FG on Fox: Don’t Trade Mookie Betts
During the massive disappointment of the 2014 season, the Red Sox have been busy acquiring hitters: Yoenis Cespedes from the A’s, Allen Craig from the Cardinals, and Rusney Castillo from Cuba being the most notable additions to the team’s line-up. The team has not been shy about the fact that this strategy has a second act, as they will aggressively pursue pitching upgrades this winter since the market will be more flush with arms than bats. And given that they already declined to pay market price for one of the winter’s best free agent starters, it seems likely that the team might be more interested in trading for pitchers rather than attempting to outbid others for pricey free agents.
Which brings us to Mookie Betts. If we believe the Red Sox are likely to pursue big trades for premium starting pitching this winter, Betts is likely going to be the piece that everyone asks for. His dynamic debut has increased his value by establishing that his skills can translate to this level, but the Red Sox roster makes his future in Boston still a bit uncertain; he’s a natural second baseman blocked by Dustin Pedroia who converted to play center field, only to see the team spend $72 million on Castillo, rumored to be a plus defender in center himself. Betts could play right field, but one assumes that the Red Sox would prefer to let Shane Victorino win his job back next spring, and Betts has played far too well to head back to Triple-A.
So, a trade does make some sense, especially if putting Betts on the table opens the door to acquiring a young, lower-cost ace — think someone like Chris Sale or Stephen Strasburg — which would still allow the team to use their cash reserves to make a run at one of the big free agent starters, rebuilding their rotation in a big way. But as tempting as that idea might be, I have a suggestion for Red Sox GM Ben Cherington: keep Mookie Betts. You might really regret trading him, even for an ace.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I’m curious if the sox would deal betts for someone like jose Bautista? he’s one of the best players in the game on a super team friendly deal (and let’s face it, the jays should rebuild). The only qualms may be trading within the division but maybe something like betts/swihart/Owens for Bautista could work.
Red Sox have enough outfielders as it is. Is Bautista still a viable option at 3b?
Better question: could Mookie Betts play 3B? If he’s a natural 2Bman and has the arm for RF, why not? 3B is the Red Sox’ biggest offensive hole now that they have a dozen outfielders.
He has arm strength, but his arm accuracy is apparently tenuous, which is reportedly why he was moved off of SS.
I’d put him there in a heartbeat. His bat is real, and if you can’t put Laser Show 2.0 in the lineup because of Laser Show 1.0, let him play most of his games at third.
The Sox are better with him as an everyday player than they would be with just about any starting pitcher they could get for him. It’s not like his minor league stats would make you think his early MLB performance is a fluke.
Thank you Dave.
Thanks, but no thanks. Bautista is a great, elite hitter, but he’s a defensive non-entity. That’s 3 consensus top 25-50 prospects at midseason and none of them has done anything to diminish their status. I don’t think the Sox would part with that package for anything short of Stanton, much less a guy who should be DH’ing (Though, again, an elite one he may be), is going into his age 34 season and only has two years left on his deal.
Have you watched Bautista in the field? He may have below average speed, but he takes decent routes and has one hell of a cannon for an arm. Traditionally among the leaders in assists.
Apologies, I was looking at his 3B numbers.
Yeah, he had a couple of 9-3 assists this year – back to back games against the Royals if I recall.
His UZR is 4.1 this year and was 7.6 last year; hes a solid defender in RF.
See above. Still not someone I give up 3 top prospects for considering his combination of age, short contract remaining and merely “solid” (He’s roughly average when looked at in a viable sample size in RF) at a defensive position that carries minimal weight.
Not to mention that slow speed might kill him in Fenway and I don’t tend to trust guys who’ve spent a lot of time on turf.
He’s getting paid $26 million in those two years, though. That has to be taken into account.
would playing Bautista in LF in Fenway make extra sense?
Sure, that’s valuable, but the Sox have deep pockets and his age and the short term left on him is probably a much bigger factor than his actual dollar cost.
What’s amazing to me is that everyone keeps speculating about what the Red Sox will do about their outfield logjam of Craig/Cespedes/Castillo/Victorino/Betts/Bradley, but everyone assumes Daniel Nava is inconsequential and will inevitably be traded for pennies. True fact: against RHP’s, Nava has the 2nd best career numbers (wOBA or wRC+) of any player on the Red Sox (behind David Ortiz).
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=20&type=1&season=2014&month=14&season1=1969&ind=0&team=3&rost=1&age=0&filter=&players=0
As soon as I started reading the list of names you gave, my initial reaction was “What about Nava!?!” He seems to be forgotten often enough I’m getting overly defensive about him, even when someone is about to laud him.
I don’t think it’s assumed he’ll go for pennies, but Nava’s probably got the best trade value of any of the more expendable OF they have.
Victorino and Bradley aren’t going anywhere, their trade value is too low.
Craig is probably their plan for 1B once Napoli leaves, so best not to move him, especially considering his value is low too right now.
Betts could be moved, but that’s unlikely to happen to anyone but an elite player.
Castillo’s a duh situation.
That leaves Nava or Cespedes and Cespedes is more of a need for the team than Nava.
I was mostly just making the point that Nava keeps getting overlooked in these discussions.
But you’re right. Assuming 1) they’re not going to trade the two good outfielders they just acquired (Cespedes and Castillo), and that 2) Dave Cameron is right about trading Betts, then all of the remaining options (Nava, Craig, Victorino, Bradley) are ‘sell low’ guys. And of them, Nava is the one who has the least-worst trade value right now.
I only see one alternative scenario that doesn’t involve selling low on a good player. They could trade Napoli (who had one of his typical seasons), stick Bradley in AAA to figure out how to hit baseballs, let Allen and Nava battle it out / platoon at 1B, and let Victorino and Betts battle it out for RF.
I like the idea of trading Napoli for that reason. I hate having a surplus of “sell low” guys, and Craig’s best fit is at 1B vs. the OF in Fenway.
Then just put Betts at 3B and see what becomes of Victorino’s comeback. If he’s spent toast, hopefully Bradley would get his bat on track and then you could use him in RF (or maybe in CF with Castillo shifting to RF).
It’s not really as big a logjam as it looks; the problem is more with the 40 man roster than the 25 man, but then again, the red sox carried about the same number of outfielders on the 40 man this year.
Craig’s foot injury has left him hobbled in the outfield; the surgery option for his foot will likely reduce his athletic ability considerably and therefore must be ruled out if he wants to play in the outfield. Furthermore, Allen Craig still has an option left, though he would have to clear waivers. Even if Craig regains his contact and power, its unlikely he’ll find major time in the outfield.
JBJ has plenty of options and just posted one of the worst offensive seasons since 1950 (47 wRC+, tied for the 51st worst wRC+ with a minimum of 400 PA; this is out of 10,906 single seasons). I don’t see how the red sox can start him on the major league team next year when both Betts and Castillo are more likely to be better players.
Victorino and Castillo are relatively unknown quantities (when compared to betts). We have no idea if Victorino will perform if he’s healthy next year. We have no clue how Castillo will translate to the MLB, or even if he’ll need some AAA seasoning next year.
The only known quantities are Nava and Cespedes. Both are better fits in Fenway’s LF than in RF. Even with Castillo and Victorino performing well, Betts should be able to shift around the outfield and still get 400+ PA.
good lord, the idea that Betts is more valuable than Cole Hamels has taken prospect fascination to a new level. That’s obviously what this is about. The idea that to get an ace like Hamels who’s paid reasonably and is locked up for 4 seasons without having it cost top prospects is kinda silly. Why else would the Phils deal Hamels but to get a couple of high end young players??
Yeah, if they want Hamels or Stanton, Mookie or Bogaerts is going to be the centerpiece, along with Owens and/or Swihart and one or two tertiary pieces (if they include both Owens and Swihart, there won’t be any more pieces, obviously).
Stanton absolutely. Hamels (with the money still owed him), not so much, unless the Phillies offer to eat some salary to help secure some prospects (which would be very smart of them to do).
I mean, I get the fact that free-agent pitcher salaries could go way up this off-season, making Hamels look like a good bargain.
But the key here is Betts. He just might be the most underrated prospect out there right now, simply because he’s a 5th-round draft pick who’s about the same size as Joe Morgan. But all he has done so far is succeed, and he’s the same age as Bryce Harper. I’d put Mookie’s future ahead of any of the young guys on the Cubs (and I think Kris Bryant is going to be a Miguel Cabrera-type monster at the plate). So, while I do agree that prospect fixation has swung way too far, I’d hate to let Betts go unless the player(s) coming back is a clear short-term gain.
I love that we’re talking about how young a rookie is by saying he’s the same age as a guy finishing his third year in the MLB.
Bryce Harper is such a special player.
Anyway, of course giving up Mookie hurts. That’s why the Phillies would be willing to give up an ace signed to a reasonable deal for a package centered around him. I’d just rather give up Mookie than Bogaerts, who I think is going to be even more amazing than Betts.
And Bogaerts was ALSO born in October 1992, like Harper and Betts.
Which explains why the pecking order should indeed be Harper > Bogaerts > Betts, since that’s the 19-year old MLB debut vs. 20 vs. 21. I actually feel similarly attached to Bogaerts as I am to Betts, which is very high.
And here’s the kicker. If Mike Ilitch was running the Red Sox and didn’t give a damn about money, I’d do Betts plus some good prospects for Hamels any day, since you could also go all-in on Scherzer, Shields, etc. But if Boston’s trying to control payroll at all, I don’t want to creep up on having an older, more expensive roster at the expense of top young talent.
Betts is my favorite prospect in the game. I think Bryant, Correa and (maybe) Buxton will be better, but I like Betts a lot more, if that makes sense.
You’re right about the money, though. I’m coming at it from a Yankees fan’s perspective, which is “The Sox have the money, so they should spend it on their baseball team.”
I keep forgetting that John Henry would rather spend it on Liverpool.
You had to bring up Liverpool lol. Makes me ALMOST miss the days when the Sox would sign a guy money be damned just to keep him from the Yankees, where he’d be a great fit (yes, I’m talking about Carl Crawford).
Only Red Sox fans (and apparently Theo Epstein, thank God) ever thought the Yankees wanted Crawford when we had Granderson and Gardner under team control on the cheap for the next several years.
Crawford was an awful fit for the Yanks after 2010. I was so happy that the Red Sox signed him.
I get your point but Betts technically isnt a prospect anymore. He’s shed a lot of bust risk with what he has shown thus far in MLB (given that it is a very small sample).
Betts has more team control left at a much cheaper financial cost. Hamels is in his decline and as with any pitcher there is also the risk that his arm falls off.
Hamels maxed out a few years ago as a 4.6 Win player, as Dave pointed out Mookie is already projected at 3.3 wins.
Why trade a potentially very valuable peice when you are the Red Sox and can buy a quality pitcher?
On B-Ref, Hamels’s max was a 6.6 WAR in 2011, and this year he’s at 6.2.
was using FG WAR
Padriac, no need to cherry-pick. Hamels is a 4-win player by FIP (Fangraphs), and perhaps a 5-win player by “non”-FIP (bbref) or RA9-WAR. 6+ wins are simply his high water marks but do not merit an expectation that they’ll happen again.
Betts is a player with possible upside. Hamels is a player with an established level, a contract that pays for that level, and potential downside. Besides, I’d think Amaro can be coaxed into dealing Hamels for less.
they will buy one or more pitchers but the cost of aces is pretty high even for the Red Sox. The Red Sox just invested a lot of scratch in another couple of OFers and their 2Bman isn’t going anywhere. All those roads lead back to Betts.
Extrapolating full season WAR from small sample numbers is incredibly dangerous.
Danger is CoolWinn’s middle name.
I wouldnt normally, but since Dave did then why not
He never said Betts was more valuable. He stated that first guy teams would ask Boston for to headline a *package* for their ace would be Betts. That alone pretty much implies that Betts alone isn’t enough for an ace. Even still, why is it so hard to grasp that a 3 WAR everyday player who can man multiple premium positions, is only 21 years old and will be making peanuts for the next half decade is more valuable than a 4 WAR starter who is on the wrong side of 30 and making $20M+ per year?
welp, expecting to be high on the win curve means they have to re-stock the rotation. if they can do it in other ways, they probably will. They didn’t want to pay retail for Lester for whatever their reasons, so that leads me to think they’d prefer to have a shorter less expensive ace if they could get one. Hamels fits that description but obviously it’ll come at a high prospect cost.
They undoubtedly will be active on the FA market and maybe they sign Shields and maybe another SP, but the kids they currently have may not be ready to perform up to the level of a division leading team, sans Buchholz and who knows what to expect out of him… All of which is to say that they seem likely to trade for a TOR type, imo.
That’s not the question. The question is which of those players is more valuable to a Boston team that has a lot of OF talent and zero starting pitching.
If you run your team based on that question you’re going to go downhill pretty quickly by surrendering overall value to fill “need”. It’s why the best NFL teams draft for “best player available”…needs change quickly, so stockpile as much talent as you can.
They aren’t remotely the same principle.
The Red Sox currently don’t have a place to play Mookie. They have no pitching.
If the Red Sox think that there is a greater difference between Hamels’ projected production and that of pitcher they would get instead of him than between Mookie’s projected production and that of their other OFs, they should trade Mookie for Hamels.
The Red Sox are trying to win baseball games, not maximize their $/WAR ratio. Context matters.
Hamels is projected to return an estimated $5M in surplus value through the end of his contract.
Betts has returned over $5M in surplus value in fewer than 50 games this season.
It’s not even close.
that sort of analysis would lead to never dealing any good young players.
I agree with you on that LaLoosh. Surplus value is great and all but like anything else, it’s an asset. And sometimes the best use of that asset is to cash it in and trade it for present day wins.
I totally agree with your last sentence jpg. And since the Red Sox are likely to try to win now, they should leverage their prospects
I just don’t think they should dump someone who could easily be one of their best everyday players next year. Better to trade the guys still in the minors (Owens, Swihart, Coyle etc.) to a team that’s rebuilding than someone who could be a decent clone of Zobrist next year.
Then never deal any good young players…
To a point, yes, but it also needs to be factored in how much of a “prospect” the player is and how much of a “known” he is. Betts has shown every indication, including at the MLB level, of being a solid everyday player at worst. Given the cost control, that gives him immense value. It’s a similar situation with Bogaerts, even coming off a tough rookie season.
If we’re talking an Owens or a Swihart or a Cecchini, though, we’re more in the clear. They PROJECT to give great surplus value, but as has been the case with Middlebrooks, it may never happen. Teams trade away the potential for surplus in order to get costlier but more guaranteed MLB production.
But when you have a piece such as Betts, who almost isn’t even a prospect anymore, you’re buying production AND surplus…that’s the best package out there (Trout *cough cough*).
How about Cespedes and Betts for Syndergaard and Murphy? Boston can shift Murphy to 3B, his natural position, and fill their most biggest hole while also getting a young, cost-controlled pitcher with ace potential. The Mets fill their gaping hole in LF and can use Betts to either replace Murphy at 2B or they can give him a shot SS. If he works out at SS, Flores can a real shot to show his worth on an everyday basis. At the very least, he can keep the seat warm at 2B while Herrera gets a little more seasoning in AAA.
As a sox fan, please no.
I like murph, but im not sure how you can say 3b is his natural position, hes played less than 39 games there in the majors.
He was a third baseman in the minors but was blocked by Wright. That’s why they tried him in the outfield where he was a disaster and ultimately tried him at 2B where he eventually stuck. Third is probably his best position other than first base.
I’m not a huge fan of Murphy, but I do think he’d at least be an upgrade at 3B over the flotsam Boston’s been putting there lately.
And Syndergaard is legit, so he may help Boston fill their rotation in ’15 or ’16 for controlled cost while they try to buy some pitching help. This actually is a good starting point for a deal, as far as each side getting needs filled.
If you’re a 3B blocked by David Wright and want to play baseball in the Majors, you learn to play other positions.
Boston is already loaded with prospect arms, so why bring in another one (Syndergaard)? His potential might be a tad higher, but his floor is as low/risky as that of any other pure prospect. The reason Boston would trade someone such as Betts is to get MLB pitching, not prospect pitching. Otherwise, just call some of the kids up.
As a Mets fan, please yes.
Cespedes + for Latos +
I say trade Cespedes back to the A’s for pitching. 🙂
I wouldn’t be shocked to see Oakland make a big run at Betts, actually. They may figure Boston is in a better spot to keep Samardzija (or make the QO to get the compensation pick), and might try to build a deal around him.
