moonslav59

Eovaldi usually pitches significant innings every other year or so, it's not likely he sucks or is injured all 3 years. Or not.

I fully expect the return for JBJ and Price and/or Eovalid to be unappealing. I'm hopeful those trades get us under by enough for Bloom to work his magic on acquiring under the radar contributors.

Assuming Georgia holds on tonight, here's how I see the final rankings: 1. LSU (Clemson, if they pull an upset) 15-0 2. Clemson (LSU, if they lose) 14-1 3. Ohio St. 13-1 4. Georgia 12-2 5. Oregon 12-2 6. Oklahoma 12-2 7. Florida 11-2 8. Penn St. 11-2 9. Alabama 11-2 10. Notre Dame 11-2 11. Minnesota 11-2 12. Baylor 11-3 13. Iowa 10-3 14. Auburn 9-4 15. Navy 10-2/Utah 11-3

If we trade JBJ, trading either Price or Sale and paying part of their contract will get us under the line. "Who works best?" To me, that probably & mostly depends on who does worse over the next few years.

I trust Sale way more than Price, but my guess is GMs do too, so it would be easier trading him than Price.

If we trade Betts, we are giving upon 2020. How is trading JBJ and Price or Eovaldi any worse? The JD choice is about 2021 not 2020. My point about $8M savings on Price or Eovaldi was just that it is the minimum we need someone to pay. I'm pretty sure a team will pay more than that- enough for us to pick up a cheap P and CF'er. If not, we go in-house and look to 2021 and beyond.

If we deal JBJ, we're about $7-8M from the line. You can't envision someone paying Price or Eovaldi over $8M (while we pay the rest)?

It's the year of the optometrist. Everybody sees 2020.

h a p p y n e w y e a r

Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it is as it appears. It could have been an unforeseen loop hole. If this is true, all the more reason to reset this year.

We came up a bit short on Lester, but made an attempt.

I remember you saying this earlier, and it does seem like a good comp. Aaron's power came from his wrists and apparent quick twitch swing. Betts is a better fielder and runner, so even if his power does not end up matching Hank, he may still end up with a higher career WAR.

I disagree, but it's a tough call.

Assuming equal pay, who would you rather have in the next 3 years: Price or Rourk?

I never heard of this, but it makes more sense to charge it the following year than to retroactively charge teams for past budgets. You can't go backwards, since adding some salary to a year in the past could have been enough to put a team over a tax line and change future taxes and penalties. I've never seen a team pay a one year charge after an opt out.

Silly Twins!

Okay, I missed your point, sorry. The one thing I trust Bloom with is maximizing the potential of a FA spending budget. He may sign 5-7 guys with the money he might have spent on Betts- no Springer or anyone on your list. It might be a better plan than putting all your eggs in one basket. Paying Betts $35M a year would be about 1/6th the player salary budget. Personally, I think he's worth $35M+ a year, but I see the risk.

I'm not so sure his defense declines all that much. Experience counts for something, and remember, Betts has only been an OF'er for a few years. Did Dewey's defense decline as he aged? Sure, part of Mookie's great D is tied to his speed and quick reaction time, but that doesn't mean he can't improve in other areas to compensate for that projected decline. He's also a smart base runner not just a fast one. Also, where is the evidence that quick twitch muscle reaction time declines sharply with age? Is there another player in history that had this quality? I'm not sure they even measured this long ago, so where's the evidence? Another possibility is that he loses some speed and twitch reflexes but gains in power. There are many examples ofplayers who hit 20-30 Hrs in their 20's then hit 30-40 from 30-35 or later. I'd pay Betts more than $300M x 10. He'll likely be worth $37.5M x 2, $35.0M x 2, $32.5M x 2, $27.5M x 2 and $25.0M x 2. That's not even counting on rising player salary averages over the next 10 years.

