2019-20 Offseason Discussion

NUMBER 50



Andy Merchant 1975-76
Mike O'Berry 1979
Rich Gedman 1980
Dave Schmidt 1981
Dave Sax 1986
Tom Bolton 1987-92
Ken Ryan 1992-95
Jamie Moyer 1996
Mark Brandenburg 1996-97
Lou Merloni 1998
Chad Fonville 1999
Pete Schourek 2000-01
Ralph Treuel 2001 (COACH)
Benny Agbayani 2002
Mike Timlin 2003-08
Aaron Bates 2009
Dusty Brown 2009
Ron Johnson 2010-11 (COACH)
Justin Thomas 2012
Mauro Gomez 2012
Quintin Berry 2013
Mookie Betts 2014-19
Retire it for Lou Merloni, obviously.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
63,563
Oregon
Clemens he probably won't. But he has more or less surpassed Wakefield and Tek on the field.
Is Mookie a better player than Tek and Wakefield? Yes.
Has he meant more to the history of the franchise than Tek and Wake? No.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,388
Hingham, MA
How quickly we forget # 5.
Nomar 1996-2004: 966 G, 4,345 PA, 1,281 H, 279 2B, 178 HR, 709 R, 690 RBI, .323 BA, .370 OBP, .553 SLG, .925 OPS, 133 OPS+
Mookie 2014-2019: 794 G, 3,629 PA, 965 H, 229 2B, 139 HR, 613 R, 470 RBI, .301 BA, .374 OBP, .519 SLG, .893 OPS, 134 OPS+

Retire 5!
 

Coachster

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2009
5,446
New Hampshire
Nomar 1996-2004: 966 G, 4,345 PA, 1,281 H, 279 2B, 178 HR, 709 R, 690 RBI, .323 BA, .370 OBP, .553 SLG, .925 OPS, 133 OPS+
Mookie 2014-2019: 794 G, 3,629 PA, 965 H, 229 2B, 139 HR, 613 R, 470 RBI, .301 BA, .374 OBP, .519 SLG, .893 OPS, 134 OPS+

Retire 5!
NUMBER 5



Otto Miller 1931
Marv Olson 1932
Johnny Hodapp 1933
Carl Reynolds 1934
Moose Solters 1935
Oscar Melillo 1935
Billy Werber 1936
Mike Higgins 1937-38
Jim Tabor 1939-44
Jim Bucher 1945
Rip Russell 1946-47
Matt Batts 1947
Vern Stephens 1948-52
Ted Lepcio 1953-54
Mike Higgins 1955-59 (MGR)
Ron Jackson 1960
Mike Higgins 1960-62 (MGR)
Russ Nixon 1963-65
George Scott 1966-71
Danny Cater 1972-74
Buddy Hunter 1975
Denny Doyle 1975-77
George Scott 1979
Bob Watson 1979
Tony Perez 1980-82
Jeff Newman 1983-84
Spike Owen 1986
Brady Anderson 1988
Randy Kutcher 1989-90
Herm Winningham 1992
Scott Fletcher 1993-94
Nomar Garciaparra 1996-2004
Rocco Baldelli 2009
Nick Punto 2012
Jonny Gomes 2013-14
Allen Craig 2014-15
Tzu-Wei Lin 2017-18
Ian Kinsler 2018
Tzu-Wei Lin 2019
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
26,259
Pitchers and catchers reporting day was yesterday. Looks like Benintendi and JBJ and others arrived early.


Northeastern game is in 8 days, first game against an MLB opponent is the following day.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,093
Nomar 1996-2004: 966 G, 4,345 PA, 1,281 H, 279 2B, 178 HR, 709 R, 690 RBI, .323 BA, .370 OBP, .553 SLG, .925 OPS, 133 OPS+
Mookie 2014-2019: 794 G, 3,629 PA, 965 H, 229 2B, 139 HR, 613 R, 470 RBI, .301 BA, .374 OBP, .519 SLG, .893 OPS, 134 OPS+

Retire 5!
In so many ways, Nomar was Mookie before Mookie.

It's still sad to think of what a nonfactor Nomar was to the 2004 season. Yet another reason to hate He Who Shall Not Be Named for denying us the 2003 WS.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
5,900
Hey, we signed Pillar. 1/4.

TODAY: Pillar and the Red Sox are in agreement on a one-year deal worth roughly $4MM, Alex Speier of the Boston Globe reports. The deal will become official when Pillar passes a physical, which Speier says could happen this weekend.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,685

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,898
I think that statement is straightforward and honest. They tried to re-sign him, Mookie wouldn't budge on his asking price, and they wanted to get something for him before he became a free agent.
I agree 100% with this. They clearly wanted to re-sign him, but not at Trout money, which is what it appears Mookie was demanding. Armed with the knowledge that he would go to free agency, it made little sense for the Red Sox to just let him go and getting virtually nothing in return.

Sometimes the baseball of business drives decisions.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,748
The wrong side of the bridge....
Also worth noting what Kennedy said about this trade:

View: https://twitter.com/joonlee/status/1229439581185085444




Can't both things be true?
Some of us have been saying all along that getting under the CBT was just a fringe benefit of trading Mookie; the main point was to get something of long-term value for him rather than losing him for virtually nothing in a year. Seems like JH agrees. So no, you don't trade Mookie just to get under the limit -- but if there's already a good reason to trade him, the fact that doing so will help you get under the limit is a powerful reinforcement.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,906
Philadelphia
Some of us have been saying all along that getting under the CBT was just a fringe benefit of trading Mookie; the main point was to get something of long-term value for him rather than losing him for virtually nothing in a year. Seems like JH agrees. So no, you don't trade Mookie just to get under the limit -- but if there's already a good reason to trade him, the fact that doing so will help you get under the limit is a powerful reinforcement.
Fair, I can def buy that argument.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
13,317
Stapling David Price's contract to Betts absolutely was done to get under the luxury tax. They would have got more back for Betts if they hadn't chosen to do that. That decision was made to get under the tax limit, period.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,913
It really seems probable to me that there’s some intangible factor influencing Mookie’s decision that neither party wanted to say out loud for fear of harming future negotiations with other players.

Could be anything, but for a guy who grew up in Tennessee, it makes sense that he’d be interested in making his home in an area with better weather. Relatable if so.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,823
Stapling David Price's contract to Betts absolutely was done to get under the luxury tax. They would have got more back for Betts if they hadn't chosen to do that. That decision was made to get under the tax limit, period.
I think this is right. I don't know that it being true makes it the wrong decision. A club has to evaluate all of the resources it has and there are real consequences to going over the first threshold this year that will continue to hamper the team's ability to be consistently competitive. I think you can argue whether or not you agree with that point, but I think that is the Red Sox position and this was done more for those reasons than for a profit motive.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,748
The wrong side of the bridge....
Stapling David Price's contract to Betts absolutely was done to get under the luxury tax. They would have got more back for Betts if they hadn't chosen to do that. That decision was made to get under the tax limit, period.
Maybe, although I think the 50% subsidy on Price made him a pretty neutral (perhaps even slightly positive) asset. So I doubt the difference between the actual return and a just-Mookie return would have been significant.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,213
Southwestern CT
It really seems probable to me that there’s some intangible factor influencing Mookie’s decision that neither party wanted to say out loud for fear of harming future negotiations with other players.

Could be anything, but for a guy who grew up in Tennessee, it makes sense that he’d be interested in making his home in an area with better weather. Relatable if so.
I'm convinced that there's a lot we don't know and/or that the parties aren't talking about, so perhaps this is correct.

The acid test for how important it is to be "closer to Nashville" will be whether he re-signs with LA. Los Angeles has a lot of advantages. Proximity to Nashville isn't one of them.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,838
Santa Monica, CA
Some of us have been saying all along that getting under the CBT was just a fringe benefit of trading Mookie; the main point was to get something of long-term value for him rather than losing him for virtually nothing in a year. Seems like JH agrees. So no, you don't trade Mookie just to get under the limit -- but if there's already a good reason to trade him, the fact that doing so will help you get under the limit is a powerful reinforcement.
Or John Henry is savvy and dishonest enough to not tell fans the truth when he knows it will add fuel to the fire.
 
Aug 11, 2019
387
Stapling David Price's contract to Betts absolutely was done to get under the luxury tax. They would have got more back for Betts if they hadn't chosen to do that. That decision was made to get under the tax limit, period.
I can't see any reason other than that as they should have been able to get a lot more talent, even if it was just low minor-league level, than they ended up getting. They might have been stuck with David Price's contract but they are now short two starting pitchers. And perhaps with enough minor-league talent, they might have been able to make another trade including some of that with a player like Bradley or Benintendi.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,864
NH
I just don't buy it.

