Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Bellhorn04]

Here is a piece from The Ringer that was written about a week after the trade.

 

The Myths Behind Boston’s Mookie Betts Trade Justification

The Red Sox are ostensibly aiming toward payroll flexibility by trading their best player to the Dodgers. Here’s why that explanation falls flat.

By Zach Kram Feb 13, 2020

 

When a baseball team trades its best player, it had better have a good reason. When that player is not only talented but a recent MVP, not only beloved but a homegrown hero, not only productive but, in fact, the most productive young player ever to be traded in MLB history, that reason had better be unimpeachable.

 

The Red Sox have tried to explain themselves both before and after trading Mookie Betts, a 27-year-old super-duper-star, and the Red Sox have failed. After some delays and tweaks due to uncertain medical info, the momentous trade was finalized earlier this week: Betts, pitcher David Price (a fine player in his own right), and half of Price’s salary to the Dodgers in exchange for young outfielder Alex Verdugo and two prospects.

 

The Dodgers added the second-best player in baseball, behind only crosstown outfielder Mike Trout. The Red Sox added payroll flexibility.

 

But that imbalance hasn’t prevented a week of attempted justification for Boston’s decision, or even outright praise. “Boston did really well,” one executive told ESPN’s Buster Olney. “The Red Sox will reset fast,” said another, adding, “they’ll have money to spend in the next offseason.”

 

Many of these optimistic interpretations of Boston’s side of the trade are centered more in myth than reality. So as spring training begins and Betts prepares for the first non–Red Sox camp of his career, let’s tackle some of those myths and expose the rotten underbelly of Boston’s trade.

 

Myth No. 1: The Red Sox Weren’t Going to Compete in 2020 Anyway (Let's skip this one.)

 

Myth No. 2: Trading Betts Will Save the Red Sox Money for Years to Come

 

Most analyses in Boston’s favor concern the financial aspect of the deal more than the on-field effect. These are misguided as well. Baseball’s Byzantine accounting system facilitates this sort of justification because this area is such a challenge for fans and media members to understand.

 

So let’s examine Boston’s actual savings from the Betts trade. Most of the focus concerns the competitive balance tax, or CBT, a surcharge on top of a team’s payroll commitments if they rise above a set of escalating thresholds. (The luxury tax applies only to the overages, though—none of the hundreds of millions of dollars under the lowest CBT threshold are subject to extra taxation.) Crucially, if a team remains above the thresholds for more than one season, the taxes grow more onerous. Here’s what they look like for the 2020 season.

 

Competitive Balance Tax Penalties

Pre-tax Payroll First-Time Offender Second-Time Offender Third-Time Offender or More

Pre-tax Payroll First-Time Offender Second-Time Offender Third-Time Offender or More

Under $208 million 0% 0% 0%

$208-$228 million 20% 30% 50%

$228-$248 million 32% 42% 62%

$248 million or more 62.5-65% 72.5-75% 92.5-95%

 

If a team dips back under the lowest threshold even once, it resets the penalties to reenter the “first-time offender” column. Looking at the percentages, it’s easy to see why a reset is desirable. The Yankees and Dodgers did so recently, meaning their taxes this season—with Gerrit Cole’s and Betts’s contracts, respectively, pushing them into the penalty area—won’t be as high. Red Sox owner John Henry told the Boston Globe in January, “I think every team probably wants to reset at least once every three years.”

 

But that’s the key number: three years. Teams reach the highest level of CBT penalties if they go over the tax for three consecutive years, so if the Red Sox plan to reinvest the money they’re saving this season, they would vault back over the tax line in 2021 and return to the highest tax level in just three seasons. Thus, speculation that the Red Sox might save money for a decade or more from this one season of stinginess doesn’t pass muster.

 

Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement between players and owners—which details the CBT and attendant penalties—will expire after the 2021 season. Given the increasingly fraught economic state of the game, it’s possible that the entire nature of the CBT structure will change after 2021—meaning, in effect, that the duration of Boston’s savings could shrink from an already small three years to only two.

 

Myth No. 3: Boston Will Reinvest the Money They Save Into the Team (Let's skip this one too.)

 

Myth No. 4: Henry and the Red Sox Will Save Substantial Amounts of Money by Dipping Under the Luxury Tax

 

Thus we arrive at the greatest myth of all.

 

In 2020, of course, they’ll save a lot of money, but mostly because they shed all of Betts’s $27 million and half of Price’s $32 million for the year. Subtract Verdugo’s pre-arb contract and that’s about $42 million in salary savings this year, plus about $11 million in projected luxury tax payments that will no longer arise.

