Hugh2

*sigh* THey didn't draft 5 short stops.

Trading Casas is just bananas, and should be a conversational ENDER.

Add: It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it's the fact that it is an incorrect way to evaluate a trade.

as a fan, pros don't do that, evidence by a many things. Regardless my POINT was IF you do that you have to factor in what 30.4 million gets you. Which is an impossible task for us to agree on and to be fair you nor me have zero ideal. So, from that perspective, it makes properly evaluating the trade IMPOSSIBLE. That doesn't mean we have to like the trade, or that we can't miss Mookie, or that we wouldn't should rather want him here. I know I do. Mic dropped.

agreed, on both ends. A trade can be good from a value perspective and that doesn't inherently make it the right decision.

You'd rather have Mookie in Boston is what you're saying? Spoiler alert, so would I? again not my point, and our feelings for love for Mookie and desire for him to still be on this team does'nt change how trades should be evaluated.

I don't disagree, but this conversation has evolved way past my point on the futility of evaluating the Betts trade from a fan's perspective.

Did they sign him because they didn't sign Mookie? or is that because they didn't sign Bogaerts. One is 3 years closer than the other.

No, I did not, or you completely missed my point. We can argue, or we can argue about the arguing. or perhaps we can argue on the frame in which we will argue about the things we are arguing about and how we argue. My point is, it's inappropriate to evaluate a trade by weighing a guys value AFTER his team controlled years are up. Team do not do this, fans do. There's a reason why they do not do it, and the subjective matter that throws in vast scenarios only proves my point. I'm only attacking from one angle to show from a certain vantage point the Sox have done much better in that trade with the money they spent. That doesn't make me right, but it certainly doesn't make me wrong, and you nor I have any ideal how the roster would be different if Betts was resigned. Making my OP more valid than ever.

WHy are people insistent on trading all our cost controlled youngsters for pitching when the FA market is flush with it next year? You spend money on that and fill your roster out with cost-controlled young studs because developing them is what the Sox do best. Yeah, you can trade Casas/Mayer away for a stud, but now you're paying that stud AND you have to pay someone to replace Casas/Mayer. You create more future holes and inflate your budget. Also, the move you're talking about is what you do when you have close to WS roster. Sox didn't trade for a Chris Sale type in 2014, they did it after they were already a 1st place team for a few years. Trading away young talent for a pitcher now would not only be dumb, it would be a slap in the face to the fans who have endured this "build the farm" scheme only to blow it all up before it reaches fruition. Don't you think we've suffered enough?

But Yoshida should be your DH in a year or two. I know you will say you like him, and I don't disbelieve you, but your willingness to trade Casas is a repeating theme. He's turning into one of the best hitters in baseball and still growing into the position and he's COST CONTROLLED. He's the definition of a guy you do not trade.

no, I did not, and will not ever say that. I'm merely pointing out the fate of a franchise doesn't depend on one player no matter how good they are. You still need a 26 man roster to win.

Yes, and I said exactly that in my OS, which is why I said it's a futile argument. Who are you (or me) to say how the roster would have played out differently? This is why people only weigh team control years, which given the return on players vs. how many years of team control they have it seems this plays out between MLB teams and the actual transactions they make, so that makes a strong argument for subtracting contract years when evaluating a trade. I was merely playing devil's advocate.

and over the next decade, what is the 30 million getting you? If the Sox sign a 30 million-dollar player next year and he outperforms Mookie in his 30's then I win again.... Again, subjective and I'm playing devils advocate, but this all just proves my point.

You're only proving my point, conversely no way anyone would assume the Sox are automatically spending 30 extra million a year in 2020/2021/2022/2023. You have to add/subtract from somewhere, my point was to illustrate how futile it is to use a players contract years after being traded away with team control years. That's a fans play, and in that spirit, my comment is very reasonable. And picking his worse season? lol dude, I picked the last 3 seasons, was I supposed to skip it? again, just another point in this being futile and subjective. And even if they still sign Arroyo, how much FWar does he really add, and to the point of my comment I can take out and add guys in there as I see fit, it's subjective. 30.4 million is 30.4 million and it's equally reasonable if not the most to assume that money goes somewhere. I wish the Mookie trade didn't happen, but the valuation we use against it doesn't make sense to me either, it's wrong. That doesn't make it a good trade by any means, those two comments aren't mutually exclusive.

I was against the trade, Mookie was and continues to be my favorite MLB player, so please don't mistake my playing devils advocate as an endorsement of the deal. But to answer your quesiton, I will ping back to a point I made in my tirade. This is highly subjective and likely never to die. The whole "face of the franchise" element to me means nothing if you're losing. Do you think the Angels would rather have Mike Trout or championships? People could say Bogaerts was the face of the franchise after he left, probably would have felt much more like it too if they went all the way in 2021. At the end of the day stars can help you win.....but winning makes good players stars. From the vantage point I provided, one could argue the Dodgers got fleeced in the deal, not that I would say that. The Sox lack of playoff success since has not been because of the Mookie Betts trade, it's been a vast combination of bad moves, trades, and underperformances from within. After all it's a team sport and LAA has shown having two of the best players in the universe means nothing if the rest of your moves stink. And after all, they would have to had made up an additional 15 FWar the last 3 seasons with Betts on this team and even money and where would that come from? Bobby Dalbec? Brandon Walter? IDK

But, then where is Casas going to play?

How much Fwar could one have bought with 30 million a year for the past 3 years? This is an argument that will probably never die, but I'm in the camp that you have to compare value over years of team control. If someone could convince me otherwise, then it's inherently logical to add what you can buy with the money spent on the other side of the equation. To me this makes an impossible mess. I could say the Sox spend 28 million in 2021 and got 15 WAR from Kike/Renfroe/Arroyo/Eovaldi/Verdugo/wong while Dodgers spent 30.4 million to get 3.9 WAR out of Betts. I could say in 2022 the Sox got 7.3 Fwar for only 30 million vs. Betts at 6.5 for Eovaldi/Hill/WAcha/Verdugo/Wong I could say in 2023 they got 8.1 WAR between Wong/Duvall/Paxton/Yoshida/Martin for only an additional 32.42 million, slightly more than 30.4 million for 6.1 FWar of Betts. I understand there's an argument against this, and I obviously just picked the best War performers who were picked up and matched the Salaries up, in some years negative wAR may drag these numbers down (I used Kike for some years not others). It's a mess. Still, I could say the Sox have got 30.3 FWar vs. Betts 16.5 FWar for about even money. Again, admittedly subjective, but if people want to include Betts past his team control years you have to figure in what his contract gets in in FA, as that is the opportunity cost of signing Betts here. So I'd argue it's fair, No way Henry is spending 30 extra million every years since 2020 just because Betts is on the roster. Maybe one year they do if they think they had a shot E.G. maybe they spend more in 2021.....who knows. At the end of the day, people much smarter than me like to weigh team control years, which seems reasonable. I understand why people want to include Betts contract years in that evaluation but if you do that you HAVE to add in what 30.4 Million gets you which is an impossible task to not be subjective but as I clearly proved from a certain vantage point you could say the Sox almost doubled their value in trading away Betts. 30 FWAR vs. 16 Fwar.

I don't know, this might trigger some people. Real talk.....that's a very damning report. At least it applies such.

Yeah, you're right, and I remember that now. They might change their rankings every month, but the scouting reports aren't updated as often. I think it's reasonable to assume the scouting reports are going to raise the ceiling for both Monegro and Perales. I just don't know how someone with that much swing and miss can't have MLB potential. He does.

Soxprospects have him pegged as a guy who is a minor-league depth arm. They also went from having him unranked to 29th so there is that. That's a lot of swing and miss.....makes me think they may change his scouting report at some point. Probably in the offseason, given his age and small track record, but he's been impressive.

That makes me feel a lot better, they're likely just being cautious. Now if he was having soreness in his elbow or shoulder it would be much more cause for concern.

It's is concerning that Perales has not pitched in over a week, haven't heard about any kind of injury however.

I'm not sure what is meant by as good of a chance as Perales. At becoming a big leaguer? perhaps, but Perales raw stuff is much better. Better fastball with more velocity, with a potential plus changeup with a lot more differential, amonst other advantages. The injury concern may be real, but given his age and nature of the injuries I'm not yet convinced he's "injury prone". Most pitchers will sustain some kind of injury at some point in their careers, the fact that it happens earlier could be a concern, or just a fluke. If it's a fluke, he really is just one year behind on ramping up his innings. Next year should be very telling for him. He could regress in rankings and become seen as more of a bullpen guy if he can not prove his durability, or he could progress into a top-100 prospect in all of baseball.

Exactly, I feel people get emotionally attached to people because they love their music, or they love them as an athlete etc etc etc. But in reality, they don't know those people AT ALL. For better or worse.