RedSox want to package Betts, Price trade

[gotbeer]

5 minutes ago, Φαήλος said:

Does it include free fried chicken and beer?

 

[Pancake Bear]

A deal like this is clearly aimed at contenders with solid farm systems who are desperate for a championship. Basically, they’re trying to get the Dodgers to overpay, IMO. 

Maybe it works. I doubt it, but who knows? Desperate teams sometimes make bizarre moves. More likely, I’m thinking, Boston gets stuck holding the bag or has to lower the ask. 

[failos]

That eve chick is hot as hell

[failos]

18 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Both players are black, so no. 

You racist.

I forgot to add in Xbox Live and John Lackey

[Dick B Back]

[Angel Oracle]

11 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

FORK!

[IEAngelsfan]

32 minutes ago, Dick B Back said:

Wow, and all this time I thought he was saying something else........I feel silly.

[Inside Pitch]

Don't really blame them for asking what they are asking.  They said competing is more important than getting under the tax...so, may as well make it worth their while if the end result is no Betts. 

As it stands now they could potentially shed 40+ mil in salary next year, plus another 20 mil If JD Martinez opts out.  It really wouldn't be a shock now that the fat, front loaded years are done -- his salary drops 4 mil next two years.    If Martinez opts out, and they cut Bradley loose, that's 35 mil they could throw towards re-signing Betts.... Those two moves alone would bring them right to the cap and they'd still get to keep Betts.

 

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Blarg said:

There is absolutely no value in Betts for the Angels. He is a one year rental when they definetely don't need another outfielder. Price is rediculously over priced so Boston would have to split the costs. I just don't see any reason to further beat this to death, pairing of the two is simply a waste of the Angels money and prospects. 

The only way this would make sense for the Angels is if Mookie Betts would accept an extension contract, which he would do only if it was at a fair market price (which the Red Sox seem to have never offered him).

So, for example, if Moreno authorizes a huge payroll surge and the Angels agreed to take on all of David Price's contract (approximately -$30M in a sunk "surplus" value) and Mookie Betts was packaged in the deal (he currently has about $35M-$50M in surplus value for his last remaining year of control) and Betts agreed to a 10-year, $350M extension contract, would you send Jo Adell back in return?

Would you want the Red Sox to eat more money since Adell, himself, probably has about $60M-$65M in surplus value? (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/)

Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $40M of Price's contract and Betts signing the above suggested extension contract and the Angels sending Jo Adell and Jordyn Adams in exchange? Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $20M of Price's contract and Betts signing the suggested extension and the Angels send Brandon Marsh plus ????.

No matter what getting only one year of Mookie, as Blarg suggested above, doesn't make sense but getting additional years via an extension would make more sense with the right balance of cash and prospects changing hands.

All this being said, it seems very unlikely (like less than 1%) considering all of the moving parts involved.

 

[ettin]

7 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Don't really blame them for asking what they are asking.  They said competing is more important than getting under the tax...so, may as well make it worth their while if the end result is no Betts. 

As it stands now they could potentially shed 40+ mil in salary next year, plus another 20 mil If JD Martinez opts out.  It really wouldn't be a shock now that the fat, front loaded years are done -- his salary drops 4 mil next two years.    If Martinez opts out, and they cut Bradley loose, that's 35 mil they could throw towards re-signing Betts.... Those two moves alone would bring them right to the cap and they'd still get to keep Betts.

 

I thought JD Martinez already opted in to his remaining contract?

[Inside Pitch]

11 minutes ago, ettin said:

I thought JD Martinez already opted in to his remaining contract?

He has two opt outs, 2019 and 2020.  He is slated to make 23.75 Mil this year and 19.75 the next two.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/

[ettin]

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

He has two opt outs, 2019 and 2020.  He is slated to make 23.75 Mil this year and 19.75 the next two.

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/

Hmmm interesting, did not realize he had those. He also has an opt out after 2021 too, according to B-Ref.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Price, Betts and Eduardo Rodriguez for Upton and Rengifo

[kevinb]

I'd want the Angels to trade for Betts and Price if they take Upton back. The Angels just can't feasibly trade for two big contracts and keep Upton. Betts Adell and Trout for the next 5-7 years would be an incredible outfield. Along with Rendon and this team could be the best offense in baseball. 

[Lou]

4 hours ago, Taylor said:

I'd Bett the Price is way too high for it to be viable for the Angels.

 

4 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Name a price for the bett.

 

Can the season start already? 

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, ettin said:

Hmmm interesting, did not realize he had those. He also has an opt out after 2021 too, according to B-Ref.

Apparently those years become mutual opt outs if he breaks down with a particular injury....  Interesting deal in that it gave him the option to bolt after the 2nd and 3rd year if he continued to do well then gave the team a way out if he had broken down.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

The only way this would make sense for the Angels is if Mookie Betts would accept an extension contract, which he would do only if it was at a fair market price (which the Red Sox seem to have never offered him).

So, for example, if Moreno authorizes a huge payroll surge and the Angels agreed to take on all of David Price's contract (approximately -$30M in a sunk "surplus" value) and Mookie Betts was packaged in the deal (he currently has about $35M-$50M in surplus value for his last remaining year of control) and Betts agreed to a 10-year, $350M extension contract, would you send Jo Adell back in return?

Would you want the Red Sox to eat more money since Adell, himself, probably has about $60M-$65M in surplus value? (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/)

Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $40M of Price's contract and Betts signing the above suggested extension contract and the Angels sending Jo Adell and Jordyn Adams in exchange? Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $20M of Price's contract and Betts signing the suggested extension and the Angels send Brandon Marsh plus ????.

No matter what getting only one year of Mookie, as Blarg suggested above, doesn't make sense but getting additional years via an extension would make more sense with the right balance of cash and prospects changing hands.

All this being said, it seems very unlikely (like less than 1%) considering all of the moving parts involved.

 

nice post Robert as always.  

it has reminded me that while surplus value is very important, so it absolute value and absolute cost.  where getting some surplus value at a position at a high cost potentially impacts your ability to get more value from another position.  

the only way a Betts deal makes even remote sense is if you keep him long term which means committing $110m to three players over the next 7+ years which actually doesn't make a ton of sense.  

We're just not in a spot where we're ready to risk getting that one player for one or even two years.  

People generally don't want to accept this, but the 2020 team isn't going to be as good as it could be for the sake of years after this one.  As I've mentioned before, just about any team could maneuver to make their team really really good for the next two years.  If the Angels thought that was their best chance to win a championship, then Adell, Marsh, Sandoval. Rengifo, Thaiss, Canning, Adams, etc. would all be gone.  

That's the difference between how the team was being constructed in 2014 to now.  They put a 98 win team together that year and the next year ended up with a lesser team on paper to start the season because of a lack of resources.  Both financial and via trade.  

[tdawg87]

Yeah nice post, Robert.

[Mark68]

2 hours ago, ettin said:

The only way this would make sense for the Angels is if Mookie Betts would accept an extension contract, which he would do only if it was at a fair market price (which the Red Sox seem to have never offered him).

So, for example, if Moreno authorizes a huge payroll surge and the Angels agreed to take on all of David Price's contract (approximately -$30M in a sunk "surplus" value) and Mookie Betts was packaged in the deal (he currently has about $35M-$50M in surplus value for his last remaining year of control) and Betts agreed to a 10-year, $350M extension contract, would you send Jo Adell back in return?

Would you want the Red Sox to eat more money since Adell, himself, probably has about $60M-$65M in surplus value? (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/)

Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $40M of Price's contract and Betts signing the above suggested extension contract and the Angels sending Jo Adell and Jordyn Adams in exchange? Maybe it is the Red Sox eating $20M of Price's contract and Betts signing the suggested extension and the Angels send Brandon Marsh plus ????.

No matter what getting only one year of Mookie, as Blarg suggested above, doesn't make sense but getting additional years via an extension would make more sense with the right balance of cash and prospects changing hands.

All this being said, it seems very unlikely (like less than 1%) considering all of the moving parts involved.

 

I think the ONLY way to trade Adell in this scenario is to have the Sox eat nearly all of Price's contract. They would be getting a ton of surplus value in Adell, and there is no guarantee that Betts would opt to stay--even at fair market value.

If he would, then this trade kinda makes sense, as much as it pains me to say, because I love the idea of Adell & Trout patrolling the same outfield for at least the next 6-7 years.

[Lou]

I cringe at the thought of Adell playing for Boston.

[ettin]

3 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

If he would, then this trade kinda makes sense, as much as it pains me to say, because I love the idea of Adell & Trout patrolling the same outfield for at least the next 6-7 years.

Actually I do too.

It is an interesting thought process though because Mookie Betts is a 6-WAR player right now and Jo Adell may or may not struggle in the Majors and he is unlikely to approach that type of WAR as only a small handful of players do this each season, if at all.

Dochalo is right about one thing, that is a LOT of money if Betts signed an extension for the Angels to carry. We would be over the CBT threshold by a significant amount for the next two years and beyond really.

The prudent thing is to stay on the Adell path.

[floplag]

I have to think that if Betts were open to an extension pre free agency he would have already signed one, unless, he simply doesn't want to play in Bos any more.

[Lou]

Betts isn't signing an extension.  He's dead set on hitting free agency.  That's why he rejected Boston's offer. 

[ettin]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

I have to think that if Betts were open to an extension pre free agency he would have already signed one, unless, he simply doesn't want to play in Bos any more.

 

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Betts isn't signing an extension.  He's dead set on hitting free agency.  That's why he rejected Boston's offer. 

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/mookie-betts-doesnt-expect-sign-contract-extension-red-sox

For the record although he states he wants to hit free agency, he also said that he wants to be treated fairly. I suspect that the original extension offer from the Red Sox was perhaps a touch light (although calling $200M light is laughable to normal's).

Yes he may not want to sign a contract until he hits free agency but if the Angels paid him a contract worthy of signing, I suspect he would consider it, probably. He used the word "fairly" in regard to how he wants to be treated in his next contract.

Again this is just pie-in-the-sky talk, the chances of this coming together, seems difficult. I would point out that once Pujols comes off the books we could probably slip back under the Luxury Tax or at least get close enough where the penalty isn't catastrophic and then the year after that both Upton and Price would fall off too (and Ohtani could come onto the books).

Not my money!

[Pancake Bear]

30 minutes ago, ettin said:

For the record although he states he wants to hit free agency, he also said that he wants to be treated fairly. I suspect that the original extension offer from the Red Sox was perhaps a touch light (although calling $200M light is laughable to normal's).

He's a clear bit better than Harper or Machado were, albeit older entering free agency. I doubt he accepts anything short of 350, and he probably thinks he has a reasonable shot at 400. Now, if you offered him 10/400, does he take it? Maybe. 350, probably not. But 200, by comparison to his peers (not to us peons, as you noted, obviously), is laughable. 

Per fWAR, Mookie's 30 WAR in the last five years is significantly higher than Machado (23.8) and Harper (22) in their five years prior to free agency. Now, Mookie is also going to be two years older, which doesn't help him, but he also doesn't have Harper's durability issues so far or the attitude questions with either. He plays elite defense unlike Harper (Manny's is debatable, but he plays a more valuable position defensively), and his overall defensive value seems to be higher than Machado as well.

His worst season in the last five was 4.8, and that was the least recent of the five. Second worst was a 5.3 three seasons back. Two of his last five were 10.4 and 8.3. Bryce hit 9.3 one time and never got over 5 WAR since. Machado had three seasons over 6 WAR, but never cleared 7 (which is still very solid). 

Despite being older than both, he'll still only be 28 entering free agency, so a ten year deal of 350 is probably his floor. If he can swing a 12 year deal, he could match or even pass Trout. I doubt he does, but on the free agent market, it's possible. My guess is somewhere in the 370-390 range for 12 years.