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 iakovos11 on Oct 21, 2020 10:06:35 GMT -5
I agree with Ray (philsbosoxfan) on this. They had to do what they did. It's an unpopular view - but I couldn't care less about Mookie now. He jumped at a competitive deal from LA for 1 of 2 reasons (or some of both). He really likes LA and/or he saw the writing the on the wall in terms of baseball economics post-COVID. Read between the lines, I don't think he really wanted to stay in Boston. Maybe he was open to it if the Sox blew everyone away on the open market. But I think he preferred out. He got his wish. Good for him.
So whatever. Mookie's a great baseball player. He's gone. Some people are just having a hard time moving on. Not me.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Oct 21, 2020 10:19:16 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. I guess you are a new fan. I understand that Mookie is a great player, and you are infatuated with him (I was sad when Fred Lynn was traded to, but I was just a kid then.) Let's face it, Mookie did not want to be here. He signed the 2nd richest contract in MLB when he spoke about waiting until Free Agency with us. And I know the whole pandemic thing might of changed his mind (I call BS on that), but it was a slap on the face to us all. If he really wanted to be here he would of made that happen, but he couldn't even do that. He looks really happy in LA, good for him, but he did not want to be here. Say what you want about John Henry, but being a New Yorker I can tell you that there's one thing that most of my friends and family (All MFY or Mets fans) wish they had, and that's John Henry. That man is responsible for 4 Championships, something I thought would never happen. Most of us were happy with just one, after all the heartbreaks. I guess I am so use to cheering for what's in front of the Jersey, that everything else (at my age) is just a blur.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Oct 21, 2020 10:23:04 GMT -5
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. *checks playoffs* Chances are 100%. True. The Sox suck. Point taken. This dude... Here you go buddy www.dodgersnation.com/
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2020 10:27:28 GMT -5
OK, just need to vent here.
The two things that continue to drive me NUTS, not @sully345729 and friends are saying it but because national and local baseball writers who should know better are the ones doing so, are:
1) The snarky takes that insinuate that the Red Sox didn't want him on their team, like they didn't think he was good (e.g., "Imagine thinking your team was better without Mookie Betts" like they traded him because they thought Verdugo was better or something), and 2) The more forgivable but still wrong takes that they traded Betts solely to get under the luxury tax.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with disagreeing with trading Betts. There are sound arguments on both sides of it. I just hate the lack of nuance from people who should know better.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 10:36:35 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. Can. But don’t currently. So the defense of the Mookie trade is if they don’t screw up in the free agent market like they have umpteen times, they *might* *eventually* be more talented. That is cold comfort, given that their first additions will be merely an effort to get back to being *as* talented as they were with Mookie. Hey, man... I ain’t John Henry, and I don’t know how many boats and vacation homes he needs. I know that him not paying the luxury tax is not my main concern when it comes to the co-best-player in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 10:41:44 GMT -5
I guess I'll frame this as simply as possible:
Had the Red Sox offered some combo of years that wound up getting the guaranteed $ package up to $365 million or - where Trout is - and Mookie said no, is there anybody around, fans or media included, who could truly blame the Red Sox if they decided to then trade him?
The point is we'll never truly know because the Red Sox never made that kind of offer to him. This is why you get the controversy. I don't think there's much of a debate if the Red Sox had made the Trout-like offer to him and he turns it down.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 10:42:35 GMT -5
OK, just need to vent here. The two things that continue to drive me NUTS, not @sully345729 and friends are saying it but because national and local baseball writers who should know better are the ones doing so, are: 1) The snarky takes that insinuate that the Red Sox didn't want him on their team, like they didn't think he was good (e.g., "Imagine thinking your team was better without Mookie Betts" like they traded him because they thought Verdugo was better or something), and 2) The more forgivable but still wrong takes that they traded Betts solely to get under the luxury tax. There is, of course, nothing wrong with disagreeing with trading Betts. There are sound arguments on both sides of it. I just hate the lack of nuance from people who should know better. Wasn’t it to get under the luxury tax? I mean, did they offer the Dodger deal? Because the nuance that I see missing is the constant refrain here that Mookie didn’t want to be in Boston. Why? Because he passed on a lowball offer? Did Lester not want to be here? If the Sox were not trying to stay under the cap, would they have ponied up, and would Mookie be here? I think the answer is yes. And the “likes it here” argument is generally garbage. Crawford and Price hated Boston before they even got here, but money talks. Not many players pass up tens of millions of dollars because of how they feel about one place or another.
