Dodgers Finally Score Big by Trading for Mookie Betts
As has been the case for too many October contests since Kirk Gibson homered off Dennis Eckersley, the Dodgers couldn’t seem to win the big ones this winter. They reportedly offered Gerrit Cole $300 million (with deferrals), but were outbid by the Yankees. They expressed interest in Anthony Rendon, but never offered him a contract, and were unwilling to go to a fourth year for Josh Donaldson. Hell, they were even outspent by the Blue Jays — who had spent less than all but four other teams in free agency over the past 14 years — for the services of Hyun-Jin Ryu. They were said to be focused on trades, with a Francisco Lindor/Mike Clevinger package offering one tantalizing possibility. On Tuesday, they finally broke through with a blockbuster, acquiring Mookie Betts and David Price from the Red Sox as part of a three-team, five-player deal that also included the Twins.
Dodgers Receive:
- RF Mookie Betts (from Red Sox)
- LHP David Price (from Red Sox)
- Cash Considerations (from Red Sox)
Red Sox Receive:
- OF Alex Verdugo (from Dodgers)
- RHP Brusdar Graterol (from Twins)
Twins Receive:
- RHP Kenta Maeda (from Dodgers)
Separately, the Dodgers cleared even more space in their outfield by trading Joc Pederson to the Angels for infielder Luis Rengifo, with other players possibly involved. Dan Szymborski will break down that deal on Wednesday.
Though he’ll quite possibly only be around for one year before testing free agency, the 27-year-old Betts fortifies an already robust lineup that led the NL in scoring (5.47 runs per game) and wRC+ (111) in 2019 while powering the Dodgers to a franchise-record 106 wins. The 2018 AL MVP will play alongside reigning NL MVP Cody Bellinger in a lineup that now boasts three of the majors’ 25 most valuable players by WAR from the past year (Max Muncy being the third); all three of those players rank among the top 11 hitters by wRC+ over the past two seasons. The Dodgers’ path to an eighth consecutive NL West title just became even easier, but this is about increasing their odds of getting back to the World Series, which they did in both 2017 and ’18, and finally winning one for the first time since 1988.
With Verdugo and Pederson gone, the likely alignment for the outfield will be A.J. Pollock in left field, Bellinger in center, and Betts in right, with versatile reserves Chris Taylor, Enrique Hernández, and Matt Beaty also able to play the outfield. Per our RosterResource page, the lineup could look like this:
| Order | Pos | Player |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | RF | Mookie Betts |
| 2 | 1B | Max Muncy |
| 3 | 3B | Justin Turner |
| 4 | CF | Cody Bellinger |
| 6 | LF | A.J. Pollock |
| 5 | SS | Corey Seager |
| 7 | C | Will Smith |
| 8 | 2B | Gavin Lux |
| 9 | P | Pitcher |
For any team to pry Betts away from the Red Sox would have seemed unthinkable just a year ago, when he was coming off a 10.4-WAR MVP season and his team was basking in the afterglow of its fourth championship in a 15-season span — a championship won at the expense of the Dodgers, whom they beat soundly in a five-game World Series. Yet the Sox backed themselves into a corner, payroll-wise, extending Xander Bogaerts and Chris Sale but skimping on bullpen help. The result was a flimsy roster that limped to 84 wins in 2019. Along the way, owner John Henry fired president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski less than a year after the team’s World Series win and suddenly developed a distaste for paying the Competitive Balance Tax, something the Red Sox have done in four of the past five seasons (all but 2017). With Betts pulling down $27 million in salary for 2020 (a record for an arbitration-eligible player) and determined to test free agency after this season, Henry chose to prioritize cutting payroll — the Red Sox were about $20 million over the CBT threshold according to Cot’s Contracts, and $30 million over according to RosterResource, with projected salaries for arbitration-eligible players accounting for most of the discrepancies — over strengthening the current roster.
Less than two weeks after new chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom was hired away from the Rays, slugger J.D. Martinez chose not to opt out of the three years and $62 million remaining on his five-year deal. With that, the possibility of the team parting with Betts, a generational player whose value has been eclipsed only by Mike Trout since he arrived in the majors in 2014, to achieve that end increased significantly. While the team could have concocted less drastic alternatives, their fear of getting nothing for Betts besides a draft pick ultimately led them to choose this path. The Sox reportedly offered Betts a 10-year, $300 million extension following the 2018 season, but Betts’ side countered with 12 years and $420 million, a deal not far off the extension Trout signed last March.
As the Betts drama has played out, the rest of the Red Sox’s business this winter has been underwhelming, to say the least. They’ve re-signed Mitch Moreland to be their starting first baseman and added Josh Osich, Jose Peraza, Martín Pérez and Kevin Plawecki, all on one-year deals, at a total cost of $14.1 million. Aside from Pérez, who was worth 1.9 WAR in a rollercoaster season in Minnesota, the other four combined for 0.3 WAR. From among their four previous trades, only reliever Austin Brice projects to even graze the 25-man roster.
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | .294 | .376 | .540 | 605 | 125 | 178 | 39 | 4 | 34 | 96 | 79 | 96 | 21 | 141 | 11 | 6.7 |
While Betts did not fully live up to his big 2018 season last year, his 6.6 WAR nonetheless placed him among the AL’s top five and the majors’ top 10. He matched his career wRC+ of 135, hitting .295/.391/.524 with 29 homers overall, but to get there had to overcome a first-half slump. During June, he hit just .217/.357/.415, and through the end of that month owned a .261/.381/.453 line and a 117 wRC+. After working to position his hands higher, and shore up other parts of his swing, he hit .335/.403/.607 (156 wRC+) from July 1 onwards, but he played just six games after September 12 due to inflammation in his left foot.
Despite the shortened season, Betts has by far the highest one-, two- and three-year WAR totals of any recent player of note who was traded with just one full season to go before free agency. Updating a table I put together in September:
| Player | From | To | Date | Age | Prev WAR 1 | Prev WAR 2 | Prev WAR 3 | Tot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mookie Betts | BOS | LAD | 2/3/20 | 27 | 6.6 | 10.4 | 5.3 | 22.3 |
| Johan Santana | MIN | NYM* | 2/2/08 | 29 | 4.0 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 17.8 |
| Paul Goldschmidt | ARI | STL* | 12/5/18 | 31 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 15.4 |
| Jason Heyward | ATL | STL | 11/17/14 | 25 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 5.3 | 13.1 |
| Andrew McCutchen | PIT | SFG | 1/15/18 | 31 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 10.6 |
| Jeff Samardzija | OAK | CHW | 12/9/14 | 30 | 4.4 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 10.1 |
| Justin Upton | ATL | SDP | 12/19/14 | 27 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 9.7 |
| Yoenis Céspedes | BOS | DET | 12/11/14 | 29 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 9.4 |
| Howie Kendrick | LAA | LAD | 12/11/14 | 31 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 9.0 |
| Rick Porcello | DET | BOS* | 12/11/14 | 26 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 8.9 |
As I noted at the time, the returns on these deals generally produced more quantity than quality — often three or four players, many of whom didn’t amount to much, though there were definitely some gems in the mix. The A’s got Marcus Semien in the Samardzija trade, the Pirates obtained Bryan Reynolds in the McCutchen deal, the Braves received Max Fried in the Upton swap, and the Angels netted Andrew Heaney in the Kendrick move, which was the second leg of a three-team blockbuster that also included the Marlins.
Last week, Craig Edwards illustrated how difficult it would be for the Red Sox to get full value for Betts in such a trade, and by including Price in the deal and paying some as-yet-undisclosed fraction of the $96 million he has remaining on his record-setting seven-year, $217 million deal, they sacrificed some quality. Nonetheless, in Verdugo they acquired a former top-50 prospect who has five years of club control remaining after making a strong showing in an injury-abbreviated rookie season, while in Graterol, they have a heat-throwing top 100 prospect who still has a shot at starting but could be an elite reliever in the making.
| Year | BA | OBP | SLG | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | .289 | .348 | .441 | 429 | 55 | 124 | 28 | 2 | 11 | 53 | 39 | 64 | 7 | 106 | 4 | 1.9 |
| 2021 | .289 | .354 | .457 | 418 | 56 | 121 | 30 | 2 | 12 | 54 | 42 | 66 | 7 | 112 | 4 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | .288 | .357 | .462 | 420 | 57 | 121 | 30 | 2 | 13 | 55 | 45 | 69 | 7 | 114 | 3 | 2.3 |
| 2023 | .285 | .355 | .457 | 418 | 57 | 119 | 29 | 2 | 13 | 55 | 46 | 71 | 6 | 112 | 3 | 2.1 |
| 2024 | .283 | .355 | .459 | 407 | 55 | 115 | 29 | 2 | 13 | 53 | 46 | 71 | 6 | 113 | 3 | 2.1 |
Verdugo, who turns 24 on May 15, is a former second-round 2014 pick who had cups of coffee with the Dodgers in both ’17 and ’18 before sticking last year. He ranked 48th on our 2018 Top 100 Prospects list but dropped to 117th in ’19 due to concerns about both his power and his makeup; by comparison, he ranked among the top 40 in both years on the lists of both Baseball America and MLB Pipeline, while Baseball Prospectus had him as high as number 19 entering 2019. With the Dodgers last year, he hit .294/.342/.475 (114 wRC+) with 12 homers in 377 PA and made starts at all three outfield spots: 52 in center field, 14 in left, and 16 in right. He was a combined 3.4 runs above average via UZR en route to 2.2 WAR; he was 13 runs above average via DRS, yielding 3.1 bWAR. He did not play after August 4 due to a right oblique strain and then a bout of back tightness suffered while rehabbing in early September.
For all of Verdugo’s talent, concerns about his makeup have followed him since before he was drafted, with Keith Law (then of ESPN) noting questions about his level of motivation circa 2014, and the Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2018 writing, “Verdugo’s skills are undeniable, but criticism of his effort level and maturity have plagued him since his amateur days and were again prevalent in 2017,” referring, at the very least, to a dressing-down the rookie received from Rich Hill upon showing up to the ballpark late after oversleeping. In their 2019 edition, BA wrote, “Verdugo stays dialed in at the plate, but an indifferent attitude affects the rest of his game,” and noted lapses in his focus afield as well as a “slow motor” that “shows up on the bases, frustrating teammates and coaches alike,” while in their write up of the Dodgers system last year, Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniel noted that “part of the reason teams have been asking for other Dodgers prospects in trades is due to some past off-field stuff.”
Presumably, Verdugo will take over Betts’ spot in right field, with Andrew Benintendi and Jackie Bradley Jr. remaining in left and center, respectively, and Martinez seeing some time at both corners.
