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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teachdad46

lurker
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
You are correct and, unfortunately, this deal probably had to happen. Its hard to grade Bloom too on this either given how difficult it must have been to structure anything around Betts and Price.

That said, the Sox sent out their best player in generations and got back two guys who may or may not be something (I know there are some here who really enjoy prospect development). The Sox sent out more talent than they are taking back and, if you aren't excited by young players with some potential, its a difficult deal to like.
It's a difficult deal to like but quite possibly a better 'deal' than the one we'd have ended up with if the team had kept Mookie, missed the postseason, and then lost him to FA for a fourth round draft pick.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
68,204
It's a difficult deal to like but quite possibly a better 'deal' than the one we'd have ended up with if the team had kept Mookie, missed the postseason, and then lost him to FA for a fourth round draft pick.
1 year of Mookie is still worth > 0
 

PhabPhour20

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jan 5, 2007
229
Spankee Country, CT
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.
Yep. Told my 7-year old this morning. His eyes went wide and he asked me, "who did we get?" And that's where it went bad. Then we had a long talk about free agency and Curt Flood and arbitration and team control and the salary cap. I think he got it intellectually, which actually surprised me since he still laughs really hard when I fart and blame it on his baby sister.

No tears. I think kids will just have to get used to this as the new world order. Clemens leaving really felt like the exception when I was 12. This is just the way it is now. I told him we root for the laundry and I'll still buy us the MLB.tv package.

But he did swap out the Mookie card that has always been tucked into the plastic on the binding of his baseball card album for a Xander.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,529
Right Here
Yep. Told my 7-year old this morning. His eyes went wide and he asked me, "who did we get?" And that's where it went bad. Then we had a long talk about free agency and Curt Flood and arbitration and team control and the salary cap. I think he got it intellectually, which actually surprised me since he still laughs really hard when I fart and blame it on his baby sister.

No tears. I think kids will just have to get used to this as the new world order. Clemens leaving really felt like the exception when I was 12. This is just the way it is now. I told him we root for the laundry and I'll still buy us the MLB.tv package.

But he did swap out the Mookie card that has always been tucked into the plastic on the binding of his baseball card album for a Xander.
You got off lucky. My teaching moment that baseball was cruel was having to explain to my then six year-old son the next morning why Grady left Pedro in.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
23,026
Yep. Told my 7-year old this morning. His eyes went wide and he asked me, "who did we get?" And that's where it went bad. Then we had a long talk about free agency and Curt Flood and arbitration and team control and the salary cap. I think he got it intellectually, which actually surprised me since he still laughs really hard when I fart and blame it on his baby sister.

No tears. I think kids will just have to get used to this as the new world order. Clemens leaving really felt like the exception when I was 12. This is just the way it is now. I told him we root for the laundry and I'll still buy us the MLB.tv package.

But he did swap out the Mookie card that has always been tucked into the plastic on the binding of his baseball card album for a Xander.
My daughter was on a run for about four straight years where her (then current) favorite player for the Sox either left (Damon) or got traded. Then when the Sox signed Lackey, I said, "Can he be your favorite player now please?" (But thanks for the WS, John!)
 

CreedBratton

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2009
3,697
For everyone raging at John Henry being cheap or not caring about how much money he has: please name the teams that constantly live above the luxury tax. You can say a lot of things about Henry, but one thing he isn’t is cheap. He has invested in this team and sometimes so much so to a fault. Every big market team that has gone above the LT has gone below it to reset and then spent again. The Red Sox will as well.
So that they can someday spend all their money again on someone who will never be as good as the generational talent they had?

I can’t link for some reason, but I love the article on The Ringer absolutely destroying the Sox owners for this. They deserve it.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,606
Figures - the one night I crash early after a long day, the trade goes down and I wake up to a 13-page thread about it.

Not much to add. It sucks that Mookie Betts is no longer a Boston Red Sock - other than championships, there is nothing better than a homegrown superstar. I wish he could have retired as a Sox player for life.

I think Bloom acquitted himself well here and they did what they could from a talent and salary relief perspective, given the circumstances.

Lot of gamethread emotion here and I get it, but I also have to put my old-guy hat on and state unequivocally that this episode doesn't even begin to come close to the depths of the Buddy LeRoux-Haywood Sullivan era. In 1980 Freddie Lynn was one year removed from an 8.9 WAR season and Carlton Fisk was a New England icon, and that incompetent bunch of boobs forgot to mail their fucking contracts on time. You don't have to like the actions of the Henry ownership group, and by all means you should vote with your wallets and eyeballs if you feel so strongly and are 'done with this team', but I'm just telling you that if you are too young to remember the 1980's or earlier, you just have no idea what poor ownership looks and feels like as a fan.
 

PhabPhour20

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jan 5, 2007
229
Spankee Country, CT
My daughter was on a run for about four straight years where her (then current) favorite player for the Sox either left (Damon) or got traded. Then when the Sox signed Lackey, I said, "Can he be your favorite player now please?" (But thanks for the WS, John!)
It's a valuable lesson. That being said, I hope X sticks around for a while because we're still on unstable ground turning him into a lifelong baseball fan. 2018 was a strong, strong factor. He woke up every morning and we watched the MLBTV recaps together of every playoff game. Need the Sox to at least be competitive for another 3-4 years (which I believe they will be). They're losing ground to the Celtics at the moment and I really can't stand the NBA. Basketball is just a lot more exciting for him to play at this age.

His first Fenway trip this summer should help too. We live in Yankeeland so that is another bullet I'll need to steer him clear of.

Losing his favorite player really doesn't help.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
54,722
deep inside Guido territory
So that they can someday spend all their money again on someone who will never be as good as the generational talent they had?

I can’t link for some reason, but I love the article on The Ringer absolutely destroying the Sox owners for this. They deserve it.
And if that generational talent goes to free agency and walks out the door anyways? It’s not like the Red Sox have not tried to sign him before he hits the market. Sorry everyone, but Mookie’s choice to take himself to the market left the front office with little choice but to do this.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
So that they can someday spend all their money again on someone who will never be as good as the generational talent they had?
No, so that they can someday spend all their money again and not end up paying a buck and a half on the dollar for talent. And perhaps more importantly, so they can someday compete on a more or less equal basis in the draft and the international FA market.

The people who made the LT rules knew what they were doing. Much as it hurts, the Sox' situation is proof of that. They set up the rules so that continuing to overspend would make winning not just a lot more expensive, but also more logistically difficult.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
54,722
deep inside Guido territory
No, so that they can someday spend all their money again and not end up paying a buck and a half on the dollar for talent. And perhaps more importantly, so they can someday compete on a more or less equal basis in the draft and the international FA market.

The people who made the LT rules knew what they were doing. Much as it hurts, the Sox' situation is proof of that. They set up the rules so that continuing to overspend would make winning not just a lot more expensive, but also more logistically difficult.
Agreed.
 

Reardons Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,633
Cambridge
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is calling The Boston Red Sox cheap hacks.

What they won’t say is that Betts leaving Boston wasn’t inevitable. They certainly could have afforded him. Instead, the Red Sox pulled the plug, despite possessing a collection of players that would’ve been capable of competing in 2020.The Dodgers got significantly better Tuesday night. They didn’t need to, but they did anyway, in the name of winning a World Series. The Red Sox got a lot worse, 100 years and one month after the Red Sox got rid of another player for the sake of their owner’s pocketbook: a little somebody named Babe Ruth.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I would say we lost in this trade, but lets try to play devils advocate and discuss what we possibly gained. Payroll flexability in 2021? 2 high upside players in Verdugo and Graterol? Possibly saving some cash now in anticipation to re-sign Mookie?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,274
St. Louis, MO
For all the haters on this, does anything that happens on the field negate this? If they win another WS in the next 3 years with Verdugo in RF is all forgiven?
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,464
New York City
Maybe I've missed it, but where is the actual sourced reporting to suggest that Mookie simply wasn't willing to sign an extension with the Red Sox? A lot of people here seem to be saying that but I don't see where that is coming from other than spin from the Sox. The fact he (apparently) made a 12/420 demand means that there was SOME number he was willing to sign for, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that he told the Sox "it's this number or not a penny lower." If that comes out, sure, they were in a bind. But as of now it sure seems like the Red Sox and Mookie each made their opening offers and then rather than negotiate further within that range the Sox were just like "eh fuck it let's trade him."

