Borrowing Trouble....What happens to YOU If Bogaerts and Devers Go the Way of Mookie?

[chrisfont9]

There is so much young talent flooding the sport that you might argue that it is becoming easier and easier to replace production cheaply. In that case maybe a team like the Sox could take the position that you never pay big money to a guy in his 30s. They did just pay Story who is 29, but not exactly a max deal, and with Mayer in the wings you could see them being philosophically opposed to paying Bogaerts, and maybe Mookie too. The truly big money should be reserved for guys who break out so big, so soon that you are maxing them out for their peak years, not after the fact. That's Devers. Pay Devers. Guys like him won't be replaceable in the near future. He's in the Soto/Acuna/Franco tier.

I doubt it will drastically change my interest if they don't pay guys, for the same reason -- there's always another guy or several of them coming up through the system to get excited about. By comparison there was a 10-year gap from the Gold Dust Twins to Clemens, and that's pretty good by MLB standards of the time.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I don't know.... Is it possible that the team said, " Hey, you're basically worth Matt Olsen right now and he's what that's worth.... because your defense is pretty atrocious. Work on it and we'll get back together"?

No, they obviously think that Devers won't stick at 3rd if they're pulling the Olson comp. I also think Olson took a lower deal than what he could have gotten on the open market. Using FanGraph's value tool, his last 3 full seasons were worth $24.4 million, $32.5 million, and $39.5 million. Now these numbers-driven salary values don't always translate into what the player ends up getting paid in real dollars(ex. Mike Trout), but it's a pretty good indication of what their performances are worth. For Olson to take the $21 million AAV he was taking less than what he's probably worth and the Red Sox are using that as a comp for what they think Devers should take.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't know.... Is it possible that the team said, " Hey, you're basically worth Matt Olsen right now and he's what that's worth.... because your defense is pretty atrocious. Work on it and we'll get back together"?

Stop with your sensible logic.

I imagine that's exactly what that offer was. It was not a final offer or even necessarily a best offer. It was an offer that was basically "we'd love to sign you long term, here's what we're willing to start with right now but if that's not good enough, we've still got two years to get it done." Let's not forget that it was made with two years of control remaining. There's no urgency behind it nor does there need to be.

 

[teddywingman]

I'm less invested since Mookie. I'll never spend money on the team again. But I still follow, so I probably will when they don't sign X.

 

[chawson]

The common variable in all these reports of Sox FOs “insulting” their players with low-ball offers is the media narrative. I’m far from an anti-media guy in principle, but there’s no more effective news hook than “something is about to be taken from you.” The threat of a beloved FA leaving town has replaced the Curse as the most effective evergreen doomer story in Red Sox nation.

I like Speier, but his Globe editors know what their doing. This is barely news; the story was built from Devers re-iterating something he had said months ago. The only new info is the Olson contract comparison. I think you have to make a lot of assumptions about Devers’ (translated) quotes that he was “insulted” by the offer. He just didn’t accept, and there’s no reason to think talks won’t continue. (Indeed, if there’s any animosity to be divined from his comments, it’s when he says the reporter is “trying to get (him).”

The good news I see is that if the two camps were reportedly $100M apart, that seems resolvable. That means that Devers had asked for around $275M. Unless he thinks his value has increased dramatically, I have a hard time seeing the Sox FO not meeting that, even if they do make a play for Soto.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

The reports are that the sides were “more than $100m apart”, that the Sox offered more than $200m while Devers wants more than $300m.

Without details as to what Devers camp asked for and for how long, it’s very hard to know how close the two sides are.

$100M difference over 8 years, though, is still $12.5M a year.

 

[EL Jeffe]

To answer the OP/thread title: what happens to me if X and Devers get traded? Nothing, really. I don't really get invested in the individual players anymore. Even watching Brady in Tampa, it was like, okay. Life went on. I just want the team to be competitive and in position to contend as often as possible. If that means signing homegrown players to mega contracts? Cool. If it means moving on from current stars and bringing in the next generation of stars (in theory)? That's cool, too. Whatever keeps the team in position to contend. Bloom seems like a pretty sharp guy, and I'll trust him until proven otherwise.

 

[chawson]

The reports are that the sides were “more than $100m apart”, that the Sox offered more than $200m while Devers wants more than $300m.

Without details as to what Devers camp asked for and for how long, it’s very hard to know how close the two sides are.

$100M difference over 8 years, though, is still $12.5M a year.

If the Sox offered $200M at some point then why are we stewing about about this $168M contract offer?

 

[Cesar Crespo]

If the Sox offered $200M at some point then why are we stewing about about this $168M contract offer?

Right. It's possible they used Matt Olsen as a comp but offered 10 years instead of 8. That would take it to 10/210.

 

[BaseballJones]

I always will have favorite players. Mookie was my favorite player in a long time. But you know what? While I still like him, I barely pay attention to what he's doing, and my focus is much more on Verdugo (who came over in the trade). Why? Because Verdugo is on my favorite team, and I'm a laundry guy first and foremost. That said, of course I prefer rooting for guys that I followed when they were in the minors. I was on the X and Devers train when they were years from the majors. And of course I'd prefer they stay. But I will understand if they let X go. Devers would, like for so many, be a much more difficult pill to swallow.

But if Devers goes...then I'll root for the new crop of Red Sox, including the young kids who come over in any deal for those guys. I can't wait to see Yorke and Mayer and Casas, etc., play for Boston.

 

[gryoung]

I've been a Sox fan since the late '60s. I've seen some pretty bad baseball and four World Championships. I've seen good players come and go -- from Fred Lynn to Mookie. I follow the Sox, the team. Had season tickets for close to 30 years and gave them up a few years ago; mainly due to the hassle of getting to/from Fenway and having, pretty much, "seen it all".

I want them to be competitive every year. When the stars align and they have a serious shot, then make the necessary moves to improve their chances.

If X and Devers leave, I'll be bummed. But will look forward to seeing the next wave of young talent moving in.

 

[joe dokes]

I'll miss them. But unless it's part of a plan to lower the payroll to some Pittsburghian or Oaklandish levels where trying to win becomes irrelevant, I'll look forward to whatever comes next. As long as they keep spending money, this all ends up being, "they're doing what they think is the best way to win, not what I think is the best way to win." Among those two alternative, their way is probably better.

 

[Nixon Now!!]

I'm less invested since Mookie. I'll never spend money on the team again. But I still follow, so I probably will when they don't sign X.

I've been less & less invested since the WS wins, especially the orgasmic 2004. I also find it hard to spend serious money on the team any more. It reminds me of a rabid jai alai fan I knew in Tampa: "I just saw the greatest athlete ever -- Number 4!"

 

[cantor44]

The Duquette that traded for Pedro and signed Manny?

Along with what @Daniel_Son said about remaining competitive, Bloom primary charge was to rebuild an organization that was stripped bare. That's far more than "doing something clever"; it's setting the franchise up with continued success, rather than throwing a lot of money around and, when those checks come due, being unable to supplement from the farm system

To subvert your point - Bloom wouldn't trade for (and extend) Pedro or sign Manny (to what was then one of the biggest contracts in baseball). He wouldn't sign Schilling, and he wouldn't sign Foulke. He WOULD sign Damon, Bellhorn, Mueller, and Millar. But Pedro and Manny - no evidence yet he'd go that route.

 

[YTF]

To subvert your point - Bloom wouldn't trade for (and extend) Pedro or sign Manny (to what was then one of the biggest contracts in baseball). He wouldn't sign Schilling, and he wouldn't sign Foulke. He WOULD sign Damon, Bellhorn, Mueller, and Millar. But Pedro and Manny - no evidence yet he'd go that route.

Different era, different philosophy of how to build teams. You're comparing Ruth and Bonds.

 

[Jimbodandy]

To subvert your point - Bloom wouldn't trade for (and extend) Pedro or sign Manny (to what was then one of the biggest contracts in baseball). He wouldn't sign Schilling, and he wouldn't sign Foulke. He WOULD sign Damon, Bellhorn, Mueller, and Millar. But Pedro and Manny - no evidence yet he'd go that route.

No evidence that he wouldn't either. Frankly there's no evidence to anything that you're saying here, except maybe that Manny reference. It seems that he wouldn't have handed out that deal probably.

Who gave Trevor Story 140 million dollars?

 

[catsooey]

Who gave Trevor Story 140 million dollars?

I just hope that’s not his idea of a “big signing”. It reminds me of when I was a kid playing pickup baseball games in my friend’s neighborhood, and him and his older brother and his friends would take a break and stop into the house. We’d all be really thirsty and he’d ask his mom If we could have a few sodas from the huge stash they always kept. Her response - “you can all split one”. And that’s if she was in a good mood. We each got a sip. I’m just hoping Chaim doesn’t look at deals the way my friend’s mom looked at sodas.

 

[catsooey]

I've been a Sox fan since the late '60s. I've seen some pretty bad baseball and four World Championships. I've seen good players come and go -- from Fred Lynn to Mookie. I follow the Sox, the team. Had season tickets for close to 30 years and gave them up a few years ago; mainly due to the hassle of getting to/from Fenway and having, pretty much, "seen it all".

I want them to be competitive every year. When the stars align and they have a serious shot, then make the necessary moves to improve their chances.

If X and Devers leave, I'll be bummed. But will look forward to seeing the next wave of young talent moving in.

That must have been amazing having season tickets for all that time. Did you have them back in the 80’s? My favorite player was Mike Greenwell, “The Gator”, #39. I actually visited the clubhouse once before a game in August ’91. My friend’s family had a farm and they did business with Paul Tavilla, who I believe owned a big produce distribution company based in Boston. His brother was Ernie Tavilla, who was the head of spiritual guidance for the Red Sox. I got autographs from the whole team and met Wade Boggs, and I think we were there during the team blessing before the game. It really was an amazing weekend.

 

[teddywingman]

Now I'm interested in Ernie Tavilla.

 

[catsooey]

Ernie Tavilla was awesome, great guy. They had their family market set up at Fanuel Hall. A trucker making a delivery drove us from my bud’s farm to the Boston produce market and Ernie picked us up there. I think he passed away in the mid 90’s, but his daughter I believe helped take over the business. I should say hello on Facebook and tell her this story. Anyway, he was a part of Sox history.

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

I just hope that’s not his idea of a “big signing”. It reminds me of when I was a kid playing pickup baseball games in my friend’s neighborhood, and him and his older brother and his friends would take a break and stop into the house. We’d all be really thirsty and he’d ask his mom If we could have a few sodas from the huge stash they always kept. Her response - “you can all split one”. And that’s if she was in a good mood. We each got a sip. I’m just hoping Chaim doesn’t look at deals the way my friend’s mom looked at sodas.

Wow, your friend's mom was a selfish jerk.

 

[gryoung]

That must have been amazing having season tickets for all that time. Did you have them back in the 80’s? My favorite player was Mike Greenwell, “The Gator”, #39. I actually visited the clubhouse once before a game in August ’91. My friend’s family had a farm and they did business with Paul Tavilla, who I believe owned a big produce distribution company based in Boston. His brother was Ernie Tavilla, who was the head of spiritual guidance for the Red Sox. I got autographs from the whole team and met Wade Boggs, and I think we were there during the team blessing before the game. It really was an amazing weekend.

Our first year with tickets was ‘87. The gator was a favorite of our son. He still has a 39 shirt.

 

[BravesField]

What will happen if those two players leave? In the short term, the following season, you'll grumble and gripe and make crazy statements. But we will all move on. Just listen to the advice Mr. Terence Mann said to said to a farmer named Ray......

"And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

Baseball is OUR game.

 

[Dogman]

Just a heads up: Find ways to express yourself without highlighting your ignorance or insecurities. This board will not tolerate anything remotely disparaging to any person, sex, race, creed. Misogyny is suspension/ban worthy.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

That must have been amazing having season tickets for all that time. Did you have them back in the 80’s? My favorite player was Mike Greenwell, “The Gator”, #39.

Sorry for the off-topic, but I couldn't resist. I was interning in Seattle in 1992 and went to a Sox-Mariners game at the old Kingdome late in the season. As you can imagine, there weren't many people in the stadium. I was sitting near first base. Round about the fifth inning, when SEA was at the bat, someone yelled, "Greenwall, you suck" and all of the Red Sox fans laughed because it could be heard everywhere in the stadium. Made me feel like I was in Boston again.

 

[BigSoxFan]

What will happen if those two players leave? In the short term, the following season, you'll grumble and gripe and make crazy statements. But we will all move on. Just listen to the advice Mr. Terence Mann said to said to a farmer named Ray......

"And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

Baseball is OUR game.

We’re still talking about Mookie a couple years later. If you add 2 more well-liked homegrown players to the list in Devers and Bogaerts, I think it’ll only add to the angst and maybe create a compounding effect. Based on my reading of this thread, a Devers departure would be panned by the majority unless the money just got crazy. Thoughts on Bogaerts appear to be more mixed because of his age and impact.

In any event, if Bogaerts and Devers go and the Sox slog through a few mediocre (or worse) seasons, a definite possibility, then I expect some legitimate dissatisfaction to be present.

 

[soxin6]

If Devers and Xander are gone, I am still going to be a Sox fan. I have been a Sox fan for 36 years and players come and go. A lot of people keep bringing up Mookie and that they miss him being on the Sox. Is it that they miss Mookie or they miss when the Sox were winning over 100 games and a WS championship? If the Sox were not in 4th place with a red hot Orioles team threatening to put them in last, would we really be worried about what would happen with Devers in two years? Most on this board believed that the Story signing meant the likely end of Xander in a Sox uniform. If Story was playing amazing baseball, we would likely be celebrating Bloom's decision. It isn't like Xander has been on fire for the last few weeks. Everything is fluid, but until the Sox ownership decides to gut the team and be like Oakland, I think we should just wait and see.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

We’re still talking about Mookie a couple years later. If you add 2 more well-liked homegrown players to the list in Devers and Bogaerts, I think it’ll only add to the angst and maybe create a compounding effect. Based on my reading of this thread, a Devers departure would be panned by the majority unless the money just got crazy. Thoughts on Bogaerts appear to be more mixed because of his age and impact.

In any event, if Bogaerts and Devers go and the Sox slog through a few mediocre (or worse) seasons, a definite possibility, then I expect some legitimate dissatisfaction to be present.

What happens to Sox fans that aren't SoSHers? They see that the team loses Betts, Bogaerts and Devers in five years. They hear radio, TV and newspaper columnists call them cheap (which I know that we ignore, but we're not the majority here, these guys have a lot of sway in this town). Suddenly Fenway isn't banged out any more.

I've said it before, but I think that one of the most underrated bad things that's happened in John Henry's tenure* is that the Sox slipped from number one, no doubt about it, favorite sports team in the New England area to number two in good years, and even lower in years that the Bruins and Celts do well. Losing homegrown star players is not the way to boost the team's popularity.

* And to be fair, there's a lot of great things that the Henry regime has brought to the team, no doubt about it.

 

[joe dokes]

What happens to Sox fans that aren't SoSHers? They see that the team loses Betts, Bogaerts and Devers in five years. They hear radio, TV and newspaper columnists call them cheap (which I know that we ignore, but we're not the majority here, these guys have a lot of sway in this town). Suddenly Fenway isn't banged out any more.

I've said it before, but I think that one of the most underrated bad things that's happened in John Henry's tenure* is that the Sox slipped from number one, no doubt about it, favorite sports team in the New England area to number two in good years, and even lower in years that the Bruins and Celts do well. Losing homegrown star players is not the way to boost the team's popularity.

* And to be fair, there's a lot of great things that the Henry regime has brought to the team, no doubt about it.

Its very hard to disaggregate the Sox slippage from baseball's overall slippage.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Its very hard to disaggregate the Sox slippage from baseball's overall slippage.

I'm not sure about that. I hear what you're saying but there are certain cities where baseball always have an edge over football: New York, St. Louis, Los Angeles. Boston was once one of those cities where it was clearly Red Sox above everything else, even when the NFL was booming in the 80s, 90s and in the early 00s. Now? The Sox get talked about in late March/early April, a bit in the dregs of summer (prior to training camp opening) and in late September/October if there's a pennant race/playoffs. And the latter takes a backseat on Mondays and Fridays.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not sure about that. I hear what you're saying but there are certain cities where baseball always have an edge over football: New York, St. Louis, Los Angeles. Boston was once one of those cities where it was clearly Red Sox above everything else, even when the NFL was booming in the 80s, 90s and in the early 00s. Now? The Sox get talked about in late March/early April, a bit in the dregs of summer (prior to training camp opening) and in late September/October if there's a pennant race/playoffs. And the latter takes a backseat on Mondays and Fridays.

The other factor is the 4 titles, along with the historic 108 win season. For so long, part of the fervor of Sox fandom was the chase for that elusive ring. Now that it's happened not once, but four times, they are kind of "just another baseball team". When they're good, fans will turn out and be super enthusiastic, just look at Fenway last October, the place was a zoo. When they're mediocre, fans won't pay as much attention. The difference vis a vis the Pats is that the Pats were chasing history each year, with the GOAT QB and coach. Plus football is just easier to follow on a daily / weekly basis. Now that Brady has moved on and the Pats don't appear to be true title contenders for the last couple years, I think you've seen some disengagement from fans. With all four Boston teams generally competitive, casual / average fans will gravitate to the teams with actual championship opportunities.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I already posted my feelings about money and professional sports in this thread. But besides my own feelings... the general narrative that the fans have been fed was that because of the bad contract to Sale, and along with a bunch of older contracts (Price, Pedroia, Pablo) that the Sox couldn't add Mookie so had to either let him walk for nothing or trade him and get something. Fine. But that was also under the premise that by letting Mookie go, the Sox would be able to hold onto Xander and possibly Devers and who knows who else.
I'm not advocating for anything, but I'm pretty certain that's the narrative and if Henry doesn't uphold his end of this, the general fanbase is going to be pissed. Story is not, and will not be a fan favorite. While fans really seem to like Verdugo... he's not a good enough player to be the centerpiece that will keep fans interested- he's Kevin Millar basically. Maybe Mayer will be that guy, or Ceddanne... but after X and Devers... there's nobody. Personally I don't care but I think the general fanbase does and it's not going to buy more bullshit from Henry. Maybe Henry doesn't care and is planning on selling soon.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

This is an impossible question to analyze without knowing who will fill the gaps. If Bogaerts and Devers go and Mayer, Casas, and Yorke find their way to the big league club and they're exciting, impactful players then of course interest will remain high. If they don't pan out and the rest of the gaps are filled with cheaper/safe FA acquisitions then it could be some lean years for Henry and Co.

On some level, I think that the team's personality plays into fan attraction. Bogaerts is a quiet, cerebral, reliable pro. Devers is a goofy, fun-loving dude who looks like he might cause a weather disturbance with every huge swing. Mookie won people over with his infectious smile and exceptional baseball skills. Even Kyle Schwarber, in a short stint, became a fan favorite.

I personally find this year's team to be rather dull. Trevor Story may be a terrific player but he seems like a boring dude. Watching a stoic statue like Dalbec hit .200 stinks. The younger guys- who should be a cause for excitement- have ground some gears with their off-field choices. It really feels like the team is trending in the wrong direction fan interest-wise and letting Devers go would be really painful. Aesthetically speaking I also find this current version of baseball to be less appealing. It's hard to grow up watching a pro's pro like Boggs hit .340 and watch today's game where it's ok to have an everyday player hit .200 because they might hit some dingers at some point. Get it done, Theo.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

The other factor is the 4 titles, along with the historic 108 win season. For so long, part of the fervor of Sox fandom was the chase for that elusive ring. Now that it's happened not once, but four times, they are kind of "just another baseball team". When they're good, fans will turn out and be super enthusiastic, just look at Fenway last October, the place was a zoo. When they're mediocre, fans won't pay as much attention. The difference vis a vis the Pats is that the Pats were chasing history each year, with the GOAT QB and coach. Plus football is just easier to follow on a daily / weekly basis. Now that Brady has moved on and the Pats don't appear to be true title contenders for the last couple years, I think you've seen some disengagement from fans. With all four Boston teams generally competitive, casual / average fans will gravitate to the teams with actual championship opportunities.

I agree, there was a lot Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner relationship in regards to Red Sox fans and the World Series. But I mean, the Pats have six Super Bowl Championships and the fanbase is still absolutely rabid. Shouldn't the Sox and their semi-sustained success have the same output?

I do agree with you on the easier ability to follow the Pats. It doesn't take quite as much effort to follow the Patriots as it does the Red Sox, though as a baseball fan I'd say that this is a feature not a bug for me. But I understand how others view it differently.

But the one thing you wrote, "with the GOAT QB and coach", makes my point. Is Mookie Betts the baseball GOAT or even the Red Sox GOAT? No. But he was an MLB superstar, that was practically given away. And yes, I get that Tom Brady didn't chase every penny that he was worth, while Mookie (rightly) demanded a high salary. However, Brady understands that there's a salary cap in the NFL and Betts knows that MLB doesn't have one. My larger point is that letting star players leave simply over money (whether this is the truth or not, the perception is very much there), is bad for business long-term. Fans start wondering, "If they let Mookie Betts go over cash as well as Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers, what makes me think that they'll keep Blaze Jordan or Marcelo Mayer or Brayan Bello when their time comes to get paid. Why should I invest my time in rooting for these guys when there's going to be an ugly divorce in five years."

I know a lot of people around here root for laundry and I understand that. But a lot of regular sports fans don't. I talk to my Mom a lot about baseball and usually she asks, "What did Rafael do last night?" or "Did you see what Bogaerts did?" before she gets to the team itself. And I don't think that this is an anomaly. For a majority of people sports is entertainment, like the movies or a concert. People go to the movies or concerts because they like the story/music. But they also go because they like the actor/singer. That's true with sports. As much as Bloom and the front office want this to be a plug-and-play situation, it's never going to be.

 

[tims4wins]

I agree, there was a lot Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner relationship in regards to Red Sox fans and the World Series. But I mean, the Pats have six Super Bowl Championships and the fanbase is still absolutely rabid. Shouldn't the Sox and their semi-sustained success have the same output?

I do agree with you on the easier ability to follow the Pats. It doesn't take quite as much effort to follow the Patriots as it does the Red Sox, though as a baseball fan I'd say that this is a feature not a bug for me. But I understand how others view it differently.

But the one thing you wrote, "with the GOAT QB and coach", makes my point. Is Mookie Betts the baseball GOAT or even the Red Sox GOAT? No. But he was an MLB superstar, that was practically given away. And yes, I get that Tom Brady didn't chase every penny that he was worth, while Mookie (rightly) demanded a high salary. However, Brady understands that there's a salary cap in the NFL and Betts knows that MLB doesn't have one. My larger point is that letting star players leave simply over money (whether this is the truth or not, the perception is very much there), is bad for business long-term. Fans start wondering, "If they let Mookie Betts go over cash as well as Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers, what makes me think that they'll keep Blaze Jordan or Marcelo Mayer or Brayan Bello when their time comes to get paid. Why should I invest my time in rooting for these guys when there's going to be an ugly divorce in five years."

I know a lot of people around here root for laundry and I understand that. But a lot of regular sports fans don't. I talk to my Mom a lot about baseball and usually she asks, "What did Rafael do last night?" or "Did you see what Bogaerts did?" before she gets to the team itself. And I don't think that this is an anomaly. For a majority of people sports is entertainment, like the movies or a concert. People go to the movies or concerts because they like the story/music. But they also go because they like the actor/singer. That's true with sports. As much as Bloom and the front office want this to be a plug-and-play situation, it's never going to be.

I think the big difference is the Pats were chasing history every season since 2004. A 4th ring for Brady, then a 5th, and a 6th. They tied the all time Super Bowl wins record for a franchise. Whereas a Sox title doesn't move any historical needle. Mookie is no different than Papi or Pedro or Nomar or whichever other former Sox star you want to compare to.

And I do think the fervor has died a bit since Brady left.

 

[8slim]

I agree, there was a lot Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner relationship in regards to Red Sox fans and the World Series. But I mean, the Pats have six Super Bowl Championships and the fanbase is still absolutely rabid. Shouldn't the Sox and their semi-sustained success have the same output?

I do agree with you on the easier ability to follow the Pats. It doesn't take quite as much effort to follow the Patriots as it does the Red Sox, though as a baseball fan I'd say that this is a feature not a bug for me. But I understand how others view it differently.