|
|
|
Post by ortiz34 on Oct 21, 2020 10:48:45 GMT -5
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. Can. But don’t currently. So the defense of the Mookie trade is if they don’t screw up in the free agent market like they have umpteen times, they *might* *eventually* be more talented. That is cold comfort, given that their first additions will be merely an effort to get back to being *as* talented as they were with Mookie. Hey, man... I ain’t John Henry, and I don’t know how many boats and vacation homes he needs. I know that him not paying the luxury tax is not my main concern when it comes to the co-best-player in baseball. One guy does not win baseball games. Is Mookie so great that he can pitch? He wanted to head to Free Agency. Even if Boston gave him the money, Boras would be in his his ear saying he can get more to raise up prices for other players. Also how long would we have been in the tax penalty. Another five years?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 21, 2020 11:01:46 GMT -5
I agree with Ray (philsbosoxfan) on this. They had to do what they did. It's an unpopular view - but I couldn't care less about Mookie now. He jumped at a competitive deal from LA for 1 of 2 reasons (or some of both). He really likes LA and/or he saw the writing the on the wall in terms of baseball economics post-COVID. Read between the lines, I don't think he really wanted to stay in Boston. Maybe he was open to it if the Sox blew everyone away on the open market. But I think he preferred out. He got his wish. Good for him. So whatever. Mookie's a great baseball player. He's gone. Some people are just having a hard time moving on. Not me. i think it is absolutely fair to write this, and it is something people have a hard time accepting as being part of his decision making process
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 11:02:57 GMT -5
Can. But don’t currently. So the defense of the Mookie trade is if they don’t screw up in the free agent market like they have umpteen times, they *might* *eventually* be more talented. That is cold comfort, given that their first additions will be merely an effort to get back to being *as* talented as they were with Mookie. Hey, man... I ain’t John Henry, and I don’t know how many boats and vacation homes he needs. I know that him not paying the luxury tax is not my main concern when it comes to the co-best-player in baseball. One guy does not win baseball games. Is Mookie so great that he can pitch? He wanted to head to Free Agency. Even if Boston gave him the money, Boras would be in his his ear saying he can get more to raise up prices for other players. Also how long would we have been in the tax penalty. Another five years? Actually Boras would not be in Betts' ear. He is NOT Mookie's agent. Again, we don't know for sure if he would have went to free agency if the Red Sox had extended a Trout-like offer. We'll never know for sure because that offer was never made. Nobody is arguing that Betts' presence on the 2020 team would have resulted in a contender. That's a false argument.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 11:05:48 GMT -5
I agree with Ray (philsbosoxfan) on this. They had to do what they did. It's an unpopular view - but I couldn't care less about Mookie now. He jumped at a competitive deal from LA for 1 of 2 reasons (or some of both). He really likes LA and/or he saw the writing the on the wall in terms of baseball economics post-COVID. Read between the lines, I don't think he really wanted to stay in Boston. Maybe he was open to it if the Sox blew everyone away on the open market. But I think he preferred out. He got his wish. Good for him. So whatever. Mookie's a great baseball player. He's gone. Some people are just having a hard time moving on. Not me. i think it is absolutely fair to write this, and it is something people have a hard time accepting as being part of his decision making process Why? When did he slag Boston? When did he decline a real offer? When did he act sullen? Complain about management or teammates? I think this is a fantasy people have created to justify dumping him. There are guys like Ortiz, who is Mr. Boston or Jeter, who was the king of NY, but most players probably don’t love or hate their teams... this is a job after all. But people seem intent on mind reading a guy who always seemed happy on the field and never made waves off it.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 11:09:41 GMT -5
