SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 20, 2020 21:32:43 GMT -5
Lots of fans and writers on twitter complaining about trading Mookie. I miss him but I have the feeling letting him go was best for the long term future.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 20, 2020 21:46:07 GMT -5
Lots of fans and writers on twitter complaining about trading Mookie. I miss him but I have the feeling letting him go was best for the long term future. Long term like when he’s dead? Yes, I like not gurneying a corpse to RF. Long term like the next 5 years? Nahhhhh. He just turned 28. Last 3 days we’ve seen gold glove D, steals, great baserunning, and an oppo home run. Good luck replacing that package. Edit: sometimes I think people treat Mookie like the hot girl that dumped them. “Nah, I can do so much better,” he says, drinking beers with his single, male friends. Guy might be regular season MVP and is off to a great WS start. But he wouldn’t be part of the solution, oh no.
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 20, 2020 21:52:02 GMT -5
Lots of fans and writers on twitter complaining about trading Mookie. I miss him but I have the feeling letting him go was best for the long term future. Long term like when he’s dead? Yes, I like not gurneying a corpse to RF. Long term like the next 5 years? Nahhhhh. He just turned 28. Last 3 days we’ve seen gold glove D, steals, great baserunning, and an oppo home run. Good luck replacing that package. One guy does not win a world series. It takes an entire team to do it. It was the Sox fault for poor spending choices, but signing Betts would have caused a bleeding effect. The scouting department would really have to step up in terms of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 20, 2020 21:53:15 GMT -5
And chances are we wouldn't be in the playoffs and he'd be a free agent right now.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 20, 2020 21:55:41 GMT -5
And chances are we wouldn't be in the playoffs and he'd be a free agent right now. *checks playoffs* Chances are 100%.
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 20, 2020 21:58:07 GMT -5
And chances are we wouldn't be in the playoffs and he'd be a free agent right now. And now we have have Verdugo,Downs, and a chance to get Lawlar, Leiter, Hill, House. Had Mookie been here, your probably looking at pick #11
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 20, 2020 21:59:33 GMT -5
Actually pick #21 because we would have been over.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 20, 2020 22:00:23 GMT -5
And chances are we wouldn't be in the playoffs and he'd be a free agent right now. *checks playoffs* Chances are 100%. The difference in WAR between Betts and Verdugo is nowhere near the amount of win it would have taken for the Red Sox to make the playoffs. It's one thing to have a mancrush on Mookie but that's totally unrealistic.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 20, 2020 22:06:42 GMT -5
*checks playoffs* Chances are 100%. The difference in WAR between Betts and Verdugo is nowhere near the amount of win it would have taken for the Red Sox to make the playoffs. It's one thing to have a mancrush on Mookie but that's totally unrealistic. True. The Sox suck. Point taken.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 20, 2020 22:11:42 GMT -5
The difference in WAR between Betts and Verdugo is nowhere near the amount of win it would have taken for the Red Sox to make the playoffs. It's one thing to have a mancrush on Mookie but that's totally unrealistic. True. The Sox suck. Point taken. For me I am happy for Mookie. He seems to like it there, good for him. And for me, I'll tale a championship about once every four years no matter how bad we suck in the meantime.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 20, 2020 22:18:53 GMT -5
True. The Sox suck. Point taken. For me I am happy for Mookie. He seems to like it there, good for him. And for me, I'll tale a championship about once every four years no matter how bad we suck in the meantime. The countdown is on. Next year looks grim.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 20, 2020 22:25:45 GMT -5
For me I am happy for Mookie. He seems to like it there, good for him. And for me, I'll tale a championship about once every four years no matter how bad we suck in the meantime. The countdown is on. Next year looks grim. One Championship thru 2023 would be an average of one every 4 years or better. Not at all grim and I wouldn't classify 2021 as grim but a championship is highly unlikely.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,415
|
Post by ianrs on Oct 21, 2020 5:18:52 GMT -5
I'm so happy to see Mookie destroying and succeeding. I hope John Henry was watching, that absolute disgrace.
