5GoldGlovesOF,75

I didn't see many names in today's Tomase column, just "No top-tier prospects. No impact players"... further down he mentions Gonsolin, but that's it. Here's the link: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/case-packaging-mookie-betts-and-david-price-straight-salary-dump. I can't say I'll believe it when I see it, because if Bloom pulls the trigger on a Betts "dump" -- even at the trade deadline next summer -- I'll still be in disbelief.

Pollock in the 2019 NLCS: 11-for-13... that's STRIKEOUTS (his batting average was .000). My fingers are almost typeless. The worst-case Betts scenarios are picking up steam; Tomase just took a Betts-Price dump that I wont waste time linking because he basically copied and pasted half-a-dozen talksox proposals. Let's just say if Mike Corleone was running the Dodgers, negotiations went something like this: "My offer is this -- nothing."

Houston trusted Cole so much they left him in the bullpen in the last game and let six other piles pitch

"Let’s be realistic in this thread, as it is the “realistic view of 2020” thread. Is Bloom playing this offseason like he’s going for it? Clearly not. If he was going for it, he wouldn’t have let Porcello walk and replaced him with a cheaper pile of horseshit that’s less durable. Holt walked and he’s replaced with a versatile but far less offensively gifted pile of s*** in Peraza. Are the Sox a championship caliber squad? The Sox were an 84 win team. They got smoked by two teams in the division and the top team just added the best pitcher in baseball." Lighten up, Francis. They give awards to the best pitchers in baseball; they're called Cy Young Awards. One of them -- who has won three Cys -- beat your key acquisition in Game One of the World Series. That was the game when old man Zimmerman took your pile deep, then a 21-year-old hit one over the train tracks. Ya, I know Cole won Game 5; he beat the immortal Joe Ross.

Then the Dodgers aren't getting Betts. No one -- especially not a first-year Chief Officer -- trades a generational talent for mediocrity or past-their-prime bodies. It'll be depressing enough if Mookie is traded for any team's top prospects, because it will most likely take a lot of time waiting to see if even one is actually a good, much less great, MLBer. The Sox will have to be overwhelmed to move Mookie; laugh all you want, but at least three of those four names would have to be included. And I don't care -- nor, I bet Bloom does, either -- if some data site gives them a value of kajillion dollars because they're only. just. prospects. It actually made me laugh when some posters were adamant that LA would never even deal Seager for Betts straight up; if the Dodgers had Lindor, they'd trade Seager for Betts in a second, because at that point Mookie would become so much more valuable to them. How many GMs trying to win it all in 2020 wouldn't do Lux and Seager for Lindor and Betts? Which pair would make LA the hands-down favorite?

Boston can't and won't move Betts unless it gets an overpay, a haul of MLB-ready prospects. Otherwise, the Sox would be telling fans they're giving up on 2020. And Red Sox fans won't accept -- or support -- a bridge year. They can move a high-Priced pitcher, who probably won't contribute an entire injury-free season, hit the reset, and still contend. They can even trade JBJ and still compete. But "dumping" Betts would be raising a white flag that nobody wants, not even posters here with an eye towards 2021 and beyond.

So, Bloom has basically replaced all the more expensive guys he could spare for cheaper options: Porcello, Holt, and Leon for Perez, Peraza, and Plawecki... Plus, Moreland and Pearce for Chavis and maybe Dalbec. If this was a baseball card trade, it would be commons for commons, all doubles. Don't want to use up any valuable resources while leaving room in your binder for that gem mint Betts autograph (on a contract).

"We have the money in the budget, just give him what he wants," said Theo Epstein, on draft deadline signing day, 2011 (Speier, Homegrown, 2018, p. 27). Speaking words of wisdom -- get Mookie...

I'm beginning to sense that one is dependent upon the other, and that that may be Boston's plan; the Sox have to reset so they can re-up Mookie... and not lose another hundred million in taxes, draft picks and additional funding for international signings. It's kind of ridiculous since they haven't signed any major free agents from other teams since JD nearly two years ago... and before that the last significant contributor to a title was Moreland in 2016. But them's the rules.