I've said it before, but the team lost me when that happened. I got the Nomar trade. I hated, but understood the Manny trade. This trade doesn't make them better in the short or long term and Henry trying to explain it as it was a necessary move just pisses me off even more. If you want to argue getting under the luxury tax was necessary, fine. But how is Eovaldi still around? Why sign guys like him and Price in the first place?
Whatever. It's happened. But I'm not sure of how the team wins disgruntled fans like me back. They've burned a lot of trust in the last decade.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,508
You're a tough customer. Not too many teams have won two rings in the past decade. You don't think that warrants just a bit of confidence in ownership?
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
959
It seems there were 3 choices with Mookie:

1) Sign him for his asking price, and hope you're still excited to be paying him $35M/year for ages 35-38.

2) Let him play out the contract, and get a draft pick when you don't want to match whatever happens then.

3) What the Sox did, get some value for a hugely valuable asset.

These are 3 crappy options, and I think the Sox did the best they could. I'm not sure there was really a 4th option.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,388
Hingham, MA
It seems there were 3 choices with Mookie:

1) Sign him for his asking price, and hope you're still excited to be paying him $35M/year for ages 35-38.

2) Let him play out the contract, and get a draft pick when you don't want to match whatever happens then.

3) What the Sox did, get some value for a hugely valuable asset.

These are 3 crappy options, and I think the Sox did the best they could. I'm not sure there was really a 4th option.
3b) What the Sox did, then sign him for his asking price next winter, so they get control of two young, talented guys for a while, shed Price's contract, "punt" on 2020, and still are left hoping they are happy to have Mookie at $35M/year for ages 35-38. I think the chances of this happening are <1% but it's still possible until/unless he signs with the Dodgers prior to FA.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
959
3b) What the Sox did, then sign him for his asking price next winter, so they get control of two young, talented guys for a while, shed Price's contract, "punt" on 2020, and still are left hoping they are happy to have Mookie at $35M/year for ages 35-38. I think the chances of this happening are <1% but it's still possible until/unless he signs with the Dodgers prior to FA.
I think what's unusual here, and part of what had me prepared for the eventual outcome, was that I'm not sure I EVER heard Mookie express a desire to return to the Sox once he was a free agent. Usually, home grown players will at least pay a little lip service to the idea that they'd like to stay where they started, that it's all they ever known, etc. I don't think I ever heard that from Mookie, and as time went on I became resigned to the idea that Boston was not his first choice. My guess is that John Henry, et al, were able to press Mookie even further in this regard, and came to the same conclusion. If so, then I think it's hard to argue that what they did isn't actually the best choice for the franchise's competitive interests. I think that if JWH thought he'd be able to keep Mookie by matching whatever he's offered in FA, then it might have been a gamble worth taking to keep him.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,864
NH
You're a tough customer. Not too many teams have won two rings in the past decade. You don't think that warrants just a bit of confidence in ownership?
No. Not after the way they ran Tito out of town, whatever nonsense happened with Lester, and now this. The championships were great. But I've rooted for them when they were terrible too. I care about the product on the field. I also care about whether I like the players and personalities with the team. Orsillo for Dave O'Brien? Lester for Price? Bobby Valentine???!?!? No, I do not trust them as is, and I really do not trust that winning is their primary motivation.

It seems there were 3 choices with Mookie:

1) Sign him for his asking price, and hope you're still excited to be paying him $35M/year for ages 35-38.

2) Let him play out the contract, and get a draft pick when you don't want to match whatever happens then.

3) What the Sox did, get some value for a hugely valuable asset.

These are 3 crappy options, and I think the Sox did the best they could. I'm not sure there was really a 4th option.
Yea, they were crappy choices. But doing 1 shows me you care about the fan base. Doing 2 shows me you at least are giving the due diligence and still care about the next season.

I'm just going to very much disagree that what they got back is a hugely valuable asset. What's the over under on career war from Downs and Verdugo, maybe 12 or so? I'd at least like to enjoy Mookie's last year, and if they lose him because some team offers him a crazy amount, it is what it is. This team may not have been good enough to have a deep playoff run even with him, but without him (and Price) they have zero shot of getting out of the AL. Why should any fan be invested in this?

I have the same concerns now about the Red Sox I did about the Bruins after the trades of Thornton and later Kessel and Seguin. I just don't see why get invested if the team doesn't share your investment and is constantly willing to trade a quarter for three nickles.
 