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3 | 2 | 3.77 | 51 | 0 | 45.3 | 41 | 4 | 20 | 46 | 121 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 11 | 8 | 4.32 | 26 | 26 | 118.7 | 117 | 14 | 49 | 104 | 106 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 10 | 8 | 4.28 | 26 | 26 | 115.7 | 113 | 13 | 47 | 103 | 107 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 9 | 7 | 4.29 | 23 | 23 | 105.0 | 103 | 12 | 43 | 94 | 107 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 9 | 7 | 4.24 | 22 | 22 | 102.0 | 99 | 12 | 41 | 93 | 108 | 1.8 |
| 2025 | 9 | 7 | 4.21 | 22 | 22 | 98.3 | 94 | 12 | 40 | 91 | 108 | 1.8 |
Graterol is a 21-year-old righty whom the Twins signed out of Venezuela in August 2014, when he was just 170 pounds. He made just four starts in the Dominican Summer League the following year before tearing his UCL and undergoing Tommy John surgery, then bulked up and returned throwing in the high 90s. He has continued to thicken, and is now listed at 6-foot-1, 265 pounds. Per our prospect team, his fastball sits 96-99 mph and can touch 102; he has four-and two-seam variants. His slider is a plus with good glove-side command, and his changeup a potential plus. The combination gives him a shot at starting, though concerns about the consistency of his release point, and recent injuries (three trips to the IL in the last year and a half) have led some to view him as a reliever.
He was steered in that direction last year, at least temporarily. Ranked 64th on our Top 100 Prospects list last spring, Graterol began the year at Double-A Pensacola and pitched well through nine starts before being sidelined for nearly two months by a shoulder impingement. He worked out of the bullpen upon returning, making two rehab appearances in the Gulf Coast League, three in the Southern League, and four in the Triple-A International League before being called up by the Twins last September. In 10 appearances totaling 9.2 innings, he struck out 10 and walked two.
Graterol will again appear somewhere in the middle of our Top 100 list, which will be published next week. He instantly becomes the Red Sox’s top prospect, though their plans for his role remain to be seen.
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 10 | 8 | 4.25 | 34 | 24 | 135.7 | 122 | 19 | 50 | 156 | 105 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 9 | 7 | 4.29 | 31 | 22 | 121.7 | 110 | 18 | 45 | 140 | 104 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 9 | 7 | 4.37 | 30 | 22 | 119.3 | 109 | 18 | 45 | 137 | 102 | 1.7 |
| 2023 | 8 | 7 | 4.38 | 28 | 20 | 111.0 | 101 | 17 | 42 | 127 | 102 | 1.6 |
As for Maeda, acquiring him at the expense of Graterol is a very win-now move that swaps future upside for a high floor; these aren’t the Terry Ryan Twins of yesteryear. Here’s what I wrote about him in the context of the Dodgers’ rotation on Tuesday:
A reliable No. 4 starter, the going-on-32-year-old Maeda has been somewhat cursed by his versatility and the structure of his contract. Guaranteed just $3 million annually, he’s had trouble maxing out a potential $10.15 million in annual bonuses because he’s ended each of the past three seasons in the bullpen, where he’s been more effective, posting a 3.19 ERA and 3.13 FIP in 42.1 regular season relief innings compared to a 3.92 ERA and 3.76 FIP in 564.2 innings as a starter. He’s been downright dominant in the postseason, posting a 1.64 ERA while allowing just 20 baserunners in 27 innings; his average four-seam fastball under those circumstances has been 1.5 mph faster than his regular season heater as a starter (93.2 mph vs. 91.7). He did make more starts (26), throw more innings (153.2), and post a higher WAR (2.5) last year than in any season since his 2016 stateside rookie campaign, capturing an extra $1.75 million for reaching the 25-start and 150-inning thresholds, but he’s made his dissatisfaction with his swingman role known to management, the response to which boiled down to “pitch better,” particularly against lefties. The possibilities of a restructured contract and a trade have been discussed; he remains a Dodger, but he’s a candidate to be included in a potential Price-related deal.
I probably sold Maeda short by calling him a number four starter. Reliably average or better — he has a 95 ERA- and 89 FIP- for his career — he’s a No. 3 in most rotations but was simply fourth in the Dodgers’ pecking order, at least until October arrived. With the trade, his concerns about the bullpen are probably moot. He’ll join a rotation that the Twins tried hard to augment this winter, but after falling short in their attempts to sign Zack Wheeler and Madison Bumgarner, they wound up going for less impactful moves, adding Hill and Homer Bailey (both ex-Dodgers, though only on paper for the latter) and making their big splash by signing slugger Josh Donaldson. Maeda slots in behind José Berríos, with Bailey and Jake Odorizzi the other certainties for the moment. With Michael Pineda still serving a PED suspension and Hill recovering from elbow surgery, the team has one spot to fill, with contact-oriented rookies Randy Dobnak and Devin Smeltzer the likely candidates.
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 9 | 6 | 3.74 | 23 | 23 | 130.0 | 118 | 19 | 33 | 135 | 111 | 2.2 |
| 2021 | 8 | 6 | 3.90 | 21 | 21 | 115.3 | 108 | 18 | 30 | 117 | 106 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 7 | 6 | 3.97 | 21 | 20 | 113.3 | 108 | 18 | 30 | 113 | 105 | 1.6 |
As for Price, as I noted on Tuesday, he brings more name recognition than certainty to a rotation that has several high-upside options behind Clayton Kershaw and Walker Buehler, all of whom bear question marks due to injuries and/or workload limitations. It’s too harsh to call the 34-year-old former Cy Young winner a poison pill, but ultimately, the Dodgers probably couldn’t have obtained Betts without sacrificing either Lux or Dustin May, their top two prospects and two of the overall top 10 on our 2019 late-season version of THE BOARD. Via our projections, Price isn’t a significant upgrade on Maeda; the real gain is the upgrade that Betts offers, though there’s something to be said for the postseason experience Price brings, particularly after he exorcised some demons in 2018, shedding a reputation for postseason spottiness with six shutout innings in the ALCS clincher against the Astros and one run allowed in 13.2 innings over two starts and one relief appearance, including seven strong innings in the clincher in Los Angeles.
Indeed, Price has gone through quite a series of ups and downs since signing with the Red Sox. In four years, he’s pitched to a 3.94 ERA and 3.74 FIP while averaging 24 starts and 147 innings, but those last two numbers are distorted by his 230.2-inning 2016 season; he’s averaged just 119 frames over the past three years. Likewise, his 2.7 WAR average over those four seasons drops to 2.1 over the past three. In 2019, he pitched to a 4.28 ERA (his highest since 2009) and a 3.62 FIP in 22 starts covering just 107.1 innings — fewer than five per turn. He generally pitched very well through the first half (3.24 ERA, 2.85 FIP) but made just six starts totaling 24 innings in the second half, with a 7.88 ERA and a 6.30 FIP. In May, he missed 17 days due to a bout of tendinitis in his left elbow, but a triangular fibrocartilage complex cyst in his left wrist hampered him throughout the season. He finally underwent surgery to remove it in late September and is presumably good to go for spring training.
As trades go, this rates as the winter’s biggest blockbuster given the headliner. Though Henry is hardly a cash-strapped Harry Frazee, he and the deal may live in infamy throughout New England, and regardless of whether Betts sticks around past 2020, it may be hailed as a stroke of genius for the Dodgers. At the very least, they didn’t give up anything that they couldn’t replace from within, and they’ve now got a stacked lineup featuring two players with a shot at winning MVP while helping them towards that long-elusive championship.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
I see the Red Sox hired Shapiro from my Jays.
Sweet.
My biggest takeaway of this is how many media members are carrying water for the Red Sox on this. The portrayal that this accelerates their rebuild is comical – at best.
The Red Sox could afford to pay Mookie and the tax, and no one can argue the Red Sox are better off today than they were yesterday – Price and Mookie are certainly more valuable from a production standpoint than anything they got in return.
The tax wouldn’t have crippled them – they’ve been one of the most profitable teams in baseball for three decades – and the fans deserve (I don’t use that word much) to expect their team to retain a generational HOF talent. It’s a terrible look for baseball, but more importantly it’s a terrible look for the Red Sox and all the writers trying to spin this positively are ignoring the reality of the decision. The Red Sox got worse today, and given that I think this takes them out of signing Mookie in FA I think they got worse for the future as well. All in the name of saving a couple dollars when they were going to be profitable regardless.
This only improves the red Sox in the long run if you’re sure Betts is going to free agency even if you offered him a FA quality extension.
I don’t think that’s was guaranteed to be the case but it’s definitely true that guys extending a year from free agency is very rare. If you’re sure the extension is off the table this is a reasonable concept (regardless of your opinion on the particulars).
For sure the Red Sox deserve criticism for letting it get to this point.
My understanding is that Betts’ agent told the Red Sox how much it was going to cost to sign him long term (12/420) and the Sox realized that they would never, ever pay that much, so they traded him for something they could actually have in the future, and saved money, and got rid of that awful Price all at the same time.
They weren’t going to be getting past the Yankees anyway, so while it’s not a popular move to make, and I wouldn’t have done it, it’s still not really a stupid one.
The luxury tax for the Red Sox was estimated at $65M (what Moustakas and Castellanos got in FA) for the next 3 seasons before this trade. I don’t know if the “this is bad for baseball” crowd are all billionaires for whom $65M amounts to a “couple dollars” or if you are just really poorly educated in business and economics. You really should take a moment to look up team revenues, payroll, and CBT liabilities before you write stupid things like this.
I get really annoyed when people say things like “everyone can afford this they’ve been profitable for years” when the most profitable teams earn maybe 100 million annually in “profit,” with huge year to year fluctuations. You know what they call propping up a business with money from another venture? A federal crime.
IN THIS CASE, Henry can prop up the Sox with a loan, but that’s assuming his liquidity is something more liquid than jello.
Especially when most American sports franchises also have minority owners, not just one single owner. These aren’t fungible pots of money.
American sports teams are huge pots of money, but they’re not huge pots of liquid money. Most of the profit in them is tied up in the increasing value of the franchise itself, and the rules of the league prohibit teams from borrowing against that value (the debt service rules) in order to keep team values extremely high.
The teams only have a relatively small portion of their value in liquid form; that is the issue. A lot of the profit in owning a team is difficult to realize without selling to another person.
So the Red Sox couldn’t have moved Price and JD Martinez to get below the threshold? They had no other options but for trading their HOF level player in his prime? I’ll go ahead and say that’s 100% not true. The Red Sox didn’t want to pay Mookie what he was worth, so they traded him to get something for him. I truly think it’s that simple and the Red Sox PR team has been releasing BS over the last couple months to soften the blow of their decision. It appears many have bought in, and once again everyone is so concerned with the perceived bottom line of an ownership that has printed money for decades.
The Red Sox paid nearly that much in “tax” to sign Diasuke Matuzaka.
Also, please enlighten us how we should look up all these figures, when the books for all teams remain closed and private… I wonder why? All we have are estimates, and it’s quite obvious to anyone working in the finance world that an organization that doesn’t want to show their books, while claiming a lack of profitability, are likely full of shit. I can say the Red Sox wouldn’t have been begging for a loan if they extended Mookie Betts.
It’s obvious to everyone with cursory experience in leveraged finance after the University of Michigan debacle that if you have private books, showing them is a great way to lose all your money in other places in a short squeeze (they have lots of reasons not to show people where the money is, and what it is)
If you think that is why MLB isn’t opening their books, I have some ocean front property in Iowa to sell you.
Yes, if reality becomes public knowledge than the leverage the ownership uses against players every CBA (we’re barely scraping by after the revenue share with players!) becomes complete BS.
