Mookie Betts and David Price have been traded to Dodgers

[Hugh2]

But Hugh, we can also cherry-pick Sox players who have had lousy returns on the money the last few years.

 

For example, what if we compare 2023 Betts 29 AAV to 2023 Story and Kluber 33.33 AAV?

 

Yes, and I said exactly that in my OS, which is why I said it's a futile argument. Who are you (or me) to say how the roster would have played out differently?

 

This is why people only weigh team control years, which given the return on players vs. how many years of team control they have it seems this plays out between MLB teams and the actual transactions they make, so that makes a strong argument for subtracting contract years when evaluating a trade.

 

I was merely playing devil's advocate.

[mvp 78]

and over the next decade, what is the 30 million getting you? If the Sox sign a 30 million-dollar player next year and he outperforms Mookie in his 30's then I win again....

 

Again, subjective and I'm playing devils advocate, but this all just proves my point.

 

Sox already signed a 30M player in Raffy and he's not outcompeting Mookie.

[mvp 78]

That would be very fine.

 

Bloom "should" be the type of guy to run a farm plus have a franchise player (or two) on max deals.

[Hugh2]

I wouldn't mistake the Angels' ineptitude for the Sox being able to manage one large contract. Have the Sox turned into the Angels now that they extended Devers?

 

no, I did not, and will not ever say that. I'm merely pointing out the fate of a franchise doesn't depend on one player no matter how good they are. You still need a 26 man roster to win.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, and I said exactly that in my OS, which is why I said it's a futile argument. Who are you (or me) to say how the roster would have played out differently?

 

This is why people only weigh team control years, which given the return on players vs. how many years of team control they have it seems this plays out between MLB teams and the actual transactions they make, so that makes a strong argument for subtracting contract years when evaluating a trade.

 

I was merely playing devil's advocate.

 

My evaluation leaves out the trade altogether because the trade brings in a pile of variables.

 

To me the simplest way to look at it is that we subtracted a player who has produced 52.5 million in surplus value in the first 2.75 years of his new contract. That hurts any way you look at it.

[mvp 78]

no, I did not, and will not ever say that. I'm merely pointing out the fate of a franchise doesn't depend on one player no matter how good they are. You still need a 26 man roster to win.

 

Let me play devil's advocate and say that you did say that.

[mvp 78]

My evaluation leaves out the trade altogether because the trade brings in a pile of variables.

 

To me the simplest way to look at it is that we subtracted a player who has produced 52.5 million in surplus value in the first 2.75 years of his new contract. That hurts any way you look at it.

 

A lot of copium in this thread.

[Hugh2]

Let me play devil's advocate and say that you did say that.

 

No, I did not, or you completely missed my point.

 

We can argue, or we can argue about the arguing. or perhaps we can argue on the frame in which we will argue about the things we are arguing about and how we argue.

 

My point is, it's inappropriate to evaluate a trade by weighing a guys value AFTER his team controlled years are up.

 

Team do not do this, fans do. There's a reason why they do not do it, and the subjective matter that throws in vast scenarios only proves my point. I'm only attacking from one angle to show from a certain vantage point the Sox have done much better in that trade with the money they spent.

 

That doesn't make me right, but it certainly doesn't make me wrong, and you nor I have any ideal how the roster would be different if Betts was resigned. Making my OP more valid than ever.

[Hugh2]

Sox already signed a 30M player in Raffy and he's not outcompeting Mookie.

 

Did they sign him because they didn't sign Mookie? or is that because they didn't sign Bogaerts. One is 3 years closer than the other.

[Bellhorn04]

Did they sign him because they didn't sign Mookie? or is that because they didn't sign Bogaerts. One is 3 years closer than the other.

 

Dark side sez they signed Raffy because:

-He was the last one standing

-Torches and pitchforks

[Hugh2]

Dark side sez they signed Raffy because:

-He was the last one standing

-Torches and pitchforks

 

I don't disagree, but this conversation has evolved way past my point on the futility of evaluating the Betts trade from a fan's perspective.

[mvp 78]

My point is, it's inappropriate to evaluate a trade by weighing a guys value AFTER his team controlled years are up.

 

Ok, then all I could say is we'd throw out Mookie's LAD numbers and I would just rather have the consistency of Mookie in RF through 2030 than whatever is going to be there. I think I'd bet on future HOF Mookie over Verdugo/Renfroe/Roman Anthony/whatever other player the Sox are going to post at that position in the next few years. I think it's good for the Red Sox to have franchise players. I think Mookie would have been great for the Sox long term as an ambassador for both the organization and the game of baseball.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't disagree, but this conversation has evolved way past my point on the futility of evaluating the Betts trade from a fan's perspective.

