If that happens it will have a serious impact on how I follow the team, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
JD and the opt out
- Thread starter Yelling At Clouds
- Start date
My crazy Uncle 'quit' the Red Sox when Clemens left in the 90's. He became a Yankees fan. Then the Red Sox won 4 World Series. To his credit he's stayed with them. To his discredit, he did it at all.
I will be relatively furious if the Red Sox trade Mookie Betts away but it won't impact my commitment to the laundry - just a desire to destroy the leadership currently in place.
I will be relatively furious if the Red Sox trade Mookie Betts away but it won't impact my commitment to the laundry - just a desire to destroy the leadership currently in place.
It would be an inexplicable and gutless punt. It's really not in my DNA to turn my back on the Red Sox, but letting Mookie AND JD go within a calendar year feels like what I imagine letting Manny and Ortiz go circa 05 would have felt like. I'm rooting for JD to opt out at this point so a Mookie extension becomes all the more feasible.
Yeah I'm not switching my allegiance but I also won't be spending any money at Fenway Park for awhile.
Probably the same. I'll still watch all I can, but they'll have to earn my dollars back.
Doesn't it all depend on what the players want? You can't rationally want them back at any price.
JD - if he opts out (I don't think he will), do you really expect the RS to pay significantly more knowing that as a 3rd time offender there is a 50% tax? My feeling is if he opts out the RS have a chance to reset and it probably behooves them to do so. If he doesn't opt out, it seems that a reset is very unlikely without an unpleasant tear down . Thus I would expect the RS, just be in GFIN mode without a JD opt out.
Mookie - It's all about what he wants. And where the team draws the line.
The number is somewhere north on 10/300 million. But if the RS presumably go to that or maybe 10/320, then are you really unhappy if he goes somewhere else for 10/350 - 400. My point is the team does have to fit all the players in a budget. They have had the highest payroll for the last 2 years. How long did you really think that was going to last?
For me, if JD opts out, then I am okay with resetting with the expectation that they will try hard to resign Mookie the next year having just saved themselves 30% in luxury tax (figuring they will be over once they resign Mookie). If Mookie resigns, great. If some other team blows the RS offer out of the water with something like 10/400, then I have no issue with the RS. Those contracts can handicap a team and you don't always have a Punto around to save yourself.
What I think would rightfully not go over well with the fan base is if the RS don't give Mookie a legitimate offer of a top 5 player contract.
I don't think JD will opt out. I think he's facing a limited market as a perceived DH. With Encarnacion as a fall back, the few interested teams aren't going to want to go $20M+ for 4 years. I would guess Boras knows this.
But I survived losing Fisk and Lynn for nothing. Even if we lose JD and Betts, I'll root for the laundry. If I could quit i would have done so long ago.
But I survived losing Fisk and Lynn for nothing. Even if we lose JD and Betts, I'll root for the laundry. If I could quit i would have done so long ago.
I think the real issue is we don't know whether or not we can resign Mookie in a year. If we knew that he would not, we could trade him now and keep JD. But JD leaving may increase our chances of signing Mookie. Just because Mookie becomes a FA doesn't necessarily mean he will leave. It certainly increases the chances that he will leave, but it doesn't make it a certainty - I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that it does.
Or Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon in '04...
Oh, wait...
For the record:
I didn't mind / wasn't all that surprised about Damon.
I was heartbroken over Pedro.
In this example, J.D. is clearly better than J.D. (
)Mookie, however, is no Pedro (even though his future likely will be better than Pedro from 2005 on - but not with regards to my rooting interests anyway)
Last edited:
Pedro was done. He had trouble cutting it in the Al east. I was happy he cashed in, and pitched great in game three. He wasn't physically great anymore but he willed himself to pitch the Sox to one game from the WS. He had little left and owed us nothing. That the hated Mets paid him 50 million for one good season was gravy.Or Pedro Martinez and Johnny Damon in '04...
Oh, wait...
For the record:
I didn't mind / wasn't all that surprised about Damon.
I was heartbroken over Pedro.
In this example, J.D. is clearly better than J.D. (
Mookie, however, is no Pedro (even though his future likely will be better than Pedro from 2005 on - but not with regards to my rooting interests anyway)
This is where I am. From what we can tell, the team has attempted multiple times to extend Mookie and he and his representatives have refused these and are determined to go to free agency. That's fine, it is his right and I'm not going to begrudge him that. It is incumbent on Red Sox management, however, to make every attempt to resign him short of a truly ridiculous offer. The message matters here - Mookie is *not* the player to use as the poster child for a sudden desire for fiscal responsibility on Yawkey Way. Give him every reason to stay - if their offer is legitimate and he still decides to go elsewhere, I think most fans will be able to live with that.
