Should the Red Sox Look into Punto Pt. 2?

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The Red Sox have money. Mookie Betts deserves his big pay day. I'm not sure why it's "smart" to trade him.
It's "smart" to trade him -- or may turn out to be smart to trade him -- because unless they have inside information to the contrary, the organization has to assume that Mookie is likely to be here for only one more year and there is basically nothing they can do about it. Of course he deserves his big pay day, but there's no reason to assume that any action on JWH's part will provide a reasonable degree of confidence that said payday will come with us.

If this were not true, it would be an entirely different discussion and all the wounded outrage over the prospect of trading Mookie would make perfect sense. But it is, so it isn't, and it doesn't.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
The “FUCK THOSE GUYS FOR (considering) TRADING MY HERO” sentiment smacks of entitlement at best.
You're godamn right I'm entitled. Among the highest ticket prices in the league, sold out or close to it every game.
I wouldn't have the same attitude if we haven't watched this same song and dance before. If this was truly a cost saving measure they should have never signed such obviously bad deals in the recent past. I'm not talking about Sale. The Rusney, Sandoval, and Hanley deals were all bad the second they were signed, the first two still having repercussions on the team.

This isn't a vacuum. We aren't Tampa or Oakland or some other place that gets 10,000 fans a game for $19 tickets. I'll be fucking fuming if they trade him and/or are not competitive with an offer. We already did this with Lester.

Could you imagine another premier franchise trading a superstar in his prime simply because they can't afford him? I could legitimately never see a scenario this happened with the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, or various other franchises that print money like the Red Sox do. The FO deserves to eat a ton of shit here if they do this.

That said, I don't care if they trade basically anyone else. Want to trade Price? JBJ? Go for it. A Mookie trade might as well be the Red Sox Thornton trade.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
I wouldn't have the same attitude if we haven't watched this same song and dance before. If this was truly a cost saving measure they should have never signed such obviously bad deals in the recent past. I'm not talking about Sale. The Rusney, Sandoval, and Hanley deals were all bad the second they were signed, the first two still having repercussions on the team.
It's easy to say now in retrospect, but saying all those deals were bad the second they were signed is the ultimate in hindsight. Especially Hanely who was coming off of back to back monster seasons when they signed him.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
This isn't a vacuum. We aren't Tampa or Oakland or some other place that gets 10,000 fans a game for $19 tickets. I'll be fucking fuming if they trade him and/or are not competitive with an offer.
How will know whether the bolded is true or not?

We already did this with Lester.
Lester was a completely different situation.

Could you imagine another premier franchise trading a superstar in his prime simply because they can't afford him?
If they trade him, that won't be the reason.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,304
To be fair, Seels did hate the Panda deal from the get-go. I looked.
That's the one that I remember a lot of people not understanding, even at the time. Good, but not great player who didn't project to age great. I don't really remember anyone being upset with Hanley, other than it didn't really make much sense to sign him after already signing Panda, he was an mvp caliber player when they signed him.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
You're godamn right I'm entitled. Among the highest ticket prices in the league, sold out or close to it every game.
I wouldn't have the same attitude if we haven't watched this same song and dance before. If this was truly a cost saving measure they should have never signed such obviously bad deals in the recent past. I'm not talking about Sale. The Rusney, Sandoval, and Hanley deals were all bad the second they were signed, the first two still having repercussions on the team.

This isn't a vacuum. We aren't Tampa or Oakland or some other place that gets 10,000 fans a game for $19 tickets. I'll be fucking fuming if they trade him and/or are not competitive with an offer. We already did this with Lester.

Could you imagine another premier franchise trading a superstar in his prime simply because they can't afford him? I could legitimately never see a scenario this happened with the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, or various other franchises that print money like the Red Sox do. The FO deserves to eat a ton of shit here if they do this.

That said, I don't care if they trade basically anyone else. Want to trade Price? JBJ? Go for it. A Mookie trade might as well be the Red Sox Thornton trade.
Every franchise in any of the big four sports is owned by principals who can afford any player at any time, even absent the bookkeeping artistry that would have you believe that the owners will be hustling for spare change on street corners absent revenue sharing, hard salary caps, subsidizing new stadia, etc. You're welcome to watch if you want, but it's their money, their game.