Last edited:

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Stapling David Price's contract to Betts absolutely was done to get under the luxury tax. They would have got more back for Betts if they hadn't chosen to do that. That decision was made to get under the tax limit, period.
This seems to me the significant value in return that they are referring to. Salary relief plus a couple young players.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,675
around the way
No. Not after the way they ran Tito out of town, whatever nonsense happened with Lester, and now this. The championships were great. But I've rooted for them when they were terrible too. I care about the product on the field. I also care about whether I like the players and personalities with the team. Orsillo for Dave O'Brien? Lester for Price? Bobby Valentine???!?!? No, I do not trust them as is, and I really do not trust that winning is their primary motivation.


Yea, they were crappy choices. But doing 1 shows me you care about the fan base. Doing 2 shows me you at least are giving the due diligence and still care about the next season.

I'm just going to very much disagree that what they got back is a hugely valuable asset. What's the over under on career war from Downs and Verdugo, maybe 12 or so? I'd at least like to enjoy Mookie's last year, and if they lose him because some team offers him a crazy amount, it is what it is. This team may not have been good enough to have a deep playoff run even with him, but without him (and Price) they have zero shot of getting out of the AL. Why should any fan be invested in this?

I have the same concerns now about the Red Sox I did about the Bruins after the trades of Thornton and later Kessel and Seguin. I just don't see why get invested if the team doesn't share your investment and is constantly willing to trade a quarter for three nickles.
That post is embarrassing. Four championships in less than twenty years, and we don't trust them because they changed broadcasters?

They make decisions that we don't agree with sometimes. They have also set the millennial standard for both payroll spending and championships.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
43,029
deep inside Guido territory
I just don't buy it.

I've said it before, but the team lost me when that happened. I got the Nomar trade. I hated, but understood the Manny trade. This trade doesn't make them better in the short or long term and Henry trying to explain it as it was a necessary move just pisses me off even more. If you want to argue getting under the luxury tax was necessary, fine. But how is Eovaldi still around? Why sign guys like him and Price in the first place?
Whatever. It's happened. But I'm not sure of how the team wins disgruntled fans like me back. They've burned a lot of trust in the last decade.
They signed Price because they needed an ace pitcher due to the fact they have had no success developing pitching and they botched Jon Lester. Eovaldi was a trade for next to nothing and they signed him(again) because of the lack of success of developing starting pitching.

How do you know the success level of the team long-term? They absolutely needed to get under the tax so let's see what they do with the savings.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,626
Maine
I think what's unusual here, and part of what had me prepared for the eventual outcome, was that I'm not sure I EVER heard Mookie express a desire to return to the Sox once he was a free agent. Usually, home grown players will at least pay a little lip service to the idea that they'd like to stay where they started, that it's all they ever known, etc. I don't think I ever heard that from Mookie, and as time went on I became resigned to the idea that Boston was not his first choice. My guess is that John Henry, et al, were able to press Mookie even further in this regard, and came to the same conclusion. If so, then I think it's hard to argue that what they did isn't actually the best choice for the franchise's competitive interests. I think that if JWH thought he'd be able to keep Mookie by matching whatever he's offered in FA, then it might have been a gamble worth taking to keep him.
Mookie 11 months ago said this to Pete Abraham: ""But I love it here. This is a great place to be, to spend your career here. That doesn't mean you sell yourself short."
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
7,898
They signed Price because they needed an ace pitcher due to the fact they have had no success developing pitching and they botched Jon Lester. Eovaldi was a trade for next to nothing and they signed him(again) because of the lack of success of developing starting pitching.
And because he was incredible during the playoffs.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,685
And because he was incredible during the playoffs.
And because he was/is one of a handful of pitchers that matches up well against NY, as their achilles' heel in recent seasons has been RH SPs who can hit 98-100 (Verlander, Cole, Eovaldi, Glasnow possibly, Syndergaard potentially, it is a short list and shorter with Cole now on NY).
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
5,507
I'm just going to very much disagree that what they got back is a hugely valuable asset. What's the over under on career war from Downs and Verdugo, maybe 12 or so? I'd at least like to enjoy Mookie's last year, and if they lose him because some team offers him a crazy amount, it is what it is. This team may not have been good enough to have a deep playoff run even with him, but without him (and Price) they have zero shot of getting out of the AL. Why should any fan be invested in this?
Career combined? 12 war for both of them seems insane, even if you're just talking their cost controlled years, 5 years of Verudgo alone is probably projected for about 15-20, he's projected for about 3 in 130 games this year
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,685
Career combined? 12 war for both of them seems insane, even if you're just talking their cost controlled years, 5 years of Verudgo alone is probably projected for about 15-20, he's projected for about 3 in 130 games this year
Downs is a bit farther away of course but was rated the #15 prospect in all of MLB today in Fangraphs' mathematical ZiPS top 100 list: