sk7326

It's not couldn't ... it's WOULDN'T - the industry is drowning in money. Remember the teams you weep for are getting over $50M before a ticket is sold. The problem is that the current system does not incentivize/require spending money on players.

Bloom had an impossible job and made a fairly defensible baseball trade out of a terrible situation. I am optimistic he will do good work unless the owner changes his mind again (which given the past is entirely possible).

Ultimately is has to do with ownership's MO - and ownership has not shown much appetite for "sticking things out".

The reason teams have farm systems at all is to find someone like Mookie Betts.

Yes - the NBA which has a cap and tax faces the same deal, but the players locked in a guaranteed slice of the pie ... the baseball players screwed the pooch there. I fully expect a salary cap (probably a soft one) to come into place with the next CBA - though I also expect a work stoppage.

I am empathetic with a lot of your posts on this issue. But this is just silly. It's not your money. There is no civic obligation for the Red Sox to not invest in the major league team - if anything, the obligation is the reverse. Caveat: If we find out (not from the Globe) that Mookie would have rather sat through one a timeshare pitch than play for the Red Sox ever again, and made that clear - the calculus here changes quite a bit.

Problem solved then!

The premise in that comment is that the budget comes down in tablets from Mount Sinai instead of a decision the Fenway Sports Group makes. And it is perfectly okay to question that premise. I mean I certainly do. I mean, the Red Sox made what is probably a fair-ish baseball deal considering the variables. But they also punted on 4-6 prime years of someone on a HoF trajectory, and the current return is highly unlikely to produce a single All Star appearance, all while being one of the prime earners in an industry drowning in cash. That's just the reality. (note: the new version of the trade increases the probability of very positive outcomes of course, but it's still the usual math associated with young'ins) The Sox are not unique here of course. The Dodgers are trying to reset too, and we know that the Yankees in recent years have spent a relative pittance of their revenue on the major league roster (and it's still a high payroll team). It will be a fun wrestling issue for the next CBA - the players right now get all of the downsides of a salary cap without the upsides the players in say the NBA get.

Here is the thing - the defensive value he offers (that he can catch a little and play the other positions decently) only really matters if the hit tool is there. For Swihart, that never materialized. Also I think the team never had a very stable action plan - do you convert him, or do you let him play through the rough patches. At the same time, Swihart didn't hit - and it's the ability to hit that would have really forced the Red Sox one way or another.

Prospects don't always work out - Swihart was a good prospect. Oh well.

Now, this does not mean I like the trade per se. It's the Red Sox, and it's Mookie effin Betts. A lot of folks on forums like this talk about the either:or nature of Henry's spending decisions (as he has outlined them) without questioning the premise sufficiently. But that is the nature of sportsball fandom and sports talk radio, so it's not surprising. That said - the first version of this trade was a disgrace, this version of the trade is a disgrace with an asterisk. Given the priorities of ownership, the baseball trade is fine. Let's hope it works out.

She confirmed independent reporting of their relationship. Given the nature of these things, and how badly women who report are treated, it seems to fair to take her at her word here.

Right - the Sox got hosed the first time. This deal is better, in that the Red Sox got some real ceiling which did not exist in the first version of this trade. Considering the discount you expect from dumping Price's deal - this deal is at least commesurate with a move being done for baseball reasons.

I did too - but the money saved ought to go into closing the gap (at least at the major league level).

This is a better baseball deal - and probably closer to what a year of Betts + Price's contract is worth. Get a starting RF, a guy who moves up to the top of Boston's org list (an actual Top 100 prospect) and a catcher-sort who does not look like a throe in. For whatever reason, whether it be medical or ownership getting reactive to initial reactions - the deal is at least some actual baseball value now.

I'm not at all. Henry mandated saving money - and so he mandated moving an elite player (the sort who basically never gets dealt) for that purpose. The beginning of the Russillo Pod here puts it well: https://www.theringer.com/2020/2/5/21125232/charissa-thompson-plus-mookie-betts-and-nba-trade-deadline-moves

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.