The MLBPA gets to see those books, it’s the public who doesn’t and has to make guesses.
No the MLBPA does not get to see teams books.
If the Sox are valued in the $4 bn range, then you have to believe that profits are at least $300m p.a. dependent on discount rate, the markets view on whether profits are rising or falling etc…
Or the franchise is grossly overvalued which I doubt.
The highest-payroll team in the game who gave Sale 5/$150M, Price 7/$217, JDM 5/$125, Bogaerts $100M+ doesn’t want to pay Betts what he’s worth? He’s already declined their 10/$300M extension and wants to test the FA market. Or is that just bunk from their PR office?
In your world, Fangraphs is stupid for not recognizing that Luis Robert is the greatest prospect of all time, Forbes estimates of team revenues can’t be trusted, Steamer & Zips forecasts are dumb, the CBT is about salary suppression not competitive parity….
Dude, use public data — you can even note it’s flawed (though you’ll be expected to explain how it is) — just to constrain yourself from trafficking in conspiracy theories. This is a site driven by quantitative metrics — actually use some when you make your arguments.
1. I’ve never said Luis Robert is the greatest prospect of all-time; I’ve stated that Fangraphs is significantly lower on him than other outlets, and I found the excuse of Lewis Brinson to be lazy. Way to exaggerate my point.
2. Of course Forbes estimates for revenue and profitability can’t be trusted or taken as facts, because by definition they’re ESTIMATES.
3. I’ve never once said Steamer or ZIPs were dumb; again, putting words into my mouth. I asked, and pointed out statistically with evidence, why Jose Berrios was projected to be worse than he’s been since his rookie year, despite being incredibly consistent 3 years in a row with some growth in the BB department. I know you prefer to just accept every single projection as a fact and thought through analysis, when in fact it’s mean to paint a picture with a broad brush which leaves room for poor evaluation for certain players.
What do you want me to quantify exactly when talking about a top 3 franchise selling off an elite asset in the name of fiscal responsibility? You’ve exaggerated and ridiculed three points I made, with absolutely no substance to support your claims. I never said any of the nonsense you claimed, and I don’t think it’s wise to ever move on from a 7 WAR player because replacing them is nearly impossible, and in no way does this make the Red Sox better today or over the next 5 years.
https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2019/12/20/fenway-sports-group-ranks-3rd-among-richest-sports-conglomerates
There’s something quantifiable for you; I’m sure they’ve obtained that wealth by skirting by on micro-margins though with minimal profits year over year. That’s typically what drives the worth of a business up significantly.
If we’re discounting things because they’re estimates, we have to throw WAR out too, or any likelihood derived metric. Any projection as well. Those are all estimates.
You don’t like Forbes Data because you think it’s BIASED. The difference between biased and estimate is really important. I think Forbes is wrong, but I’m willing to bet, here, the error isn’t correlated with anything we care about. That makes it a reasonable starting point to talk about whether a hit to revenue is significant or not. You’re basically saying that the 600 mill or whatever in cashflow is so far off that a firm can shrug off a 100 million dollar hit. In essence, that the estimate is off by an order of magnitude, and systematically so (the bigger the market, the bigger the bias?). Another way to put it is that the error bars are so far off the cashflow is entire multiples of what’s being reported. (If that were the case, you’d probably see a lot more interest in team ownership from pension funds, btw).
I haven’t seen any evidence of that, from you, or from anyone, that this bias exists.
1. There is no 100 million dollar hit by retaining Betts.
2. The Red Sox could have moved OTHER assets to get under the number and then re-signed Betts.
3. Teams have been called out for creative accounting pertaining to local TV deals multiple times.
4. Teams accept public funds to subsidize their entity, and that alone means public interest should matter, and investing in providing the public with the best product they can should be something all fans expect. If teams want to go entirely private, and turn down public funds, then by all means go right ahead. If they don’t want to do that, then expect to be held to a standard that isn’t driven solely by bottom line profitability on a year to year basis.
1, evidence please. Seemed the hit was from 65-100 mill for violating the luxury tax this year as a repeat offender.
2. Counterfactual that has no basis in evidence, Sale’s arm is falling off for fuck’s sake. Eovaldi is a huge mistake. The Red Sox played stupid games with contracts, their stupid prize is having to get rid of a top player. Nobody wants the other guys- revealed by this trade. There aren’t even rumors about deals for their other albatross contracts.
3. the Red Sox have done this? Again, falsifiable statement without evidence.
4. Decent premise, but it seems like people are going to have differing definitions of “best possible product.” I think I am hugely jealous of what FSG has provided red sox fans given the half century of what came before. I’m not sure that FSG even got public funds though- Fenway is famously very old and shitty.
The estimate of 65 million was over 3 years, not next year.
You think the Red Sox couldn’t move Chris Sale after the contracts pitchers signed this off-season? Come on.
Are you trying to say that absolutely no financial discipline is allowed to be used in the formation of a roster? The Red Sox made very serious offers in excess of $300 and Mookie made it clear that he wanted to test free-agency. Beyond that what more can the Red Sox do? Go ahead and spend $400 million on one player with complete disregard for rest of the roster or are you saying that the total cost of the roster should have no limit either?
“While most of you are yelling Go Red Sox or Go Dodgers, I’m yelling Go Billionaire Owners”
– Me, a highly educated fan in business and economics.
We’re discussing a trade in which contractual terms matter, not what you’re yelling at after having 6 beers. If you’re highly educated, write comments in ways that demonstrate it.
For me, if I were to put it in less incendiary terms, I would say that:
1. I find discussions about the “value” of a sports franchise to be irrelevant. As I learned *painfully* with my baseball cards when I was younger, value only matters if you’re willing to sell and someone else is willing to buy. Right now, with sports franchises, there is a small pool of the latter (potential buyers) but a shortage of the former (willing sellers). That creates a scare asset (franchises) which drives up the reported price. But the reported price only matters if someone is willing to sell… and most sports owners are not.
I think of it, quite literally, in terms of my home. I live in a wonderful neighborhood of families. Two neighbors have sold their homes and have done very well, which raises the comp value for all of us. But I love our location, our neighborhood, our schools, etc. I can’t imagine selling at any price. And even if I did, I would buy somewhere else, and prices everywhere are elevated right now. The “value” of my home doesn’t really matter to me because I’m not looking to sell it.
2. I find discussions about cash flow to be much more important, and we of course don’t have the data. Want to know the one thing that could lead me to sell my home? If the local property tax bill went through the roof, because I could move a couple of miles to a different municipality and save the cash flow. I have worked with numerous business owners in my professional career, and I can’t think of one outside of the technology industry that cared purely about terminal value as opposed to cash flow if the intent were to hold and operate the business for the course of a lifetime (though the kids, especially those intent on ultimately selling, might feel differently!).
3. Discussing whether or not someone is a good or effective business owner is completely different than suggesting that they shouldn’t operate their sports franchise as a business.
These thoughts certainly run headlong into opposition from sports fans who desire championships and prestige at any cost because “the billionaires can afford it.” I get it. I’m a Mets fan. I know all too well the feeling that comes with watching the franchise you love be run in ways that you find to be poor.
Here’s how I look at this…the Red Sox were willing and able to operate their team with payroll and tax commitments significantly higher than what their salary will run for 2020. Do we really believe they were operating at a loss in 2017 and 2018? I don’t. If that’s the case, and their income in ’20 can be expected to be similar if not higher than ’17 and ’18, then getting under the luxury tax only results in higher profits for the 2020 season.
You can look at the Dodgers the same way, they were spending close to $300 million a year in payroll a few years ago…do we really believe that they were operating at a loss or close to a loss at that point? I don’t. Their revenues aren’t going down, so what are we supposed to think about their profits when they went from making money spending $300 million a year on payroll to $200 million?
The problem with baseball ownership in the modern era is that teams are now seen as investments for multiple “stakeholders” (God I hate buzzwords). This isn’t a single owner, it’s a company with 50 minority “partners” (another one) who are all concerned exclusively with their ROI. These decisions are being made with a committee in mind, which is why you see such a single minded focus on improving profits after a few years of lesser profits. Show an increased ROI to potential future investors.
“Show an increased ROI to potential future investors.”
This is how business works. People will readily agree that baseball is a business, and yet they are horrified when smart baseball teams do the things that good businesses do.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t run their teams like “good businesses” but the difference between regular businesses and baseball teams is that people are emotionally invested in baseball outcomes. No one really cares what happens in the toaster business.
In that sense, trading away your most popular player and making your team significantly worse in the process is alienating your customers. Because your customers are emotionally involved in the outcome and don’t realize any cost savings from your prioritizing ROI for a group of faceless minority investors who don’t matter to Joe Smith from Revere. Or from Burbank. In fact, not only does Joe Smith not realize any cost savings, he sees the cost of his attending a game continue to go up, while seeing the product he’s paying for get worse.
This is the balance every baseball team has to face, and I get that, but I think as a Red Sox/Dodgers/Yankees big market team fan, you can rightfully be upset that your team is prioritizing ROI over competing to the best of their ability. If Breville starts making crappier toasters for 5 years while charging 5-10% more for them every year, eventually people will stop buying them. Even if Breville promises that this is a temporary reset and that their toasters will be amazing in year 6. There’s no guarantee the toaster is better in year 6, there’s no guarantee the added “flexibility and sustainability” of payroll actually makes the team better down the road. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
But I think that looking at baseball teams as only businesses like every other business isn’t accurate.
A lot of downvotes but fair comment
I just don’t see why you’d get rid of Betts when a majority of people believe he’s a sure-fire stud unless you don’t see a path to competing for a very long time. Boston isn’t a team that disappears for long periods of time….I expect them to be back in the hunt sooner rather than later, so why move on from him? He’s not 30.
He’s a former MVP. “A majority of people believe he’s a sure-fire stud”? Can you clarify what point you were trying to make there?
They are not better off in 2020…
But they should be considerably better off in 2021 and beyond.
Sox still have a good lineup with Devers, Boegarts, JDM, and Benintendi. Sale is still an elite starter. They probably won’t set records, but they should still be fun to watch.
And we can hope to sign Mookie next winter.
Besides – life is too short to get stressed out over a trade. The Sox made a reasonable decision. It might not be perfect. But everything will be fine.
I think that given that they are trading Mookie Betts, they did pretty well. But I strongly agree with it not accelerating the rebuild. The party is Boston is over now. They’ve basically ceded the division to the Yankees next year, and yeah, they should be in the wild card hunt for a few years, but with that farm system they’re not going to get back to where they were set up for next season for another 5-10 years–*if they’re lucky*. It’s all downhill from there unless they try to sign back a megastar in free agency.
Realistically, this team had every reason to take one last swing at it and then deal with fiscal responsibility and avoiding the tax later. I’m pretty annoyed they didn’t take that path.
Just in terms of straight payroll they do quite a bit better if they duck under the tax this year and jump back over it in 2021 than the other way around. There’s some opportunity cost in that they had Betts for 2020 if they wanted him, and there’s some question of what will be available to them next year, but I’m not sure that’s actually a really large effect.
Maybe more important is the chance that the kind of crazy ducking under to reset method goes away in the 2022 CBA. It would kind of suck to duck under in 2021 and then get no benefit from it.
