Hey, Let's Talk The Mookie Trade!

[3rd Degree]

The blindspot most people have on this topic, in my view, is that Mookie wanted to be in southern California — or at least a different kind of city — for non-baseball reasons, and it was and remains in neither party’s interests to say so.

This sadly, unfortunately is 100% correct. Why would Betts say anything at all that would likely be spun to sound like he hated Boston? Once you're making an insane amount of money... the millions of different dollars is much less difference than in living in a place where you'd much rather like to be. The guy clearly wanted to play in LA and I don't think offering him $5M more per year than Trout would have made a difference. They extracted what they could have... just wish it was a little more, but them taking Price also lowered what Bloom was going to be able to get.

"100% correct" despite Mookie saying the exact opposite:

"Even though I wasn't really ready for (the trade to the Dodgers) -- I know people don't believe me but I wanted to stay in Boston my whole career," Betts told former teammate Brock Holt during his appearance, according to MassLive. "That was my life. I knew everybody there. it was a short flight to Nashville. It was perfect."

Holt asked Betts if he would've signed a long-term deal with the Red Sox for $365 million -- or, the same amount he agreed to as part of a 12-year contract with the Dodgers. Betts answered in the affirmative, but reiterated that offer "didn't happen."

CBS: Ex-Red Sox Mookie Betts says he 'wanted to stay in Boston' for entire career, but worthy offer 'didn't happen'

Sox blew it. The ramifications have been damning and deserved. The amount of water carrying for FSG is ridiculous. Talk about a blindspot.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't post often on this listserv. But when I do, I'm fucking right. This trade was an abomination, and all the what-about-the-luxury-tax bullshit was just that: cover for the owners pocketing our $ and trading away our only HOF player. Pay the f*#)@ng luxury tax and keep Mookie. It was so obvious to me then, and now it's undeniable.

 

[grepal]

Lol are you high? Why would the dodgers give up an MVP player plus elite pitcher for prospects? They don't need salary relief. They saved money just for the exact reason to get Ohtani plus extras. I've been here for nearly 20 years and this takes the cake. What if they toss in Ohtani too? Seems only fair.

Too bad I don't know how to use the sarcasm font. I was simply pointing out what the deal would look like today if it were reversed. Yeah, IMO Sox ownership was high as a kite if they ever thought most fans would buy the trade as good for the Sox. THREE last place finishes in 4 years and staring at 4 out of 5, we should be more than pissed off. The Sox ownership/management has abused our love for this team.

 

[scottyno]

Much of his value was in defense, and tied to a stat that doesn't really pass the eye test or correlate with more advanced stats. WAR in general doesn't know what to do with the 2020 season, unless we're to believe that Joey Gallo was the 2nd coming of Andruw Jones and Nolan Arenado was having the single best defensive season ever.

It wasn't really though, he had a 113 ops+ in 2019 and a 123 ops+ in 2020, that's a 3-4 win player over a full season just entering his prime without even factoring in defense. He looked every bit of a player who was going to be really good for the Sox for at least the next 4 years.

 

[TomRicardo]

I question born of curiosity - I was not on SoSH when Nomar was traded. Did SoSH react similarly to that trade as they have to Mookie's trade?

Trading Nomar made way more sense. Not only was Mookie a terrible play to save money, the Red Sox ended up losing money on the deal. The team spiralled as well.

The Mookie deal gets rehashed because it was one of the dumbest ownership moves in sports history. They didn't even save money in the end since as we saw high end contracts over took Mookie's contract almost immediately. It is an easy turning point for the franchise as well as for Fenway Sports Group.

The quality of discussion left after Mookie left because it was a blantantly bad baseball move. Ownership wanted to be the smartest guys in the room but not through finding new ways to win. They wanted to see how they could save money towards an ROI. Most of the moves made by Bloom were objectively bad and to save money. The Red Sox weren't looking to invest and build a winner. They just wanted to market their way through and see if they could adopt a Tampa approach for a greater ROI.

The whole thing looks like a disaster if you look at the NESN ratings and the attendance. That said a lot of baseball has stalled out at revenue growth besides the television networks. Maybe NESN doesn't make that much more money if its ratings are double what they are now like they were in 2019. Possible FSG found out the Boston market had been fully saturated and it simply doesn't make sense to continue following everyone else's salary growth. Their moves haven't hurt revenue portionally as hard as it hurt its record. Hell there are idiots out taking bullets for Sam Kennedy and his goon squad in this thread.

Maybe Boston is just a sucker market that will keep feeding LeBron and his buddies cash like Pittsbugh and Liverpool. It is a nice piece of revenge for LeBron who hates Boston.

 

[chawson]

"100% correct" despite Mookie saying the exact opposite:


CBS: Ex-Red Sox Mookie Betts says he 'wanted to stay in Boston' for entire career, but worthy offer 'didn't happen'

Sox blew it. The ramifications have been damning and deserved. The amount of water carrying for FSG is ridiculous. Talk about a blindspot.

And there are direct contradictions in the reporting.

Quoted in stories by Andy McCullough in The Athletic, and Alden Gonzalez for ESPN, July 2020:

Betts has made clear his interest in testing free agency. He reportedly rejected a series of extension offers from the Red Sox, including a package worth $300 million. The choice did not haunt him, he said.

“I don’t regret turning down that,” Betts said. “Once I make a decision, I make a decision. I’m not going back and questioning myself. I don’t worry about that. The market will be what the market is. We’ll just cross that bridge when we get there. But for right now, it’s just the safety and health that I’m worried about.”