The savings from resetting the luxury tax and becoming first-time rather than third-time offenders dry up quickly beyond 2020 unless the Red Sox plan to run truly exorbitant payrolls. No team under the current CBT structure has ever gone so high as to make the difference between those two rate levels really matter. When the Red Sox won the 2018 title with the sport’s highest payroll, for instance, they paid only $12 million in CBT payments—a small tradeoff for a World Series trophy, in a year in which Boston collected an estimated $516 million in revenue.

 

This chart shows how much Henry would save, on average across 2021 and 2022, at different levels of spending in those seasons. (For ease of analysis, for the latter season this projection assumes that the CBT system will continue as presently constructed in the new collective bargaining agreement.) If the Red Sox stay below the lowest CBT threshold, they wouldn’t save anything. If they go above, the savings would be minimal at the lower levels.

 

Red Sox Projected CBT Savings, 2021-22

Pre-tax Payroll (Millions) Average Annual Savings (Millions)

Pre-tax Payroll (Millions) Average Annual Savings (Millions)

$200 $0

$210 $0

$220 $2.3

$230 $4.8

$240 $7.3

$250 $9.8

$260 $12.3

$270 $14.8

$280 $17.3

$290 $19.8

$300 $22.3

 

Even with a pre-tax payroll of $250 million, which would represent the highest payroll in franchise history, Henry would save only around $10 million per year from diminished luxury tax payments. (Some other, harder-to-calculate factors might play a small additional role, like Boston’s collection of a complicated tax revenue rebate, which FanGraphs’ Craig Edwards estimates could work out to an extra $3.75 million per year. But the gist of the chart remains the same in any case.)

 

If they want to contend this year or in 2021 or 2022, they’ll need to immediately eat into some of those savings to replenish the rotation, or risk falling even further behind in the standings. This prospect is made more difficult by the Betts trade, because by paying $16 million per year to the Dodgers to cover half of Price’s salary, they limit the effective payroll they can spend on the actual Red Sox roster—unless they’re planning to pay more on payroll than they would have had they kept Price, which doesn’t make sense because then their tax burden would increase.

 

Going the cheaper route doesn’t make much sense either, though—this is the Red Sox, one of the sport’s premier and richest franchises, and they should always be in contention.

 

Except they need a pitcher now to get there, and Price, ironically, would help fill that hole.

 

And the savings from trading him and Betts, again, aren’t even that large in the first place, relative to a typical Boston payroll. For context for that chart, when the Red Sox won the championship in 2018, they paid Hanley Ramírez and Pablo Sandoval a combined $40.8 million despite cutting them in May and during the previous season, respectively, and that extra cost didn’t get in their way. Even if the Red Sox run an unprecedented $300 million payroll the next two seasons, Henry would ultimately save just half the amount of money that he gave Ramírez and Sandoval to not play in 2018.

 

A splurge to $300 million likely will not occur, though. The club’s actions this winter all point toward future frugality rather than exorbitance—even beyond trading its best player, Boston also barely dipped a toe into the free agent pool. And in general, no team is approaching payrolls of the sort that would actually threaten Henry’s pocket book.

 

Aside from extending current young players like Devers—which might only reinforce the disappointment around Betts, whom Boston failed to extend—it’s hard to envision how Boston will reinvest all of its 2020 savings given next winter’s possible targets. Many of the top potential free agents have already signed extensions that will keep them off the market: Mike Trout, Jacob deGrom, Paul Goldschmidt. George Springer could prove enticing, or a breakout pitcher from the Marcus Stroman–Robbie Ray–Trevor Bauer group. But none of those players will be worth the kind of colossal contract that could incur luxury tax shockwaves.

 

Only one impending free agent, in fact, could command such a deal. That player, of course, is Mookie Betts. And it’s clear that Boston doesn’t want to pay him what he’s worth.

[Bellhorn04]

In my opinion, there was only one valid reason for letting him go. They didn't want to pay him $350-400 million. I can live with that, because the risk of such a contract would have been astronomical.

 

But the stuff about saving tax and creating flexibility doesn't cut it as legitimate reasons, for me.

[dgalehouse]

Soon after the duck boats were put away following the 2018 parade , John Henry started talking about how he was getting tired of losing money on the team . To me , that was the first indication that the big spending was going to be re-thought somewhat . I don't know if Mookie was determined to go elsewhere anyway , but I think Henry just did not want to spend that much to try and keep him in Boston. ( By the way , I never bought into the idea that we could trade him to L.A. and then re-sign him ) Edited September 3, 2020 by dgalehouse

[oldtimer]

Does anyone on the board think keeping Mookie and Price would have helped us to make the playoffs this year? I think not. So we get the reset without dumping other high salary players, go into 2021 with an opportunity to make important additions to the club and to undo some of the damage that DD wreaked on us and we lowered the risk level associated with big long term contracts.