None of that means that you can't make the argument that anything over 10/300 would be an overpay, but that isn't the argument most people are making - rather, they are making the argument that there was NO number between 10/300 and 12/420 that Mookie would have been willing to sign at, and I just don't see any evidence that is the case.
 

Jack Rabbit Slim

Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2010
1,287
Has there been any reporting of what the cash going to the Dodgers is? I saw half of Price's money mentioned earlier but seems like someone should know the full deal by now.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,606
Maybe I've missed it, but where is the actual sourced reporting to suggest that Mookie simply wasn't willing to sign an extension with the Red Sox? A lot of people here seem to be saying that but I don't see where that is coming from other than spin from the Sox. The fact he (apparently) made a 12/420 demand means that there was SOME number he was willing to sign for, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that he told the Sox "it's this number or not a penny lower." If that comes out, sure, they were in a bind. But as of now it sure seems like the Red Sox and Mookie each made their opening offers and then rather than negotiate further within that range the Sox were just like "eh fuck it let's trade him."

None of that means that you can't make the argument that anything over 10/300 would be an overpay, but that isn't the argument most people are making - rather, they are making the argument that there was NO number between 10/300 and 12/420 that Mookie would have been willing to sign at, and I just don't see any evidence that is the case.
It is quite likely that we are never going to get 'sourced reporting' about these negotiations. Not sure why you are inclined to view the team negatively when Betts has by all account been insistent on going to free agency and maximizing his future earnings.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,347
Saskatchestan
Yep. Told my 7-year old this morning. His eyes went wide and he asked me, "who did we get?" And that's where it went bad. Then we had a long talk about free agency and Curt Flood and arbitration and team control and the salary cap. I think he got it intellectually, which actually surprised me since he still laughs really hard when I fart and blame it on his baby sister.

No tears. I think kids will just have to get used to this as the new world order. Clemens leaving really felt like the exception when I was 12. This is just the way it is now. I told him we root for the laundry and I'll still buy us the MLB.tv package.

But he did swap out the Mookie card that has always been tucked into the plastic on the binding of his baseball card album for a Xander.
Nice
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
69,397
Has there been any reporting of what the cash going to the Dodgers is? I saw half of Price's money mentioned earlier but seems like someone should know the full deal by now.
I also have not seen anything a hundred percent definitive but it is generally being reported as exactly half of the money owed Price as you said, or $48M over the next 3 seasons.
 