Mookie’s 12-year, $365M contract with the Dodgers includes $115 million in deferred money. It was valued at $306 million by the MLB players’ union.

 

[nighthob]

I’m sorry, but I sold the Mookie trade for crack.

 

[sodenj5]

In terms of WAR, the Sox got Mookie’s two best seasons.

In 4 years, the Dodgers got Mookie’s two worst non-rookie year seasons, and they got a vintage Mookie season last year.

Mookie will be 31 and is under contract for 9 more years. I would be thrilled if he were still in Boston, but it’s far more likely he’s going to be a 4 win player than an 8 win player moving forward.

The trade was always going to hurt in the short term.

 

[beautokyo]

He said himself he was going to test the FA system. He didn't but it seems he loved the west coast and what the dodgers brought to the table. It's the entertainment business. We wanted to be there and he still is. Yeah, he had a pretty good season last year.....will it continue through the rest of the contract? Time will only tell. I was upset that he left but at least he took Price with him.

 

[Apisith]

Given deferrals, the AAV on Mookie’s deal is ~$25m. We’re paying Yoshida $16m for 1-2 wins. $9m extra for an extra 4-6 wins.

Whether they offered a comparable deal that he ended up signing for is uncertain but it still hurts. Having Mookie instead of Yoshida makes us a mid 80s wins team, and getting some improvement from Devers, Story and Sale gets us close to 90. We would still be way under the cap.

It is what it is, Mookie provides such a high floor for any team he plays for.

 

[czar]

FWIW, my guess is there are a lot of people like me who used to post on the main board constantly but have been far more absent since ~2020. It's not all Mookie, but Mookie sort of epitomizes the team's turn IMO.

Someone pointed out MLB.tv -- I actually would guess that I watch 30% Red Sox versus 95% a few years ago. Some of that may be the team losing, but honestly, I'm not a huge Devers guy so *shrugs* not sure there is someone on this team I'm excited to watch, even if they were winning.

I acknowledge that some posters find it tiresome that it gets brought up again and again, but I'd argue it's equally tiresome to continually read the gatekeeping of "I'm tired of reading about Mookie, stop whining, this discussion annoys me, you aren't a real fan and/or would rather want the Angels than a winner and/or if Mookie sucked you wouldn't care and/or if the Sox win you'll come back" etc.

The fact that this topic continually comes up 4 years later is probably indicative of something in the fanbase, "rational" or not. With the benefit of hindsight, I can't imagine ownership's thoughts on the matter remains the same as it was in 2020 (or the years leading up).

 

[Salem's Lot]

The issue now in 2023 isn’t that they traded Mookie. Teams make mistakes. And honestly, if it was me, I would much rather live in LA for $200 million than Boston for $350 million, and I’m from here. Who knows what the conversations were really like behind the scenes, but the team screwed it up.

The real issue is that it’s been four years and they don’t have anyone to replace him on the MLB club. I have to believe ownership has recognized this, and hopefully this new GM is actually competent.

Mookie is a great player, but he’s not Tom Brady, they should be able to develop or acquire the next Mookie Betts (and hopefully they’re smart enough to pay him early this time).

 

[YTF]

Strictly speaking from a fan/interest perspective, my problem and lack of interest in the Red Sox these days stems from this:
There is no continuity in the core of this team. And that matters to me.

This statement strikes a chord in most of us I think. It's been expressed in a multitude of ways, but the simplicity in how it's been expressed here is really the common bond between us. Generally speaking cores don't have longevity, but there can and should be some continuity as players filter in and out. We really haven't had that since the elevation of Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, Benintendi, Devers, Vasquez, E-Rod, etc... That type of influx in such a short is a bit rare and that just one of them remains today is frustrating. More so when you consider that Boston hasn't kept the line moving when it comes to introducing more players that remain with the team for more than a season or three. I think/hope that they are in the process of putting a young core together as the minor league system gets stronger and if they can keep the system strong, they can once again become their own feeder system. It's going to take some time and I understand the frustration, but when talking about a core and continuity I'm not sure there's another path.

 

[grepal]

There should be a pinned thread here called "Relitigate Mookie"

This is getting attention because of the lack of action this "full throttle" off season where we were going to aggressively upgrade our pitching staff. Basically, two topics, the Sox are now the Pat Gillick "stand pat" Sox and the angst that may last a lifetime over trading Betts. Second worst deal in Sox history, at least Bloom did not give him to the Yankees. I mean what else do we have to discuss on this board these days. I also like the thread "deals I would make".

 

[BigSoxFan]

The issue now in 2023 isn’t that they traded Mookie. Teams make mistakes. And honestly, if it was me, I would much rather live in LA for $200 million than Boston for $350 million, and I’m from here. Who knows what the conversations were really like behind the scenes, but the team screwed it up.

The real issue is that it’s been four years and they don’t have anyone to replace him on the MLB club. I have to believe ownership has recognized this, and hopefully this new GM is actually competent.

Mookie is a great player, but he’s not Tom Brady, they should be able to develop or acquire the next Mookie Betts (and hopefully they’re smart enough to pay him early this time).

The odds of them finding/developing another Mookie caliber talent is extremely low. We’re talking about an MVP and someone who’d have multiple MVPs if it weren’t for Acuna’s insane season. Guys like him are unicorns. The Yankees paid their unicorn. We let ours go. And, as of right now, we’re not in any materially better shape for having done so, which is the frustrating part for me.

Someone in the Mayer, Teel, Anthony group need not be just good. We need a multi-year all-star to recapture what was lost. And those guys are incredibly hard to find. And what made Mookie so great was that he was an impact guy from Day 1.