Will always love Mookie and its sad hes not in a Sox uniform because the owners cheaped out, but that dude is so fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 21, 2020 7:27:09 GMT -5
I'm so happy to see Mookie destroying and succeeding. I hope John Henry was watching, that absolute disgrace. Will always love Mookie and its sad hes not in a Sox uniform because the owners cheaped out, but that dude is so fun to watch. We didn't cheap out. We overspent. Henry wanted a world series. He got it. It cost us Mookie in the end. But keeping Mookie would have caused a bleeding effect which would have affected our future.
|
|
|
Post by jkfer98 on Oct 21, 2020 8:31:22 GMT -5
The MMQBing going on right now in the media/Red Sox twitter is astounding.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 8:35:06 GMT -5
The MMQBing going on right now in the media/Red Sox twitter is astounding. Over the once-ever-hundred-year dump of baseball’s best player? Who could second guess that?
|
|
|
Post by jkfer98 on Oct 21, 2020 8:40:13 GMT -5
The MMQBing going on right now in the media/Red Sox twitter is astounding. Over the once-ever-hundred-year dump of baseball’s best player? Who could second guess that? Well, the trade did happen a whole 8 months ago.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 8:42:26 GMT -5
Over the once-ever-hundred-year dump of baseball’s best player? Who could second guess that? Well, the trade did happen a whole 8 months ago. You mean it might get worse?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 9:33:43 GMT -5
I'm so happy to see Mookie destroying and succeeding. I hope John Henry was watching, that absolute disgrace. Will always love Mookie and its sad hes not in a Sox uniform because the owners cheaped out, but that dude is so fun to watch. We didn't cheap out. We overspent. Henry wanted a world series. He got it. It cost us Mookie in the end. But keeping Mookie would have caused a bleeding effect which would have affected our future. No, the Red Sox didn't budget wisely, nor were they willing to give him a Mike Trout-like offer. Mike Trout is acknowledged as the best player in baseball. Mookie is right up there with him. Mookie wanted to be paid like he's up there with the best player in baseball. Henry probably had Dombrowski fired for his failure to have a pathway to get under the luxury tax without having a way to be competitive and be able to keep your best player. Of course that begs the question of why they signed off on Eovaldi's deal or Sale's extension. No, having Mookie on the roster wouldn't have put the Sox in the playoffs. I don't think anybody is arguing that. He can't pitch. It's the only thing he can't do, but when the Red Sox were ready to be better within a couple of years or so there's no reason why Mookie still wouldn't be in his prime leading the way. Verdugo is a good player and he'll help the Sox. And Downs will be an asset to the Red Sox. But they're not better than having Mookie on your team. That's not a knock against the trade. The Sox did as well as they reasonably could have given the circumstances. When he went into this season without the Red Sox putting their best foot forward in extending an offer (it really didn't take a rocket scientist to know that 10 years 300 million wasn't of going to get it done), then of course they had to trade him. That's not on Bloom. The blame goes prior to that. I don't think you can make a good argument that given the circumstances, the Sox shouldn't have dealt him. But I don't think you can make a good argument that the Red Sox were better off without Betts for the long-term. This guy has at least a half dozen good to excellent seasons ahead of given that he's so great in so many facets of the game. The Red Sox should have found a way to build the team around Betts. You cannot hope for a minor leaguer to develop any better than Betts did. Those are the rare guys you must hang onto. The Red Sox failed miserably at this. And watching Betts impact the game on defense (his shoestring catch was the turning point of the NLCS), on baserunning (like last night when he scores runs that other players simply can't score), and then his bat gets going like it's going now - it's a stark reminder of what the Red Sox gave up. The Red Sox botched things up really badly to have a franchise player like Betts get away. Of course, there were people in 1920 who felt the Red Sox would be better off not being a "one man team" with that Babe Ruth and were better off being rid of him and spreading their money around to acquire many new talents. Of course that was Harry Frazee's opinion and that of a small amount of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase knew that the Red Sox had really given away a unique talent they were never going to be able to replace, and that they weren't going to be a better team without him. Betts isn't Babe Ruth (Babe was a better hitter and pitcher of course), but the parallels are there. The Red Sox future isn't brighter because Betts isn't around. When the Sox get better they'd be a better team with Betts as the centerpiece. Guys like Downs and Verdugo would be positive contributors, but they couldn't be what Betts is and should be for the foreseeable future.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 9:39:08 GMT -5