Teachdad46

lurker
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
A few days ago, on page 4 of the Whose Departure From the Sox Devastated You the Most? thread, I almost suggested a new thread titled, Whose Arrival on the Red Sox Roster Bothered You the Most? thread, but then realized I didn't want to be reminded of the Jack Clark, Mike Lansing, et al days..and so resisted the impulse.
After just now watching the video of Verdugo updating the media on his back issues and then reading accounts of his role in a sexual assault situation at the age of 19, I have a new answer to my own question.
Mookie for Verdugo. Not a good look.
I just don't get how Chaim read the tea leaves on this one.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
39,647
Pioneer Valley
I haven't read every post, but I haven't found what I feel, which is the blame for a lot of the Sox problems lies with the Dombrowski overpays. First, and overwhelmingly, the overpay for David Price, and then (which has been mentioned a lot) for Sale and Eovaldi. John Henry signed off on all of those, so those are his mistakes also. If the Sox want to make a huge offer to Betts, they are in a much better position to do so now that he and Price have been traded. Strange, but true. So, I am sad, but waiting to see what happens. I never want to pay for the seats in Fenway from which one can actually see the game, so my practice will remain the same: watch the games on TV until they are more depressing than elating. I still enjoy X and Devers, and hope (ducking the stones thrown at me for this) the Sox take a couple of millions and sign BROCKHOLT, a real mensch who can be lots of fun to watch.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,894
Nashua, NH
Someone tell me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that in order to keep Mookie and sign him, they'd ostensibly be locked into that 50% penalty for remaining over the tax threshold. Is that correct? So, for example, a 10/$350M deal is in reality a 10/$525M cost unless they can get back under the threshold and reset then penalty at some point. Which becomes even more difficult with Mookie's $35M counting towards that number. Have I got anything wrong there?

If that's the case, I understand why you almost have to deal the guy. Mike Trout costs the Angels $36M per season, but a slightly smaller annual value for Mookie costs the team over $50M per season. If they're under the limit this year it would cost less to offer Mookie $40M/year than to offer him $30M/year now.

The real screwup happened months ago when they first signed Eovaldi to a big deal and then extended Sale for seemingly no good reason. Once JD opted in, financially this deal kinda had to happen.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
953
Connecticut
Yes year 1 of Mookie is likely worth 50 M including his contract, unfortunately 3 years of Price is worth -55 M. Then add the 50% tax this year and 50% instead of 20 the year after.

The Punto deal was a great trade for the RS and it wasn't the players that made it a great return, it was shedding bad contracts. This is of course, not in that ballpark but on the whole the trade still favors the RS.

For those who say it shouldn't be about money, it always is. If it weren't, owners would just put together a 500M payroll each year. Every team has a budget, we are lucky and spoiled, the RS budget is one of MLB's highest. I understand the angst, but this had to be done. The RS have now officially learned that farm systems are very important to avoid the temptation to throw money around stupidly, which handicaps the team. Mookie ~12/400, if that is what it ends up being would just handcuff the team again in 5 years and immediately give them 0 flexibility for a long time.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,606
Maybe I'm grasping at hope here, but I genuinely want this trade to end up being a win-win for both Mookie and the Red Sox. I hope Mookie gets what he wants and continues to be a joy to watch for years to come, while at the same time Chaim Bloom proves to be everything we could want as a baseball executive and restores the Red Sox as a legitimate wild-card contender quickly and a true championship contender in the near future. I'm certainly not hoping that the Sox stink to 'prove' what a mistake this deal was.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
54,722
deep inside Guido territory
Yes year 1 of Mookie is likely worth 50 M including his contract, unfortunately 3 years of Price is worth -55 M. Then add the 50% tax this year and 50% instead of 20 the year after.

The Punto deal was a great trade for the RS and it wasn't the players that made it a great return, it was shedding bad contracts. This is of course, not in that ballpark but on the whole the trade still favors the RS.

For those who say it shouldn't be about money, it always is. If it weren't, owners would just put together a 500M payroll each year. Every team has a budget, we are lucky and spoiled, the RS budget is one of MLB's highest. I understand the angst, but this had to be done. The RS have now officially learned that farm systems are very important to avoid the temptation to throw money around stupidly, which handicaps the team. Mookie ~12/400, if that is what it ends up being would just handcuff the team again in 5 years and immediately give them 0 flexibility for a long time.
This trade actually puts the Sox in a better position to re-sign him this offseason.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
725
I’d argue that the one time that it makes sense for a team to pay a huge amount for a player is during their arbitration years so that the inevitable decline at the end of the contract is offset by the early bargain years. I think WAR is a slippery stat, but, for the sake of argument, Mookie has been worth 42 WAR over his 5 ½ seasons and he’s been paid $32 million while being worth more than $300 million in value. He’s been massively underpaid. Ideally, Sox would have signed him to a huge deal 2 years ago. I think they tried to do that but maybe didn’t try hard enough. Or, maybe Mookie simply decided he was going to be a free agent.

