5GoldGlovesOF,75

Trading prospects is always one big roll of the dice. A lot of guys' worth peaks before they ever play one game in the majors. It's like the game show: would you rather keep the cash or find out what's behind the curtain? In baseball card context, would you rather have an autographed Clemente or an unopened pack with the longshot chance of finding a Mantle rookie? In hindsight, who wouldn't have swapped Swihart for Hammels? For the record, I was totally against trading our number one pitching prospect for Pomeranz, but Espinoza never got out of A ball and hasn't played in three years. I was happy to deal Hanley for Beckett and glad we got Sale for Moncada instead of Benintendi. Control can be overrated, too. After signing Sandoval, Boston "controlled" the Panda for five more years (or was it the other way around?).

I understand why low-paid youngsters with star potential are sought-after. But an established player about to enter his prime has to have more value to GMs trying to boost contending teams to the next level. Any trade is based on speculation, of what could be vs. what will be, with the goal to improve and at least get what you pay for. Baseball is a business, and building a winner is costly. But proven commodities have to be more attractive to a GM whose club can afford to pay for quality. For example, to a team looking for a Gold Glove finalist catcher who can hit, a veteran like Vazquez has to have more value than a teenage power-hitter like Casas who hasn't even made it to Double A. According to the list, Devers is worth 2.5 times on the trade market than Betts. Devers, 23, has had one great year. Betts is 27 and has six good to great years. Young studs like Devers, Soto, Acuna, Torres, etc. may have generational potential, but they still have half a decade to stay clean, stay in shape, and produce before matching Mookie’s output so far (and when most boy millionaires are out at late night parties, how many will be wearing hoodies, trying not to be noticed, while feeding the homeless?). If you're the GM of the Red Sox and you could actually acquire two and half more Mookies, wouldn't you rather trade Rafie?

What the- ? An optimistic Mookie fan on talksox? Attaboy, Moon...

Great, the Boston front office would like to take a poll: all Sox fans in favor of trading our best player and best pitching prospect for Mitch Haniger and Kenta Maeda, please vote with your wallets and order season tickets today.

What a joke, the usual let's-get-some-really-good-players for some-of-our-guys-who-are-not-as-good proposal (typical from a site titled FANsided). Any Red Sox fan who has been following Noah Song the past few months knows he has vaulted to the top of their meager list of pitching prospects. Now if only Uncle Sam would cooperate...

Lowell's only about a half hour far from Boston, as long you're driving there between midnight and morning rush hour. My sister used to drive to a train station, then take the commuter back and forth; still took about three travel hours per day. Ah, notin's right: just watch the big league games on TV...

Do you think the reason Manfred wants to collapse so many minor league teams isn't so much for more consolidated player development (as purported), but to force more hardball fans to attend more big league games by default?

I agree people will always show up in Boston, especially in perspective to the rest of MLB non-contenders. However, attendance will definitely drop if fans aren't getting their money's worth, ie. watching a contender (there are lots of other ways to blow disposable income instead of on Fenway's ridiculous prices of tickets, parking, food and drink). As for tuning to NESN for three or four hours a night, forget it. As for Betts, I have never once thought the Sox can't afford or will choose not to afford him; I just have doubts he wants to stay in New England. But can anyone here ever imagine the New York Yankees not outbidding the entire MLB to extend a lifetime contract to one of their own homegrown superstar faces of the franchise about to enter his prime? Has any Yankee fan favorite ever been allowed to leave the Bronx once he became a free agent?

What I've been saying since I got here... the most difficult question for the suddenly money-conscious Red Sox: how can they possibly save without losing?

Then there's this: Mookie Betts rumors WWW.MLB.COM With Mookie Betts entering the final year of his contract in 2020, the '18 American League Most Valuable Player Award winner will be the focus of plenty of trade talks this offseason. Below is a list of the latest news and rumors surrounding the 27-year-old outfielder.

I'm against trading Eovaldi, especially if he pitches well, because he's the one guy of the big three that I feel hasn't yet hit his peak. He's also getting paid almost half of Price and Sale. I understand that both those reasons make him the more attractive trade target for most markets looking for pitching... so if trading Evo is the best way to keep Betts, than so be it. Forgot to add another reason to keep Nate: He's a righty with success vs. the righty-Yankee batting order (unlike southpaws Price and Sale so much).

A big trade I'd like would mean moving a big name and big contract -- bye Price -- along with a cheaper name with potential to make it palatable for the takers. What we get back would be immaterial (literally/bad pun), as long as the payroll and team culture is altered. Another big trade I'd like would mean moving good or great position players in return for close to the same in on-field value. Both types of changes would be dramatic but in the best interests of still contending in 2020.

I hate to say it, but the quietude may be ominous, a cliche before the winter meetings next week. While A few teams have already made preemptive strikes, for all we know Bloom may be plotting a blockbuster or have several dominoes ready to fall. What are the predictions here: a big deal, a flurry of small though subtly interconnected moves or nada? I vote B.

MLB TV did a bit just yesterday showing origins of position players for World Series champs for the decade. They analyzed how winning teams were built, through draft and development, trades, free agent signings. Most big stars were homegrown, but something like 70% of starting pitching was acquired from other systems.

I was ready to counter with Nick Anderson, the lights-out Ray acquired by Bloom and Co, but... 2nd Half: Anderson 2.28 ERA, .180 BA, 52 Ks in 27.2 IP, 0.75 WHIP 2nd Half: Pomeranz 1.96 ERA, .161 BA, 57 Ks in 36.2 IP, 0.81 WHIP I saw a Pomeranz start in person vs. Washington in the Spring and he was brutal. What a turnaround, even if it was in the NL. The fact that he was bad for over a year-and-a-half should remind both Red Sox and Yankee fans of how quickly change can come for professional pitchers.

