CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 8 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said: Hindsight about Joc? The Dodgers were rumored to be willing to trade Joc before they even showed interest in Betts. Acquiring Betts just made it even more likely that they would trade him. Did you even think for 1 second if the Sox traded for Joc when you wanted them to that it could turn out to be an overpay if the Dodgers got Betts ? Do you think Joc for the one year they would have him was going to turn the Sox into a playoff team or a team capable of winning a World Series ? You just wanted him because he wasn't Mazara. Length of time on the Sox, window of opportunity fit what they would've had to give up for him meant nothing to you. All you want to do is sit in your armchair and complain about guys who didn't fit and are more costly and who become available next year . There's nothing to complain about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Red Sox ownership would have been 100% fine paying the repeater tax for years. I agree they should never let betts get away, but it's clear the luxury tax escalators are effective. The yankees have been scared off by them, the dodgers have, and the red sox have. That re-set is clearly legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Dick, there are a ton of fans who are rationalizing this by saying "The Red Sox couldn't sign Mookie." It's a joke. I've heard fans float the idea that maybe Betts told the Sox he wouldn't sign with them - complete BS, because there's no chance Mookie would give up leverage like that. Fact is, Mookie told them what he wanted in FA and they scoffed at it and decided they didn't want to pay him what he was worth. People are defending it by saying they would have lost him for nothing; completely excusing the fact that there's NO EXCUSE for them not offering Mookie the most money. It's honestly amazing; the ownership PR spin for the last month has clearly worked on some because, in their mind, Mookie was leaving and there was nothing the Red Sox could do about it. We know that's a joke. Ironically, this could actually make it slightly possible for the Red Sox to be bidders on Betts. The Dodgers paid a fair price for the player with 1 year of control, and in the process the Red Sox get out of the multi-year penalties this year and free up a small amount of payroll next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: You just wanted him because he wasn't Mazara. Length of time on the Sox, window of opportunity fit what they would've had to give up for him meant nothing to you. Did I miss something in that deal last night? Because it looks like the Angels gave up less for Pederson than the White Sox did for Mazara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Did you even think for 1 second if the Sox traded for Joc when you wanted them to that it could turn out to be an overpay if the Dodgers got Betts ? Do you think Joc for the one year they would have him was going to turn the Sox into a playoff team or a team capable of winning a World Series ? You just wanted him because he wasn't Mazara. Length of time on the Sox, window of opportunity fit what they would've had to give up for him meant nothing to you. All you want to do is sit in your armchair and complain about guys who didn't fit and are more costly and who become available next year . There's nothing to complain about. There was a thread here about guessing the Sox next player acquisition. I guessed Mazara and was correct. That doesn’t mean I wanted him. But right now, you are making assumptions on what Joc would have cost the Sox, pre-Betts trade. You don’t know! All we know is the current cost of Joc post-Betts trade, which doesn’t look like much of a price to pay so far. If you wouldn’t rather have Joc than Mazara right now, I seriously question how much you want the Sox to win. Because there is no doubt that Joc helps the Sox win more games than Mazara. In fact, Joc helped the Dodgers win more games above replacement last year than Mazara did in his entire 4 years with the Rangers. Edited February 5, 2020 by Moan4Yoan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Just now, Balta1701 said: Did I miss something in that deal last night? Because it looks like the Angels gave up less for Pederson than the White Sox did for Mazara. Haha, don’t even try to rationalize this. It’s hurting my brain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Moan4Yoan said: Excellent post. He keeps trying to put words in my mouth and he is wrong every damn time. And I prove him wrong every damn time when I respond. Thanks for noticing. You are so cool. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 You guys realize that if the Sox had waited this long to fill RF the Dodgers would have thus had multiple suitors and held out for more, right? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) Here is the latest. Two more Angels prospects are headed back to the Dodgers but the Angels are also getting back Stripling which could offset this additional cost. Unless these two prospects are highly rated, this trade looks very good for the Angels. Edited February 5, 2020 by Moan4Yoan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Ironically, this could actually make it slightly possible for the Red Sox to be bidders on Betts. The Dodgers paid a fair price for the player with 1 year of control, and in the process the Red Sox get out of the multi-year penalties this year and free up a small amount of payroll next year. Yes, and if that happens I will take back everything I said. History isn't on the Red Sox side here though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: You guys realize that if the Sox had waited this long to fill RF the Dodgers would have thus had multiple suitors and held out for more, right? It’s possible the Dodgers had multiple suitors already, regardless of the Sox involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 minute ago, chitownsportsfan said: You guys realize that if the Sox had waited this long to fill RF the Dodgers would have thus had multiple suitors and held out for more, right? Yeah, this was my point above. The market died because everyone was signed by the time the Dodgers made the trade. The demand for COF was already lower than other markets this off-season, and there just weren't enough suitors to maintain the same price demand they had prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqr Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, EloyJenkins said: Betts is most likely gone. There