Mookie Betts and David Price have been traded to Dodgers

[mvp 78]

Betts

Lynn

Fisk

Lester

Boggs

Nomar

Manny

Burleson

Lackey

Damon

Pedro

 

 

 

Boggs, Nomar, Manny, Pedro were all on the downswing of their careers.

[cp176]

It was a ******** deal plain and simple. You trade away likely one of the best to play the game and receive none of what you need the most in return. You can live with the line of it was the best that could have been done all you want to, personally i think that it was a desperate move by an organization that had no need to be desperate at all. i wish these young men that came to Boston the best along with the rest of the guys whose names I have never heard of as we move forward. i'll tune in to watch from time to time I'm sure but this trade hurts.

[cp176]

Boggs, Nomar, Manny, Pedro were all on the downswing of their careers.

 

 

truth - Betts not so much

[TylerD]

Lost Holt too.

[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.

 

Boggs, Nomar, Manny, Pedro were all on the downswing of their careers.

 

Yes, but a couple had 4+ very good seasons afterwards. I get that they don't fit the group listed, but Clemens does.

[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.

 

It was a ******** deal plain and simple. You trade away likely one of the best to play the game and receive none of what you need the most in return. You can live with the line of it was the best that could have been done all you want to, personally i think that it was a desperate move by an organization that had no need to be desperate at all. i wish these young men that came to Boston the best along with the rest of the guys whose names I have never heard of as we move forward. i'll tune in to watch from time to time I'm sure but this trade hurts.

 

The trade hurts bad, but it's what was best for the long term outlook of the team.

 

Maybe it was a "desperate move," at a time when we didn't have to be desperate, but had we not traded him, we'd have been even more "desperate" after 2020.

[Bellhorn04]

The trade hurts bad, but it's what was best for the long term outlook of the team.

 

Maybe it was a "desperate move," at a time when we didn't have to be desperate, but had we not traded him, we'd have been even more "desperate" after 2020.

 

One thing about this that hasn't been talked about much is the impact of the new rules on compensation picks for losing a free agent.

 

Getting nothing more than a 4th round pick for losing a player like Mookie is almost an insult.

 

If the old rules were still in place they would have had more reason to keep him this year.

[notin]

One thing about this that hasn't been talked about much is the impact of the new rules on compensation picks for losing a free agent.

 

Getting nothing more than a 4th round pick for losing a player like Mookie is almost an insult.

 

If the old rules were still in place they would have had more reason to keep him this year.

 

And the only way to get that puck back out of the fourth round is to reset. Which was next to impossible to do without trading Betts and using him to drag another contract along...

[mvp 78]

Yes, but a couple had 4+ very good seasons afterwards. I get that they don't fit the group listed, but Clemens does.

 

When Clemens left, a lot of people thought he was fat and washed up. It's not the same as Betts leaving.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

True. I think Burleson might not belong on the list, but he wasn't old.

 

Is there anyone you'd put behind Lester?

 

Certainly, Roger Clemens.

 

(I'm not counting prospects traded that became great, either- like Bagwell or Schill or even Cecil Cooper.)

Mo Vaughn?

George Scott (1st time)?

Reggie Smith?

Paplebon?

Ellsbury?

Burks?

Beckett?

Bill Lee?

Hurst?

Tiant?

 

Also, while Boggs was 35 when he left Boston, he did go on tho hit .803 in 2600 PAs with NYY. Damon was 31 and hit .821 in NY (4 yrs) in over 2500 PAs. Burleson was 29, and played very little after the trade, but he was prime when he left. (True, he was no Betts or Fisk.)

 

Thanks for the lists, Moon. Rick Burleson was a top shortstop in a time before all-around studs spotlighted the position. He was a three-time All-Star, won a Gold Glove, and received MVP votes four times. His first year in California he won the Silver Slugger with a .729 OPS (it was about a decade before the steroid era). Burleson was arguably Boston's best defensive shortstop in the 30 years before Alex Gonzalez played there in '06.

 

Reggie Smith might be the closest comp to Betts. Smith was 28 when the Red Sox traded him, after seven full seasons of .829 OPS, and 34.5 b-WAR (4.9 average) in an era when pitching dominated. He had been a two-time AS, GG outfielder, and received MVP votes in four straight seasons. Smith went to the NL, where he played nine more years with an .889 OPS and produced another 30.4 WAR.

 

Two differences in the Smith trade (besides the fact it was just before free agency): 1). the Sox had some really good young outfielders, like Evans, with Rice and Lynn almost ready; 2). Boston made sure it got an All-Star pitcher back in Rick Wise (who would lead the '75 AL pennant winners in victories).