Ew. Samardzija is solid, but there’s no way I give up more than Swihart and Owens for a 2/3 on his last year of team control.
Don’t expect to see Swihart in any package, he’s clearly the intended catcher of the future. Looks like he could be similar to Jorge Posada.
Yeah, dude.
It’s like how Jesus Montero was the intended catcher of the future who could be similar to Mike Piazza, until the Yankees got the right deal for him.
And how Travis d’Arnaud was the intended catcher of the future who could be similar to Brian McCann, until the Phillies got the right deal for him, and then the Blue Jays got the right deal for him.
Catchers can be a big roll of the dice. Nobody trumpeted Lucroy as the next anything, and he’s turned out pretty good.
It still fries my butt that the Yankees were able to get Pineda for Montero. A young catcher who can’t catch (or run) had better be a good enough hitter to be an everyday DH. Pineda was way too much to give up for him – Cashman made a real steal there.
Montero was rated a top 10 prospect in the game by people who thought he never had a shot at catching. The bat was supposed to be that special.
The best part is that the M’s actually had to throw in a high-upside 20 year old for a 5th starter type, because Montero-for-Pineda straight up wouldn’t have been fair to the Yanks.
I would like to see the Braves make a run at Betts and possibly pick up Nava. I imagine Gattis will be available. Possibly Kimbrel will be as well.
Tough decision for the Sox FO, I think. Despite Holt’s second-half performance, he’s a much-needed LHH and a classic utility man in that he can play short. We’re not dealing with rationality here – I see the acquisitions of Castillo, Cespedes, and Craig as panic moves (like Crawford) that just make things harder. Maybe the Dodgers ….
You think Boston made those moves IRrationally? As in “lacking a plan”? That’s a pretty irrational opinion right there. I can’t say I’m privy to exactly how Boston plans to juggle the pieces, but I think it’s clear that they have things in mind.
Crawford wasn’t a panic move either…he was a luxury signing who immediately became nothing like the player he had been his entire career. This is all quite different anyway, of course.
It looks irrational to me also. If Cherington has a master plan to slide all these odd pieces into place or trade them for what fits, he is sure not the guy who didn’t see ’14 coming. He gets a mulligan for 2013 but next year is really going to be telling. That’s one tangled mess.
I see Betts more in line with Andrew McCutchen as a player then Zobrist. Both are great players in their own ways.
Betts is taking 4.36 pitches, ranking in the top 8 in baseball. He had 11 and 12 pitch at bats the last week that were amazing, getting hits on both. He is 160 soaking wet. He is going to get bigger and stronger and his power will only increase.
If the Sox trade Betts and I am right about him being the next Cutch and both Craig and Castillo end up stinking, these moves in combination could end up being firable offenses.
Slowwwwwwwwww down, buddy.
Calling a guy the next Zobrist is high, high praise, and comparing any prospect to McCutchen is a recipe for disappointment.
I don’t get the Zobrist comp. Zobrist was 27 before he learned to hit. Betts is 21. Betts is the far greater talent.
Yeah…how about we wait for Mookie to play a full season, and be worth more than 3 WAR in that season, before we call him a “far greater talent” than a guy who has averaged 6 WAR over the past six seasons.
But why is Zobrist the only good comparison compared to the rest of the list who are mainly slap hitting rabbits? It would seem Zobrist is the outlier and very best outcome going by the analysis.
You can say Betts ISO is higher than the others, but is 5 homers really enough to be sure of Zobrist like power yet?
I like him but im thinking he may have more value than he is worth right now, thinking of seeing what I can get for him this offseason in the keeper I have him in.
15 HRs in the minors last year, plus 11 more in the minors this year before being called up, and an ISO over .150 over the last 2 years in the minors are good indications he won’t go all Ben Revere on you.
Purely as a hitter, think of Betts in terms of Pedroia. Squares up on the ball super well, giving him the chance for extra bases and even a decent number of HRs despite his lack of size.
I really, really like the Zobrist comp, personally.
Mookie’s a stud.
Pedroia could be a good comp actually. Very similar on base tendancies it seems, Dustin with some more pop and Mookie more speed.