We didn't cheap out. We overspent. Henry wanted a world series. He got it. It cost us Mookie in the end. But keeping Mookie would have caused a bleeding effect which would have affected our future. No, the Red Sox didn't budget wisely, nor were they willing to give him a Mike Trout-like offer. Mike Trout is acknowledged as the best player in baseball. Mookie is right up there with him. Mookie wanted to be paid like he's up there with the best player in baseball. Henry probably had Dombrowski fired for his failure to have a pathway to get under the luxury tax without having a way to be competitive and be able to keep your best player. Of course that begs the question of why they signed off on Eovaldi's deal or Sale's extension. No, having Mookie on the roster wouldn't have put the Sox in the playoffs. I don't think anybody is arguing that. He can't pitch. It's the only thing he can't do, but when the Red Sox were ready to be better within a couple of years or so there's no reason why Mookie still wouldn't be in his prime leading the way. Verdugo is a good player and he'll help the Sox. And Downs will be an asset to the Red Sox. But they're not better than having Mookie on your team. That's not a knock against the trade. The Sox did as well as they reasonably could have given the circumstances. When he went into this season without the Red Sox putting their best foot forward in extending an offer (it really didn't take a rocket scientist to know that 10 years 300 million wasn't of going to get it done), then of course they had to trade him. That's not on Bloom. The blame goes prior to that. I don't think you can make a good argument that given the circumstances, the Sox shouldn't have dealt him. But I don't think you can make a good argument that the Red Sox were better off without Betts for the long-term. This guy has at least a half dozen good to excellent seasons ahead of given that he's so great in so many facets of the game. The Red Sox should have found a way to build the team around Betts. You cannot hope for a minor leaguer to develop any better than Betts did. Those are the rare guys you must hang onto. The Red Sox failed miserably at this. And watching Betts impact the game on defense (his shoestring catch was the turning point of the NLCS), on baserunning (like last night when he scores runs that other players simply can't score), and then his bat gets going like it's going now - it's a stark reminder of what the Red Sox gave up. The Red Sox botched things up really badly to have a franchise player like Betts get away. Of course, there were people in 1920 who felt the Red Sox would be better off not being a "one man team" with that Babe Ruth and were better off being rid of him and spreading their money around to acquire many new talents. Of course that was Harry Frazee's opinion and that of a small amount of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase knew that the Red Sox had really given away a unique talent they were never going to be able to replace, and that they weren't going to be a better team without him. Betts isn't Babe Ruth (Babe was a better hitter and pitcher of course), but the parallels are there. The Red Sox future isn't brighter because Betts isn't around. When the Sox get better they'd be a better team with Betts as the centerpiece. Guys like Downs and Verdugo would be positive contributors, but they couldn't be what Betts is and should be for the foreseeable future. Brilliantly put.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 21, 2020 9:42:52 GMT -5
Playing the devil's advocate here. Let's say the trade never happened but covid did and Mookie signed an equivalent deal with the Sox. Price opted out but that wasn't enough to get us under the cap because of Mookie's arbitration salary. We didn't make the playoffs and we don't have Verdugo, Downs or Wong. We're picking somewhere in the low 20's because of the penalties.
Worse yet, there's pretty much no way we get under the cap next year either unless Price retires leaving his entire contract behind which isn't going to happen and with covid, there's no way teams are going to take on any of our big contracts.
Do people seriously believe we would be better off ?
