If true. It’s pretty apparent he didn’t want to be here.Sorry @Jared_Carrabis your dream scenario may come to an end within the next couple days, I’m told. Mookie will remain in LA for a very very long time. 10+ yrs for BIG $$. Between 350-400. @weei @OMFonWEEI
View: https://twitter.com/LouMerloni/status/1285932230230052865
A lot has changed since he turned down our offer. Teams lost a ton of revenue this year. It’s possible he doesn’t want to take the risk of them losing more.If true. It’s pretty apparent he didn’t want to be here.
If true. . .no. It really is just about the money.If true. It’s pretty apparent he didn’t want to be here.
Jared Carrabis talked to his sources and said the rumor is "real".Orrrrr, Merloni is making shit up to drive listeners to his flailing show. When was the last scoop he ever got? If an LA beat guy or a national beat guy verifies his rumor mongering, I'd be more inclined to give it a second thought.
We've been over this before but timing matters. The 10/$300 offer was made after 2018. Instead of accepting, he played for $20M in 2019 and $27M in 2020. So effectively the offer was 8 years and $253 post-arbitration. If he had accepted, he would have made $300M from 2019-2028 and then became a free agent in 2029 at 36 years old, with potential to sign a contract at 36 and make some more $$.If true. . .no. It really is just about the money.
Boston offered 10-year, $300 million contract.
He apparently counter-offered to Boston with 12 years and $420 million. Which means he was quite willing to stay on his terms.
Maybe 11 at 380 would have gotten it done. (Not saying Boston should have done so.)
Yep, and, as gammoseditor points out, the financial situation has drastically changed. Expect most teams this offseason to be very hesitant to sign guys to huge deals - either because they truly are concerned about finances, or because they think they can use the pandemic as an excuse to be cheaper. It’s very possible that going into this season Mookie’s outlook was “I’m going to test free agency unless the Dodgers blow me away with a 400+ million offer” but that now his outlook is “might be best to forgo free agency if we can come to a reasonable deal” (reasonable in this sense meaning 350+ million).But it's safe to say that if he does end up getting over $350M from the Dodgers then he will have made a really wise choice, and that you could argue it truly was all about the money.
Oh, the Barstool Sports guy is confirming it? Well now I guess I have to believe it.Jared Carrabis talked to his sources and said the rumor is "real".
From the Red Sox perspective, if they had signed Betts to a long-term deal when he wanted then the tax bill would have been huge because of how screwed up they were LT wise. It would have hamstrung them for years to come. That's a whole other conversation on the many bad contracts that got them to that point. I will be consistent from the spring think they did the right thing, got a pretty good package for him, and get their payroll situation figured out.We've been over this before but timing matters. The 10/$300 offer was made after 2018. Instead of accepting, he played for $20M in 2019 and $27M in 2020. So effectively the offer was 8 years and $253 post-arbitration. If he had accepted, he would have made $300M from 2019-2028 and then became a free agent in 2029 at 36 years old, with potential to sign a contract at 36 and make some more $$.
Under the current situation, instead he has made $47M in 2019 and 2020. He will now be a free agent. If he signs a (making this up) 12 year, $360M deal with the Dodgers, he will have made $407M from 2019 through 2032, and would then become a free agent in 2033 at 40 years old. Under that scenario I'd assume he retires at contract end.
So the delta between those scenarios would be $107M that he would have to make from age 36 on. Who knows what contracts will look like in 10 years. But it's safe to say that if he does end up getting over $350M from the Dodgers then he will have made a really wise choice, and that you could argue it truly was all about the money.
Believe who you want to, but Jared is pretty tied in with baseball and the Red Sox. Here is what he just wrote.Oh, the Barstool Sports guy is confirming it? Well now I guess I have to believe it.
I don't disagree with what you wrote: I was just pointing out that Mookie would have accepted some offer to stay here. So it's not really apparent that "he didn't want to be here."We've been over this before but timing matters.
I fully agree. It's more complicated than pure $, or pure "he didn't want to be here". Timing mattered on the front end, and it matters here again on the back end with Covid.I don't disagree with what you wrote: I was just pointing out that Mookie would have accepted some offer to stay here. So it's not really apparent that "he didn't want to be here."
Further, his accepting LA's offer now has nothing to do with Boston. His choice is between accepting an offer from LA or testing the FA market.
Whether that's purely a $ issue or not. . .dunno.
This is a ridiculous take. Do you think circumstances in the world are the same now than when Betts turned down every offer the Sox put in front of him?amazing that I didn't think I could hate this deal more than when they made it that day and I keep being proven wrong.
I know excusing the actions of the FO are common place here but this is brutal. I'll be happy when Henry sells.
Can't wait to see the next free agent loser get overpaid by $100m or so while we can't pay the homegrown stars we have. Maybe we can go give Castellanos $200m in the offseason.
Dude. I totally missed your Covid-19 warning back in 2018. Now I feel like I've been shit-talking without any basis for it. Mea Culpa.amazing that I didn't think I could hate this deal more than when they made it that day and I keep being proven wrong.
I know excusing the actions of the FO are common place here but this is brutal. I'll be happy when Henry sells.
Can't wait to see the next free agent loser get overpaid by $100m or so while we can't pay the homegrown stars we have. Maybe we can go give Castellanos $200m in the offseason.
The deal was ridiculous the minute it was made. The fact that conditions have changed and now the Dodgers might go from having him for a season to being able to lock him up doesn't make it less ridiculous.This is a ridiculous take. Do you think circumstances in the world are the same now than when Betts turned down every offer the Sox put in front of him?