Can. But don’t currently. So the defense of the Mookie trade is if they don’t screw up in the free agent market like they have umpteen times, they *might* *eventually* be more talented. That is cold comfort, given that their first additions will be merely an effort to get back to being *as* talented as they were with Mookie. Hey, man... I ain’t John Henry, and I don’t know how many boats and vacation homes he needs. I know that him not paying the luxury tax is not my main concern when it comes to the co-best-player in baseball. One guy does not win baseball games. Is Mookie so great that he can pitch? He wanted to head to Free Agency. Even if Boston gave him the money, Boras would be in his his ear saying he can get more to raise up prices for other players. Also how long would we have been in the tax penalty. Another five years? He wanted to head to free agency... and yet he won’t be? He took a fair offer? Huh. Crazy how that works. One player is not enough, true. Who are you arguing against? But if I’m building a team, it is nice to have the best possible guy as a cornerstone.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 21, 2020 11:12:41 GMT -5
i think it is absolutely fair to write this, and it is something people have a hard time accepting as being part of his decision making Why? When did he slag Boston? When did he decline a real offer? When did he act sullen? Complain about management or teammates? I think this is a fantasy people have created to justify dumping him. There are guys like Ortiz, who is Mr. Boston or Jeter, who was the king of NY, but most players probably don’t love or hate their teams... this is a job after all. But people seem intent on mind reading a guy who always seemed happy on the field and never made waves off it. Look....New ENgland, and Massachusetts in general, is not everyone's cup of tea. That isn't news and there are plenty of players that have said as much. Greats like Nomar have talked about it being a fishbowl. For Mookie, my thought is this. If he really wanted to stay here, he would have signed a contract, possibly at a discount, as many others have done. Heck, one of his best friends on the team, Xander, did as much. He took a great offer from the Dodgers and we dont even know if he allowed for the Sox to match it. What does that tell you ? It is just a feeling, but he had many chances to sign and then he signed an extension without having played one game with his new team. He never even tested the market. There could be reasons for that, but I just dont think it is a stretch to say he didnt want to come back.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 11:40:38 GMT -5
Why? When did he slag Boston? When did he decline a real offer? When did he act sullen? Complain about management or teammates? I think this is a fantasy people have created to justify dumping him. There are guys like Ortiz, who is Mr. Boston or Jeter, who was the king of NY, but most players probably don’t love or hate their teams... this is a job after all. But people seem intent on mind reading a guy who always seemed happy on the field and never made waves off it. Look....New ENgland, and Massachusetts in general, is not everyone's cup of tea. That isn't news and there are plenty of players that have said as much. Greats like Nomar have talked about it being a fishbowl. For Mookie, my thought is this. If he really wanted to stay here, he would have signed a contract, possibly at a discount, as many others have done. Heck, one of his best friends on the team, Xander, did as much. He took a great offer from the Dodgers and we dont even know if he allowed for the Sox to match it. What does that tell you ? It is just a feeling, but he had many chances to sign and then he signed an extension without having played one game with his new team. He never even tested the market. There could be reasons for that, but I just dont think it is a stretch to say he didnt want to come back. Again... none of that is evidence, and it can be read to mean quite the opposite. He didn’t take a discount? Is that our standard now? Do you? Have any of us gone in to our bosses and said, “to prove my love for this company, I’d like you to give me a smaller raise than I deserve”? But you say he took the offer the Dodgers gave immediately before even playing a game. Might that not indicate it wasn’t the difference between clam chowder and palm trees, but who ponied up and who didn’t? That the myth of Betts insisting on free agency was a myth... provided he received an adequate offer? I am sure he said he’d pursue free agency... who doesn’t in a negotiation? But he *didn’t*. Treated with due respect, he signed. Link to him saying he wanted out, I’ll concede. But the circumstances prove nothing from outside. You can have “feelings,” but if one of the defenses of trading Mookie is he didn’t want to be here, it is weak tea.
|
|
|
Post by jkfer98 on Oct 21, 2020 12:04:38 GMT -5
Look....New ENgland, and Massachusetts in general, is not everyone's cup of tea. That isn't news and there are plenty of players that have said as much. Greats like Nomar have talked about it being a fishbowl. For Mookie, my thought is this. If he really wanted to stay here, he would have signed a contract, possibly at a discount, as many others have done. Heck, one of his best friends on the team, Xander, did as much. He took a great offer from the Dodgers and we dont even know if he allowed for the Sox to match it. What does that tell you ? It is just a feeling, but he had many chances to sign and then he signed an extension without having played one game with his new team. He never even tested the market. There could be reasons for that, but I just dont think it is a stretch to say he didnt want to come back. Again... none of that is evidence, and it can be read to mean quite the opposite. He didn’t take a discount? Is that our standard now? Do you? Have any of us gone in to our bosses and said, “to prove my love for this company, I’d like you to give me a smaller raise than I deserve”? But you say he took the offer the Dodgers gave immediately before even playing a game. Might that not indicate it wasn’t the difference between clam chowder and palm trees, but who ponied up and who didn’t? That the myth of Betts insisting on free agency was a myth... provided he received an adequate offer? I am sure he said he’d pursue free agency... who doesn’t in a negotiation? But he *didn’t*. Treated with due respect, he signed. Link to him saying he wanted out, I’ll concede. But the circumstances prove nothing from outside. You can have “feelings,” but if one of the defenses of trading Mookie is he didn’t want to be here, it is weak tea. Something a lot of people seem to conveniently forget (somehow) is that a global pandemic hit between the time the Red Sox traded him to LA and he signed a contract extension with LA. Do people really not think that factored into his decision at all? I genuinely believe he wanted to become a free agent before the pandemic - which was totally within his rights to do! Get that bread Mookie! But he, like everyone else in baseball, now had to face the economic uncertainty that came with the pandemic. So he got an offer (one that I dont think he would have accepted if there wasn't a pandemic) and took it because not only was it a lot of money, but it was the smart and secure thing to do given everything going on in the world. The calculus of the situation completely changed once the pandemic hit.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 12:59:45 GMT -5
Again... none of that is evidence, and it can be read to mean quite the opposite. He didn’t take a discount? Is that our standard now? Do you? Have any of us gone in to our bosses and said, “to prove my love for this company, I’d like you to give me a smaller raise than I deserve”? But you say he took the offer the Dodgers gave immediately before even playing a game. Might that not indicate it wasn’t the difference between clam chowder and palm trees, but who ponied up and who didn’t? That the myth of Betts insisting on free agency was a myth... provided he received an adequate offer? I am sure he said he’d pursue free agency... who doesn’t in a negotiation? But he *didn’t*. Treated with due respect, he signed. Link to him saying he wanted out, I’ll concede. But the circumstances prove nothing from outside. You can have “feelings,” but if one of the defenses of trading Mookie is he didn’t want to be here, it is weak tea. Something a lot of people seem to conveniently forget (somehow) is that a global pandemic hit between the time the Red Sox traded him to LA and he signed a contract extension with LA. Do people really not think that factored into his decision at all? I genuinely believe he wanted to become a free agent before the pandemic - which was totally within his rights to do! Get that bread Mookie! But he, like everyone else in baseball, now had to face the economic uncertainty that came with the pandemic. So he got an offer (one that I dont think he would have accepted if there wasn't a pandemic) and took it because not only was it a lot of money, but it was the smart and secure thing to do given everything going on in the world. The calculus of the situation completely changed once the pandemic hit. Again... speculation. And many of us were arguing to keep him through the year to see what happens. Did we anticipate Covid? Obviously not. But we did believe that conditions change. If his view changed because of Covid, we would have benefited from that. If this was musical chairs, he signed where he was. That would have been Boston otherwise. Or, Covid etc. is irrelevant, he loves LA, hated Boston etc. It is pretty much all speculation. The fact is he did not make it to free agency because he took a contract offer the Red Sox could have but did not offer. Past that, it is all mind reading, guessing, etc. By the way, having not left the city limits of my hometown since March -- and barely my house -- I never forget Covid.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Oct 21, 2020 13:00:30 GMT -5
It was keep mookie or keep xander. Xander signed a team friendly deal before he was up mookie didn't kind of a no brainer trade. We got really good pieces in the trade for mookie two possible everyday cost controlled players. If the dodger win it with mookie congrats thats what they added him for. Do you think the white sox are rethinking the sale trade bcs we won the WS? The red sox will be fine without mookie moving forward lets evaluate this in 12 years and see who got the better of the deal too soon to see as of now.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Oct 21, 2020 13:09:23 GMT -5