Am I happy to see the most exciting Red Sox player I have ever watched since my first visit to Fenway in 1948 leave, of course not. I am horribly disappointed that the Red Sox and Mookie couldn’t find a deal that fit both sides but it is what it is. All subsequent statements are made with the virtual certainty that Mookie was not going to resign with the Red Sox. No rational Red Sox fan could say that the team isn’t quite a bit worse today than it was before the deal and that will probably be the case in 2020, but the 2021 season is different story altogether. The 2021 Red Sox would look very mediocre without Betts and there is more than a decent expectation that Verdugo and Graterol will be providing quite a bit of value to the 2021 team and beyond. Value equal to Betts, probably not, but Betts WAS NOT GOING TO BE PLAYING IN BOSTON!!! Even as dedicated a Red Sox fan as me could not see them finishing ahead of the Yankees in 2020 so while this season may be less exciting than it could have been the future offers more hope, and I haven’t mentioned that getting rid of Price softens the blow a great deal and a very large percentage of Red Sox Nation heartily agrees.
I am a bit bummed that the Sox lost a solid enough pitcher in Price, but I will be glad to be rid of some of his quotes and commentary. On a side note, I’m envious you got to see the Sox in the late 40s and through the 50s!
I recall fondly those days even though the team was not very good after 1952, but there was always Ted. My college years were the pits for Red Sox fans. Every weekend quite a few fans would make the trek to Fenway and join a few other masochists watching Eddie Bressoud and Felix Mantilla imitate major league players, but great seats were always available, and very inexpensive. LOL. Then came 1967 and, while there have been many, well at least a few, disappointments the consistent competitiveness has been just what a true fan wants. Then came 2004!!!
Lol Damaso returns to this site and gets zero attention from both the upvoters and the downvoters.
Opposite of a Sox fan, but…this is so fucking bad for baseball.
I know it’s not pretty, but when a small-market team that’s not projected to make the playoffs gets the opportunity to flip a talented but unpopular player to get out of the red and kick-start their rebuild, they’re gonna do it. Baseball is a business, and the repeater tax is painful for an owner who doesn’t have many assets aside from his baseball team.
This had better be sarcasm.
The downvotes on this are preposterous. This was magnificently well-executed deadpan sarcasm.
Sorry, I don’t have a degree in snark.
Well, the fact that literally every single line of it contains an amusing counterfactual (small-market team, no playoff chances, unpopular player, etc.) might have been a tip-off.
My favorite part was actually at the end, where he avers that John Henry doesn’t have any other assets outside the Sox. The dude owns Liverpool FC!
And one very lightly used Dan Shaughnessy! He could always put Dan on Bring a Trailer and recoup…. dozens of dollars.
it got me for a second, i had to re-read it partially …
When I got here this morning the above comment was -10, now it’s +30. Good.
My work here is done.
Just showing the west coast is the best coast.
Well the west coast has the best team without a doubt now. If the Dodgers don’t win it all in 2020, when will they? I understand winning the WS isn’t easy, but they’re way overdue now.
The Yankees also very good, lost almost nothing and added a player as good as Betts. The Dodgers the clear class of the NL and one of the top teams in MLB but they do not tower over the Yankees and a series between the two would be a push
Fair enough, I won’t disagree with that
East coast, least coast.
As apparently one of only a small group of defenders of the Red Sox on this blog, it is easy to fall back on the old cliche that they “Were caught between a rock and a Hard Place”, so I will. Are the Red Sox going to be worse in 2020 doesn’t warrant comment. Of course they will not be as good as they would have been with Mookie on the team. Price I am not so sure about. But from 2021 and for a few years after they have the opportunity to be strong again. Verdugo and Graterol offer considerable promise to be solid contributors and the new found financial flexibility will give Chaim Bloom a chance to show that his brilliant work in Tampa was real. Assuming that Mookie was NOT GOING TO PLAY IN BOSTON IN 2021 then the outlook for 2021-2025 is much better with the trade being done. I accept that trade off and I am 78 years old.
Bosoxforlife nailed it.
I absolutely bask in your glory.
I really don’t understand baseball fans sometimes.
Before the CBT, everyone complained about big-market teams buying their way to championships so that smaller-market teams couldn’t compete. Now, with the CBT actually imposing a restraint on big-market teams, everyone complains about every move made (or not) made as a result of the CBT as reflecting nothing more than greedy owners’ desire to line their pockets instead of accumulate wins.
And before the CBT, everyone complained about players being paid too much to “play a game” while real contributors to society like teachers and firefighters made next to nothing in comparison. Now, with the CBT actually holding down player salaries (poor Mookie was offered “only” 300MM, not the 420MM he so richly deserved), everyone complains about owners not wanting to pay players what they’re worth.
The key for us baseball fans I think is to realize that essentially everyone in the game has more money than we will ever make. The players and the owners are both exceedingly rich, but frankly, as a baseball fan, I don’t care. I don’t care who is more deserving or who is more overpaid or underpaid. Instead, all I care about is following a game I love. And for that reason, this trade is exciting. It isn’t “bad for baseball”; it’s a breathtaking end to the off-season and a dramatic stage-setter for what figures to be a highly competitive year. I’m not a fan of the Dodgers or the Red Sox, but I can’t wait to see how this trade works out for both teams. Bring on the season, and bring on more transactions like this one–regardless of whether they’re motivated by the CBT.
“Everyone” did not consider it a problem that big-market teams could buy their way to championships. “Everyone” did not complain that players were getting paid too much, and frankly I resent being grouped in with any fan who’s ever said that. It’s not true that “essentially everyone in the game has more money than we will ever make”; The owners are in a stratosphere above the nine-figure contract megastars, who themselves are several levels above the hundreds of pre-arb guys who are making $600k a year— great money, yes, but to group them with owners is self-evidently absurd. I’m gonna assume that MiLB’s outside the scope of your comment.
I too am excited to see how this trade impacts the coming season. I’ve been honest about my emotional distaste for this trade; it follows a logic that’s at odds with the reasons I started caring about baseball as a kid and continue to care about it today. There’s plenty of smart arguments to be made for or against this trade but it sounds like you just like the idea of big names moving, if I’m reading that last sentence right. Which is fine— there’s plenty of ways to be a fan, you don’t need to tear down down strawmen to make your way sound like the only reasonable one.
It’s almost like he’s using “everyone” as a rhetorical device rather than a literal statement about what the entire world believed.
Or, he’s attempting to argue from authority, when none such exists. Might want to dust off that intro to logic textbook.
Maybe I don’t bask so much.
I don’t understand mindset of people who expect someone that has hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars of their own money invested in a business (not the “value” at sale but the actual investment made) to run that business like a nonprofit or a public utility. It’s a business. I don’t expect owners to act otherwise and so I’m not disappointed by their actions. It makes life as a fan of sport much, much easier to accept the legal and straightforward motivations of others.
I’m a Mets fan. Do I wish we had different owners for a whole host of reasons? Absolutely. Do I wish, as a fan, that the Mets had been in on this discussion and paid the dang CBT? Of course. Do I expect them to act like anything other than the owners of a business? Nope.
Yep. This is why I find myself, more and more, using my spare time in ways that aren’t so distastefully corporate.
I only go to baseball games now where I can buy peanuts and argue with my fellow fans about how well or poorly the owners are owning. We need much more business school talk in the stands.
go rockies! No seriously, half the heckling is telling Ian Desmond how shitty he is.
The team is so poorly run you can’t even get the seats behind the dugout because the owners don’t put them on the market, for some reason.
Extremely well said, and I can’t imagine reasoning with this move any other way. It frustrates me that journalists and fans are allowed to publicly slander a group of individuals who’s objectives are long-term. I’m a Red Sox fan, and yes, this sucks. But, it had to be done.
“I don’t understand mindset of people who expect someone that has hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars of their own money invested in a business (not the “value” at sale but the actual investment made) to run that business like a nonprofit or a public utility.”
Well, they take hundreds of millions of dollars in public money. That probably has something to do with it.
I mean sure, I can understand why rich owner guy wants even more money.
But I can also understand why John Q. Public would be a little miffed upon seeing a guy who took millions in public subsidies for his private business stuffing millions in his own pocket.
[shrugs shoulders]
You make a true and fair point… but in many cities, it’s not just sports owners that receive public money. Offering tax credits to businesses to incent them to relocate, stay or expand is a very prevalent practice across states and industries. Where I live, within a couple of miles of a state border, it is absurd to watch the folly of businesses moving five or ten miles down the road just to reap the public benefits from the higher bidder… but it happens all the time.
One can argue the effectiveness of these programs, but I don’t personally think it’s fair to criticize the profit-seeking motive of a franchise owner as somehow separate from the profit-seeking motive of an owner of a business in a different industry.
For the record, I’m not in favor of public money for sports franchises or other businesses… I wish the practice were done away with entirely…
Yet, ownership never treats this like a normal business; if they did, we wouldn’t see incredible FO and coaching turnover year after year. Stability is the driving force towards success in the business world, and having one of the 10 best in the world (whether in a FO or coaching staff) would be a plus and not a negative. Teams wouldn’t constantly be turning over staff in the hopes of finding a top 3 instead of a top 5 in their profession.
One of the five best people in the world at what they do, how dare he hold out for his right to choose where he works, for how much, and with whom!
I don’t think anyone is complaining that Betts shouldn’t have chosen to test the market.
Who are you mocking? Nobody here is saying anything like that.
“Everyone” isn’t everyone. I’d guess that most of those complaining about the trade are unhappy Red Sox fans who don’t give a fig about smaller market teams. And most of the rest are people jealous of the Dodgers.
But yeah, this is more or less what the CBT is supposed to do…prevent big market teams from endlessly spending.
The CBT is not about helping out the smaller teams. It’s about allowing billionaires to get away with being cheapskates.
This is an asinine comment that internet writers such as [redacted] love to make. And dumb fans probably make the opposite argument. The CBT clearly accomplishes increasing competitive balance while also putting downward pressure on salary that increases profits for owners. Pretending it only does one thing or the other is just disingenuous.
I suspect most of the complaints here–mine included–are either from:
A) Red Sox fans (/me raises hand) who are fronting because they’re in denial that this actually happened (also me)
or
B) Fans from the rest of the league who hate that Betts isn’t now on their team or are pissed that a large-market team got him.
I’m a Yankees fan who knew he wasn’t coming here.
I just think a top-market team using its best position player since Boggs, if not Yaz, to dump another player’s salary is both terrible optics, and bad for the sport.
People like to complain, maybe even more than they like to be right. But I think it’s different people complaining now than it was before
People like to complain, and they never think about the flip side of an arrangement.
And I agree. I love this trade. It’s exciting, it’s interesting, and it’s a fun shakeup. Big name players moving around always makes for good drama.
No I hear you, I don’t see this trade as a bad thing….a trade is a trade. The problem I have is a major market team made what looks like an unnecessary decision in order to stay under a threshold that punishes teams for trying to win. I’m under the assumption all 30 owners are really stinkin’ rich…I don’t have an issue with teams like the Dodgers spending more than others in an attempt to gain an edge. The rest of the league can either try to follow suit or go the Rays route and just outsmart the average team.
