Master Index of Archived Threads


Let's talk Mookie Betts

Mex17 Nov 03 2019 06:06 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 03 2019 11:18 AM

I guess now that the manager thing is done we can get into real Hot Stove talk. . . I know that Francesa is not the most popular guy around here, but he did float something interesting a few months back: Syndergaard, Diaz, and Dom Smith to Boston for Betts. The theory is that, a) Boston might not want to pay Betts, b) the Mets might not want to pay Syndergaard, c) Diaz needs a change of scenery, and d) Smith is buried on this roster. Could it happen? Should it happen? Will it happen? Do you want another, different, superior Mookie to supplant our own, home grown, Buckner beating, beloved Mookie in the hierarchy of Mookies who were Mets?

Ceetar Nov 03 2019 07:01 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

I'd love Betts and you figure it out, but the OF is crowded. Nimmo, Conforto, Cespedes, and Davis/McNeil I guess? I mean, you make it work. you put Betts in center and shuffle guys or someone gets hurt. But it's not you necessarily have an _Empty_ spot you're upgrading. This specific trade is heavily in Boston's favor. I'm not trading Syndergaard. He's awesome and probably irreplaceable in the rotation. Diaz doesn't need a change of scenery, he needs to get his slider down. Is that a new coach? better QC on the ball? New grip? Just bad luck? Fenway isn't the answer for him. Smith might be really good, I liked what I saw this year, but it was limited time, and arguably he was just put into the best positions/splits to succeed (with the bat anyway). But thanks to that value might actually be higher than his worth and he'd be a good guy to trade. J.D. Davis as well. (Trade high on Davis, buy Rendon) This Mets team has a lot of talent already, and it's going to be an interesting game of trying to figure out which guys are not helpful for 2020 and which guys are. There are like 42 permutations the Mets could do this offseason to attempt to get better, and it's not clearly obvious which ones are the best ways to go.

Edgy MD Nov 03 2019 07:21 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Having won four world championships in the last 15 years, one as recently as a year ago, I'm not sure what Boston's motivation would be to unload their MVP candidates. If you want to steal a superstar from somebody, you'd probably have a better chance of landing Trout.

Mex17 Nov 03 2019 09:16 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Edgy MD wrote: Having won four world championships in the last 15 years, one as recently as a year ago, I'm not sure what Boston's motivation would be to unload their MVP candidates. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-red-sox-will-reportedly-listen-to-trade-offers-for-mookie-betts-this-offseason-and-heres-why-they-may-deal-him/ It's in the ether, whether you would choose to give credence to the speculation or not.

Frayed Knot Jan 10 2020 06:37 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Betts winds up signing a one-year contract w/Boston. Now I suppose they could still trade him, but all indications are that he'll play out 2020 w/the Sawx and hit the FA market next winter.

smg58 Jan 11 2020 01:52 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

I don't think that agreeing to a contract before arbitration necessarily takes him off the block. If anything, knowing his salary will make it easier for prospective buyers to plan. The Red Sox might be concerned that they can't compete with the Yankees in the last year they'll have Betts, in which case trading Betts makes some sense. But they won't take their time rebuilding, so they probably don't really want prospects unless they will graduate this year. And I'm guessing they'd want established major leaguers under control for at least three years; trading one year of Betts for two years of Thor, one of which they'd be punting, doesn't sound like a fit to me. Diaz maybe, but they'd need confidence that he's a quick and easy fix. As for the Mets' side of things... how many likely good seasons from different players do you part with for one year of Betts? It could be a Johan thing, where you get the opportunity to extend him for quite a while, but that didn't work out the way we all planned. If I was sure Betts was the last piece, and worth downgrading our pitching staff to get for one year, I'd be more willing. As it stands, I'm more interested in him next offseason.

G-Fafif Feb 04 2020 07:27 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Price and Betts reported going to Dodgers. Alex Verdugo centerpiece of package heading to Boston.

G-Fafif Feb 04 2020 07:30 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Twins supposedly part of Betts to Dodgers deal — and Joc Pederson en route to Angels. Yet Steve Cohen can't buy the Mets.

G-Fafif Feb 04 2020 07:46 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 04 2020 08:00 PM

Maeda from the Dodgers to the Twins. Brusdar Graterol, top MIN pitching prospect, to Sox.

G-Fafif Feb 04 2020 07:57 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Infielder Luis Rengifo from LAA to LAD for Pederson.

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 04 2020 08:43 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Wow

Edgy MD Feb 04 2020 09:07 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

This is a heck of a carousel of a deal for February.

G-Fafif Feb 04 2020 09:41 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

More players to come in Dodgers-Angels wing of all this.

ashie62 Feb 05 2020 12:13 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Red Sox ended up with Alex Verdugo and Brusdal Graterol. Barf

Gwreck Feb 05 2020 12:26 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

They have won the division seven straight years and now added Mookie Betts. We added no hitters, and have Rick Porcello/Michael Wacha to replace Zack Wheeler.

Ceetar Feb 05 2020 07:19 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

=Gwreck post_id=31090 time=1580887618 user_id=56] They have won the division seven straight years and now added Mookie Betts. We added no hitters, and have Rick Porcello/Michael Wacha to replace Zack Wheeler.

so it's gonna be weird when the Mets have a better season then.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2020 08:12 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

The Mets don't even have to have a better regular season than the Dodgers. They just need to get past them in the playoffs, assuming they get the opportunity to face them.

seawolf17 Feb 05 2020 08:28 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Yeah, good thing we're not in their division! That would have become embarrassing for them when we beat them 17 of 19 times. Instead, we'll just have to take 5 of 6 or whatever. Betts career vs Mets: 5 for 23, 6 Ks Price career vs Mets: 0-1, 12.60 ERA (I know, Betts was three games in 2015 and three in 2018, and Price was one start in 2012. Small sample size. Whatever.)

Willets Point Feb 05 2020 09:17 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Heartbreaking. Mookie Betts is one of my all time favorite players going to one of my all-time most-despised teams.

LWFS Feb 05 2020 10:30 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Mookie Betts is, like, maybe the best player-- in terms of current/future value-- to EVER be traded in baseball. I'd be, um... not happy, were I a Sox guy.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2020 01:09 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

they still haven't gotten over the whole Babe Ruth thing.

kcmets Feb 05 2020 01:31 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Dodgers - Big Market team capable of winning it all every season by spending money Mets- Big Market team appetite, Toledo Mud Hens budget and pocket book every season

smg58 Feb 05 2020 02:14 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

=smg58 post_id=29569 time=1578775962 user_id=62]The Red Sox might be concerned that they can't compete with the Yankees in the last year they'll have Betts, in which case trading Betts makes some sense. But they won't take their time rebuilding, so they probably don't really want prospects unless they will graduate this year. And I'm guessing they'd want established major leaguers under control for at least three years; trading one year of Betts for two years of Thor, one of which they'd be punting, doesn't sound like a fit to me.

Verdugo is close to established; he entered the 2019 as a top-20 overall prospect and had a .294/.342/.475 line in over 300 ABs in his rookie year. The Red Sox get five seasons of him, and he is only 23. They also get another 2019 top-50 overall prospect who graduated this past season (the Sox get six seasons of him), although he is still a work in progress. But they are quite a bit better primed for next year, which I expected was the objective. And they could always get Betts back.



The Dodgers have a farm system (in addition to the payroll) that makes the loss easy to absorb, and they get a guy who is perfectly capable of pushing them over the top.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2020 05:33 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Meanwhile, down the freeway from the Dodgers, the middle of the Angels' lineup this year will feature (in some order or another) Trout - Rendon - Pujols - Ohtani - Pederson, plus some guy named David Fletcher who is 25 y/o, played 3B (plus 4 other positions) in his first full season last year and was second only to Trout in WAR (3.8) for the team in 2019. So maybe that crew can even get them to finish over .500 this season [72-90 in 2019 and no winning season since 2015].

LWFS Feb 05 2020 09:39 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

The Red Sox might be concerned that they can't compete with the Yankees in the last year they'll have Betts, in which case trading Betts makes some sense. But they won't take their time rebuilding, so they probably don't really want prospects unless they will graduate this year. And I'm guessing they'd want established major leaguers under control for at least three years; trading one year of Betts for two years of Thor, one of which they'd be punting, doesn't sound like a fit to me. Verdugo is close to established; he entered the 2019 as a top-20 overall prospect and had a .294/.342/.475 line in over 300 ABs in his rookie year. The Red Sox get five seasons of him, and he is only 23. They also get another 2019 top-50 overall prospect who graduated this past season (the Sox get six seasons of him), although he is still a work in progress. But they are quite a bit better primed for next year, which I expected was the objective. And they could always get Betts back. The Dodgers have a farm system (in addition to the payroll) that makes the loss easy to absorb, and they get a guy who is perfectly capable of pushing them over the top. Verdugo is also possessed of back issues which cost him most of the 2019 season's past two months.

Johnny Lunchbucket Feb 06 2020 07:03 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

The pitching prospect they are getting from the Twins also has some health red-flags I think I saw

seawolf17 Feb 06 2020 07:12 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: The pitching prospect they are getting from the Twins also has some health red-flags I think I saw Yes, he looks like he could wind up as a starter but will likely wind up in the bullpen.

smg58 Feb 06 2020 10:54 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

It's a small but fair concern -- unless something comes up in the physical that makes it a big concern. At any rate, the physical did pop up a big concern with the other piece the Red Sox got.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2020 04:31 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

=Gwreck post_id=31090 time=1580887618 user_id=56] They have won the division seven straight years and now added Mookie Betts. We added no hitters, and have Rick Porcello/Michael Wacha to replace Zack Wheeler.

Seven division titles in seven years, you say? The Mets don't have seven division titles in their entire franchise history. Fred has two, though, in about 30 seasons of ownership, actual and de facto. And New York's a bigger market than L.A.

Gwreck Feb 06 2020 11:59 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

The divergence following MLB's decision to try to force McCourt out while bending over backwards to help the Wilpons is striking.

G-Fafif Jul 22 2020 11:53 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Dodgers reportedly signing Mookie Betts looooooong term: 13 years (including this one), $380 mil, per Jeff Passan.

bmfc1 Jul 22 2020 11:55 AM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

There goes the dream of new owner Steve Cohen using his "walking around money" to sign Betts.

Frayed Knot Jul 22 2020 01:16 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Betts is the same age (within days) as Bryce Harper; both turn 28 this October and both have an MVP under their belts. Harper owns the longer resume to date (full-timer at 19, Betts not until 22) and therefore some bigger career numbers and certainly more power. But that MVP year is his only one in the Top-10 while Betts has been better lately, he's on a four year run of 2nd, 6th, 1st, 8th I think he'd be the one I'd pick as the better bet to fill the contract going forward if I had to choose. This also bucks the trend (small as it may have been) of teams not wanting to commit to players as they approach the big 4-0 Neither figures to be as onerous as the Pujols or Miggy Cabrera deals look now (those both extend into the players' 40s) but, as Joaquin Andujar could tell you: yaneverno.

kcmets Jul 22 2020 01:46 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

That's a lot of dough and lot of years (I shudder to think how old I'll be in 13 years) and I'm gonna venture way out on a limb and say that contract is gonna bite the big boo boo.

Edgy MD Jul 22 2020 01:51 PM Re: Let's talk Mookie Betts

Hopefully, the Harper one will bite harder for longer.