5GoldGlovesOF,75

I tried to use that trade site to find a way to get Pache. Braves would get Barnes 24.6 + Taylor 5.8 + Walden 5.8 + Workman 5.3 + Dalbec 18.8 + Chavis 17.7, and the Sox would get Pache 79.1. Unfortunately, we fell short, 79.10 to 78.00 -- and the trade was unaccepted. It's asking for another player or cash. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to give up seven guys for someone who's never played a game in the majors... though he did hit .277 in two levels of the minors last year.

Meanwhile: Jim Bowden says extend Betts -- $370M for 10. https://nesn.com/2019/12/ex-mlb-gm-suggests-move-red-sox-should-make-with-mookie-betts-at-winter-meetings/ Tomase says trade Price to keep Betts. https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/maybe-david-price-isnt-untradeable-we-think-red-sox Bloom says they're "going to handle the situation accordingly"... https://nesn.com/2019/12/chaim-bloom-praises-mookie-betts-but-admits-red-sox-must-explore-all-of-our-options/ All Betts are on!

I agree. He's got better stuff than Wheeler and less wear than Hamels (but more tear), who both just signed -- and he makes less AAV. Suddenly, Eovaldi -- who people seem to forget was one of the most sought-after free agent starters a year ago -- isn't overpaid... as long as he can last through a season and make 30 starts.

...which often leads to the most disappointing thing to watch from this fan's standpoint: when Sox pitchers walk the leadoff batter, and then spend a minute per pitch nibbling around and going to full counts on the next three or four hitters. The modern ughfest.

To me, it's senseless to trade lots of expensive players so we can clear money to invest in other expensive players. Unless the guys we're getting rid of are bad personalities in the clubhouse, which we'll never really know... but which we've heard is never the case with the names being mentioned. It's one thing if the chemistry is sour, but this is the core that recently won a ring together.

And today, yet another pro writer proposes a Betts trade - this one with Eovaldi, to the Cardinals - for a outfielder worse than JD, a pitcher who can't pitch, a infielder who can't grow a mustache, and an outfield prospect who, once again, is not the team's top outfield prospect... https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28211999/one-blockbuster-move-all-30-mlb-teams I understand that speculation is keeping these guys (and us guys) busy, but such scenarios -- no matter what the dollar values say -- are just not happening because they will be unacceptable. to. the. Nation. Forgetaboudit. Unless a team is confident they can extend Betts and is thus willing to part with actual top prospects -- who there's a 99% chance will never be as good as Mookie -- he's in Boston for 2020. In other news, the Angels traded FOUR minor league pitchers to Baltimore for Bundy, he of the lifetime 4.67 ERA.

Sorry, was away from the laptop (I still have a flip phone). I don't recall Betts' name in trade proposals for Hamels, but looked up the timeline for the rumors -- winter after 2014 -- and after Mookie's first 52 games in which he had a 2.3 WAR, which multiplies to about a 7.0 for an entire season. He was an untouchable for me even then, because of all his tools it was his wrists that looked quicker than any I'd ever seen (and only read about on a young Hank Aaron). I do remember Swihart's as the most prevalent name in Hamels trade talks, and obviously in hindsight we'd all do that swap... but I was ok with it, because Boston needed an ace after basically dumping an entire rotation, and catcher was a position of prospect depth; even though some predicted Blake would be the next Posey, we still had Vazquez, who was billed as the next Molina, and worked out with the brothers in offseasons (I also remember Shaugnessey saying, "if you don't want to give up Swihart, then give them Vazquez"). According to Cafardo, here's the Sox actual proposal -- and why they didn't land Hamels: Allen Craig and Daniel Nava?!?! I don't remember the Nomar for Neagle talk, but have basically been against trading good position players for pitchers. I hated Reddick for a reliever, but didn't care that Manny for ARod included a throw-in minor leaguer named Lester. It's not hard to imagine that if that deal had stood, Boston might still be looking to break a -- what, 100+ year old curse...

Been there, drank that. Man, I miss Gambrinus...

Jack, my boy is 8 and he's been all about Betts since he can remember. In Papi's last year, I was praying the Sox hung on to Mookie because he was the perfect player for a budding fan: a young star with the easy name identification. Don't worry, even if Boston's front office doesn't actually read our threads and take this forum as the gospel that it is, they fully understand the intrinsic value of their star players and the emotional impact they have on their customers...

Right now I'm busy analyzing my firewood-simulator. I need to take down the dead tree the gypsy moths ate. But even if I get two cords of surplus firewood, my pocket will be out a negative-$600.

I don't think anyone trades for Betts unless they have a side agreement for an extension, which we pretty much know he won't sign... which means he's stays (for now). As for Pache, I'm not saying he's the guy I want, I just can't believe there's not one GM willing to part with a top prospect for someone they believe will put them over the top. I mean, Dombro traded the Sox Number One pitching prospect for freaking Pomeranz because he thought he'd be the starter to boost Boston to the top... and well, they did finish first.

$orry, I a$$umed Toma$e wa$ $peaking about thi$ $ea$on...

Fellow-posters, please help me understand. Tomase just posted the Braves have the prospects to make a Mookie trade. Atlanta, he writes, "could very well be one player away from challenging the Dodgers and Nationals for National League supremacy, and it's hard to imagine there's a better fit than Betts." Then, a few paragraphs later, Tomase writes, "Top prospect Christian Pache, a potential Gold Glove center fielder and one of the 10 best prospects in baseball, is probably off the table." My question -- to anyone who can answer without referencing economics: if a team wants Mookie so badly because they're one Mookie away from winning this year, then why wouldn't they give up their top outfield prospect, who is not Mookie? So what if Pache's "a potential Gold Glove and one of the 10 best prospects".... Mookie IS a Gold Glover and one of the 10 best MLB players.

