Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bmags

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

Recommended Posts

Betts would be an enormous upgrade in our biggest position of need. It only makes sense if they can sign him to an extension and if the ask doesn't involve any prospects of note, which means it doesn't really make sense. Would be a great potential move, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading assets that have taken three years to acquire and develop through this rebuild business for a premium player who is very likely to enter free agency would only make the 2021 season resemble the 2019 season. 

In other words, it would likely return the team to rebuilding mode.  Any takers on that scenario?

Edited by Thad Bosley

Share this post


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

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.

Honestly I had been over the signing a superstar mentality since last offseason, there are a lot of external factors working against the Sox to making a viable strategy. Signing a Cole or Betts would have been nice, it will give us a nice 3-4 year window until we have to tear things down again. To your point in the last paragraph, and it’s a point beaten to death at this point, we need to revamp our philosophy and build a winning organization from ground up. The Houston Astros has already set the blueprint for winning as a mid market organization, we need to do the same, perhaps get ahead of it.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-the-houston-astros-are-winning-through-advanced-analytics

This probably isn’t news to anyone, but to think Astros are already looking into the next phase of analytics driven baseball and combining big data with AI to help them improve scouting, player development, and in game decisions, while Sox still has one of the smallest analytics department in the league is a travesty. More than anything this rebuild should have focused on changing the way build our baseball team - acquiring top prospects and not fully committing to player development is a half baked solution.

So it’s crazy to say, but I’d almost be more excited to bring in a Jeff Luhnow type of baseball mind and overhaul our operations with leading edge technology  driven staff than a Betts signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bmags said:

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.

Does he have a brother-in-law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Honestly I had been over the signing a superstar mentality since last offseason, there are a lot of external factors working against the Sox to making a viable strategy. Signing a Cole or Betts would have been nice, it will give us a nice 3-4 year window until we have to tear things down again. To your point in the last paragraph, and it’s a point beaten to death at this point, we need to revamp our philosophy and build a winning organization from ground up. The Houston Astros has already set the blueprint for winning as a mid market organization, we need to do the same, perhaps get ahead of it.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-the-houston-astros-are-winning-through-advanced-analytics

This probably isn’t news to anyone, but to think Astros are already looking into the next phase of analytics driven baseball and combining big data with AI to help them improve scouting, player development, and in game decisions, while Sox still has one of the smallest analytics department in the league is a travesty. More than anything this rebuild should have focused on changing the way build our baseball team - acquiring top prospects and not fully committing to player development is a half baked solution.

So it’s crazy to say, but I’d almost be more excited to bring in a Jeff Luhnow type of baseball mind and overhaul our operations with leading edge technology  driven staff than a Betts signing.

Just not happening whilst R-Dorf is still running things.  

We are getting Kenny & Hahnny the rest of the way while he’s still in charge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Honestly I had been over the signing a superstar mentality since last offseason, there are a lot of external factors working against the Sox to making a viable strategy. Signing a Cole or Betts would have been nice, it will give us a nice 3-4 year window until we have to tear things down again. To your point in the last paragraph, and it’s a point beaten to death at this point, we need to revamp our philosophy and build a winning organization from ground up. The Houston Astros has already set the blueprint for winning as a mid market organization, we need to do the same, perhaps get ahead of it.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-the-houston-astros-are-winning-through-advanced-analytics

This probably isn’t news to anyone, but to think Astros are already looking into the next phase of analytics driven baseball and combining big data with AI to help them improve scouting, player development, and in game decisions, while Sox still has one of the smallest analytics department in the league is a travesty. More than anything this rebuild should have focused on changing the way build our baseball team - acquiring top prospects and not fully committing to player development is a half baked solution.

So it’s crazy to say, but I’d almost be more excited to bring in a Jeff Luhnow type of baseball mind and overhaul our operations with leading edge technology  driven staff than a Betts signing.

Exactly why I've been saying sustained success is a mirage of Hahn's mind when they haven't done much at all to change orgnizational philosophy  especially in the beginning of the rebuild when it was more necessary . Not too late to catch up but does anyone really see them buying a load of high speed cameras, taking IFA seriously and actually trading for more bonus pool money and becoming Luhnow ruthless to make sure all are on board with the philosophy change  ? I know I don't see it happenning.

Share this post


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

Exactly why I've been saying sustained success is a mirage of Hahn's mind when they haven't done much at all to change orgnizational philosophy  especially in the beginning of the rebuild when it was more necessary . Not too late to catch up but does anyone really see them buying a load of high speed cameras, taking IFA seriously and actually trading for more bonus pool money and becoming Luhnow ruthless to make sure all are on board with the philosophy change  ? I know I don't see it happenning.

Signing LUIS Robert was the main change, and that’s a KW Special.

All these “refined” college bats like Collins, Burger, Alex Call, Fisher, Gonzalez, Sheets, Walker and Madrigal...and the last player is the only one likely to make an impact on the next White Sox playoff team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Honestly I had been over the signing a superstar mentality since last offseason, there are a lot of external factors working against the Sox to making a viable strategy. Signing a Cole or Betts would have been nice, it will give us a nice 3-4 year window until we have to tear things down again. To your point in the last paragraph, and it’s a point beaten to death at this point, we need to revamp our philosophy and build a winning organization from ground up. The Houston Astros has already set the blueprint for winning as a mid market organization, we need to do the same, perhaps get ahead of it.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-the-houston-astros-are-winning-through-advanced-analytics

This probably isn’t news to anyone, but to think Astros are already looking into the next phase of analytics driven baseball and combining big data with AI to help them improve scouting, player development, and in game decisions, while Sox still has one of the smallest analytics department in the league is a travesty. More than anything this rebuild should have focused on changing the way build our baseball team - acquiring top prospects and not fully committing to player development is a half baked solution.

So it’s crazy to say, but I’d almost be more excited to bring in a Jeff Luhnow type of baseball mind and overhaul our operations with leading edge technology  driven staff than a Betts signing.

Oh I would take a front office overhaul over any player addition, but absence that I definitely still prefer going after elite talent sooner through trades/free agency.

I worry about putting so much emphasis on 2025 if it means 2020-2021 are still only marginally contending years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 10:41 AM, bmags said:

If the idea is to try to win championships, then absolutely not.  Winners are on the Red Sox side of that trade. (And I'll pass on the "Flip" fantasy land stuff; Rick Hahn doesn't flip and rarely makes a serious July trade anyway).

If the idea is for the GM to say he's bringing in "premium talent" and then have a built in excuse when the team doesn't win, then sure.

Or if people just want a star to cheer for for a year, then by all means.

 

Edited by GreenSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bmags said:

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.

also Dozier, Starlin Castro , Kipnis, Kendrick . Still hate your idea but its generating good discussion so giving you a little help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Just one year of control plus he is really expensive that year so no real bargain either. By surplus value he would be worth about a 50 and a 40 fv prospect but the red sox would probably want much more than that not because of baseball ops but because that would alienate fans if he got traded for a prospect that becomes a 4th outfielder.

The red sox likely would want a top30 overall in baseball and I wouldn't give that up for a year of even an mvp candidate in his prime. Sure you could extend him but I doubt mookie would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 11:46 AM, Balta1701 said:

How do you define irresponsible? Is it the difference between paying $350 million for a player over 10 years or $400 million for that player? Or $425? I don't define that extra $7.25 million per year as irresponsible, I define that as less than the value of one Alex Colome or Ivan Nova or Yonder Alonso. I would define having a limit too low to actually sign one of these guys, and instead being stuck in the middle part of the free agent market forever as being far less responsible. 

The Free Agent market is inherently irresponsible, but if we're going to be on it - the one area where we haven't tried and failed is the absolute top of the market. We set ourselves up to be players there...to dip our toes in the water and then run away in panic to go back to what we already know does not work...that would be the least responsible thing we can do.

Tbt to when balta was fine with spending $400 mill on machado but horrified at the thought of committing it now to a better player.

Share this post


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

Tbt to when balta was fine with spending $400 mill on machado but horrified at the thought of committing it now to a better player.

Please find the post where I was ok with trading a top 50 prospect for him, particularly given the lack of depth in our system. Hell, please find deals we've made where we gave up youngsters that I was ok with. I didn't hate the Nova trade? 

You want to talk about after 2020? No worries. He's a "free agent" then. 

I would even be ok with a 1 year option and keeping our pitching expenditures low if we were serious about bidding for this guy (narrator: they weren't). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Who besides Hahn thought trading for Machado is his walk year was an outstanding idea?

 

Well Hahn must've thought it was so outstanding of an idea that he didn't end up doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Please find the post where I was ok with trading a top 50 prospect for him, particularly given the lack of depth in our system. Hell, please find deals we've made where we gave up youngsters that I was ok with. I didn't hate the Nova trade? 

You want to talk about after 2020? No worries. He's a "free agent" then. 

I would even be ok with a 1 year option and keeping our pitching expenditures low if we were serious about bidding for this guy (narrator: they weren't). 

This is fine with me. I'd rather just not prioritize what's available this offseason to be our long-term solutions just because they are "just money" now.

Now, the sox are obviously not going to try to sign Betts in any serious way. But I do think it is at least helpful that Trout very likely has set the ceiling market for probably a few years. Betts has a much easier framework to take to the market than Machado/Harper did, who with their age and production were unprecedented in the new CBA and league flush with tv money. 

Betts will enter able to point to trout and arenado to create this window of 270 mill to 450 mill that teams will need to play in to be considered. Sox won't be able to act like they can get a deal.

However, they very much should have someone in their organization trying to convince everyone that there will be a player that rarely comes available on the market soon and the sox can make that work.

Say we do just pay money for betts, a lineup that would consist of Anderson, Moncada, Jimenez, Betts, Robert, Vaughn and Madrigal is very promising and still largely cost controlled for several years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmags said:

This is fine with me. I'd rather just not prioritize what's available this offseason to be our long-term solutions just because they are "just money" now.

Now, the sox are obviously not going to try to sign Betts in any serious way. But I do think it is at least helpful that Trout very likely has set the ceiling market for probably a few years. Betts has a much easier framework to take to the market than Machado/Harper did, who with their age and production were unprecedented in the new CBA and league flush with tv money. 

Betts will enter able to point to trout and arenado to create this window of 270 mill to 450 mill that teams will need to play in to be considered. Sox won't be able to act like they can get a deal.

However, they very much should have someone in their organization trying to convince everyone that there will be a player that rarely comes available on the market soon and the sox can make that work.

Say we do just pay money for betts, a lineup that would consist of Anderson, Moncada, Jimenez, Betts, Robert, Vaughn and Madrigal is very promising and still largely cost controlled for several years.

Yeah...I would say that lineup is "very promising."  Looks like murderers row.🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd do anything I could to avoid including Madrigal and preferably I'd keep Stiever. But at the end of the day if it required giving up those two plus Vaughn for one year of Betts I'd do it. It would be a Kawhi Leonard-type move that may just catch the rest of the AL with their pants down and open up a lot more than just AL Central contention for the White Sox.

Overnight it'd remake this squad into a .500 team. And from then it doesn't take much accounting to start really finding extra wins here and there. Eloy doing it over a full season, Moncada & Anderson staying healthy, improvements from Cease & Lopez, Kopech returning with the stuff he's showing right now and the arrival of Robert and (provided he's not dealt) Madrigal. This is not to mention the fact that the Sox having basically nobody they care about due to leave the roster and ample assets to make some bullpen improvements. Is it unrealistic to see fifteen more wins there all tolled? Even with maybe a little bit of dip from Anderson, Giolito and McCann I can see that kind of improvement. I could see an even bigger twenty win improvement if Giolito sharpens up just a few things and Anderson stays healthy.

Without Betts you have yourself 85-90 wins. Close, but ultimately not good enough in today's MLB.

With Betts you have 95-100 wins. You're in the playoffs for sure and you're looking to do some damage. The Astros are losing Cole and their next best two starters are going to be 36 and 37 years old next year. They wont be chopped liver but they wont be an unstoppable behemoth.

Betts represents a real chance at winning a title. Maybe he'd be a year early than what you would ideally want but so what, this is your chance to get him cheap and it wont be around next year. If all that costs is our first round pick and some other farm players? 100% sign me up. I'd do that every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 3500S said:

I'd do anything I could to avoid including Madrigal and preferably I'd keep Stiever. But at the end of the day if it required giving up those two plus Vaughn for one year of Betts I'd do it. It would be a Kawhi Leonard-type move that may just catch the rest of the AL with their pants down and open up a lot more than just AL Central contention for the White Sox.

Overnight it'd remake this squad into a .500 team. And from then it doesn't take much accounting to start really finding extra wins here and there. Eloy doing it over a full season, Moncada & Anderson staying healthy, improvements from Cease & Lopez, Kopech returning with the stuff he's showing right now and the arrival of Robert and (provided he's not dealt) Madrigal. This is not to mention the fact that the Sox having basically nobody they care about due to leave the roster and ample assets to make some bullpen improvements. Is it unrealistic to see fifteen more wins there all tolled? Even with maybe a little bit of dip from Anderson, Giolito and McCann I can see that kind of improvement. I could see an even bigger twenty win improvement if Giolito sharpens up just a few things and Anderson stays healthy.

Without Betts you have yourself 85-90 wins. Close, but ultimately not good enough in today's MLB.

With Betts you have 95-100 wins. You're in the playoffs for sure and you're looking to do some damage. The Astros are losing Cole and their next best two starters are going to be 36 and 37 years old next year. They wont be chopped liver but they wont be an unstoppable behemoth.

Betts represents a real chance at winning a title. Maybe he'd be a year early than what you would ideally want but so what, this is your chance to get him cheap and it wont be around next year. If all that costs is our first round pick and some other farm players? 100% sign me up. I'd do that every day.

How on earth are you getting to 85 wins without Betts and no other additions?  They're MAYBE at 85 wins with Betts and no other additions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 3500S said:

I'd do anything I could to avoid including Madrigal and preferably I'd keep Stiever. But at the end of the day if it required giving up those two plus Vaughn for one year of Betts I'd do it. 

Without Betts you have yourself 85-90 wins. Close, but ultimately not good enough in today's MLB.

With Betts you have 95-100 wins. You're in the playoffs for sure and you're looking to do some damage

Holy shit.

Hey man, welcome to Earth.  This is obviously from a different galaxy or 4th dimension of hot takes.

By any chance do you like to gamble high stakes but lose a lot?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ChiSox1917 said:

How on earth are you getting to 85 wins without Betts and no other additions?  They're MAYBE at 85 wins with Betts and no other additions.  

Adding Robert, Madrigal and Kopech to replace Leury Garcia, Yolmer Sanchez and Odrisamer Despaigne/Ross Detwiler/whatever is a significant bump alone. All you'd need after that is for Moncada, Eloy and Anderson just to stay healthy all year and for Cease and Lopez to make incremental, modest improvements. I can do the accounting on this line by line if you'd like.

Edited by 3500S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 3500S said:

Adding Robert, Madrigal and Kopech to replace Leury Garcia, Yolmer Sanchez and Odrisamer Despaigne/Ross Detwiler/whatever is a significant bump alone. All you'd need after that is for Moncada, Eloy and Anderson just to stay healthy all year and for Cease and Lopez to make incremental, modest improvements. I can do the accounting on this line by line if you'd like.

You're assuming 3 rookies will put up all star caliber seasons all in the same year to get anywhere close to 85 wins. 

  • Like 1

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.

×