They got way more for him in this trade than if he simply walked out the door at the end of this season. If you want to get mad at something, get mad at the people who put so many bad contracts on the books and had too many bad draft picks that they were even in this position in the first place. Their past mistakes in both FA and the draft the last few years caught up to them. They have a ton of bad money on the books and not enough cheap talent to make things work. Get this season to September 1st to reset the tax and then they can spend big again. But this time they need to spent smarter so they aren't in the position that they had to trade a generational talent.The deal was ridiculous the minute it was made. The fact that conditions have changed and now the Dodgers might go from having him for a season to being able to lock him up doesn't make it less ridiculous.
Almost like they learned nothing from the Carl Crawford trade. Last time they got out of jail by trading Adrian Gonzalez and Josh Beckett, who weren’t as young or good as Mookie.I have no doubt that the Dodgers were willing to pay Mookie more than the Red Sox were, but it has nothing to do with ownership greed and everything to do with the way the two franchises are set up for the future. Over-paying a superstar (relative to his objective value) is exactly the kind of thing you can and should do when you're producing cheap young talent around him. It's not the kind of thing you can or should do when you are paying a bunch of free agents market value to fill the rotation and have zero impact prospects in your system.
The Red Sox overpaid superstars in Chris Sale and David Price and it worked out poorly. They have no meaningful cheap talent coming from the minors. Whatever Mookie gets from LA, it will be a deal that would have made no sense for the Red Sox, and that's why he was never going to stay.
While I agree with the fact that the signings and drafting often didn't work out well, the counter-argument to consider is the 2016 and 2017 post season berths, and the 2018 WS.They got way more for him in this trade than if he simply walked out the door at the end of this season. If you want to get mad at something, get mad at the people who put so many bad contracts on the books and had too many bad draft picks that they were even in this position in the first place. Their past mistakes in both FA and the draft the last few years caught up to them. They have a ton of bad money on the books and not enough cheap talent to make things work. Get this season to September 1st to reset the tax and then they can spend big again. But this time they need to spent smarter so they aren't in the position that they had to trade a generational talent.
The counterargument to that is all the years to come where they won't have him in the lineup to make runs at multiple more playoff berths and possibly more titles. They may (and likely will) get some of those anyway without him, but...While I agree with the fact that the signings and drafting often didn't work out well, the counter-argument to consider is the 2016 and 2017 post season berths, and the 2018 WS.
45 years takes you back to 1975. I'd put the Fisk/Lynn fiasco well ahead of the Mookie trade for blunders. Also trading Bagwell for Larry Anderson. The Red Sox got Mookie's best years, and got something for him in a trade. They got Fisk's and Lynn's best years, but nothing for them because of the front office failure. And they got two months of Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell's entire HOF career. Perspective, my friend.To not have locked Mookie up long term is the biggest front office failure I think I have witnessed in 45 years of passionately rooting for the Red Sox. It was clear Mookie was going to test the market but if there is one player you back up the Brinks truck for it’s Mookie (sorry Isaiah Thomas). Mookie is a five tool player with intangible, excellent role model and no drama. Sad day for Red Sox Nation. Thank you Mookie!!! May God continue to bless you.
My top three in the past 30 years are: Ortiz (Papi put us on his shoulders and carried us to the long waited promise land multiple times It does not happen without him period!), Pedro (the greatest pitcher I have ever seen. He was the equivalent of Picasso painting), and then Mookie! Ok, next man up!!!
I don’t think you even need to go that far back - I’d say how they handled Lester was worse than how they handled Mookie, given the respective contract demands of each.45 years takes you back to 1975. I'd put the Fisk/Lynn fiasco well ahead of the Mookie trade for blunders. Also trading Bagwell for Larry Anderson. The Red Sox got Mookie's best years, and got something for him in a trade. They got Fisk's and Lynn's best years, but nothing for them because of the front office failure. And they got two months of Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell's entire HOF career. Perspective, my friend.
Well, it wouldn’t have been 13/380, but yes, it WOULD have been something in the range of Cano’s 10/240, which he signed later that offseason. Some guys take less because they want to stay and gain some long term security. Pedroia... Bogaerts... Arroyo .No Dustin Pedroia? The guy won two WS with us, an MVP, a ROY and took a team-friendly deal so that he could stay here and not be an albatross contract. Yea he got hurt but that could happen to anybody. Now imagine if, instead of taking that team-friendly deal, he had signed a 13 year $380 million contract.
I totally agree everything you said. Bagwell for Anderson was offset in my mind with Varitek and Lowe. I loved Fred Lynn and was crushed when he left. In some ways, Lynn may be the best comparison in terms of letting young amazing talent leave and not taking care of business to ensure they stayed in a Red Sox uniform. What burns me is that we all saw how good Mookie was from early on and had plenty of opportunities to shore him up. I do understand the constraints of throwing excessive dollars and sacrificing your future and there comes a point you have to put your foot down and walk away. I'm not saying we did not do OK at the end of the relationship and trading him for something if we knew he was going to walk. My point is that we should have taken care of business well before it got to this point. I think for me the most disgusting signings were Jack Clark, Matt Young and Panda (This may be a good thread). I'm just venting because I loved watching Mookie play the game the right way and in a Red Sox uniform and now he's gone for good.45 years takes you back to 1975. I'd put the Fisk/Lynn fiasco well ahead of the Mookie trade for blunders. Also trading Bagwell for Larry Anderson. The Red Sox got Mookie's best years, and got something for him in a trade. They got Fisk's and Lynn's best years, but nothing for them because of the front office failure. And they got two months of Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell's entire HOF career. Perspective, my friend.