ADD: There were only 3 or 4 definite sellers at the trade deadline because of the expanded playoffs. Chances are that the Sox wouldn't be one of those, maybe maybe not. If not then we still have Moreland, and Hembree but don't have Pivetta, Seabold, Rosario, Potts or Wallace.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 9:48:08 GMT -5
No, the Red Sox didn't budget wisely, nor were they willing to give him a Mike Trout-like offer. Mike Trout is acknowledged as the best player in baseball. Mookie is right up there with him. Mookie wanted to be paid like he's up there with the best player in baseball. Henry probably had Dombrowski fired for his failure to have a pathway to get under the luxury tax without having a way to be competitive and be able to keep your best player. Of course that begs the question of why they signed off on Eovaldi's deal or Sale's extension. No, having Mookie on the roster wouldn't have put the Sox in the playoffs. I don't think anybody is arguing that. He can't pitch. It's the only thing he can't do, but when the Red Sox were ready to be better within a couple of years or so there's no reason why Mookie still wouldn't be in his prime leading the way. Verdugo is a good player and he'll help the Sox. And Downs will be an asset to the Red Sox. But they're not better than having Mookie on your team. That's not a knock against the trade. The Sox did as well as they reasonably could have given the circumstances. When he went into this season without the Red Sox putting their best foot forward in extending an offer (it really didn't take a rocket scientist to know that 10 years 300 million wasn't of going to get it done), then of course they had to trade him. That's not on Bloom. The blame goes prior to that. I don't think you can make a good argument that given the circumstances, the Sox shouldn't have dealt him. But I don't think you can make a good argument that the Red Sox were better off without Betts for the long-term. This guy has at least a half dozen good to excellent seasons ahead of given that he's so great in so many facets of the game. The Red Sox should have found a way to build the team around Betts. You cannot hope for a minor leaguer to develop any better than Betts did. Those are the rare guys you must hang onto. The Red Sox failed miserably at this. And watching Betts impact the game on defense (his shoestring catch was the turning point of the NLCS), on baserunning (like last night when he scores runs that other players simply can't score), and then his bat gets going like it's going now - it's a stark reminder of what the Red Sox gave up. The Red Sox botched things up really badly to have a franchise player like Betts get away. Of course, there were people in 1920 who felt the Red Sox would be better off not being a "one man team" with that Babe Ruth and were better off being rid of him and spreading their money around to acquire many new talents. Of course that was Harry Frazee's opinion and that of a small amount of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase knew that the Red Sox had really given away a unique talent they were never going to be able to replace, and that they weren't going to be a better team without him. Betts isn't Babe Ruth (Babe was a better hitter and pitcher of course), but the parallels are there. The Red Sox future isn't brighter because Betts isn't around. When the Sox get better they'd be a better team with Betts as the centerpiece. Guys like Downs and Verdugo would be positive contributors, but they couldn't be what Betts is and should be for the foreseeable future. Brilliantly put. Thanks. I'm not saying that Bloom can't find a way to make the new Tampa Bay Rays version of the Sox down the road, although with the Sox budget, the Dodgers, more than the Rays, should be the model they should be trying to follow - and that team stayed away from long-term deals until they finally decided to find the one guy they felt was truly worth the money - the most premier free agent to be. That is one of the reasons why I'm rooting for the Dodgers - normally I'd root for David over Goliath, but the Dodgers have done so many things the right way - the way we would applaud Bloom if he did similar things - that you would hope they'd be rewarded for doing so many things right. That's what the Sox should ultimately be doing. Budget smartly so that when the next Mookie Betts becomes available they can make the trade without hurting themselves (like I said Verdugo is a really good ballplayer but you'd take Mookie over him every day of the week and Downs will be good, but they probably feel that Lux will be better, so Downs is expendible for them). What I'm trying to push back on is this idea that the Red Sox would have been better off without him. John Henry's bottom line is better off without Betts, but that's it. Again, it would not have made them contenders this year, but with Betts, you're that much closer to respectability and/or serious competitiveness when you get the pitching in line.
