That doesn't make one bit of sense.
Apparently.
A "Thank you Mookie Betts" thread doesn't make sense for it, though.
Thank you Mookie Betts
- Thread starter DeadlySplitter
- Start date
A "Thank you Mookie Betts" thread doesn't make sense for it, though.
What I was trying to convey was sure, we got fleeced with Bagwell but we have had a few trades go our way as well. You don’t think the Twins are kicking themselves for dumping Ortiz? Every team has their share of mistakes. I have no problem feeling upset watching one of the best Sox players in decades leave, thanking him and appreciating his contributions while also thinking out front office could have somehow found a way to keep him. Does that help clear things up for you?
Maybe this is naive thinking on my part but for superstar players like Betts, I think there could be a measurable impact in one's public perception/marketability, and in turn in the amount of money made via endorsements, if they spend their entire career with one organization (e.g., Derek Jeter), or at least remain with the same organization that they rose to prominence in for the remainder of their career (e.g., David Ortiz), versus players who jump ship halfway through their career and their new organization never gets to see them at their best (Pujols, Griffey). I'm not sure if/how this can be measured in a reliable way but I think it should be taken into consideration.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mike-trout-will-sign-a-contract-worth-430-million-experts-say-hes-worth-630-million-2019-03-20#:~:text=For example, according to Forbes,Steph Curry made $42 million.
From a quick google search(not trying to say you should have, just saying I haven't really looked into this), it looks like Mike Trout only made $2.5 million in endorsements in 2018, mostly from big sports brands like Nike. Baseball stars just don't have the same marketing pull as big time NFL/NBA guys and the amounts earned from local endorsements are probably pretty minimal. Also, doing stuff like that is kind of another job, some players may just have no interest in doing that and would rather just cash in on their on the field play and not worry about having their agent run around town looking for endorsement cash.
From a quick google search(not trying to say you should have, just saying I haven't really looked into this), it looks like Mike Trout only made $2.5 million in endorsements in 2018, mostly from big sports brands like Nike. Baseball stars just don't have the same marketing pull as big time NFL/NBA guys and the amounts earned from local endorsements are probably pretty minimal. Also, doing stuff like that is kind of another job, some players may just have no interest in doing that and would rather just cash in on their on the field play and not worry about having their agent run around town looking for endorsement cash.
I don't think that's the case at all, unless we believe that baseball is somehow unique in how players market themselves outside the game. Bouncing to a new team every few years certainly hasn't hurt Lebron James marketability, and you'd be hard pressed to prove he'd be more marketable had he not gone to Miami or now LA, and remained in Cleveland. And Trout isn't exactly breaking the bank outside the game. The Angels pay him way more than he makes in endorsements. Can't say that's the same as Lebron and the Lakers.
The idealism of a player staying with the same team from start to finish is antiquated. We romanticize it because it was commonplace in a time when players had no choice in the matter. Ted Williams was a lifelong Red Sox because had no alternative, not because of some altruistic loyalty or a greater marketability.
I have no idea if Griffey and Pujols’ marketability suffered when they switched teams, but, if it did, it’s probably because they stopped being good players, not because they moved teams. If Griffey was putting up MVP numbers on the Reds every year there’s no reason he wouldn’t have been just as “marketable” as he was on Seattle.
But even if this wasn’t the case, I don’t see how it would apply to Mookie - he’s not going to a small market team like the Royals or Pirates or As or something. Chances are, in the short term at least, Mookie will be in more big, nationally-televised games as a Dodger than he would have been if he stayed with the Sox, so in this specific case I’d argue Mookie has actually increased his marketability, not decreased it.
I would go so far as to argue that the NBA has proven that player movement is a large part of what drives fan interest and engagement. Think about how much buzz there was around their off-season last summer with Leonard, Irving, Durant, etc.
Also we should maybe note that for every Griffey whose legacy was possibly affected by switching teams there’s a counterexample like Barry Bonds who went from Pittsburgh to SF and, if anything, got more famous and marketable.
Was that due to San Francisco, or due to him doubling his home run output? Do we think that he wouldn't have been "famous and marketable" if he were hitting 73 Home Runs in Pittsburgh?
That was eight years after he arrived. He was plenty “known” from 93-2000. Anyway, if you think Bonds is a weird example, what about A-Rod, Clemens, or Mark McGwire?
Oh, those are weird examples too? Ok, how about Mike Piazza, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Vlad Guerrero, Miguel Cabrera, or, ahem, Josh Beckett, Manny Ramirez, Chris Sale, and Pedro Martinez. Do those work?
This isn’t even new! How many teams did Rickey Henderson play for? Does anyone think less of him for it?
(I deleted one example for fear of further derailing the conversation)
At any rate, I think our basic point is the same, which is that performance and personality dictate how you’re perceived rather than whether it’s with any specific team. If you personally think it’s cool when a guy like Chipper Jones stays with one team, that’s cool, but I am not sure it matters for like visibility or anything like that.
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm really happy for Mookie. The Red Sox were not going to do a 12 year deal nor a $65m signing bonus. I wish him every success. He earned it, every penny.
Those two aren't the same thing.
I was responding to the first thing.
I get the deep discussion on whether he's worth the contract and whether the Sox should have, or even could have, offered something similar. I get that. Especially here, on this board. But as a baseball fan, there is no one else in MLB I'd rather watch play than Mookie. His talent, infectious smile and the joy with which he seems to play the game will be forever missed for me. Thanks Mookie - and good luck!
Yup.
The histrionics in this thread, while amusing, are also baffling to me. I can't pretend to know what Mookie is thinking, but it does seem self-evident that he decided that he did not want to be a member of the Red Sox for life. And that's perfectly fine.
I loved watching him play for the Sox and will root for him at all times except for when the Dodgers play the Sox.