5GoldGlovesOF,75

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...

"The third will not piss off very many." ...unless he's still here. Ha!

So true. So much of what the public sees or hears is political posturing. And the bored (or paid off, in scoops) media runs with it. The poor Red Sox can't afford the tax and oh no, they'll lose a draft pick? Ok, better trade our future Hall of Famer who is just about to enter his prime because he wants a top-of-the-market salary that he's earned. If we spin it just right, even the discerning public will accept it...

I'm all over that. I'd even drive them, but may not leave San Diego... I wonder if The Bench is still in Mission Beach? Does Joe still own the Beachcomber?

Mike?

Agreed. I've seen some beat writers say it'd be best for Bloom to trade Betts asap and just move on from it, so it's not a season-long distraction. But the best approach for the team may just be -- as many here have suggested -- to attempt to improve over the winter via low-cost additions, lottery cards, born-again prospects, etc., then see what happens through the first half of 2020. By then, Chaim will have had plenty of time to get to know Mookie and his intentions... and the front office will have had more than enough time to make best offers to Betts, while also targeting prospective trade partners as a fallback.

"Be realistic ... perhaps Mookie Betts for five years of 23-year-old outfielder Alex Verdugo would work." Ya, I'm not basing my unrealistic expectations on one website that admits their values are "a probalistic model... where nothing here is absolute, but rather, a best guess based on the data available"... because I can't put a number on a player's intrinsic value to his organization and its fanbase. Instead, I was thinking more of the many website hits I got by merely Googling "Betts trade Dodgers". That's where I found several proposals from writers, including professionals who work for MLB.com. Here are just some of their suggested LA packages for Mookie: May, Ruiz, Pederson; Lux or May, Ruiz, Pederson; May, Pederson, Downs; Verdugo, Seager, Cardillo; Lux, Ruiz, Pollock. Another MLB writer listed, "Some Dodgers prospects who could interest the Red Sox would be Jeter Downs, Tony Gonsolin, Josiah Gray, Gavin Lux, Dustin May, Keibert Ruiz — all young, all affordable. They could also be interested in the likes of Matt Beaty, Edwin Ríos, Ross Stripling, Julio Urías and the aforementioned Verdugo". Prospects, suspects, call them what you want -- their teams know they have to give up something to get something. And the Boston braintrust is smart enough to wait them out.

Please retract this asap before someone in LA sees it! Or at least delete Betts' name!!! The last thing we need is past-his-prime Pollock, no hit lefties/no field Joc and half-cooked Jansen (who LA won't even use in big spots anymore). I know you were just trying to make numbers match... and the total of all five of your Sox on that site probably don't add up to just one of Lux, May, Verdugo or Ruiz -- but I have faith those are the types that Bloom is demanding in some combination or no deal.

I'm talking 15-20 years from now, when most voters on that Veterans Committee would have either played in an era when the majority of guys did some kind of PEDs or they did them themselves.

I think guys like Schilling, Clemens and Pettitte will eventually. While Ryan was an automatic, Blyleven and Morris took a long time to get recognized. Give the old school voters credit, though on Ryan. He went 8-16 in 1987 and still finished fifth in the Cy Young. It wasn't like they were just picking big "winners" ahead of him, either; two guys above Ryan had records of 13-9 and 16-16, and a reliever with 5 Ws won it.

Good pitchers make teams good; it’s not usually the other way around. Ballplayers will tell you there’s much value in a starting pitcher that teams have supreme confidence playing behind. This isn’t necessarily something measurable, when other stats like ERA, WHIP and FIP can also be rendered meaningless, depending on approach. No formula can calculate a man’s mindset if, for example, he has a big lead and decides to pitch to contact instead of straining for strikeouts or pitching around star hitters. I’m not a Jack Morris fan, though I know there was controversy in his recent Hall of Fame selection. Morris threw for some good teams, but in high-scoring games only his teammates know for sure if he was missing his spots or just lobbing them in there, trusting his borderline-Cooperstown DP combo and Gold Glove centerfielder. Old school fans would expect a pitcher that led his decade in victories to eventually get enshrined on a bronze plaque. Some would debate Morris had mediocre stats, but he also had the reputation of being able to win no matter the situation – be it a 1-0 World Series Game Seven or a 10-9 slugfest. To me, the best data for Jack Morris is reflected in the number 3. That’s how many different franchises that went on to win world championships wanted him on the mound to start Game One of a World Series. That’s the sign of a true ace.

Modern analytics dismiss pitching victories – at least in awards voting -- but stats for individual player contributions still use the word “Win” in their titles, like WAR, WAA or WPA. Can anyone New School clarify? I played with one pitcher who, when discussing opponents, would say, “I beat them.” And I always corrected him: “You mean, we beat them.” Nowadays, thanks to pitch counts and bullpen games, the workhorse starter is an endangered species. Certainly, with the use of openers becoming widespread, scoring rules for win eligibility need to be revamped. So, is there still such a concept as a winning pitcher? If we're not going to use numbers, can we at least still use the words "winner" and "loser" as adjectives? For example, when it comes to facing the Yankees, especially in Yankee Stadium, am I wrong to call Eovaldi a winner and Price a loser? That's what I saw in 2018 and even Spring of '19 (before Braiser blew the Gardner game). I'm also thinking Eovaldi > Sale vs. NY, at least last year. We like to be able to count on a guy to nail down wins in tight games, and throw shutdown innings after the offense scores, especially after taking the lead. We’ve also witnessed hurlers with great numbers who sometimes seem to pitch just good enough to lose. But is it all just random… or myths… or can qualitative data actually show trends?

I agree and have never expected the Sox to not go for it in 2020. That would be totally out of character for these owners -- and like I said, old guys don't suddenly change. I know with the way Boras and free agency drags now that offseasons are basically cold stove leagues, and so we blab out of boredom about tax penalties and resets and trading star players. Yes, the Sox brass has mentioned finances, but of course those could just be calculated comments in one phase or another of public negotiations or a way of tempering contract expectations... or someone just voicing impulsive exasperations about current market prices. And like you say, even if the front office even wants to cut back, it cannot afford the hit with fandom. Changes will be made, because no change would be unacceptable, but the tanking that Yankee fans hope for will never happen in Boston under this or any ownership. Bloom's goal of building his "sustainable" competitive franchise will encompass not only stockpiling legitimate prospects, but also locking up established young stars with whom fans already identify. As a Red Sox fan, I expect that and demand that.

Not sure if I totally believe anything the spin doctor says. Remember when he agreed to do an interview about why the Red Sox didn't hold a presser to announce DD's firing... and never actually answered the question? As for Sale, I think no news is not good news. If there were problems or setbacks, Boston wouldn't go public, lest any potential trade partner gleans desperation and ups their demands (and I mean potential trades for other pitchers -- though it would also obviously affect any Sale trade options).

Not the whole 96 -- "less money to eat" still means we'd have to subsidize the deal. But I don't see anyone of value coming back, and if we do have to take someone else's bad contract, so be it... as long as it's less -- and what wouldn't be, compared to the most expensive pitcher in MLB history (no thank you very much, DD)/

Dalbec or Chavis are enough assets to get Price gone, but don't expect anything good back... except less money to eat.