Betts/Price to LA for Verdugo/Jeter Downs/TBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,547
CT
Yeah, watching the videos of Graterol someone posted he's definitely got nasty stuff and his slider has some sharp bite to it. Heavy is the right word for his fastball.

As long as this isn't a chronic back problem for Verdugo, I think in a couple of years we will be looking back as loving this trade.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Yeah, watching the videos of Graterol someone posted he's definitely got nasty stuff and his slider has some sharp bite to it. Heavy is the right word for his fastball.

As long as this isn't a chronic back problem for Verdugo, I think in a couple of years we will be looking back as loving this trade.
Verdugo will have other stuff to answer to besides his back. There's discussion of it in the Verdugo thread.
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,443
Rossland, BC
We’re supposed to believe this is about Henry putting a desire for money above the team? Horseshit. There is zero evidence to suggest this.

I believe that Henry genuinely believes this is in the best long term interests of the club. We can debate whether that is the case but there is zero evidence over two decades to suggest Henry wants anything other than the best for the Club. Zero.

Of all the fans in the world, you would think that New England sports fans would have the most insight into what makes a franchise successful year in and year out. Belichick has taught us there are no sacred cows and you need to be ruthless in putting club ahead of sentiment.

Again, I am prepared to listen to arguments about why this doesn’t make the Red Sox a better club. And I get that baseball is a more sentimental game than football. You see their faces, they become a part of your daily routine for 162 days of the year. Their personalities come out more.

But the truth is this. If you want a club that competes year in and year out you need to be prepared to make hard choices that can go down in flames. This one may be that. But you will never convince me it is because John Henry doesn’t want what is best for the team.
After reading through a lot of good posts, I want to second this one. There is no reason to disbelieve that Henry et al have the best interests of the club at heart. They have a long track record of success, and deserve our faith. He spends money, and likely would have given Mookie a large chunk of that money, had it not perpetuated a competitive disadvantage for the club as a whole.
I also think Bloom likely knows what he's doing, and look forward to seeing how these 2 guys do. It will still be a crapshoot.
But most of all, I want to say Thank you Mookie, for being one of the greatest baseball players I've seen over the years, and on my team. Good luck, and I wish you well, and come back some time..
I also thank David Price for his talent and competitive nature, and for showing up in 2018, when it mattered most. Good luck.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
20,030
Henderson, NV
Everything else aside, this makes me incredibly sad. I loved watching Mookie Betts play baseball for the Sox. I would have enjoyed doing so for many more years.
It was only ever going to be one more year at the most. I don't understand why people can't understand that. Is there a chance he comes back? Sure, but don't bet on them being the high bidder.

More angry than the Lester Fiasco. How do you dump the best homegrown player in a generation? This is like the Bankee$ dumping Jeter in his prime...but worse. So fed up with the Sox.
Nice first post. :rolleyes:

Watch, after all this, the Dodgers stumble to 85 wins. That shouldn't happen, but you know what they say about stranger things...

Yes, I'll miss Mookie too, but it was inevitable. He's just leaving a year earlier than he could have. Thanks for the title, Mookie and David.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,573
Saskatchestan
The dodgers killed this trade. Why didn't they wait until the season? There would be more teams looking to trade.

In 2003, you think the Red Sox wouldn't have traded Hanley Ramirez and whatever the equivalent is for Maeda (for a prospect like Colby Lewis) for Pujols or A-Rod? Even if it was only for a half-season?

Baseball is a crazy game. What if SD is in contention? Or someone desperate to get that elusive title, like Cleveland or the Brewers?
Finally caught up in the thread and it's been responded to already, but a question back is, what if the Red Sox are in contention?
How do we feel if they keep Mookie and Price and then fade? Then we get basically nothing back, are stuck with Price for two additional years (I'm skeptical of his next three, based on his last two and I was super happy we had him, especially in 2018). This way they can reset and build for the future. The future prospect of this team not getting under and resetting was even scarier looking that a potential rebuild/bridge year in 2020. I'll put up with short-term pain for long-term gain always

You don't like the trade. Not sure why you keep giving weird, "nicknames," of his last name. It's not funny nor creative.
That's the MO and nothing of value is added by his posts (assuming him, her, they?). Check out his posts in Kobe's death thread if you need some more to be disgusted about

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that Mookie isn't going to age like the guy who would drink 60 Miller Lites on cross country plane flights.
Hey, this is a guy that is asking for a contract with $420 in it...are we sure we want him long term? jokes