Just my opinion, but I think it’s dumb penalizing for overspending, if you can’t compete, then don’t own a baseball team.
By the way, no I’m not a fan of one of those teams….Tigers. We used to spend big bucks, but as we all saw, $ isn’t everything…you can still make dumb decisions and ruin an opportunity. Detroit is paying for their past owner’s mistakes, but I still appreciate they at least tried, and didn’t go cheap on us like the 90s. I’m fine with the Yankees and Dodgers of the world, I can be jealous of their spending ways, but I respect it too.
The thing is it’s different fans. One group hates buying championships and the other hates teams not going out to win at all costs.
They’re different views and you hear from the group who is currently unhappy. Baseball fans don’t share a mind.
That’s true, we all come from different angles. As I’ve thought about your response, I could see where if only a handful of teams spent a ton of money, how that would be terrible for the league. The other major sports have a cap, and I’m sure a lot of that is to maintain parity and competitiveness in the league. Any commish with a brain would rather have a league 100% healthy where all fanbases have an interest for as long as possible. So maybe I’m wrong with my angle.
The luxury tax is the residue of the recent past when the Yankees routinely had payrolls that were 3x or more the league average.
The thing is that salary caps don’t really increase parity. The NBA isn’t a league filled with parity; all the cap does is encourage players to congregate in locations for reasons besides salary – which tend to be prestige, competitiveness, or off-the-court money (endorsement value), meaning they still gravitate towards big markets and winning franchises, and the small markets still can’t keep their stars.
The NFL has the illusion of parity, because they play so few games each season that the influence of randomness is exceptionally high. And they act like it is because of their salary cap, but it really as more to do with the standard deviation of wins at any given talent level being 2 or 3 in a given season: the difference between a 10-6 playoff team and a 6-10 embarrassment can be nothing but luck of the bounce in just 2 games.
There’s no such thing as a sport where everyone is competitive all the time; that’s a fantasy.
Good deal for all involved.
Sure feels like the dodgers could be the winningest team in history this season after today.
Concerns over Verdugo’s make up shouldn’t concern the Sox.
They have experience letting Manny be Manny, so they’ll know when to let Alex be Alex. 😉
Seriously: It’s not full value but they improved their finances and Verdugo is a lot better than a draft pick.
So one of the things about the Red Sox that looms over every discussion is that Fenway Park is an incredibly weird place to play. You basically need a second center fielder in right field, left field is incredibly difficult to play due to the dimensions and the green monster, and for hitters, you get some homer suppression but an increase in doubles. I have also heard stories about how the infield is harder to play for some reason but I can’t find any real analysis to back it up.
So Fenway is weird. Verdugo is also weird. He pulls the ball at about an average level and hits the ball hard enough but also hits the ball on the ground a lot. He’s a guy with right field speed and center field instincts. How is all of this going to play in Fenway? Without granular batted ball data, which I would love to see, I don’t think we know. But the range of outcomes for Verdugo seems enormous simply because he’s such a weird hitter and with an interesting mix of fielding skills moving to such a weird park.
Agreed, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Unfortunately for Verdugo this year, he gets tagged as ‘the guy who replaced Mookie Betts’. I’m hoping he puts up respectable numbers and defense to give him a chance for the years to come.
The Green Monster affects different hitters different ways.
He might start lofting the ball like crazy or he m ight pepper the wall with loud singles.
Whatever he turns out to be he’ll be watchable for at least a couple months.
Yeah, but Manny was Manny before he got to Boston and he was great. Whatever he was doing ( *cough*) was working for him. Verdugo is not great and there is reason to believe that Alex being Alex has some bearing on this. His work ethic, or lack thereof, probably needs to change for him to reach his full potential.
What does a 23 year old need to do? If you prorate 2019 over a full season he puts up 5 WAR via bref, or 3.5 via fangraphs. That is a borderline star. There is more than one way to be great.
Makeup to me is a thing that is quite weird. From the article they spoke about how he only cared at the plate, yet he put up positive numbers in the field and on the bases. Sometimes I feel people just look lazy, even when they aren’t. This isn’t a Manny Machado thing where he was trying to hurt people for no reason…that to me would be a full-stop. But this seems like a non-issue.
So guys play like their hair is on fire because they’re short on talent while others look like detached cruisers because they find it easy and aren’t really tested until MLB crunch time.
The only way to know for sure is to, ahem, let it play out.
Wow. They actually did it. The Sox traded Mookie. It feels like a bad dream. This one will take some time to digest and fully comprehend.
I can’t help but feel that baseball is broken.
It feels like such an underwhelming return for such a rare, generational talent who is one of the greatest to don a Sox jersey.
I can’t fathom how the Dodgers did not have to part with ANY prospects, not Jeter Downs or anyone to sweeten the risk vs. upside associated with Verdugo (questionable makeup, & weird swing leading to back injury, but still seemingly legit bat with big potential). And the Sox are picking up half of Price’s salary, despite this deal being CBT-driven? Either Andrew Friedman’s a genius or Chaim Bloom’s wicked dumb. Or, more likely, the Dodgers had incredible leverage with only one other dance partner willing to give up something to take on Betts $27 mil and 1 season of 2020 greatness. Chaim Bloom was in an impossible position from the get-go, and perhaps it is remarkable that he was able to get Verdugo. Maybe Verdugo will start to hustle, win over fans, and someday hit .330 with 25 HR. But even if that happens, the Sox will be set back years—it’s almost incalculable what they’ve lost in this deal–Mookie is not just a once-in-50-years kinda player, he is a great human being who literally goes out of his way to feed the homeless and is genuine and engaging with fans. I’ve had the opportunity to meet him once and he couldn’t have been nicer.
And all of the above is why baseball is broken.
This should never have happened. But it did. All to get under the stupid-ass luxury tax. I don’t envy Chaim Bloom’s situation– seems like he did what he could for a team facing a 3rd consecutive luxury tax penalty who was going to lose Betts as a free agent and had no leverage. I get all of that. But I’m probably gonna hate Chaim for awhile.
But baseball is broke–that a player like Mookie needed to be traded by a team as wealthy as the Red Sox, and that hardly any teams wanted him and that it takes approaching half a billion to keep him—that those things exist is a strong indicator something is terribly wrong with how the game is structured w/respect to CBT and also the feasibility of megadeals.
This may be one of my stupider posts, and I apologize if you’ve read this far but holy crap I am just plain mad about this deal. 🙁
ARBITRAGE!
If there is a villain here is the luxury tax rules. If the luxury tax did not exist, this trade would not have happened.
But before you condemn the luxury (and there is much to dislike about it), remember that it is a good idea to put some sort of curbs on teams with massive cash from buying all the best talent. Something to give the smaller market teams a chance. Any system you pick to do it will have unintended negative consequences. This trade is that example for the luxury tax.
Except these players went to the Dodgers. And I doubt this is really about the luxury tax for the Red Sox. The luxury tax is chump change to them. They just didn’t want to pay Betts.
I mean, I can see trading Betts to restock the farm and/or get good, high-upside young MLBers. Which is basically what they did. Just not enough. Maybe no one would have been willing to trade more. But I doubt it. If the Sox had tossed in a pile of money or not included Price, they could have had more.
I saw the hit was 100 million dollars. 1/6 of (officialish) cash flow. 100 million here, 100 million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money. This isn’t about Betts, this is about bad decisions involving Eovaldi, Sale, and Price that resulted in Boston having only shitty options. It’s a pity that Betts went to another major market team, but this is what the luxury tax is for- force big teams who play stupid games to actually win stupid prizes.
All kidding aside, any executive who took a 100 million dollar hit they could easily avoid in any business would be fired and would need a new identity if they ever wanted to work again. Just sitting there wasn’t going to happen when the decision could essentially “make itself.”
Baseball teams aren’t businesses, though.
They’re vanity projects for billionaires.
What this comes down to is Henry having spent a ton of money on Liverpool the last couple years, and needing to make up the margins here.
i much prefer my team be run like a business, quite frankly, than as a vanity project. Running things like a business, more accurately a publicly traded company, treats you as accountable to shareholders and the bottom line, which also makes you accountable to a process oriented, data driven decision framework, rather than the whims of a Marge Schott or a Wilpon. (lots of badly run privately traded firms, which is why private equity exists. Lot harder to do it in a world with shareholder calls)
Henry comes out ahead on Liverpool- given the way acquiring players works in soccer (you essentially buy them from other clubs), they’ve actually made more money off of player sales than they’ve spent on incoming transfers (net spend trophy for the past 5 years). Plus, with the TV deals for the Premier League and the way the Champions League works, they’ve made back whatever they spent on the team (who NEARLY went into administration). They don’t spend outside money on the club, simply put.
What soccer is telling us, as a whole, more than anything, is that tv rights contraction is here- Spain couldn’t find a buyer, the Bundesliga had to take a cut as well. Only a matter of time before that hits RSNs.
I agree with both sides here. It is hard to shame someone for running a team worth billions like a business, but, at the same time, in the past teams have been like Lester says, vanity projects. Ownership groups these days seem to be moving away from that with all the Ivy league presence in the front office, but still.
If we were to classify teams as “run like a publicly traded company” on a spectrum, I think you have the Braves at one end (because they are owned and run by a company with shareholders) and the Mets on the other (which are run like a family owned corporate real estate group from New York who can’t get financing anymore after FCPA got passed). As a Braves fan, they do a lot of shitty things for money based reasons, but the results are mostly good. The Mets do a crazy amount of nonsensical things for no freaking reason, have no idea where they are year to year, continually have to shed money because they “oops didn’t do the math right,” and look like a team run out of a town with a population of 20k people where the factory just closed instead of the largest media market IN THE WORLD. Give me “run like a publicly traded company” over “family business” 6 days of the week and twice on sundays.
If we’re talking about how we want ownership to be, I’d say I’d like them to be run like the version of the Red Sox or Brewers prior to this offseason. Also the Yankees or Giants. Winning clearly matters (or mattered, we’ll see about them going forward) to these ownership groups, and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. And relatively little ownership interference with the baseball side of things.
My ideal ownership structure is German football- supporters own half the team, everyone knows what is going where, and “profits” such as they are are reinvested into the team.
Well, obviously that would be great. But it’s so literally and figuratively foreign to major US sports I don’t see it.
while we’re at it, relegate the marlins, promote the Durham Bulls but with Wander Franco
Illitch was probably the last of the old breed.
Liverpool have recorded annual profits of $150M+ consecutively but aside from that, sure.
Is that an argument for commingling funds? Do you have any idea how much trouble you would get in with HMRC for doing that? And if they decided it was legal, which is…. unlikely, FFP would come into play as well. THEN you would get tax issues for repatriating that money IF IT WAS EVEN LIQUID (it isn’t, btw, because transfer payments are in installments but get booked when they happen for FFP reasons), which oh by the way you’d have HMRC poking around that too.
I’ll give the English system credit- you have to report everything even if you’re “closely held.” But even then these things are extremely complicated, and if you make a wrong move, you’re stuck living on a yacht (without a razor, apparently) and slipping in only occasionally to see your team play
The smaller market teams all have enormous wealth to bandy around. This “some teams are quite poor” narrative is straight from the PR departments of billionaires.
