Rafael Devers traded to the Giants

[DonJays]

3 hours ago, Grant77 said:

Devers almost certainly have gotten twice as much in the offseason, if not more. He's still playing as good as he ever has.

They lost a true star player and a ton of value because of organizational mismanagement. They lied to a black player and treated him like s***. No surprise there, as that kind of thing is in their organizational DNA. 

What a weird thing to say 

[G-Snarls]

1 hour ago, Masterbather said:

Devers is a dick. His teammates probably wanted him gone at this point. This whole thing turned into a mess for Boston. I couldn't be happier.

Oh yeah I love Red Sox disasters 

[G-Snarls]

 

 

[G-Snarls]

Flying from Calgary to Halifax overnight and can't sleep LOL

[L54]

8 hours ago, Grant77 said:

I would argue that a team that makes promises to a player in order to get them to sign also has responsibilities. Nobody likes being lied to and stabbed in the back by their employer, even rich baseball players. Money doesn't just make that kind of thing go away, but Devers actually met his responsibilities and played well. Boston continues to show why they are the worst organization in the history of professional sports.

Get a grip man holy

New leadership. They’re under no obligation to fulfill a non contractual promise made by his previous bosses

sounds like Grant needs a does of the real world and not whatever fairy tale he’s living in 

[Laika]

Grant isn't completely out to lunch (this time).

If the GM of the Boston Red Sox made a verbal promise that Devers would be the 3B for a long time, he was speaking on behalf of the team. It is valid for Devers to interpret that promise as coming from the team, and it is valid for him to think the moral obligations to honour it should run with the team regardless of who the GM is. 

I guess that makes mistake #1 simply telling a defender like Devers he is the 3B forever, in the first place. 

Mistake #2 is taking the inhumane position that since the GM changed you no longer have to honour any of these assurances and moral obligations. 

Then they made another mistake after signing Bregman, and that was to tell Devers to put his glove away. "You are the DH of the Boston Red Sox". A second false assurance. 

Yeah Devers doesn't look like a great team player after the Casas injury but I don't know if he is fully to blame. I feel like the organization could have and should have handled the situation differently and better, at multiple points in time. Up until this saga Rafael Devers had absolutely no reputation is a sourpuss or a bad teammate, quite the opposite, actually. 

[Laika]

Boston now has a lengthy track record of doing things like this to star players. Have to think it at least becomes a thought for any free agent thinking of going there. 

Devers, Mookie, Adrian Gonzalez getting traded a year after signing there. Are there others?

[Brownie19]

3 minutes ago, Laika said:

Grant isn't completely out to lunch (this time).

If the GM of the Boston Red Sox made a verbal promise that Devers would be the 3B for a long time, he was speaking on behalf of the team. It is valid for Devers to interpret that promise as coming from the team, and it is valid for him to think the moral obligations to honour it should run with the team regardless of who the GM is. 

I guess that makes mistake #1 simply telling a defender like Devers he is the 3B forever, in the first place. 

Mistake #2 is taking the inhumane position that since the GM changed you no longer have to honour any of these assurances and moral obligations. 

Then they made another mistake after signing Bregman, and that was to tell Devers to put his glove away. "You are the DH of the Boston Red Sox". A second false assurance. 

Yeah Devers doesn't look like a great team player after the Casas injury but I don't know if he is fully to blame. I feel like the organization could have and should have handled the situation differently and better, at multiple points in time. Up until this saga Rafael Devers had absolutely no reputation is a sourpuss or a bad teammate, quite the opposite, actually. 

Why don't they put verbal agreements like that into the written agreement if it's that important to the player?

The premise of Grant's argument is reasonable, but it doesn't dismiss the obligation for Devers to also be understanding that things may change - including his abilities.  Choosing to uphold verbal agreements made by someone who's no longer in the organization over doing what's best for the team is selfish.  He has a responsibility to put the team and his teammates first, which he isn't.  That makes him a sh*tty teammate.

Also - nobody is privy to any of these "verbal agreements" and thus they need to be taken with a grain of salt.  

[Laika]

10 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

Why don't they put verbal agreements like that into the written agreement if it's that important to the player?

The premise of Grant's argument is reasonable, but it doesn't dismiss the obligation for Devers to also be understanding that things may change - including his abilities.  Choosing to uphold verbal agreements made by someone who's no longer in the organization over doing what's best for the team is selfish.  He has a responsibility to put the team and his teammates first, which he isn't.  That makes him a sh*tty teammate.

Also - nobody is privy to any of these "verbal agreements" and thus they need to be taken with a grain of salt.  

Because it wasn't intended to be formally/legally binding; because there is no precedent for it and for all we know the CBA doesn't even allow it. It would be a hard to operate provision in a sport where things can change so quickly due to decline, injury, etc. 

But if it was said it was said. In the world of negotiating contracts that can have certain implications. You could consider it a moral obligation that both sides understand cannot be enforced legally or formally. You could consider it a representation to induce contract, also. 

I am not saying Devers acted well in all of this but he did at the first instance do what was best for the team. He went to DH, and hit well. The Red Sox compounded this by telling him to "put his glove away" or whatever. 

And he does not actually have a formal responsibility to "put the team and his teammates first". His contact does not say that. If his employer is going to ignore moral responsibilities, why should the employee Devers live up to his moral obligations? He is paid to play baseball. He continued to play baseball. He was doing his job. 

All the power to him. I kind of respect him not being a pushover. The line between doing what is best for the team and being a pushover for a s***** organization employer, is pretty blurry. 

[BB17]

This trade makes the Vladdy contract look even worse. Devers is having the type of year you wish Vladdy was having and he just got dumped with like half the guaranteed $ Vladdy has left while only being 2.5 years older.

 

[Stangstag]

3 minutes ago, BB17 said:

This trade makes the Vladdy contract look even worse. Devers is having the type of year you wish Vladdy was having and he just got dumped with like half the guaranteed $ Vladdy has left while only being 2.5 years older.

 

The Vlad contract will be terrible in a couple years

[glory]

I can understand both sides. Devers getting a verbal agreement in his mind meant it came from the organization, not Chaim Bloom specifically, and a new GM having to live up to a verbal agreement from a previous regime (one that he feels won’t help the team) seems unreasonable. There was probably a way to figure out a reasonable compromise but the relationship was likely beyond repair in Boston’s mind.

[Brownie19]

31 minutes ago, Laika said:

Because it wasn't intended to be formally/legally binding; because there is no precedent for it and for all we know the CBA doesn't even allow it. It would be a hard to operate provision in a sport where things can change so quickly due to decline, injury, etc. 

But if it was said it was said. In the world of negotiating contracts that can have certain implications. You could consider it a moral obligation that both sides understand cannot be enforced legally or formally. You could consider it a representation to induce contract, also. 

I am not saying Devers acted well in all of this but he did at the first instance do what was best for the team. He went to DH, and hit well. The Red Sox compounded this by telling him to "put his glove away" or whatever. 

And he does not actually have a formal responsibility to "put the team and his teammates first". His contact does not say that. If his employer is going to ignore moral responsibilities, why should the employee Devers live up to his moral obligations? He is paid to play baseball. He continued to play baseball. He was doing his job. 

All the power to him. I kind of respect him not being a pushover. The line between doing what is best for the team and being a pushover for a s***** organization employer, is pretty blurry. 

You're right - he doesn't have a formal responsibility to put the team and his teammates first.  Or maybe he does?  Maybe that was discussed verbally when the contract was signed? 

Even if it's not - who the F wants to be a teammate with a selfish c*nt who doesn't want to put the team and his teammates first?  I understand having a spat with Ownership, but taking that out on your teammates and hurting your team isn't the right way to handle it.  Both sides seem to be at fault.

At the end of the day, the guy's a hack at 3rd base.  It's a tough look to tell your teammates you're going to pout because they're playing Bregman at 3rd.  You know every single player on that team knows playing Bregman at 3rd and Devers at 1st/DH gives the team the best chance to win.

[Stangstag]

The thing that gets me here IMO is that Boston lied through their teeth when they signed Bregman, saying he would play SS or 2B. Then a week later they say they're moving Devers to 1B and putting Bregman at 3B. Then next week they say Devers is DH permanently. Then Bregman gets injured and they don't let Devers cover 3B while he's out.

I can understand the frustration from his POV.

[BB17]

How many times has your boss told you to do a task that you weren't brought into the company to do or wasn't part of your initial job description? You probably complained about it to your family or even to a few co-workers quietly and were salty for maybe a couple of days. But you get over it, especially if your employer is paying you well. 

I wonder if Devers was still moaning about it recently because from the outside I thought it was behind everyone. I mean the Red Sox were rolling so from a timing standpoint it does seem weird they would trade their best hitter right in the middle of a winning streak. They still had a decent shot to win the division/wildcard before the trade.

[Pendleton]

 

[Jays24]

5 hours ago, G-Snarls said:

 

 

Mannnn... his bat would have been PERFECT in our lineup.  Sigghhh

[BatFlip]

6 hours ago, G-Snarls said:

Flying from Calgary to Halifax overnight and can't sleep LOL

Are you an Albertan now?  Welcome to Calgary

[BatFlip]

1 hour ago, glory said:

I can understand both sides. Devers getting a verbal agreement in his mind meant it came from the organization, not Chaim Bloom specifically, and a new GM having to live up to a verbal agreement from a previous regime (one that he feels won’t help the team) seems unreasonable. There was probably a way to figure out a reasonable compromise but the relationship was likely beyond repair in Boston’s mind.

Yeah, there's definitely more nuance to the situation than "he's a s***** teammate" or "Boston is just a s***** organization".  But seriously... Boston is a s***** organization.

I'm loving this trade.

[Nexii]

The whole story is weird. They would have got more value from Devers at 1B over DH in the long run since he wasn't good at 3B. I know you can't exactly convert mid season but Bregman was signed back in February. There would have been time if not for mismanagement. 

[Terminator]

 

[Terminator]

22 minutes ago, Nexii said:

The whole story is weird. They would have got more value from Devers at 1B over DH in the long run since he wasn't good at 3B. I know you can't exactly convert mid season but Bregman was signed back in February. There would have been time if not for mismanagement. 

Yeah what does it matter if he'll only DH this season? That's probably his best position anyway.

In the offseason Bregman could walk so perhaps 3B would be possible, but if not it seemed like Devers would be open to 1B. But I don't think they'd need him to anyway, he could just DH.

And yeah, maybe he's expensive for a DH but he's a Top 15 hitter in baseball and this is the Boston Red Sox. They should have a payroll right near the Yankees and Mets. Instead they are trying to save money.

[Orgfiller]

1 hour ago, Jays24 said:

Mannnn... his bat would have been PERFECT in our lineup.  Sigghhh

Unless they sent Santander back I don't really envision how Devers would fit on this team. Barger and Ernie have been crushing it at 3B and are cheap, Vlad is here forever, we have a DH/RF signed for 4 more years while Springer continues to decline defensively...where was Devers supposed to play? Who was he being moved for, surely a salary dump from our end would have been involved.

[Terminator]

15 minutes ago, Orgfiller said:

Unless they sent Santander back I don't really envision how Devers would fit on this team. Barger and Ernie have been crushing it at 3B and are cheap, Vlad is here forever, we have a DH/RF signed for 4 more years while Springer continues to decline defensively...where was Devers supposed to play? Who was he being moved for, surely a salary dump from our end would have been involved.

Yeah Springer or Taters would probably have to go back the other way.

[Grant77]

4 hours ago, L54 said:

Get a grip man holy

New leadership. They’re under no obligation to fulfill a non contractual promise made by his previous bosses

sounds like Grant needs a does of the real world and not whatever fairy tale he’s living in 

The notion that the Team Owners and Team President can change one person's job and rid themselves of any obligations or promises to employees is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion. You are the one that is out to lunch. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

At my current job, for example, I had a non-contractual understanding with my supervisor regarding lieu time (different than the government standard). He was fired and my new supervisor disagrees with that decision, but continues to 'grandfather' it for a couple of employees. That's pretty standard practice 

[Grant77]

2 hours ago, Brownie19 said:

Why don't they put verbal agreements like that into the written agreement if it's that important to the player?

The premise of Grant's argument is reasonable, but it doesn't dismiss the obligation for Devers to also be understanding that things may change - including his abilities.  Choosing to uphold verbal agreements made by someone who's no longer in the organization over doing what's best for the team is selfish.  He has a responsibility to put the team and his teammates first, which he isn't.  That makes him a sh*tty teammate.

Also - nobody is privy to any of these "verbal agreements" and thus they need to be taken with a grain of salt.  

Devers' abilities at 3B haven't changed at all, according to any advanced stats that I can see. That argument doesn't hold any water in my view. 

The idea that the owners and President don't know what was agreed to is also questionable in my opinion. I would be absolutely shocked if they had no input or stamp of approval on a contract of that magnitude.

I'd not usually an advocate for players, but I think it was reasonable for Devers to expect promises to be kept. I'd be surprised if most of his (now former) teammates didn't actually support his position.

[Terminator]

 

[BTS]

The Red Sox have turned Betts, Sale, and Devers into:

Connor Wong

Vaughn Grissom

Harrison/Hicks/Tibbs/Bello

 

Hilarious mismanagement 

[G-Snarls]

1 hour ago, BatFlip said:

Are you an Albertan now?  Welcome to Calgary

Yes. Live in Red Deer going on 4 years now. 

[BTS]

Honestly though, mismanagement of the Devers situation aside, I don't think this will actually be remembered as a bad trade. Devers is a bad-body DH at 28, and is a very good but not elite hitter. Boston will miss the bat this season, but for 275M or whatever he's still owed I don't think they'll miss him beyond that. If any of the return pieces hit, even better.