Right. Unless baseball reinstituted the reserve clause, anything Mookie has done after 2020 is irrelevant to the Red Sox.Considering that the most likely non-trade scenario was Betts leaving for draft picks, I'm really glad that we got Verdugo and Wong for one year of his services.
Jesus, Kliq, what do you want? There was no way they were going to keep both Betts and Bogaerts, and they did the absolute right thing hanging onto the guy whoI don't have the joy of watching Mookie play for the Sox anymore so no, we didn't win the trade.
Yes but what are your feelings on Wong and Verdugo?Jesus, Kliq, what do you want? There was no way they were going to keep both Betts and Bogaerts, and they did the absolute right thing hanging onto the guy who
a. Plays a more challenging defensive position
b. Is more durable
and
c. has the bat to move to another position later in his career so as to get more value out of a long term contract.
I am an adult, unlike some of you, and an adult knows that hard decisions must be faced. Some of ya'll have got to move on. It's getting pathetic. Look at the team profile, and educate yourself about the luxury tax.
The Betts trade, painful as it was, "cleared 50 million per year in spending room." I know that's a lot because Eric F put it in bold and italics. He used both.
The 50 million meant keeping X, and thus we could got into this season with one of the few sure things in baseball at SS. I mean, can you imagine this lineup without Bogaerts? You're not going to get an .850-.900ish OPS at that end of the defensive spectrum from the dreck on offer in free agency, much less what the team has in AAA. The price of keeping a 5 WAR SS was steep, and I weep for Mookie, but I've accepted that was the only way.
The Red Sox are not one of those rich franchises that could afford Betts, Bogaerts, and Devers. That crazy thinking, like a team in 2023 could have an Ortiz, Manny and Pedro on the same roster. Stop living in 2004. It's impossible for Boston's market size and revenue streams. Don't you think theYankeeswish they could have kept Rizzo, Stanton, Judge, and Cole intact? We're not Toronto or Cleveland, where you just reload and contend. Scrappy, underfunded franchises like the Red Sox have to stay in their lane; we could only keep two, we kept the right two. You can build around Bogaerts and Devers.
Dan Duquetteis not walking through that door, andTheo Epsteinis not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they’re going to get us into luxury tax territory. I wish we could buy the world. We can’t. The only thing we can do is work hard, and all the negativity that’s in this town sucks. I’ve been around when Jim Rice was booed. I’ve been around when Yastrzemski was booed, and it stinks. It makes the greatest town, greatest city in the world, lousy.
So get the fuck over Betts and be grateful we get to see X carry us to the next generation of RED SOX CHAMPIONS.Bernie out.
Jesus, Kliq, what do you want? There was no way they were going to keep both Betts and Bogaerts, and they did the absolute right thing hanging onto the guy who
a. Plays a more challenging defensive position
b. Is more durable
and
c. has the bat to move to another position later in his career so as to get more value out of a long term contract.
I am an adult, unlike some of you, and an adult knows that hard decisions must be faced. Some of ya'll have got to move on. It's getting pathetic. Look at the team profile, and educate yourself about the luxury tax.
The Betts trade, painful as it was, "cleared 50 million per year in spending room." I know that's a lot because Eric F put it in bold and italics. He used both.
The 50 million meant keeping X, and thus we could got into this season with one of the few sure things in baseball at SS. I mean, can you imagine this lineup without Bogaerts? You're not going to get an .850-.900ish OPS at that end of the defensive spectrum from the dreck on offer in free agency, much less what the team has in AAA. The price of keeping a 5 WAR SS was steep, and I weep for Mookie, but I've accepted that was the only way.
The Red Sox are not one of those rich franchises that could afford Betts, Bogaerts, and Devers. That crazy thinking, like a team in 2023 could have an Ortiz, Manny and Pedro on the same roster. Stop living in 2004. It's impossible for Boston's market size and revenue streams. Don't you think theYankeeswish they could have kept Rizzo, Stanton, Judge, and Cole intact? We're not Toronto or Cleveland, where you just reload and contend. Scrappy, underfunded franchises like the Red Sox have to stay in their lane; we could only keep two, we kept the right two. You can build around Bogaerts and Devers.
Dan Duquetteis not walking through that door, andTheo Epsteinis not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they’re going to get us into luxury tax territory. I wish we could buy the world. We can’t. The only thing we can do is work hard, and all the negativity that’s in this town sucks. I’ve been around when Jim Rice was booed. I’ve been around when Yastrzemski was booed, and it stinks. It makes the greatest town, greatest city in the world, lousy.
So get the fuck over Betts and be grateful we get to see X carry us to the next generation of RED SOX CHAMPIONS.Bernie out.
Not if it is bolded, underlined and italicizedGenerally agree…. But I’m….puzzled. You know X is with the Padres now right?
He'll have to go on about Price, Porcello, E-Rod, Eovaldi, JD, JBJ, Kimbrel, Renfroe, and Vazquez first.Yes but what are your feelings on Wong and Verdugo?
What's weirder is he's the only guy on the Padres, who nevertheless are 16-15, something the Sox will never achieve.Generally agree…. But I’m….puzzled. You know X is with the Padres now right?
Is this the first SoSH post ever delivered via message in a bottle?Jesus, Kliq, what do you want? There was no way they were going to keep both Betts and Bogaerts, and they did the absolute right thing hanging onto the guy who
a. Plays a more challenging defensive position
b. Is more durable
and
c. has the bat to move to another position later in his career so as to get more value out of a long term contract.
I am an adult, unlike some of you, and an adult knows that hard decisions must be faced. Some of ya'll have got to move on. It's getting pathetic. Look at the team profile, and educate yourself about the luxury tax.
The Betts trade, painful as it was, "cleared 50 million per year in spending room." I know that's a lot because Eric F put it in bold and italics. He used both.
The 50 million meant keeping X, and thus we could got into this season with one of the few sure things in baseball at SS. I mean, can you imagine this lineup without Bogaerts? You're not going to get an .850-.900ish OPS at that end of the defensive spectrum from the dreck on offer in free agency, much less what the team has in AAA. The price of keeping a 5 WAR SS was steep, and I weep for Mookie, but I've accepted that was the only way.
The Red Sox are not one of those rich franchises that could afford Betts, Bogaerts, and Devers. That crazy thinking, like a team in 2023 could have an Ortiz, Manny and Pedro on the same roster. Stop living in 2004. It's impossible for Boston's market size and revenue streams. Don't you think theYankeeswish they could have kept Rizzo, Stanton, Judge, and Cole intact? We're not Toronto or Cleveland, where you just reload and contend. Scrappy, underfunded franchises like the Red Sox have to stay in their lane; we could only keep two, we kept the right two. You can build around Bogaerts and Devers.
Dan Duquetteis not walking through that door, andTheo Epsteinis not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they’re going to get us into luxury tax territory. I wish we could buy the world. We can’t. The only thing we can do is work hard, and all the negativity that’s in this town sucks. I’ve been around when Jim Rice was booed. I’ve been around when Yastrzemski was booed, and it stinks. It makes the greatest town, greatest city in the world, lousy.
So get the fuck over Betts and be grateful we get to see X carry us to the next generation of RED SOX CHAMPIONS.Bernie out.
But if you only have $4 because you need the rest of your money for medicine and housing, that's a nice burger.But that's like saying that you only paid $4 for a burger, vs $50 for a steak, so technically you had a better meal. It's in no way accurate.
We traded a year of control over Betts (along with Price and half his contract) for our ongoing control over Verdugo, Wong, and Downs (now with Washington.) FWIW, they were the Dodgers #5, 7, 13 prospects at the time.If this is what Verdugo and Wong are going to be I'll happily dine on the Betts trade crow. Those guys have been fantastic this year, but I need to see if for longer before I buy in. Up until now, Dugie has been a .260-.270 singles hitter, and Wong has been a AAAA catcher. If this year is what they are then good on Bloom, well done. Let's just check in at the all-star break.
Also, saying we already won the Betts trade is absurd. Mookie Betts is (was) a generational player, who is currently playing RF, 2B, and SS for the Dodgers. If you want to break it down by dollars and WAR than I suppose you could make an argument, but that's like saying that you only paid $4 for a burger, vs $50 for a steak, so technically you had a better meal. It's in no way accurate.
It would be nice to stop conflating the mismanagement that led to the Betts trade with the Betts trade itself (fwiw, you did a nice job in that post only focusing on the trade).We traded a year of control over Betts (along with Price and half his contract) for our ongoing control over Verdugo, Wong, and Downs (now with Washington.) FWIW, they were the Dodgers #5, 7, 13 prospects at the time.
We know what Betts was worth in 2020. 3.6 bWAR in the 2020 Covid shortened season. But that's all we had. It's not like he's some sort of Forever Player. (No matter how much people want to pretend he was.)
We know what Price was worth in 2020, 2021, 2022. A total of 1.4 bWAR for a starter turned reliever for 2021 and 2022. Hard to imagine him as useful at $32M per year to the Sox, or that his presence would have made any sort of a difference.
We know what Downs has been worth to Boston. -0.6 WAR as a stopgap callup.
We know what Verdugo has done so far. 6.9 WAR as a cost controlled starting outfielder, with one year of control left beyond this one.
We know what Wong has done so far. 1.5 WAR as a cost controlled catcher, with 5? years of control left. If he proves to be a starting catcher, that's a lot of value.
So while the Sox end of the scale might move in their favor, the Dodgers side is done.
You’re appealing to logic here.No consideration to the possibility Mookie never had any intention of re-signing with Boston? Let's say this is true and the RS brass knew it. Still upset with the return on the LA trade?
I guess we can't have that, eh Lose?You’re appealing to logic here.
It's a good question to consider, but let's say he had no intention whatsoever of returning to the Sox. The question would be: WHY?No consideration to the possibility Mookie never had any intention of re-signing with Boston? Let's say this is true and the RS brass knew it. Still upset with the return on the LA trade?
I mean, cool meme and all, but is it really "facts vs feelings" when, as in this case, the "facts" are completely hypothetical and directly contrary to what Mookie himself has actually said? But then again maybe I'm just not appealing to logic here, let me go find another meme...
Considering they gave out 2 other big extensions the same year Mookie turned his down, and that Devers agreed to one a few months ago it seems unlikely that there's something negative about Boston that was or is turning other players awayIt's a good question to consider, but let's say he had no intention whatsoever of returning to the Sox. The question would be: WHY?
If the Red Sox' organization was where he grew into a HOF-level player, and if the Red Sox' organization was where he won an MVP and a World Series, and if the Red Sox could offer him a colossal contract as a FA..... why wouldn't Betts want to stay? A smart organization asks those questions. Maybe it's simply that Betts has always, always, always wanted to be in LA (for example). He's from Tennessee so it's not like LA was "home" to him, but maybe he has his reasons. But maybe there was something negative about Boston that he just HAD to get away from. It's incumbent on the Sox' organization to find out what that might be. And if it's fixable.... FIX IT. If it's not fixable, then at least you become aware of a potential issue that may turn other players away.
Maybe it was as simple as the trajectory of the franchise? Heading into 2020, the Dodgers had an incredible team, one of the best farm systems in baseball, and basically no divisional competition. Their present was bright and the future was even brighter. Speaking objectively, if you care about winning, which franchise do you go to if you're a free agent-to-be?It's a good question to consider, but let's say he had no intention whatsoever of returning to the Sox. The question would be: WHY?
If the Red Sox' organization was where he grew into a HOF-level player, and if the Red Sox' organization was where he won an MVP and a World Series, and if the Red Sox could offer him a colossal contract as a FA..... why wouldn't Betts want to stay? A smart organization asks those questions. Maybe it's simply that Betts has always, always, always wanted to be in LA (for example). He's from Tennessee so it's not like LA was "home" to him, but maybe he has his reasons. But maybe there was something negative about Boston that he just HAD to get away from. It's incumbent on the Sox' organization to find out what that might be. And if it's fixable.... FIX IT. If it's not fixable, then at least you become aware of a potential issue that may turn other players away.
The one that offers you the most money.Maybe it was as simple as the trajectory of the franchise? Heading into 2020, the Dodgers had an incredible team, one of the best farm systems in baseball, and basically no divisional competition. Their present was bright and the future was even brighter. Speaking objectively, if you care about winning, which franchise do you go to if you're a free agent-to-be?
Would love to see the evidence that an organization that has risen in value from $380 million to $4 billion in 20 years and likely produces at least $600 million in revenue every year could in "no way" afford Mookie Betts.I assume Mookie made it clear in whatever discussions they did have he wanted to be no less than the second highest paid player in baseball to Trout. There was no way the RS could afford it given the other dead contracts they had (Price, etc.). Maybe it wasn't he didn't want to stay in Boston. Maybe it was Boston wasn't in a position to keep him and meet his terms. Maybe it simply came down to bad timing.
And/or maybe they just didnt value him as the second highest player to Trout, especially over 12+ yearsI assume Mookie made it clear in whatever discussions they did have he wanted to be no less than the second highest paid player in baseball to Trout. There was no way the RS could afford it given the other dead contracts they had (Price, etc.). Maybe it wasn't he didn't want to stay in Boston. Maybe it was Boston wasn't in a position to keep him and meet his terms. Maybe it simply came down to bad timing.
You are aware, yes, that blowing past the luxury tax has significant costs beyond economic ones, right?Staying under the luxury tax is a choice, one largely made not out of economic or competitive necessity, but in order to suppress wages. We as fans really don't need to accept it.
I would want to know why he was never going to re-sign with Boston. I would have thought that re-signing Mookie would have been a pretty high priority for the FO from his sophomore year on. Once he was leaving he was leaving. My problem isn't with 2019, it is with 2015-16, but , sure, there may be stuff we don't know.No consideration to the possibility Mookie never had any intention of re-signing with Boston? Let's say this is true and the RS brass knew it. Still upset with the return on the LA trade?
They basically did this. At the time, depending on whether you're going by total or yearly dollars that was either Machado, who had just signed for 10-300 as a free agent, or Harper who had signed for 13-330 as a free agent. They offered Mookie 10-300 when he still had 2 arb years left, which would effectively be about 10-315 in free agent dollars.I assume Mookie made it clear in whatever discussions they did have he wanted to be no less than the second highest paid player in baseball to Trout. There was no way the RS could afford it given the other dead contracts they had (Price, etc.). Maybe it wasn't he didn't want to stay in Boston. Maybe it was Boston wasn't in a position to keep him and meet his terms. Maybe it simply came down to bad timing.
Don’t accept it??? Don’t watch the games in any form then. Follow the Mets or Padres (they too will dial it back). Or boo Chaim.Would love to see the evidence that an organization that has risen in value from $380 million to $4 billion in 20 years and likely produces at least $600 million in revenue every year could in "no way" afford Mookie Betts.
Staying under the luxury tax is a choice, one largely made not out of economic or competitive necessity, but in order to suppress wages. We as fans really don't need to accept it.
And were proved correct.And/or maybe they just didnt value him as the second highest player to Trout, especially over 12+ years
Stuff we basically have no right or reasonable expectation of knowing in most cases. You might want to know what the Sox offered him at each step of the process, but clubs (and sometimes players, too) don't want to poison the well for current players or future free agents by pandering to their fan bases that it's the player's fault, or trying to make excuses for why the player signed elsewhere.I would want to know why he was never going to re-sign with Boston. I would have thought that re-signing Mookie would have been a pretty high priority for the FO from his sophomore year on. Once he was leaving he was leaving. My problem isn't with 2019, it is with 2015-16, but , sure, there may be stuff we don't know.
Uh, yes, I am aware. In the post you're responding to I quite clearly wrote "economic or competitive necessity," plainly implying that I was looking beyond economic costs.You are aware, yes, that blowing past the luxury tax has significant costs beyond economic ones, right?
If not, I suggest you skim the prior threads, instead of rehashing the factual portion of the equation
Do you expect his prime to extend until he's 40? It wasn't about paying for his prime, they tried to do that. Every team in baseball would have done that. It's about paying for likely well past his prime, which isn't at all efficient to building a consistent team.Uh, yes, I am aware. In the post you're responding to I quite clearly wrote "economic or competitive necessity," plainly implying that I was looking beyond economic costs.
Where I would disagree with you is in the characterization of them as "significant." Both the amateur draft and international free agency are incredibly labor-intensive, time-consuming, and uncertain methods of building a team. An MLB org signs upwards of 50-60 players through those mechanisms every year, and it's considered an excellent return if just one of those guys turns into a sometime all-star five years down the line. Compared to merely using money to purchase the services of a hall-of-famer in his prime, it's a much more inefficient way of building a team.
Well, we know it absolutely was. That's why he agreed to an extension with the Red Sox before they traded him. It's also why when after he was traded, he insisted on actually reaching free agency so he could resign with the Sox.Personally, I never felt I heard Mookie say, in a sincere committed way, that his priority was to remain a Red Sock.
As compared the the rest of mlb, the Sox weren't close to "cheap" at any point between 2010 and 2020. Maybe stupid? Maybe shortsighted? Maybe shittastically run? But never cheap.Uh, yes, I am aware. In the post you're responding to I quite clearly wrote "economic or competitive necessity," plainly implying that I was looking beyond economic costs.
Where I would disagree with you is in the characterization of them as "significant." Both the amateur draft and international free agency are incredibly labor-intensive, time-consuming, and uncertain methods of building a team. An MLB org signs upwards of 50-60 players through those mechanisms every year, and it's considered an excellent return if just one of those guys turns into a sometime all-star five years down the line. Compared to merely using money to purchase the services of a hall-of-famer in his prime, it's a much more inefficient way of building a team.
What it is, though, is a cheap way of building a team. And that's why the owners fought tooth-and-nail for decades to make sure it was the only way teams could be built, have spent the last several CBAs trying to turn back the clock, and continually insist that it is the only "smart" way to build a team.
But it seems pretty clear from your posting in here that you're certain that it's settled law that I'm wrong, that discussion time is over, and it's time to just post dank memes mocking people that disagree with you. So I think I'll step away from this conversation, to the extent that it is one.
It's thin evidence, but CC Sabathia told Simmons on a pod soon after he was traded that Mookie's people all knew he wanted to go to the West Coast.It's a good question to consider, but let's say he had no intention whatsoever of returning to the Sox. The question would be: WHY?
If the Red Sox' organization was where he grew into a HOF-level player, and if the Red Sox' organization was where he won an MVP and a World Series, and if the Red Sox could offer him a colossal contract as a FA..... why wouldn't Betts want to stay? A smart organization asks those questions. Maybe it's simply that Betts has always, always, always wanted to be in LA (for example). He's from Tennessee so it's not like LA was "home" to him, but maybe he has his reasons. But maybe there was something negative about Boston that he just HAD to get away from. It's incumbent on the Sox' organization to find out what that might be. And if it's fixable.... FIX IT. If it's not fixable, then at least you become aware of a potential issue that may turn other players away.
I'm not suggesting that the the Red Sox are cheap compared to the rest of MLB. I'm suggesting that (1) the real purpose of the luxury tax is to suppress wages, (2) just about every team and especially the big market teams like the Red Sox can easily afford to blow past it without facing significant financial or competitive consequences, and (3) while it's obviously in the owners' interest to perpetuate a system where they "have to get under the luxury tax" every few years and avoid "bad contracts" (and front office sources have admitted that teams are essentially colluding to do so), it's absurd for a fan to argue that there's "no way" they could have afforded Mookie Betts (which was the exact phrasing I was responding to.)As compared the the rest of mlb, the Sox weren't close to "cheap" at any point between 2010 and 2020. Maybe stupid? Maybe shortsighted? Maybe shittastically run? But never cheap.
We all understand that all owners are fucktillionaires who don't want to spend money. John Henry, too. So sure, does he have an extra 50 million in the couch cushions? Probably. But thats a pretty simplistic way of looking at this.
Among the shithead billionaires in MLB, the Sox have regularly been a not-cheap team.
The question should be whether the team is better off with Verdugo, Wong, Downs, and $365M to spend over 12 years instead of Betts. The money was the reason for the trade.They could afford him to pay him, but decided they didn't want to. You can argue that's the right baseball decision if you really think the team is either (a) better off with Alex Verdugo, Connor Wong, and Jeter Downs instead of Mookie Betts
His WAR numbers blow Verdugo's away (and that's to be expected and not a criticism of Verdugo, it's always been known Mookie is the better player). The real test of the trade will come in the coming years; even I as an avowed Mookie trade hater would not think to summarize the trade results just yet.The question should be whether the team is better off with Verdugo, Wong, Downs, and $365M to spend over 12 years instead of Betts. The money was the reason for the trade.
No shit. John Henry might be able to afford a 500 million dollar payroll. (Maybe 550 if he ditches the yacht). What's your point?I'm not suggesting that the the Red Sox are cheap compared to the rest of MLB. I'm suggesting that (1) the real purpose of the luxury tax is to suppress wages, (2) just about every team and especially the big market teams like the Red Sox can easily afford to blow past it without facing significant financial or competitive consequences, and (3) while it's obviously in the owners' interest to perpetuate a system where they "have to get under the luxury tax" every few years and avoid "bad contracts" (and front office sources have admitted that teams are essentially colluding to do so), it's absurd for a fan to argue that there's "no way" they could have afforded Mookie Betts (which was the exact phrasing I was responding to.)
They could afford him to pay him, but decided they didn't want to. You can argue that's the right baseball decision if you really think the team is either (a) better off with Alex Verdugo, Connor Wong, and Jeter Downs instead of Mookie Betts, or (b) you're certain that he didn't want to be here long-term (though if you're going to make that argument, acknowledge that you're essentially calling him a liar). But you can't argue that they couldn't afford him.
And yet, given your predicate points 1, 2, and 3 (which no one here is likely to disagree with), it's a relatively useful shorthand. E.g., "[Given the current spending paradigm and state of the club], the team couldn't have afforded Betts." Which is how most people mean it.. . .it's absurd for a fan to argue that there's "no way" they could have afforded Mookie Betts (which was the exact phrasing I was responding to.
Actually, I posted the first reply in a couple of years because wongers hit some dingers. I thought it would be fun to stir up a little trouble. I can see how one might take a Mookie focused view from that first post. I agree that the focus on Mookie’s performance is a little silly — he looked old in April, but it’s also April.Interesting that what triggered this re-do of the discussion was the seeming regression of Mookie's stats, yet his career OPS+ in Boston was 134 (presumably his prime years and included his ridiculous MVP season), and his OPS+ so far for his time in LA is ..... 134. Despite being older and playing in a worse offensive environment. OPS+ of 147, 126, 138, 127.
If people want to argue about the spending efficiency of the money not spent on retaining Mookie, go right ahead. If they're trying to buttress that argument by shoveling dirt on Mookie's baseball career, that's silly and stupidly premature.
His WAR numbers blow Verdugo's away (and that's to be expected and not a criticism of Verdugo, it's always been known Mookie is the better player). The real test of the trade will come in the coming years; even I as an avoked Mookie trade hater would not think to summarize the trade results just yet.
On a purely aethetic level it would help if Verdugo made the All Star team this year, the optics might help things a bit.
Lol just seeing this treasure of a post now. Great work.Jesus, Kliq, what do you want? There was no way they were going to keep both Betts and Bogaerts, and they did the absolute right thing hanging onto the guy who
a. Plays a more challenging defensive position
b. Is more durable
and
c. has the bat to move to another position later in his career so as to get more value out of a long term contract.
I am an adult, unlike some of you, and an adult knows that hard decisions must be faced. Some of ya'll have got to move on. It's getting pathetic. Look at the team profile, and educate yourself about the luxury tax.
The Betts trade, painful as it was, "cleared 50 million per year in spending room." I know that's a lot because Eric F put it in bold and italics. He used both.
The 50 million meant keeping X, and thus we could got into this season with one of the few sure things in baseball at SS. I mean, can you imagine this lineup without Bogaerts? You're not going to get an .850-.900ish OPS at that end of the defensive spectrum from the dreck on offer in free agency, much less what the team has in AAA. The price of keeping a 5 WAR SS was steep, and I weep for Mookie, but I've accepted that was the only way.
The Red Sox are not one of those rich franchises that could afford Betts, Bogaerts, and Devers. That crazy thinking, like a team in 2023 could have an Ortiz, Manny and Pedro on the same roster. Stop living in 2004. It's impossible for Boston's market size and revenue streams. Don't you think theYankeeswish they could have kept Rizzo, Stanton, Judge, and Cole intact? We're not Toronto or Cleveland, where you just reload and contend. Scrappy, underfunded franchises like the Red Sox have to stay in their lane; we could only keep two, we kept the right two. You can build around Bogaerts and Devers.
Dan Duquetteis not walking through that door, andTheo Epsteinis not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they’re going to get us into luxury tax territory. I wish we could buy the world. We can’t. The only thing we can do is work hard, and all the negativity that’s in this town sucks. I’ve been around when Jim Rice was booed. I’ve been around when Yastrzemski was booed, and it stinks. It makes the greatest town, greatest city in the world, lousy.
So get the fuck over Betts and be grateful we get to see X carry us to the next generation of RED SOX CHAMPIONS.Bernie out.