2020 derision. Just kidding.

Well, we are the fingertips of fandom. Urg, that's about as bad as the '18 postseason promo Is you ready? How many days exactly before pitchers and catchers? Stat men, assist me, please...

I like this prediction from today: MLB 2020 season predictions WWW.MLB.COM Hindsight is 20/20, but my foresight is 2020. I don’t need to consult with a crystal ball to learn what the future holds in MLB, for I am an expert on the subject. If you want proof, you need look no further than my past predictions (trust me, no need "3. The Red Sox won’t trade Mookie Betts. They’ll extend (or re-sign) him by year’s end." ... and this quote: "if one of baseball’s most successful and relevant franchises in one of its biggest markets can’t retain a homegrown superstar, something’s amiss." Sometimes it seems like the only difference between the professional writers and guys like us is that we only get paid in intrinsic rewards.

Right, and the Sox tried to steal Pettitte, too -- and he said he could never sign with Boston, just on principle. Instead he followed his buddy Roger to Houston and back to New York again. I asked an ancient Yankee-fan friend of mine, and all he could think of was when Murcer left... but he had no choice because he was traded. And then also landed back in NY eventually.

"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." Moon, you just described Hank Aaron. The Hammer is also the first guy I thought of most comparable to Mookie, when I first watched those quick lethal wrists turn on a fastball. If the Red Sox are betting on Betts to sustain greatness like Aaron through his 30s -- they are both listed at 180 pounds on baseball-ref -- then back up the truck. Someone will...

And I can't possibly in my wildest dreams envision any scenario where the New York frigging Yankees let a homegrown, face-of-the-franchise fan favorite walk away...

"Someone is gonna go nutty." The market dictates the numbers. Betts, about to enter his prime, will get a top of the market salary. It may be impractical to compare him to Cole or Lindor -- but not to other active outfielders. The general consensus is most evaluators rate Betts somewhere between Trout and Harper, if not in dollars, at least in overall talent and accomplishments. Bellinger, Yelich and K.Marte had higher WAR than Betts in '19. Soto and Acuna are younger with unlimited upside. All make less than Mookie's arbitration salary and are under contract past when Betts reaches free agency. They're all going to get paid, but Mookie already has five years of 5.9 WAR or better -- more than Bellinger, Yelich, Marte, Soto and Acuna combined. Even Judge will be rich soon. But did you know that he's actually older than Betts by 164 days?

Maybe I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting trading Betts... but was instead considering all the other names who will also be free agents after 2020. One option the Red Sox may be weighing is whether to use the boatloads of cash saved by not signing Mookie to instead sign several other good players... (of course, they'd need to reset by the end of 2019 first). I know I'm not the first to suggest that here, but thought it'd be worth a look to see who will be available -- at least in the outfield and on the mound.

BTW, I don't get what "Mookie downgrade" means. ...none of the other outfielders in his free agent class are as good. But -- would you trade Betts for George Springer and Robbie Ray? How about Betts for David Peralta, Liam Hendricks and Trevor Bauer? Never mind what the simulator says, because these are not actual trade proposals... but to Bloom and Co., they might be considering such possible trade-offs, since they could use the $400 million that Mookie will demand to instead acquire a combination of quality depth that could make the Red Sox better.

It pains me to type this, but it's probably something the real front office is contemplating... Bradford posted that Betts is asking for a salary closer to Trout's than Harper's or Machado's. We've read a lot of debates the past two months, with many Red Sox fans and writers imploring Boston to lock up Mookie forever... while dissenters counter with quotes like "overrated", "unworthy", "undersized", "strangle the roster for years", "death and taxes", and the all-time fallback: "nobody deserves that much money to play baseball". So here's a list of upcoming free agent outfielders for 2021 (all are older than Betts, with most already in their 30s): Cespedes, Springer, Brantley, Bruce, Reddick, Peralta, Pederson, S.Marte, Canha, Markakis, Grossman, Taylor, Marisnick, Kiki Hernandez... JBJ. The question is: (barring a trade for a "controllable" outfielder) if you don't think the Red Sox should invest in Mookie -- or don't think he'll sign with Boston, anyway -- then who would you prefer that may be available? We should be able to sign two for the price of one Betts, or one plus a free agent pitcher... Hendricks, Ray, Bauer, Stroman may be the best as of now.

Thanks for coming clean and finally not pretending to help the Betts situation. Now let's be totally honest... Yankee fans should be hoping in this order: 1A) Mookie is traded to NY for their two worst defensive players who don't have a position, plus a few minor leaguers who are not top prospects... and 1B) he signs with the Yanks for the next decade, wins some rings and wears their cap on his plaque... or 1C) he is traded to anyone else this year, because as long as he's a Red Sox they have a better chance to beat NY... and finally 4) your scenario.

Unless they're infernal-- I mean, internal.

I'm all for spreading the wealth -- if the smaller markets use it to retain their homegrown favorites; that would be best for fans everywhere and the good of the game. But I don't know how something like that can be enforced, since owners in a free world can choose whatever they want to do with their own money. I'm also not that spoiled that I don't realize that a lot of Boston's trade acquisitions were the result of a partner not being able to afford a player's impending market rate; Pedro says hi, Schilling too... and Beckett, and Sale, etc. (starting pitching). But I can't feel bad for those teams who once thought they needed to ship out their stars, and then years later Arizona throws money at Greinke, Miami at Stanton, and Chicago at Abreu, Grandal, Keuchel and Edwing...

We're not irrational, but the professional sport we love is, if current structures in place cause one of its bellwether franchises to lose some of their best players. It's one thing to have checks and balances so big markets won't buy all the free agents, but it's another when a rich company gets penalized for wanting to pay its own employees the most money. The 2018 Red Sox may have had the highest salary of any champion, but the nine that clinched the Series in LA had zero free agents on the field, and only two overall that made a difference vs. the Dodgers... trivia hint: one was an All-Star in '18. All others were either homegrown or acquisitions that we already paid a price for in prospects. Many were soon rewarded for their heroics with new contracts, but Boston didn't pursue or sign a single new MLB free agent from another team the past year. It's sad when small market teams can't afford to keep their own players. But there's something seriously wrong with a tax system that prevents even large market teams from keeping its fan favorites together as a unit. I'm bitter, but don't call me entitled; remember, I lived through ownership that couldn't afford to pay Fisk, Lynn and Burleson. These owners could, but then they'd lose draft picks and international signing funds?

I know, I'd rather talk about more rational topics, like a billion-dollar franchise that's not sure it can sign its best player or why it might break up the MLB's best outfield this century or why it might not be able to trade everyone's favorite pitcher who just tweeted his latest gripe about peeing in a cup.

Retooling, yes. Garbage, no. I agree Workman had a career year and no one wants to see Barnes in the 9th ever again, but Darwinzon and Taylor still have some upside to their arms. After seeing Tampa use openers and then trade one of their best -- Stanik -- for a guy even better -- Anderson -- I'm confident building quality depth in the pen is a forte of Bloom's. As important as bullpens are to contenders, the most inconsistent position in MLB is reliever. Teams will always pay big for someone they hope is reliable because there's nothing worse than blowing a win at the end of a game. But every season it seems like at least half the money relievers go bad. Give Dombro credit for getting Kimbrel in his prime, and walking away from him when he was cooked. All ballplayers are human, but the main problem with relievers is chronology; they perform in the most crucial moments of the game. Nobody is perfect, except Eckersly for a few years, the first almost-automatic guy who every other team has futilely sought to replicate ever since (except for NY's Mo). Blame it on Eck... Price, call a press conference!