I won't give my opinion of why I'd rather have one more year of Mookie Betts plus a draft pick, instead of four more years of Brandon Nimmo, who becomes a free agent in 2023... ... just the quantitative data: Nimmo's career WAR through four years: 6.3 total; Betts' average WAR through six years: 7.0 per season.

That's right, we never swapped a star card unless we got another star back... except if there was one specific card we really needed to complete a set for that year; then we'd overpay.

Come on, you guys. Haven't you been listening to what every free agent always says after signing? No one ever mentions money; it's all about respect...

I agree with those who say Dalbec is a poor fit for our MLB roster and thus, quite possibly a top trade chip. But I think his best value may be in a multi-player that helps ship out an expensive pitcher -- and that kind of value may be the most important aspect for the Sox' offseason going forward. Dalbec's worth to someone else may subsequently help reduce payroll and better allow Boston to sign Betts, the latter of which may be the plan, according to a few reports out today. Prospects tend to get overvalued. Just think back to the playgrounds at recess when you were trading cards (way back, before rookie card mania and ugh, disco)... how many kids would swap an MVP or Cy Young guy for a handful of unprovens? Of course, a dealbreaker would be, "You can have the Mookie card, but in one year you have to give it to another collector..." (I'd still rather have a Betts card for a year instead of a Nimmo forever).

Again, not if you look at a trade from a team that is going for it now. What contender wouldn't want to add both an MVP and a Cy Young... for prospects who may never amount to anything? I would argue those swaps are lopsided for the former. These trades happen all the time, star players or at least established players for minor leaguers. There's very few cases where a future Hall of Famer gets away, like Bagwell or Smoltz, and those were last century. I know people here still bemoan all the prospects that Dombro dealt, but so far only Moncada looks legit -- and that deal helped win a World Series... which is the whole point of trying to improve.

Ya, Betts doesn't seem like the type who'd secretly agree to transfer to another state in an exchange for players who may replace his buddies and old teammates, and quite possibly play as a rival against his original club who will be trying to beat him -- and then return without incurring some bruised/used feelings... Plus, a trade runs the risk of Mookie enjoying someplace else better that doesn't have New England weather and New England media.

Thanks, notin, for giving a thoughtful reply to the idea of a three-way trade. In my example, I made sure I typed "something like" twice and bold-faced it, knowing full well some posters would still ignore the concept and only pick apart the specific names. I know all we have to go by is Bloom's past, but I think it's important that he's working in a new company on a different budget. We can expect him to continue to comb the field for four-leaf clovers, but also hope he is creative in the mold of Theo with his plans and transactions. He sure is clearing roster space before the winter meetings...

You must have missed the paragraph when I wrote: "this isn't a trade equated entirely on dollar values. Read me out: this type of swap would only work if a team like the Dodgers decides to go all out to win now. Acquiring perennial MVP and Cy Young candidates"... ...might justify trading two prospects and a fourth outfielder.

Ok, here's one that's sure to be excoriated: if Bloom is really as creative as advertised, I'm thinking if a Betts trade happens -- since it is assumed no one will trade the farm for an expensive one-year rental -- it will be a three-way deal that will bring back a star player in return. It may be the only way to assure the Red Sox of receiving compensation for a superstar intent on leaving, while at the same time saving face with fans and staying in contention. Something like... Betts and Kluber to LA, Lux, Pederson and Dalbec to Cleveland, and Verdugo and FRANCISCO LINDOR to Boston. Now, I know there are some guys who can't help running for their calculators -- but this isn't a trade equated entirely on dollar values. Read me out: this type of swap would only work if a team like the Dodgers decides to go all out to win now. Acquiring perennial MVP and Cy Young candidates in the same offseason would do just that. Lux and Dalbec gives the Guardians, who are sure to lose Lindor soon, a new left side of the infield for the next half decade. Pederson gives them a much-needed power-hitting outfielder. Kluber, the AL leader in WAR, ERA and Wins the five previous seasons before suffering a broken arm last year, is expendable as the mid-market Tribe's highest paid player but also because their rotation is so solid. For the Sox, Verdugo gives them an outfield prospect, and Lindor retools the entire club culture. Yes, Bogaerts would have to move to second base since Lindor is the best in the business. But that also fills the void at second. More than anything, Lindor replaces Betts with another top-five MLB player, and becomes the new face of the franchise. Of course, all of this is contingent upon the Sox being able to extend Lindor... but just maybe he'd be thrilled with the kind of offers that Betts keeps turning down. If Bloom is really outside-the-box, then something like this may be conceivable. Ironically, in baseball, if a batter steps outside the box while making contact, he's out. Have at it...

If that went down, Sox fans would hate those ex-Dodgers even more than the LA Dodgers. And no subsequent signings from the payroll savings could ever save those three in Boston, who would forever be marked as the players we traded "for Betts and Bradley?"

If Dalbec is the Sox' best trade bait candidate, it is because he's a high-ranked prospect (albeit on Boston's list), a redundant piece with the younger Devers already established at third, and that he has yet to play in the bigs. That's last point jibes with not rushing him, but also not exposing him -- and not only to his arb clock. It's the maybe what-if that makes him more valuable sight-unseen: will he be a Rizzo or Lars Anderson? a Bagwell or Middlebrooks? a Vazquez or Swihart? On the flipside, if he makes the 26-man and is crushing it on May 1st, does that take him off the table?

I get that, but a few bounce-backs at age 27 are more desirable than more Jhoulys Chacins in their 30s. It may be a more realistic alternative to rushing guys up to the majors. MLB-ready starters who look like legitimate rotation guys like Dustin May are obviously coveted by every GM, and either untouchable or cost-prohibitive.