[notin]

When Clemens left, a lot of people thought he was fat and washed up. It's not the same as Betts leaving.

 

People keep trying to compare Betts leaving to other players, but the Sox whole financial picture is different since then. Both payrolls and salaries have skyrocketed. No one wanted this to happen, but something drastic did need to be done to avoid becoming the Tigers...

[Slasher9]

When Clemens left, a lot of people thought he was fat and washed up. It's not the same as Betts leaving.

 

he was but then he found the miami clinics....

betts is 100% in his prime. it sucks that we dont have him this season but it was the only way (IMO) to have him for the next 10 seasons.....

[mvp 78]

People keep trying to compare Betts leaving to other players, but the Sox whole financial picture is different since then. Both payrolls and salaries have skyrocketed. No one wanted this to happen, but something drastic did need to be done to avoid becoming the Tigers...

 

I'm not arguing that it didn't have to be done. I'm just saying that this is a situation that I haven't had to go through as a fan of the Red Sox. I wasn't shitposting in the sandbox in PreK when Fisk and Lynn left.

[mvp 78]

he was but then he found the miami clinics....

betts is 100% in his prime. it sucks that we dont have him this season but it was the only way (IMO) to have him for the next 10 seasons.....

 

The best chance for him to come back is for ticket sales and ratings to absolutely suck balls this year. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[notin]

I'm not arguing that it didn't have to be done. I'm just saying that this is a situation that I haven't had to go through as a fan of the Red Sox. I wasn't shitposting in the sandbox in PreK when Fisk and Lynn left.

 

Liar. I remember seeing your scrawls in the sand about how cheap Jean Yawkey was and how Heywood Sullivan was such a bad GM...

[cp176]

The trade hurts bad, but it's what was best for the long term outlook of the team.

 

Maybe it was a "desperate move," at a time when we didn't have to be desperate, but had we not traded him, we'd have been even more "desperate" after 2020.

 

It is just my opinion - i get that - but I am having difficulty really understanding how this particular deal improves us greatly long term. I understand that we got three young players this time around. I think that I understand the monetary ramifications as well. Just not sure that keeping betts for one more season and then watching him walk would have been devastating to the franchise.

[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.

 

When Clemens left, a lot of people thought he was fat and washed up. It's not the same as Betts leaving.

 

Maybe not a lot of people, and if you read about how many here seem to feel like Betts will decline swiftly after age 31-32, one can make the comp.

 

Clemens was a beast with Boston, despite his "off years" prior to his leaving. He most certainly belongs on the list with Lester, Betts, Lynn and Fisk.

 

Put him last on the list, if you wish, but he belongs on the list, IMO.

[notin]

It is just my opinion - i get that - but I am having difficulty really understanding how this particular deal improves us greatly long term. I understand that we got three young players this time around. I think that I understand the monetary ramifications as well. Just not sure that keeping betts for one more season and then watching him walk would have been devastating to the franchise.

 

Well, what was the benefit to keeping Mookie in 2020 and then losing him for a fourth round pick?

 

In 2020, the Sox season hinged 100% on the health of Price, Sale and Eovaldi. Not Betts. The Sox offense was top four in MLB using any metric you like. Pitching? Not so much. And their Big Three are all expensive and oft-injured.

 

If the Sox kept Betts, then Price, Sale and Eovaldi are all still here next year. Betts is not. Martinez is not. Bradley is not. And a few other lesser players. Price, Sale and Eovaldi May or may not continue to get injured. But they all definitely get older. The farm system gives maybe a little relief? The payroll is still in the $190-200 mill range. The lineup (C:Vasquez, 1b: Dalbec?, 2b: Chavis, 3b: Devers, LF: Benintendi, CF: Duran?, RF: ??, DH:??) can certainly no longer be called a strength and borders on Marlins-like production. And the rotation is as described.

 

That team would finish above Baltimore.

 

But if you enjoyed 2014 and 2015, you might not mind so much..,

[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.

 

It is just my opinion - i get that - but I am having difficulty really understanding how this particular deal improves us greatly long term. I understand that we got three young players this time around. I think that I understand the monetary ramifications as well. Just not sure that keeping betts for one more season and then watching him walk would have been devastating to the franchise.

 

I'm not sure why you feel it's devastating to lose Betts, now, but it won't be next winter.

 

I get the part about the trade being our choice and him walking being more his choice, but I have to think we are way better off looking at 2021 and beyond due to this trade.

 

The reset alone, in 2020 instead of 2021 greatly improves the chances we are better in 2021.

 

The added $16M from trading Price should greatly help us in 2021 and 2022.

 

Verdugo is no slouch. The kid has a lot of upside potential and is pretty good even if he just gives what he did in 2019 over the rest of his time here.

 

Downs is a top 2 prospect. Wong is top 12 or 15.

 

Sure, there's a chance none of this helps, bu to me our extended future looks much brighter due to the trade.

 

We'd be looking at a reset in 2021, no Betts, no money to spend to replace him, the last 2 years of an aging Price's contract of $32M a year, and a much weaker farm than we have now.

[cp176]

Well, what was the benefit to keeping Mookie in 2020 and then losing him for a fourth round pick?

 

In 2020, the Sox season hinged 100% on the health of Price, Sale and Eovaldi. Not Betts. The Sox offense was top four in MLB using any metric you like. Pitching? Not so much. And their Big Three are all expensive and oft-injured.

 

If the Sox kept Betts, then Price, Sale and Eovaldi are all still here next year. Betts is not. Martinez is not. Bradley is not. And a few other lesser players. Price, Sale and Eovaldi May or may not continue to get injured. But they all definitely get older. The farm system gives maybe a little relief? The payroll is still in the $190-200 mill range. The lineup (C:Vasquez, 1b: Dalbec?, 2b: Chavis, 3b: Devers, LF: Benintendi, CF: Duran?, RF: ??, DH:??) can certainly no longer be called a strength and borders on Marlins-like production. And the rotation is as described.

 

That team would finish above Baltimore.

 

But if you enjoyed 2014 and 2015, you might not mind so much..,

 

The Red Sox chose to roll the dice on this one. We all get to wait and see how it works out.

[Slasher9]

The Red Sox chose to roll the dice on this one. We all get to wait and see how it works out.

 

i dont think they rolled the dice. thanks to DD, they were simply left with the only move possible. .

[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.

 

i dont think they rolled the dice. thanks to DD, they were simply left with the only move possible. .

 

We had to do something, and my guess is none of them would have made 2020 look any better, unless we just punted to 2021 making that much worse than we look now.

[a700hitter]

i dont think they rolled the dice. thanks to DD, they were simply left with the only move possible. .

It wasn’t an option to ride one more year with Betts and then reset?

[notin]

The Red Sox chose to roll the dice on this one. We all get to wait and see how it works out.

 

They had no choice...

[Slasher9]

It wasn’t an option to ride one more year with Betts and then reset?

 

i hear this. but IMO red sox FO (see: JH) would never even consider offering Mookie a LTC next offseason if the Red Sox didnt reset this year. and i believe that is their #1 priority. thats what made this (trading betts + price now) the only move. this was the one season that they could reset and still get Mookie back on a LTC next year.

[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.

 

It wasn’t an option to ride one more year with Betts and then reset?

 

I guess it was, but I really think the reset was a mandate- not a priority.

 

If it was a true option, the reset in 2021 and having Betts for 2020 would have really left us much worse off looking at 2021 and beyond than we do right now looking at 2020 and beyond.

 

One can argue trying to win in 2020 would have been worth a worse extended future outlook, but I don't get the sense that some feel we're not much better off looking at 2021 and beyond than we would have been without the big trade.

 

Try trading Price, alone, after 2020. He'd be a year older and worse. Try finding a Verdugo, Downs and Wong in our system or through the draft.

[jung]

The Red Sox chose to roll the dice on this one. We all get to wait and see how it works out.

 

They certainly rolled the dice as far as marketing the potential greatness of a particular edition of the team in this case the 2020. They will compete for a wild card. So what. Everybody but 2-3 teams a year competes for a wild card. There were particular aspects of the Henry/Warner/Kennedy presser that I found silly in the usual Sox manner of silliness. But if we have not grown used to that by now, will we never? "We did this deal because of the return" SERIOUSLY!!!! I found Kennedy shilling for tickets particularly distasteful given the setting. Oh your ticket sales are suffering. Too F-ing bad, Sam.

 

The Sox Brass cannot come out and tell us the truth. They just cannot do that in this town, maybe could not in any town. The simple fact is they are not going to give Mookie 10+ years and even $350M, let alone 12 years and $400 or 13 years and anything because they don't have to. Some team will do that BECAUSE THEY CAN MORE READILY RATIONALIZE giving a guy who is not Mike Trout, Mike Trout money.

