Devers traded to Giants

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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

They barely had a shot with him, lol. And the Sox teams of recent years have faded down the stretch, so that's what expecting with this squad, especially given the lack of high-quality pitchers and the bevy of young guys still finding their footing.

[Vermont Green]

"I think history would show that if you could get out of every long deal after two years, you'd be in great shape," an AL executive said.

Rodriguez and Stanton both were traded to the Yankees, who received money in both deals to pay down the salary owed to the former MVP winners. The Giants are assuming all of Devers' contract, a detail that caught the eye of many executives.

"It's crazy for a team to trade a player in year two of a 10-year deal, and maybe even crazier for another team to take on the entire remainder of that player's contract, particularly when he's been so outspoken about what positions he is and isn't willing to play," an NL executive said. "Not to mention the timing of it, which makes it even more surprising. He's a really good hitter and the Giants can certainly use a bat like him -- everyone can use a bat like him -- but it's really a stunner."

"Having both Devers and [Willy] Adames on the books is going to make life very tough for them in just a few years," an NL executive said, referencing the seven-year, $182 million deal Adames signed this past offseason. "Devers' contract is already underwater. Giving up Harrison and Tibbs in order to take on an underwater contract is tough. This will look fine for San Francisco in the short-term, but has the strong potential to crush them when paired with Adames' contract a few years from now."

Grading a trade of this magnitude will take years, but the immediate reaction within the industry was that while the Red Sox did well with the return, the key to the move will be what Boston does with the money they saved by moving Devers' contract.

"What the general public never factors into their knee-jerk trade reactions is what the teams trading away the large contract can now go do with those dollars," an NL executive said. "Boston should go trade for someone like [Brewers first baseman] Rhys Hoskins right now. Then the deal takes on a whole new dimension."

"They definitely got some good players with upside, so when you combine those guys with whatever they get with the repurposed Devers money, I think the Red Sox did well," an NL executive said. "But far more important than the player return is the fact that they were able to move Devers and all of his money. They just signed him, so to have changed their mind on that kind of commitment so quickly really means that they felt they had to move him, which is a really difficult spot to be in. They moved quickly, kept it quiet, and pulled it off."

I am not sure if I agree that Devers' contract is already underwater.  That will depend a lot on durability.  But the main point of these sources is that this may not be over.  A lot depends on what they do with Devers' "repurposed" money.  If they do nothing, let the howling continue.  They are also suggesting that after the glow of this wears off, that SF may not be in such a good place longer term.  We'll see.

I do not disagree that Devers is a high end hitter.  He has not had a lot of protection in the line up this season.  He has good power numbers overall.  Bregman was a better hitter before he got hurt.  Let's see what they do with the freed up money.  They should be in a good position with money and prospects to add a key piece or two.  Maybe a 1B and a front line starter.  If they do that, they will be right there.  If they don't, it will be fair to criticize.

[jambr380]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

[Vermont Green]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

[Roy H.]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

Why would we trade prospects at the deadline to add a player worse than Devers?  That sounds like digging the hole deeper.

[Goldstar88]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

Why would we trade prospects at the deadline to add a player worse than Devers?  That sounds like digging the hole deeper.

Henry dumped Devers because he never wanted to pay him to begin with. The switching position fiasco just gave him an out. The money they will save will be used to extend Mayer and Anthony before they get too expensive. I expect them to receive similar deals to the one Campbell signed. Sox aren?t trading those guys away.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

Why would we trade prospects at the deadline to add a player worse than Devers?  That sounds like digging the hole deeper.

Henry dumped Devers because he never wanted to pay him to begin with. The switching position fiasco just gave him an out. The money they will save will be used to extend Mayer and Anthony before they get too expensive. I expect them to receive similar deals to the one Campbell signed. Sox aren?t trading those guys away.

But will Mayer and Anthony want to stay here?

And I wouldn't be quick to rule out trades of those guys. Seems like Henry & Co. want to cut, cut, cut.

[Vermont Green]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

Why would we trade prospects at the deadline to add a player worse than Devers?  That sounds like digging the hole deeper.

Because we need starting pitching. Maybe a 1B.  And I am not talking about prospects like Mayer or Anthony. There are plenty of expendable prospects in the system at this point. 

You don?t think they will be buyers?   

[Phantom255x]

This Breslow/Kennedy press conference is so bad. Nico Harrison 2.0

[Goldstar88]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

And the key to add to this would be that we got back a large trade exemption.  Of course we would have to use it on someone good which is the to be seen part of this deal.  The Red Sox are positioned as well as anyone right now for dealing at the deadline, being a buyer.  They have prospects and they have space on the payroll to add.  That is how they make good with this trade.

Why would we trade prospects at the deadline to add a player worse than Devers?  That sounds like digging the hole deeper.

Henry dumped Devers because he never wanted to pay him to begin with. The switching position fiasco just gave him an out. The money they will save will be used to extend Mayer and Anthony before they get too expensive. I expect them to receive similar deals to the one Campbell signed. Sox aren?t trading those guys away.

But will Mayer and Anthony want to stay here?

And I wouldn't be quick to rule out trades of those guys. Seems like Henry & Co. want to cut, cut, cut.

Campbell signed an 8 year/$60M contract. If Henry can sign Mayer/Anthony long term to deals under $100M, I think he will pay them. It?s good value.

In terms of those guys wanting to stay here, that?s a lot of money for a player in their early 20?s to pass up.

I think the days of $300M contracts are over for the Boston Red Sox.

[Moranis]

This feels like a Luka Doncic type trade i.e. the team wanted to move on, but didn't really shop him for the best deal.  I feel like had Devers been on the open market, the Red Sox could have gotten more (even if it was just the Giants giving up another prospect or 2). 

[Goldstar88]

Betts was also asked about the trade during postgame coverage on ESPN, given his ties to Devers, the Red Sox, and their respective dramatic exits from Boston.

I was the same as everyone else, Betts said of his reaction to the trade. I was shocked and stunned, but I know Carita [Dever?s nickname], that?s going to make their ball team a lot better.

For me, I don?t have to face him, Betts said of the battling with Devers in the NL West moving forward. So for me, I?m not really too worried about it. It?s going to be what it?s going to be. But I know for our pitchers it definitely does help their ball club. It helps any team. Like I said, everybody knows what he does. I think he?ll make this NL West more interesting.

[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."

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?

Manny and Beckett were ok until they weren't. Beckett was rumored to be trying to lose games. Players like that will poison a team, like the chicken and beer Red Sox. I don't know why that is so hard for fans to understand.

You can cling to your rage about a 5-year rebuild if you want; but this team is ascending and will be just fine once they get a little more experience under their belts.

[kraidstar]

Interesting those executives are so concerned about the long term money and not the return the Sox got back. Perhaps that was a much bigger factor in this deal than we know. We've mentioned what a disaster the Bogaerts contract has proven to be. It looks like the Sox chose Bregman over Devers. Yes, Bregman can opt out, but he was 'free' - meaning we didn't need to give up anything for him. Looks like the team has no choice but to try and keep him after this year. He's only like 2 1/2 years older than Devers fwiw.

In NBA terms, maybe this is like if we traded Jrue to the Nets without taking any salary back. I understand that there is no cap in baseball and that Devers is a better player than Jrue, but we as a fanbase know how valuable it would be to take back no salary and maybe a late 1st and an okay player on a rookie contract.

Getting out of a 1-tool malcontent's contract is a win in itself. And it opens up more playing time for guys who stay in shape and who actually want to be here.

Hopefully we trade for a good starting pitcher with the cash savings.

[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?

Manny and Beckett were ok until they weren't. Beckett was rumored to be trying to lose games. Players like that will poison a team, like the chicken and beer Red Sox. I don't know why that is so hard for fans to understand.

You can cling to your rage about a 5-year rebuild if you want; but this team is ascending and will be just fine once they get a little more experience under their belts.

Manny played 8 seasons in Boston.  He was an 8-time all-star, won two titles, and had a .999 OPS.

You have bizarre standards.