 

[Salem's Lot]

The odds of them finding/developing another Mookie caliber talent is extremely low. We’re talking about an MVP and someone who’d have multiple MVPs if it weren’t for Acuna’s insane season. Guys like him are unicorns. The Yankees paid their unicorn. We let ours go. And, as of right now, we’re not in any materially better shape for having done so, which is the frustrating part for me.

Someone in the Mayer, Teel, Anthony group need not be just good. We need a multi-year all-star to recapture what was lost. And those guys are incredibly hard to find. And what made Mookie so great was that he was an impact guy from Day 1.

I probably am asking too much. I guess I was spoiled by Pedro replacing Clemens and Manny replacing Mo Vaughn. The Red Sox have usually been able to replace one superstar for another in my lifetime. I guess times are changing.

 

[sodenj5]

The odds of them finding/developing another Mookie caliber talent is extremely low. We’re talking about an MVP and someone who’d have multiple MVPs if it weren’t for Acuna’s insane season. Guys like him are unicorns. The Yankees paid their unicorn. We let ours go. And, as of right now, we’re not in any materially better shape for having done so, which is the frustrating part for me.

Someone in the Mayer, Teel, Anthony group need not be just good. We need a multi-year all-star to recapture what was lost. And those guys are incredibly hard to find. And what made Mookie so great was that he was an impact guy from Day 1.

We’re going to soon start seeing the fruits of the Bloom years blossom (ba-dum tssss).

We still need pitching and pitching depth, but the next wave of home grown talent is 1-2 years away. I think it would be foolish to start selling those guys off to build a team for this year when they’re on the doorstep of realizing the vision they had for the franchise when they hired Chaim.

 

[Van Everyman]

I wrote this in one of the Yamamoto threads but I think it’s worth repeating:

Based on everything he said a decade ago during the Lester negotiations, I do actually suspect Henry was trying to ride out the wave on the goodwill of 4 World Series titles over 24 years when he let Mookie go.

Henry is not historically a “cheap” owner. The Sox during his tenure have been big spenders. But at the same time,, this is a guy who has given out only a handful of 8+-year deals in a market that can be difficult to play in – almost all of them went terribly and had to be creatively cleared off the books.

To that end, I suspect Henry underestimated the fallout from trading Mookie and so after holding the line in bidding for free agents and Bogaerts, he went outside of his comfort with Devers to placate people. Perhaps he’s beginning to accept reality now but regardless, I don’t blame him for maybe hoping this trend would pass.

 

[RS2004foreever]

Why I find the Mookie stuff uninteresting at this point:
We don't know if he wanted to stay in Boston - there is evidence that he did not. What you think of the trade is entirely dependent on whether he wanted to stay.

Baseball execs HAVE changed their strategy post Mookie departure I would argue. The Padres locked Tatis to a long term deal, the Rays did the same with Franco and the Braves have done this with multiple players. The point of these deals is to prevent a player from hitting Free Agency in the prime of their careers. There is a lot of risk in this, but I suspect a lot of organizations would have pushed to sign Mookie to a long term deal in the winter of 2016. If that had been done you could have enticed Mookie to stay in Boston longer whatever his preference was.

So the goal post Mookie is to generate home grown talent and sign them early (eg Casas). Which is why I think the cost of high-end prospects in relative terms have gone up - and why Mayer is REALLY valuable.

 

[Rovin Romine]

FWIW, my guess is there are a lot of people like me who used to post on the main board constantly but have been far more absent since ~2020. It's not all Mookie, but Mookie sort of epitomizes the team's turn IMO.

Someone pointed out MLB.tv -- I actually would guess that I watch 30% Red Sox versus 95% a few years ago. Some of that may be the team losing, but honestly, I'm not a huge Devers guy so *shrugs* not sure there is someone on this team I'm excited to watch, even if they were winning.

I acknowledge that some posters find it tiresome that it gets brought up again and again, but I'd argue it's equally tiresome to continually read the gatekeeping of "I'm tired of reading about Mookie, stop whining, this discussion annoys me, you aren't a real fan and/or would rather want the Angels than a winner and/or if Mookie sucked you wouldn't care and/or if the Sox win you'll come back" etc.

The fact that this topic continually comes up 4 years later is probably indicative of something in the fanbase, "rational" or not. With the benefit of hindsight, I can't imagine ownership's thoughts on the matter remains the same as it was in 2020 (or the years leading up).

What you're describing can also generally be explained by the greying of the fanbase. If you'll skim this thread you'll find a lot of "old man" positions, including pining for the days of yore, pining for days of yore that never happened (backward looking possibility) and current disengagement/ignorance of the team (being unable or unwilling to consider future-possibility). It's like constantly listening to that guy who kept belly-aching about Clemens and Vaughn leaving in free-agency or us not signing Bernie Williams to a mega-deal during the string of second-place Jimy Williams finishes. They're not illegitimate points at all. . .but you remember that guy.

As to what's going on now? Well, I'm happy to report that Triston Casas is quirky personality who is a great hitter and was in the mix for ROY. His at-bats are incredibly professional and disciplined from a technical point of view, but he's a passionate player and barks-out of his own calls on pitches. After a cold start in his first full ML season, he caught fire - his second half OPS was 1.034. He'll be 24 next year, and is under control until 2029. He is an incredibly exciting player, just coming into his own.

How good is he? Why might you want to watch his at-bats? For what it's worth, by OPS+ and age, he's on a better trajectory than Vaughn, Valentin, Xander, and has a slight edge on Pedroia, Devers and Nomar, and is pretty much neck and neck with the Great Mookie Betts.

I can't argue you into liking something, and I'm not saying Casas is as well-rounded as some of those players. But I am going to gently suggest that if you're not sure if there's someone on the team you'd be excited to watch. . .because you don't actually watch the team. . .because you have hard feelings the team is not a different, imagined team because of Pre-Covid decisions. . . Mmm. . . Maybe you should take another look? You might just enjoy it - and I hope you do.

 

[tims4wins]

What you're describing can also generally be explained by the greying of the fanbase. If you'll skim this thread you'll find a lot of "old man" positions, including pining for the days of yore, pining for days of yore that never happened (backward looking possibility) and current disengagement/ignorance of the team (being unable or unwilling to consider future-possibility). It's like constantly listening to that guy who kept belly-aching about Clemens and Vaughn leaving in free-agency or us not signing Bernie Williams to a mega-deal during the string of second-place Jimy Williams finishes. They're not illegitimate points at all. . .but you remember that guy.

As to what's going on now? Well, I'm happy to report that Triston Casas is quirky personality who is a great hitter and was in the mix for ROY. His at-bats are incredibly professional and disciplined from a technical point of view, but he's a passionate player and barks-out of his own calls on pitches. After a cold start in his first full ML season, he caught fire - his second half OPS was 1.034. He'll be 24 next year, and is under control until 2029. He is an incredibly exciting player, just coming into his own.

How good is he? Why might you want to watch his at-bats? For what it's worth, by OPS+ and age, he's on a better trajectory than Vaughn, Valentin, Xander, and has a slight edge on Pedroia, Devers and Nomar, and is pretty much neck and neck with the Great Mookie Betts.

I can't argue you into liking something, and I'm not saying Casas is as well-rounded as some of those players. But I am going to gently suggest that if you're not sure if there's someone on the team you'd be excited to watch. . .because you don't actually watch the team. . .because you have hard feelings the team is not a different, imagined team because of Pre-Covid decisions. . . Mmm. . . Maybe you should take another look? You might just enjoy it - and I hope you do.

Sorry but I think you’re in the minority on this. There is near zero roster continuity due to the plethora of short term deals.

 

[grepal]

And there are direct contradictions in the reporting.

Quoted in stories by Andy McCullough in The Athletic, and Alden Gonzalez for ESPN, July 2020:



Mookie’s 12-year, $365M contract with the Dodgers includes $115 million in deferred money. It was valued at $306 million by the MLB players’ union.

So, he rejected our offers, boo hoo, get the final offer, beat it and keep our best player since Ted Williams. The hated Yankees did not let Judge walk for more money. They stepped up. Our owner waived the flag of indifference and that is as polite a term I can use for it.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I probably am asking too much. I guess I was spoiled by Pedro replacing Clemens and Manny replacing Mo Vaughn. The Red Sox have usually been able to replace one superstar for another in my lifetime. I guess times are changing.

We tend to skip the "meh" years in memory. The Steve Avery year of 1997 between Clemens and Pedro. The 99 and 00 years between Vaughn and Manny. The club has always had great players, even other superstars in those years, but these things ebb and flow.

 

[BigSoxFan]

We’re going to soon start seeing the fruits of the Bloom years blossom (ba-dum tssss).

We still need pitching and pitching depth, but the next wave of home grown talent is 1-2 years away. I think it would be foolish to start selling those guys off to build a team for this year when they’re on the doorstep of realizing the vision they had for the franchise when they hired Chaim.

Yeah, I’m not jumping off the Tobin here because I think there is a definite path with these top prospects. And if Bleis gets back on track this year, even better. All hope isn’t lost but we definitely hit a roadblock that needs to be navigated.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Sorry but I think you’re in the minority on this. There is near zero roster continuity due to the plethora of short term deals.

I'm not arguing about roster continuity.

That said, how much "roster continuity" was there between the 04, 07, 13 and 18 clubs?

I'm genuinely asking. I'd be curious to know how much turnover there actually is.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not arguing about roster continuity.

That said, how much "roster continuity" was there between the 04, 07, 13 and 18 clubs?

I'm genuinely asking. I'd be curious to know how much turnover there actually is.

04-07 had Manny Papi Schilling (edit: and Tek. Youk had also debuted in 2004. Dougie was on both teams. Wakefield. Timlin). 07-13 had Pedroia, Lester, Papi, Ellsbury (edit: Clay also debuted in 2007). 18 admittedly it was a totally new core.

 

[sezwho]

What you're describing can also generally be explained by the greying of the fanbase. If you'll skim this thread you'll find a lot of "old man" positions, including pining for the days of yore, pining for days of yore that never happened (backward looking possibility) and current disengagement/ignorance of the team (being unable or unwilling to consider future-possibility). It's like constantly listening to that guy who kept belly-aching about Clemens and Vaughn leaving in free-agency or us not signing Bernie Williams to a mega-deal during the string of second-place Jimy Williams finishes. They're not illegitimate points at all. . .but you remember that guy.

As to what's going on now? Well, I'm happy to report that Triston Casas is quirky personality who is a great hitter and was in the mix for ROY. His at-bats are incredibly professional and disciplined from a technical point of view, but he's a passionate player and barks-out of his own calls on pitches. After a cold start in his first full ML season, he caught fire - his second half OPS was 1.034. He'll be 24 next year, and is under control until 2029. He is an incredibly exciting player, just coming into his own.

How good is he? Why might you want to watch his at-bats? For what it's worth, by OPS+ and age, he's on a better trajectory than Vaughn, Valentin, Xander, and has a slight edge on Pedroia, Devers and Nomar, and is pretty much neck and neck with the Great Mookie Betts.

I can't argue you into liking something, and I'm not saying Casas is as well-rounded as some of those players. But I am going to gently suggest that if you're not sure if there's someone on the team you'd be excited to watch. . .because you don't actually watch the team. . .because you have hard feelings the team is not a different, imagined team because of Pre-Covid decisions. . . Mmm. . . Maybe you should take another look? You might just enjoy it - and I hope you do.

Firmly endorse eyeballs on Casas.

I have no idea whether it will be another completely pitching-and-defense-free season where the writing is in the walls early, but Casas is SO much fun to watch. Defense could/should be better while pitching still ‘incomplete’.

Confession: that the last four weeks+ of the season made me unhappy but I would still FF the recording to get to him (and Abreu). Oddly Devers not appointment viewing, even though I’m glad they kept him long term.

 

[soxhop411]

So, he rejected our offers, boo hoo, get the final offer, beat it and keep our best player since Ted Williams. The hated Yankees did not let Judge walk for more money. They stepped up. Our owner waived the flag of indifference and that is as polite a term I can use for it.

There is a big difference here... Judge actually WENT to FA and solicited offers from other teams.....

Mookie did not.. I feel if Covid did not happen he would have gone to FA and solicited offers from other teams

 

[Rovin Romine]

But I'll answer my own question (I was curious and looked it up).

By b-ref starters, then SP and key relief pitchers:

2004- Varitek, Millar, Bellhorn, Reese, Mueller, Ramirez, Damon, Kapler, Ortiz
2004- Schilling, Martinez, Wakefield, Lowe, Arroyo, Folke.

2007- Varitek, Youkilis, Pedroia, Lugo, Lowell, Ramirez, Crisp, Drew, Ortiz
2007- Matsuzaka, Beckett, Wakefield, Schilling, Tavarez, Lester, Papelbon, Okajima.

2013- Saltalamacchia, Napoli, Pedroia, Drew, Middlebrooks, Gomes, Ellsbury, Victorino, Ortiz.
2013- Lester, Lackey, Dempster, Doubront, Buchholz, Peavy, Uehara, Tazawa

2018- Leon, Moreland, Nunez, Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, JBJ, Betts, Martinez.
2018- Porcello, Price, Sale, Rodriguez, Eovaldi, Kimbrel.

So key player overlap is:

Ortiz- 04, 07, 13​

Varitek- 04, 07​

Wakefield- 04, 07​

Ramirez- 04, 07​

Pedroia- 07, 13​

Lester- 07, 13​

And of those how many were front-line impact players in more than one WS team? Ortiz (obviously), Ramirez. Then Pedrioa? Lester?

NOTE: I am just dealing with the main players per ML season on a quick run through. I'm sure there were some guys who had more limited roles at both ends of their careers.

 

[chawson]

Sorry but I think you’re in the minority on this. There is near zero roster continuity due to the plethora of short term deals.

I think RR probably is in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

To me, a lot of the griping sounds like it comes from people who don’t follow the sport. They follow the Sox, and they follow the increasingly soap opera-themed storyline around them, but they don’t really follow what’s going on across baseball. Not saying that’s you necessarily, but it’s hard to square a complaint that “there’s zero roster continuity” with contemporary teams around the league. It’s a nostalgic, backward-looking position pining for the way the game used to be.

 

[czar]

I'd argue that roster continuity doesn't have to mean championship teams. We have been very lucky to have those 4 teams, but obviously you can be a hardcore fan of a team without championships.

Anecdotally, the team has felt far more of a "mercenary" squad since 2020 than it did pretty much since the start of the Epstein era. Other than Devers, there is no proven homegrown guy we've lived with for 10 years (including their ascension through the minors) on the team.

I'm not saying that's a right or wrong way to build a team -- in 2004, I would have said "I don't care which 25 are here, I want a ring." Now that I've experienced 4 rings, I want a good team, but a good team that I've developed a connection with (and now that I have kids, that my kids have a connection with).

 

[czar]

I think RR probably is in the minority here, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

To me, a lot of the griping sound like they come from people who don’t follow the sport. They follow the Sox, and they follow the increasingly soap opera-themed storyline around them, but they don’t really follow what’s going on across baseball. Not saying that’s you necessarily, but it’s hard to square a complaint that “there’s zero roster continuity” with contemporary teams around the league. It’s a nostalgic, backward-looking position pining for the way the game used to be.

To me, this is frustrating and pseudo-gatekeeping. You are essentially saying "people who lament the Mookie trade don't really follow the sport."

Maybe a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread don't align with the current "standards" around the league for building a team. That doesn't make peoples' opinions less valid or them less of a fan.

 

[czar]

I can't argue you into liking something, and I'm not saying Casas is as well-rounded as some of those players. But I am going to gently suggest that if you're not sure if there's someone on the team you'd be excited to watch. . .because you don't actually watch the team. . .because you have hard feelings the team is not a different, imagined team because of Pre-Covid decisions. . . Mmm. . . Maybe you should take another look? You might just enjoy it - and I hope you do.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I watch the team more than 95% of people who'd call them Red Sox fans. Probably much closer to median on this board, but we're a self-selective group.

 

[radsoxfan]

In terms of WAR, the Sox got Mookie’s two best seasons.

In 4 years, the Dodgers got Mookie’s two worst non-rookie year seasons, and they got a vintage Mookie season last year.