Anyway. The current ownership has stumbled blindly and arrogantly ignored our SoSHian priorities into four rings in fifteen years. Bad years suck (aside from the black humor opportunities), and 2020 looks like it's going to bite the big one. But the Henry ownership group has proven itself to work on operating principles that are completely independent of those in Oakland and Tampa.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm of the belief that Henry et al don't want to pay Mookie the approximately 11/$400M that he's undoubtedly going to cost. I'm sure they'd also like to get below the tax threshold, but I wonder if they'd suddenly have this change of heart if Mookie still had, say, three years of control. They can't come out and say that they don't want to pay him his market value, so they're focusing on the payroll penalty. And if they aren't going to re-sign him, why not see what they can get for him in a trade.
I mean, I love Mookie and I have no knowledge of what Henry is actually thinking. But this is probably what I'd be thinking if I were in his shoes.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
What bothers me is the ownership seems content on an 85 win club while trying to maintain the same revenue streams and fan interest as a W.S. team. Fans in Tampa will support an overachieving club but I don’t think that’s possible in Boston when the bar is so high every season.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
What bothers me is the ownership seems content on an 85 win club while trying to maintain the same revenue streams and fan interest as a W.S. team. Fans in Tampa will support an overachieving club but I don’t think that’s possible in Boston when the bar is so high every season.
This view flies in the face of all available evidence, both performance- and payroll-related.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,247
Chill, dude. It was speculation but it wasn't lazy, and he didn't have zero evidence. Lou Merloni said today Betts wants 12/$420M. That also may be speculation, but it's likely informed speculation. Let's be encouraging to all posters -- it's the holiday season!
I believe it (this is the exact terms of the Trout extension in March). Or 9-10 years and a higher than 30M AAV. He wants to get his payday and I can't really blame him.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
If he told them the former then good luck to him getting it on the open market, but let him know we'll be there with a good deal if he comes to his senses. If he says the latter, then sure things change very quickly. But for all we've heard he doesn't hate it here, nor is he clamoring to leave. He just wants to hit the open market to maximize his earnings.
I mean, look at the comps. Trout’s contract wasn’t even a free agent deal. Cole is a 29 year old pitcher and got 9 years, $324 million. Harper got 13 years and $330 million.

Is it that hard to believe Betts gets 11 years — two less than Harper — at Cole’s AAV? That’s 11 years / $396.

You want that on the books.

To make that work you’d need to have rebuilt the farm to where it was before Dombrowski took over.

And, that lack of a farm system is going to play into Betts’ decision too, right? He’ll want to sign with a team that’s going into its big competitive window, not a team that’s leaving it.

So holding Betts and hoping he resigns also means betting big on big leaps forward by two of Jason Groom, Bryan Mata and Brayan Bello along with Duran, Dalbec, or the 2019 draftees.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
11,168
a basement on the hill
Chill, dude. It was speculation but it wasn't lazy, and he didn't have zero evidence. Lou Merloni said today Betts wants 12/$420M. That also may be speculation, but it's likely informed speculation. Let's be encouraging to all posters -- it's the holiday season!
My apologies to Van Everyman.

I have been getting fired up about the thought of losing Betts. The joy with which he plays, and the enjoyment it brings me is 2nd only to Pedro. (Papi is in the mix as well, because without him... probably no WS wins till 2018?)

It just seems wrong that the greatest Red Sox position player of my lifetime is going to be on another team. I swear, if that happens, I have spent my last dollar at Fenway. And while that may sound dramatic, please consider that I am poor as fuck. It's irresponsible for me to attend games anyway. The idea that Henry needs to trim payroll? Well, guess what... I should probably trim my expenses as well.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
My apologies to Van Everyman.

I have been getting fired up about the thought of losing Betts. The joy with which he plays, and the enjoyment it brings me is 2nd only to Pedro. (Papi is in the mix as well, because without him... probably no WS wins till 2018?)

It just seems wrong that the greatest Red Sox position player of my lifetime is going to be on another team. I swear, if that happens, I have spent my last dollar at Fenway. And while that may sound dramatic, please consider that I am poor as fuck. It's irresponsible for me to attend games anyway. The idea that Henry needs to trim payroll? Well, guess what... I should probably trim my expenses as well.
If Mookie gets traded, it won’t be a cost-cutting move. In the short run, there are other ways to get under the CBT threshold, and in the long run, Henry is going to spend what he’s going to spend, whether Mookie is here or not.

The question is whether it’s wise to commit 15-20% of that budget to a right fielder, even a future Hall of Famer like Mookie. I’m not sure what the right answer is, but I think @Plympton91is right that it would be easier to rationalize that kind of commitment to one player if you had line of sight to a new wave of cost-controlled talent.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Has Lou Merloni ever broken any news or had inside info?

Serious question.
My exact reaction to that post. I don't think Lou Merloni's speculation is any more informed than any of us. Add to that the notion that his "speculation" is more likely to drive discussion and calls on his radio show, and I think we should be taking anything he says with a gigantic rock of salt.

Here's what we know about Mookie: he wants to test free agency next winter. That's it, that's all we know. We don't know that he wants out of Boston. We don't know that he wants to stay. We don't know that he wants a Trout-level contract. We don't know that he wants a team-friendly deal in a particular market to be closer to home/friends/future endeavors/etc.

We don't have enough information about anything to decide that trading him is the "smart" move (or a bad move). I don't fault anyone for saying they'll be upset if they do trade him. It's a hard pill to swallow that they might trade the best player on the team for what will surely be a less than impressive return, particularly when none of the context is clear yet.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Lou is right. Betts’ age and abilities warrant that type of deal.
Of course it's not out of the realm of possibility. Broken clock, twice a day, blah, blah. But just because it's within the realm of possibility, doesn't mean it should be taken as gospel and then used to build a narrative around what the Red Sox will or won't, should or shouldn't be doing this winter.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
I love Mookie as much as anyone here. But to those here who are saying "I'm done with the Sox" if they trade Mookie.... If they deal him in a package and get back a player or two that develop into excellent MLB players, and they end up with a roster that includes Benintendi, Bogaerts, Devers, Chavis, position players X and Y that are excellent and come back in the Mookie deal, and they end up being a WS contender, are you REALLY going to be DONE with the Sox?

Don't get me wrong: I do NOT want them to trade Mookie. I want him playing for the Red Sox for the next 10+ years. He and Bogaerts have been my favorite players since Papi, and then since Pedro. But I think I understand why ownership thinks it may be a move to make. I think. I don't know that I just throw away 50 years of fandom - through thick and thin - over this. Now if they purely salary dump him and get nothing viable in return, that's going to be harder to swallow, but still...this ownership group has given me FOUR world series championships, when I had never even imagined ONE. Gonna be hard for me to just flip them off and say goodbye.
 

Teachdad46

New Member
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
Fundamentally, LA is a star driven town and Mookie is a star. It has been apparent for sometime that the Red Sox will not retain his services. Sending him to the National League and to a city where he can realize his value makes a lot of sense for all involved.
I'm not sure it's as apparent as you say. IF I were Mookie and I loved playing in Boston AND I wanted to make as much money as I could I'd play it exactly as he's playing it. We just don't really know. Poker face...smart.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
If Mookie plays to his potential this year, isn’t the Sox best chance of getting a premium return to trade him at the deadline? Maybe not a Punto type salary drop, but he will be perceived as a potential championship conferring piece. The truth is that unless teams don’t believe in his intent not to sign an extension he is already a rental In any trade scenario.

From the Sox perspective he will be easier to deal when the team is on a 80 win pace and the return seems more promising when he fits a need for a team that feels it is one piece away. This seems like a scenario worth waiting for unless an offer comes out that knocks your socks off.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
Wouldn't the analogous player to Adrian Gonzalez be someone like J.D. Martinez? Closer in position, age, and value. Of course front offices are far more savvy these days, so something like the Punto trade would be unthinkable.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Wouldn't the analogous player to Adrian Gonzalez be someone like J.D. Martinez? Closer in position, age, and value. Of course front offices are far more savvy these days, so something like the Punto trade would be unthinkable.
The contracts aren’t all that similar, and J.D. is two years older (and much more productive) than Adrian was when he was traded.

There is no direct analogy on the team, I think. Closest example would be Bogaerts — if he spent the first few months of 2020 inexplicably regressed to league average at the plate — but even then he’s two years younger.

Closest MLB comparison would be Arenado, who the Rockies are reportedly open to trading one year after signing him to a massive extension.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The contracts aren’t all that similar, and J.D. is two years older (and much more productive) than Adrian was when he was traded.
Adrian was traded in the middle of a 3.0-WAR year. J.D. Martinez is coming off of a 3.2-WAR year.

Yes, Martinez is a much more productive hitter than Gonzalez was in the year he was traded. But being a Gold Glove first baseman counts for something, especially if we're talking about trade value.

Tough to say... BR.com has them both "Signed by the Boston Red Sox" on 11/25/14.
Yeah, but I think the agreement with Hanley was announced first. I seem to remember that we were all assuming it would be one or the other for the 3B opening, and then when they announced the Hanley signing it was, "OK, I guess we're out on Panda," and then when the Panda signing was announced it was, "Hey awesome, but....where does Hanley play then?"
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Of course it's not out of the realm of possibility. Broken clock, twice a day, blah, blah. But just because it's within the realm of possibility, doesn't mean it should be taken as gospel and then used to build a narrative around what the Red Sox will or won't, should or shouldn't be doing this winter.
We can take this from the fact Betts hasn't signed yet: he's not taking less to stay here. Players that take it all the way to free agency want to get paid. And I would bet that Lou is quite a bit more informed than you think. Even if he isn't, Betts' agent would be stupid not to use Bryce Harper's and Mike Trout's contracts as templates for his deal. Next year will be Betts' age 28 season. Harper is making around $300 million from his age 28 season on and Trout is making just over $400 million from his age 28 season on. Another deal that is similar is Arenado and he's making $260 million from his age 28 season onwards if he opts in(which he'd be stupid to do so if he keeps this production up). Given that Betts will be on the open market, the price is going to be sky high. I would say that if he puts up another monster year that his next deal will approach Trout's contract value and length moreso than Arenado's or Harper's.
 
Last edited:

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,157
To me, the issue is that the Red Sox have a chance this season to be a contender. That chance diminishes by a fair amount if they trade him now. I know the last decade would say otherwise, but teams usually don't have that many chances to be contenders. Many of us suffered for many years without any of our Boston sports teams even having a whiff of being any good.

I can resign myself to Mookie leaving after the season. Personally, I'm not sure it's wise to commit $400 million to ANY player - no matter how good. The risks are just too great. However, I'd like to see how this season plays out and see if the Sox' pitching staff can rebound and be in the hunt for the playoffs. If we approach the trade deadline and it's not looking good - fine, trade him for prospects.

I do think the impetus for trading him NOW is about money. Because, obviously, if he's not on the books for the first half of the season, that's ~$15 million saved.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
I’d love to see this season play out too. But what will we be saying if they keep him this year and the team doesn’t make the playoffs (maybe stay in contention but fail in the end) but then he walks and they get nothing for him? Won’t most people be saying “look if you had a pretty good idea he was walking you should have traded him for SOMETHING useful!”

Not an easy spot for the Red Sox to be in, to be honest.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
I am on the side of fury that the Sox are going to cheap out and could lose the best player they have drafted and developed in ages. Through their media allies, we have been force fed the narrative that they must, MUST!, get below the luxury tax threshold like it's some kind of hard cap. I realize there are disadvantages to not getting below, but it's mainly money, and I could not care less what John Henry has to pay to field a team. He's made a fortune off this fan base and the woe-is-me being pushed is nauseating.

Just because financial mistakes - which ownership agreed to - have been made repeatedly, does not mean you deal Mookie. No team that I can recall has dealt a superstar in the winter before a potential walk year. If they crash, then sure, go ahead at the July 31 deadline. Again, this is narrative pushing through state-owned and compliant media. "Mookie is going to leave, we had to trade him." Bullsh*t. J.D. Martinez opted in and screwed up your austerity plan. If J.D. opts out, Mookie stays and his pending free agency is the non-story it should be in 2020 roster construction.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I don't want the team to trade Mookie. But if they do, then I hope it's to a team like the Padres. Get Patino and maybe Campusano back; hope SD convinces Mookie to sign long term for an exorbitant amount (say, 10 years/$400M) that SD almost immediately regrets because they're too top heavy and can't afford to fill other roster holes; and then trade back for Mookie in 2 years with SD subsidizing his contract by $5M/year!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Just because financial mistakes - which ownership agreed to - have been made repeatedly, does not mean you deal Mookie. No team that I can recall has dealt a superstar in the winter before a potential walk year. If they crash, then sure, go ahead at the July 31 deadline.
That's exactly why an unfortunate move may have to be made. Because they fucked up earlier. That's sort of how life works. "If only I hadn't invested in my brother-in-law's flying car company, I'd still be able to pay my mortgage." Just like I don't get on players who don't walk away from 20 million dollars even though there's already 120 on the table, I'm not going to get on the owner who doesn't want to pay an extra 50M, when that owner has done pretty well by the fans of the team for the last 15 years. (in terms of spending money, even if some of the decisions were bad). If it was just the salary alone, I would have more than a sentimental issue with it. But the penalties aren't nothing.

I suppose one can quibble whether he's a superstar, but AZ traded Goldschmidt before his walk year.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,723
MetroWest, MA
I am on the side of fury that the Sox are going to cheap out and could lose the best player they have drafted and developed in ages. Through their media allies, we have been force fed the narrative that they must, MUST!, get below the luxury tax threshold like it's some kind of hard cap. I realize there are disadvantages to not getting below, but it's mainly money, and I could not care less what John Henry has to pay to field a team. He's made a fortune off this fan base and the woe-is-me being pushed is nauseating.
To me, trading Mookie has nothing to do with getting under the luxury tax threshold, but rather as a mitigation against losing him to free agency for nothing if he walks. He's not going to sign an extension, and all bets are off once he hits the market. The Sox may view $40m/year as a disproportionate allocation of resources, and there's certainly an argument to be made for that. It's not being cheap, it's being shrewd.

That doesn't mean I want to see Mookie go. I'm in favor of making him the highest-paid player in MLB, he certainly deserves it, but I can see why that might be a bad idea in the long run depending on the years/AAV of the contract. As a fan I want him to stay in Boston forever, but given the business-like approach Mookie has taken to his contract status up to this point (which is shrewd on his part), he's going to maximize his value, and that final figure may end up not making any sense from a roster construction standpoint. And if not, the Sox risk losing him for nothing.

If they trade him, it has nothing to do with getting under the threshold for 2020. That's just going to be a byproduct of the deal.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
To me, trading Mookie has nothing to do with getting under the luxury tax threshold, but rather as a mitigation against losing him to free agency for nothing if he walks. He's not going to sign an extension, and all bets are off once he hits the market. The Sox may view $40m/year as a disproportionate allocation of resources, and there's certainly an argument to be made for that. It's not being cheap, it's being shrewd.

That doesn't mean I want to see Mookie go. I'm in favor of making him the highest-paid player in MLB, he certainly deserves it, but I can see why that might be a bad idea in the long run depending on the years/length of the contract. As a fan I want him to stay in Boston forever, but given the business-like approach Mookie has taken to his contract status up to this point (which is shrewd on his part), he's going to maximize his value, and that final figure may end up not making any sense from a roster construction standpoint. And if not, the Sox risk losing him for nothing.

If they trade him, it has nothing to do with getting under the threshold for 2020. That's just going to be a byproduct of the deal.
I have a hard time envisioning the team trading Mookie before the start of 2020 season AND being over the tax number.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
I would argue that Goldschmidt is a great player, but is not the overall talent and draw that a Betts is, and that's important to teams looking to generate revenue. Also, I wouldn't compare the Red Sox payroll composition to the Diamondbacks.

The best way for John Henry to make money with the Red Sox is to win and, as important, win with stars who excite the fan base. A rebuild not based on talent, but cash considerations, seems antithetical to that plan.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,992
Newton
The best way for John Henry to make money with the Red Sox is to win and, as important, win with stars who excite the fan base. A rebuild not based on talent, but cash considerations, seems antithetical to that plan.
I don’t have the numbers right in front of me, but I’m fairly certain that revenues in 2018 and viewership on NESN we’re down. At least from the perspective of where they should’ve been, or had been, based on their historic run.