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 21, 2020 9:50:19 GMT -5
We didn't cheap out. We overspent. Henry wanted a world series. He got it. It cost us Mookie in the end. But keeping Mookie would have caused a bleeding effect which would have affected our future. No, the Red Sox didn't budget wisely, nor were they willing to give him a Mike Trout-like offer. Mike Trout is acknowledged as the best player in baseball. Mookie is right up there with him. Mookie wanted to be paid like he's up there with the best player in baseball. Henry probably had Dombrowski fired for his failure to have a pathway to get under the luxury tax without having a way to be competitive and be able to keep your best player. Of course that begs the question of why they signed off on Eovaldi's deal or Sale's extension. No, having Mookie on the roster wouldn't have put the Sox in the playoffs. I don't think anybody is arguing that. He can't pitch. It's the only thing he can't do, but when the Red Sox were ready to be better within a couple of years or so there's no reason why Mookie still wouldn't be in his prime leading the way. Verdugo is a good player and he'll help the Sox. And Downs will be an asset to the Red Sox. But they're not better than having Mookie on your team. That's not a knock against the trade. The Sox did as well as they reasonably could have given the circumstances. When he went into this season without the Red Sox putting their best foot forward in extending an offer (it really didn't take a rocket scientist to know that 10 years 300 million wasn't of going to get it done), then of course they had to trade him. That's not on Bloom. The blame goes prior to that. I don't think you can make a good argument that given the circumstances, the Sox shouldn't have dealt him. But I don't think you can make a good argument that the Red Sox were better off without Betts for the long-term. This guy has at least a half dozen good to excellent seasons ahead of given that he's so great in so many facets of the game. The Red Sox should have found a way to build the team around Betts. You cannot hope for a minor leaguer to develop any better than Betts did. Those are the rare guys you must hang onto. The Red Sox failed miserably at this. And watching Betts impact the game on defense (his shoestring catch was the turning point of the NLCS), on baserunning (like last night when he scores runs that other players simply can't score), and then his bat gets going like it's going now - it's a stark reminder of what the Red Sox gave up. The Red Sox botched things up really badly to have a franchise player like Betts get away. Of course, there were people in 1920 who felt the Red Sox would be better off not being a "one man team" with that Babe Ruth and were better off being rid of him and spreading their money around to acquire many new talents. Of course that was Harry Frazee's opinion and that of a small amount of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase knew that the Red Sox had really given away a unique talent they were never going to be able to replace, and that they weren't going to be a better team without him. Betts isn't Babe Ruth (Babe was a better hitter and pitcher of course), but the parallels are there. The Red Sox future isn't brighter because Betts isn't around. When the Sox get better they'd be a better team with Betts as the centerpiece. Guys like Downs and Verdugo would be positive contributors, but they couldn't be what Betts is and should be for the foreseeable future. Thats what i said. We overspent on guys like Hanley, Pablo, and Eovaldi. But i'm saying with Betts gone, and where we are tax wise, we can have a more talented team all around.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 9:56:04 GMT -5
Playing the devil's advocate here. Let's say the trade never happened but covid did and Mookie signed an equivalent deal with the Sox. Price opted out but that wasn't enough to get us under the cap because of Mookie's arbitration salary. We didn't make the playoffs and we don't have Verdugo, Downs or Wong. We're picking somewhere in the low 20's because of the penalties. Worse yet, there's pretty much no way we get under the cap next year either unless Price retires leaving his entire contract behind which isn't going to happen and with covid, there's no way teams are going to take on any of our big contracts. Do people seriously believe we would be better off ? Why should I feel bad if Henry decided that getting under the cap wasn't viable? If he was that concerned about it he should have nixed the Eovaldi signing or Sale re-signing, shouldn't he have? He understands math. He signs the checks. By 2022, you know there's going to be a strike and the rules of what would constitute a luxury tax cap hit are going to change, too, so we're not even talking a long-term