Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bmags

Would you trade for Mookie Betts, and what would you trade

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, bmags said:

If you plan on signing him next year, why not pay prospects to also get him this year when the white sox fan base is also planning on contending (just with perpetual playoffs-appearer Cole Kalhoun as our magic wand to improve 20 games)

Because if you trade Vaughn or Madrigal, now you have to spend extra resources in 2021 to replace Vaughn or Madrigal, and our franchise is not flush with replacement resources. Especially if they're spending $35 million a year on Betts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem a wise use of the Sox limited prospect capital to get a guy for one season if the goal is sustained competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bmags said:

If you plan on signing him next year, why not pay prospects to also get him this year when the white sox fan base is also planning on contending (just with perpetual playoffs-appearer Cole Kalhoun as our magic wand to improve 20 games)

I don't really plan on signing him next year.  But that makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving up legitimate assets to acquire 1 year of an impending free agent.  

The Sox are going to take a huge step forward next year.  But they still likely aren't ready for primetime.  Trading for Mookie Betts in the hopes that we can attract him to sign an extension is a ridiculous concept.  Let a team like Atlanta overpay for 1 year of a player before he walks into the free agency he has earned.  At a minimum, Betts is costing one of Madrigal/Vaughn/Cease + at a minimum another nice piece like Walker/Stiever/Dunning.  Hard pass from me, and I highly the doubt the Sox are even considering anything so stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because if you trade Vaughn or Madrigal, now you have to spend extra resources in 2021 to replace Vaughn or Madrigal, and our franchise is not flush with replacement resources. Especially if they're spending $35 million a year on Betts.

If they are spending $35 million a year on betts the perfect positions to need to fill externally are 2b or 1b/DH.

Those extra savings will mean little if we have to throw amounts at marcell ozuna esque players, providing slightly above average offense with horrendous defense.

You hope to have economic flexibility to pounce when a consistent 6 WAR player becomes available, this team will not be organically grown into a world series contender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mookie Betts is going to test FA.  Trading away a top 50 prospect for 1 year of him when the Sox are a coinflip to be over .500 even with him is pure lunacy,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I don't really plan on signing him next year.  But that makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving up legitimate assets to acquire 1 year of an impending free agent.  

The Sox are going to take a huge step forward next year.  But they still likely aren't ready for primetime.  Trading for Mookie Betts in the hopes that we can attract him to sign an extension is a ridiculous concept.  Let a team like Atlanta overpay for 1 year of a player before he walks into the free agency he has earned.  At a minimum, Betts is costing one of Madrigal/Vaughn/Cease + at a minimum another nice piece like Walker/Stiever/Dunning.  Hard pass from me, and I highly the doubt the Sox are even considering anything so stupid.  

Cease + walker would be a great deal. They should do that yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

Mookie Betts is going to test FA.  Trading away a top 50 prospect for 1 year of him when the Sox are a coinflip to be over .500 even with him is pure lunacy,  

Ok, then sign him by bidding the most money for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bmags said:

If they are spending $35 million a year on betts the perfect positions to need to fill externally are 2b or 1b/DH.

Those extra savings will mean little if we have to throw amounts at marcell ozuna esque players, providing slightly above average offense with horrendous defense.

You hope to have economic flexibility to pounce when a consistent 6 WAR player becomes available, this team will not be organically grown into a world series contender.

 

They're spending that $35 million a year on Betts in your scenario, not 2b. What kind of players are they going to have to bring in to play 2b/1b in your scenario after opening that hole? Expensive, slightly above average players who have a high flop risk. Exactly the kind you just said you didn't want. 

I get spending money on a big name or two, but the reason why we can do that is that we haven't opened up holes by trading away the limited guys we have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bmags said:

If you plan on signing him next year, why not pay prospects to also get him this year when the white sox fan base is also planning on contending (just with perpetual playoffs-appearer Cole Kalhoun as our magic wand to improve 20 games)

Bmags...I know that you know the 20 game improvement is not coming just from the right fielder we eventually get.  It depends on who we get elsewhere on the roster.  For example...If we sign Cole, Strasburg and Grandal...we can play Engel and improve 20 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bmags said:

Cease + walker would be a great deal. They should do that yesterday.

Lol, ok dude.  Clearly you have your mind made up.  That would be an absolutely awful trade for the White Sox right now.  But winning 83 games and losing a TOR pitcher controlled for 6 more seasons was sure worth than 3rd place AL Central crown in 2020!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bmags said:

Ok, then sign him by bidding the most money for him.

If Boston is willing to give up Betts for salary relief...sure....lets get him.  Giving up a significant player like Cease is just nuts for a 1 year rental.  If Hahn did this the lynch party would start forming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmags said:

Fair enough. I really did not imagine the rebuild needed to be done so that we'd have to play the same "gamble this cheap/oft-injured/volatile will emerge rather than going after top players" game we played for most of the decade.

Say we signed or kept avi...would any of us feel great about him in RF for the future? We'd be in essentially the same place as I doubt he'd have received greater than a 1 year deal. 

Re: Avi  I always thought the purpose of a rebuild was to collect assets , identify talent and make transactions to bring in more talent. Avi was obviously more talented and similar in age to Cordell, Palka Tilson  so why get rid of him over them ?  There are always other options for a player besides him playing in the future. The more assets you collect while still in the rebuild  perhaps your odds go up of making a trade . One silly insignificant trade  such as how the Astros got Yordan Alvarez can make all the difference.

Hey I'm all for getting the top talent . I was the one who suggested getting Rendon and moving Moncada or playing Rendon at 2nd . Just bring in the WAR machines and do whatever you have to do. But if they start crying poor once they have 1 big contract then I'd rather not hear about how they need the money for the future to lock guys up. which is what we heard from KW just last off season when we didnt even land a big contract yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

They're spending that $35 million a year on Betts in your scenario, not 2b. What kind of players are they going to have to bring in to play 2b/1b in your scenario after opening that hole? Expensive, slightly above average players who have a high flop risk. Exactly the kind you just said you didn't want. 

I get spending money on a big name or two, but the reason why we can do that is that we haven't opened up holes by trading away the limited guys we have. 

Yes, and I feel much more confident in filling the 2b and DH positions with lower cost and getting production than right field.

- Eduardo Escobar - 7 mill a year - 109 wRC+

- DJ Lemahieu - 2 years 24 million (set market) mvp candidate

- Tim Beckham/Derek Dietrich - minor league/min deals - 99 wRC+

- The one clunker you can really point to is Jed Lowries 10 million a year deal, where he got injured.

It's a nice position with FA money. Scooter Gennett/Schoop/Moustakas on that wheel again this year. And when you are getting an elite offensive and plus defender in RF, you can cycle through 2b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Re: Avi  I always thought the purpose of a rebuild was to collect assets , identify talent and make transactions to bring in more talent. Avi was obviously more talented and similar in age to Cordell, Palka Tilson  so why get rid of him over them ?  There are always other options for a player besides him playing in the future. The more assets you collect while still in the rebuild  perhaps your odds go up of making a trade . One silly insignificant trade  such as how the Astros got Yordan Alvarez can make all the difference.

Hey I'm all for getting the top talent . I was the one who suggested getting Rendon and moving Moncada or playing Rendon at 2nd . Just bring in the WAR machines and do whatever you have to do. But if they start crying poor once they have 1 big contract then I'd rather not hear about how they need the money for the future to lock guys up. which is what we heard from KW just last off season when we didnt even land a big contract yet.

Because he was a free agent after 2019 and none of them were, and the 2019 White Sox were not competitive no matter what they did. A 0.1% chance that any of the other guys breaks out and has a strong 2019 is more valuable to the White Sox franchise than an MVP caliber 2019 from Avisail Garcia. Unfortunately none of those happened, but that doesn't change the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Lol, ok dude.  Clearly you have your mind made up.  That would be an absolutely awful trade for the White Sox right now.  But winning 83 games and losing a TOR pitcher controlled for 6 more seasons was sure worth than 3rd place AL Central crown in 2020!  

Trading 2 pitchers with tommy john, one that has struggled with control and staying deep into games is actually not the worst idea if he has value. 

Relying on him to be a cost controlled TOR starter is also quite risky, but yes, we can just write in each of our prospects into their positions with their max ceiling value and everything will work out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Because he was a free agent after 2019 and none of them were, and the 2019 White Sox were not competitive no matter what they did. A 0.1% chance that any of the other guys breaks out and has a strong 2019 is more valuable to the White Sox franchise than an MVP caliber 2019 from Avisail Garcia. Unfortunately none of those happened, but that doesn't change the logic.

He was a free agent after 2019 only if you couldn't work out a deal for longer.  Tampa signed him to an incentive laden deal for 1 year. Sox couldve gave him 1 year and an option, But anyway beside the point. Yea so you are telling me you would have rather kept Cordell, Tilson and Palka because they were more valuable to the Sox than an MVP season from Avi ? You already said the chances of them breaking out was 0.1% , If Avi had an MVP season I think the odds would be just a little bit higher they could get a decent sized asset for him don't you? And even in a non MVP season I'd rather take the chance of getting a low level minor leaguer  or maybe even OMG shocker the Sox could trade for IFA Bonus pool money !

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tony said:

bmags, just curious (actually asking, haven't read the entire thread) but are you cool acquiring Mookie just for the one year, saying it's worth the risk even if he's dead set on testing FA, or only if it means he signs long term? 

If the Sox feel like they can sign Betts long term, I don't have a problem with the Sox talking to Boston and seeing if they could get a deal done. But if it's just a huge mystery on what Betts wants, and this is purley just a 1 year deal, I don't see the point for the Sox. 

Thanks, couple thoughts:

- I think people have taken the information that the sox front office not being capable of signing high-level free agents due to incompetence/misguided sense of budgeting to actually being the correct thing, when obviously it's very bad. We should not as an org set-up be refusing to go after Betts, few other teams are in as good of a position long term to afford him.

- If the sox acquired betts I would expect them to do everything possible to sign him long-term, that it would be the plan. That he would do so and expect at least a Harper contract, or a very player friendly opt-out period - for instance, what if he had an opt-out of 2021...and you get 3 years of betts. Is trading still  not worth losing prospects?

- I think a player this valuable becoming available is worth acquiring, and if worse case scenario it becomes clear that not only will he test free agency but would not like to sign with sox, they can trade him at the deadline and receive back some value. 

Push comes to shove, if boston said we'll trade you betts for Cease/Dunning I would do so and commit the organization to try and cobble a pitching staff together brewers/twins style.

But, if the separate question is what do I think the white sox front office is capable of? Not much, but as a fan I am looking at a team struggling to develop and draft, and poor at identifying undervalued assets, and am supposed to get pumped about just committing to acquiring depth and letting all of our prospects fuel this entire thing? No thanks. The rebuild should have enabled plays like going after Betts, that it may not is an indictment not on the the idea of acquiring betts, but of this rebuilds shortcomings. And I think acquiring betts and paying him would overcome them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bmags said:

Thanks, couple thoughts:

- I think people have taken the information that the sox front office not being capable of signing high-level free agents due to incompetence/misguided sense of budgeting to actually being the correct thing, when obviously it's very bad. We should not as an org set-up be refusing to go after Betts, few other teams are in as good of a position long term to afford him.

- If the sox acquired betts I would expect them to do everything possible to sign him long-term, that it would be the plan. That he would do so and expect at least a Harper contract, or a very player friendly opt-out period - for instance, what if he had an opt-out of 2021...and you get 3 years of betts. Is trading still  not worth losing prospects?

- I think a player this valuable becoming available is worth acquiring, and if worse case scenario it becomes clear that not only will he test free agency but would not like to sign with sox, they can trade him at the deadline and receive back some value.

Push comes to shove, if boston said we'll trade you betts for Cease/Dunning I would do so and commit the organization to try and cobble a pitching staff together brewers/twins style.

But, if the separate question is what do I think the white sox front office is capable of? Not much, but as a fan I am looking at a team struggling to develop and draft, and poor at identifying undervalued assets, and am supposed to get pumped about just committing to acquiring depth and letting all of our prospects fuel this entire thing? No thanks. The rebuild should have enabled plays like going after Betts, that it may not is an indictment not on the the idea of acquiring betts, but of this rebuilds shortcomings. And I think acquiring betts and paying him would overcome them.

There are two types of teams that would want to trade for Betts - the win now teams who do not have long term flexibility to afford Betts and would use him as a one year rental, and teams who want to keep Betts this year and beyond. Sox fall under the second category and I would find it hard to believe, given the position they're in, they would trade for Betts without knowing they could extend him. No matter what Betts says about free agency, he has a number in mind, if we could meet that number and he could risk even having a down year and still get the contract he's looking for, I can't see him turning it down. If Sox feel like they could give Betts a number he couldn't refuse (e.g. $50-100M more than Harper), then they acquire Betts, otherwise they shouldn't and they don't. I just can't see the bold part happening with the Sox. Heck I would rather be on the other side of it and acquiring a Betts at TDL at half the cost if we're a Betts away from being a playoff team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

There are two types of teams that would want to trade for Betts - the win now teams who do not have long term flexibility to afford Betts and would use him as a one year rental, and teams who want to keep Betts this year and beyond. Sox fall under the second category and I would find it hard to believe, given the position they're in, they would trade for Betts without knowing they could extend him. No matter what Betts says about free agency, he has a number in mind, if we could meet that number and he could risk even having a down year and still get the contract he's looking for, I can't see him turning it down. If Sox feel like they could give Betts a number he couldn't refuse (e.g. $50-100M more than Harper), then they acquire Betts, otherwise they shouldn't and they don't. I just can't see the bold part happening with the Sox. Heck I would rather be on the other side of it and acquiring a Betts at TDL at half the cost if we're a Betts away from being a playoff team.

This is a nice summary of how I feel. In a vacuum, acquiring betts while he is available to get another year of his production because you are willing to pay what it takes to sign him makes sense.

That the sox are not paying what it takes to sign him is the issue. Not paying talent to make sure you have the best shot to acquire him long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bmags said:

Push comes to shove, if boston said we'll trade you betts for Cease/Dunning I would do so and commit the organization to try and cobble a pitching staff together brewers/twins style.

Cease and Dunning aren't exactly comparable.  I would probably trade Dunning and Dunning alone for a year of Mookie.  No chance in hell I'd trade Cease of 1 year of Mookie.  I also don't think Dunning alone even gets you in the top 5 offers, and Cease alone isn't going to win that bidding.  We're conveniently ignoring the fact that there are handful of teams are ready to compete or already competing that will and should put more value on Mookie Betts than the Sox will and should.  Therefore, in order to actually win the bidding, you're probably giving up something like Madrigal/Cease + Walker/Dunning + another top 15 prospect in the org.  Hard pass for 1 year.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Cease and Dunning aren't exactly comparable.  I would probably trade Dunning and Dunning alone for a year of Mookie.  No chance in hell I'd trade Cease of 1 year of Mookie.  I also don't think Dunning alone even gets you in the top 5 offers, and Cease alone isn't going to win that bidding.  We're conveniently ignoring the fact that there are handful of teams are ready to compete or already competing that will and should put more value on Mookie Betts than the Sox will and should.  Therefore, in order to actually win the bidding, you're probably giving up something like Madrigal/Cease + Walker/Dunning + another top 15 prospect in the org.  Hard pass for 1 year.   

That's an AND trade. Cease AND dunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bmags said:

That's an AND trade. Cease AND dunning.

Gotcha.  Generally the / means or.  Cease + Dunning seems like a poor decision for the Sox unless it comes with an extension.  Even so, I'd rather keep Cease and Dunning and just sign Mookie to that contract 14 months from now without giving up 2 legitimate cheap and controllable rotation options, one with legitimate top of the rotation upside.   

But I think I will just see my way out of this conversation and agree to disagree.  The Sox aren't going to acquire Mookie Betts this offseason, so its all for naught.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×