So I’m not sure it is quite as cut and dried as “if you build it they will come.”
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
To me, trading Mookie has nothing to do with getting under the luxury tax threshold, but rather as a mitigation against losing him to free agency for nothing if he walks. He's not going to sign an extension, and all bets are off once he hits the market. The Sox may view $40m/year as a disproportionate allocation of resources, and there's certainly an argument to be made for that. It's not being cheap, it's being shrewd.

That doesn't mean I want to see Mookie go. I'm in favor of making him the highest-paid player in MLB, he certainly deserves it, but I can see why that might be a bad idea in the long run depending on the years/length of the contract. As a fan I want him to stay in Boston forever, but given the business-like approach Mookie has taken to his contract status up to this point (which is shrewd on his part), he's going to maximize his value, and that final figure may end up not making any sense from a roster construction standpoint. And if not, the Sox risk losing him for nothing.

If they trade him, it has nothing to do with getting under the threshold for 2020. That's just going to be a byproduct of the deal.
I guess this is where we differ reasonably. I am of the mind that the mantra being peddled to us about him walking away is to cover that they are doing this as a financial move. The pending free agency stuff only began when the floated plan to pare payroll wasn't exactly embraced. It has only ramped up since J.D. opted in, taking $25 million in room that would have gone to Mookie.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,723
MetroWest, MA
I guess this is where we differ reasonably. I am of the mind that the mantra being peddled to us about him walking away is to cover that they are doing this as a financial move. The pending free agency stuff only began when the floated plan to pare payroll wasn't exactly embraced. It has only ramped up since J.D. opted in, taking $25 million in room that would have gone to Mookie.
It's certainly a financial move. But if he's traded, it's a financial move for 2021 and beyond.

If you honestly believe the Sox would trade Mookie solely to get under the cap for 2020, I don't know what to tell you.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,992
Newton
Did you mean 2019? Because they won the World Series in 2018. Then they started out the 2019 season in full immolation mode and never recovered.
No I meant 2018. Obviously they had more games to play and made money from there. But I seem to recall—and I should really find this—that winning a World Series in a wire-to-wire dominating yet thrilling fashion was still not quite the windfall as you would’ve expected. In part because the finances of baseball are funky right now and possibly also because the Sox are no longer the little engine that could but a successful franchise that is expected to complete year after year..
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I realize there are disadvantages to not getting below, but it's mainly money, and I could not care less what John Henry has to pay to field a team.
So in other words, you're angry at John Henry for caring more about how he spends his money than you do.

Well, it's a free country.

No team that I can recall has dealt a superstar in the winter before a potential walk year.
Rickey Henderson in 1984, for one. I'm sure there must be a few others.

But why does it matter that it's the winter before, exactly? Would it be OK if they traded him a year ago, or next July, but it's cause for fury if they do it now?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
No I meant 2018. Obviously they had more games to play and made money from there. But I seem to recall—and I should really find this—that winning a World Series in a wire-to-wire dominating yet thrilling fashion was still not quite the windfall as you would’ve expected. In part because the finances of baseball are funky right now and possibly also because the Sox are no longer the little engine that could but a successful franchise that is expected to complete year after year..
Yankee ratings on YES were down 17 percent last year despite their first division winner since 2012, hard to figure out why (although they did have a lot of injured stars all year).

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-yes-network-ratings-mlb-20191019-hlvwp4lr4zgrfpvlswuirozrbq-story.html?outputType=amp
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
869
Maryland
Adrian was traded in the middle of a 3.0-WAR year. J.D. Martinez is coming off of a 3.2-WAR year.

Yes, Martinez is a much more productive hitter than Gonzalez was in the year he was traded. But being a Gold Glove first baseman counts for something, especially if we're talking about trade value.