The luxury tax exist so owners can legally collude by providing an artificial ceiling on spending and have a good excuse to tell their fans on why they can’t spend. It’s much more a money saving marketing tool in the similar vein as draft slotting and international money pool, all the reduce upper limit spending that has “plagued” MLB owners in the past.
Make no mistake. Owners LOVE the luxury tax even as they’re trading away Mookie Betts because they still make lodes of money but don’t have to spend nearly as much at the same time.
The luxury tax exists so that the New York Yankees don’t outspend every other team by a factor of three and win the World Series every year. What you are describing is just unintended consequences of that.
Great, comprehensive write up that eases up on the bombast that’s all over sports radio here in Boston. Betts was getting traded soon, something they’ve been saying multiple times every hour over the past couple of days, and the return wasn’t going to be great. Well, the return was minimal, sure, but I have hopes that Verdugo and Graterol will be productive in Boston given the circumstances.
If Betts helps win the World Series for the Dodgers this year then the deal will be perceived even more as a win. If they don’t win the World Series and Betts moves on … wouldn’t that make the Red Sox the winners if Verdugo/Graterol succeed? We shall see.
The point is that they didn’t have to trade Betts. My guess is he’d probably have accepted $40M per.
The key word is ‘probably’, and given the team’s many other needs, the Sox seem to have chosen the lesser evil (prospects/finances versus one year of strong contention and a draft pick) in their eyes. The fans, though, most likely think they chose wrong.
If it wasn’t a financial decision they would have waited to see how the team looks before making a decision to move him. If it wasn’t a financial decision Price wouldn’t be involved to lessen the return. Can’t wait to see what they do with the $15M a year they’ll save in 2021 and 2022 on Price, probably sign a starting pitcher worse than David Price
Reportedly his agent asked for 12/420.
i dont think the dodgers success really impacts how well boston does in this trade. financially they werent interested in 1) paying mookie long term 2) hitting significant luxury tax thresholds. From their perspective, verdugo and the money saved is all that matters
Four teams involved, big contracts moved, yet all ended up with useful players and below the tax cap.
Some smart GMs.
Both RosterResource here at Fangraphs and Spotrac have the Dodgers incurring a small CBT bill ($3 million and $2.5, respectively), but yeah, not bad for acquiring Betts.
That bill is small enough it can be gone overnight.
It might make sense to go under if they intend to try and re-sign Betts.
Pickibg up Rentifo probable means somebody esle is moving.
Maybe, but those figures represent only 20% of the amount they would need to cut to get under the CBT, so it’s not trivial.
There seems to be some question here where they stand.
I’ve seen numbers from 212 to 220, with and without Stripling’s salary.
We’ll see how it settles down by opening day.
Looks like the new Red Sox front office knows how to tighten their belts. Hopefully they can help Graterol to do a better job with his belt than their last high-BMI offseason pickup.
Six foot one 265 pounds is uh, hard to do as a young professional athlete. That’s like forced eating in college football.
Remarkably, he was a 170 lb. 17-yr old phenom in 2014 and gained nearly 100 lbs. over his past 4 years of development. :-0
his arteries must look like they’re filled with crisco
It is remarkable, and when you look at him he doesn’t really look fat. Obviously he is, but that is a lot of weight. Can’t recall what year it was, but Trout weighed around that (heard as high as 270) on his fat year. 2013 maybe it was? Didn’t stop him. Course no one else is Mike Trout.
He weighs just 3 pounds less than Mr. Panda Express.
The biggest winner of the deal
Arenado vs. Maeda: 4 for 30 with 3 BB, 15 K (.133/.206/.133)
Watch the White Sox make a deal for him now lol.
Also, just as a note… it does make me uncomfortable to suggest comments on the all-elusive concept of “make-up” because oftentimes it is speculative, and quite frankly unfair. I wouldn’t want anyone to judge my moral character based on how I may have acted in one incident, or on a certain day. But questions about Verdugo’s makeup go back to the 2014 draft. In one publicized incident, Verdugo took himself out of a game as a pitcher but did not respond well when his high school coach would not let him remain in the game in the outfield. Some sources reported at the time that this was the apex of a long-running confrontation over his usage on the mound before the draft. [Which is part of what makes it so un-fun to consider as a fan, because there’s no indication I can find that Verdugo did anything other than work with his “inner circle” to try to preserve his arm and control his usage pre-draft.]
Verdugo’s father reportedly accosted the coach after the game, shouting obscenities in front of many people and, reportedly, shoving the coach in the chest. It always felt unfortunate to me that THIS incident, involving Alex’s father rather than Alex himself – was the one that was oft-cited when discussing his “makeup.” Certainly, that speaks more to an incident with a parent than Verdugo himself, but Keith Law reported other comments on Alex’s makeup:
“Law said that there were two areas of concern with outfielder Alex Verdugo whom the Dodgers drafted in the second round. The first was determining his position and the second was Verdugo’s makeup… Law thinks Verdugo could have been drafted higher if not for some makeup concerns. Law didn’t think any team had Verdugo in their first 30 or 40 picks and makeup was the big reason…. ‘There were a lot of area scouts that questioned [Verdugo’s] motivation, he seem disinterested, did not want to play.'”
https://www.truebluela.com/2014/7/16/5876471/dodgers-espn-keith-law-2014-draft
Again, reasonable people could also ask whether it’s fair to report one side of a story; even at the time, Verdugo’s side wasn’t published as far as I could find. I only remember this incident because of a dynasty draft in fantasy baseball, where I dropped Verdugo down my draft board based on what was being reported (which clearly says much more about me than it does about Alex Verdugo ). So, on one hand, I feel a bit uncomfortable posting this – but it’s also information that has been out in the public since the summer of 2014. Questions about his makeup, whether or not substantiated, have been asked since before his MLB draft.
“For the Dodgers it was a value play, [Verdugo] has first round ability but not first round makeup,” Law said. “You can only take one or two guys like that and you just hope they grow up – at 18 you’re an idiot and at 22, you are totally different person.”
[Edit: I was an idiot at 18, and 22, and to some extent still at 44. Glass houses abound, for sure.]
This was probably one of the most refreshing comments I have ever read. Thanks.
I had a complete idiot for a high school baseball coach who ruined more than a couple kids. College coach, he didn’t give a shit- he’d throw you out there 4 days in a row if he thought you would help get a meaningless win at Elon in a midweek game in a lost season. For the most part, growing up, most coaches were dumber than absolute dirt (college coach was smart, just a bad person who hung on too long).
There are a lot of downsides to travel teams, private coaching, and all that, but nowadays I like to think that bad coaches who ruin kids have gone away. I’d REALLY like to think “terrible coach badmouths you and scout swallows it wholesale” has gone away, or at least the kid gets some benefit of the doubt, but it still seems the Auggie Garrido’s of the world hold too much sway. Sure, I was a rebellious knucklehead at 17, but I knew and the coach should know that 17 year olds shouldn’t be playing hurt.
Teams put up with a lot from talented, useful players…as long as they’re useful.
Manny, Albert Belle, Puig, and most especially Milton Bradley are the most commonly cited cases of “bad makeup”, but there is also the “uncoachable” category, players unwilling or unable to address limitations or bad habits, or too determined to do things their way.
A lot depends on how tbe player got the reputation, how much is true, whether they’re willing to work on it, and how willing/able the team might be.
Some teams have sports psychologists on call to help players with actual issues (as opposed to just being jerks).
With youngplayers, in particular, patience is often rewarded.
Guys who are on the the draft/D1 radar in high school pitching is such a weird thing. My brother played D1 baseball as a position player and also threw low 90s off the mound. He never wanted to pitch. His arm was always sore, but often the coach would “make him” pitch since he was clearly their best pitcher. Eventually they came to an agreement that he wouldn’t have to pitch until the playoffs, where they ended up throwing him back to back games in the state semi finals/championship. I’d imagine it is similar for a lot of guys. They are being forced to pitch when they do not want to.
It’s hard to break down winners and losers until we know exactly how much money is going to LA to offset Price. But it seems impossible to miss the parallels to the Rays trading Tommy Pham. Team on the edge of making a run at contention trades their best position player (a right fielder!) who is running out of team control for a younger, more-team-controlled, cheaper, and less-valuable and MLB-ready replacement, plus a nice prospect. The fact that Bloom is from the Rays makes it even more obvious.
Of course, Pham was a 3-win player under control for two years and Betts was a 6-win player under control for one year. This is probably why the return for Betts was so much better; Renfroe, with his high power numbers and low OBP is a candidate to be non-tendered after the inevitable bad year, while Verdugo looks like he could be pretty good. And FV50 pitchers don’t tend to get traded very often, and he’s a lot closer to being ready than Xavier Edwards. While obviously some of this is going to depend how much money the Red Sox are sending, I like this deal better on a pure value standpoint (from the Red Sox’s perspective) than the deal Tampa Bay made.
I think the bigger concern, from my perspective, is whether this is the beginning of a Rays-style philosophy for the Red Sox. The Rays have basically decided that the floor of a team is more important than the ceiling; they almost never consolidate, and are almost always getting more volume and depth than what they send out. If the Red Sox are going to be deciding that 6-win players are overvalued from here on out, and that it’s better to reallocate your resources to a bunch of 2-win players, that’s going to be extremely frustrating to watch. This deal was incredibly frustrating for all kinds of reasons, but if it’s a one-off situation then the team will probably recover from trading Mookie Betts. If they’re going to be doing the same thing with their other young stars, it’s going to get ugly real fast.
Looks like it’s about 50m going to the Dodgers.
Basically Dodgers use Price for around 3 years 45m, which in my opinion is much more palatable than I would’ve imagined without giving up any top prospects
You’re going down a nonsense rabbit hole by comparing the trading of Betts to the trading of Pham and then concluding the Red Sox will operate like the Rays from here forward. This trade was motivated by the Red Sox wanting to avoid $65M in CBT penalties over the next three years after having had the highest payroll in the game and having paid penalties in each of the last 5 years.
Jay gives you a table above of 10 players traded in their final year before FA and we’ve been using the Goldschmidt trade as a reference for a Betts trade. Here, Verdugo & Graterol = Kelly & Weaver, so this seems disappointing since Betts >> Goldschmidt. Hence, hopefully they’re eating no more than $35M of Price’s contract.
They better hope Sale & Eovaldi can rebound, or else how long before Devers &
Bogaerts get traded for massive prospect packages? No need to be “stuck in the middle” in a division with the Yankee juggernaut, the brilliant Rays, and an up-and-coming Jays team.
Graterol > Clase ==> 4 years of Maeda > 2 years of Kluber
I pretty strongly disagree with the statement that the Betts trade doesn’t raise questions about how Bloom is going to operate going forward. They hired a guy from the Rays, who immediately executed a trade that–while far larger than what the Rays did, because Betts is better–has virtually the same structure as what the Rays did earlier in the offseason. Anyone who knows for certain whether that is a harbringer of things to come or whether it’s a temporary blip is making much too strong a statement.
LOL, ok, you go with the theory that a $600M revenue team is going forward with a $75M player payroll. They may do it for a year or two while they’re in a rebuild, but their goal is to operate like the Yankees: Have a deep farm system (like the Rays) and try to win every trade but have the wherewithal to add a Cole or Stanton and a $50M/year bullpen.
You’re definitely mistaken about what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that they may–and they may not even do this–trade their big stars to prioritize depth and long-term control, regularly turning over the roster to do so.
As far as spending goes, my guess is that they’ll spend, maybe up to the tax line, occasionally going over, but if the Rays-style management comes to pass they’re going to be avoiding the Coles and Stantons of the world. They just don’t think those guys are worth it. Which…I really don’t agree with that as a good approach, and hope that they behave a bit more like the Yankees do than the Rays with 2.5x the budget.
How do they spend “maybe up to the tax line, occasionally going over” while trading off stars? Loading up on 2-win Moustakas’s & Castellanos’s at market prices like the Reds? Why would they do that? Your thinking is muddled.
I can’t pretend to know exactly how they’re going to do it, mostly because I’m still trying to figure out the exact logic the Rays operate under, but I’ve been convinced that looking at the Rays’ as being motivated entirely by money isn’t quite right. It is certainly a big motivator, but they clearly have a philosophy that it’s better to have an endless supply of 2-win players than concentrating value in a single player. For the Red Sox, that could be as simple as signing a million relievers and #4 starters, or something more complicated as eating a lot of money in trades to maximize returns.
And it’s not even a certainty that they will do this, but I would not be surprised at all to see Devers getting moved in 2022/2023 and Boegarts getting moved in 2021. They’re moves I would strenuously disagree with, but it’s entirely possible they just don’t think guys who can put up 5 wins are worth as much as other teams do.
Maybe the Rays have decided that the risk/reward for 5 win players doesn’t work for them. They can’t afford a big mistake the way the Red Sox or Dodgers can.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but operating more like the Dodgers than Yanks or the Rays with double the payroll is preferable. Spend all the money in the world, acquire elite talent but try to avoid multiple mega contracts.
At least that’s what I’d hope if the Mets new owner decides to spend like a big market team.
You probably don’t have worry. It could be a decade or more before the Red Sox get a prospect as good as Mookie Betts.
On face value this is a bad look but let’s keep in mind why the Red Sox were in this position. They’ve been active on the free agent market for years and given out huge contracts, resulting in large payrolls and years of going over the second luxury tax. This is not the team demonstrating that the luxury tax system is having a negative affect on baseball. The teams in large markets that find it unpalatable to spend any time above the luxury cap and essentially sit out the off-season are the ones quietly but drastically affecting the on field product and “suppressing” free agent demand.
From the Dodgers perspective, again, it’s hard to know whether it was a good deal or not unless we know how much of Price’s contract the Red Sox are paying down, but I’m tentatively on board with this move. Price, if he’s healthy, slots in to give the Dodgers the Ryu type of player of being awesome when he actually pitches but with huge concerns about his health. A Buehler-Price-Kershaw rotation is pretty nice in the playoffs, and I would trust the Dodgers more than anyone else to keep Price healthy until then. Losing Maeda hurts but they were clearly at an impasse over his role. I think it’s probably fine; between Urias, May, Gonsolin, and whatever is left of Wood/Nelson the team has a lot of people to take innings.
If so, then we’re looking at Verdugo for Betts, and…I actually kind of like it? This team is going to be awesome, a brutal lineup for teams to face. Betts’ OBP at the top of the lineup makes them incredibly dangerous. Losing Verdugo hurts, because he could probably hold down center field (or right field, depending on where they put Bellinger) pretty well for the forseeable future, but this makes the Dodgers the overwhelming favorite in the National League for a season and doesn’t hurt their long-term outlook too much, especially if they’re willing to spend in free agency in 2021. I think it’s worth it.
Where the Dodgers really made out was in keeping all their prospects.
Betts is a rental and subsidized Price is easily moved for more prospects if Urias, Mats, etc develop appropriately.
Roster flexibility is very important for a team with a deep farm.
Verdugo + Maeda + Pederson + Andy Pages (Doyers’ #29 prospect) + Starter (Stripling or Gonsolin?)
for
Betts + Price + Rengifo + Angels Prospect
I agree that Price & Maeda are roughly a push and I agree that 1 year of Betts & 5 years of Rengifo for 5 years of Verdugo, 1 year of Pederson and, say, 3 years of Stripling seems pretty good.
They’re paying over half of Price’s contract which makes it MUCH more palatable for the Dodgers – essentially using PRice at 45m/3yr
I think the part that I don’t like quite so much is the Twins’ return, at least on pure value. This was a situation where they were clearly desperate for a guy to slot in behind Berrios and Odorizzi in the rotation, and it’s a huge boon for them to get Maeda (who looks like a #3/#4 type). But Graterol is honestly probably ready for a shot at the rotation, and there was a decent chance he could have been that guy as soon as August. I think that in terms of actual value, this is where the team lost it, and if they were going to trade Graterol I would have preferred they hold him for a guy with less team control but better short-term performance; Maeda can pitch in a playoff rotation, but he’s not ideal for it.
At the same time, it’s kind of hard to sell this as a loss for the Twins. The Twins are now likely the clear favorites in the AL Central, and clearly the third-best team in the AL behind the Yankees and Astros. There’s some value in the win-now move, especially with Donaldson on board and Odorizzi only under contract for another year. So I get the move, even though I don’t love it just from a value perspective.
The Twins part of the deal looks to be a sign of respect for Cleveland.
They’re also aware of the odds of regression, especially on the pitching side.
Maeda is a known quantity and an immediate asset. Now, not in August or 2021.
Think of it as their version of going all in.
This is why I love the deal from the Twins perspective. Maeda helps them immediately without breaking their budget.
Disagree.
Think Maeda is being soft sold here. Or at least his value to the Twins is being undersold. His fly ball tendency is unfortunate, but his overall on-field results are not so far afield from guys like Eduardo Rodriguez and Trevor Bauer. Solid #3 starters.
And when you are looking through an open window for playoff contention, and your pitching staff is more unicorn horns and rainbow dust than verifiable production, 170 innings of a career 3.76 xFIP has tremendous value.
This is exactly the type of move I want the Twins to make: trade a question mark for a period. Plus I trust their player evaluation, and if they see Graterol as a future reliever with spot-start potential, this is all-day winning, boys. Talking wheel, snipe, celly, boys.
I still find the whole ranking of starters silly. I understand it is what they have been doing forever, but..why? It makes no sense. Maeda, Eduardo and Bauer are all top 60 pitchers. 30 teams. Why aren’t they 2s?
Baseball is all about tradition, and tradition is aspirational.
the weirdest thing about it is, well, this feels like it was derived from the concept of a “weekend starter” or “day 1 playoff pitcher.” Everyone needs a weekend starter, why aren’t there 30 of them?
The big problem I have with it is that nobody defines their terms before using it, so everyone’s talking about something different. For me, I think of it in terms of playoff rotations, where you have a 5+ win pitcher in the first slot, a 4+ win pitcher in the second, a 3+ win pitcher in the third, and a 2+ win pitcher in the 4th. Eric and Kiley’s ranking is even more extreme than that. I don’t really care if people go that way or just do the mental division like you did, as long as we all know what we’re discussing so we can mentally adjust.
For the same reason you don’t have 30 “aces” in a league.
It’s a pecking order thing.
Within a team’s roster pitchers get ranked as 1’s or 2’s because that’s what the team has so a good team’s number two can easily be a lesser team’s number one.
The thing to remember is pitchers aren’t distributed uniformly. Not everybody’s best pitcher is good enough to be another team’s number one. (Or, on a bad team, even make another team’s rotation. Think 2019 O’s.)
Nominally, Cleveland’s number two is either Bieber or Clevinger. Either would be the number one on a lesser staff. In NY, Severino is number two and in DC it’s Strasburg. Any of those would be top dog on other teams.
The roster slot doesn’t really matter unless it comes to matching up with the best in the game.
Now, when it comes to grading pitchers outside of the rotation, the grade will be a function of stuff and consistency, peak performance and reliability; Bauer has a high peak and on his best day he might be as good as Scherzer or Strasburg, maybe, but he has proven inconsistent. 2018 Bauer showed Ace stuff, but the 2019 edition didn’t. So which version can you count on showing up in 2020?
A true number one will be dominant against most teams and match the best in the game. Complete game shut outs should dot their record, even if they’re rarer each year. A true number two will show good outings most of tbe time and occasionally be dominant but can’t be counted on to dominate every time. Threes will keep the team in the game consistently but will often need the offense to show up. Fours and fives will need the offense to carry the bulk of the load even on good days. And if the defense has holes they’ll be in trouble.
It’s a hard game.
It’s hard to be good, harder to be great, and hardest to be great most of the time.
(There are 30 teams but not every team has a true number one while some have more than one.)
And that is where the pecking order comes in. Teams work with what they’ve got.
I kind of like it, despite them losing on value. It’s a good time to go for it, and Maeda will help them in 2020 (and not be bad in 2021).
But Maeda has more than a few issues when you’re using him as a comp. First, that xFIP isn’t adjusted for park factors, and when you do, Bauer looks way better than either Maeda or Rodriguez. Second, Maeda has an exceptionally scary medical file, so penciling him in for 170 innings isn’t great. Third, some of that performance on a rate basis comes from Maeda as a reliever, where he’s been very, very good, and that’s not how he’s going to be used in Minnesota. Fourth, Maeda is 31 and reasonably cannot be expected to get better, and may in fact get worse. E-Rod is 26 and just put up 3.7 wins last year.
If they do a good job of managing Maeda’s innings, he’s got a good shot of providing 3rd starter value on a rate basis (a 3-win season over a full season is my cutoff), but over a partial season, and then they can figure out if they want him in the rotation in the postseason. That’s an upgrade for real, but given the age and injury history I still wouldn’t be so certain it’s going to happen.
Some times I think there is a bit too much focus on “value” without considering fit, among other things. Sometimes trades are made as addition by subtraction, dealing excess to address weakness, roster management, talent consolidation, or backfilling the pipeline.
Plus, it takes two to tango; even if two teams have the same perception of a player’s absolute “value” they might not have the same need to make a trade.
Boston was never going to get full value for Betts, not when the impact of their bad contracts and incoming tax penalties. That they managed to get a young major leaguer with upside and a near-ready player while cutting a multi-year liability to size and avoiding draft pick losses is a sign tbat Bloom could be a good executive for the situation.
One more big thought: This deal, along with the Pham deal, seriously alters the landscape for the AL this year. Prior to this and the Pham deal, Cleveland was only a little behind the Twins and the Red Sox/Rays were a fringe contender for the AL East crown. Now the Twins are very likely the favorites in the AL Central and the Yankees are huge favorites in the AL East.
Furthermore, the Betts/Pham deals leave the wild-card race pretty open right now. Before, the Rays and Red Sox, with all of their talent and the Yankees looking like juggernauts, seemed like very strong wild-card contenders. Now it’s more even between the Rays, A’s, Angels, and Cleveland, with the Red Sox and White Sox also looking like they have a decent shot. So while the division races may be anticlimactic this year, the scramble for the wild card spot should be a little more fun.
