I think you mean Pablo Ramirez.And make no mistake, in two years the Sox will overcorrect this mistake and give a bunch of money to one or two lesser tier free agents and then act gobsmacked when Pablo Sanchez v2.0 doesn't do well.
I think you mean Pablo Ramirez.And make no mistake, in two years the Sox will overcorrect this mistake and give a bunch of money to one or two lesser tier free agents and then act gobsmacked when Pablo Sanchez v2.0 doesn't do well.
And the team that did sign him, and who also signed the best player in MLB to a 12 year/$430m contract, has only made the playoffs once since 2009.I agree these were bad moves and said so at the time. But they happened and nothing can change that, they have to live with the consequences.
So the explanation that they simply don't want to be the highest bidder on this one doesn't make rational sense?
The Cardinals decided not to hand a blank check to the best, most popular player in franchise history other than Musial walk and they didn't stop acquiring top talent, they didn't stop giving out big contracts. They went the the NLCS each of the next three years. The sky did not fall.
Yep, you nailed my sentiments exactly.My line is that they have to make him a palatable contract offer he'll sign. Period. You don't let the best homegrown player they've had since Yaz walk in the primer of his career simply because you don't want to pay him market value. And you don't suddenly find your coffers empty one year after giving stupid deals to Sale and Eovaldi. They knew full well Mookie's deal was coming up.
Machado was also coming off a rep as a player who didn't hustle or give a damn, which hurt his value quite a bit. There are no such concerns with Mookie.People keep saying this, but Machado was also hitting FA two years younger than Betts. That matters a ton to his market value. A ten year deal signs Machado through his age 36 season and Mookie through 38.
Betts is a much better player, we agree. But the point remains that, when Betts was two years of service time short of FA, the Red Sox offered him the same deal that an elite two-way star had just gotten in free agency. That was not a slap in the face. It was the beginning of a negotiation. I imagine they were hoping Betts would come back with 12/$360, and then they'd meet at 11/$330 with an option/buyout or something. But Betts came back with 12/$420, and then they extended Sale (iffy...) and Bogaerts (great!) instead, and now it's the present.
Exactly, it has been said before but you just know that Bob Hohler has a Mookie hit-piece queued up and ready to go once the trade is announced. I already see the spin possibly effecting what people are saying right now, that Mookie is greedy and that management had no other options but to trade him. That simply isn't true.Haven’t we learned that any time a popular player/coach leaves, the higher-ups are ready to shit on them on the way out? E.g. Tito.
I dunno, as a starting negotiating position it makes about as much sense as Mookie's 12/420 demand. The issue is that, from all appearances, the Sox never budged from that number, which means they were never interested in negotiating in good faith to begin with. And if I were Mookie or his agent that would piss me off quite a bit, especially as all the "Mookie's demands are way too high!!" stuff gets leaked from Sox sources.Machado was also coming off a rep as a player who didn't hustle or give a damn, which hurt his value quite a bit. There are no such concerns with Mookie.
Starting Mookie off with the same contract that a worse player with an attitude problem got from a poor team was insanity. And the FO knew it.
The story about the Sox offer said Mookie's people made a counter, which means there's a number he's willing to stay for. Whether the reported numbers are real, who can say?Plus, Mookie is insisting on becoming a free agent and testing the waters no matter what, right? Or has he said he will sign for X amount and not go into free agency?
I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda.Ha. Obviously I meant Pablo Neruda.
Manny was traded to the Dodgers in a three way trade including Pittsburgh at the deadline in 2008. He had an outstanding rest of that season. Fast forward to early May the next season and he found himself facing a 50 game PED suspension and his career after that was basically shit. The Red Sox return in that deal was Jason Bay who finished up 2008 nicely with Boston and had a great 2009 season before moving on to New York in 2010 where his career after that was basically shit.Red Sox are going to recover. It still pisses me off that Dodgers are always going for trading for our superstars. (Although obviously it was awesome when they went for Beckett and Agon)
If Mookie win a series and is clearly near the end, then I will compare it to Pedro.If I can accept the Duke of Duende, Pedro Martinez, being allowed to leave, I can accept this.
He couldn't go to his rightI am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda.
They only won 84 games with him, I'm not sure this is a valid concern. They'll go as the starting pitching goes.I don’t want Mookie to be traded because I think the Sox could be an under .500 team without him. But with all the rumors swirling and spring training starting in 10 days, either do it or don’t.
It's not just that Machado was 2 years younger, it's also that a 10 year deal would have bought out 2 years of underpaid arb years. Mookie stands to have made $20M in 2019 and $27M in 2020. He would have made $60M under the Sox proposal. If you consider 2019 and 2020 the same - the $47M - it increases the value of the remaining 8 years to $253M or $31.625M per year. Clearly that's not what Mookie wants, but that doesn't scream "slap in the face" to me.I dunno, as a starting negotiating position it makes about as much sense as Mookie's 12/420 demand. The issue is that, from all appearances, the Sox never budged from that number, which means they were never interested in negotiating in good faith to begin with. And if I were Mookie or his agent that would piss me off quite a bit, especially as all the "Mookie's demands are way too high!!" stuff gets leaked from Sox sources.
The second part of this is exactly right. MLB players have to wait so long to get to FA, it makes sense business-wise that when you get there to test the market. If Mookie signs elsewhere, that’s his prerogativeThis is still largely the same team that won 108 games. Unless the offer is significantly better than what is reported, I want one more year to make a run for the playoffs. You can always find cheap roster filler, trading a superstar for it is not acceptable to me.
If Mookie leaves for free agency, then I won't fault the team. He's going to do what's best for him.
I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference between shelling out for every big name player that hits FA, and for saying you can't afford your own homegrown superstar. I don't think people huffed and puffed about Georgie giving Jeter a big deal.I don't buy the "John Henry is a billionaire so he should spend whatever it takes" argument.
How long ago was it that we all hated how Steinbrenner ran the Yankees, spending without any regard to the impact on the overall competitiveness of the game. If you take the "let them spend all the money" to its logical end, all the best players will be concentrated on a small number of super teams, and baseball will be a lot less fun. I like the Sox being one of the richest teams, but don't need them to be part of an exclusive oligarchy.
That was a different CBA.I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference between shelling out for every big name player that hits FA, and for saying you can't afford your own homegrown superstar. I don't think people huffed and puffed about Georgie giving Jeter a big deal.
That thread is amazing in retrospect. Thank God the Sox transitioned him to the OF and didn't trade him because he was blocked by Pedroia, which many posters predicted early on (others, including Keith Law, predicted he'd become a Ben Zobrist/Brock Holt supersub). Also kind of amazing how quickly Mookie went from "fringe prospect" to "top-100 MLB prospect and a surefire major leaguer" - it basically happened over the course of a single season in Single A.Just for old time's sake, I'd like to thank LondonSox for introducing us to Mookie. Unfortunately, LondonSox appears to no longer be around either.
Which I understand, but my point is that outside fans don't care if a team overpays its own player. If/when the Yankees ink Judge to a mighty extension, nobody is going to roll their eyes and say "Of course the Yankees signed someone to a big contract."That was a different CBA.
Prrrrrreetttty sure you guys all mean Pablo Cruise.....I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda.
Nah, we’re worlds away from Pablo Cruise.Prrrrrreetttty sure you guys all mean Pablo Cruise.....
Have we seen this take?This is where I am at as well. Mookie being traded has become an inevitable truth that I have learned to accept.
What really frustrates me is the spin that is happening about how this is either about Mookie being greedy
Unless they are blowing smoke, I think the opposite might be true.Of course the Sox aren't precluded from re-signing Mookie if they trade him, but I think if they really thought they were going to be willing to pay what it would take to re-sign Mookie long term, they'd value Mookie's 2020 more than the theoretical trade package. In other words, if he's part of the long term future of this team, then a prime year of one of baseball's best players is too valuable for a team with championship aspirations to trade. On the other hand, if they've determined they're not going to be willing to pay what it would take to keep him, it's management malpractice to lose him for nothing when you have the opportunity to get real value for him.
I don't think it's all about getting under the tax threshold in 2020. If that was the sole concern, there's other ways to do it that are less detrimental to building a contending team in the near future.
I think it would be OK if they tried to sign him by making a fair offer, and he declined and went elsewhere for a better one. My problem is that 10, $300MM for Mookie is supposed to look like a great offer when it is just the 2020 version of the crap offer they made to Lester back in the day.My line is that they have to make him a palatable contract offer he'll sign. Period. You don't let the best homegrown player they've had since Yaz walk in the primer of his career simply because you don't want to pay him market value. And you don't suddenly find your coffers empty one year after giving stupid deals to Sale and Eovaldi. They knew full well Mookie's deal was coming up.
We don't know that even with the money that Mookie would stay here. He wouldn't accept an extension, he wants free agency, and someone might give him insane money that, Sale or not, the Sox wouldn't do.If Sale is somehow healthy and pitching like one of the top pitchers in the sport I’ll feel better about Mookie having to be dealt...
If that’s not the case...whether it’s right or wrong, I’m going to look at the Sale deal as an unnecessary (at the time) and awful overpay that necessitated Mookie being dealt.
it’s probably unfair, but since I didn’t really understand the Sale extension, how that turns out, more than anything, will shape how I view the roster and the corresponding moves for the near future.
If Sale pitches like crap (or doesn’t pitch) it won’t matter if they have Mookie. Just like 2019.If Sale is somehow healthy and pitching like one of the top pitchers in the sport I’ll feel better about Mookie having to be dealt...
If that’s not the case...whether it’s right or wrong, I’m going to look at the Sale deal as an unnecessary (at the time) and awful overpay that necessitated Mookie being dealt.
it’s probably unfair, but since I didn’t really understand the Sale extension, how that turns out, more than anything, will shape how I view the roster and the corresponding moves for the near future.
10/$300 didn’t happen this offseason. If it did we all agree it would be an insulting offer. A non-starter. It happened prior to 2019 which meant buying out 2 arb years.I think it would be OK if they tried to sign him by making a fair offer, and he declined and went elsewhere for a better one. My problem is that 10, $300MM for Mookie is supposed to look like a great offer when it is just the 2020 version of the crap offer they made to Lester back in the day.
The Red Sox were a dominant team for the first ~20 years of the 20th century. Then they sold off their best player.
Why the F are we doing that again?
We offered Lester less than half of what his highest offer in Free Agency (from SF) ended up being.I think it would be OK if they tried to sign him by making a fair offer, and he declined and went elsewhere for a better one. My problem is that 10, $300MM for Mookie is supposed to look like a great offer when it is just the 2020 version of the crap offer they made to Lester back in the day.
The Red Sox were a dominant team for the first ~20 years of the 20th century. Then they sold off their best player.
Why the F are we doing that again?
So what you're saying is ... because we messed up trying to sign a couple shaky pitchers at Sale Price, now we have to hedge our Betts financially?whether it’s right or wrong, I’m going to look at the Sale deal as an unnecessary (at the time) and awful overpay that necessitated Mookie being dealt.
Though I consider puns, not sarcasm, the lowest form of humor, nonetheless I must say, well done sir.So what you're saying is ... because we messed up trying to sign a couple shaky pitchers at Sale Price, now we have to hedge our Betts financially?
Sure, that's possible, but Mookie's made it clear that he's not signing an extension. He's going to free agency next year regardless of what happens. So he's on the books for $27M for 2019 no matter what, as long as he's on the Sox roster. If the Sox wanted to sign him to a $400M+ deal next year, there are other ways of getting below $208M this year that clear the decks to do so while not removing a potential MVP candidate from the 2020 roster.Unless they are blowing smoke, I think the opposite might be true.
Why can’t it be possible that the Sox cannot sign him for Trout money without a luxury tax reset? That seems very plausible to me.
If 12/4XX is what it will take, they cannot do it today and be a contender in the future for the reasons that were outlined in the Speir piece from a couple months ago about the long-term ripple effect of no cap reset. It just isn’t navigable.
I feel fairly confident that if the Sox are willing to go to a number starting with a 4, they are going to have a great chance of getting him next year if they want him. Trading him now doesn’t seem to foreclose the possibility but to the contrary seems to make it possible.