Castellanos to Reds , rumored 4/64M

[BackDoorBreach]

33 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Betts is that guy

Not a chance.

We will be limited to Joc Pederson and Ozuna.

[Moan4Yoan]

49 minutes ago, BackDoorBreach said:

Not a chance.

We will be limited to Joc Pederson and Ozuna.

Do people seriously think that the Sox are going to sign Betts for $300+ million dollars?

[SonofaRoache]

8 hours ago, Moan4Yoan said:

Do people seriously think that the Sox are going to sign Betts for $300+ million dollars?

Yeah it is very laughable. We will need to hand out big contracts to our own guys so the money won't be there for a Betts deal. I think we will end up trading this year's draft pick and a few others for a RF or will sign Joc. 

[NWINFan]

9 hours ago, Moan4Yoan said:

Do people seriously think that the Sox are going to sign Betts for $300+ million dollars?

I don't know why. This FO will never sign mega-deals like this for any reason. They have shown what their philosophy is by this rebuild. Build from within and then add free agents that have contracts that are relatively short in length and don't go past $100 million. We will see how it will work. It has a chance go work. But fans should stop dreaming of deals like this. Not going to happen.

[Kpet1010]

I was thinking the same thing. My favorite ideal is that we "wait and sign betts on the offseason." First off, he's going to be traded and most likely be extended to whoever takes him on. Second, like everyone said. There are NO mega deals. Betts is not a Machado or a Harper. He's not as marketable. We saw the highest they were willing to go was 250$ for Machado, why would they go that for Betts? 

 

There is no obsession with signing or trading for a big name, its a good idea and should be done. They either need to trade for Mookie with a decent extension, or trade for another big name, or rely on their young guys to grow like they are now. 

[he gone.]

9 hours ago, Moan4Yoan said:

Do people seriously think that the Sox are going to sign Betts for $300+ million dollars?

As a guy who has said they had no real shot at major FA in the past ... I actually think we do have a chance. Slight. Like 5-10%. I know it sounds crazy - but I've had this weird feeling for some time. My belief is that it has to be a perfect storm though. 

a) the Sox have to be very competitive this year. This means just missing or making the playoffs. It also takes a few pitchers stepping forward to where we truly believe in them - Kopech, Cease, Lopez, Dunning, etc. Basically to where you've solidified your rotation and don't think you'll need to go out and spend in FA.

b) none of the Sox minor league OF take a step forward - so Rutherford, Adolfo, etc all basically just confirm they have no shot of being a true option

c) The Dodgers don't get him. I'd count them as the main competition. Going down the line alphabetically for NO's -- AZ, BAL, BOS, CHC, CIN, CLE, COL, HOU, KC,  MIA, MIL, MIN, NYM, OAK, PIT, SEA, TB. 

d) That leaves ATL, DET, LAA, LAD,  NYY, PHI, SD, SF, STL, TEX, TOR, WAS

e) I'd think out of that list ... LAD, TEX, SF, SD, CWS, DET are the most likely in that order

 

In my heart of hearts i believe we end up with Springer. But really outside of LAD I think we can compete with the offers from TEX, SF, and SD. Also outside of LAD and SD, we probably have the best pitch to win multiple WS during his contract. The next hardest part is a comp ... Harper was 13 years AAV of $25mm. Trout was 12 years AAV of $35mm. My tops would be ... 10 years .... $300mm. Machados contract, though I think he pushes for a deal like Harpers ... more years... but less AAV than Trout. My guess is he pushes for 12 years and like $350mm. 

 

My personal breaking point is 10 years though, because as an OF he's going to age poorly, ultimately being a 35-38 year old LF, making $30mm a year, a shell of his former self. Very few OF age well into their mid 30's. So you have understand you're overpaying to try and bring home multiple WS over the next 5-7 years. 

 

[hi8is]

I’ve said it already before and will repeat it here again:

 

If the Chicago White Sox sign Mookie Betts, I will dance naked anywhere this forum asks me to.

[Balta1701]

58 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

My personal breaking point is 10 years though, because as an OF he's going to age poorly, ultimately being a 35-38 year old LF, making $30mm a year, a shell of his former self. Very few OF age well into their mid 30's. So you have understand you're overpaying to try and bring home multiple WS over the next 5-7 years. 

 

That's literally the point of every one of these contracts. Just as an example - in Fangraphs valuations, Mookie Betts last year was worth $53 million.  You are not going to pay him even $45 million for any one season in his next contract, which would be roughly fair value for his expected performance in the first few years. However, he's going to get that money - you could sign him to a 7 year, 350 million deal that pays him $50 million a year, or you can up it to 10/$375, you're basically offering him $8 million a year for each of those last 3 years,  it gives your team the ability to pay him under $40 million a year during the years that you are most likely to be competitive, and if he holds together as even a 1-2 win player over the final few years of his contract you also get that performance out of him. 

Whoever does sign him for that kind of money, that's how they do the math. Plus, if there's an opt-out in there that the player is good enough to take, then you might even get out of the commitment for those last few years.

[Kyyle23]

27 minutes ago, hi8is said:

I’ve said it already before and will repeat it here again:

 

If the Chicago White Sox sign Mookie Betts, I will dance naked anywhere this forum asks me to.

We are all good man, we can all just be happy with no strings attached

[Jose Abreu]

1 hour ago, NWINFan said:

They have shown what their philosophy is by this rebuild. Build from within and then add free agents that have contracts that are relatively short in length and don't go past $100 million

I don’t agree with this at all. This was their philosophy for 2020, not the rebuild, and even then, the $100 million thing isn’t true given what they offered Wheeler. I think they went with all one-year deals (aside from Keuchel and Grandal) so that they can re-evaluate their needs after the season and make more appropriate, long-term moves.

[mqr]

5 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don’t agree with this at all. This was their philosophy for 2020, not the rebuild, and even then, the $100 million thing isn’t true given what they offered Wheeler. I think they went with all one-year deals (aside from Keuchel and Grandal) so that they can re-evaluate their needs after the season and make more appropriate, long-term moves.

Agreed, this offseason was perfectly executed on paper short of not anticipating Wheeler's proclivity to stay east. 

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don’t agree with this at all. This was their philosophy for 2020, not the rebuild, and even then, the $100 million thing isn’t true given what they offered Wheeler. I think they went with all one-year deals (aside from Keuchel and Grandal) so that they can re-evaluate their needs after the season and make more appropriate, long-term moves.

But if we're specifically talking about Mookie Betts, it's worth noting that for top line players like that during this offseason, the White Sox declared themselves out of the game before it started. 

[hi8is]

42 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

We are all good man, we can all just be happy with no strings attached

 

[ptatc]

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

But if we're specifically talking about Mookie Betts, it's worth noting that for top line players like that during this offseason, the White Sox declared themselves out of the game before it started. 

I think this is the correct philosophy. So many teams, like the Cubs, sign these high money long term deals, then they need to let their home grown talent leave or trade them due to budget constraints. If they sign Betts for 10 years, you can bet right now they will lose Jimenez or Robert or Moncada due to that deal. I would prefer they see how the team develops and see where the current talent takes them then make the decision on what they need.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think this is the correct philosophy. So many teams, like the Cubs, sign these high money long term deals, then they need to let their home grown talent leave or trade them due to budget constraints. If they sign Betts for 10 years, you can bet right now they will lose Jimenez or Robert or Moncada due to that deal. I would prefer they see how the team develops and see where the current talent takes them then make the decision on what they need.

1. Why on Earth do people consider the Cubs to be a cautionary tale? "The Cubs are a debacle, they only won 1 world series and had 4 straight playoff appearances out of their rebuild". People would have a problem with that here? 

2. Robert is signed through 2027. Jiminez is signed through 2026. 

3. Moncada could be at risk of walking anyway if we're unprepared to spend $300 million on a player, because that's likely to be the going rate for a top 5 3rd baseman three years from now. 

4. Budget constraints are flexible if new revenue sources become available. For example, if you have a ballpark that is on average <50% full, and you are able to increase that to 66% full, you will see a substantial increase in revenue that should be able to affect your budget. 

[NWINFan]

1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don’t agree with this at all. This was their philosophy for 2020, not the rebuild, and even then, the $100 million thing isn’t true given what they offered Wheeler. I think they went with all one-year deals (aside from Keuchel and Grandal) so that they can re-evaluate their needs after the season and make more appropriate, long-term moves.

But they ended up not signing Wheeler. Meanwhile, I am not holding out hope for any mega signings in the future. If it happens, fine, but I am not expecting or hoping for it.

[hi8is]

32 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Moncada could be at risk of walking anyway if we're unprepared to spend $300 million on a player, because that's likely to be the going rate for a top 5 3rd baseman three years from now. 

He either signs an extension by 2023 or he’s traded for another wave of young mlb ready controllable talent.

My preference is to lock him up but either way, he will provide value past 2024.

Long live the White Sox!

[Balta1701]

10 minutes ago, hi8is said:

He either signs an extension by 2023 or he’s traded for another wave of young mlb ready controllable talent.

My preference is to lock him up but either way, he will provide value past 2024.

Long live the White Sox!

Note what is happening with Betts, Lindor, and to a lesser extent Bryant (odder because of the grievance). Lindor is currently 2 years away from free agency and Cleveland cannot get returns that are strong enough to move him. Same thing as Betts right now - Boston could move him but the returns would be minimal. Moncada will not be as good as Lindor or Betts, will not have anything near the record of multi-year performance of Lindor or Betts, but could easily be in the same boat. The Dodgers would certainly like Lindor, but they are not parting with a top 10 prospect for him under the current circumstances, even when they haven't really improved their team otherwise.

Trading Moncada for "Another wave of young MLB ready controllable talent" is something the market right now is telling you will not happen. If you want to move Moncada next year for 2 guys ranked in 50-100 range, you can probably do that, but that's not "MLB-ready" most of the time. If you want to wait 2 years, you're going to get even less.

[Jose Abreu]

20 minutes ago, NWINFan said:

But they ended up not signing Wheeler. Meanwhile, I am not holding out hope for any mega signings in the future. If it happens, fine, but I am not expecting or hoping for it.

Sure, he didn't accept the offer, but my point is that they haven't drawn a line at $100 million and said "we're not paying anyone more than this". The Machado offer doesn't really count IMO, but the Wheeler one does

[hi8is]

21 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Note what is happening with Betts, Lindor, and to a lesser extent Bryant (odder because of the grievance). Lindor is currently 2 years away from free agency and Cleveland cannot get returns that are strong enough to move him. Same thing as Betts right now - Boston could move him but the returns would be minimal. Moncada will not be as good as Lindor or Betts, will not have anything near the record of multi-year performance of Lindor or Betts, but could easily be in the same boat. The Dodgers would certainly like Lindor, but they are not parting with a top 10 prospect for him under the current circumstances, even when they haven't really improved their team otherwise.

Trading Moncada for "Another wave of young MLB ready controllable talent" is something the market right now is telling you will not happen. If you want to move Moncada next year for 2 guys ranked in 50-100 range, you can probably do that, but that's not "MLB-ready" most of the time. If you want to wait 2 years, you're going to get even less.

I have more confidence that we would be able to get one mlb ready asset and another top young prospect for Moncada a year before his free agency than you are...

Simple as that.

Also think Betts gets a similar haul before July and that Lindor goes for a similar return before his time comes.

Looking at history outside of this current vastly incomplete trading season supports this.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, hi8is said:

I have more confidence that we would be able to get one mlb ready asset and another top young prospect for Moncada a year before his free agency than you are...

Simple as that.

Also think Betts gets a similar haul before July and that Lindor goes for a similar return before his time comes.

Looking at history outside of this current vastly incomplete trading season supports this.

When the Dodgers traded for Machado, they gave up 1 player in the top 100 and a handful of depth pieces. As of right now, guys in that trade are the #5, #9, and #27 prospects for the Orioles organization. The only one who has made the big leagues, a year and a half later, is a 28 year old 2b. That's a far cry from "one MLB ready asset and another top prospect". 

[hi8is]

45 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

When the Dodgers traded for Machado, they gave up 1 player in the top 100 and a handful of depth pieces. As of right now, guys in that trade are the #5, #9, and #27 prospects for the Orioles organization. The only one who has made the big leagues, a year and a half later, is a 28 year old 2b. That's a far cry from "one MLB ready asset and another top prospect". 

There are many examples of trade returns that fit your narrative and there are many which would support mine.

Suffice is to say, Moncada will provide value regardless of if he resigns with us or not. My preference has already been stated and I really think there’s good reason for optimism of his long term tenure with our team.

And in the words of the great Forrest Gump, “that’s all I have to say about that.”

[SCCWS]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Note what is happening with Betts, Lindor, and to a lesser extent Bryant (odder because of the grievance). Lindor is currently 2 years away from free agency and Cleveland cannot get returns that are strong enough to move him. Same thing as Betts right now - Boston could move him but the returns would be minimal. Moncada will not be as good as Lindor or Betts, will not have anything near the record of multi-year performance of Lindor or Betts, but could easily be in the same boat. The Dodgers would certainly like Lindor, but they are not parting with a top 10 prospect for him under the current circumstances, even when they haven't really improved their team otherwise.

Trading Moncada for "Another wave of young MLB ready controllable talent" is something the market right now is telling you will not happen. If you want to move Moncada next year for 2 guys ranked in 50-100 range, you can probably do that, but that's not "MLB-ready" most of the time. If you want to wait 2 years, you're going to get even less.

Not sure that is true. Strongest current rumors are Dodgers and Padres.  But Boston wants a bundle back. 

 

 

With Betts, Boston is following the blueprint Arizona used to trade Paul Goldschmidt with one year of control. The Diamondbacks received two major-league ready young players (pitcher Luke Weaver and catcher Carson Kelly), a minor league infielder (Andy Young) and a draft pick. Arizona won 85 games last season, a three-game improvement. The price for Betts, the better player, is higher.

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/01/28/mookie-betts-trade-boston-red-sox

 

[ptatc]

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

1. Why on Earth do people consider the Cubs to be a cautionary tale? "The Cubs are a debacle, they only won 1 world series and had 4 straight playoff appearances out of their rebuild". People would have a problem with that here? 

2. Robert is signed through 2027. Jiminez is signed through 2026. 

3. Moncada could be at risk of walking anyway if we're unprepared to spend $300 million on a player, because that's likely to be the going rate for a top 5 3rd baseman three years from now. 

4. Budget constraints are flexible if new revenue sources become available. For example, if you have a ballpark that is on average <50% full, and you are able to increase that to 66% full, you will see a substantial increase in revenue that should be able to affect your budget. 

1. I would prefer a longer window and not spend the money on players like Heyward and spend it on their own players.

2. Those are 6 and 7 years. if you sign Betts to a 10 year contract as I stated you are losing at least one of those on the worst years of an aging Betts

3. I would like them to spend that money on Moncada a current player in 4-5 years as opposed to 10 years for Betts now to extend that winning window. The sox do have a history of paying their own players.

4.  Fans can hope that JR will approved the higher budgets and I would prefer to spend it on the current players on the team as they grow as opposed to a player that is older and shorten the window of competition.

Edited January 29, 2020 by ptatc

[Balta1701]

Just now, ptatc said:

1. I would prefer a longer window and not spend the money on players like Heyward and spend it on their own players.

But also no Lester, so no titles.