Betts trade
-
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@tomivory23 said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
we are getting verdugo and apparently a very intriguing pitching prospect from the twins.
"Brusdar Graterol, who goes from #MNTwins to #RedSox in three-team blockbuster, has many fans in scouting community. Only 21, throws 100+ mph, elite potential. Said one evaluator: “He is a DUDE.” "
They* ......the correct word is "they"
we*
You're on the Team? Do you play or are you part of management?
-
@cvogsfashow said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@tomivory23 said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
we are getting verdugo and apparently a very intriguing pitching prospect from the twins.
"Brusdar Graterol, who goes from #MNTwins to #RedSox in three-team blockbuster, has many fans in scouting community. Only 21, throws 100+ mph, elite potential. Said one evaluator: “He is a DUDE.” "
They* ......the correct word is "they"
we*
You're on the Team? Do you play or are you part of management?
we* got Verdugo, it's a fact
-
The Twins are getting Maeda from the dodgers. Dodgers get Price as well as Betts
-
What I can’t figure out is Red Sox fans are complaining. Mookie was not going to sign any extensions. He wanted to test free agency and get trout money. But this way. They clear price and mookie and have smaller contracts for Verdugo and the pitcher from the Twins (can’t spell that name). Now at the end of 2020, the Red Sox could pursue mookie in free agency. Plus the Red Sox weren’t going to make the playoffs anyway.
-
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
-
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
I am definitely bummed in that regard, but I feel @CONman1505 touched on what we should be happy about...it was a trade that needed to get done to help us going forward...as much as we want to compete in 2020, it would have kept us from competing further in future years
-
Trading Betts and Price was solely about getting under the luxury tax, nothing more. John Henry didn't want to pay the $10 million penalty, that's it.
The Red Sox acted like a mid market team and traded away their best player for financial reasons.
-
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
I am definitely bummed in that regard, but I feel @CONman1505 touched on what we should be happy about...it was a trade that needed to get done to help us going forward...as much as we want to compete in 2020, it would have kept us from competing further in future years
I understand the need to replenish the farm system in today's overvaluing of farm systems. It's interesting that from the sidelines, we're now seeing things from the billionaires' fiscally shrewd perspective, when not that long ago, all of these problems were easily solved in free agency. Teams used to be willing to compensate for a weak farm system by making a splash on the free agent market, and I think in recent years, we've become conditioned to make sense of things in dollar signs and controllable years. At the core of it, none of that should matter. Each and every team can afford to spend in order to win, and I don't understand the new climate of celebrating teams for taking extra effort to avoid winning now in order to maybe win later.
I grew up a Giants fan and couldn't imagine defending my team if they traded Barry Bonds away for two prospects. This trade was great for Dodger fans, good for Twins fans, but should be seen as terrible by Sox fans.
-
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
I am definitely bummed in that regard, but I feel @CONman1505 touched on what we should be happy about...it was a trade that needed to get done to help us going forward...as much as we want to compete in 2020, it would have kept us from competing further in future years
I understand the need to replenish the farm system in today's overvaluing of farm systems. It's interesting that from the sidelines, we're now seeing things from the billionaires' fiscally shrewd perspective, when not that long ago, all of these problems were easily solved in free agency. Teams used to be willing to compensate for a weak farm system by making a splash on the free agent market, and I think in recent years, we've become conditioned to make sense of things in dollar signs and controllable years. At the core of it, none of that should matter. Each and every team can afford to spend in order to win, and I don't understand the new climate of celebrating teams for taking extra effort to avoid winning now in order to maybe win later.
I grew up a Giants fan and couldn't imagine defending my team if they traded Barry Bonds away for two prospects. This trade was great for Dodger fans, good for Twins fans, but should be seen as terrible by Sox fans.
really though? you cant use FA every year as a replacement to develop young players... at some point you need to have atleast a few players to develop.
I do also see though, how getting under the luxary tax seems a bit insignificant, as the penalty is not that big at all, and signing mookie is worth more than what that penalty ensues, but is he really worth as much as not only that but 400m+ and the crippling of the development of your young players?