Something a lot of people seem to conveniently forget (somehow) is that a global pandemic hit between the time the Red Sox traded him to LA and he signed a contract extension with LA. Do people really not think that factored into his decision at all? I genuinely believe he wanted to become a free agent before the pandemic - which was totally within his rights to do! Get that bread Mookie! But he, like everyone else in baseball, now had to face the economic uncertainty that came with the pandemic. So he got an offer (one that I dont think he would have accepted if there wasn't a pandemic) and took it because not only was it a lot of money, but it was the smart and secure thing to do given everything going on in the world. The calculus of the situation completely changed once the pandemic hit. Again... speculation. And many of us were arguing to keep him through the year to see what happens. Did we anticipate Covid? Obviously not. But we did believe that conditions change. If his view changed because of Covid, we would have benefited from that. If this was musical chairs, he signed where he was. That would have been Boston otherwise. Or, Covid etc. is irrelevant, he loves LA, hated Boston etc. It is pretty much all speculation. The fact is he did not make it to free agency because he took a contract offer the Red Sox could have but did not offer. Past that, it is all mind reading, guessing, etc. By the way, having not left the city limits of my hometown since March -- and barely my house -- I never forget Covid. They basically offered the exact same contract.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,397
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Oct 21, 2020 13:17:59 GMT -5
Again... speculation. And many of us were arguing to keep him through the year to see what happens. Did we anticipate Covid? Obviously not. But we did believe that conditions change. If his view changed because of Covid, we would have benefited from that. If this was musical chairs, he signed where he was. That would have been Boston otherwise. Or, Covid etc. is irrelevant, he loves LA, hated Boston etc. It is pretty much all speculation. The fact is he did not make it to free agency because he took a contract offer the Red Sox could have but did not offer. Past that, it is all mind reading, guessing, etc. By the way, having not left the city limits of my hometown since March -- and barely my house -- I never forget Covid. They basically offered the exact same contract. Minus 2 years and $65 million. Here is the man himself: www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/07/mookie-betts-contract-if-boston-red-sox-had-given-him-similar-deal-would-he-have-re-signed-its-a-very-valid-question-he-says.html#:~:text=Former%20Red%20Sox%20star%20Mookie%20Betts%20signed%20a,think%20it’s%20a%20very%20valid%20question%2C”%20Betts%20replied.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 13:18:43 GMT -5
Again... speculation. And many of us were arguing to keep him through the year to see what happens. Did we anticipate Covid? Obviously not. But we did believe that conditions change. If his view changed because of Covid, we would have benefited from that. If this was musical chairs, he signed where he was. That would have been Boston otherwise. Or, Covid etc. is irrelevant, he loves LA, hated Boston etc. It is pretty much all speculation. The fact is he did not make it to free agency because he took a contract offer the Red Sox could have but did not offer. Past that, it is all mind reading, guessing, etc. By the way, having not left the city limits of my hometown since March -- and barely my house -- I never forget Covid. They basically offered the exact same contract. No, the Red Sox did not offer the same contract. The Dodgers offer had $65 million in it the Sox offer didn't have. The annual $ figure might have been similar but the total package wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 21, 2020 13:27:28 GMT -5
It was keep mookie or keep xander. Xander signed a team friendly deal before he was up mookie didn't kind of a no brainer trade. We got really good pieces in the trade for mookie two possible everyday cost controlled players. If the dodger win it with mookie congrats thats what they added him for. Do you think the white sox are rethinking the sale trade bcs we won the WS? The red sox will be fine without mookie moving forward lets evaluate this in 12 years and see who got the better of the deal too soon to see as of now. No, it wasn't Xander vs Betts. The Sox could have found other pathways to be able to make an offer to Betts for a Troutlike sum and sign Bogaerts. It probably would have facilitated some trades and/or not re-signing Eovaldi or extending Sale sooner than they had to. Now, I'm not going to be a hypocrite here. I was happy to have Eovaldi back and keep Sale, but I figured the Sox would stay above the luxury tax and wait for the strike to change the rules, or why make those moves? They could have traded JBJ after the 2018 season (coming off his strong post-season) or Porcello as well with a bit of subsidy. Same idea with Price, who had more value coming off his post-season than he did in 2019. They could have tried some sort of bargain basement approach with pitchers or an OF to fill the gap (get a cheap corner bat and move Mookie to CF for example). These are moves you make if you have to keep the team luxury tax under a certain limit if that's the goal and to keep Mookie if that's the goal. What does it take to keep Mookie? Well, you offer him the biggest contract in the game like LA did. If he declines, then you know he's not going to stay, you put your best foot forward and you trade him. Again, nobody is going to be annoyed at the Red Sox if they make him the largest offer and he says no thanks. If that happens, nobody will have any problems with the Sox assuming he doesn't want to be there and trading him. But the fact that the Sox lowballed him, he predictably said no thanks and the Sox painted themselves into a corner where they had to trade him......well, that's right out of the Jon Lester playbook. David Ortiz wrote in his book that the Sox always want the hometown discount with their own free agents, but if but they don't get it, they'll let them walk, but they'll open their wallets wide for somebody else's talent. He's correct in that assessment.
|
|
|
Post by jl1947 on Oct 21, 2020 13:29:55 GMT -5
OK, just need to vent here. The two things that continue to drive me NUTS, not @sully345729 and friends are saying it but because national and local baseball writers who should know better are the ones doing so, are: 1) The snarky takes that insinuate that the Red Sox didn't want him on their team, like they didn't think he was good (e.g., "Imagine thinking your team was better without Mookie Betts" like they traded him because they thought Verdugo was better or something), and 2) The more forgivable but still wrong takes that they traded Betts solely to get under the luxury tax. There is, of course, nothing wrong with disagreeing with trading Betts. There are sound arguments on both sides of it. I just hate the lack of nuance from people who should know better. I got booted from commenting on The Boston Globe site for a similar take on Peter Abraham's cheap takes and lack of nuance in his reporting.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 21, 2020 14:20:58 GMT -5
Again... none of that is evidence, and it can be read to mean quite the opposite. He didn’t take a discount? Is that our standard now? Do you? Have any of us gone in to our bosses and said, “to prove my love for this company, I’d like you to give me a smaller raise than I deserve”? But you say he took the offer the Dodgers gave immediately before even playing a game. Might that not indicate it wasn’t the difference between clam chowder and palm trees, but who ponied up and who didn’t? That the myth of Betts insisting on free agency was a myth... provided he received an adequate offer? I am sure he said he’d pursue free agency... who doesn’t in a negotiation? But he *didn’t*. Treated with due respect, he signed. Link to him saying he wanted out, I’ll concede. But the circumstances prove nothing from outside. You can have “feelings,” but if one of the defenses of trading Mookie is he didn’t want to be here, it is weak tea. I have admitted my opinion has conjecture in it. Not every post needs empirical / factual backup. Here is an article where Mookie speaks directly about the offers and his situation before he signed his deal www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mookie-betts-says-he-doesnt-regret-turning-down-300-million-offer-from-red-sox/#:~:text=The%20Red%20Sox%20made%20several,reportedly%20offered%20%24300%20million%20later. He didn't seem to be in a hurry to sign for the extra 65 million that he inevitably received at the time of this interview. What changed ? Certainly Covid is a possibility. Maybe the 13 years was a carrot for him ( i think the Sox would only do 10 year deals). Any number of reasons could be, but I just don't think it is a stretch to think he didn't want to be here (or more likely....when he left he was gone for good). The Sox drafted him, developed him...etc..etc. and we are supposed to believe he was disrespected Lester was different....he was disrespected. As far as "hometown discounts" for employment. Yes, people do that all the time, in baseball or other industries. Sometimes people think that familiarity with their work environment has monetary value that doesn't appear in a paycheck.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2020 14:38:25 GMT -5
OK, just need to vent here. The two things that continue to drive me NUTS, not @sully345729 and friends are saying it but because national and local baseball writers who should know better are the ones doing so, are: 1) The snarky takes that insinuate that the Red Sox didn't want him on their team, like they didn't think he was good (e.g., "Imagine thinking your team was better without Mookie Betts" like they traded him because they thought Verdugo was better or something), and 2) The more forgivable but still wrong takes that they traded Betts solely to get under the luxury tax. There is, of course, nothing wrong with disagreeing with trading Betts. There are sound arguments on both sides of it. I just hate the lack of nuance from people who should know better. Wasn’t it to get under the luxury tax? I mean, did they offer the Dodger deal? Because the nuance that I see missing is the constant refrain here that Mookie didn’t want to be in Boston. Why? Because he passed on a lowball offer? Did Lester not want to be here? If the Sox were not trying to stay under the cap, would they have ponied up, and would Mookie be here? I think the answer is yes. And the “likes it here” argument is generally garbage. Crawford and Price hated Boston before they even got here, but money talks. Not many players pass up tens of millions of dollars because of how they feel about one place or another. You're putting words in my mouth. I don't agree that he "didn't want to be here" either. We're all guessing on that, so no point in discussing, imo. Trading Betts was not done to get under the luxury tax. It certainly helped do that, but that was not the reason they explored moving him. They traded Betts because they did not want to risk losing him for nothing, and based on what we do know about his many statements about how he'd wanted to go to free agency (pre-COVID at least), that's a fair assessment of the situation. I do think they still move him even if they're not trying to get under the luxury tax. Now, including Price was solely to get under the luxury tax - I think instead they'd have tried to get another top-20 type prospect included, or perhaps a reliever or something. To put out another hypothetical - if Betts were making the same amount of money he made this year, but on a multi-year deal that didn't end for another 2 or 3 seasons, do you think they still trade him? If they're moving him solely to get under the CBT, the answer is probably yes. And I don't think they would have. They moved him because he was a pending free agent. I'm not saying you can't fault the Red Sox. You absolutely can. More seriously attempting to extend him should've been a priority much sooner and I'm not sure it was based on what leaked. And they painted themselves into a corner a bit based on how they approached the previous offseason. Kill them all you want for that. But it's not patently unreasonable to, if you're starting from the 2019-20 offseason, look at the situation, see that you're probably not a serious 2021 contender, and determine that you should explore whether you can receive reasonable value for Betts to make it worth trading him. Look at the Nationals - they sucked this year too, and it's in large part because they allowed Harper and Rendon to walk in pursuit of a ring. In the case of Rendon, it worked out great and I'm sure they wouldn't change a thing. But in the case of Harper... might've been nice to have something to show for him, no?
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 21, 2020 15:33:42 GMT -5
Okay. I am going to jump back into this: Please consider this from the LA Times: Mookie Betts made history last week. The 12-year, $365-million contract extension he signed with the Dodgers gave him the second-richest total deal —13 years for $392 million if his original $27-million salary for 2020 is included — in Major League Baseball history. It bested Mike Trout’s record extension of $360 million. The $65-million signing bonus is also the biggest. But the contract’s details change its effective worth. The MLB players’ union estimated the extension’s present-day value is $306,657,882. Why? Because Betts will receive payments over 24 years, not 12. www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/story/2020-07-28/breaking-down-mookie-betts-contract-extension-with-dodgersI think his signing with LA was brilliant, and it wasn't just the money. LA is a model franchise right now, and is a consistent contender year in and year out. They have a strong minor league pipeline and no real dead weight contracts. The Sox, for all the recent titles, are a freaking roller coaster of ecstasy and misery, upper management turnover, and a media shit-show. Hard on fans, but harder on players who strive to win. I would think playing for a consistent contender would be much better than the bipolar Red Sox. I also think he was worth more to LA than the Red Sox. The Red Sox needed, and still need, a big overhaul of the major league team and minor league pipeline, including getting back on solid financial ground. Having Mookie signed to a huge 36-40 million/year contract would have made that overhaul much harder. The Dodgers could make good use of Mookie immediately. Mookie in Boston would have made a significant difference in maybe 2-3 years. The present day value of the contract he signed with the Dodgers suggests it wasn't just about the money. Yeah, Covid probably played into him signing before free agency, but if was about getting the money, then one would have expected Mookie to sign a 1+1 type contract and have another bite at the apple later. Blame the Sox for trading him if you want to, but that is misguided. Rather, Blame the Sox for not being a very attractive destination at this point in time. Mookie voted with his signature on the new contract, and it is obvious why. Just look at the two teams and don't overthink it: LA was and is a much more attractive destination. We could have overpaid for Mookie, but that would not have been the best choice for the next 2-3 years for either Boston or Betts.
|
|
|