COULD get lucky and be good, but really we're looking at Betts being dealt for a solid starting corner OF and a likely solid reliever.

Bloom had an impossible ask - to make a good baseball trade given the mandate to slash payroll. He did not make a good baseball trade, but he tried at least.

As we all know, the league rankings of players goes Trout-Edwin Diaz-everyone else.

When we are talking about dealing a player of Betts' age and quality (which basically never happens) - there is no real difference. There is no good reason to accept a bad baseball trade for an asset that good - if you believe you should be trading him at all. You have cited a bad reason though.

Did MLB institute a hard cap while I was asleep?

It is hard to find a case of a player this good this young getting moved - let alone in a salary dump.

The Red Sox took their best baseball trade chip and traded it for suboptimal return strictly to save their owner some money. That warrants criticism on its own, and when it is a high revenue team that can afford to make baseball moves for baseball reasons, it really smells. It is possible to both be okay with how ownership has spent in the past while criticizing the decisions now. There have been very few moves Henry has made in his tenure which have been bad faith - this is one. Second, even IF we accept the sympathetic framing ... that the Red Sox have actual affordability problems and payroll needed to be reduced for reasons, this was a problem apparent entering the 2019 season and yet management proceeded making multiple dicey spending choices which boxed them in here to feeling like they had to trade their best player without harming the Dodgers internal prospect rankings.

Of course he has spent money. But right now, he traded a superstar in his prime for a steep discount for non-baseball reasons. And the move can, and should be criticized on that front. Similarly, the sudden whiplash need to cut payroll after greenlighting big money extensions just months earlier deserves criticism. Mookie Betts was the team's best hope to replenish some of its high ceiling organizational depth, especially in pitching. This trade way did not do that. Considering the $$ they ask of fans - it's unseemly at best.

I am glad. I was worried we'd have to have a telethon for him.

Area owner hires GM to build a winner and green lights numerous large contracts for said goal. Results in the best team of the century of MLB. Area owner greenlights a VERY shaky extension to pitcher who has been hurt frequently. Extended pitcher gets hurt. Area owner fires GM for doing exactly what he asked him to do - pivoting to reduce payroll because, reasons. (fortunately GM hired in stead looks pretty promising) Area owner mandates trade of a Top 5 player in his prime as a vehicle to dump salary without getting All-Star level ceiling in return. Area owner raises ticket prices - among the highest in the league already - while doing something the Pittsburgh Pirates would have blanched at.

"much needed flexiblity" works off of an owner-centric framing of the whole deal. Bloom did the best he could given the mandate - and he'll probably do fine in the future. But Henry's conduct regarding the team since August has been pretty awful.

It sucks for fans who like baseball.

The Dodgers turning him into Rich Hill is entirely plausible and a good bet for $18M a year. And of course they got a one year look at Mookie Betts which doesn't hurt. Boston got a cost controlled starting CF and an interesting pitcher with at least some starter upside. And the Red Sox did not get the full benefit of the salary dump. Bloom's deal considering the mandate from ownership was probably the best he could do - there is no winning this deal. The mandate was deplorable.

I also enjoy trading one of the best players the Red Sox have had (normalized for age) to line John Henry's pockets. Bloom is a smart guy and did fairly well given ownership's mandate to make like the Pittsburgh Pirates - and considering they are paying half of Price's contract, they did not even do that correctly. But it is worth noting that the Red Sox ask a larger financial commitment from their fans than virtually every other team in baseball. As someone who likes baseball, this sucks.

It's going to be Yankees or some Los Angeles team

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27923015/rays-chaim-bloom-favorite-become-red-sox-general-manager A really interesting idea, if true. Bloom has a good name around baseball circles and clearly has a lot of experience at this point in front offices. The Rays are the same sort of progressive front office the Sox had been in the middle of the decade - so going this direction makes sense. Also obviously Tampa has had to make numerous difficult calls in budget crunches, so that makes sense too. What could be a real sea change is the view of pitching. Epstein and Cherington were very suspicious of the risk level associated with amateur pitchers, and strongly favored the easier predictability associated with position players - and used other means to add pitching to the org. Tampa of course has been one of the real bright lights in the league at drafting and developing pitching and have not shied away from the risk. Neither approach is wrong - and both fit their environments and ballparks, but it could be a real shift. Certainly the Red Sox need more pitching in any case.

Benny is still good and cheap. Bradley might not stay cheap which is the issue. That Benintendi has not found more power in the juiced happy fun ball reduces his ceiling somewhat. He might not be Betts-Devers sort of foundational, but he's not an issue.

They kept him because he was the better player at the time with a more likely range of outcomes. Waiting on Moncada did not fit their timetable - they were contending and did not want to play such a raw dude - and of course it helped them land Chris Sale. The White Sox got a leap from him in Year 3 - but also had two years of being a poor man's Mark Bellhorn along the way. There is nothing wrong with developing a guy - but the Red Sox did not have those kind of plate appearances available given their competitive situation.

That is the sound of a man washing his hands of the offseason despite the fact he greenlighted the money for those 8 figure AAVs for Sale and Eovaldi. Henry has done this before, after each less than awesome season (which we've had blessedly few).