I'll miss Mookie and I don't look forward to telling my little guy that his favorite player has been traded. Little piece of him is going to be very hurt and maybe never heal properly. I'm going to be very sad for him. Guess I'll have to take him for ice cream or something. But this is a move that had to be done and I have a lot of faith in Chaim after seeing his track record in TB. This ownership group has earned a lot of trust from me over the past 20+ years of fandom, so I'll wait to see how it all plays out in the long run
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,683
It’s maybe an underrated aspect of Bloom choosing this deal rather than San Diego’s that it’s far less likely Mookie doesn’t end up in pinstripes for October. The Dodgers are a lock for the playoffs, but it’s far too easy to see the Padres six games out at the deadline and shipping him off for some of Cashman’s toys.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,181
It’s maybe an underrated aspect of Bloom choosing this deal rather than San Diego’s that it’s far less likely Mookie doesn’t end up in pinstripes for October. The Dodgers are a lock for the playoffs, but it’s far too easy to see the Padres six games out at the deadline and shipping him off for some of Cashman’s toys.
It's a non-existent aspect barring a major injury to Judge or Stanton, come on. Not only does NY have those two guys, but they have Gardner/Tauchman who combined for 7.6 bWAR last year in 846 PAs and Hicks back mid-season.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,949
Here's what Bloom did: In an off-season where every trade rumor about Betts started with a caveat that the other team didn't want to trade any of their top tier prospects, specifically with SD not wanting to move anyone considered a top 50 prospect nationally, Bloom got Verdugo, an outfielder ranked #35 by BA and MLB and #19 by BP to start last season, and Graterol, an SP/RP ranked #55/#68/#33 by the same publications to start last season. Neither one did anything to meaningfully diminish their prospect status, other than Verdugo barely passing one year of service time.
Except Verdugo missed a big chunk of time with a back injury, and back injuries can kill a hitter's power (see Don Mattingly). And Graterol missed more than two months with a shoulder injury, and shoulder injuries can be devastating for pitchers.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,821
deep inside Guido territory
Except Verdugo missed a big chunk of time with a back injury, and back injuries can kill a hitter's power (see Don Mattingly). And Graterol missed more than two months with a shoulder injury, and shoulder injuries can be devastating for pitchers.
Graterol came back after the injury and was fine. He made the postseason roster for the Twins.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,092
where I was last at
Pete Abe's open on the trade

FORT MYERS, Fla. — That the Red Sox arrived at a point where they believed the best option was to trade Mookie Betts to the Los Angeles Dodgers on Tuesday night represents an organizational failure.

Betts was not simply their best player. He was the most valuable position player the franchise had produced since Ted Williams.
You build around a player like that. You don’t trade him.
No blunder will ever top trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees 100 years ago. But dealing Betts to the Dodgers in the ignoble cause of resetting the penalties for exceeding the luxury tax limit means something went terribly wrong.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/02/04/not-keeping-mookie-betts-has-considered-organizational-failure/9O7d1RY46oXGAkgQeJS3ZL/story.html
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,949
Graterol came back after the injury and was fine. He made the postseason roster for the Twins.
It's still scary that Graterol (who already had Tommy John surgery) had a shoulder injury too. Hopefully it's not something that recurs. Him being 6-1 and 265 pounds at age 21 is a little scary too.

I want him to be great and maybe I'm just picking nits over them trading Mookie -- and taking on a low-character guy in Verdugo.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,367
where the darn libs live
I mean the last time the Red Sox traded a homegrown fan-favorite talent with an odd name to a historic NL franchise trying to win a title for a guy who was involved in a bit of sexual assault, and a hard-to-spell player from the Twins, they won the World Series.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
17,113
Awful. Should have been enough to reject him as part of the deal and ask for other players.

From the piece on Verdugo in that article:

While Verdugo’s talent is undeniable, his maturity and effort have long drawn scorn from coaches, scouts and even his own teammates, such as when Rich Hill harangued him in full view of reporters in the clubhouse. Verdugo will replace Betts as the Red Sox’s everyday right fielder, and his makeup will be put to the test in Boston.
Playing in Boston and being perceived as Mookie Betts' replacement is a tough spot for a kid with supposed maturity issues.
Not good. "His maturity and effort have long drawn scorn from coaches, scouts, and even his own teammates." This is like the last thing you want to read about the guy we traded Mookie for.

Verdugo's back issue (and background) sours me on this deal, which otherwise would make perfect sense as Bloom's first big move.
This is where I am. He missed the last couple months of last season and still hasn't swung a bat. On top of the other issues, he should have been a complete non-starter in this deal.

From January 3rd:
https://www.mlb.com/news/alex-verdugo-back-injury-issues
At the Children’s Holiday Party at Dodger Stadium last month, the outfielder said his “goal” is to be ready for Opening Day, certainly leaving open the possibility that he won’t. He suffered a back/oblique/core injury that cost him the final two months of the regular season and the Dodgers’ National League Division Series loss to the Nationals.
Verdugo went on to say that as he continues to rehab, he has not resumed any baseball activities. Maybe that’s why the Dodgers haven’t dealt Verdugo or Joc Pederson from a position where the Dodgers have a surplus. Club officials say there is no concern with the 23-year-old’s health long term, but initially nobody thought his injury was this serious.
The Dodgers have been vague about Verdugo’s specific diagnosis, which has included lower back soreness and a right oblique strain. Manager Dave Roberts said Verdugo first felt back discomfort after playing on the artificial surface at Tropicana Field against the Rays in late May.

He continued to play through the discomfort, but his production dropped off noticeably from mid-July on, when he finished 11-for-53 (.208) with one home run and one RBI before going on the injured list on Aug. 6 with what was listed as a right oblique strain. After rehabbing in Arizona, Verdugo seemed to be nearing a return when he suffered a setback during a Minor League rehab assignment with Ogden.

There were other options. The Dodgers are loaded with other prospects, and they seem to want to dump Pollock's contract. Taking on Pollock and more prospects (especially pitching prospects) instead of Verdugo would have been much better. Don't want Pollock's salary? Fine, just choose some of the many other prospects the Dodgers have.

It's disconcerting that we are bringing in this guy with his issues. I doubt it will go well for him here. He's going to be Not Mookie to most of the fanbase, and under real pressure from day one, even discounting his role in the awful story with the underage girl. And that story will not be discounted by the media here. They will be all over it, especially if he doesn't play well from the very start.

This market is most definitely not Tampa. Bloom had better understand that.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,571
Anecdotal, of course, but young guys with mysterious, unresolved injury issues make me nervous. I’d rather someone miss a year with an acl tear or surgery than something minor that never gets diagnosed or fixed.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Brusdar Graterol is the best name since Creighton Gubanich. Gubanich's big claim to fame was his first career hit was a grand slam ding dong in 1999. He had 12 more career hits and that was that. Hopefully Brusdar is more successful.

Contrary to some of the conventional wisdom on this board, I like this trade for the long haul. A few thoughts:

1. Mookie is not Yaz. Yaz did not rebuff consistent team efforts to sign him to a long-term contract. Mookie probably doesn't want to re-sign with the Red Sox, and the Red Sox couldn't and shouldn't afford his contract demands.
Do you know this for fact? For the first 15 years of his career free agency wasn't a thing. I'm all for touting 'back in the day', but this sounds like a fun happy way to write an unknown history.

The Red Sox ownership succeeded in getting enough fans on board with dumping Betts with the release of the 12/420 numbers. If your boss had the receptionist tweet out your salary request, somebody would say you're asking for too much. The ownership always covers themselves in glory when letting someone go one way or another. They've done it to everyone, and even to some that eventually stayed.

I'm annoyed that there is always a huge upheaval after championships. I'm beginning to think it's not a series of mistakes, but a feature. Win a title, clear the deck after a year or two, see what the value is to sell, then stock up to win, rinse & repeat.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
12,543
I haven't been this emotional about a player leaving since Clemens, and then I was young, drunk, and in college.
 

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
8,089
SS Botany Bay
Disappointed that Bloom didn't get LAD to throw in a couple of cheap lottery tickets, it would have at least given us the illusion of this trade possibly turning into something much better down the road.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,716
PeteAbe is really stirring shit up tonight. I will say, though -- if the Dodgers sign Mookie to anything significantly less than 12/$420m before next off-season, Chaim and ownership are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

And I really can't believe how big a risk Verdugo appears to be. Bad makeup and a mysterious back injury? That's the best they could do? Yikes.

Or LAD, when out of it in June, trade him to the MFY because of an injury to a MFY OF, and then he quickly signs an extension after hoisting a WS trophy.
Enough of this already. The Dodgers could sit Mookie until August and still win their division. This ridiculous paranoid scenario is not happening.
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
750
We’re supposed to believe this is about Henry putting a desire for money above the team? Horseshit. There is zero evidence to suggest this.

I believe that Henry genuinely believes this is in the best long term interests of the club. We can debate whether that is the case but there is zero evidence over two decades to suggest Henry wants anything other than the best for the Club. Zero.

Of all the fans in the world, you would think that New England sports fans would have the most insight into what makes a franchise successful year in and year out. Belichick has taught us there are no sacred cows and you need to be ruthless in putting club ahead of sentiment.

Again, I am prepared to listen to arguments about why this doesn’t make the Red Sox a better club. And I get that baseball is a more sentimental game than football. You see their faces, they become a part of your daily routine for 162 days of the year. Their personalities come out more.

But the truth is this. If you want a club that competes year in and year out you need to be prepared to make hard choices that can go down in flames. This one may be that. But you will never convince me it is because John Henry doesn’t want what is best for the team.
I'm not sure whether he put money above the team, because as evidenced here fans will carry John Henry's water no matter what he does, so we'll never know, and it doesn't really matter. I mean, shit, this isn't the NFL. It isn't the NBA, either, but a single amazing MLB position player is worth far more than a single NFL player outside of a quarterback. I'm all ears on how voluntarily surrendering 27-year-old Mookie Betts makes this team better. John Henry, benevolent billionaire, could have bet on his own championship-winning operation to keep the second-best player in baseball, but he chose to not even try. Are you saying that there is zero chance Betts would have accepted a competitive free agency offer from the only team he's ever played for?

It's amazing that anyone is viewing this as some sort of necessary but shrewd move like this is Billy Beane of the 2002 Oakland A's. There is literally nothing in the rulebook forcing his hand except unwillingness to pay a tax for his own poor decisions that had nothing to do with Mookie Betts. John Henry is not a neglectful owner but he is not an altruist. He came out and explicitly stated his intentions when he fired Dombrowski.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,578
St. Louis, MO
I'm not sure whether he put money above the team, because as evidenced here fans will carry John Henry's water no matter what he does, so we'll never know, and it doesn't really matter. I mean, shit, this isn't the NFL. It isn't the NBA, either, but a single amazing MLB position player is worth far more than a single NFL player outside of a quarterback. I'm all ears on how voluntarily surrendering 27-year-old Mookie Betts makes this team better. John Henry, benevolent billionaire, could have bet on his own championship-winning operation to keep the second-best player in baseball, but he chose to not even try. Are you saying that there is zero chance Betts would have accepted a competitive free agency offer from the only team he's ever played for?

It's amazing that anyone is viewing this as some sort of necessary but shrewd move like this is Billy Beane of the 2002 Oakland A's. There is literally nothing in the rulebook forcing his hand except unwillingness to pay a tax for his own poor decisions that had nothing to do with Mookie Betts. John Henry is not a neglectful owner but he is not an altruist. He came out and explicitly stated his intentions when he fired Dombrowski.
When we stop winning rings on average about once every 4 years you can then be entitled to bitch.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,573
Saskatchestan
I'm not sure whether he put money above the team, because as evidenced here fans will carry John Henry's water no matter what he does, so we'll never know, and it doesn't really matter. I mean, shit, this isn't the NFL. It isn't the NBA, either, but a single amazing MLB position player is worth far more than a single NFL player outside of a quarterback. I'm all ears on how voluntarily surrendering 27-year-old Mookie Betts makes this team better. John Henry, benevolent billionaire, could have bet on his own championship-winning operation to keep the second-best player in baseball, but he chose to not even try. Are you saying that there is zero chance Betts would have accepted a competitive free agency offer from the only team he's ever played for?

It's amazing that anyone is viewing this as some sort of necessary but shrewd move like this is Billy Beane of the 2002 Oakland A's. There is literally nothing in the rulebook forcing his hand except unwillingness to pay a tax for his own poor decisions that had nothing to do with Mookie Betts. John Henry is not a neglectful owner but he is not an altruist. He came out and explicitly stated his intentions when he fired Dombrowski.
This is his tax for making poor financial decisions before this one
Going into his 19th year of ownership and winning 4 World Series titles in that span. If that doesn't buy you some goodwill to burn up, then I don't know what to tell a lot of you

The future after this year was looking a lot scarier before this trade was announced. Selling the future for a potentially mediocre 2020 (anyone remember 2019?) wasn't the answer
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,130
Chad Finn is also furious in his column.

If Mookie signs pre-FA for less than 12/420, then we can debate the Red Sox "planted leaks". otherwise it's impossible to tell.
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
750
The future after this year was looking a lot scarier before this trade was announced. Selling the future for a potentially mediocre 2020 (anyone remember 2019?) wasn't the answer
I'm guessing this is where the disagreement lies. Don't really understand how trading team-controlled Mookie Betts (and Price, and for the return we got) makes the future less scary, or 2020 less mediocre. 2019 was basically the same roster as the amazing 2018. I would feel a lot more reassured if there was a hard cap forcing this move. There isn't.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,130
I'm not particularly on either side of the luxury tax argument, but there are real penalties in the draft for going over several years in a row... it's not just money

the Sox can't just spend way over slot in the draft anymore, and throwing money at international FAs is going to get closed up soon too
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,573
Saskatchestan
I'm guessing this is where the disagreement lies. Don't really understand how trading team-controlled Mookie Betts (and Price, and for the return we got) makes the future less scary, or 2020 less mediocre. 2019 was basically the same roster as the amazing 2018. I would feel a lot more reassured if there was a hard cap forcing this move. There isn't.
But how else are they getting under the cap and not losing draft picks for being over?
The farm is barren, the tax needed to be reset at some point and if you want even a sniff at having Mookie for 2021 and beyond, something big needed to happen.
What other players could have they realistically shopped to get the salary relief and prospect haul back?

After reading more about Verdugo, I'm less than excited. But reading about Brusdar (sweet name too), he's a guy that could have a very high ceiling
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,367
where the darn libs live
When we stop winning rings on average about once every 4 years you can then be entitled to bitch.
We can be entitled to bitch today. Mookie is the best homegrown Sox player since Yaz, and they decided to move him for a sexual assault-adjacent guy with a bad back and a pitching prospect, rather than paying him.

If this was any of the other 29 teams in baseball, we'd be laughing at them for making this move. It's short-sighted, insulting to fans, and they still fucking raised ticket prices.

The only way this works out is if Mookie resigns after the season. All will be forgiven by me if that happens. If he resigns with the Dodgers before then, it's clear the Red Sox PR team was operating fully in bad faith.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,680
If Mookie signs pre-FA for less than 12/420, then we can debate the Red Sox "planted leaks". otherwise it's impossible to tell.
It's not that simple. Mookie making the 12/420 suggestion (2 years prior to becoming a FA) is a bit like filling out the "Make me move" price on your house in Zillow when you are not planning to sell. When FA actually arrives at the end of the 2020, he could readily be looking for less than that 12/420.
 

ponch73

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2006
880
Stumptown via Chelmsford
Do you know this for fact? For the first 15 years of his career free agency wasn't a thing. I'm all for touting 'back in the day', but this sounds like a fun happy way to write an unknown history.
What about the years of his career (post-1976) when free agency was a thing? Facts seem pretty self-evident based on what's been reported. Mookie would prefer to play closer to his hometown and/or play someplace with better weather than Boston and/or play for a team willing to offer a $400M type of long-term deal.

Yaz, in comparison, was interested in re-signing with the Sox. With that simple fact alone, Mookie is not Yaz.

'Yaz,' 42, thus will finish his career with the only major league team on which he has ever played. The agreement calls for him to play the 1982 season with an option to play in 1983. Said Yastrzemski, 'I want to stay with this organization. If I go to the baseball Hall of Fame, I want to go in a Red Sox uniform. I never really wanted to go anywhere else.'
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,872
Pittsburgh, PA
Count me in the camp of being intrigued by and open to this deal, and the flexibility it creates, if and only if they prove willing to bid seriously for Mookie on the FA market next offseason.

Maybe I'm just in the kubler-ross Bargaining Phase... but it seems to me that if they take Mookie at his word that he'll entertain all suitors and likely go to the highest bidder, there's a plausible chance it could still be us, having hit the reset button on the luxury tax.
 

beautokyo

New Member
Jun 5, 2008
281
Tokyo, Japan
After reading through a lot of good posts, I want to second this one. There is no reason to disbelieve that Henry et al have the best interests of the club at heart. They have a long track record of success, and deserve our faith. He spends money, and likely would have given Mookie a large chunk of that money, had it not perpetuated a competitive disadvantage for the club as a whole.
I also think Bloom likely knows what he's doing, and look forward to seeing how these 2 guys do. It will still be a crapshoot.
But most of all, I want to say Thank you Mookie, for being one of the greatest baseball players I've seen over the years, and on my team. Good luck, and I wish you well, and come back some time..
I also thank David Price for his talent and competitive nature, and for showing up in 2018, when it mattered most. Good luck.
I'll second everything you just said!
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
In 2019, Verdugo had 34 PA/29 AB against AL opponents, batting .276/.382/.379/.762, which included 10 PA/9 AB against the Red Sox against whom he batted .444/.500/.788/1.278. Small sample size, I know, but remove Boston from the stats and the numbers against the AL drop significantly. His numbers were at Fenway, though, so perhaps there is hope.

I think they would have been better off eating the luxury tax caused by Price's salary and getting as much young talent as they could to rebuild the team. I don't think they will be especially competitive in 2020, which will lead to their signing a free agent, or so, and getting right back into the spot they were in, viz., the luxury tax.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,161
Florida
In my head I am basically separating the soon to be 35yo Price and his 74/176/107 IP over the last year years as a straight salary dump inclusion in all this, and one that essentially buys out the possibility we spend the next 2.75 years after the season starts (while we still end up crunching the cap #'s) wishing we had dumped what we could while the opportunity to do so was still there. Given the surrounding LT circumstances, and the trade offs that were made in process of bringing us to this inevitable point.. I'm ultimately good with that too.

I'm also firmly in the camp that believes if you are going to hand out a record breaking 10-12 year and franchise defining "you know deep down it's realistically a terrible back end bet from day 1" contract, it needs to be on a truely "generational" type player. Outside 2018...that isn't Mookie Betts in my book. So yeah, considering I was going to be a strong pass on the resign possibility anyway, I'd chalk up Verdugo + Graterol for 1 year of a very expensive Mookie as a market win for Bloom here. Even without the handicapped surrounding circumstances he had to work with.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,410
Yoknapatawpha County
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but this is, to me, a really bad day. I don't want to be a fan who accepts downgrading or voluntarily shedding generational players because of money or some bigger picture view. If you do, that's understandable and perfectly normal, it just seems to miss the point for me. I think of the Kris Bryant situation, where the Cubs held down a great young player from call up to preserve years of control, keeping him from playing for the team, now. I understand it, but excusing it means I'm letting them off the hook--putting the best team on the field and then figuring out how to keep him later is your job. Yes, that is tough, but that is a hoop you should have to find your way through to have my business. With each situation, I judge accordingly. I am a fan of a team, and it is a business, and as someone that pays them money, to arrive at a point where they gave away Mookie Betts and David Price for some young role players is an absolute catastrophic act of mismanagement. Meltdown level fuck-up.

I am definitely taking a year off mostly because I know tuning in and not seeing him starting in RF will just make me too mad. It isn't just trading a good player for a bad return because money. It is trading one of the best home-grown players in team history for a bad return because money. It's a disaster.

You have Mookie Betts, you keep him for as long as you have control of him and then do everything you can to try and keep him forever. Yes, I think that one more year of Mookie Betts, Red Sox is more valuable than the tax reset and the players they got in return. Yes I'd pay him $35m a year for 12 years (although of course he's not getting exactly the astronomical number he's going to ask for).

I guess I am less longing for titles than I am keeping Mookie Betts for the rest of his career when it comes down to it, though I'd comfortably let the chips fall where they may taking the latter when hoping for the former.

I'm glad he got traded here, where I live. That's all I got.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
37,367
where the darn libs live
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but this is, to me, a really bad day. I don't want to be a fan who accepts downgrading or voluntarily shedding generational players because of money or some bigger picture view. If you do, that's understandable and perfectly normal, it just seems to miss the point for me. I think of the Kris Bryant situation, where the Cubs held down a great young player from call up to preserve years of control, keeping him from playing for the team, now. I understand it, but excusing it means I'm letting them off the hook--putting the best team on the field and then figuring out how to keep him later is your job. Yes, that is tough, but that is a hoop you should have to find your way through to have my business. With each situation, I judge accordingly. I am a fan of a team, and it is a business, and as someone that pays them money, to arrive at a point where they gave away Mookie Betts and David Price for some young role players is an absolute catastrophic act of mismanagement. Meltdown level fuck-up.

I am definitely taking a year off mostly because I know tuning in and not seeing him starting in RF will just make me too mad. It isn't just trading a good player for a bad return because money. It is trading one of the best home-grown players in team history for a bad return because money. It's a disaster.

You have Mookie Betts, you keep him for as long as you have control of him and then do everything you can to try and keep him forever. Yes, I think that one more year of Mookie Betts, Red Sox is more valuable than the tax reset and the players they got in return. Yes I'd pay him $35m a year for 12 years (although of course he's not getting exactly the astronomical number he's going to ask for).

I guess I am less longing for titles than I am keeping Mookie Betts for the rest of his career when it comes down to it, though I'd comfortably let the chips fall where they may taking the latter when hoping for the former.

I'm glad he got traded here, where I live. That's all I got.
This is a great post, JtB. Everything about it.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,573
Saskatchestan
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but this is, to me, a really bad day. I don't want to be a fan who accepts downgrading or voluntarily shedding generational players because of money or some bigger picture view. If you do, that's understandable and perfectly normal, it just seems to miss the point for me. I think of the Kris Bryant situation, where the Cubs held down a great young player from call up to preserve years of control, keeping him from playing for the team, now. I understand it, but excusing it means I'm letting them off the hook--putting the best team on the field and then figuring out how to keep him later is your job. Yes, that is tough, but that is a hoop you should have to find your way through to have my business. With each situation, I judge accordingly. I am a fan of a team, and it is a business, and as someone that pays them money, to arrive at a point where they gave away Mookie Betts and David Price for some young role players is an absolute catastrophic act of mismanagement. Meltdown level fuck-up.

I am definitely taking a year off mostly because I know tuning in and not seeing him starting in RF will just make me too mad. It isn't just trading a good player for a bad return because money. It is trading one of the best home-grown players in team history for a bad return because money. It's a disaster.

You have Mookie Betts, you keep him for as long as you have control of him and then do everything you can to try and keep him forever. Yes, I think that one more year of Mookie Betts, Red Sox is more valuable than the tax reset and the players they got in return. Yes I'd pay him $35m a year for 12 years (although of course he's not getting exactly the astronomical number he's going to ask for).

I guess I am less longing for titles than I am keeping Mookie Betts for the rest of his career when it comes down to it, though I'd comfortably let the chips fall where they may taking the latter when hoping for the former.

I'm glad he got traded here, where I live. That's all I got.
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but I think about Mike Trout, still waiting to win his first playoff game

Also, any MLB season can be an anomoly, especially over 162 games. We've seen teams underperform their actual numbers over and over. And, god forbid, if Mookie gets hurt this year (and I will never, ever advocate for any player to ever get hurt, ever), this could be it for him. He's also taking a huge gamble on himself. Granted, his $32M in career earnings, plus an additional $27M this year won't leave him in the poor house, but from what we've heard, he's turned down big offers to stay to hit FA. He may or may not have been a Red Sock forever, but he's earned that right to take that shot. I wish him the best and hope for a return next year. I'll be interested to see where is contract ends up though (dollars and years). If he has a down year, it's entirely possible he doesn't get a $300M offer, but I still wouldn't bet on that

edit/ can't spell very well
 
Last edited:

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,980
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything but this is, to me, a really bad day. I don't want to be a fan who accepts downgrading or voluntarily shedding generational players because of money or some bigger picture view. If you do, that's understandable and perfectly normal, it just seems to miss the point for me. I think of the Kris Bryant situation, where the Cubs held down a great young player from call up to preserve years of control, keeping him from playing for the team, now. I understand it, but excusing it means I'm letting them off the hook--putting the best team on the field and then figuring out how to keep him later is your job. Yes, that is tough, but that is a hoop you should have to find your way through to have my business. With each situation, I judge accordingly. I am a fan of a team, and it is a business, and as someone that pays them money, to arrive at a point where they gave away Mookie Betts and David Price for some young role players is an absolute catastrophic act of mismanagement. Meltdown level fuck-up.

I am definitely taking a year off mostly because I know tuning in and not seeing him starting in RF will just make me too mad. It isn't just trading a good player for a bad return because money. It is trading one of the best home-grown players in team history for a bad return because money. It's a disaster.

You have Mookie Betts, you keep him for as long as you have control of him and then do everything you can to try and keep him forever. Yes, I think that one more year of Mookie Betts, Red Sox is more valuable than the tax reset and the players they got in return. Yes I'd pay him $35m a year for 12 years (although of course he's not getting exactly the astronomical number he's going to ask for).

I guess I am less longing for titles than I am keeping Mookie Betts for the rest of his career when it comes down to it, though I'd comfortably let the chips fall where they may taking the latter when hoping for the former.

I'm glad he got traded here, where I live. That's all I got.
Honestly, I couldn't be further away from this viewpoint. If a team I rooted for lost a year of cost controlled production of a potential MVP caliber player because they called him up in April instead of June, I'd be apoplectic. The odds that two months of a rookie is worth that lost year, that those two months add more to their playoff chances than a full year of in their prime production, is an absurdity. Management that makes those kind of short sighted decisions is exactly the kind of management that leads to things like losing that franchise player, because you've been too busy talking yourselves into building the team of today to pay attention to your ability to field the team of tomorrow. I root for the team, I root for the laundry, and the players that wear it are just a bonus. It'd be nice to have had Mookie longer, but he showed no desire to stay with the Red Sox. Extensions were offered. There has been absolutely no pushback from Mookie's camp to indicate he gave a reasonable counter offer, and everything he has said indicates he has always planned to go to free agency and get the most money possible, whether that's because of what he sees as his role in the MLBPA or because he just wants to get paid. He wants free agency, he wants the money, and the team what was best for the team, and I root for the Red Sox, not Team Mookie.

Last point, this is not a "bad return". This is not "role players". That is a horseshit take. Verdugo put up over 2 WAR in just over 100 games. As a rookie. Graterol is immediately the best prospect in the Red Sox system, and the team's best hope for a young, high level starter to supplement and replace our veteran arms. That is frankly a better return than I expected, and Graterol is not even a guy who fits the mold of what I typically like in a pitching prospect (for whatever reason, I care a lot about a pitching prospect's changeup, and that's his worst pitch; I guess it was watching Pedro as a kid...and I don't regret them not retaining him after 2004, even though he's my favorite player to ever put on the uniform). I want my team to win titles, win games, and keep players I like, but only in that order. Flags fly forever.
 

Cokes311

New Member
Apr 10, 2008
84
Witch City
Is this a good time to remind people that Moneyball has poisoned the brains of a lot of baseball fans into siding with billionaire management over the players who actually generate the revenue and make the game exciting to watch?

Because I'm seeing a lot of that on various Sox corners of the internet tonight. "Oh he didn't want to stay here," "Oh, he turned down their extension offer," etc, etc. It's not your money, it literally has no effect on you. Pay the fucking talent. Or at the very least, don't pay another team to take him from you, getting only two injured prospects - one with serious character/off the field issues - back in return like some sort of compulsory thank you card.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,410
Yoknapatawpha County
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but I think about Mike Trout, still waiting to win his first playoff game
Well but what is that but another kind of epic mismanagement? Nine years of Mike Trout and they couldn't field a team around him good enough to make it out of the AL West. But sure, it could end bad. Anything in life could. The clear signs to me are that this is a player you bend over backwards and keep. Everyone's got their line though, so fair enough.

Honestly, I couldn't be further away from this viewpoint. If a team I rooted for lost a year of cost controlled production of a potential MVP caliber player because they called him up in April instead of June, I'd be apoplectic. The odds that two months of a rookie is worth that lost year, that those two months add more to their playoff chances than a full year of in their prime production, is an absurdity. Management that makes those kind of short sighted decisions is exactly the kind of management that leads to things like losing that franchise player, because you've been too busy talking yourselves into building the team of today to pay attention to your ability to field the team of tomorrow. I root for the team, I root for the laundry, and the players that wear it are just a bonus. It'd be nice to have had Mookie longer, but he showed no desire to stay with the Red Sox. Extensions were offered. There has been absolutely no pushback from Mookie's camp to indicate he gave a reasonable counter offer, and everything he has said indicates he has always planned to go to free agency and get the most money possible, whether that's because of what he sees as his role in the MLBPA or because he just wants to get paid. He wants free agency, he wants the money, and the team what was best for the team, and I root for the Red Sox, not Team Mookie.

Last point, this is not a "bad return". This is not "role players". That is a horseshit take. Verdugo put up over 2 WAR in just over 100 games. As a rookie. Graterol is immediately the best prospect in the Red Sox system, and the team's best hope for a young, high level starter to supplement and replace our veteran arms. That is frankly a better return than I expected, and Graterol is not even a guy who fits the mold of what I typically like in a pitching prospect (for whatever reason, I care a lot about a pitching prospect's changeup, and that's his worst pitch; I guess it was watching Pedro as a kid...and I don't regret them not retaining him after 2004, even though he's my favorite player to ever put on the uniform). I want my team to win titles, win games, and keep players I like, but only in that order. Flags fly forever.
In your first paragraph here you're approaching being a fan from the perspective of the front office. That's fine, I've done it, I'm saying I'm long since over it. I fully understand every permutation you've laid out here already, I'm just rejecting it. I am a fan of the game and want to watch the best players play on my team as soon as they're ready and for as long as is possible--if the response is "we can't, because later, and the money," my response is that I don't care and that's "your" job, to figure that out. Each situation is, of course, different--this one breaches my line. I'm saying using every second of your control of Mookie Betts is much more important than considering the downstream effect that will have on John Henry, and then in turn his passing that on to the team. I understand that this particular approach does not necessarily net the most possible World Series wins for me between now and my death but I've seen four and so I pick Mookie.