Before this trade, Fangraphs Depth Charts had the Sox as the 1st wild card. After this trade . . . still the 1st wild card. Does this make it harder for the Sox to make the playoffs this year? Yes. Does it take them further out of a legit chance to challenge the Astros and Dodgers? Yes. But does it likely change the shape of this season materially? No.
On the other hand, their core is aging and their farm system is butt. They have now filled an outfield spot and a rotation spot with likely league average or better performers for years.
Do I make this trade if I’m Boston? Every day and twice on Sunday.
One aspect with interesting ramifications is Pederson to the Angels.
We may be in for a lot of 7-6 games in Anaheim if they don’t flip him for pitching.
I’m incredibly bummed that the Sox traded my favorite player like many others are. Red Sox ownership played a part in digging their own hole here by signing off on all of DD’s contracts.
But that said, let me set the stage for you. You’re hired as the GM of one of the most storied franchises in baseball. One with a passionate fan base that spends at the highest levels that. The team and owners are results oriented, GMs basically get one shot to execute on their vision and can be fired after only 1 or 2 mistakes.
So you, the new GM, come in and look around and see several bloated, underwater contracts, you see a lack of depth at every position on the field, an empty farm, and the big league team is full of players you did not draft, develop, or otherwise bring into the fold. Your best player is set to become a free agent at the end of the year and has openly stated he wants to hit the open market to help raise the bar for future free agents in terms of contract values.
Ownership has previously stated they have a preference for getting under the luxury tax for financial reasons and also want to build a sustainable winner. You have essentially been blessed by ownership to take the rebuild/retool route and put your own mark on the team. However, fans see a team that won a World Series in 2018 and still has essentially the same roster. So your options are:
1. Tell ownership that the existing team that you had no hand in building is good enough to compete if they are willing to take the financial hit.
2. Take ownership’s seemingly preferred route and do what you can to get under the luxury tax and live to fight another day (season).
Option 1 essentially starts the ticking clock over your head this year. Bloom would be staking his job to a team he did not build and essentially be working to rebuild the farm and the team’s depth with one hand tied behind his back because of all the money being funneled into the ML roster and taxes. (Yes the Sox can afford said taxes, but ownership has a clear preference regarding their money).
Option 2 gives Bloom time. Ownership is not going to expect a World Series in a year in which the team trades a former MVP and former CY Young. Bloom is giving himself some runway while also show that he and his employer are on the same page.
As a fan, I’m not on board with moving a top 5 position player, but from Bloom’s perspective it doesn’t really make sense to push back on ownership and attempt to win this year.
Bloom doesn’t have a choice – he works for ownership. His option was a) trade Betts.
Well yes he works for ownership but no it’s certainly not that cut and dry. It’s all preferences, percentages, and market demand.
Ownership preferred to get under the tax, but Bloom could have built a case for competing this year if he felt strongly enough about it and ownership would have listened. They didn’t hire Bloom to tell him how to do his job, they hired him because they believed in his vision and capabilities. If Bloom were to decide there were no suitable, realistic offers out there for Betts or other players, ownership wasn’t going to force his hand.
I also believe that trading Betts was not a preferred scenario. Ideally they would have moved Price and (unrealistically without other pieces attached) all his salary as well as JBJ. (They can also still cut JBJ and save his $11M or a prorated portion depending on when they cut him in ST). The issue with this was that any scenarios with Price involved paying part of his salary or taking on a contract in return so they would still have had to move another significant contract (ex. JD, Eo + JBJ, Betts) to get under the tax. I’m assuming JD and Eo were shopped and there was tepid at best interest in either (JD’s age, position, and 2nd opt-out complicates any deal involving him).
So no, Bloom’s only option was not simply a) trade Betts, it just ended up being the least worst option from Bloom’s perspective.
Moving Martinez would require eating money, anyway.
He wisely didn’t opt out because the fit for his salary+performance just doesn’t exist.
One thing that I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned yet here is how the upcoming and inevitable MLB sanctions on the Red Sox for the sign-stealing scandal might be affecting their 2020 calculus. Admittedly that’s a bit of a black box right now, but there are very good reasons to think that Manfred will actually hammer the Sox *far* harder than he did the Astros, precisely because they were the Original Sinners (with the 2017 ‘Apple Watch’ scandal) and the memo that Manfred sent out back then sanctioning the Sox explicitly stated that, while every team was now on notice, repeat offenders were going to face truly Biblical consequences.
I think there’s a reason MLB has taken its sweet time with the Red Sox investigation. It’s not because it’s just going away, it’s because they might be weighing out the possibility of unprecedented penalties. There is a zero-point-zero percent chance that John Henry and Chaim Bloom aren’t aware of this (Bloom, ironically enough, is the one figure who is insulated from discipline because he came to the team after the second offense, and from outside the organization). I have no idea what MLB is going to come up with, but I figure it’s going to be extremely brutal. So the front office may just sort of be writing off 2020 as a Year Of Disaster, in which case hey: get what you can for Mookie while you have something of value to get, and also dump Price off the books.
Reading the entrails from the trade, maybe they don’t think the minors will get hit in terms of prospects they already have? So not quite what happened to the Braves.
I’m just not sure what tools the commissioner has at his disposal here, from ignorance, not from a sense of “Well I dunno what they’re gonna do.”
GM and manager are both gone so whatever they get doesn’t impact the team.
Fines, there’s a hard limit at $5M.
So the only meaningful penalties will be in the draft and international signings.
Those could get ugly.
It is quite possible the only way they have to spend money for 2021-22 will be free agency.
As a Red Sox fan, I’ve taken some cold comfort in the fact that if we’re losing Mookie, why not do it in conjunction with other miserable bad news?
Don’t forget how much better Price’s numbers will be without having to face the Yankees!
As a fan of none of the teams in this trade, I hope Maeda gets what he wants in Minnesota. To me it seems like they intentionally didn’t let him hit bonuses in the past. It would be tough to sign a deal that was likely discounted by getting to live in LA and then getting traded to the exact opposite of LA.
With that said I know we don’t speak on past SSS postseason success, but Maeda and Hill in the playoffs? They going to go out and get Tanaka now or what?
I don’t really understand why the Dodgers didn’t wait until the trade deadline to make this splash. They gave up 2 actual contributors to the 2020 team so they could ensure they win the division by 16 games instead of 12. I don’t actually believe the Dodgers FO believe that having a window to extend a player is worth something, but it almost seems like they factored it into the equation.
On the other hand, in each WS they have played in only 1 or 2 guys looked like they were comfortable facing AL pitching.
one difference to the Dodgers between picking him up now/midseason is that they can get the comp pick back if he walks.
Because Betts almost certainly wouldn’t be available in July.
For Boston to reset their tax liability they needed to move before opening day.
Not used to seeing a player of this caliber getting traded AWAY from a franchise of Boston’s level. I understand they need to retool, and this was ultimately a financial decision, but Betts just isn’t the type of guy I’d get rid of unless I don’t see myself contending in the next few years. Like, if my Tigers had Betts, yes, absolutely, 100% trade him for as much as you can get, because we’re so so far away. But the Red Sox? Man…i’m not even a fan and I’m disappointed in this decision.
This is one of the more lopsided trades we’ve seen in a while.
This year, the Dodgers are getting Betts+Price for Verdugo+Maeda, a swap of 8.9 WAR for 4.0 WAR. A big improvement, but at a net cost of about $35M. Close to the $9M/ WAR that is roughly market.
After this year, they’re paying Price half his salary, roughly what he’s worth. But they also gave up cheap years of Maeda and Verdugo’s career.
Using the projections at $9/WAR (and assumptions about arbitration, etc), the Dodgers got hosed with the Red Sox big winners. Like ~$70M of value going from the Dodgers to the Red Sox.
Great baseball trade for the Dodgers. Terrible business of baseball trade.
And if you believe the projections, you swap Graterol for six cheap years, who projects almost as good as Maeda for four not quite as cheap years. Sure, you feel better about Maeda this year, but how high is the floor when he’s in his mid thirties?
I thought teams stopped making the trade the future for next year moves when a third of the league started making the playoffs…
I’ll be looking forward to seeing my favorite team lead the $/WAR standings this year.
After Betts turning down the 10 year/$300 million deal, it really put the Red Sox in a dilemma. They ended up with a high ceiling Relief Pitcher and a high floor outfielder (same position as Betts) with control.
It immediately addresses the Red Sox’ holes, but obviously highly unlikely to match Betts’ value. However, I wouldn’t give 12 year/$420 deal either.
It seems the Twins gave up a little too much to help out the Red Sox/Dodgers
Now with the recent report about Graterol’s medical, I wonder if it’s the Twins who are the ones snickering in the corner with Maeda in hand.
Where are people getting this $65-100m tax hit figure from? Without this trade, most estimates had the Red Sox between $225m and $235m for luxury tax purposes. That’s $17-27m over the threshold. With a 50% tax penalty you’d looking at a tax between $8.5-13.5m for this season. Then there would be the 12.5% surcharge for being over $228 (assuming they would have been). All said and done you’d be at $17m tops for one season. Never mind the fact that the Sox could have avoided the surcharge or minimized the tax further by trading other assets and filling some roster spots with internal guys rather than wasting about $15m for Moreland, Hembree, Perez,and Peraza (none of whom do bubbly squat for the Sox roster). So yea, $17m tops. That’s one season.
In Season 2, the luxury tax threshold increases $2m, JBJ hits free agency, Pedroia gets a year closer to retirement, JD could opt out, and Mookie hits free agency. If Mookie doesn’t sign you’re under the tax, if JD opts out you’re under the tax. If neither of those things happen, I imagine they would still have plenty of other options to reduce payroll overall even after JBJ and Pedroia. At most you’re at $17m again, but there are downward pressures here that could minimize the tax further (if not downright eliminate it, which would be unlikely given probable arb raises to Rodriguez, Benintendi, and Devers. Of course, if Mookie does re-sign you could just trade one of those 3….). End of the day, I don’t see more than $17m.
In Season 3, the threshold increases again and you have even more opportunities to trade other assets assuming Mookie re-signed. Again, let’s assume $17m tops, with it likely being less than that.
In the end, I don’t see how one could possibly even fathom a $100m tax hit. Even at the upper end. It’s insane. My high end would be around $50m over 3 seasons and the Sox would have to re-sign Mookie, retain JD Martinez, and fail to get under the threshold in all 3 seasons to get there. Presumably if all that were to happen the the team would perform better over that stretch and you’d have slightly higher revenue to help offset the costs.
End of the day, the luxury tax isn’t thaaat punishing. Throwing around this $65-$100m figure seems crazy to me.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/12/10/here-what-red-sox-would-face-they-don-get-under-luxury-tax-threshold-this-year/PCjGCkeVgdj23kGMUN4aaL/story.html
Late to the party, but I wonder if Verdugo is more interesting than meets the eye. He was roughly 4WAR/600PA last year, and if he’s something like 5WAR this year if his defense holds up, then perhaps he’s a good flip next off season. Which could truly kick off the Red Sox rebuild.
I’m just making shit up.
It’s just a one year rental, and they badly overpaid for him. Their pitching is shot, their relief corps is in tatters, Price has lost what he had, and they are still starting Pollock.
The Yankees will eat their lunch.