is a 0.0% chance Betts does not hit the open the market. Edited February 5, 2020 by mqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 26 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: MLBTR has a poll on the Betts trade. How anyone could give the Red Sox anything but an F for salary dumping an in their prime MVP with the revenue they generate, and not give the Dodgers an A for acquiring that type of player is beyond me. The Red Sox didn't bring in Bloom because they wanted to keep throwing money around like it was confetti. They brought him in to fix the mess Dombrowski had made. Not even the Red Sox want to pay the luxury tax penalties . Even they realized that some $400M contract for Betts with where they were already at with payroll wasn't going to happen. That's not F worthy . I will give the Dodgers an A because Betts for one year greatly improves their shot at a World Series. They have a deep and talented roster and farm system and could afford to go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Just now, mqr said: There is a 0.0% Betts does not hit the open the market. I'd say it's 10%, the Dodgers could offer him that $420 million deal he supposedly asked the Red Sox for if they really want to make it happen, but they really shouldn't, at least until they see how this season goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Just now, mqr said: There is a 0.0% Betts does not hit the open the market. And there is also 0.0% that the Sox will outbid the Dodgers or some other interested team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 27 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said: Hindsight about Joc? The Dodgers were rumored to be willing to trade Joc before they even showed interest in Betts. Acquiring Betts just made it even more likely that they would trade him. Corn didn’t digest much? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Spoiled ass Red Sox fans reacting to this move on their corners of the 'Net is giving me much needed life on this soggy ass morning. You'd think they contracted the team the way they are acting. OH BOO FUCKING HOO you only have what, three rings in the last 12 years and 2 in the last 7? Fuck off. Enjoy your success but every owner has a price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqr Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I'd say it's 10%, the Dodgers could offer him that $420 million deal he supposedly asked the Red Sox for if they really want to make it happen, but they really shouldn't, at least until they see how this season goes. The Dodgers haven't been ones to throw around giant contracts to guys in years. Will they compete on the open market for him? Maybe. But they're not going to dump the brinks truck on him to keep him off it. Edited February 5, 2020 by mqr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Moan4Yoan said: I complained about the Mazara trade when it actually occurred and cited examples of better targets that could have been acquired instead, specifically Ozuna, Castellanos, and Joc. Many people said the same thing at the time. Try again. Don't need to try again. You continue to rehash the same thing but don't address any points people are making. This post in question had nothing to do with what happened at the time of the mazara trade. It had everything to do with what would have happened if the trade hadn't occurred. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, bmags said: I agree they should never let betts get away, but it's clear the luxury tax escalators are effective. The yankees have been scared off by them, the dodgers have, and the red sox have. That re-set is clearly legit. Cubs too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 18 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said: I disagree. My view is fact-based. Your view is opinion-based. Better players based on track record is based on facts. Completely objective. Better options based on team fit, window of contention, and salary is based on your own opinion. Completely subjective. Apparently the Sox and the rest of MLB agreed with me and not you .So my subjective opinion seems to be completely in line with the Sox thinking and the many others who never saw a great fit with those players. Anything the Sox did to acquire Castellanos , Ozuna, and Pederson would have been an overpay based on what they got and a bad fit. The Sox kicked the can down the road for RF and based on Castellanos , Ozuna, Joc ,Springer,Betts availability next year and a year to see how Mazara does isn't worth complaining about. Sox still might need another quality starting pitcher next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 28 minutes ago, hi8is said: This. Ok. Good. I was reading it correctly. Some on the board are so convoluted in the points that it's like reading a student paper where they needed 25 pages but only had 20 pages of material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, ptatc said: Don't need to try again. You continue to rehash the same thing but don't address any points people are making. This post in question had nothing to do with what happened at the time of the mazara trade. It had everything to do with what would have happened if the trade hadn't occurred. Agree to disagree. BackDoorBreach already called you out perfectly. Other posters can compare both Joc and Mazara but I can’t. I am using hindsight about wanting Joc over Mazara when I noted there were better options than Mazara at the time the Sox acquired Mazara and Ozuna, Castellanos, and Joc were all still available. Please go back and review BackDoorBreach’s post because he nailed it and you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moan4Yoan Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said: Apparently the Sox and the rest of MLB agreed with me and not you .So my subjective opinion seems to be completely in line with the Sox thinking and the many others who never saw a great fit with those players. Anything the Sox did to acquire Castellanos , Ozuna, and Pederson would have been an overpay based on what they got and a bad fit. The Sox kicked the can down the road for RF and based on Castellanos , Ozuna, Joc ,Springer,Betts availability next year and a year to see how Mazara does isn't worth complaining about. Sox still might need another quality starting pitcher next year. The Sox thought Shields was worth Tatis Jr. The Sox also spent $40+ million for a load of crap last year. No one is infallible in their thinking. Not you, me, or the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.