Which is where I’m frustrated with the Sox. If they knew Mookie was going to walk at the end of this year, I think they should have played this season out and considered trading him at the deadline if they were out of contention in order to potentially recoup some value. The problem is that a mid-season trade would not have put them under the luxury tax threshold, so, they decided to pull the trigger now. I don’t have a problem with potentially trading Mookie but I hate the timing. And I do blame ownership for that timing… they should eat the fallout for their bad decisions rather than punting this season.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Someone tell me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that in order to keep Mookie and sign him, they'd ostensibly be locked into that 50% penalty for remaining over the tax threshold. Is that correct? So, for example, a 10/$350M deal is in reality a 10/$525M cost unless they can get back under the threshold and reset then penalty at some point. Which becomes even more difficult with Mookie's $35M counting towards that number. Have I got anything wrong there?

If that's the case, I understand why you almost have to deal the guy. Mike Trout costs the Angels $36M per season, but a slightly smaller annual value for Mookie costs the team over $50M per season. If they're under the limit this year it would cost less to offer Mookie $40M/year than to offer him $30M/year now.

The real screwup happened months ago when they first signed Eovaldi to a big deal and then extended Sale for seemingly no good reason. Once JD opted in, financially this deal kinda had to happen.
This whole fiasco only works out if the Red Sox look at things that way and re-sign him as a free agent for something less than 10/525 (assuming the calc is correct - even so, the point remains) . Only then does the financial equation work for me. Out-bid all comers by offering a Trout-like contract and explain that the Red Sox saved $x by losing him for only one year.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
29,491
I would say we lost in this trade, but lets try to play devils advocate and discuss what we possibly gained. Payroll flexability in 2021? 2 high upside players in Verdugo and Graterol? Possibly saving some cash now in anticipation to re-sign Mookie?
Here's a bit of what the Sox gain by resetting their penalties (from this article):

(1) The Red Sox will receive higher compensation draft picks if Martinez and/or Bradley leave via free agency (after 2nd round versus after 4th round).

(2) If they sign a qualified FA, they save a 5th round draft pick and associated slot money. They would also save $500,000 in IFA money.

(3) They save maybe $10-$20M in luxury tax payments (would depend on final payroll) that hopefully can be invested into actual player salaries in the coming year or so.

(4) They receive a bigger revenue sharing check for staying below CBT. No one is really sure how much that is, but it's likely at least a few million.

(5) They have some payroll flexibility to add people in the next year or so instead of everyone trying to figure out how to keep the payroll frozen.

From a baseball ops POV, there seems to be a model where if a team can avoid bad players on bad contracts and have a productive farm system, they can still win without superstar contracts. If this model exists, it's probably more sustainable than trying to figure out which player is going to be worth $400+M over the life of a contract and which isn't.

But that's what we've come to in sports. At least the Sox have an ownership that at least claims to put the saved money back into baseball and not into one's pockets. I mean we could all be rooting for the Os.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,347
Saskatchestan
Name one team that traded a HOF player in his prime to get under the luxury tax. Henry was cheap this time, considering the cost in talent to his team.
With this luxury tax system only being in place since the start of the 2017 season, no one will have qualified for the HoF ballet yet

So the answer of course is zero

Now, is Mookie a HoFer right now? He's on the path, but we've seen a lot of players on this path and not make it

I really do hope he makes it though (with a Red Sox hat to boot)
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,300
San Andreas Fault
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/01/11/red-sox-agenda-slash-payroll-according-john-henry-media-driven-noise/sjq5dWD30McxaaDucHHYnM/story.html?outputType=amp
Look at comparable pitchers to Price. You really think they couldn't find a taker for David Price at 14 million a year? Not exactly a stretch to assume. This is a team thats paying Jake Odorizzi almost 18 million this year. They just signed Donaldson. They're going for it.
I hope they, the Twins, have 25 wooden stakes to drive through the hearts of the players on the team they can never get over. Just when they rise up to where they may be a threat to win it all, dose guys are still better, Donaldson, Price, whatever.

