Mookie Betts and David Price have been traded to Dodgers

[mvp 78]

She admitted they were in a consensual affair, despite her being under age.

 

Verdugos victim was raped. She was raped. She was raped. She was raped. She was raped.

 

Alex Verdugo participated in a sexual assault.

 

You are an idiot.

 

Nope. You just struggle with reading comprehension.

 

"During an interview with the police, the girl said that one of the players in the hotel room had sexually assaulted her. Baldwin was investigated by the Glendale Police Department for the assault.

 

The girl explained that she’d been drinking a lot, and felt ill, so she rested on one of the beds. Baldwin approached her and began fondling her breasts, then put his hand under her underwear, fondling her clitoris. This wasn’t consensual, she told them. She was passing out during the act. He gave up trying when the rest of the group re-entered the room, perhaps, she said, out of frustration."

 

https://highheelsonthefield.typepad.com/all_heels_on_deck/2019/02/dodgers-after-dark-the-sexual-assaults-mlb-never-investigated-a-teams-culture-unexamined.html

[mvp 78]

dude, why are you always so mad?

as for verdugo - i do not believe anyone is stating that he participated in raping this girl. not even the girl is stating that.

as for video taping the girls fighting....who wouldn't?

 

There are so many idiots online yelling about this right now, mainly because of bad reporting at SB Nation. https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2020/2/6/21124292/red-sox-dodgers-alex-verdugo-the-unspoken-problem-with-the-mookie-betts-david-price-trade

 

The SB Nation story incorrectly states "Verdugo was reportedly present for both the girl’s beating and for the sexual assault on the girl by Baldwin, and did not intervene. He was named in the police report filed by the survivor." This just isn't true based on the original reporting which the SB Nation steals most of its story from. Verdugo is reported as being their for the girl fight, not for the sexual assault per the original report.

[Bellhorn04]

dude, why are you always so mad?

as for verdugo - i do not believe anyone is stating that he participated in raping this girl. not even the girl is stating that.

as for video taping the girls fighting....who wouldn't?

 

If I saw two girls beating up on another girl I hope I would try to stop it.

[mvp 78]

If I saw two girls beating up on another girl I hope I would try to stop it.

 

There are character concerns for sure. Yes, he was a dumb 19 year old. Yes, he should have not been involved in the taping of a beatdown.

 

No, he was NOT implicated in the sexual assault. Only Baldwin was.

 

Sox fans need to at least run with the correct narrative.

Edited February 12, 2020 by mvp 78

[Slasher9]

If I saw two girls beating up on another girl I hope I would try to stop it.

 

canadians are nice.

also for those whining/bitching about verdugo and the sexual assault....i'm pretty sure he let the president down by not grabbing her by the pussy......

[Hitch]

as for video taping the girls fighting....who wouldn't?

 

Hopefully most people. I dunno, maybe stepping in and not allowing a girl to get pummelled for entertainment is possibly the best course of action?

 

Jesus, Slasher.

[Elktonnick]

There are questions about her being 15, but she was certainly 16 when Clemens took her on unaccompanied vacations. I am almost 100% certain Roger did NOT wait 2+ years to get intimate with her. I'm all for believing the woman, but when she really liked Roger,felt is was consenual, and he was paying her large sums of money, one can understand her not being fully forthright.

 

Clemens clearly took advantage of her naivety and her vulnerable/fragile circumstances. She ended up getting hooked on drugs (maybe using some of Roger's money to buy them) and ultimately committed suicide years later. She was obviously a troubled girl from the start, and the community down here in Sugar Land pretty much all agree that he is a scumbag and did much worse than what came out. I know you can't believe rumors, but there is just too much evidence for me to think nothing happened until she was 18.

 

Look after I retired from the U. S. Dept of State, I served as Director of a county DSS. For 17 years, I headed the agency that investigated child abuse. We investigated 1700 cases per year. Together with the State's Attorney and County Sheriff I built the County 's Child Advocacy Center which was nationally accredited. Child Advocacy Centers are staffed by DSS forensic social workers, deputy sheriff criminal investigators and prosecuting attorneys. These are the entities that investigate child sexual abuse. I myself have testified in court numerous times during my career on such cases.the last in 2008. The first time was in 1974 on a serial sex abuser when I was a juvenile probation officer when I worked for Middlesex County in Massachusetts. I even testified In foreign courts in Argentina and Kuwait when I served as the American Consul.

So I think I can speak from considerable experience. You have no evidence that Clemens committed any criminal offense. What you do have is your opinion based on supposition. None of which would be sufficient in my opinion to even begin an investigation by an agency such as the one I headed.

BTW I was sued in federal court in my official capacity as DSS Director because my agency began an abuse investigation in which we later found insufficient evidence. After 6 years of litigation in which I was represented by Maryland's Attorney General, we won that case in 2014. If I hadn't been represented by the Attorney Generals office my legal fees would have probably run into 6 figures.

BTW some one posted that Clemens lied before Congress. There is only one problem with that claim. Clemens was acquited by jury on those charges in 2012.

I get that you do not like Clemens but your charges against him are nothing but slanderous conjecture because you have NO PROOF.

[Slasher9]

Hopefully most people. I dunno, maybe stepping in and not allowing a girl to get pummelled for entertainment is possibly the best course of action?

 

Jesus, Slasher.

 

my bad.

[redsoxrules]

Oh please. this makes it sound as if Mookie traded himself. He didn't. And so far, the evidence we have is that the ones who were most concerned about money were JH and Bloom. Not blaming them, really. Bloom did what he was hired to do. But when you hand over a business decision to a bean-counter, you can expect beans. The one thing we can be sure never happened was a directive to Bloom to keep Boston's great relationship with its fan base intact.

 

Mookie did trade himself. He had zero interest to be a Sox for life. Otherwise he would have signed a deal. Look at Xander, he could fetch more in the open market but he chose to be a Red Sox instead and signed a deal. Mookie is nothing but greedy and he cares about us how much money he can fetch in the open market

[redsoxrules]

Watch when Betts hits 30 years old. The decline will be fast for him. Speed players decline much quicker. Everyone at that time will be glad the Sox didn't throw 400 MIl at him

[redsoxrules]

Betts should take a page out of Tom Brady ( and I'm not fan of the Patriots) and be a team player instead of just thinking of himself .

[mvp 78]

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/57049/moonshot-payroll-flexibility-is-a-lie/

 

Rob Arthur

@No_Little_Plans

 

Teams love to talk about payroll flexibility when they trade big contracts, and how getting rid of payroll commitments will allow them to spend more later. But teams that drop their budget in one year typically don't get the $ back in the next four.

[Larry33]

Mookie did trade himself. He had zero interest to be a Sox for life. Otherwise he would have signed a deal. Look at Xander, he could fetch more in the open market but he chose to be a Red Sox instead and signed a deal. Mookie is nothing but greedy and he cares about us how much money he can fetch in the open market

 

Don't talk so foolish why in the heck wouldn't Mookie want the most that he can get. It was up to the Red Sox to make Betts stay in Boston. Mookie is ranked the 2nd best player in the MLB for 2019 behind Mike Trout and he deserved to be paid like the superstar that he is. The Red Sox blew this deal big time with this trade. Xander isn't anywhere near the caliber of player Betts is right now Bogaerts is ranked 46th that 44 spots behind Mookie. Well Bloom and Dombrowski will have something in common both traded HOF players away Bombrowski with Expos Randy Johnson to Seattle for Langston, Bloom with the Red Sox Mookie Betts for Verdugo, Down and Wong.

[moonslav59]

Nice phrase. You (and Kimmie) have chanced my thinking on this. It reminds me of what the great philosopher Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes.... you get what you need.'

 

We'd all like to see Mookie around for his entire career, but at what price? Do you want to see him here forever if it means we never win a WSC again because JH can't/won't spend enough additional money to put quality players around him?

 

We may not like this but it may be what we need.

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/57049/moonshot-payroll-flexibility-is-a-lie/

 

Rob Arthur

@No_Little_Plans

 

Teams love to talk about payroll flexibility when they trade big contracts, and how getting rid of payroll commitments will allow them to spend more later. But teams that drop their budget in one year typically don't get the $ back in the next four.

 

The Sox have a long history, since Henry took over, of spending very big, then resetting or spending less for just 1-2 years, then returning to biggest or 2nd biggest spender status.

 

We may not make anymore signings like Price for a while, but I think we go back over the tax line as early as 2021.

 

We may never go over the $40M line again.

[Bellhorn04]

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/57049/moonshot-payroll-flexibility-is-a-lie/

 

Rob Arthur

@No_Little_Plans

 

Teams love to talk about payroll flexibility when they trade big contracts, and how getting rid of payroll commitments will allow them to spend more later. But teams that drop their budget in one year typically don't get the $ back in the next four.

 

Can't read the article, but...

 

The new tax system has only been in place since 2017.

 

The Yankees re-set and then spent.

The Dodgers re-set and then spent.

[mvp 78]

We may never go over the $40M line again.

 

As a great philosopher once said "I see a red door and I want it painted black." This is in reference to Henry not caring about fans or the Red Sox, he just cares about the black numbers on the page.

[Hitch]

As a great philosopher once said "I see a red door and I want it painted black." This is in reference to Henry not caring about fans or the Red Sox, he just cares about the black numbers on the page.

 

And winning which he does routinely with this club.

[mvp 78]

And winning which he does routinely with this club.

 

And most last place finishes as well. It's been quite the crazy roller coaster with this ownership. I think that's why everyone that still follows the Sox like we do get emotional about it.

[Bellhorn04]

And most last place finishes as well. It's been quite the crazy roller coaster with this ownership. I think that's why everyone that still follows the Sox like we do get emotional about it.

 

You're right about the last place finishes, but they certainly weren't because Henry was cheaping out.

[moonslav59]

Nice phrase. You (and Kimmie) have chanced my thinking on this. It reminds me of what the great philosopher Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes.... you get what you need.'

 

We'd all like to see Mookie around for his entire career, but at what price? Do you want to see him here forever if it means we never win a WSC again because JH can't/won't spend enough additional money to put quality players around him?

 

We may not like this but it may be what we need.

 

The Sox have a long history, since Henry took over, of spending very big, then resetting or spending less for just 1-2 years, then returning to biggest or 2nd biggest spender status.

 

We may not make anymore signings like Price for a while, but I think we go back over the tax line as early as 2021.

 

We may never go over the $40M line again.

 

The first taxes began in 1997.

 

1997 No tax

1998 $2.2M

1999 $.02M

2000 No tax

2001 No tax

2002 No tax

 

Henry era begins

2004 $3.2M

2005 $4.2M

2006 $497K

2007 $6.1M

2008 No

2009 No

2010 $1.5M

2011 $3.4M

2012 No (last place)

2013 No

2014 No (last place)

2015 $1.8M (last place)

2016 $4.5M

2017 No

2018 $9.4M

2019 $9.4M

 

There is no reason to think this sort of pattern won't continue.

Edited February 12, 2020 by moonslav59

[mvp 78]

You're right about the last place finishes, but they certainly weren't because Henry was cheaping out.

 

In 2012, it's because he intervened and hand picked BV.

 

In 2014, it's just a WS hangover.

 

In 2015, it's because they listened to Werner or whoever and decided that Panda and HanRam were needed for fan interest. Yuck.

 

I'll give him a pass for 2014.

[Bellhorn04]

In 2012, it's because he intervened and hand picked BV.

 

In 2014, it's just a WS hangover.

 

In 2015, it's because they listened to Werner or whoever and decided that Panda and HanRam were needed for fan interest. Yuck.

 

I'll give him a pass for 2014.

 

2012 - Larry picked BV. Then the Punto trade which could be pinned on Theo.

2015 - Not only Panda and HanRam, but Ben messed up on the pitching staff a wee bit.

[Hitch]

And most last place finishes as well. It's been quite the crazy roller coaster with this ownership. I think that's why everyone that still follows the Sox like we do get emotional about it.

 

And yet that was with massive payrolls. Not exactly fitting with this narrative people are desperate to build about him being cheap.

[mvp 78]

2012 - Larry picked BV. Then the Punto trade which could be pinned on Theo.

2015 - Not only Panda and HanRam, but Ben messed up on the pitching staff a wee bit.

 

Why does Henry let guys like Larry (2011) and DD walk all over him?

[mvp 78]

And yet that was with massive payrolls. Not exactly fitting with this narrative people are desperate to build about him being cheap.

 

Non sequitur. I don't know anyone that called him cheap. He's just getting under the lux tax this year to save himself money. He's not the Pittsburgh Pirates owner. Nobody every claimed that he doesn't spend because he's "cheap."

[Bellhorn04]

Why does Henry let guys like Larry (2011) and DD walk all over him?

 

Larry and DD did good things. Then they messed up. Now they're gone.

[moonslav59]

Nice phrase. You (and Kimmie) have chanced my thinking on this. It reminds me of what the great philosopher Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want, but sometimes.... you get what you need.'

 

We'd all like to see Mookie around for his entire career, but at what price? Do you want to see him here forever if it means we never win a WSC again because JH can't/won't spend enough additional money to put quality players around him?

 

We may not like this but it may be what we need.

 

As a great philosopher once said "I see a red door and I want it painted black." This is in reference to Henry not caring about fans or the Red Sox, he just cares about the black numbers on the page.

 

If that were true, he'd never have gone over the tax line and certainly not the $40M line.

 

He's a winner like no other owner we've had in my lifetime. I just don't understand all the criticism he gets over deciding he'll spend less here and there. BTW, even when he spends less, we're almost always a top 3-5 spender.

 

What's the beef?

[mvp 78]

What's the beef?

 

The beef is that they let the best positional player since Yaz walk out that door just to save money. I'll never agree with that logic. I care about the product on the field.

[OH FOY]

I keep thinking Yanks must like the Price move to the Dodgers, if they meet in WS. Especially at the Bronx.

[Hitch]

Non sequitur. I don't know anyone that called him cheap. He's just getting under the lux tax this year to save himself money. He's not the Pittsburgh Pirates owner. Nobody every claimed that he doesn't spend because he's "cheap."

 

Oh give me a break. You've been attacking him for not spending the money all week. I've lost count of the 'poor billionaires' posts you've made. So despite all this, you don't think he's being cheap by not signing him to the 12 x $420 deal you said we should give him?