The Dodgers would be bidding against the Red Sox, who would be better off keeping Mookie. For instance, if the two clubs returned for a World Series rematch, and LA had Betts, that means Boston would not. The Dodgers would also be bidding against all other contenders who are trying to improve by recruiting other players. LA is also one of the few clubs that could offer and spare good prospects to get to the top of their current window. Plus, Bloom and Friedman once worked together, and reportedly still have a good relationship, making a match for a deal more likely.

I'm on record as wanting to keep Betts for the entire 2020 season -- no matter what happens in the winter of 21 -- because having a top-five MLB player entering his prime in the lineup gives Boston a much better chance of contending than a package of might-be's or never-were's that may not even play in the majors next year. I also think keeping him until he is officially free is the only way he'll possibly re-sign here. I'm also on record as saying if Bloom is shopping Betts, I would expect the asking price to be commensurate with an MLB star's production. I also understand that most clubs won't feel that giving up top prospects for a one-year rental getting paid 30 mil will be worth it. I have read a lot of proposed trades for Betts on this forum and other websites, including professional organizations. Everyone is entitled to opinions. Mine is that at least some of the pros have more knowledge of what has happened, is happening and may happen in the sport that they cover for a living than the fans. As for history, this case may just be a precedent, since we all keep saying it only takes one club to pull the trigger on what looks like -- to some -- a major overpay. But history tells us we probably won't get anything good, so I expect any trade of Mookie Betts to be a major downer and lead to a disappointing 2020 for most Sox fans. Longterm, we can only hope the Red Sox don't make a mistake that falls somewhere between Ruth and Bagwell.

"fans expect absolute top tier prospects for the right to pay Betts $30mill for one year." It's not just fans, but a lot of professionals. I can only hope that Chaim Bloom doesn't rely on a website that only evaluates possible deals with a dollar sign. Just today, Red Sox reporter John Tomase posted an article about the possibility of a Betts trade to LA. Here are the names he listed: Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Grey and Gonsolin. Here's the last line from a writer who gets paid to speculate: Any two of these players would make the start of an intriguing package...

This is where I am, as well. I'm into stats -- it's part of what makes being a fan fun -- but as far as enshrinement, I always favor a guy who dominates over a compiler. That being said, and back to pitching, I think the most underrated stat is Innings Pitched. Leaders in IP induce opponents to make the most outs -- in a game, season, postseason series or decade. The leader in IP is the guy that your team wants on the mound with the ball. I looked again back to 1950, and every decade leader in Innings Pitched made the Hall (including the entire Top Ten from the 70s)... until this century. Then we have IP 2000-2009: 1. Livan (Livan likes his money) Hernandez, 2. Javier Vazquez, 3. Buehrle, 4. Zito, 5. Moyer, 6. Suppan. I guess PEDs really battered the arms before testing...

The WAR comparisons make a good case for Schill, Bell -- I think WAR is what some writers think makes Grienke a HOFer; he's already at 71.7. Although I can't recall ever watching him and hearing any discussion about immortality (I know, it's the new Harold Baines argument -- he of the 38.7 WAR). As for Morris, like I said, he's a guy where stats can't possibly tell the whole story because he never cared about anything but winning -- as in, three rings as the Game One starter for three teams. Beat writers who watched him and voted on hardware gave him Cy Young votes in seven years, MVP votes in five years, plus the WS MVP in '91. In comparison, Schilling also won three rings as a top of the rotation starter, but only had four years where he got Cy/MVP votes, with two postseason MVPs. They're both borderline, but I'd say both deserving as aces who were counted upon to come up clutch. On the latter criteria, it's also why I'd take a guy like Bumgarner over Grienke as a future Hall of Famer, even at almost half the WAR (so far).

I get that, but they don't add up. All these brilliant statisticians, and not one could devise a cumulative formula... that any fan with an elementary school education could grasp? Like 2.5 OWAR + 2.0 DWAR + 1.0 Baserunning WAR = 5.5 Total WAR (I'm not even going to ask how they figure the components). Most of us kids avoided long division, but we all knew how to calculate batting averages by middle school (at least by using calculators).

I think they'll all get in eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but hopefully in theirs. The case for Pettitte is strong; quick research shows that every pitcher who led his decade in victories made the Hall of Fame (I only looked back as far as 1950, when integration made such accomplishments more legit). As for the just-concluded Teens, the top three in Ws will be first-ballot guys: Scherzer, Verlander, Kershaw. Pettitte paced the 00s with the lowest leading total in seven decades -- 148 wins (nine more than Halladay, who was fourth)... but Andy is also the career postseason leader in wins, games started and innings pitched. Sure he pitched for great teams, but if pitching is 70% of the game, and your ace has five rings, I'd say he deserves a plaque.

Kinda hijacking my own thread, but since this topic was supposed to be about modern metrics: on MLB TV today there was a discussion about top shortstops, and it was reported that Bogaerts was last in DSR. Also interesting: in one of the articles projecting a Betts to LA trade, a writer suggested Gavin Lux as the Red Sox new shortstop, because the writer assumed Bogie would soon have to be moved to another position anyway. One more question about WAR: if WAR supposedly "measures a player's value in all facets of the game", then why are there also separate categories for Offensive WAR and Defensive WAR?

For me, it's that they have to stay in contention for a playoff spot through the final week of the regular season (which 90+ usually did in the old days, before we had such a disparity between the haves and the tankers).

"it was realized that publicly announcing your need to shed a large amount of payroll might not be the wisest idea from either a PR or a business standpoint" ... like, right before announcing a hike in ticket prices...