notin

Seager will make about $7mill this year and the Dodgers will need a SS. The Red Sox won't. And Seager is a better defender than the incumbent Bogaerts. Makes very little sense for both the Sox and Seager. They'll want to send some money back. Pederson also earns about $7mill, but won't have a place to play in LA if they have Bellinger-Pollock-Betts. I also figure Ruiz to be expendable since Will Smith appears to have a stranglehold on the catcher role. So I think the Dodgers would be amenable to those two plus Gonsolin, who they could use but is pretty far down on their starter depth chart. And most important to the Dodgers, they keep Lux and May. I'd love to get Verdugo back, but they probably prefer to keep him because 1) Betts has only one year left and 2) AJ Pollock is not the most reliable outfielder. But if Bloom can get Verdugo over any of the three names I mentioned - especially Ruiz, who appears to be losing some luster - I hope he pulls that off...

If Betts goes to the Dodgers, the package is likely to underwhelm with names like Ruiz, Gonsolin and Joc Pederson. That move saves the Sox about $20 mill towards the cap...

No such thing as zombies. But we can rebuild him. Make him better. Stronger. Faster. Build the Cyborg Houk! A Houk-borg!!! Also better suited for driving the truck...

See I don’t consider them a threat to. Those long term mega contracts just are not their style. I figure locking up Cody Bellinger is just as important if not more so to them, and the last thing they need is Betts throwing the whole pricing scheme into the troposphere. Right now the longest contract on the Dodgers’ books is the 6 year $30 mill contract they gave to Yasiel Sierra. If they didn’t go 10 years $350 mill for Kershaw, why do you think they suddenly do for Betts?

On some levels I like the idea of a Price/Myers swap, but it won't get the Sox under the limit. The AAV differnce is big enough ($17.2mill) to make this deal worthwhile. But how much of that do the Sox haveto spend to replace Price? For all his faults, the guy is not a bad pitcher. And to prelace him will cost probably $12mill per year. So dealing Price for Myers probably only gets the Sox about $5mill closer to resetting. They could try and move Bradley and clear another $11mill, but would that be enough? can they move Bradley without taking anything back?

Who said anything about Trout's contract causing fan disinterest? What stands in the way of fan interest is the lack of winning. Trout making as much money as he does - along with other contracts - does make it more difficult for the Angels to get the arms they need. After all, as many like to point out, pitching = parades. My point on this thread was they are very bandwagony. So the only way to get them interested it t put together a winning team. But that has not been happening. And right now, many of them stay away from Edison Park rather than watch the most exciting player in the game. And we both know why; they're not a good team. They have not played a meaningful September game in 4 years. That can make a lot of fanbases a lot smaller. We both know why the Angels are not a good team. They cannot pitch. Every talented pitcher they have had the past few years has dealt with multiple injuries. One also passed away. So what would you think - does Trout's contract make it easier or more difficult to get good pitchers? Yes, they have other bad contracts as well. Trout is just a piece in this puzzle. Those have the same effect, and the cumulative effect of paying Trout, Upton, Rendon and Pujols does or does not help the Angels get better pitching?

I think the whole reason the Padres want to make a deal like this is to get rid of Myers. They don't need outfielders. They are bringing back Margot and Franchy Cordero and have already acquired Tommy Pham and Trent Grishman. The upgrade in RF would be nice, likely Betts over Grishman. But Myers is owed something like $67mill over the next 3 years and that is just too much for the fifth outfielder...

My point exactly. A GM for that team has to do so much better just to garner interest in the multitude of "casual fans." Red Sox fans tune in no matter what. Not even Joe Kerrigan could get us to turn off NESN...

Now see to me, this means the Angels re under MORE pressure to win than the Red Sox. Pretty much everyday, someone clings to our "rabid fanbase" as a reason the Sox have to keep spending more and putting better and better teams on the field. But isn't the opposite true? Isn't citing the addicited fanbase as a reason the Sox need to keep improving like saying your heroin dealer needs to put out a quality product or else? Most of us spent the overwhelming majority of our lives without seeing a title. But we kept coming back. A lot of us saw Don Zimmer hand away the season for one of the best Red Sox teams ever. But we kept coming back. Bill Buckner and the 86 World Series? Kept coming back. We have endured Butch Hobson and Bobby Valentine. But we kept coming back. Know why? We're hooked. We need out Red Sox fix. The "rabid fanbase" shows up for games, buys hats and jerseys, and subscribes to NESN no matter what. Now a team like the Angels? They're fans are less demanding. However, like most fans, they absolutely show up when the team wins, giving us such fads as thunder sticks and rally monkeys. But when the Angels lose? What do they do? Put on Dodger gear? Go watch movies? Write screenplays? Pay immense Orange County taxes? They don't go to games. We know that much. So why do people think the Sox, who are so popular in New England that their fans actually tolerate Sweet Caroline during every home game, are the team that NEEDS to put a good product on the field while teams like the Angels can just fill out their roster with a bunch of PCL also-rans?

Robot spiders now!!

Well, yes if it set all kinds of records. I don't know what Lester's demands were, but I think they fell short of what everyone expected him to get once he hit free agency. They did clearly exceedthe offer the Sox made, which was something in the neighborhood of 5 years $55mill. I got the impression of the Sox went 9 figures over 5 years, Lester would be returning. But I don't know how true that really is. The man did have an agent...

And Bradley, who bats left-handed through both his slumps and hot stretches...

The big difference being Lester was willing to sign an extension. The Sox just never offered even a reasonable one...

Well, Pujols is obviously a bigger problem. At elast Trout is playing flat out great baseball commensurate with his salary. But like with the Angels and Pujols, the Sox already have that one monster deal on the books. Actually more than one in Price, Sale, and Eovaldi, as Hitch pointed out. This is exactly why I hated the Price and Eovaldi deals at the time and was very vocal about this. (I only liked the opt out in the Price deal, but he did not exercise it.) So say the Sox add another monster deal in Betts, there will be ramifications. What happens when Devers is ready for free agency? The Sox have already committed $47.5 million to 2 players in Sale and Bogaerts for that season. Add in another, say, $35mill for Betts and you have roughly $82.5mill, or about one third of today's budget on 3 players with 23 roster spots to go. What if Devers also wants Betts' money? What about other free agents between now and 2023? Can the Sox be competitive with Bogaerts, 33yo Sale, Betts and Devers making, say $110-115mill combined? Can they afford any pitching or will they get anyone good from the farm? They still have 22 roster spots to fill.

If Casas is the best enticement to get someone to take Price, I would consider it. He's limited to 1B, which is not always to toughest position to fill. Dalbec is the more logical choice,since he is blocked at his best position by Devers. Baseballtradevalues.com gives Casas (22.2) and Dalbec (19.8) fairly similar trade values, and most teams find 3B much harder to fill than 1B, not to mention Dalbec is closer to the majors. But teams all evaluate prospects differently. If a team was deadset on Casas, it's a tough call. But I would include Dalbec to offset Price in the right deal...

I don't think that is the given many think it is. Certainly it becomes less likely, but the Sox are clearly not out of it. They are willing to spend and, if they reset, they won't have to worry about the subsequent penalties which may or may not change depending on the next CBA. And a lot of the other big spenders will have already spent a big chunk of their allowance.

I think this is thebest plan, but I don't think the Sox can reset and retain Betts and stay competitive. They might be able to unload some combination of Price, Eovaldi and Bradley, but in doing so probably have to pay a lot of money that counts against the tax or take back a bad contract or two and possibly replace the departing players if they want to compete, which is not free. Maybe if the Sox try to entice another team to take a cheaper player/prospect like the Mariners did with Cano? Would you deal Price and Casas together to spend less/no money on Price and maybe get a cheaper SP who isn't horrible?

And that is probably a big factor in why your men's league hockey team didn't sign you to a 12 year $400mill contract..

OK, but I would argue that most of them become an issue at some point. The only two I think were worthwhile were Manny and ARod (the Texas one). And even Manny was a sub 3 fWAR player the last half of his deal. So "working out better" might be a massive gray area. Mookie will be entering his age 28 season if he goes to free agency. That makes him slightly younger than Ramirez (29) and older than ARod (25) for their contracts. I don't think anyone doubts what Mookie will be worth the first 4 or 5 eyars of a new deal, but it's the part of it from that point on that becomes a big risk. and what impact will that have on the club? Will they be able to afford other players? Will his deal get in the way of extending Devers? Will the luxury tax penalties on draft pickcompensation leave the farm in even worse shape so no minimum wage players can fill a few gaps acceptably? I get that there is a lot here. But on the bright side, I think even in the unlikely event that the Sox trade Betts in the next 10 weeks, they will be bidders for his services come December regardless...

Barry Bonds?

Possible. Also possible Mookie does not retain his defensive value. We like to think defense is a perfectly repeatable skillset from year to year, but players have bad years defensively just like they have bad years offensively. Not to mention, the defensive metrics we use to quantify some of the defensive values are largely comparative. Will Mookie fare as well as other younger, defensively gifted right fielders come up? Will his presence prevent the Sox from ever upgrading that position defensively? I don't think bringing Mookie back is a bad idea at all, even with what will defintely be an outrageous contract. But I also don't think it's the slam dunk you appear to think it is. It's a risky move that could just as easily backfire as succeed. And if it backfires, the ramifications can be much, much worse than we like to think about (from a baseball fan viewpoint. I have to maintain some perspective here.)

Well, during the stretch they finished an average of 25 games back, 2016-2019, Trout has made $16mill, $20mill, $34mill, and $38mill. (Our sources have slightly different numbers apparently. No fault to either of us.) With Trout making that kind of money, the Angels were a combined 100 games out of first place over 4 seasons. Trout will make about $37.2 mill per year over the next ELEVEN seasons. Will they be able to build a better team around him while paying him that much and maintaining whatever their budget is? And at what point in those ELEVEN seasons will he stop performing at his current elite level? His money won't change, but his performance defintely will.

I think the gist of his post is that the Sox would be better off if Mookie was a flop as opposed to a hit? That's sooooo Maxbialystock...

Yes and no. I don't care how many years Henry shells out the tax money, which is typically less than they pay Rusney Castillo to stay out of MLB. But at some point, the draft penalties and IFA spending becomes an issue keeping a competitive team around Mookie...

Exactly how far into the future does your crystal ball read? We really don't know if he is going to remain healthy, and Bellhorn makes a valid point about the risk over 10-12 years. Albert Pujols looked like a good bet to not completely fall off the planet by age 33, yet there he is, a shadow of himself as a former player for the past 7 years, with 2 years and potentially $159 million (not a typo) remaining on that contract...