-
Mookie is turning 28 this year. He wanted 12 years and whatever amount of money. He’ll probably be good for another 5-6 years then fall off like Pujols did. with the angles. Then the Red Sox will be over paying for a declining player. So there’s that too
-
@CONman1505 said in Betts trade:
Mookie is turning 28 this year. He wanted 12 years and whatever amount of money. He’ll probably be good for another 5-6 years then fall off like Pujols did. with the angles. Then the Red Sox will be over paying for a declining player. So there’s that too
I don't think he will fall of quite like Pujols did, but there is a bit of that factor too as well, yes.
-
Good thing player regression in real life isn’t like player regression in mlb the show. Lol
-
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
I am definitely bummed in that regard, but I feel @CONman1505 touched on what we should be happy about...it was a trade that needed to get done to help us going forward...as much as we want to compete in 2020, it would have kept us from competing further in future years
I understand the need to replenish the farm system in today's overvaluing of farm systems. It's interesting that from the sidelines, we're now seeing things from the billionaires' fiscally shrewd perspective, when not that long ago, all of these problems were easily solved in free agency. Teams used to be willing to compensate for a weak farm system by making a splash on the free agent market, and I think in recent years, we've become conditioned to make sense of things in dollar signs and controllable years. At the core of it, none of that should matter. Each and every team can afford to spend in order to win, and I don't understand the new climate of celebrating teams for taking extra effort to avoid winning now in order to maybe win later.
I grew up a Giants fan and couldn't imagine defending my team if they traded Barry Bonds away for two prospects. This trade was great for Dodger fans, good for Twins fans, but should be seen as terrible by Sox fans.
really though? you cant use FA every year as a replacement to develop young players... at some point you need to have atleast a few players to develop.
I do also see though, how getting under the luxary tax seems a bit insignificant, as the penalty is not that big at all, and signing mookie is worth more than what that penalty ensues, but is he really worth as much as not only that but 400m+ and the crippling of the development of your young players?
I'm not suggesting FA as a replacement to developing young players. I'm suggesting the Red Sox could have fielded a championship team this offseason utilizing FA and keeping Mookie (and signing him to a long term deal in FA). I don't see how signing Mookie would cripple the development of younger players, either. It's the responsibility of the scouts to recruit and sign players, and the responsibility of your farm system to develop those players into producers at the major league level. Trading away your franchise player for one minor league player and one mlb player isn't a move I'll ever get behind.
When your team's ownership group is a sports conglomerate worth billions, I don't understand how fans can defend pinching pennies at the cost of fielding a competitive team. Capacity to spend and willingness to spend are two very different things. Every mlb franchise has the capacity to field a competitive team.
-
@CONman1505 said in Betts trade:
Mookie is turning 28 this year. He wanted 12 years and whatever amount of money. He’ll probably be good for another 5-6 years then fall off like Pujols did. with the angles. Then the Red Sox will be over paying for a declining player. So there’s that too
Bryce Harper and Mike Trout are around the same age and both are locked up long term.
Betting on prospects is great but you don't trade away these calibre of players for a prospect or two that you hope will develop. Unless you are a mid market team that can't afford the tax, which the Red Sox are certainly not.
This was a money move plain and simple.
-
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@LankyRyan said in Betts trade:
I'd be bummed if I were a Sox fan. If this isn't a white flag for 2020, I don't know what is.
I am definitely bummed in that regard, but I feel @CONman1505 touched on what we should be happy about...it was a trade that needed to get done to help us going forward...as much as we want to compete in 2020, it would have kept us from competing further in future years
I understand the need to replenish the farm system in today's overvaluing of farm systems. It's interesting that from the sidelines, we're now seeing things from the billionaires' fiscally shrewd perspective, when not that long ago, all of these problems were easily solved in free agency. Teams used to be willing to compensate for a weak farm system by making a splash on the free agent market, and I think in recent years, we've become conditioned to make sense of things in dollar signs and controllable years. At the core of it, none of that should matter. Each and every team can afford to spend in order to win, and I don't understand the new climate of celebrating teams for taking extra effort to avoid winning now in order to maybe win later.