I think one thing we need to remember is that regardless of what happens today, the Red Sox should be contenders next season. And as contenders, it is valuable to have Mookie on the team this year, even if he is gone next season. So, I get really tired of the phrase "lose him for nothing" because it is not true. By NOT trading him, you have one of the most talented players in the league on your team for a season when you have a chance to win it all. You don't get that many of those chances - so enjoy them when you have them.
Damon left after '05.
For my part, I'm hoping that JD opts out -- not because I won't miss him--I will--but because I suspect the entire Mookie strategy hinges on moving two of the big contracts (Sale, Eovaldi, Price, JD) and his takes care of itself if he opts out.
I mean JD is an incredible hitter. One of the best I've seen.
That being said the market has completed shifted on guys who are all hit. You could have JD opt out, sign Edwin Encarnacion for half a third of AAV and have a small lost of production.
That being said the market has completed shifted on guys who are all hit. You could have JD opt out, sign Edwin Encarnacion for half a third of AAV and have a small lost of production.
Well, that's why I said "probably". Additionally, as a fan, I do not have to be a rational actor.
The deadline for both is 5 pm. If JD opts out he will immediately be extended the QO. If you think he would be able to get out of it through a loophole I don’t know what to say.
Interesting wrinkle. You're right, this seems to prevent JDM from receiving a QO unless I'm missing something.
Edit: Never mind, the below tweet clears it up.
[B]Alex Speier[/B] @[B]alexspeier[/B]
Alex Speier Retweeted Alex Speier
A further clarification: If Martinez has not decided on the opt-out by 5pm, the Red Sox can extend a conditional qualifying offer that would take effect should he opt out after 5pm.
Alex Speier Retweeted Alex Speier
A further clarification: If Martinez has not decided on the opt-out by 5pm, the Red Sox can extend a conditional qualifying offer that would take effect should he opt out after 5pm.
MLB Network Radio and other outlets say 5 pm and Rob Bradford says midnight. Either way, we'll know sometime today.
It would be interesting if he receives the QO and takes it... it'd likely be a one year raise on his AAV but then he'd lose out on the opt-out option in his 2nd option year, yeah?
Would the same scenario play out again in 2020 if not?
Would the same scenario play out again in 2020 if not?
Some of my favorite players over the years that have left the Sox or been traded: Lynn, Fisk, Clemens, Nomar, Pedro, Lester, Damon, Manny, etc. I mean, it sucks but it happens. I still am a Sox fan and always will be. Even if they lose Betts and JD, they'll still have Sale and Bogaerts and Devers and Benintendi - all players that are (for me anyway) super easy and fun to root for.
But man....it would suck bad to lose Betts. No two ways around it.
I wouldn’t lose sleep over this. His salary ($23m) is higher than the QO deal ($18m), and his current deal offers him much more long term security.
If he thinks they will saddle him with the QO, wouldn't that make it less likely that he would opt out? Is there a scenario where he could agree to opt out (if that's what both parties want), contingent on not getting the QO?
He would only get the QO if he opts-out. I can't imagine he opts-out of a $22M AAV for the next three years ($62.5M in real dollars) to take a one-year deal for just under $18M and no guarantees beyond that. I think the Red Sox would be doing back flips if he did that.
If he opts-in, then the Red Sox retain the QO option for next year. They can only offer it once and if he doesn't opt-out, he can't be offered it at all.
If they use the JD savings to resign Mookie, they will have a replacement level player at DH. I don't recall anyone wanting to let Ortiz walk so that the Sox could use the savings to go after a big free agent deal.
Why would the Red Sox have a replacement level player at DH if they lose JDM and sign Mookie? How much did Howie Kendrick make last year?
If the Sox-Rangers rumors have any kind of smoke to them, then it's possible Boston can move a big pitcher contract to try to keep Mookie AND JD.
I'd be on-board with it being Sale, Eovaldi, or even Price, probably in that order. Barring that, I'm in the Mookie over JD camp but I don't think JD opts out unless some team has told Boras they're willing to overpay to get a superstar bat in their lineup.