Mookie = mercenary after all. What the Red Sox offered him would have kept him and how many of his generations extremely well off? But, he wants to be #2 $$ guy, obviously. Or, maybe he doesn’t like Boston that much, like others are saying.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
32,195
It sucks that the game has come to the point where a guy like Betts shouldn't stay in one organization for his entire career because one organization (that cares about winning) can't carry a player like that anymore for his entire career. But it's reality. World Series titles aren't won in fantasy land.
I kinda posted about this in the Baseball is Broken thread in the other board. Baseball is nowhere near as fun when every team is operating like this.

X stays because he was "loyal" to the Sox and took a huge discount.. They'll try to get Devers to do the same. It's coming down to the personalities of the players about their finances, which is entirely unrelated to on-field production and sucks.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
7,659
Where do the Sox stand with regards to the LT threshold with shipping out Betts' and some of Price' salary?

Personally, I'm very disappointed that we are paying some of Price' salary. From the Dodgers' perspective, I think getting Price and paying for only some of his salary is a positive. If Price was a FA, I think he'd get a bigger salary than what the Dodgers will be paying for him net.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,680
I’m just hoping that Mookie has a slight down year playing a ton of games in NL West stadiums as opposed to Fenway/Camden/Rogers/Toilet and the Sox re-sign him for Harper money. He’s my favorite player ever and I don’t care if it looks ugly towards the end.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Yep. Told my 7-year old this morning. His eyes went wide and he asked me, "who did we get?" And that's where it went bad. Then we had a long talk about free agency and Curt Flood and arbitration and team control and the salary cap. I think he got it intellectually, which actually surprised me since he still laughs really hard when I fart and blame it on his baby sister.

No tears. I think kids will just have to get used to this as the new world order. Clemens leaving really felt like the exception when I was 12. This is just the way it is now. I told him we root for the laundry and I'll still buy us the MLB.tv package.

But he did swap out the Mookie card that has always been tucked into the plastic on the binding of his baseball card album for a Xander.
Isn't farting and blaming someone else, funny for an entire lifetime?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Maybe I've missed it, but where is the actual sourced reporting to suggest that Mookie simply wasn't willing to sign an extension with the Red Sox? A lot of people here seem to be saying that but I don't see where that is coming from other than spin from the Sox. The fact he (apparently) made a 12/420 demand means that there was SOME number he was willing to sign for, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that he told the Sox "it's this number or not a penny lower." If that comes out, sure, they were in a bind. But as of now it sure seems like the Red Sox and Mookie each made their opening offers and then rather than negotiate further within that range the Sox were just like "eh fuck it let's trade him."
AFAIK, there's no definitive reporting that Mookie was absolutely unwilling to sign an extension. In fact, this article says the opposite -- but reading between the lines, it makes clear that while Mookie wasn't shutting the door to signing an extension, he was shutting the door to settling for any less than what he perceived as his full market value. Which is just not how extensions work. It's a two-way street: the team takes on long-term contract risk a little sooner than it strictly needs to in exchange for a modest discount, and the player takes a little less than he would expect on the open market in exchange for removing the risk of injury or underperformance lowering his value when he hits FA. Mookie was basically saying, "I'll take my share of that tradeoff, but I won't give you yours." The Red Sox very reasonably declined to do that.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Figures - the one night I crash early after a long day, the trade goes down and I wake up to a 13-page thread about it.

Not much to add. It sucks that Mookie Betts is no longer a Boston Red Sock - other than championships, there is nothing better than a homegrown superstar. I wish he could have retired as a Sox player for life.

I think Bloom acquitted himself well here and they did what they could from a talent and salary relief perspective, given the circumstances.

Lot of gamethread emotion here and I get it, but I also have to put my old-guy hat on and state unequivocally that this episode doesn't even begin to come close to the depths of the Buddy LeRoux-Haywood Sullivan era. In 1980 Freddie Lynn was one year removed from an 8.9 WAR season and Carlton Fisk was a New England icon, and that incompetent bunch of boobs forgot to mail their fucking contracts on time. You don't have to like the actions of the Henry ownership group, and by all means you should vote with your wallets and eyeballs if you feel so strongly and are 'done with this team', but I'm just telling you that if you are too young to remember the 1980's or earlier, you just have no idea what poor ownership looks and feels like as a fan.
I agree with everything you've said here and have the same basic view of things. I'd like to emphasize and expand on your last point. There are a lot of sports fans out there who have to suffer lousy team management and/or awful team financial situations. Boston fans have certainly seen their fair share of terrible front offices, including the Sullivan-LeRoux Sox. However, 21st Century Boston fans have been pretty damn lucky, across the board.

I was also thinking that this trade gives us a taste of what the Tampa Bay Way feels like for their fans. Tampa has traded off or failed to extend almost every big name player they've had over the past decade plus. They traded the best pitcher in franchise history, David Price, for financial reasons. They traded their best player and face of the franchise, Evan Longoria, for financial reasons (even though he was on what many teams would have considered a team friendly deal). The list goes on, and that's just what Rays fans have been forced to accept. They've been fortunate that their front office has been filled with skillful guys like Friedman and Bloom who, despite fiscal constraints, have kept the team frequently competitive.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,274
St. Louis, MO
AFAIK, there's no definitive reporting that Mookie was absolutely unwilling to sign an extension. In fact, this article says the opposite -- but reading between the lines, it makes clear that while Mookie wasn't shutting the door to signing an extension, he was shutting the door to settling for any less than what he perceived as his full market value. Which is just not how extensions work. It's a two-way street: the team takes on long-term contract risk a little sooner than it strictly needs to in exchange for a modest discount, and the player takes a little less than he would expect on the open market in exchange for removing the risk of injury or underperformance lowering his value when he hits FA. Mookie was basically saying, "I'll take my share of that tradeoff, but I won't give you yours." The Red Sox very reasonably declined to do that.
Well said. And I think the bigger issue as we move forward with mega contracts is trying to discern if one player of 25 affects a game enough to take up 16-18% of the team payroll. Basketball you need to have mega stars to win, it’s top heavy. Football has to have an elite QB. Not sure where baseball fits into that. My gut is Henry doesn’t believe so.
He won’t pocket this money. Anyone who thinks he doesn’t try to win has been asleep since 2002.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
767
Crapchester, NY
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is calling The Boston Red Sox cheap hacks.

What they won’t say is that Betts leaving Boston wasn’t inevitable. They certainly could have afforded him. Instead, the Red Sox pulled the plug, despite possessing a collection of players that would’ve been capable of competing in 2020.The Dodgers got significantly better Tuesday night. They didn’t need to, but they did anyway, in the name of winning a World Series. The Red Sox got a lot worse, 100 years and one month after the Red Sox got rid of another player for the sake of their owner’s pocketbook: a little somebody named Babe Ruth.
I was tempted to reply upthread when you referred to the ownership group that has won 4 world championships a total disgrace, but then you go and throw in this WSJ nonsense...the 2020 team coming back is for all intents and purposes the same or a worse group than the 2019 team that was barely over .500, nevermind the fact that their chief rivals are demonstrably better while the second place team can also be expected to be just as competitive. So no, they weren't likely to be all that capable, but hey, Babe fucking Ruth.

Or maybe we can actually use our brains and look at the facts:

Here's a bit of what the Sox gain by resetting their penalties (from this article):

(1) The Red Sox will receive higher compensation draft picks if Martinez and/or Bradley leave via free agency (after 2nd round versus after 4th round).

(2) If they sign a qualified FA, they save a 5th round draft pick and associated slot money. They would also save $500,000 in IFA money.

(3) They save maybe $10-$20M in luxury tax payments (would depend on final payroll) that hopefully can be invested into actual player salaries in the coming year or so.

(4) They receive a bigger revenue sharing check for staying below CBT. No one is really sure how much that is, but it's likely at least a few million.

(5) They have some payroll flexibility to add people in the next year or so instead of everyone trying to figure out how to keep the payroll frozen.

From a baseball ops POV, there seems to be a model where if a team can avoid bad players on bad contracts and have a productive farm system, they can still win without superstar contracts. If this model exists, it's probably more sustainable than trying to figure out which player is going to be worth $400+M over the life of a contract and which isn't.

But that's what we've come to in sports. At least the Sox have an ownership that at least claims to put the saved money back into baseball and not into one's pockets. I mean we could all be rooting for the Os.
It's an emotional thing to lose a player like Mookie. Signing him at the price he purportedly wanted would cripple this franchise in the short and long term and that statement has very little to do with ownership's willingness to spend. There are real and severe consequences beyond just John Henry's pocketbook, which by the way he has time and time again opened up (sometimes unwisely) in an effort to deliver a championship product.

You want Mookie Betts? Well, unless he has been lying for the last 3-4 years, you can go sign him for what the market says he's worth in the off-season - and that won't be Trout years/money in my view - and not have to do it for $1.50 on the dollar. In the meantime can we stop the whining and take a hard look at the reasons why this had to be done.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,606
I was also thinking that this trade gives us a taste of what the Tampa Bay Way feels like for their fans. Tampa has traded off or failed to extend almost every big name player they've had over the past decade plus. They traded the best pitcher in franchise history, David Price, for financial reasons. They traded their best player and face of the franchise, Evan Longoria, for financial reasons (even though he was on what many teams would have considered a team friendly deal). The list goes on, and that's just what Rays fans have been forced to accept. They've been fortunate that their front office has been filled with skillful guys like Friedman and Bloom who, despite fiscal constraints, have kept the team frequently competitive.
For Sox fans who are also Pats fans, we've been living with this for two decades of Belichick moves (with the obvious exception of TB12, of course).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
19,948
Maine
AFAIK, there's no definitive reporting that Mookie was absolutely unwilling to sign an extension. In fact, this article says the opposite -- but reading between the lines, it makes clear that while Mookie wasn't shutting the door to signing an extension, he was shutting the door to settling for any less than what he perceived as his full market value. Which is just not how extensions work. It's a two-way street: the team takes on long-term contract risk a little sooner than it strictly needs to in exchange for a modest discount, and the player takes a little less than he would expect on the open market in exchange for removing the risk of injury or underperformance lowering his value when he hits FA. Mookie was basically saying, "I'll take my share of that tradeoff, but I won't give you yours." The Red Sox very reasonably declined to do that.
I've cited the same quotes from Mookie in past discussions, and I feel like your read on them is dead on. He wasn't opposed to signing long-term, probably still isn't, but he's committed to maximizing his value on the market. If the Sox (or now the Dodgers) were willing to give him full market rate (or more than that), he'd probably sign today. But as you say, that's not how extensions tend to work. Both sides give a little, not just one.

If those quotes and interpretations aren't enough, where does Mookie pushing all the way to arbitration two years ago fit? Prior to 2018, the Sox offered $7.5M, he asked for $10.5M and the arbiter gave it to him. There wasn't a happy middle ground there? Maybe $9-9.5 or so? But he pushed for what he felt he deserved and got it. His supposed view toward free agency makes total sense in that context. He's betting on himself. The Sox, rightly or wrongly, saw his value differently.

Doesn't mean all that doesn't change in 10 months when Mookie's on the open market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.