 

Just look at those two bodies for one thing. If there was a serious collision in a fantasy OF that includes both Mookie and Mike, who survives that train wreck just for example. While you can't calculate injury you have to think about who you are giving 10+ big money contracts to. Mookie is a dynamic player who is as exciting on the base paths as he is everywhere else on the ball field. How long does that last for Mookie with respect to a 10+ year contract beginning at age 27? What happens even to his hitting if he suffers a wrist injury given his hitting style?

 

If they could have signed him for 10 years after his 2016 season at age 24 now that would have been a 10 year deal that they could at least rationalize with a player like Mookie. Were they not trying to sign him from end 2016 till end 2019 if they are to be believed?

 

They only thing I find tough to swallow about the trade itself is in the brass not acknowledging that it was a salary dump. It certainly was not about the return. GIVE ME A BREAK. Had we are druthers, would we not have preferred that the Sox hold onto Mookie till the deadline and try to pull a Chapman/Miller/Yankees kind of deal at the deadline? Why couldn't they do that? Because they could not have unloaded all that Price money at the same time and they obviously wanted to shed the Price money.

 

So this is a gamble in the sense that MLB is struggling. Please, lets not argue otherwise. All these nonsense rules changes and the baseball being juiced now beyond belief and the silly league marketing crap is occurring because MLB is struggling and they have no real answers for it. So the gamble is that the fans will not show up either in person or on NESN in 2020 and getting them back could be difficult. Did MLB get the fans back after the strike year? Steroids saved the entire MLB in that instance and that was over two decades ago! So, if significant numbers of Boston fans take a hike for 2020 and teach themselves what other pursuits they like in the summer, the Sox may just not get them back. That is the gamble.

 

I will credit Henry for not dodging the fact that the Sox are responsible for where they are. Warner and Kennedy were not happy about some of Henry's comments but SO WHAT. They were in effect holding Henry's coat for him.

 

The Sox real problem is pitching and nothing about the trade or either end of this deal is going to resolve that in the short run. Even without the Price contract, the Sox have too much money invested in questionable pitching assets and I don't see a solution to that in the short run. Surely they will end up making a few pitching deals this year right??? Surely??????

Edited February 18, 2020 by jung

[cp176]

It wasn’t an option to ride one more year with Betts and then reset?

 

I do not understand why they could not have done this. I have said many times that I am just a fan of baseball. I really have no interest in long term salary ramifications. That being said though, if this trade had brought us in at least one potential top of the rotation pitcher i could have accepted it much more easily. Obviously i'm not going to be swayed by all of the "reset necessity" that has been tossed around for more than a year.

My excitement level right now is very low. I'll stay tuned but that is about it. Kind of looks as though my feelings are shared to a certain extent if projected ticket sales are down such as projected. my guess is that more fans than not are saying that we let a future hall of fame walk for very little in return. i would have enjoyed at least one more year of watching Mookie Betts in Boston.

[cp176]

I'm not sure why you feel it's devastating to lose Betts, now, but it won't be next winter.

 

I get the part about the trade being our choice and him walking being more his choice, but I have to think we are way better off looking at 2021 and beyond due to this trade.

 

The reset alone, in 2020 instead of 2021 greatly improves the chances we are better in 2021.

 

The added $16M from trading Price should greatly help us in 2021 and 2022.

 

Verdugo is no slouch. The kid has a lot of upside potential and is pretty good even if he just gives what he did in 2019 over the rest of his time here.

 

Downs is a top 2 prospect. Wong is top 12 or 15.

 

Sure, there's a chance none of this helps, bu to me our extended future looks much brighter due to the trade.

 

We'd be looking at a reset in 2021, no Betts, no money to spend to replace him, the last 2 years of an aging Price's contract of $32M a year, and a much weaker farm than we have now.

 

Where did you come up with this - it would not be devastating to lose Betts next winter? Letting a player of this calibre who means so much to his team and the overall community is always going to be devastating. I would have enjoyed seeing him in a Sox uniform for more year. Do you think that I'm the only person who feels this way?

[Nick]

If true, $300M over 10 years with opt outs is a great contract. We gave it a shot. Rather than holding you know what at end of 2020, we got some potential talent.

 

No one wants to pay 50% cash penalty along with loss of draft spots.

 

Does it matter who we win with?

 

By the way, Mookie went 5-23 with 1 homer, ops of .699 in the World Series.

 

To Kimmi's point, it's a crap shoot once you get into playoffs. Give me lights out pitching.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Nick