The reasons that some Talksox posters are down on Nathan Eovaldi are the same reasons potential trade partners are likely to be down on Eovaldi.
The Eovaldi contract raised eyebrows at the time of signing and looks even more questionable today.
The Red Sox should stick Eovaldi into the 2021 starting rotation and hope for the best.
I get that. Not surprisingly, it's also the posters not so down on Eovaldi that resist all talk of trading him.Originally Posted by harmony
GMs often have interest in oft-injured pitchers, especially those that ended the previous season looking well.
Eovaldi has trade value. It's just not $17M x 2.
I'm not expecting to get $17M x 2 value back.
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
You don't think TalkSox posters couldn't collectively hoodwink an MLB GM?!?!?
Well, most of moon' trade posts involving Eovaldi always include an unfavorable contract coming back. This can be mutually advantageous for a team with an expensive player with a low AAV but a lot of money remaining, like Rougned Odor, since most teams are rarely up against the tax limit and therefore don't care about the AAV. They do, however, care about the money still owed. That was why the Padres were so willing to discuss Wil Myers last off-season...
Exactly. You put it better than I ever could.
Looking for incentives for other teams to make deals involving a good player(s) with several years of team control is how we can fill a vital gap on our winter roster without spending big money on a FA.
Granted, trading Eovaldi opens up another gap, assuming he was going to fill his own slot by being healthy, but my basic idea is that the trade might help the other team save some money and get a pitcher that may give them excellence while saving us money on the Lux tax budget. Now, the Longoria idea involved us paying too much actual dollars, so the lux tax savings were more than negated, but I'll offer some more ideas this weekend.
(I know some of you are on the edge of your seat! LOL)
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
Somehow, they hoodwinked our own GM to bring Masterson back, despite my objections.
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
It was the high socks. All players should have the high socks.
The Evan Longoria proposal perhaps has the most merit.
Cot's Baseball Contracts reports that Tampa Bay is responsible for $7.33 million of the $43.33 million remaining on Longoria's contract:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1520401900
I'm one of those posters: freeing up Eovaldi money to reinvest in another pitcher with more-or-less potential and also taking on another bad contract doesn't interest me. The only reason I'd trade a guy with Eovaldi's stuff -- off an utterly, historically bad staff -- is if the Sox receive a legitimate rotation prospect in return. And the only way that might happen is if Nate has a great half-season -- missing zero starts -- and a contender is willing to bite. Let's see where he and we are at by the next trade deadline... Otherwise, leave Nate alone at the back of the rotation, where he'll be the least of our worries.
The Rays hit big on Arozorena, but only because they were willing (and able) to trade a pitcher who was the 16th overall pick a few years ago. We'll be lucky if Bloom can flip a guy like Munoz for a hurler who was once a 116th overall pick.
So, that basically evens up the money: Eovaldi $34M and Longoria $36M.
However, the lux tax hit is $11M for Longoria (big help to BOS), while Eovaldi's is $17M (no diff to SF).
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
I believe if San Fran deals him, they can still keep that money. It's just paid to the Padres and does not have to be earmarked for Longoria. Of course, if they kept it, Boston might insist on an even greater return...
Yeah I'm not really sure why our equivalent to Liberatore is Yairo Munoz....
Here's one BTV shows is an exactly even swap:
Eovaldi, Chavis & Jimenez
for
Pollock and Gray (good young pitcher)
Plollock is owed $36M/2 assuming option not taken on 3rd year or $41M/3 otherwise. His AVV is "only" $12M, which is $5M less than Eovaldi's. So, the Dodgers save $2M, but our lux tax budget is $5M lower for the next 2 years.
We get a good young pitcher and a decent CF'er that fills a gaping hole.LA has OF depth to take Pollock's slot, and they get a SP'er and a couple other players with promise.
I'd guess LA would say no, but I'm sure many here think the deal is bad for us.
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
Eovaldi, Dalbec & Duran
for
Pollock and Gonsolin
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
Friedman wouldn't give up Gonsolin to get Betts. Safe bet he won't do it to get Eovaldi and company.
I think prying young pitching from the Dodgers is harder to do than prying a chocolate-covered meatloaf away from Pablo Sandoval...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote