Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Kimmi]

A few years ago I saw an informal interview with JD, who mentioned that Boston media and fan scrutiny was unlike anywhere else; Mookie was off to the side and wholeheartedly agreed. That's when I started speculating...

 

There is no doubt that the scrutiny in Boston is unlike anywhere else. Mookie seems to have handled it well. As I posted previously, I think once he was in LA, he probably decided he preferred it over Boston, but I don't think he had that feeling beforehand.

[Kimmi]

1) That approach is pretty standard.

 

2) The Sox did offer him $20 million and $25 million in the last two seasons. That’s gotta take some sting out of that hearing...

 

^^^ It's not like the Sox were trying to pay him $5 million.

 

Mookie was unwilling to budge from whatever his demands were.

[Kimmi]

One analysis of Mookie Betts' departure:

 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/sports/nbcsports/the-real-story-behind-mookie-betts-departure-from-the-red-sox/2168748/

 

On a tangentially related subject:

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/mookie-betts-humbled-dodgers-support-044943620.html

 

I am calling BS on the second article. The Sox players showed JBJ just as much support as the Dodgers players showed Mookie.

 

Look at pictures of Mookie kneeling during the national anthem. His teammates did not kneel with him.

[Kimmi]

The Red Sox did try to resign him but 300 million wasn't enough for Mookie. He was going to test free agency, the Red Sox wanted to get something for him rather than lose him for nothing but draft compensation. Mookie wouldn't have made a difference for the 2020 Red Sox, this team never had enough pitching, and so if you keep Mookie in Boston in 2020, it would have been a wasted year with a star player. And by moving Mookie, the Red Sox could dump Price and get under the luxury tax threshold.

 

It was a sound move. Sure, Mookie is great and will be great over the next few seasons, but he isn't worth 380 million and the contract will be counter-productive over the long term. I would rather spend money on pitching. The Red Sox need pitching and they now have the payroll flexibility to go out and get pitching.

 

Why did the Dodgers give Mookie 380 million while the Red Sox concluded that was too much? The Dodgers are more desperate than the Red Sox. The Red Sox have won 4 championships in the 20th Century; the Dodgers haven't won since the Kirk Gibson thing. I trust the Red Sox's judgment on this, but if the Dodgers get a championship out of it, no one will fault them when Betts' skills & numbers decline in the not-too-distant future.

 

Solid post.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the advent of the 12-13 year contract is a bad thing for everyone.

 

It virtually guarantees that even the greatest of players, like Trout and Betts, will one day represent painful financial burdens to their teams.

[Larry Cook]

I think the advent of the 12-13 year contract is a bad thing for everyone.

 

It virtually guarantees that even the greatest of players, like Trout and Betts, will one day represent painful financial burdens to their teams.

 

Could not agree more, just look at how we are burdened with pedrioa’s contract! Thanks Larry!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

There is no doubt that the scrutiny in Boston is unlike anywhere else. Mookie seems to have handled it well. As I posted previously, I think once he was in LA, he probably decided he preferred it over Boston, but I don't think he had that feeling beforehand.

 

I was in the camp all last winter that Mookie would never re-sign in Boston once traded. I knew he was gone once he hit LA, with its warmer climes and laid-back coverage... I just didn't think he'd sign almost immediately.

[Bellhorn04]

Could not agree more, just look at how we are burdened with pedrioa’s contract! Thanks Larry!

 

And Pedroia's extension was a fraction (about 30%-110 vs. 365) of Mookie's.

[notin]

I was in the camp all last winter that Mookie would never re-sign in Boston once traded. I knew he was gone once he hit LA, with its warmer climes and laid-back coverage... I just didn't think he'd sign almost immediately.

 

I wasn’t sure they’d offer. When you look at the deals they keep giving to Kershaw, it’s not like that team has a history of giving mega extensions to players...

[Bellhorn04]

I wasn’t sure they’d offer. When you look at the deals they keep giving to Kershaw, it’s not like that team has a history of giving mega extensions to players...

 

They fooled ya!

 

I thought it was a possibility the minute we traded him. Friedman doesn't seem like the kind of guy to make a big splashy expensive trade for one season of a player. I suspected they would take a shot at keeping him.

[dgalehouse]

The idea that we could trade Mookie to L.A. and then re-sign him as a free agent was nothing but a pipe dream . It was never going to happen like that .

[Bellhorn04]

The idea that we could trade Mookie to L.A. and then re-sign him as a free agent was nothing but a pipe dream . It was never going to happen like that .

 

Yeah, that idea was no good.

[notin]

Yeah, that idea was no good.

 

To be fair, I am not sure anyone in the front office ever had that plan...

[Bellhorn04]

To be fair, I am not sure anyone in the front office ever had that plan...

 

Yeah, we'll never know.

 

Now when they traded Lester to the A's, they could safely assume they would get another shot at him...

[notin]

I think the advent of the 12-13 year contract is a bad thing for everyone.

 

It virtually guarantees that even the greatest of players, like Trout and Betts, will one day represent painful financial burdens to their teams.

 

I feel that way about 6 and 7 year contracts, just that it happens with lesser players...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think the advent of the 12-13 year contract is a bad thing for everyone.

 

It virtually guarantees that even the greatest of players, like Trout and Betts, will one day represent painful financial burdens to their teams.

 

Or the first day, if you're Big Panda...

[vegasbob]

The idea that we could trade Mookie to L.A. and then re-sign him as a free agent was nothing but a pipe dream . It was never going to happen like that .

 

Agreed, that was the ultimate pipedream which would only have irritated all concerned when he signed with LA anyway. Betts was never staying in Boston.

[Larry Cook]

Betts is gone! Time to put him in the read view mirror and look forward! Hang’em Chaim needs all the help he can get, plus some!

[Kimmi]

I think the advent of the 12-13 year contract is a bad thing for everyone.

 

It virtually guarantees that even the greatest of players, like Trout and Betts, will one day represent painful financial burdens to their teams.

 

100%. I hate those monster contracts.

 

I would seriously prefer to stick with the 1-4 year contracts for the second tier players rather than signing a Trout or a Betts, as good as they are.

 

Sometimes, I think how nice would it be to be a small market team. LOL We don't have to be a small market team, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with making some small market types of moves.

 

My question is, where does it end with the big contracts? 15 years? 17 years?

[Kimmi]

Could not agree more, just look at how we are burdened with pedrioa’s contract! Thanks Larry!

 

At the time that we gave Pedroia his extension, I thought it was a good deal. But having yet another long term contract fizzle out has made me change my mind completely about even extending our own beloved players long term.

[Kimmi]

I was in the camp all last winter that Mookie would never re-sign in Boston once traded. I knew he was gone once he hit LA, with its warmer climes and laid-back coverage... I just didn't think he'd sign almost immediately.

 

I didn't think he'd sign before he reached free agency. That was actually kind of a slap in the face.

 

However, times have changed a lot since he was traded. I think Mookie was really concerned about what the market might look like, and concerned that he might not get offered $300 million. Mookie would have been stupid not to accept. I may not ever understand the Dodgers offering Mookie that much in these uncertain times.

[Kimmi]

The idea that we could trade Mookie to L.A. and then re-sign him as a free agent was nothing but a pipe dream . It was never going to happen like that .

 

Agreed.

[Kimmi]

To be fair, I am not sure anyone in the front office ever had that plan...

 

I don't think they did. They might have made Mookie a similar offer to the one that they already made to him, but with very little expectation that he would accept.

[Kimmi]

I feel that way about 6 and 7 year contracts, just that it happens with lesser players...

 

I consider anything over 4 years a long term contract.

 

I'd offer 7, maybe 8 years to the very best players, like Mookie.

 

I'd be willing to increase the AAV if that would help.

[oldtimer]

At the time that we gave Pedroia his extension, I thought it was a good deal. But having yet another long term contract fizzle out has made me change my mind completely about even extending our own beloved players long term.

 

That's the sentimentality reasoning that plagues us. Giving a player well into their thirties a long term contract makes no sense. Oh but think of all the wonderful things he has done for us in the past should not be a consideration in the contract signing. It should be based on what value a player will have to the team going forward and risk analysts should be involved. If the player involved is unhappy with the dollars and length of contract, then its time to trade him. It's the hard nose Billy Ball approach but it would not result in so many of these unproductive long term contracts that we have lived with and are living with now.

 

I prefer being competitive at every position to the idea of having a few superstars and weakness in the other positions. Bloom knows how small market teams navigate and soon he will have more resources from which to build the team back into contention.

[Kimmi]

That's the sentimentality reasoning that plagues us. Giving a player well into their thirties a long term contract makes no sense. Oh but think of all the wonderful things he has done for us in the past should not be a consideration in the contract signing. It should be based on what value a player will have to the team going forward and risk analysts should be involved. If the player involved is unhappy with the dollars and length of contract, then its time to trade him. It's the hard nose Billy Ball approach but it would not result in so many of these unproductive long term contracts that we have lived with and are living with now.

 

I prefer being competitive at every position to the idea of having a few superstars and weakness in the other positions. Bloom knows how small market teams navigate and soon he will have more resources from which to build the team back into contention.

 

As I've posted before, I could not be a GM. I'd have a hard time getting rid of anybody due to sentimentality. LOL

 

I really don't like seeing our players leave through free agency, but I have come to realize that it's usually the best thing for the team. I, too, prefer to have a well balanced team rather than having one or two superstars that are supposed to carry the team.

[Slasher9]

if there was no pandemic mookie would have gone to FA and we would have had a chance to outbid the dodgers.

while i applaud him for recognizing the teammates that supported him in the postponement of the game.......that "support" would have zero bearing if the Sox offered more $$$ in FA he would have been back in Boston. we will never know......

[S5Dewey]

Mostly @ Kimmi and her previous 7 posts

 

I've wondered for some time about the wisdom of giving one position player a big money multi-year contract. IMO there's no doubt that one player can have a big impact on a team, but only if he has solid 2nd tier players around him. The Red Sox didn't win any WSC's with Ted Williams, the Marlins didn't win any with Stanton, the A's haven't brought home any hardware with Trout, and baseball is littered with teams who had one of the best players in the game and didn't win it all. So you have to wonder about the value of one player. One player who comes up every 9 AB's and statistically has

 

I'm with Kimmi on this. It would have made no sense to have paid Betts what he got without keeping the core they had and improving the pitching staff - something that the economics of baseball wouldn't support.

 

JMO!

[Bellhorn04]

It's quite possible that when Mookie's contract was discussed by Sox brass, they decided they would be better off sinking the $350-400 million into pitching.

[cp176]

Ultimately the Mookie story gets told later. We will see whether Bloom can work his magic in Boston or not. I have a hard time believing that the same approaches that worked for him in Tampa will work in Boston. I think that teams do need some star power for lots of reasons. Mookie is gone and if most of you are right in saying that there was no way that he was going to reup in Boston, life goes on. But losing a player of his ability and limitless potential isn't without some serious repercussions. Personally I have 0 interest in trying to save John Henry's money. I hope that all of you who so closely study what he has to spend, are right and that Bloom can put together a team that is at least somewhat interesting.