I'd be on-board with it being Sale, Eovaldi, or even Price, probably in that order. Barring that, I'm in the Mookie over JD camp but I don't think JD opts out unless some team has told Boras they're willing to overpay to get a superstar bat in their lineup.
It's the same problem to unload one the big pitcher contracts as, whoever it is, they will need to be replaced. In theory, the net savings after the Sox's subsidizing of the contract, will be equal to the cost of a comparable replacement pitcher.
Unless the trade nets a replacement pitcher on a lower salary. They could also, in theory (as unpalatable as it is), pay Andrew Cashner for another year and see if he can reproduce what he did with Baltiimore to start last season with a new pitching coach/philosophy.
I remain concerned that the now cost-conscious Red Sox would be willing to dump their #4 hitter and OPS leader. I'm certain some others agree. Then again, I don't view things through a cost per at bat lens as the front office has to.
I hope the team is OK with facing him in the Yankees lineup (which is where he really belongs), albeit that's not an argument to keep him.
I hope the team is OK with facing him in the Yankees lineup (which is where he really belongs), albeit that's not an argument to keep him.
Are the Yankees going to merge him and Stanton into one wildly overpaid, limited player?
A lower salary will result in higher return, higher risk. You get what you pay for.
Who's trading for one of the Red Sox high priced pitchers who's willing to trade a cheaper pitcher that will replace the high priced pitcher's production? The Rangers have been suggested as a possible trade partner, but if they have a pitcher who can adequately replace Sale or Price or Eovaldi at a fraction of the cost, why are they trading them away for the privilege of paying more (even subsidized) for an older pitcher coming off an injury-marred season?
I think we need to bear this in mind when discussing trading any of the pitchers. While the Red Sox are allegedly looking to shed salary, we've seen no indication that that salary dumping is going to come in the form of punting 2020. And all three pitchers are only viewed as liabilities because of health. If they're healthy, they're highly productive and therefore harder to replace with the likes of an Andrew Cashner.
I would think the delay here is indicative of some level of negotiation with JD and the Sox. That's purely speculative, but perhaps there's some attempt to reduce the AAV.
Also, should JD and/or Mookie be leaving this year, I think Alex Gordon makes a bit of sense.
Also, should JD and/or Mookie be leaving this year, I think Alex Gordon makes a bit of sense.
They don't need to trade Sale/Price/Eovaldi for another pitcher, the other pitcher can be acquired by other means.
Re: Betts
This, 100%. I will not accept a lowball, but I fully expect them to make him a fair market offer.
I appreciate the historic references, the departures of Lynn and Fisk were painful, shameful episodes by the real 20th century "curse" on this franchise, its dysfunctional management. But by the numbers they weren't as impactful as Mookie has been. Fisk's HOF career saw him rack up 68 bWAR in 24 seasons. I'm sure his impact as a franchise cornerstone would have been immense, so maybe you can equate the two in terms of what it meant/would mean to lose them. But even in that case he was 32 when he left and half his career bWAR happened in Boston. Lynn had two Betts-like seasons in Boston, 50 career bWAR, but never more than 4.7 for the Angels, whom he joined at age 29.
Betts has 42 career bWAR at age 26. For the Sox, only Williams was better in his first five years. Even Ruth started slower (but then of course went on to be the best player ever, probably) (but context... anyway). Yaz became Yaz starting at age 27. Clemens and Pedro, being pitchers, came up more slowly. So by the bWAR metric, for what it's worth, and looking strictly in a vacuum, losing Betts would arguably be the worst thing that has happened to the team since Ruth getting sold. Salary limitations and free agency are among the differences from the past century, and maybe they use the money to replace his contributions in a way the 1920 Red Sox couldn't (and the 1981 Sox were too stupid to pull off). But losing Betts would be a tragedy.
Betts has 42 career bWAR at age 26. For the Sox, only Williams was better in his first five years. Even Ruth started slower (but then of course went on to be the best player ever, probably) (but context... anyway). Yaz became Yaz starting at age 27. Clemens and Pedro, being pitchers, came up more slowly. So by the bWAR metric, for what it's worth, and looking strictly in a vacuum, losing Betts would arguably be the worst thing that has happened to the team since Ruth getting sold. Salary limitations and free agency are among the differences from the past century, and maybe they use the money to replace his contributions in a way the 1920 Red Sox couldn't (and the 1981 Sox were too stupid to pull off). But losing Betts would be a tragedy.