5GoldGlovesOF,75

When the '18 postseason began, despite their great regular season, it seemed no one but Sox fans believed they'd finish the deal. The Astros were favored in the ALCS, and a lot of experts were surprised when the Sox beat Verlander and Cole, and knocked around Morton. It's not a dream to think that the same Boston core, if kept intact or even modified, couldn't do it again. Or to think that injuries, off-years and sophomore/junior/senior jinxes can't and won't afflict other favorites.

Ken, '13 was the perfect storm preparation for the perfect storm -- so rare that that many vets got on the same mission with something to prove the same year (plus, there was the common community bond). But vets with something to prove and/or a unit's last hurrah are what gives 2020 hope in this offseason. This roster has areas in need of improvement -- what club doesn't -- but any franchise would love to have our current core of talent. The Bosox -- and most teams -- are never as good the year after putting it all together and going all the way; that's why no champ has repeated this century. In '76, the defending AL champs with all those young stars and established pitchers added HOFer Fergie Jenkins... and finished third, winning one less game than last year's Red Flops. When Boston wins rings, it's usually when no one expects them to.

Thanks for elaborating, notin and moon. The only thing I can say about those guys who do this for a living: a lot of them are privy to insider info that never gets divulged to the posters. So even though some of their trade proposals are just like ours -- throwing half-cooked pasta against a wall -- we also have to consider there are some facts behind their rumors. No matter what one thinks of Shaughnessy, when he says he's sensing a "bridge year" -- like he did today -- we need to take heed (and hope not). He's the guy, after all, who predicted Dombro was a goner, a month before the axe fell...

I just don't see how players who've never played in the majors can be projected to have so much more value than players who have made the bigs and are already accomplished. I get that the number of years a player is controlled is important, but not if he becomes a bust. At least we know guys like Acuna and Soto have done it at the MLB level, but does anyone really think Acuna is worth Betts, Benintendi, Bradley and Bogaerts? The site accepted that deal, but said it was a minor overpay... I accept that the site is useful as one guide, but there are a lot of other facets involved in trades (and not just the behind-the-scenes, sometimes ugly, truths fans never need to know). The most obvious that drive deals: what are a team's current needs (and yes, some of those may be short-term, and others long-term)? Those are factors a lot of fans also enjoy discussing and arguing over the hot stove.

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.