But the one thing you wrote, "with the GOAT QB and coach", makes my point. Is Mookie Betts the baseball GOAT or even the Red Sox GOAT? No. But he was an MLB superstar, that was practically given away. And yes, I get that Tom Brady didn't chase every penny that he was worth, while Mookie (rightly) demanded a high salary. However, Brady understands that there's a salary cap in the NFL and Betts knows that MLB doesn't have one. My larger point is that letting star players leave simply over money (whether this is the truth or not, the perception is very much there), is bad for business long-term. Fans start wondering, "If they let Mookie Betts go over cash as well as Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers, what makes me think that they'll keep Blaze Jordan or Marcelo Mayer or Brayan Bello when their time comes to get paid. Why should I invest my time in rooting for these guys when there's going to be an ugly divorce in five years."

I know a lot of people around here root for laundry and I understand that. But a lot of regular sports fans don't. I talk to my Mom a lot about baseball and usually she asks, "What did Rafael do last night?" or "Did you see what Bogaerts did?" before she gets to the team itself. And I don't think that this is an anomaly. For a majority of people sports is entertainment, like the movies or a concert. People go to the movies or concerts because they like the story/music. But they also go because they like the actor/singer. That's true with sports. As much as Bloom and the front office want this to be a plug-and-play situation, it's never going to be.

Letting your stars walk really hurts with younger fans. Younger people are much more likely to be fans of players than fans of teams. That's not just me talking, there is real data that supports it. Younger people are also much more likely to follow sports via highlights and news on social media, than watch the games live. Couple those two dynamics and a teenager who was a Mookie fan can easily follow him in LA, should he or she want to, and leave the Sox behind.

Anecdotally, my 15 year old is still pissed that they traded Mookie. He's resigned to them letting X walk, and he's dreading what may happen with Devers. If that does happen, I suspect he'll still be a Sox fan (he is my kid after all), but I also suspect his interest will wane considerably unless the Sox are concurrently a real title contender despite those departures.

It's a balance, and I know a franchise can't (and shouldn't) retain everyone. But like I say over and over, this is entertainment. We're diehards here, and people like watching the development of players in the minors, get excited for the potential future, and all that stuff. But most people just want to see big stars and the major league club win. If that ain't happening then there's a Marvel movie to stream, or 100 TikTok videos to watch, to fill the time.

 

[teddywingman]

Letting your stars walk really hurts with younger fans. Younger people are much more likely to be fans of players than fans of teams. That's not just me talking, there is real data that supports it. Younger people are also much more likely to follow sports via highlights and news on social media, than watch the games live. Couple those two dynamics and a teenager who was a Mookie fan can easily follow him in LA, should he or she want to, and leave the Sox behind.

Anecdotally, my 15 year old is still pissed that they traded Mookie. He's resigned to them letting X walk, and he's dreading what may happen with Devers. If that does happen, I suspect he'll still be a Sox fan (he is my kid after all), but I also suspect his interest will wane considerably unless the Sox are concurrently a real title contender despite those departures.

It's a balance, and I know a franchise can't (and shouldn't) retain everyone. But like I say over and over, this is entertainment. We're diehards here, and people like watching the development of players in the minors, get excited for the potential future, and all that stuff. But most people just want to see big stars and major league club win. If that ain't happening then there's a Marvel movie to stream, or 100 TikoTok videos to watch, to fill the time.

Yeah tell that to my Uncle Larry, Charlie, Jim, and Steve.

They're done watching post Mookie, and me (44) I'm barely hanging on.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I agree, there was a lot Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner relationship in regards to Red Sox fans and the World Series. But I mean, the Pats have six Super Bowl Championships and the fanbase is still absolutely rabid. Shouldn't the Sox and their semi-sustained success have the same output?

I do agree with you on the easier ability to follow the Pats. It doesn't take quite as much effort to follow the Patriots as it does the Red Sox, though as a baseball fan I'd say that this is a feature not a bug for me. But I understand how others view it differently.

But the one thing you wrote, "with the GOAT QB and coach", makes my point. Is Mookie Betts the baseball GOAT or even the Red Sox GOAT? No. But he was an MLB superstar, that was practically given away. And yes, I get that Tom Brady didn't chase every penny that he was worth, while Mookie (rightly) demanded a high salary. However, Brady understands that there's a salary cap in the NFL and Betts knows that MLB doesn't have one. My larger point is that letting star players leave simply over money (whether this is the truth or not, the perception is very much there), is bad for business long-term. Fans start wondering, "If they let Mookie Betts go over cash as well as Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers, what makes me think that they'll keep Blaze Jordan or Marcelo Mayer or Brayan Bello when their time comes to get paid. Why should I invest my time in rooting for these guys when there's going to be an ugly divorce in five years."

I know a lot of people around here root for laundry and I understand that. But a lot of regular sports fans don't. I talk to my Mom a lot about baseball and usually she asks, "What did Rafael do last night?" or "Did you see what Bogaerts did?" before she gets to the team itself. And I don't think that this is an anomaly. For a majority of people sports is entertainment, like the movies or a concert. People go to the movies or concerts because they like the story/music. But they also go because they like the actor/singer. That's true with sports. As much as Bloom and the front office want this to be a plug-and-play situation, it's never going to be.

The All-Star game just drew 8.3M viewers in prime time. The NFL Pro Bowl game, which occurred after the season ended and was aired at 3:00 p.m. on a Sunday, drew 6.9M viewers.

People are rabid for the NFL for a variety of reasons. I mean the NFL draft consistently has over 10M people watching.

Without any evidence whatsoever, I think older people like us are more attached to the players and younger people understand that no one stays with one team anymore. I also think that younger people who stop watching baseball do so because the product generally isn't very watchable (I've said this in other threads), not because player movement, and that if BOS does get rid of X and Devers, people will complain until they win their next WS.

 

[joe dokes]

I also think that younger people who stop watching baseball do so because the product generally isn't very watchable (I've said this in other threads), not because player movement, and that if BOS does get rid of X and Devers, people will complain until they win their next WS.

100% agree. Advancing in the playoffs and/or winning the WS creates more interest in younger fans and casual fans than a great player being born and dying in a Sox uniform.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

100% agree. Advancing in the playoffs and/or winning the WS creates more interest in younger fans and casual fans than a great player being born and dying in a Sox uniform.

IDK. Anecdotally two people on this very page said that their kids and uncles don't watch the team anymore or are still angry about the Sox losing Betts. I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as many around here feel it is.

 

[Kliq]

I already posted my feelings about money and professional sports in this thread. But besides my own feelings... the general narrative that the fans have been fed was that because of the bad contract to Sale, and along with a bunch of older contracts (Price, Pedroia, Pablo) that the Sox couldn't add Mookie so had to either let him walk for nothing or trade him and get something. Fine. But that was also under the premise that by letting Mookie go, the Sox would be able to hold onto Xander and possibly Devers and who knows who else.
I'm not advocating for anything, but I'm pretty certain that's the narrative and if Henry doesn't uphold his end of this, the general fanbase is going to be pissed. Story is not, and will not be a fan favorite. While fans really seem to like Verdugo... he's not a good enough player to be the centerpiece that will keep fans interested- he's Kevin Millar basically. Maybe Mayer will be that guy, or Ceddanne... but after X and Devers... there's nobody. Personally I don't care but I think the general fanbase does and it's not going to buy more bullshit from Henry. Maybe Henry doesn't care and is planning on selling soon.

There definitely was a lot of talk post-Mookie trade that letting Mookie walk away was about signing X and Devers to long-term deals, with the logic being that two players are better than one and it was a safer investment. The issue was always the possibility that Devers would become too good and demand a Mookie-level salary of his own, which looks destined to happen. That means most likely only signing one of X/Devers, with a possibility of neither being retained.

That is a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Jimbodandy]

IDK. Anecdotally two people on this very page said that their kids and uncles don't watch the team anymore or are still angry about the Sox losing Betts. I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as many around here feel it is.

This is true. My brother is 49 and is still ripshit about both Lester and Mookie. He follows and goes to games still but not with the same intensity.

It's more the person and their worldview than their age. I was a devastated little leaguer when Fred Lynn left and got over it.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

SoSH is the only place I have encountered the phenomenon of Sox fans claiming they aren't as much of fans after the Mookie trade. I have never encountered it in the real world. Anecdotes are not data, and barring actual data to support it, I'm not buying it when alternative hypotheses (e.g. those fans were already growing distant from the team, Mookie leaving simply provided a rationalization) are just as plausible.

What the data does show is that winning, and in particular wins that get to the level of playoff contention, are worth the most to teams. As a proxy of fan enthusiasm, data like ticket sales and TV ratings seem a lot more accurate than uncle anecdotes. I haven't seen any recent research on "marquee players", but my recollection is that there wasn't much of a statistically significant impact; that said it's been a decade since I looked into it and that research was decades old at the time. The revenue data was all modern, for the time (I think my self compiled data set ran through...2008?).

 

[sezwho]

...What the data does show is that winning, and in particular wins that get to the level of playoff contention, are worth the most to teams. As a proxy of fan enthusiasm, data like ticket sales and TV ratings seem a lot more accurate than uncle anecdotes. I haven't seen any recent research on "marquee players", but my recollection is that there wasn't much of a statistically significant impact; that said it's been a decade since I looked into it and that research was decades old at the time. The revenue data was all modern, for the time (I think my self compiled data set ran through...2008?).

I'll buy this for sure if we look solely through the lens of counting eyeballs (tickets + screens). I wonder what the sales organization the Sox employ would say though. I suspect having a 'star' would make it potentially much easier to sell the suite/package/billboard/tv ad etc.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I'll buy this for sure if we look solely through the lens of counting eyeballs (tickets + screens). I wonder what the sales organization the Sox employ would say though. I suspect having a 'star' would make it potentially much easier to sell the suite/package/billboard/tv ad etc.

It might help but the Sox will always have stars and there will be other home grown talent fans get attached to.

 

[Max Power]

SoSH is the only place I have encountered the phenomenon of Sox fans claiming they aren't as much of fans after the Mookie trade. I have never encountered it in the real world. Anecdotes are not data, and barring actual data to support it, I'm not buying it when alternative hypotheses (e.g. those fans were already growing distant from the team, Mookie leaving simply provided a rationalization) are just as plausible.

I'd agree with this. I've been a season ticket holder for over 20 years and can gauge interest by how much demand there is for the extras I sell off. There was a noticeable drop after 2016 when Papi retired that never recovered. Demand was soft during 2018 when Mookie was at his best and the team was a juggernaut and again in 2019 when he was in his last season here. 2021 was pretty bad, but things are a little better this year. Mookie was no amazing draw for selling tickets as far as I could tell, nor did he crater the team after he left.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

SoSH is the only place I have encountered the phenomenon of Sox fans claiming they aren't as much of fans after the Mookie trade. I have never encountered it in the real world. Anecdotes are not data, and barring actual data to support it, I'm not buying it when alternative hypotheses (e.g. those fans were already growing distant from the team, Mookie leaving simply provided a rationalization) are just as plausible.

What the data does show is that winning, and in particular wins that get to the level of playoff contention, are worth the most to teams. As a proxy of fan enthusiasm, data like ticket sales and TV ratings seem a lot more accurate than uncle anecdotes. I haven't seen any recent research on "marquee players", but my recollection is that there wasn't much of a statistically significant impact; that said it's been a decade since I looked into it and that research was decades old at the time. The revenue data was all modern, for the time (I think my self compiled data set ran through...2008?).

Disclaimer: as you say, anecdote does not equal data.

That being said, the attitude I see among many fans can best be described as growing disillusionment. Directed towards' the Sox' front office because the fans are beginning to feel lied to. If they traded Mookie to save cap space and to also re-sign their younger STAR players, that's a rational strategy that perhaps can be discussed. But trading Mookie, getting lesser players in return as one nearly always does in such trades, and then to give all indications that they are NOT going to re-sign Devers and X? For myself and a lot of other fans, that's a very very bitter pill to swallow and in some ways it feels like a betrayal of the very basic team-fan relationship. You let league average players go play elsewhere. When you're the Red Sox, and have more money than Croesus, you keep your stars. Teams like Tampa have to trade their stars. The Red Sox should never HAVE to do so.

One can argue that the Sox are simply going to spend the money that would have gone to Mookie and X and Devers on players from outside the organization. But doing so breaks the emotional bonds fans have with the homegrown STAR players; as I've noted above Trevor Story is a nice player but he has zero history here, no personality we've seen yet, and is basically just another guy. He's 4th on this year's very mediocre team in WAR, the top two are the guys the Sox are apparently going to move out.

Devers and X and Mookie before them were not just another guy, they were and are players the fans have a deep sporting connection with. Trading Mookie to keep the other two is hard but makes sense on some level. Trading Mookie and keeping neither of the others does, IMO, not.

This is just my opinion and obviously a lot of people on this board feel differently. Just saying that to me, the team looks to be getting torn down brick by brick by removing its star players (presumably to land more players of lesser caliber) and it's an excruciating experience to witness.

 

[cantor44]

I want players I like to stick around but I also don't want to see the last years of Pedroia on the team. I don't give a flying fuck about John Henry saving money or whatever other bullshit is thrown at posters that point out budget issues with long term contracts. The amount of money players make is obscene. Fucking obscene. The amount of money John Henry makes off the team is obscene. It's disgusting. The amount it cost to go see a damn game is stupid. My honest preference is for professional sports to all just go the fuck away. Take a small chunk of their salaries and pay our fucking teachers and public workers and health care home workers. The fact that I still pay attention to baseball and professional sports in general makes me hate myself.... but as long as it's still there I can't stop looking. Our culture is completely out of whack and the fact that Henry and Devers are feeling "insulted" over the difference of $2 million per year is insanity.

All that said... I'll still watch the Red Sox with or without players I've grown to care about. Out of Devers and Xander, I think Xander makes more sense to sign what the stupid market will determine.

I agree with the overall sentiment, with the caveat that players are NOT being paid from some giant public fund that also pays teachers and health care workers, and the societal "deciders" have their priorities all screwed up, have divided the pie all wrong, favoring athletes and depriving teachers. Sports is entertainment, and entertainment is ELECTED by people with whatever discretionary money they have. There is so much money for athlete's salaries, because people buy the tickets, and the merch, and have cable TV or streaming services, which make millions off of ads for products from companies that can afford the cost of the ads because people buy their shit after seeing their ads. There is that much money, because people are ELECTING to spend their money that way. WE are the deciders, that is. The players DESERVE THE MONEY. THEY are the product.

Now, there is an alternative argument, that rich people should be taxed more, SO THAT, with public funds, we can redistribute the money to teachers, and nurses, etc., to give them a nice living wage. THAT argument I buy! But that wouldn't just come from athlete's salaries, but from ALL rich people. America is one of the least redistributive industrially advanced democracies. So, how 'bout we argue for, push for, vote for, a more robust public sector, funded by a more progressive tax!

And I totally agree about the "insulted" part - lacks perspective, doesn't it?

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

You might want to rephrase that.

Edit...Or what Dogman said.

Fixed.

 

[8slim]

FWIW, I think it's helpful when a star is homegrown, but not essential. Needless to say, Papi and Pedro weren't homegrown, and yet arguably became the two most beloved Red Sox players of the past 40 years.