Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 139
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by ZH721 View Post
    He did not say top. He said prospects.
    So are they just going to take garbage back in return for him?

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Soxtober040713 View Post
    Betts and Price to LAD for Seager, Pederson, Smith, Sheffield is what I want. Thatís what I have decided.

    Sign Shaw to play 1st.

    Trade Bradley to Texas for the package I had stated previously.

    Sign Pillar or a corner OF with some power. If your confident in Pedersons glove in CF.

    Find some bullpen Arms. Iíd love to get Betances. That would be so fitting. But I think he will cost too much. Although we could afford it with moving, Betts, Bradley, Price.

    And take a flier on Harvey, king Felix, rich hill.
    TBH there is no way a Betts/Price to LA trade can happen without AJ Pollock going the other way, it's just not possible to get the money to work without it.

    He has 4 years and 56 million left on his contract, but the AAV comes out to only 12 million.
    There is just no way to make this trade work without it.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,406
    All Sources from NSPN for arbitration

    * Mookie Betts: 1 year 27MM
    *Jackie Bradley Jr. 1 year $11MM
    *Brandon Workman 1 year $3.6MM
    * Matt Barnes 1 year $3.1MM
    * Heath Hembree 1 year $1.6125MM
    -------------------------------------------
    Total in arbitration $46.3125MM

    That's a lot of money in arbitration. I thought FO wanted to cut payroll? We still need to pay E-Rod and Andrew Benintendi. That looks like another $11.7MM so that would be $58MM in Arbitration.

    Boston also acquired right-hander Austin Brice from the Miami Marlins in exchange for minor league shortstop Angeudis Santos. Infielder Marco Hernandez was designated for assignment.

    Brice, a 27-year-old relief pitcher, had a 3.43 ERA in 36 games last season.
    Source: ESPN


  4. #79
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    TBH there is no way a Betts/Price to LA trade can happen without AJ Pollock going the other way, it's just not possible to get the money to work without it.

    He has 4 years and 56 million left on his contract, but the AAV comes out to only 12 million.
    There is just no way to make this trade work without it.
    You make unsubstantiated statements like this A LOT. You're wrong. If the exact deal suggested took place (Betts/Price for Pederson, etc) then the Dodgers would only be about $8-9M over the CBT limit. Given that they four consecutive seasons (2014-17) more than $10M above the payroll resulting from the trade and just reset, I think that LAD could easily pull off the deal.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSoxtober View Post
    You make unsubstantiated statements like this A LOT. You're wrong. If the exact deal suggested took place (Betts/Price for Pederson, etc) then the Dodgers would only be about $8-9M over the CBT limit. Given that they four consecutive seasons (2014-17) more than $10M above the payroll resulting from the trade and just reset, I think that LAD could easily pull off the deal.
    I'm telling you what I read from Dodgers blogs.
    If they do that deal, without trading Pollock it'll hamstring their ability to add payroll and stay under the cap going forward.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    I'm telling you what I read from Dodgers blogs.
    If they do that deal, without trading Pollock it'll hamstring their ability to add payroll and stay under the cap going forward.
    Oh, there's no question that they couldn't do the deal and stay under the luxury tax for 2020. As I mentioned, it'd put them $8-9M over the CBT for the current (2020) season. But they'd have $60M or so in expiring contracts so the suggestion that they'd be hampered "going forward" is an exaggeration. Obviously they'd be interested in keeping some of those expiring contracts (Justin Turner and presumably Betts) but they would not be precluded from doing anything. In my mind, the potential for the addition of Betts+Price to finally win a WS might make the it worth a relatively small ($2.5-5M) penalty.

    More importantly, where's the evidence that they must stay under the CBT cap? They've done it the past couple of years after making a mockery of it for four seasons. It's just as likely that they're poised to spend big after resetting their penalties as they are to stay under the threshold.

    A bigger threat, IMO, for all teams is the expiration of the CBA after next (2021) season. The players are ticked off about how their FA contracts were "suppressed" last offseason. Because, you know, $30-35M per year is just insulting (sorry, you can kinda see where I land on the issue). There's a fair chance of a strike and FOs are concerned about lining up guaranteed contracts that span 2022 and beyond as a result. Some players have gone so far as to suggest that they're willing to sit out multiple years in order to "take back power." It's a sad state of affairs that I hope both sides address quickly. An impasse, in the culture that gave rise to Occupy Wall Street and its critique of people with the same income as both players and owners, could bring down the game that is already losing traction among those under 40.
    Last edited by RedSoxtober; 01-20-2020 at 10:18 AM.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    via roto
    The Red Sox' asking price remains sky-high when discussing potential Mookie Betts trade scenarios with other teams, per Buster Olney of ESPN.
    Olney reports that the Red Sox are willing to trade Betts but only if another team is willing to give them two top-flight prospects and also take David Price and the $96 million he has remaining on his contract. Betts will make $27 million for 2020 in the final year of his contract. That means another team will have to pay $123 million and give up their two best prospects to get one year of Betts and three years of a declining David Price. The Red Sox are trying to avoid escalating penalties for exceeding the luxury tax and they are unlikely to get under the threshold unless they can find a way to shed Price's salary, which may only be made possible if they sweeten the deal by including Betts.
    I've been wondering if the resolution of Betts' arb case could accelerate a deal. It'd be a difficult position for any team acquiring the superstar to oppose him in the arb process (no real defense would have been built).


    The Red Sox are considering Mets bench coach Hensley Meulens as a potential candidate to replace Alex Cora as manager.
    Meulens served as the hitting coach for the Giants as they won three World Series titles in the past decade. He was hired by the Mets to join Carlos Beltran's staff as bench coach last month. Meulens is considered a candidate to replace Beltran with the Mets as well. Both Cora and Beltran lost their jobs due to the recent sign-stealing scandal. Meuelens played in the majors, Japan and Korea in the 1990s and speaks five languages -- English, Spanish, Dutch, Papiamento and Japanese.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSoxtober View Post
    Oh, there's no question that they couldn't do the deal and stay under the luxury tax for 2020. As I mentioned, it'd put them $8-9M over the CBT for the current (2020) season. But they'd have $60M or so in expiring contracts so the suggestion that they'd be hampered "going forward" is an exaggeration. Obviously they'd be interested in keeping some of those expiring contracts (Justin Turner and presumably Betts) but they would not be precluded from doing anything. In my mind, the potential for the addition of Betts+Price to finally win a WS might make the it worth a relatively small ($2.5-5M) penalty.

    More importantly, where's the evidence that they must stay under the CBT cap? They've done it the past couple of years after making a mockery of it for four seasons. It's just as likely that they're poised to spend big after resetting their penalties as they are to stay under the threshold.

    A bigger threat, IMO, for all teams is the expiration of the CBA after next (2021) season. The players are ticked off about how their FA contracts were "suppressed" last offseason. Because, you know, $30-35M per year is just insulting (sorry, you can kinda see where I land on the issue). There's a fair chance of a strike and FOs are concerned about lining up guaranteed contracts that span 2022 and beyond as a result. Some players have gone so far as to suggest that they're willing to sit out multiple years in order to "take back power." It's a sad state of affairs that I hope both sides address quickly. An impasse, in the culture that gave rise to Occupy Wall Street and its critique of people with the same income as both players and owners, could bring down the game that is already losing traction among those under 40.
    Let me reverse that question, where is the evidence that the RedSox MUST get under the CBT this season after making a mockery of it the last several years, there is nothing to suggest that they can't afford to keep Mookie this year and going forward.


    Well if they weren't running into cheaters, they wouldn't have to be worried about FINALLY breaking through and winning the World Series.

    The expiring contracts don't mean a whole lot with the escalating price of arbitration for players like Bellinger, Walker Buheler, Urias etc and then the raise the Mookie will require.
    They're going to need to off set the long term cost of Price somehow.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSoxtober View Post
    via roto


    I've been wondering if the resolution of Betts' arb case could accelerate a deal. It'd be a difficult position for any team acquiring the superstar to oppose him in the arb process (no real defense would have been built).
    If that report is to be believed, it's as though they're asking more for a single season of Betts than the Indias are for 2 seasons of Lindor.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Let me reverse that question, where is the evidence that the RedSox MUST get under the CBT this season after making a mockery of it the last several years, there is nothing to suggest that they can't afford to keep Mookie this year and going forward.
    They could continue to overspend if the owner wanted to keep pouring his own money into the team... but he doesn't. Overrunning the CBT as they have was one of the primary reasons that Dombrowski was fired. Resetting the CBT penalty is an owner's mandate and one of the most widely publicized stories of the Red Sox offseason. Honestly, if you don't know that and require evidence then you really don't need to post in the Red Sox forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Well if they weren't running into cheaters, they wouldn't have to be worried about FINALLY breaking through and winning the World Series.
    I won't take the bait but I'll respond only to say that they can only effect the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    The expiring contracts don't mean a whole lot with the escalating price of arbitration for players like Bellinger, Walker Buheler, Urias etc and then the raise the Mookie will require.
    They're going to need to off set the long term cost of Price somehow.
    No doubt they will have to deal with arbitration cases just like every other team in MLB. That doesn't negate the fact that they could do the deal and get back under the CBT for 2021 if they so chose. They'd have a pretty decent cushion to absorb arb raises. I don't include Betts, however, because he's a FA and going to to into the market. If you want him then you've got to buy him just like everyone else will try to do. His salary will force a decision on other players like Bellinger whether you trade for him or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    If that report is to be believed, it's as though they're asking more for a single season of Betts than the Indias are for 2 seasons of Lindor.
    I'm not sure that that is accurate. We know that the price for Lindor started with Lux. I think that it's foolish to say that it would be a 1:1 swap. Just like trading for Betts+Price is not likely to be a 2:2 swap. Even the A-Gon salary dump had more prospects coming across from LAD (5) than players going the other way (4).
    Last edited by RedSoxtober; 01-21-2020 at 07:52 PM.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    Yay, such a great offseason of depth moves. I was a bit surprised at the Lakins move, though. Clearly Bloom has no attachment to the farm system.

    Red Sox sent LHP Bobby Poyner outright to Triple-A Pawtucket.
    Poyner cleared waivers after being designated for assignment last week. The 27-year-old scuffled during his time in them majors last season, but he's a useful arm to keep around.
    Cubs acquired RHP Travis Lakins from the Red Sox for a player to be named later or cash considerations.
    Lakins, 25, made 16 relief appearances with the Red Sox last season while posting a 3.86 ERA, 1.41 WHIP and 18/10 K/BB ratio over 23 1/3 innings. He'll attempt to compete for a bullpen gig in the spring.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSoxtober View Post
    They could continue to overspend if the owner wanted to keep pouring his own money into the team... but he doesn't. Overrunning the CBT as they have was one of the primary reasons that Dombrowski was fired. Resetting the CBT penalty is an owner's mandate and one of the most widely publicized stories of the Red Sox offseason. Honestly, if you don't know that and require evidence then you really don't need to post in the Red Sox forum.


    I won't take the bait but I'll respond only to say that they can only effect the future.


    No doubt they will have to deal with arbitration cases just like every other team in MLB. That doesn't negate the fact that they could do the deal and get back under the CBT for 2021 if they so chose. They'd have a pretty decent cushion to absorb arb raises. I don't include Betts, however, because he's a FA and going to to into the market. If you want him then you've got to buy him just like everyone else will try to do. His salary will force a decision on other players like Bellinger whether you trade for him or not.


    I'm not sure that that is accurate. We know that the price for Lindor started with Lux. I think that it's foolish to say that it would be a 1:1 swap. Just like trading for Betts+Price is not likely to be a 2:2 swap. Even the A-Gon salary dump had more prospects coming across from LAD (5) than players going the other way (4).
    Of course, I know the mandate from ownership, guess what, dodgers ownership have similar mandates, the whole point of me reversing the question was to help illustrate that since as you point out there is nothing FORCING the dodgers to stay under the luxury tax, well there is nothing FORCING the Redsox to do it either.

    Your argument was that if they REALLY cared about finally winning the world series they would trade the prospects and help the Sox reset their books, well, it's not really their fault they haven't won broken through the last few years now is it...

    Yes, and getting under the luxury tax is much easier if something goes back to Boston to offset the cost of Price. Boston could always just eat a portion of Prices contract instead, it wouldn't have to be taking Pollock back.
    It doesn't really make much sense for the dodgers to trade for Betts and just let him leave, so were going to need to keep him in mind for the future salary.

    Most of those players going back to the redsox in that salary dump sucked though, in fact, I don't think any of them ever wound up producing for the redsox in any way, and at the time only Webster was ranked in the top 100. If you just want volume, the dodgers could send like 9 or 10 meh prospects.


    If past reports of the Indians are true and they wanted the top two prosects from the dodgers for 2 years of Lindor, and these reports are true, that the RedSox want the dodgers top 2 prospect for one year of Betts and ALL of Price's contract, they may be asking more than what the market bears.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by RedSoxtober View Post
    That would require him to leave $25 million on the table, IDK if he does that.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    18,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Of course, I know the mandate from ownership, guess what, dodgers ownership have similar mandates, the whole point of me reversing the question was to help illustrate that since as you point out there is nothing FORCING the dodgers to stay under the luxury tax, well there is nothing FORCING the Redsox to do it either.
    Um, I don't know of any such mandate from the Dodgers' ownership. Since this isn't the Dodgers' forum, it's okay for me not to know and ask the question. They've been under the CBT for a couple of years so they don't have an urgent need to get under. I know that they had marching orders a few years ago but I have seen nothing to suggest that those are the standing rules of engagement. I asked for evidence; if it's there, then it's obviously not nearly as well publicized as the Red Sox mandate which has been repeated ad nauseum.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Your argument was that if they REALLY cared about finally winning the world series they would trade the prospects and help the Sox reset their books, well, it's not really their fault they haven't won broken through the last few years now is it...
    Actually, no, that's not my argument. My argument is that they may well perceive Betts as the player that finally allows them to break through. That means only two things: they haven't won in the past and Betts could be the missing piece for the roster they have for 2020.

    And, yes, I'll say that it is their fault for not winning in the past. They tried. They put together one hell of a roster. But it came up short. If you want to say that they got snookered because of sign-stealing, then go right ahead. I'll say that they put together teams that peaked too early and tended to fade late in the season.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Yes, and getting under the luxury tax is much easier if something goes back to Boston to offset the cost of Price. Boston could always just eat a portion of Prices contract instead, it wouldn't have to be taking Pollock back. It doesn't really make much sense for the dodgers to trade for Betts and just let him leave, so were going to need to keep him in mind for the future salary.
    Yes, it would be easier to offset salary somehow. Easier is not the same as a requirement. You said it was a requirement and that's what I objected to. It's a pretty specific disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Most of those players going back to the redsox in that salary dump sucked though, in fact, I don't think any of them ever wound up producing for the redsox in any way, and at the time only Webster was ranked in the top 100. If you just want volume, the dodgers could send like 9 or 10 meh prospects.
    Sigh. You have essentially admitted why player-for-propsect deals are never 1:1. It's precisely because they are prospects -- unproven. Allen Webster and Rubby De La Rosa were both well regarded prospects at one point. Webster was a top prospect at the time of the trade; De La Rosa was a bit past his peak prospect value.

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    If past reports of the Indians are true and they wanted the top two prosects from the dodgers for 2 years of Lindor, and these reports are true, that the RedSox want the dodgers top 2 prospect for one year of Betts and ALL of Price's contract, they may be asking more than what the market bears.
    The Padres seem to think otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    That would require him to leave $25 million on the table, IDK if he does that.
    Hard to say. When he signed his contract it was deliberately structured with decreasing salary values later in the deal. That's not entirely uncommon today but it was very unusual at the time he signed the deal. The reason that Pedroia gave for signing a deal with that particular salary structure is that he did not "want to be a burden" to the team later in his contract. He may be a team-first guy. He wouldn't be the first to leave money on the table.

    I have no clue how likely it is.

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •