Mookie redux

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
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.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
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.
Right. Unless baseball reinstituted the reserve clause, anything Mookie has done after 2020 is irrelevant to the Red Sox.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,047
South Carolina via Dorchestah
I don't have the joy of watching Mookie play for the Sox anymore so no, we didn't win the trade.
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 the Yankees wish 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 Duquette is not walking through that door, and Theo Epstein is 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.
 

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,518
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 the Yankees wish 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 Duquette is not walking through that door, and Theo Epstein is 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.
Yes but what are your feelings on Wong and Verdugo?
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
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 the Yankees wish 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 Duquette is not walking through that door, and Theo Epstein is 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.

Generally agree…. But I’m….puzzled. You know X is with the Padres now right?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,688
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Yes but what are your feelings on Wong and Verdugo?
He'll have to go on about Price, Porcello, E-Rod, Eovaldi, JD, JBJ, Kimbrel, Renfroe, and Vazquez first.

But give him some time to look them up to see if they're doing well.

Generally agree…. But I’m….puzzled. You know X is with the Padres now right?
What's weirder is he's the only guy on the Padres, who nevertheless are 16-15, something the Sox will never achieve.
 

jteders1

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2022
117
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.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
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 the Yankees wish 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 Duquette is not walking through that door, and Theo Epstein is 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.
Is this the first SoSH post ever delivered via message in a bottle?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,688
Miami (oh, Miami!)
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.
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.
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
12,529
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.
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).

Yeah we would’ve loved in hindsight of the FO didn’t mismanage the financials and saved the money to sign Betts to an extension…but they didn’t. Once they didn’t, the options were either keep Betts for 2020 and then he walks, or trade him.

Wong is starting to make me a lot more optimistic about the whole trade.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,183
Central Florida
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?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
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?
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.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
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.
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 away
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,684
San Diego
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.
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?
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
2,183
Central Florida
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.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
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?
The one that offers you the most money.
 
Mar 30, 2023
177
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.
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.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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+ years
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,669
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 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.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
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.
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.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
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.
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.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,086
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.
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.

Personally, I never felt I heard Mookie say, in a sincere committed way, that his priority was to remain a Red Sock. I did hear him say, several times, that he felt he owed it to other players to get the best deal he could. When he kept saying that, I started to assume the Sox would likely trade him, which as others are pointing out in this thread, already appears to be the correct baseball move.

These things happen...
 
Mar 30, 2023
177
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
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.
 
Last edited:

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
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.
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.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,688
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Personally, I never felt I heard Mookie say, in a sincere committed way, that his priority was to remain a Red Sock.
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.

And we know this is all true because no one ever could not want to sign with Boston. Ever.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,241
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.
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.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
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.

Money, organization, team loyalty, blah, blah, blah...but the one thing people should remember is we are talking about human beings who often have preferences different than our own. And it may just be the Mookie wanted to spend the bulk of his professional life living in sunny LA rather than Boston, where the weather and the media can be more challenging.

The money in all sports has grown to the point that it is less of a consideration than it has been in the past. And guys can now consider things like "Do I want to spend a decade of my life living in a place that I'm looking to get away from as soon as the season is over, or take similar money to play in a place I'm happy to live year round?"
 
Last edited:
Mar 30, 2023
177
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.
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.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
Every single franchise resets the luxury tax regularly and will do so going forward outside of the Mets (maybe) and we’ll see how that works out for them.

They don’t do that because the are cheap, they do so because their are very real non monetary losses tied to not resetting.

This had been rehashed time and time again. Mookie was not signing here for what the Dodgers got him at.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
709
Melrose MA
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
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.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,732
Deep inside Muppet Labs
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.

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.
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.

On a purely aethetic level it would help if Verdugo made the All Star team this year, the optics might help things a bit.
 
Last edited:

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,723
Not trying to shovel dirt on Mookie’s career, but we're also not expecting him to realistically maintain his historical production post-30, which is what lines up with our prospect window. Dever's prime lines up with that window; Mookie's and X's didn't.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,241
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.
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?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,688
Miami (oh, Miami!)
. . .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.
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.

But I am curious - would it be "absurd" or not for a fan to say "Ohtani could be given a 50% share in the ownership of the club in exchange for a lifetime contract?" I mean, personally, I think that sort of statement is "absurd" because it ignores all the real-world predicate points. But, technically, I guess the Sox could do that, or it's monetary equivalent. It's still absurd though.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
The team's won 6 in a row, passed the Blue Jays in the standings, has a lot of fun players to watch, and would be in the playoffs if the season ended today. Sounds like it's just the right time to rehash the Mookie trade.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
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.
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.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,587
Panama
Mookie was traded because Boston would not pay what he wanted. They knew this and Mookie knew this.

Mookie's trade included the unloading of a bad contract (David Price) which helped diminish the quality of players coming back.

COVID hit at the beginning of Mookie's stay in LA and therefore he accepted an extension that was lower than he would be asking, but maybe still higher than whatever Boston was willing to pay (we do not know this but can make educated guesses).

Somewhere in the quantum realm there is an alternate universe where COVID does not happen and Mookie becomes a FA after the 2020 season and signs an even bigger deal.

I personnally hate that they traded Mookie but understand that the Red Sox are a business, and John Henry is doing all of this with his money so I either accept that and keep rooting for the laundry or refuse to watch/follow the Sox and....

All that being said, the Mookie trade can only be evaluated as 1 year of Mookie vs the results they got (Verdugo, Wong). Whatever Mookie does or does not do in LA has nothing to do with this.
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
248
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 the Yankees wish 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 Duquette is not walking through that door, and Theo Epstein is 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.
Lol just seeing this treasure of a post now. Great work.

Poor John Henry not being able to fill his doubloon swimming pool aside, I'm stoked that Verdugo is matching Betts in WAR so far this year (paired with 0.4 WAR from solid Connor Wong). Will be interesting to see how these two compare from 2023-forward (after Betts has destroyed Verdugo to this point), where Betts effectively costs $304/10 for the life of his contract and Verdugo is at $6.3/1 with one Arb year remaining.
 

GB5

New Member
Aug 26, 2013
675
Hypothetical certainly but if we assume that the Dodgers gave us less because we demanded that the Price contract be stapled to the deal, but I would love to know what kind of deal the RS could have extracted had the Dodgers said no to the Price inclusion.