Yeah, but I think the agreement with Hanley was announced first. I seem to remember that we were all assuming it would be one or the other for the 3B opening, and then when they announced the Hanley signing it was, "OK, I guess we're out on Panda," and then when the Panda signing was announced it was, "Hey awesome, but....where does Hanley play then?"
I distinctly remember it being the other way around - that they reached a deal with Pablo first, and then after that Hanley indicated he'd be willing to change positions to come to Boston, so the Sox jumped all over it. I remember this because I thought at the time that there was probably no way that they would have signed Panda if they knew that Hanley would be available to them, but they ended up with both because the Hanley deal looked too good to pass up -(which is basically how I felt like it at the time - Hanley looked like a good deal, but Panda looked like an overpay, especially on the years).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
To me, trading Mookie has nothing to do with getting under the luxury tax threshold, but rather as a mitigation against losing him to free agency for nothing if he walks. He's not going to sign an extension, and all bets are off once he hits the market. The Sox may view $40m/year as a disproportionate allocation of resources, and there's certainly an argument to be made for that. It's not being cheap, it's being shrewd.

That doesn't mean I want to see Mookie go. I'm in favor of making him the highest-paid player in MLB, he certainly deserves it, but I can see why that might be a bad idea in the long run depending on the years/AAV of the contract. As a fan I want him to stay in Boston forever, but given the business-like approach Mookie has taken to his contract status up to this point (which is shrewd on his part), he's going to maximize his value, and that final figure may end up not making any sense from a roster construction standpoint. And if not, the Sox risk losing him for nothing.

If they trade him, it has nothing to do with getting under the threshold for 2020. That's just going to be a byproduct of the deal.
I'd like to believe the bolded is correct, as the rest of your post makes perfect sense. There is definitely a non-zero chance that Mookie walks after 2020 no matter what the Red Sox do. He'll be a free agent and has the ability to determine his home for the next several seasons, and the possibility is very real that he is either offered a contract that the team does not want to match or that he leaves for marginally less money for his own reasons.

The only problem is that Henry's public statements about the luxury tax threshold seem to directly contradict your assumptions. And fans have the right to be frustrated, given that Henry signed off on the Eovaldi and Sale deals knowing full well the team's luxury tax situation.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I am on the side of fury that the Sox are going to cheap out and could lose the best player they have drafted and developed in ages. Through their media allies, we have been force fed the narrative that they must, MUST!, get below the luxury tax threshold like it's some kind of hard cap. I realize there are disadvantages to not getting below, but it's mainly money, and I could not care less what John Henry has to pay to field a team. He's made a fortune off this fan base and the woe-is-me being pushed is nauseating.

Just because financial mistakes - which ownership agreed to - have been made repeatedly, does not mean you deal Mookie. No team that I can recall has dealt a superstar in the winter before a potential walk year. If they crash, then sure, go ahead at the July 31 deadline. Again, this is narrative pushing through state-owned and compliant media. "Mookie is going to leave, we had to trade him." Bullsh*t. J.D. Martinez opted in and screwed up your austerity plan. If J.D. opts out, Mookie stays and his pending free agency is the non-story it should be in 2020 roster construction.
I think it's way too premature to use "cheap out."

The fact that Mookie is homegrown means nothing with respect to the current situation. Some players want to stay with a team. Some players want to lock up big life-changing money during their cost control years and are willing to give up the potential for bigger money at the back end for that assurance.

The single fact that matters most in this thing is that Mookie was not in these categories. He bet on himself. He played well enough to earn two very big arb year contracts and he now has a decent sized war chest to go for it all. And he's made clear that's exactly what he's going to do.

A player like that gives his current team pretty much zero options. All they have is the right to use his services during the cost controlled years. One of those years worked out pretty good. And part of using his services during the cost controlled years is to see if you can get other assets for him. Unless Mookie is being dishonest about his intentions, and he gets traded and signs an extension, there is no reason to believe that the Sox won't be in exactly the same position to sign him next year if he's off the team as they would be if he weren't.

In ten months, the Red Sox just become one of thirty teams when it comes to Mookie and that's the way he has wanted it. They are just playing the hand they are dealt. I'm really not sure what they could do differently.

The luxury tax threshold stuff is just noise at this point. Trade, don't trade, whatever. He's going to be a free agent next year. The question whether the Sox cheap out or not cannot be answered until it is known what contract he got. If he goes somewhere else next year for 10/300, then, yeah, obviously, the Sox (and many other teams) cheaped out. If he goes somewhere for 12/480, it should be looked at like any other contract in free agency.

The prospective anger about the Sox treating a guy who has stated he's going to be a free agent next year no matter what like he's a guy who is going to be a free agent next year no matter what is misdirected, in my view at least.