Devers traded to Giants

[Roy H.]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return. 

[mef730]

Likely not coincidence: This morning, I got an email from the STM group labeled ?customer appreciation? and offering discounts on items that STM can buy with ?My Celtics Rewards? points. All I could think about was how when one of my kids is getting yelled at, the other one starts acting extra good to take advantage of the situation and make sure they are not next.

Mike

[kraidstar]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

Yes to all three. The fact that another team took on his entire contract is nothing short of a miracle.

Devers is a fat, selfish, 1-tool player with a bloated contract. We needed to get him away from these blue-chip young players ASAP.

Watch the play in this clip below. It's from a week ago against the Yanks. A full-on Josh Beckett/Manny Ramirez-level sabotage of a play.

https://youtu.be/h1lgcTLFM6Y?si=4gjxUZtPdk1iIQxb

I'm ecstatic that the Giants ate his contract for us. My feelings are reminiscent of a famous rant by Niners coach Mike Singletary:

"I will not tolerate players who think it's about them and not the team ... I would rather play with ten people who give everything than eleven people if one of them is not sold on being part of the team. You can't play with them. Can't win with them. Can't coach with them."

[Vermont Green]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

All fair questions, but I have some other questions:

1.   Did Devers ask to be traded?

2.  Did it appear that he was just going to continue being disgruntled?

3.  How long before Devers is hurt again?

4.  How long before Devers contract becomes a bad contract?

All these things factor into whether or not to trade a player?

[Roy H.]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

Yes to all three. The fact that another team took on his entire contract is nothing short of a miracle.

Devers is a fat, selfish, 1-tool player with a bloated contract. We needed to get him away from these blue-chip young players ASAP.

Watch the play in this clip below. It's from a week ago against the Yanks. A full-on Josh Beckett/Manny Ramirez-level sabotage of a play.

https://youtu.be/h1lgcTLFM6Y?si=4gjxUZtPdk1iIQxb

I'm ecstatic that the Giants ate his contract for us. My feelings are reminiscent of a famous rant by Niners coach Mike Singletary:

"I will not tolerate players who think it's about them and not the team ... I would rather play with ten people who give everything than eleven people if one of them is not sold on being part of the team. You can't play with them. Can't win with them. Can't coach with them."

I'd repeat the Manny years 1,000 times out of 1,000, and I was happy with Beckett, too.

Devers is a me first player.  He's also an excellent hitter who has been playing up to his contract.  He's the type of player that you should trade for positive value, not in a salary dump.

But, John Henry likes to run his team like the Montreal Expos.  What's Dan Duquette up to these days?

[Goldstar88]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

Yes to all three. The fact that another team took on his entire contract is nothing short of a miracle.

Devers is a fat, selfish, 1-tool player with a bloated contract. We needed to get him away from these blue-chip young players ASAP.

Watch the play in this clip below. It's from a week ago against the Yanks. A full-on Josh Beckett/Manny Ramirez-level sabotage of a play.

https://youtu.be/h1lgcTLFM6Y?si=4gjxUZtPdk1iIQxb

I'm ecstatic that the Giants ate his contract for us. My feelings are reminiscent of a famous rant by Niners coach Mike Singletary:

"I will not tolerate players who think it's about them and not the team ... I would rather play with ten people who give everything than eleven people if one of them is not sold on being part of the team. You can't play with them. Can't win with them. Can't coach with them."

I'd repeat the Manny years 1,000 times out of 1,000, and I was happy with Beckett, too.

Devers is a me first player.  He's also an excellent hitter who has been playing up to his contract.  He's the type of player that you should trade for positive value, not in a salary dump.

But, John Henry likes to run his team like the Montreal Expos.  What's Dan Duquette up to these days?

Right! I mean, they did win WS with those guys. 

[BitterJim]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

Yes to all three. The fact that another team took on his entire contract is nothing short of a miracle.

Devers is a fat, selfish, 1-tool player with a bloated contract. We needed to get him away from these blue-chip young players ASAP.

Watch the play in this clip below. It's from a week ago against the Yanks. A full-on Josh Beckett/Manny Ramirez-level sabotage of a play.

https://youtu.be/h1lgcTLFM6Y?si=4gjxUZtPdk1iIQxb

I'm ecstatic that the Giants ate his contract for us. My feelings are reminiscent of a famous rant by Niners coach Mike Singletary:

"I will not tolerate players who think it's about them and not the team ... I would rather play with ten people who give everything than eleven people if one of them is not sold on being part of the team. You can't play with them. Can't win with them. Can't coach with them."

Gotta develop thos blue-chippers so we can sign them to big extensions then salary dump them for nothing in a few years. 

We "had to" trade Mookie to make sure we could afford Boegartz and Devers. Then we had to let Boegartz go since he was gonna cost too much. Now we "had to" salary dump Devers so we can pay the next prospects... what could go wrong?

At some point you have to actually try to win games.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

"Probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade" is a pretty low bar.

My point is that people thought trading Xander was going to be as bad as the Mookie trade but it turned out that overpaying for him was not the smart thing to do.  This whole thing with Devers has been poorly handled, or so it seems, but at this point, I am guessing Devers is telling Henry and Breslow that he wants to be traded.  Doesn't seem like it needed to get to this point.

There are three questions:

1.  Should we trade this guy;

2.  Should we trade this guy now; and

3.  Should we trade this guy for this return?

Even if we traded Devers, we didn't need to trade him now, let alone for a lousy return.

Yes to all three. The fact that another team took on his entire contract is nothing short of a miracle.

Devers is a fat, selfish, 1-tool player with a bloated contract. We needed to get him away from these blue-chip young players ASAP.

Watch the play in this clip below. It's from a week ago against the Yanks. A full-on Josh Beckett/Manny Ramirez-level sabotage of a play.

https://youtu.be/h1lgcTLFM6Y?si=4gjxUZtPdk1iIQxb

I'm ecstatic that the Giants ate his contract for us. My feelings are reminiscent of a famous rant by Niners coach Mike Singletary:

"I will not tolerate players who think it's about them and not the team ... I would rather play with ten people who give everything than eleven people if one of them is not sold on being part of the team. You can't play with them. Can't win with them. Can't coach with them."

Gotta develop thos blue-chippers so we can sign them to big extensions then salary dump them for nothing in a few years. 

We "had to" trade Mookie to make sure we could afford Boegartz and Devers. Then we had to let Boegartz go since he was gonna cost too much. Now we "had to" salary dump Devers so we can pay the next prospects... what could go wrong?

At some point you have to actually try to win games.

Assuming that Mayer, Anthony, and Campbell pan out, I'm not at all confident that this ownership group, if still around at the time, is going to give those guys the money they deserve. The Sox are slowly but surely turning into the A's.

[Ilikesports17]

I could justify a Devers trade given his contract, inability to play defense, attitude issues, and our lack of pitching.

But I just can't justify the return. I actually do think Harrison is a reasonably good piece. Wasn't too long ago he was one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. But Devers is one of the best hitters in baseball and he's been phenomenal when the lights are brightest. The fact that Breslow didn't at the very least shop him around to get the best deal is ridiculous.

Obviously Devers isn't the same category as Luka, but it's the same idea. Trading the guy is 1 thing. Trading him without even allowing a bidding war to materialize is abdurd.

[Vermont Green]

I don't disagree that trading Devers represents some poor management, that the situation got to the point where Devers wanted out.  This season, Devers has had one good month as the DH, May.  He had a bad start and so far in June is hitting 0.208 (with decent slugging).  Bogaerts is hitting 0.231 with 3 HR on the season (69 games) and is now a bad contract.  Devers could end up the same.

Devers is a really good hitter when healthy and when his head is right.  He will probably do well in SF but will also probably get hurt at some point.  Playing DH protects him from wearing down which happened pretty much every season when he was playing 3B.  It is way too early to declare the winners and losers in this trade.

[hwangjini_1]

I could justify a Devers trade given his contract, inability to play defense, attitude issues, and our lack of pitching.

But I just can't justify the return. I actually do think Harrison is a reasonably good piece. Wasn't too long ago he was one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. But Devers is one of the best hitters in baseball and he's been phenomenal when the lights are brightest. The fact that Breslow didn't at the very least shop him around to get the best deal is ridiculous.

Obviously Devers isn't the same category as Luka, but it's the same idea. Trading the guy is 1 thing. Trading him without even allowing a bidding war to materialize is abdurd.

Speier said he was aware of a non-Giants team that reached out and there were some talks. Doesn't mean Devers was being actively shopped, but it also doesn't mean he wasn't. I do think it was at least a bit different than Luka's trade.

But your basic points remain valid. I believe the Sox owners preferred to cut payroll and were willing to accept what may be a pair of very young talented pitchers and some dross thrown in. The return in talent coming in is not the same as that going out.

My hope, and it is only a hope, is that ala the Punto trade the Sox make good use of the mountain of cash they just cleared up. Will they? I honestly do not know.

[Goldstar88]

I don't disagree that trading Devers represents some poor management, that the situation got to the point where Devers wanted out.  This season, Devers has had one good month as the DH, May.  He had a bad start and so far in June is hitting 0.208 (with decent slugging).  Bogaerts is hitting 0.231 with 3 HR on the season (69 games) and is now a bad contract.  Devers could end up the same.

Devers is a really good hitter when healthy and when his head is right.  He will probably do well in SF but will also probably get hurt at some point.  Playing DH protects him from wearing down which happened pretty much every season when he was playing 3B.  It is way too early to declare the winners and losers in this trade.

I didn?t see any reports where Devers was asking out after he was told to switch to DH. He was annoyed, but I Feel like we would have heard about a trade request.

I?m also not sure it is too early to decide winners and losers for the trade. Unless you are expecting one of the pitchers the Sox received to become an Ace, Boston clearly lost this trade. SF received an elite player, Boston did not.

[celticsclay]

This is my guess as to how this all went down.  After Devers spoke out about not wanting to play 1B, and basically calling out Breslow and others, Breslow went to Henry and said he wanted to trade Devers.  Henry said "hold on here" and went to talk to him in KC, figuring he could smooth things over.  Devers probably didn't change his tune one bit so Henry said "OK".

As to the trade itself, it is always going to be hard to win a trade when you are trading the disgruntled star, and Devers is a hitting star.  He is also injured a lot and may never play anything but DH the rest of his career.  There are recent precedents; Nomar, won a title; Mookie, played at an MVP level for multiple seasons, Bogaerts, he is hitting 0.231 with 3 Hr this season (worse than Story).  I don't think this trade will turn out as bad as many seem to think right now.  We probably won't win the World Series this season and this probably won't be as bad as the Mookie trade.

While I don't want to defend how the Red Sox have been operating in general (I think they are generally being overly cheap) I do want to echo your point about the Bogarts trade. That contract he has really seems to have a good chance of going down as far and away the worst one in history.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/player/_/id/14035/xander-bogaerts

He is signed for 8 seasons after this one. 8! At 25 million a year including his seasons when he is 40 and 41. That is absolutely mindblowing, and his performance this season makes it look even more daunting given he does not have enough power to ever be used as a DH either.

[Roy H.]

This season, Devers has had one good month as the DH, May.  He had a bad start and so far in June is hitting 0.208 (with decent slugging).

April: .902 OPS
May:  1.074
June: .835

Last 30 days: .986

He's 6th in OPS in the AL.

[Phantom255x]

The part I find hilarious is MassLive and some other outlets say the Sox are still hoping to be a wild card team and plan to be buyers at the deadline. LOL okay 

No chance without Devers