Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

moonslav59

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    105,550

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    136

 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

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by moonslav59

  1. moonslav59
    Isn't that just on the money over the $40M line?
  2. moonslav59
    Was it harmony that started using the term? Can we stop using it?
  3. moonslav59
    I think Braterol was an important piece in the deal, but he shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Getting someone close to his value or even Maeda instead would be fine with me.
  4. moonslav59
    They all have pretty similar values on the trade value site with Cartaya being the closest and the others 5-6 higher.
  5. moonslav59
    I agree, and I said they wouldn't do it. They apparently wanted us to pay part of Myers's deal for just Betts- an insane demand. In theory, paying Myers is equal to paying Price by the trade simulator, but if the Padres cannot afford paying more for Price than what Myers costs, then of course no deal will be made. What I liked about the idea of a Price for Myers deal a while back was that Myers has an AVV of "just" $13.8M, so he'd be worth more to a team walking the luxury tax line than the Padres. In theory, we could trade Price + $17M a year for Myers and break even on the tax. Would SD take Price + $9.5M x 3 yrs for Myers straight up? They'd be paying the same. We'd pay the same but save $7.5M a year on the tax line. The problem is, Price is better than Myers, and we have a 1Bman, now.
  6. moonslav59
    Isn't the term return to norm better and easier to understand.
  7. moonslav59
    The Dodgers could take Graterol and give us Downs, Gonsolin, Gray, Stripling, Gray or Cartaya.
  8. moonslav59
    I'd trade Betts & Price (no cash) for Myers, Luchessi, Campusano & Margot.
  9. moonslav59
    That sounds a lot like a "trade on the future..." I'd trade Price for Myers straight up, but I doubt SD agrees. They wanted us to pay part of Myers's deal. Let's assume they go along with Price for Myers, then we get to the Betts part of the deal. What's similar to Verdugo & Graterol? Going by the trade simulator values, Verdugo and Graterol (healthy) are worth about 65. Mix and match SD players & prospects: 50 Patino (not likely offered by SD) 32 Lucchesi 32 Trammell 25 Campusano 20 Grisham 14 Morejon 13 Hedges 13 Naylor 11 Weathers 9 Quantrill 7 Margot
  10. moonslav59
    They could, but the Twins should have the first shot to make an adjustment, since it's their guy holding up the deal.
  11. moonslav59
    They are already getting the shortest end of the deal, so I agree. It's up to MN, or the Sox can just take Maeda or someone the Dodgers want equally. I'm not sure how badly MN wants Maeda, but they know about Graterol's medical situation. If he's this risky, they wouldn't want him and should give more or replace him. Shades of the Pom deal, although Espinoza ended up hurt,too.
  12. moonslav59
    MLBTR... “Some involved [in the trade] are now suggesting it’s not a certainty,” MLB Network’s Jon Heyman tweets, as the holdup continues to center around the Red Sox, Twins, and Graterol’s condition. Boston is reportedly trying to “reconfigure” its end of the deal with the Twins, “meaning more than Graterol” would head from Minnesota to Fenway Park.
  13. moonslav59
    MLBTR... Commissioner Rob Manfred provided an update on Major League Baseball’s investigation into the Red Sox alleged use of video equipment to steal opponents’ signs during the 2018 season, telling reporters (including Ken Davidoff of the New York Post) that he hoped to have a conclusion reached before Spring Training camps open next week. “I’d like to have this over. Investigations are funny. You think you know what the timeline is, but that’s a day-to-day prediction,” Manfred said.
  14. moonslav59
    This makes it sound like they didn't want to give up prospects... “We were not going to trade on our future,” said the unnamed employee. “We’re in for the (long haul), not one year.” Plus, all we ever heard for names was Myers, and I think Margot and Quantrill were mentioned, too.
  15. moonslav59
    I thought they had a deal in place for him when the tendered him. I never expected this. We could have reset by trading Price, assuming people are right about LA actually wanting him for $15M x 3 and replacing JBJ with a cheapy all glove CF'er. We'd still be screwed losing Betts for nothing, so I think that's the real reason we decided to trade Betts and keep JBJ.
  16. moonslav59
    Maybe not... https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/02/details-on-padres-pursuit-of-mookie-betts.html
  17. moonslav59
    It's the guy from the Twins that is the issue. Either they give us more or replace Graterol with someone we want, or they give Maeda back to LA (or us) and LA gives us someone else (Cartaya? Gray? I doubt we get Downs or Gonsolin)
  18. moonslav59
    Too late to non tender JBJ. Trading Eovaldi would mean we pay some of his contract, too.
  19. moonslav59
    Verdugo has a real shot at stepping it up, and he's still pre arb.
  20. moonslav59
    I'm not sure how he made that much based on what cots has, but assuming he made $8.5M, it is still very affordable and under market value by a long shot. I'd rather have Maeda on his deal than Perez on his.
  21. moonslav59
    If the trade goes through, as is, cots has us about $21M under the taxline. Assuming we add no long term contracts before next winter, we might be looking at this for a spending budget: $21M $14.5M JBJ and Workman bolt as FAs Total: $35.5M Arb Raises: ERod 8.8>? Beni $3.8>? Barnes $3.0>? Peraza $2.9>? Hembree $1.6>? Plawecki $0.9>? Osich $0.9>? First Arbs: Devers, Brice, Brasier, Velazquez>??? Options: Perez ($6.25 w $500K buyout & Moreland ($3M w $500K buyout) Maybe we see a $15.5M bump from raises, but some of these guys may be gone by winter. That might leave $20M to spend (towards Betts or someone else). That's not too much. Had we kept Price, we'd be looking at about $4M to spend and the cliff would be extended, IMO.
  22. moonslav59
    I said basically the same thing, and yes, they won't do it. We should trade Workman while his stock is high and his time is nearly up.
  23. moonslav59
    It was apparently their first offer, so one has to think they'd have gone higher and may still offer him a higher deal, next winter. Had we got Betts to sign for $360M/10, we'd have paid a heavy tax this year, not reset, and be at the 50% tax for 2021. Basically, all of Betts's contract would be taxed at 50% in 2021 and likely well beyond, assuming we keep spending to win. If you guys would be crying over paying him $38M a year, in essence, we'd really be paying him $57M a year (38 salary +19 tax). This trade had to be made. Trading just Price with $48M would not have been enough to get us a reset.
  24. moonslav59
    We could also see improvement from JD, Barnes, Chavis and others, but usually these things even out.
  25. moonslav59
    His AVV is an extremely low $3.15M x 4 years! These are his bonus targets: annual roster bonus: $150,000 for making Opening Day roster $6.5M annually in performance bonuses based on games started: $1M each 15, 20 GS. $1.5M each for 25, 30, 32 GS $3.5M annually in performance bonuses based on innings pitched: $250,000 each for 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190 IP. $750,000 200 I He could maybe make $4-7M more a year. We'd still be way below the tax line. He's a steal, budget-wise, but not really a workhorse type.
×
×
  • Create New...