hit. For me it comes down to this, give Mookie the Trout offer he was looking for. If he turns that down, then you can say, "we truly put our best foot forward. The player really didn't want to stay that badly" - and nobody thinks the less of you. But when you never make that offer, you're going to have people wonder why the hell you wouldn't have extended yourself to keep the best player you ever had. You knew that you'd have to make that kind of room in the budget for him to have a legit shot to keep him. You're looking at it from the standpoint of what has happened based on the lowball offer. We'll never know if Mookie's stance toward "I'm going to free agency no matter what" would have softened had the Sox made the Trout offer. Like I said, if it didn't, then I don't think anybody would have had any issues with him going. I mean if you're offering him the most money of any player in the game and he doesn't want to stay, then there's zero regret from a fan's standpoint. But that's not what happened.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 10:01:02 GMT -5
No, the Red Sox didn't budget wisely, nor were they willing to give him a Mike Trout-like offer. Mike Trout is acknowledged as the best player in baseball. Mookie is right up there with him. Mookie wanted to be paid like he's up there with the best player in baseball. Henry probably had Dombrowski fired for his failure to have a pathway to get under the luxury tax without having a way to be competitive and be able to keep your best player. Of course that begs the question of why they signed off on Eovaldi's deal or Sale's extension. No, having Mookie on the roster wouldn't have put the Sox in the playoffs. I don't think anybody is arguing that. He can't pitch. It's the only thing he can't do, but when the Red Sox were ready to be better within a couple of years or so there's no reason why Mookie still wouldn't be in his prime leading the way. Verdugo is a good player and he'll help the Sox. And Downs will be an asset to the Red Sox. But they're not better than having Mookie on your team. That's not a knock against the trade. The Sox did as well as they reasonably could have given the circumstances. When he went into this season without the Red Sox putting their best foot forward in extending an offer (it really didn't take a rocket scientist to know that 10 years 300 million wasn't of going to get it done), then of course they had to trade him. That's not on Bloom. The blame goes prior to that. I don't think you can make a good argument that given the circumstances, the Sox shouldn't have dealt him. But I don't think you can make a good argument that the Red Sox were better off without Betts for the long-term. This guy has at least a half dozen good to excellent seasons ahead of given that he's so great in so many facets of the game. The Red Sox should have found a way to build the team around Betts. You cannot hope for a minor leaguer to develop any better than Betts did. Those are the rare guys you must hang onto. The Red Sox failed miserably at this. And watching Betts impact the game on defense (his shoestring catch was the turning point of the NLCS), on baserunning (like last night when he scores runs that other players simply can't score), and then his bat gets going like it's going now - it's a stark reminder of what the Red Sox gave up. The Red Sox botched things up really badly to have a franchise player like Betts get away. Of course, there were people in 1920 who felt the Red Sox would be better off not being a "one man team" with that Babe Ruth and were better off being rid of him and spreading their money around to acquire many new talents. Of course that was Harry Frazee's opinion and that of a small amount of the fanbase. The rest of the fanbase knew that the Red Sox had really given away a unique talent they were never going to be able to replace, and that they weren't going to be a better team without him. Betts isn't Babe Ruth (Babe was a better hitter and pitcher of course), but the parallels are there. The Red Sox future isn't brighter because Betts isn't around. When the Sox get better they'd be a better team with Betts as the centerpiece. Guys like Downs and Verdugo would be positive contributors, but they couldn't be what Betts is and should be for the foreseeable future. Thats what i said. We overspent on guys like Hanley, Pablo, and Eovaldi. But i'm saying with Betts gone, and where we are tax wise, we can have a more talented team all around. I agree with your first sentence, but your second sentence isn't necessarily true and could have been avoided if mistakes weren't made. It's kind of like, I had a job so I could pay my bills, but now I quit, so while I can't pay my bills as well, I have more time to learn pilates, take up cooking, and watch all the TV shows I missed while working.
|
|
|