Mookie will be 31 and is under contract for 9 more years. I would be thrilled if he were still in Boston, but it’s far more likely he’s going to be a 4 win player than an 8 win player moving forward.

The trade was always going to hurt in the short term.

You are including Mookie's 3 WAR, 55 game COVID shortened 2020 season as one of his "worst" seasons. His wOBA that year was .390, the 2nd highest of his career at the time, only behind his insane 2018 season. He was on pace for an 8 WAR year.

His worst Dodger season was a 4 WAR season (in only 122 games) in 2021. He followed that up with 7 and 8 WAR seasons in 2022 and 2023.

He has been great for the Dodgers any way anyone can rationally look at it.

The end of any of these long contracts will look bad but he is only at a 25M AAV and his excess value for the Dodgers is already ridiculous so far.

Edit: Fangraphs has his 4 years as "worth" 172.4M with a total AAV hit of 84M over those 4 years (counting the shortened 2020 as 9M instead of 25M). He probably needs another 16 WAR or so to be worth the full contract from this point moving forward. He is projected for 6 WAR in 2024.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Anecdotally, the team has felt far more of a "mercenary" squad since 2020 than it did pretty much since the start of the Epstein era. Other than Devers, there is no proven homegrown guy we've lived with for 10 years (including their ascension through the minors) on the team.

10 years is 2013 - the Trey Ball draft. Cherrington created a talent gap that played out with few reinforcements on the ML level from 2018-2020 or so. You can skim forward and backwards and take a look: https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?team_ID=BOS&year_ID=2013&draft_type=junreg&query_type=franch_year It's a moderate wasteland.

Dalbec was drafted in 2016. Houck/Crawford in 2017. Casas and Duran (another exciting player) in 2018. And all the Yorke/Jordan/Mayer prospects were after (and should still be developing in the minors.)

But this is also just shifting the argument, isn't it?

You've had 5 years to follow Casas in the minors and create some kind of emotional bond with his progress. Which has always been hyped and discussed. Same thing is going on with Mayer, etc. That's not enough?

 

[BigSoxFan]

To me, this is frustrating and pseudo-gatekeeping. You are essentially saying "people who lament the Mookie trade don't really follow the sport."

Maybe a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread don't align with the current "standards" around the league for building a team. That doesn't make peoples' opinions less valid or them less of a fan.

Welcome to this debate. Similar comments are made all the time and they’re not helpful to the conversation.

 

[czar]

10 years is 2013 - the Trey Ball draft. Cherrington created a talent gap that played out with few reinforcements on the ML level from 2018-2020 or so. You can skim forward and backwards and take a look: https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?team_ID=BOS&year_ID=2013&draft_type=junreg&query_type=franch_year It's a moderate wasteland.

Dalbec was drafted in 2016. Houck/Crawford in 2017. Casas and Duran (another exciting player) in 2018. And all the Yorke/Jordan/Mayer prospects were after (and should still be developing in the minors.)

But this is also just shifting the argument, isn't it?

You've had 5 years to follow Casas in the minors and create some kind of emotional bond with his progress. Which has always been hyped and discussed. Same thing is going on with Mayer, etc. That's not enough?

I'm cautiously optimistic on Mayer + Anthony + Teel (less so on Yorke + Jordan, etc. which aligns with the SP folks).

I like Casas, I'm not 100% sure why I haven't "bonded" with him as much as I have, some of it may be the uneven dev at the MLB level last year but hopefully he mashes this year. Hopefully by the end of this year, I'll see as many Casas jersey tees in Boston as there should be.

I would argue that Devers, Casas, Dalbec, Houck, Crawford, and Duran* are in a different league than Pedroia, Bogaerts, Buchholz, Ortiz in 2016 or Youk, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lester, Papelbon in 2009 (randomly picked two non-champ years on B-R). I could tally fWAR or something but looking at the 2023 numbers on FG, I'd bet a substantial amount of money most previous years win out.

Maybe the solution to all of this is turning around the farm system and behaving like Atlanta (get top-flight talent to the majors and extend ASAP), but Boston called for Bloom's head after doing just that (well, the rebuilding the farm system part, hopefully Casas isn't just here until 2029 and then to LAD).

EDIT: Realized I posed a "not fair" comparison by excluding Devers and Casas.

Welcome to this debate. Similar comments are made all the time and they’re not helpful to the conversation.

My apologies.

 

[Rovin Romine]

NM.

 

[sezwho]

Welcome to this debate. Similar comments are made all the time and they’re not helpful to the conversation.

it’s funny that there’s is a curiously persistent ‘if you only understood winning baseball’ on both sides : )

I do think the trend to apathy is accelerated by fact this was the worst Red Sox team on defense (by math) and the basepaths (by eyeball at least) I can recall. Like actively ugly stuff on the regular that made me grimace and ultimately just turn away (until Casas up).

 

[chawson]

To me, this is frustrating and pseudo-gatekeeping. You are essentially saying "people who lament the Mookie trade don't really follow the sport."

Maybe a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread don't align with the current "standards" around the league for building a team. That doesn't make peoples' opinions less valid or them less of a fan.

No, I’m suggesting that people who lament that the Red Sox team has no continuity among its players don’t follow the sport. That’s true relative to previous eras but not relative to other MLB teams today (save for maybe the Braves).

I also lament the Mookie trade.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Yeah, baseball fans posting on this forum "don't follow the sport" because of their...opinions.

We should make "we don't follow the sport" our official motto. Damn that's good. Its almost Vanian in nature. We weren't qualified to watch at his level either.

 

[chawson]

Yeah, baseball fans posting on this forum "don't follow the sport" because of their...opinions.

We should make "we don't follow the sport" our official motto. Damn that's good. Its almost Vanian in nature. We weren't qualified to watch at his level either.

Everyone’s got their own level of fanship and that’s great — mine’s certainly changed since I had a kid. But I think if people followed the sport more closely, they’d probably be less apt to reduce so many discussions about the Red Sox to some kind of betrayal or personal grievance.

 

[BigSoxFan]

My apologies.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. I was defending you and lamenting comments like “don’t follow the sport” as the unhelpful part. Comments like those commonly make their way into some of these threads and that was the part I was rejecting.

 

[Cassvt2023]

The blindspot most people have on this topic, in my view, is that Mookie wanted to be in southern California — or at least a different kind of city — for non-baseball reasons, and it was and remains in neither party’s interests to say so.

This is very valid and what so many on this thread have been missing. As much as I love Mookie, he made it very clear that he was going to get to free agency and in fact wanted to set the market. Very different than guys like Lester ("they'll have to rip this jersey off my back") and Xander, (took a hometown discount once, than was insulted with a lowball offer before opting out). If it wasn't for the timing sand uncertainty of the Covid season, Mookie likely would've gotten Trout money. I feel like the Sox did him a solid when they traded him to LA, where he certainly has interests outside of baseball. (fashion, podcast, etc...) My biggest complaint is what Chaim got in return. Not one arm after the Brusdar deal fell thru due to his medicals. The quick pivot to only get AV, Wong and J Downs was the travesty in all of this.

 

[Jungleland]

I can't think of another sports related topic in my lifetime that I have a harder time being rational about. I mean, I still feel legitimately betrayed as a fan by this trade nearly 4 years later. Betrayed! I'm an adult, that's ridiculous. But I can't help it. In a (mostly) uncapped sport with a consistently top 5 payroll team, it's simply inexcusable to not do everything you can to keep a homegrown MVP caliber player. I'm excited for the next wave of system talent to arrive and I expect to see a truly competitive Sox team sometime within the next few seasons. But expecting to see another Mookie Betts is incredibly optimistic. You can win without a player of that level, so it's not the end of the world. But from an "I've seen four rings, at this point it matters to me a lot to be interested in and love the team itself" angle, it's completely possible and quite likely the Mookie-sized hole is there for a long time. (I could go on a tangent about how much I hate Alex Verdugo and how from day 1 him being the centerpiece of the return is possibly the biggest middle finger from management to fanbase I've ever witnessed in sports, but I will leave it at that.)

From a team building/on-field perspective, I can't blame people for not letting it go 4 years later. Even if you view shedding Price's salary as a huge part of the return, they didn't do enough with it. Few impact FAs, 3 terrible seasons and an arguably fluke good one in the time they would have been biding until free from that burden. The guy you got rid of recruiting the biggest FAs in the game to the team while you can't even make it to the negotiating table. I don't think the Red Sox appear to be a serious organization right now and I do think it's hurting them in free agency.

Short of Fitts becoming a stud, they honestly would have been better off just risking that Mookie would have walked.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Everyone’s got their own level of fanship and that’s great — mine’s certainly changed since I had a kid. But I think if people followed the sport more closely, they’d probably be less apt to reduce so many discussions about the Red Sox to some kind of betrayal or personal grievance.

I have been on this board for two decades - blame @Sprtsguy33 and Page Two for that - and people getting in their feelings over their teams is kind of our thing. However its funny to say that people here don't follow the sport when there are literally hundreds of folks on this board who know all the top prospects in EVERY MLB club's development pipeline - and some of those people don't even bother following the majors because they are so into their prospects.

What has changed, imo, is that people are now realizing ownership is in maintain-the-asset mode. That's a hard truth to accept.

 

[Kliq]

No, I’m suggesting that people who lament that the Red Sox team has no continuity among its players don’t follow the sport. That’s true relative to previous eras but not relative to other MLB teams today (save for maybe the Braves).

I also lament the Mookie trade.

I guess it is a matter of you consider continuity, but that isn't really true imo. The Red Sox have Devers and I guess Sale in terms of established stars signed to long deals. Compare that to the top teams in baseball, you have:

Texas: No real home grown talent locked up, but at least have Semien and Seager locked up, their two best players on their first title-winning team.

Arizona: Carroll signed through 2030, Ketel Marte signed through 2027, will be interesting to see what happens with Zac Gallen.

Houston: Altuve is in Year 12, signed through next season, a homegrown star. Bregman, another home grown star, is also signed through next season, in Year 8. Kyle Tucker will be FA eligible in 2026. Valdez also signed through 2026.

Philadelphia: Nola just resigned, a home grown star. Wheeler is signed through 2025. Realmuto signed through 2026. Trea Turner signed through 2034, Harper signed through 2032.

Atlanta: As you mentioned, almost all their young guys, including their home grown guys, are locked up for a long time. Acuna through 2027, Riley through 2033, Harris through 2031, Albies through 2026, Strider through 2029. They did let Freeman go (although put in a very competitive offer to keep him) but at least replaced him with a similar player in Olson who is signed through 2030.

Dodgers: Interesting that they let Seager walk, but have more than made up for it by signing Mookie, Freeman, Ohtani and Yamamoto to long deals. Kershaw has also spent his entire career there so far.

Other teams like Baltimore are too young to really be considered for this kind of exercise, it will be interesting to see if players like Rutschman and Henderson are signed to longer deals soon. Tampa is largely the same way, although that is at least by design (they do have the Wander deal).

I think the best teams in general do tend to have a core of marketable players at the moment that have either been then for a long time, or are set to be there for a long time. Maybe Casas makes a leap this year and Story starts hitting so we have Devers/Casas/Story--but to suggest other teams don't have marketable cores and that fans that think that way "don't follow baseball" is extremely arrogant and frankly, not true.

 

[chawson]

I have been on this board for two decades - blame @Sprtsguy33 and Page Two for that - and people getting in their feelings over their teams is kind of our thing. However its funny to say that people here don't follow the sport when there are literally hundreds of folks on this board who know all the top prospects in EVERY MLB club's development pipeline - and some of those people don't even bother following the majors because they are so into their prospects.

What has changed, imo, is that people are now realizing ownership is in maintain-the-asset mode. That's a hard truth to accept.

I've been on this board two decades too, man. I'm not trying to police anyone's feelings, but we all know that feelings can sometimes cloud our vision. I'm also frustrated to be accused of "carrying water for FSG" or whatever because I don't share a histrionic sense of grievance about the Mookie trade that allows me to blot out any relevant information that would push me off that grievance.

In this conversation, all I was doing was making a point that a gripe about "continuity of players" on the Red Sox is specific to the era, not the team. If you need to get in your feelings and read that like I'm insulting everyone who experiences emotion watching baseball, then good for you.

Regardless, I disagree that ownership is in maintain-the-asset mode. I think we were in a rebuild complicated by the pandemic. I also think we're in an era where free agents — particularly pitchers — are less inclined to choose Boston because of non-baseball reasons like the weather, the proximity to their homes (which is partly pandemic-related), the perception of its diversity (Boston is racially diverse; its reputation less so), and maybe the tax rate (the majority of baseball players coming from parts of the country that are ideologically unfriendly to higher taxes for public services, after all).

I think there is absolutely zero reason for FSG or anyone involved with the Red Sox to speak to any of the reasons they've recently heard that players don't want to play in Boston — or stay here, as is the case with Mookie — so they've attempted to create other amenities. We now have a front office and pitching staff headed by a former major leaguer, and a pitching development system with extremely high regard, suggesting that ours is a team where a pitcher can improve. We've got a highly regarded bilingual players' manager in Alex Cora. And there was a conscious effort in the Bloom era to bring in reportedly good clubhouse guys, like Kiké, Turner, Kluber, and others.

I think FSG fucked up the Mookie trade, but it's complicated and there's a gray area. (It's still amazing to me that so few people realize that Dombrowski laid the groundwork for the trade, not Bloom). I also think, as I posted above, that Mookie wanted to be in L.A. for non-baseball reasons and there was no upside for either party to say so. It's also four years after the fact, and it's exhausting to see every baseball discussion today get caught into the whirlpool of Mookie relitigation.

 

[RG33]

Trading Nomar made way more sense. Not only was Mookie a terrible play to save money, the Red Sox ended up losing money on the deal. The team spiralled as well.

The Mookie deal gets rehashed because it was one of the dumbest ownership moves in sports history. They didn't even save money in the end since as we saw high end contracts over took Mookie's contract almost immediately. It is an easy turning point for the franchise as well as for Fenway Sports Group.

The quality of discussion left after Mookie left because it was a blantantly bad baseball move. Ownership wanted to be the smartest guys in the room but not through finding new ways to win. They wanted to see how they could save money towards an ROI. Most of the moves made by Bloom were objectively bad and to save money. The Red Sox weren't looking to invest and build a winner. They just wanted to market their way through and see if they could adopt a Tampa approach for a greater ROI.

The whole thing looks like a disaster if you look at the NESN ratings and the attendance. That said a lot of baseball has stalled out at revenue growth besides the television networks. Maybe NESN doesn't make that much more money if its ratings are double what they are now like they were in 2019. Possible FSG found out the Boston market had been fully saturated and it simply doesn't make sense to continue following everyone else's salary growth. Their moves haven't hurt revenue portionally as hard as it hurt its record. Hell there are idiots out taking bullets for Sam Kennedy and his goon squad in this thread.

Maybe Boston is just a sucker market that will keep feeding LeBron and his buddies cash like Pittsbugh and Liverpool. It is a nice piece of revenge for LeBron who hates Boston.

Yeah, I got to push back on this take.

The Mookie trade was an awful decision, it was an awful trade that was designed to save money and reset the luxury tax and all that, but I don’t think we can definitively say that it was designed to “save money towards ROI” as some sort of long-term change in direction of the franchise/business for FSG.

It can also be that they think they are just smarter than everyone else, that they had looked at long-term FA deals and seen that most were abominations, and that they were going to build from within, find value in FA and trades, and continue to win. They have obviously (thus far) been completely wrong and will own the terrible Mookie decision for the remainder of their days, but I just find the “they’re all about the money now!” to be incongruous with how this ownership group has managed the team for the last 20 years (not taking into account the successes they have had).

 

[gammoseditor]

It’s also disingenuous to look at the Mookie trade without acknowledging the awful situation the team was in after the 2019 season. They were tied for the 14th best record the prior year. They had the highest payroll in all of baseball. And they were consistently ranked as having the worst farm system in baseball. They didn’t have prospects to trade to improve. Just keeping the team together as is would’ve meant continuing to be the most expensive team in baseball. There were questions of Mookie wanted to stay. There were two pitchers signed to ace contracts that were total disasters. In 2020 we were the 4th worst team in baseball. Keeping Mookie we could have pushed the up to maybe the 11th worst team then risk losing him in free agency? If I fault the team for anything it’s not totally blowing the team up and starting over.