The return is a a young middling OF with a back issue and a lottery ticket pitcher for one of the three best players in the sport and a #3 pitcher. It isn't a good return, it is the best return they could have expected considering the situation they largely put themselves in. It's still bad. They fucked up to the degree that this had to come to pass. Not horseshit. And I'm not even doing my Piece of Shit Human Being adjustment on Verdugo there.

I don't really have an issue with anything you're saying, I have an issue with the idea that it is the only way to follow a baseball team. Having title tunnel vision is what it is, I guess I don't really have it anymore.

Is this a good time to remind people that Moneyball has poisoned the brains of a lot of baseball fans into siding with billionaire management over the players who actually generate the revenue and make the game exciting to watch?
This is weird, I was going to make this exact point. Great minds, friendo.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,629
CT
Sucks, but we knew this was coming. This is the accumulative price the Sox have to pay for a series of bad decisions made by the previous GM.

A lot of people are in their feelings about Mookie and how a billionaire can let a generational talent walk over “just money” but I’m fine with the Sox resetting the tax and giving themselves a path towards being sustainably competitive.

The best Sox teams in recent memory have been built from the farm system and supplemented by free agency. They got away from that philosophy, stripped the system bare, overextended themselves on free agents, and now they need to balance the scales.

Which team that signed a superstar to a 300+ million dollar contract has won the World Series recently? Trout hasn’t sniffed the playoffs in years. Harper didn’t make the playoffs in Philly. Machado hasn’t seen the playoffs since he was with the Dodgers. Stanton has seen the playoffs but has zero rings.

Mookie is obviously going to have a good crack at a WS this year because the Dodgers have been at the doorstep the last several years, but the bottom line is a single fantastic player signed to an enormous contract guarantees nothing. There are still 8 other spots in the batting order that have to produce and play the field.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
PeteAbe is really stirring shit up tonight. I will say, though -- if the Dodgers sign Mookie to anything significantly less than 12/$420m before next off-season, Chaim and ownership are going to have a lot of explaining to do.
over/under on the Countdown to Mookie’s Free Agency thread Starting?

do we lose more Sox fans if he signs for less than 12 years/$420 million than we did today?

just glad I don’t have to root for a guy named Jeter Downs
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,980
Is this a good time to remind people that Moneyball has poisoned the brains of a lot of baseball fans into siding with billionaire management over the players who actually generate the revenue and make the game exciting to watch?

Because I'm seeing a lot of that on various Sox corners of the internet tonight. "Oh he didn't want to stay here," "Oh, he turned down their extension offer," etc, etc. It's not your money, it literally has no effect on you. Pay the fucking talent. Or at the very least, don't pay another team to take him from you, getting only two injured prospects - one with serious character/off the field issues - back in return like some sort of compulsory thank you card.
Is this a good time to remind people that we live in the real world, and not in a video game? And that it's the game of baseball, and not basketball, and that even a guy who could end up being the greatest player in the history of the sport has never made the playoffs despite ownership spending huge amounts to "pay the fucking talent" time and again? That the Tigers' went most of a decade under an ownership mandate to win and "pay the fucking talent", and it landed them nothing but the most categorically fucked organization in the league? That George Steinbrenner demanded the Yankees "pay the fucking talent" again and again, and the team was largely worse off for it?

While it may interest only me, it's worth mentioning that from an economic vantage point, it's almost impossible to determine how much revenue any given player generates. Most of the league's revenues are fairly static, as things like TV contracts are largely determined by market size, while on the field results like wins create negligible incremental revenue until you reach borderline playoff contender level (i.e. until you get into the mid 70s, each win is worth negligible additional revenue). Wins start producing real incremental revenue from the high 70s to the mid 80s, and then substantial revenue as you get into likely playoff territory, before they level off again once you're securely in playoff position. I know there was research in the 1970s that showed that individual star players may produce additional revenue, but I'm not sure anyone has really studied it since (and the revenue structure of the league is quite different from those days, when the box office was the main cash driver). The fact that a team could spend the literal minimum salary (about $15 million) and still expect to win around 48 games (the replacement level win baseline) is just another piece of structural weirdness that makes figuring out how much player's are actually "worth" that much harder. It's one of the reasons why structural reform of the pre-arb, arb, free agency system is extremely challenging, because there's already such a limited area where you can say "paying John Doe X will actually create X additional revenue". If you want to see a baseball team that's truly acting like a purely rational economic actor, a team that really cares about profit maximization...you're basically just looking at the Marlins.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,573
Saskatchestan
over/under on the Countdown to Mookie’s Free Agency thread Starting?

do we lose more Sox fans if he signs for less than 12 years/$420 million than we did today?

just glad I don’t have to root for a guy named Jeter Downs
I know this is what he was asking for, but he'll be a year older when he hits the market, I would assume there is a count point which reduces the years/dollars overall for that
I'm not sure if it's 11 years instead, but this season will dictate what it ends up being. I don't think he'll touch $400+ and doubt even $375
 
Status
Not open for further replies.