Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[dgalehouse]

When in doubt , I like to refer to good old Occam's Razor . Why did the Sox trade Mookie? The simplest answer is ; they did not want to pay what he was asking , so they traded him for the best deal they could get before he left as a free agent . Like it or don't like it , that is the most obvious reason for what happened. No need to let your imaginations run wild .

[Bellhorn04]

No need to let your imaginations run wild .

 

Some of us are weird and get our jollies letting our imaginations run wild.

[dgalehouse]

Some of us are weird and get our jollies letting our imaginations run wild.

 

I try not to let my imagination run wild. But I'm still kind of weird anyway.

[vegasbob]

When in doubt , I like to refer to good old Occam's Razor . Why did the Sox trade Mookie? The simplest answer is ; they did not want to pay what he was asking , so they traded him for the best deal they could get before he left as a free agent . Like it or don't like it , that is the most obvious reason for what happened. No need to let your imaginations run wild .

 

I think DGale is correct. I Those who should be in the know knew what they needed to know to let Mookie go and get some level of value in return. Although the short season Covid trainwreck could not have been predicted, it turned out that Mookie would not have turned the lack of pitching talent around.

[Kimmi]

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!

 

Exactly Dewey. If Henry were going to spend without limit, then he could sign Betts and whoever else he wanted. But since Henry is not willing to do that, it would be unwise to tie up that much payroll in one player. I don't care how good a player is, he is not going to get the team to the playoffs by himself.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I would think that the conversation came up frequently in the years leading up to trading Mookie.

[Kimmi]

When in doubt , I like to refer to good old Occam's Razor . Why did the Sox trade Mookie? The simplest answer is ; they did not want to pay what he was asking , so they traded him for the best deal they could get before he left as a free agent . Like it or don't like it , that is the most obvious reason for what happened. No need to let your imaginations run wild .

 

But your simple answer leads to the question of why they didn't want to pay what he was asking.

[Kimmi]

Some of us are weird and get our jollies letting our imaginations run wild.

 

I try not to let my imagination run wild. But I'm still kind of weird anyway.

 

And I let my imagination run wild, but I'm not weird.

[oldtimer]

But your simple answer leads to the question of why they didn't want to pay what he was asking.

 

Back to the point of not wanting to tie so much of the available resources in one player while also accepting a high risk of eating many years of it when the inevitable fall off in performance occurs.

[Swiharts Ghost]

Looking back I have to be honest .Trading Mookie Betts was an absolutely Horrifying decision that will reverberate the bones of Redsox fans until we sign Semian and then a FA starter then a 2b ...but it will reverberate for a good 90 days more .Chilling I know and 90 days ? Long time .Did I say reverberate? Well reverberate damn it ...did I say 90 days ? Well yeah 90 damn days !!!! Boooo

[notin]

Looking back I have to be honest .Trading Mookie Betts was an absolutely Horrifying decision that will reverberate the bones of Redsox fans until we sign Semian and then a FA starter then a 2b ...but it will reverberate for a good 90 days more .Chilling I know and 90 days ? Long time .Did I say reverberate? Well reverberate damn it ...did I say 90 days ? Well yeah 90 damn days !!!! Boooo

 

Marcus Semien will not make up for losing Mookie.

 

Verdugo is taking a little sting out of it, however...

[notin]

Back to the point of not wanting to tie so much of the available resources in one player while also accepting a high risk of eating many years of it when the inevitable fall off in performance occurs.

 

They were willing to do so with an older and (I think) riskier David Price...

[notin]

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!

 

There is a lot there. The Red Sox put Hall of Famers in left field for 50 consecutive seasons and did not win a title in even one of them.

 

Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb rank 2-5 in career fWAR (behind Babe Ruth) with a combined total of exactly 600 fWAR. They also have combined for fewer World Series rings than Pablo Sandoval ...

[cp176]

There is a lot there. The Red Sox put Hall of Famers in left field for 50 consecutive seasons and did not win a title in even one of them.

 

Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb rank 2-5 in career fWAR (behind Babe Ruth) with a combined total of exactly 600 fWAR. They also have combined for fewer World Series rings than Pablo Sandoval ...

 

Interesting line of reasoning - sounds like you think the teams that these guys played on would have been better off without them. '67 without Yaz? Not so much. I will continue to think that most championship teams have some legit star power. potentially we had one of the best ever and now we don't. Maybe we can become the next tampa bay?

[Kimmi]

Back to the point of not wanting to tie so much of the available resources in one player while also accepting a high risk of eating many years of it when the inevitable fall off in performance occurs.

 

Yup. A team might be more willing to tie up that kind of money in one player if they knew they had several cost-controlled players to fill other positions. Regardless, it would still be unwise to do so, IMO.

[Kimmi]

They were willing to do so with an older and (I think) riskier David Price...

 

They did it, but it doesn't make it right. Henry panicked and overreacted. He allowed Dombrowski to go to an extreme that wasn't necessary.

 

Also, at the time Price was signed, we did have several cost-controlled players on the roster or about to be added. That make a big difference in overall payroll. Not to mention 7 years is not 12 years.

[Bellhorn04]

They were willing to do so with an older and (I think) riskier David Price...

 

Price's 217 million was a huge risk, of course.

 

Mookie's ask of 420 million was virtually double that. Or it was Price's 217 million plus another 203 million on top of that.

[Bellhorn04]

They did it, but it doesn't make it right. Henry panicked and overreacted. He allowed Dombrowski to go to an extreme that wasn't necessary.

 

But the question is what were the alternatives that year. We had to upgrade the starting pitching significantly, and the only options were free agency or trade.

[cp176]

But the question is what were the alternatives that year. We had to upgrade the starting pitching significantly, and the only options were free agency or trade.

 

Dombrowski did an outstanding job for us. he did what he was asked to do and what we were excited to see done. On this forum, he has become an awesome scapegoat. Too bad - Henry should be the one that people are concerned with.

[Bellhorn04]

The 4 biggest free agent starters that offseason were:

 

Price 7/217 million

Greinke 6/206.5 million

Cueto 6/130 million

J Zimmerman 5/110 million

[jad]

Oh well. It's in the past. We're ALL glad we don't have to watch an MVP players perform--day after day after day--same old. It's MUCH more interesting watching how the unpredictable market affects some billionaire's bank account. Now THAT's entertainment.

[Bellhorn04]

Oh well. It's in the past. We're ALL glad we don't have to watch an MVP players perform--day after day after day--same old. It's MUCH more interesting watching how the unpredictable market affects some billionaire's bank account. Now THAT's entertainment.

 

I am a big John Henry fan (as far as you can be a fan of a billionaire owner).

 

I've been a Red Sox fan since 1969.

 

Pre-Henry 1969-2001 33 years no rings

Post-Henry 2002-2020 19 years 4 rings

[jad]

I am a big John Henry fan (as far as you can be a fan of a billionaire owner).

 

I've been a Red Sox fan since 1969.

 

Pre-Henry 1969-2001 33 years no rings

Post-Henry 2002-2020 19 years 4 rings

 

I agree entirely (esp. with the qualification in sentence 1). But he didn't get those rings by modelling his business after cash-strapped franchises or by cutting payroll.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree entirely (esp. with the qualification in sentence 1). But he didn't get those rings by modelling his business after cash-strapped franchises or by cutting payroll.

 

Yes, Henry has always spent on the team. He knows that's part of the deal when you own the Red Sox. That's why I like him.

[notin]

Price's 217 million was a huge risk, of course.

 

Mookie's ask of 420 million was virtually double that. Or it was Price's 217 million plus another 203 million on top of that.

 

Price was also 30 at the time, and signed for 7 years. That meant even a healthy Price was probably going to start declining very early in that contract (which he did).

 

Betts is 27. He had more years of production ahead of him, and he was a better player to begin with. So while Price was dropping from a 5-6 fWAR pitcher to a 4 fWAR pitcher to a 2 fWAR pitcher, from Betts we might have seen him go from being an 8-10 fWAR outfielder to a 7-9 fWAR outfilder to maybe a 5-6 fWAR outfielder over time. And maybe after 9 or 10 years, he is a 3-4 fWAR outfielder, but by then you have a much better ROI on that contract...

[notin]

Yes, Henry has always spent on the team. He knows that's part of the deal when you own the Red Sox. That's why I like him.

 

He has, and I am thankful the man has dropped a couple billion dollars on my entertainment. And I have reciprocated by spending exactly 0 dollars on his.

 

But the bottom line is the man does have spending limits, despite the numerous foolish retorts of money-saving moves being to "save Henry money." Never my thought. My thoughts/plans/posts typically revolved around retaining players like Betts rather than foolishly dropping huge quantities of cash of players on the wrong side of 30 and hoping they miraculously don't age, or by signing players for 6-7 years to fill a one or two year gap in production.

 

Which brings me to a conundrum on Trevor Bauer this offseason. He is clearly going to be looking at a Price-esque contract, but no one else on the market can expedite the turnaround of this team any better. But that might mean a better team in 2021-2023, and then, what? Right back here again, dumping Casas and Groome to get someone to take Bauer off our hands?

Edited September 10, 2020 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

Price was also 30 at the time, and signed for 7 years. That meant even a healthy Price was probably going to start declining very early in that contract (which he did).

 

Betts is 27. He had more years of production ahead of him, and he was a better player to begin with. So while Price was dropping from a 5-6 fWAR pitcher to a 4 fWAR pitcher to a 2 fWAR pitcher, from Betts we might have seen him go from being an 8-10 fWAR outfielder to a 7-9 fWAR outfilder to maybe a 5-6 fWAR outfielder over time. And maybe after 9 or 10 years, he is a 3-4 fWAR outfielder, but by then you have a much better ROI on that contract...

 

One correction - Betts will be 28 when his new contract begins next year.

[notin]

One correction - Betts will be 28 when his new contract begins next year.

 

A fact that changes not one character in my post.

[notin]

Interesting line of reasoning - sounds like you think the teams that these guys played on would have been better off without them. '67 without Yaz? Not so much. I will continue to think that most championship teams have some legit star power. potentially we had one of the best ever and now we don't. Maybe we can become the next tampa bay?

 

That's not what I said. Just expounding on S5's point about stars and championships.

 

Nothing I said there is incorrect...

[cp176]

He has, and I am thankful the man has dropped a couple billion dollars on my entertainment. And I have reciprocated by spending exactly 0 dollars on his.

 

But the bottom line is the man does have spending limits, despite the numerous foolish retorts of money-saving moves being to "save Henry money." Never my thought. My thoughts/plans/posts typically revolved around retaining players like Betts rather than foolishly dropping huge quantities of cash of players on the wrong side of 30 and hoping they miraculously don't age, or by signing players for 6-7 years to fill a one or two year gap in production.

 

Which brings me to a conundrum on Trevor Bauer this offseason. He is clearly going to be looking at a Price-esque contract, but no one else on the market can expedite the turnaround of this team any better. But that might mean a better team in 2021-2023, and then, what? Right back here again, dumping Casas and Groome to get someone to take Bauer off our hands?

 

Foolish retort you say! And the Giants would have been better off trading away Willie. And as for the Braves keeping that Aaron kid around, my lord how silly. And don't get me going about that Yaz guy. We all say things, we all embellish a bit but if my comments seem foolish to you I have come to think that that isn't all that bad. For the record, I'm a John Henry fan as well. i just don't like the sickening piling on of a general manager who did what he was asked and gave us some real excitement to look forward to. When those "foolish" comments stop then i will likely let John Henry's budget drift off into the sunset. I am damned happy that DD was brought in and did what he did.