Here are some trades the simulator shows the other team getting a slightly better deal: Betts (50 value) to Dodgers for... (C- minors) Ruiz (44.7) + (2B-minors) Estevez (4.6) or (P-majors) Maeda (12.2) +2B-minors) + (1B/OF-majors) Beaty + Downs (21.9) + (C-minors) Cartaya (10.3) or Betts (50) to SD for... (C- minors) Campusano (24.7) + (LHP-minors) Morejon (19.6)+ (SS/2B minors) Cronenworth (5.5) or (C-majors) Hedges (22.1) + (OF-majors) Margot (10.4)+ (LHP-minors) Weathers (15.0) or to the Braves for.... (RHP-minors) Anderson 30.5 + (C-minors) Contreras (20.6) =51.1 of (C-minors) Contreras (20.6)+ (RHP-minors) Wright (20.4)+ (OF-majors) Inciarte (5.5)+ (SS- minors) Graffanino (1.7) or (RHP-minors) Anderson (30.5) +(C-minors) Langeliers (15.4)+ (OF-minors) Jenista (3.3) These are just examples I found. I'm not saying I know much about these players, or if I'd make these deals, but all look better than a comp pick, to me.

Springer is a FA after this year, so that's a clear no. If I trade Betts, it won't be for Joc Pederson, either. I'd trade him for young ML players or ML ready prospects that are under team control for 4+ years. Then, after resetting, I give Betts a more than fair offer next winter. If someone else goes nutty and out bids us, then at least we have something to show for losing him and a big wad of cash to spend elsewhere at a minimum tax cost.

Yes, but the numbers the Post used seem messed up.

I'm more confused after reading this, but I'm not sure everything written here is correct. I do not think they go back and adjust past budgets and taxes, but I suppose they could aply the difference to the next year or remaining years on a contract. I'm thinking the Chapman extension does not affect the contract and will be treated as a separate contract at $18M after the 5 year deal runs out.

I'd pay Betts more than Harper and Machado, but there is a limit on how high I'd go. It's a hard choice to make. To me, it comes down to this: if we think we will reset and then pay Betts whatever it takes to keep him, then fine. I'm not so sure we can feel confident in that option and also end up paying him way more than we really wanted to but do it just because we committed to this choice. The flip side is dealing him to get something worthwhile in return instead of getting a lousy comp pick, instead. We shouldn't just give him away, but how little are we prepared to settle on? The third option may be the best of all. Trade Betts for the best we can get, even if it doesn't seem like enough. Trade JBJ, too. (Maybe Price & Eovaldi.) Use the money to sign under-the-radar FAs that will help the team as much or more in 2021 and beyond than 2020. Reset the tax, then go hard after Betts for 2021 without going too far overboard. This way, if we lose out on him, we still have something to show for losing him, and we can use the money dedicated to bringing Betts back to sign other good FAs. This plan has one noticeable drawback: we'll likely suck in 2020. I'd hate to watch a Betts-less Sox team in 2020, but I'm thinking this might be the best option, at this point. BTW, I don't get what "Mookie downgrade" means.

He has some offensive upside, but sure, there are other defensive CF'ers out there who cost very little. Replacing Price is only difficult because we still haven't really replaced Porcello's innings. Price has pitched less than 108 IP in 2 of the last 3 years. It's the main reason we are having a hard time finding a taker. We may not need a pitcher as good as Rourke to replace what Price is likely to give us in 2020.

If they created a minimum team player salary budget line, that would force some of the cheap owners to pay more in salary, and in theory, keep some of their stars or sign others to replace those that leave. If I was the player's union, I'd push hard for this, and make sure that minimum line goes up significantly every year. That and double the minimum salary year one of the deal and triple by year 3. I'd also start the arb process 2 years earlier and end it one year earlier. They have to close the gap between the top earners and lowest ones and the top spending teams and lowest ones. Just my opinion. Call me a Socialist, but this would be for the overall good of the game by making it more competitive and fair.