 

It's 2 separate things:

 

-The trade was fine in terms of what Bloom got back.

-The decision to give up on retaining Betts was not fine, not fine at all.

[Hugh2]

Ok, then all I could say is we'd throw out Mookie's LAD numbers and I would just rather have the consistency of Mookie in RF through 2030 than whatever is going to be there. I think I'd bet on future HOF Mookie over Verdugo/Renfroe/Roman Anthony/whatever other player the Sox are going to post at that position in the next few years. I think it's good for the Red Sox to have franchise players. I think Mookie would have been great for the Sox long term as an ambassador for both the organization and the game of baseball.

 

You'd rather have Mookie in Boston is what you're saying?

 

Spoiler alert, so would I?

 

again not my point, and our feelings for love for Mookie and desire for him to still be on this team does'nt change how trades should be evaluated.

[mvp 78]

Dark side sez they signed Raffy because:

-He was the last one standing

-Torches and pitchforks

 

It's all conjecture on our part.

[Old Red]

It hilarious I don’t hear any of the Mookie who stuff on here like when Dugy was going so good earlier in the season, or saying the trade was looking better, and better.

[mvp 78]

You'd rather have Mookie in Boston is what you're saying?

 

Spoiler alert, so would I?

 

again not my point, and our feelings for love for Mookie and desire for him to still be on this team does'nt change how trades should be evaluated.

 

I evaluated it based on his current production and you didn't like it.

[Dipre]

Devers has all the tools to become a generational offensive talent, but he hasn't put it all together yet. I think that's why they gave him the extension more than anything else.

[Hugh2]

It's 2 separate things:

 

-The trade was fine in terms of what Bloom got back.

-The decision to give up on retaining Betts was not fine, not fine at all.

 

agreed, on both ends. A trade can be good from a value perspective and that doesn't inherently make it the right decision.

[Old Red]

Devers has all the tools to become a generational offensive talent, but he hasn't put it all together yet. I think that's why they gave him the extension more than anything else.

 

If it was the other way around that Raffy came up for a contract first, and Mookie last then I believe it would be Mookie who would be here today.

[Hugh2]

I evaluated it based on his current production and you didn't like it.

 

as a fan, pros don't do that, evidence by a many things.

 

Regardless my POINT was IF you do that you have to factor in what 30.4 million gets you. Which is an impossible task for us to agree on and to be fair you nor me have zero ideal.

 

So, from that perspective, it makes properly evaluating the trade IMPOSSIBLE.

 

That doesn't mean we have to like the trade, or that we can't miss Mookie, or that we wouldn't should rather want him here. I know I do.

 

Mic dropped.

[Hugh2]

Add:

 

It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it's the fact that it is an incorrect way to evaluate a trade.

[Randy Red Sox]

they should both be here. Bogaerts too.

If it was the other way around that Raffy came up for a contract first, and Mookie last then I believe it would be Mookie who would be here today.

[mvp 78]

Add:

 

It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it's the fact that it is an incorrect way to evaluate a trade.

 

You picked up the mic?

[mvp 78]

they should both be here. Bogaerts too.

 

No. 2 of 3, but not all 3.

[Hugh2]

Man, you guys have zero imagination.

[Jasonbay44]

It hilarious I don’t hear any of the Mookie who stuff on here like when Dugy was going so good earlier in the season, or saying the trade was looking better, and better.

 

The Mookie who stuff was always stupid and I’m hoping a joke/troll. But I did see a few arguments that the Red Sox will end up winning the Mookie trade because Verdugo had a good month.

 

It’s still hard to fathom that a team who consistently has one of the highest pay rolls decided to trade a generational hall of fame talent, only three years after he literally won a World Series on the team and was the leagues MVP. But the Red Sox did that.

 

You can play as much devils advocate or make as many arguments as you want. The trade sucked then, and it’s sucks now.

[moonslav59]

The Mookie who stuff was always stupid and I’m hoping a joke/troll. But I did see a few arguments that the Red Sox will end up winning the Mookie trade because Verdugo had a good month.

 

It’s still hard to fathom that a team who consistently has one of the highest pay rolls decided to trade a generational hall of fame talent, only three years after he literally won a World Series on the team and was the leagues MVP. But the Red Sox did that.

 

You can play as much devils advocate or make as many arguments as you want. The trade sucked then, and it’s sucks now.

 

The choice not to re-sign him was the mistake. The trade was just an aftermath of the actual bad choice made.

[Jasonbay44]

The choice not to re-sign him was the mistake. The trade was just an aftermath of the actual bad choice made.

 

The point still stands.

[moonslav59]

The point still stands.

 

Not in my opinion.

 

Once the choice was made about not re-signing him, the choice to trade him was a good one vs a comp pick after a QO offer refused.