I grew up a Giants fan and couldn't imagine defending my team if they traded Barry Bonds away for two prospects. This trade was great for Dodger fans, good for Twins fans, but should be seen as terrible by Sox fans.
really though? you cant use FA every year as a replacement to develop young players... at some point you need to have atleast a few players to develop.
I do also see though, how getting under the luxary tax seems a bit insignificant, as the penalty is not that big at all, and signing mookie is worth more than what that penalty ensues, but is he really worth as much as not only that but 400m+ and the crippling of the development of your young players?
I'm not suggesting FA as a replacement to developing young players. I'm suggesting the Red Sox could have fielded a championship team this offseason utilizing FA and keeping Mookie (and signing him to a long term deal in FA). I don't see how signing Mookie would cripple the development of younger players, either. It's the responsibility of the scouts to recruit and sign players, and the responsibility of your farm system to develop those players into producers at the major league level. Trading away your franchise player for one minor league player and one mlb player isn't a move I'll ever get behind.
When your team's ownership group is a sports conglomerate worth billions, I don't understand how fans can defend pinching pennies at the cost of fielding a competitive team. Capacity to spend and willingness to spend are two very different things. Every mlb franchise has the capacity to field a competitive team.
That pitching prospect does look like a stud already though, but I do think we should have had Lux and/or atleast make dodgers pay most of price contract
-
If he was set on going into FA trading him for what they got now if better than him walking into FA and only getting a comp pick. They shed some of Price off the books, not sure how much they forked over in cash considerations.
Boston could turn around and sign him as a free agent. They would be under the luxury tax and have Verdugo controlled for 3 years.
-
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
@CONman1505 said in Betts trade:
Mookie is turning 28 this year. He wanted 12 years and whatever amount of money. He’ll probably be good for another 5-6 years then fall off like Pujols did. with the angles. Then the Red Sox will be over paying for a declining player. So there’s that too
I don't think he will fall of quite like Pujols did, but there is a bit of that factor too as well, yes.
Much of Mookie's toolset is based on speed. Pujols was not. And you see how crippling his foot injury was to his game. Imagine a foot injury to Mookie and how that would affect his range, power stroke and speed game. Would cause me to steer clear of anything past 5 years personally.
I don't blame the Redsox for cashing out when they could (wishing that the Giants would have at least got a middling prospect or two for Bumgarner).
I see Mookie waiting a long time on the market (see Castellanos and Ozuna) and settling for a reduced contract (years not necessarily less AAV).
-
@tomivory23 said in Betts trade:
@Dclnnn said in Betts trade:
we are getting verdugo and apparently a very intriguing pitching prospect from the twins.
They* ......the correct word is "they"
‘I’. ....the correct word is ‘I’.
I am getting Verdugo and apparently a very intriguing pitching prospect from the Twinkies...
-
For those FA enthusiasts I will just say A-Rod, Puljos and Prince Fielder. As far as David price is concerned he is an overpaid has been. His FB that used to be 95-97 MPH is now 90-93 and has been injured half of his time in Bosto Personally I am glad to see him go. As far as FA, I think the money is getting out of hand. Players should get paid for what they do not for what they did.
-
@pogibana said in Betts trade:
For those FA enthusiasts I will just say A-Rod, Puljos and Prince Fielder. As far as David price is concerned he is an overpaid has been. His FB that used to be 95-97 MPH is now 90-93 and has been injured half of his time in Bosto Personally I am glad to see him go. As far as FA, I think the money is getting out of hand. Players should get paid for what they do not for what they did.
Players used to get paid for what they did, now they get paid for what they are expected to do.
Harper, Trout, Cole, Machado, etc., were all smart signings based on what they’re projected to do in the future. Whether or not the players themselves live up to the contract is one thing, them getting paid what their future services are worth based on skill-set, age, and future potential is another.
