moonslav59

I'm surprised many seem to feel the idea isn't a possibility. We've seen the team sell 4 of it's 5 starters plus Andrew Miller in one year. We've seen the team trade AGon, Beckett & Crawford in one trade. I've never said it was probably or likely, in fact, I have said the opposite. I seriously doubt it happens. Also, we are losing these guys anyways, so I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Not trading anybody and clinging to long odds on 2020 is going to hamper our chances in 2021 and beyond. It seems clear to me there's a good reason to at least consider a fire sale at some point in 2020. I'm fine with anyone being against the idea, but to say it has little merit or can never happen is denying history and logic. Of course, it CAN happen, even if unlikely to do so.

I do think the Dodgers are desperate. It's the main reason I have been talking so much about trades with them, but they are very tight with their prospects, and rightly so. Trading 3 top prospects is giving up 15 years for 1 of Betts. I get that those 15 years are speculative or even highly speculative, but guys like Vergugo, Gonsolin and Strippling have already shown something at the ML level. The Dodgers are clearly looking to add one major piece, but we are not the only team they are talking to. The Sox are desperate, but have less teams to talk to.

Depending on how well players are doing and how healthy players are, offers could get worse. Also, if the idea is to reset, waiting until Julymeans traded contracts are pro-rated, so more players will need to be traded to get to the reset number. Waiting almost guarantees a fire sale in July- perhaps for pennies on the dollar vs nickels, now.

I'm not assuming the offers get better. One year of Betts is better than 2 months, although 2 months is cheaper. Also, trading for Betts, now, adds compensation, if he signs elsewhere in 2021. Workman's value may never be higher. Price and Eovaldi may get hurt, again or suck to start 2020, so trading them this summer might be even harder. I agree on waiting with JD. His market might heat up, and it's virtually dried up now, anyways. The 2 year players (ERod, Barnes & Hembree) can wait. I'd try to extend ERod. To me, getting something now for Betts makes sense. Reset and then go after him this winter. Getting some salary relief for Price & Eovaldi cuts our losses and could be additions by subtractions. JD is a big part of this team, but if anybody think's he's not opting out, this winter, then you must be thinking he'll get hurt of decline in 2020, so keeping him for a "lost year" makes little sense. I'm not for handing him away for nothing, but we won't get much now, so I'd wait on him. Betts and at least one from Price & Eovaldi, now. The other plus JD and Workman in July. Maybe Barnes, too. If that's a "blow-up" then so be it, but we'll be much better positioned for 2021 and beyond doing this rather than doing nothing and hoping some trade values rise by July.

The plan for July could be. That's what I said, and I'm pretty sure it's been discussed.

Betts is great, but it's only one year. Both the Padres and Dodgers plan on sticking around longer than that. I don't blame them for trying to lessen the return. I don't even get why the Padres are in on Betts, and their offer shows how much they really want him. The Dodgers might be desperate for an all-in win in 2020. Several of the top teams got weaker, and the NL lost a lot of FA talent to the AL. That being said, asking them to part with several top prospects with 5 years of team control, each, for just a one year window opening is clearly an issue to them. Very reasonable. If I were the Sox, I'd forget about forcing Price on the Dodgers, but would insist on Eovaldi for Pollock or Pederson as a way of evening out the money issues we face longer term. Maybe get 2 good prospects added, and if we have to add Workman (FA after 2020), then so be it.

No. We may have a huge fire sale in July... at least most players with bloated contracts or less than 2 years of team control. That scenario is "in play."

All the best available pitchers have been taken. Like it or not, we aren't spending, this year. This is not the 2018 team- far from it. Time to move on and look forward.

He started out 2019 pretty well. The weird thing was that he had his longest start in mid April and never went 7 IP the rest of the year.

Agreed- maybe more or much more, but GMs can't assume that.

It makes more sense giving them Eovaldi than expecting them to pay cash.

Imagine Myers in LF, Beni in CF & JBJ or Betts in RF. OMG!

I know: that's why I asked. I think GMs might pay him $8-12M x 3 years, if he was a FA. That's about what I expect us to treat him in any deal.

LOL. notin and I have been discussing this for ages. It looks too good to both teams to be ignored. If we make Betts part of the deal, I can't see how SD can say no. The foundations.... Betts & Price for Myers, Patino & Campusano Betts & Eovaldi for Myers, Lucchesi & Campusano We can add Workman or cash, if needed.

Yes, but the tax saving to the Sox is much bigger. That's why a deal involving Price or Eovaldi for Myers makes sense, even if we pitch in a few million. (Betts or no Betts.)

How much per year would you pay Price to pitch for us over the next 3 years? I'd say somewhere between $8-12M a year. That mean, we may have to pay a team $20-24 a year to take him off our hands or take back a salary dump-type player to offset the cost. I can see why some would rather just keep him and hope he rebounds rather than pay $22M for him to play elsewhere, but if we can get someone to take him, I'd go for it.

It's night and day. The fact that they are $30M under the lux line, right now is evidence enough.

We'd have to pay $40M of Price's $32M deal to get Strippling.

I thought by tendering him they had a deal in place. They still may, but I'm getting less and less optimistic on that one. The bad thing about JBJ is that he's gone 3 straight years with horrific starts to each season. He is not likely to increase his trade value to start 2020. (Maybe some smart GM realizes this and trades for him in late May- just in time for his .800+ stretch.)

We have so many needs, there's bound to be someone available at 2-3 positions. Plus, I'm hoping Bloom works his magic and finds under-the-radar players to more than adequately fill the other slots.

I'd rather have Stripling than Price, even if they got paid the same. Same with Gonsolin, Maeda and probably Gray.

Yes, they have a lot of budget space, but I'm sure they don't want to fill it up with 3 years of Price's contract when they already are about 8-9 deep with SP'ers and good SP'er prospects. To me, forcing them to take Eovaldi make more financial sense to the Dodgers than Price, but only if we take back Pollock's deal and a couple of their SP'ers (prospect or ML). Something like Betts & Eovaldi for Pollock, Gonsolin, Gray and Cartaya as a starting point. Maybe Cartaya gets dropped or we have to add Workman or Walden to get all 4.

Which is thought to be a virtue.

Good, in theory- harder to do in practice.

Some one has to go. I get the idea of waiting until July, but with all the deals pro-tared at that time, we'd have to trade a bunch of guys to get under the tax line.