 

Seems to me to be a reasonable trade and there was doubt Mookie would take the Boston offer in any case. Word on the street is we offered $300 Mil over 10 years, not exactly chump change. To my way of thinking, Bloom made the best move under the circumstances.[/size][/b]

[Kimmi]

In my opinion, there was only one valid reason for letting him go. They didn't want to pay him $350-400 million. I can live with that, because the risk of such a contract would have been astronomical.

 

But the stuff about saving tax and creating flexibility doesn't cut it as legitimate reasons, for me.

 

I agree that the Sox didn't want to pay him that much money, and rightly so. And that by itself would be plenty sufficient. However, I disagree that it is as cut and dry as that. I think under different circumstances, Henry might have been willing to open his wallet for Mookie. Maybe not, but I think it's possible.

 

As I said in the other thread, it sounds like you're saying that the Red Sox should not consider anything else in their decision, just whether they want to pay that amount or not. They can't operate in a vacuum like that.

[Kimmi]

Soon after the duck boats were put away following the 2018 parade , John Henry started talking about how he was getting tired of losing money on the team . To me , that was the first indication that the big spending was going to be re-thought somewhat . I don't know if Mookie was determined to go elsewhere anyway , but I think Henry just did not want to spend that much to try and keep him in Boston. ( By the way , I never bought into the idea that we could trade him to L.A. and then re-sign him )

 

John Henry will continue spending money on this team. He will continue to be right around the luxury tax limit every year, and try to reset the penalty every few years if he goes over. He's not afraid to spend money, he just knows it's not wise to tie up that much in one player.

 

I also never bought the idea that we'd be able to re-sign Mookie after trading him.

[Kimmi]

Does anyone on the board think keeping Mookie and Price would have helped us to make the playoffs this year? I think not. So we get the reset without dumping other high salary players, go into 2021 with an opportunity to make important additions to the club and to undo some of the damage that DD wreaked on us and we lowered the risk level associated with big long term contracts.

 

Seems to me to be a reasonable trade and there was doubt Mookie would take the Boston offer in any case. Word on the street is we offered $300 Mil over 10 years, not exactly chump change. To my way of thinking, Bloom made the best move under the circumstances.

 

I was happy with the trade when it happened. The events occurring since have made the trade that much better.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Does anyone on the board think keeping Mookie and Price would have helped us to make the playoffs this year? I think not. So we get the reset without dumping other high salary players, go into 2021 with an opportunity to make important additions to the club and to undo some of the damage that DD wreaked on us and we lowered the risk level associated with big long term contracts.

 

Seems to me to be a reasonable trade and there was doubt Mookie would take the Boston offer in any case. Word on the street is we offered $300 Mil over 10 years, not exactly chump change. To my way of thinking, Bloom made the best move under the circumstances.[/size][/b]

 

Mookie is a winning player who always gives his all and expects the same out of teammates -- as he made clear his first day as a Dodger in a speech to his new club. Anyone who's ever played team sports knows that athletes up their game when they're challenged by the presence of great players. I'm not saying the 2020 Red Sox would've made the playoffs or even had a winning record with Betts, but you can bet there would have been a different atmosphere if he were still here...

[mvp 78]

In my opinion, there was only one valid reason for letting him go. They didn't want to pay him $350-400 million. I can live with that, because the risk of such a contract would have been astronomical.

 

But the stuff about saving tax and creating flexibility doesn't cut it as legitimate reasons, for me.

I thought he would have been lucky to get 300 tho?!?!? Shouldn’t his mom have told him to extend with Sox?!?!?

[Bellhorn04]

As I said in the other thread, it sounds like you're saying that the Red Sox should not consider anything else in their decision, just whether they want to pay that amount or not. They can't operate in a vacuum like that.

 

I'm not disputing that point at all. I know there's a lot to consider. But in this particular case, I believe the short-term considerations were far outweighed by the long-term ones.

 

And as I said on the other thread, we have a ton of payroll coming off the books in 2021 and 2022.

[Bellhorn04]

Major contracts on books for 2022-2023

 

2022

Sale 25.6

JDM 22

Bogey 20

Eovaldi 17

Total 84.6

 

2023

Sale 25.6

Bogey 20 (if he doesn't opt out)

Total 45.6

 

That's it.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's what Werner said after Mookie signed the extension with the Dodgers:

 

“It’s always difficult to trade a talented player of Mookie’s caliber, but let’s revisit this conversation in 12 years. Hopefully you and I will both still be here. That’s a very, very long-term deal for a team to swallow. You guys know as well as I do that the history of long-term deals is checkered at best. We made what we thought was a generous offer but for us it’s time to turn the page.”

[Kimmi]

I thought he would have been lucky to get 300 tho?!?!? Shouldn’t his mom have told him to extend with Sox?!?!?

 

Stop.

[Kimmi]

Here's what Werner said after Mookie signed the extension with the Dodgers:

 

“It’s always difficult to trade a talented player of Mookie’s caliber, but let’s revisit this conversation in 12 years. Hopefully you and I will both still be here. That’s a very, very long-term deal for a team to swallow. You guys know as well as I do that the history of long-term deals is checkered at best. We made what we thought was a generous offer but for us it’s time to turn the page.”

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say when you say that the only valid reason for not signing Mookie is that the Sox did not want to pay him that much. I don't think any team wants to pay a player that much, but some do after weighing all the pros and cons. It's just not a cut and dry situation.

 

For a small market team, I can see an owner saying that he will not pay a player $350 million under any circumstances. Period.

 

For teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Dodgers, who are willing to spend a lot of money, it's not so simple. It's not a matter of either yes, we want to pay him that much or no, we don't want to pay him that much.

 

And the long term effect of such a contract is most certainly a valid consideration, no matter how much money the Sox have coming off the books in the next year or two. That's the type of contract that reduces payroll flexibility significantly for 12 years, not just the next few years.

[mvp 78]

Stop.

 

Never.

[Kimmi]

Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, that state of the farm is probably the most significant consideration, though not the only one, by far.

 

Having a strong farm system opens up so much flexibility in payroll.

[Kimmi]

Never.

 

In all honesty, are you surprised that the Dodgers gave Mookie that extension during this pandemic and the financial uncertainty?

 

I've posted before, if I were Mookie's mom, I would have told him to take the $300 million. Every time.

[mvp 78]

In all honesty, are you surprised that the Dodgers gave Mookie that extension during this pandemic and the financial uncertainty?

 

I've posted before, if I were Mookie's mom, I would have told him to take the $300 million. Every time.

 

No, I'm not surprised.

 

1. LA is desperate to get over the hump.

2. LA is very "star" driven.

3. LA has a huge tv contract.

4. LA has lots of young guys on cheap contracts (for now).

 

It was the perfect storm for Betts to sign a long term deal with the Dodgers. If the Dodgers had won the WS in the past few years, they would not have made this move.

[Kimmi]

No, I'm not surprised.

 

1. LA is desperate to get over the hump.

2. LA is very "star" driven.

3. LA has a huge tv contract.

4. LA has lots of young guys on cheap contracts (for now).

 

It was the perfect storm for Betts to sign a long term deal with the Dodgers. If the Dodgers had won the WS in the past few years, they would not have made this move.

 

If this were a 'normal' year, I could agree with all of that. I still think it would have been crazy, but I could understand the reasoning.

 

Under these circumstances, I am mind blown. IMO, they could have signed Mookie for significantly less money. IMO, Mookie "Dodged" a bullet.

[mvp 78]

If this were a 'normal' year, I could agree with all of that. I still think it would have been crazy, but I could understand the reasoning.

 

Under these circumstances, I am mind blown. IMO, they could have signed Mookie for significantly less money. IMO, Mookie "Dodged" a bullet.

 

I think "these circumstances" are overblown when talking about uber rich like baseball owners. I don't think the pandemic significantly altered their baseball budgets at all. I don't think there is going to be as much of a downturn in FA signings this offseason as people expect.

[Kimmi]

I think "these circumstances" are overblown when talking about uber rich like baseball owners. I don't think the pandemic significantly altered their baseball budgets at all. I don't think there is going to be as much of a downturn in FA signings this offseason as people expect.

 

Of course the owners can afford it. But they were haggling over how many games to play this season and how much to pay their players.

 

The Dodgers significantly outbid themselves, IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, that state of the farm is probably the most significant consideration, though not the only one, by far.

 

Having a strong farm system opens up so much flexibility in payroll.

 

Well, if Bloom does his job, we should have a relatively large amount of flexibility going forward, especially beginning in 2023.

[mvp 78]

Of course the owners can afford it. But they were haggling over how many games to play this season and how much to pay their players.

 

The Dodgers significantly outbid themselves, IMO.

 

The expectation is fans will be back next year and business will be back to normal. I don't think the Dodgers wanted to lose out on Betts this offseason just because they wanted to have a smaller loss this year.

 

The push for fewer games and reduced pay was a negotiating ploy to fix spending for the next CBA. I think they started out with a bad position and never dug themselves out of it. I don't think owners like John Henry were leading that charge. They would have probably preferred more games for the tv ratings. I don't believe that every owner is in the same financial position and wants the same thing for their teams. They aren't some monolith voting block. Hard to compare the wants and needs of Pirates owners and Red Sox owners even though they both have really bad teams this year.

[mvp 78]

Well, if Bloom does his job, we should have a relatively large amount of flexibility going forward, especially beginning in 2023.

 

Needs to manage the tightrope of spending flexibility, growing a farm system and feeding the monster (aka competing).

[notin]

In my opinion, there was only one valid reason for letting him go. They didn't want to pay him $350-400 million. I can live with that, because the risk of such a contract would have been astronomical.

 

But the stuff about saving tax and creating flexibility doesn't cut it as legitimate reasons, for me.

 

For all the good Henry has done for the sox, his desire to spend has been somewhat mercurial.

 

When Cherington took over, he was not allowed to spend. He had to trade Marco Scutaro just so he could bring in Cody Ross. That's a small market maneuver. Then he was allowed to spend and he went nuts with a massive spress that worked out really well (meaning we won a WS) when he brought in Napoli, Dempster, Drew, Victorino and (especially) Uehara. And then he spent poorly again with Sandoval, Hanley and Rusney. And he was not allowed to spend again - remember "no long term contracts for pitchers" - so Lester and Lackey were dealt.

 

Dombrowski was in the opposite camp. He was allowed to spend like mad, basically an open check book. He also lived up to his rep as a Farm Killer. And it worked for a while. But when it stopped, so did his ability to spend.

 

And then Bloom was brought in and was allowed to spend on some second tier players like Perez and Peraza, but nothing else.

 

It's like when the Sox win, Henry laments how much it costs to do so and dials back. But then realizes the losses are even worse when the Sox lose. And then he forgets all about this. Lather. Rinse. Repeat....

[notin]

I think "these circumstances" are overblown when talking about uber rich like baseball owners. I don't think the pandemic significantly altered their baseball budgets at all. I don't think there is going to be as much of a downturn in FA signings this offseason as people expect.

 

You are forgetting the one thing all rich people have in common - the desire to not make other people rich...

[Bellhorn04]

For all the good Henry has done for the sox, his desire to spend has been somewhat mercurial.

 

When Cherington took over, he was not allowed to spend. He had to trade Marco Scutaro just so he could bring in Cody Ross. That's a small market maneuver. Then he was allowed to spend and he went nuts with a massive spress that worked out really well (meaning we won a WS) when he brought in Napoli, Dempster, Drew, Victorino and (especially) Uehara. And then he spent poorly again with Sandoval, Hanley and Rusney. And he was not allowed to spend again - remember "no long term contracts for pitchers" - so Lester and Lackey were dealt.

 

Dombrowski was in the opposite camp. He was allowed to spend like mad, basically an open check book. He also lived up to his rep as a Farm Killer. And it worked for a while. But when it stopped, so did his ability to spend.

 

And then Bloom was brought in and was allowed to spend on some second tier players like Perez and Peraza, but nothing else.

 

It's like when the Sox win, Henry laments how much it costs to do so and dials back. But then realizes the losses are even worse when the Sox lose. And then he forgets all about this. Lather. Rinse. Repeat....

 

Yes, it's been a weird ride.

 

Sure can't complain about the 4 rings though.

[notin]

Yes, it's been a weird ride.

 

Sure can't complain about the 4 rings though.

 

I can't, but honestly, I thought this outcome was predictable when the Sox signed Price. I only liked that deal because of the opt out, and once he got injured, it seemed really unlikely that he would. But my main contention that I posted way back on the archives of this board, was that it made it more difficult to extend the players like Betts, whom I did name specifically...

[mvp 78]

You are forgetting the one thing all rich people have in common - the desire to not make other people rich...

 

I think the contracts MLB has thrown around since ARod's mega deal show that to be false.

[Bellhorn04]

I can't, but honestly, I thought this outcome was predictable when the Sox signed Price. I only liked that deal because of the opt out, and once he got injured, it seemed really unlikely that he would. But my main contention that I posted way back on the archives of this board, was that it made it more difficult to extend the players like Betts, whom I did name specifically...

 

Well, the final 2 years of Price's deal fall in the first 2 years of Mookie's deal. So it was a hindrance, but not a huge obstacle IMHO.