Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[cp176]

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

 

Nothing I said there is incorrect...

 

 

I did just did what you do. Didn't you see that.

[notin]

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.

 

The 2020 Red Sox are part of what he did...

[notin]

I did just did what you do. Didn't you see that.

 

No. You drew the conclusion that teams would therefore be better off without star players.

 

When it comes to the players I mentioned, the economics of baseball were different and those players (as far as I know) did not command the type of payroll-flexibility killing cotnracts some players get today. But they still did not win. Nowadays, teams certainly can limit themselves with huge contracts. Especially if they give them out rather freely, like DD did with Price and Eovaldi...

[notin]

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.

 

And yes, it is a foolish retort to say that anyone who suggests not overpaying for an aging free agent with a mega contract is "trying to save Henry's money." Fans who say that typically think the contract is going to go south and be a burden that hamstrings the team's ability to improve, and do so sooner rather than later. The foolish people think his spending is limitless and the Sox can "print money" in some sort of neverending supply. History has shown repeatedly this is not true.

 

And right now, what exactly do you mean about "gave us some excitement to "look forward to"? That's actually the exact opposite of what Dombrowski did. He did give us some in the past, but the situation the Sox are in was actually a very predictable one. How many posts in the past 3 or 4 years have referenced the inevitable "cliff"? You know, the one we fell off this year?

[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...

 

The thing about Price was, we were in desperate need of a starting pitcher.

 

The main alternatives that year were Greinke, who got a similar deal to Price, and Cueto, who got "only" 130 million, but has missed even more time than Price.

 

Not sure what DD was supposed to do that would have been clearly better.

[mvp 78]

The thing about Price was, we were in desperate need of a starting pitcher.

 

The main alternatives that year were Greinke, who got a similar deal to Price, and Cueto, who got "only" 130 million, but has missed even more time than Price.

 

Not sure what DD was supposed to do that would have been clearly better.

 

The Price deal was fine (though they maybe should have gotten Greinke). The Sale/Eovaldi contracts are the bigger concern.

[notin]

The thing about Price was, we were in desperate need of a starting pitcher.

 

The main alternatives that year were Greinke, who got a similar deal to Price, and Cueto, who got "only" 130 million, but has missed even more time than Price.

 

Not sure what DD was supposed to do that would have been clearly better.

 

 

I wonder if he explored the trade market for starters instead of closers...

[Bellhorn04]

I wonder if he explored the trade market for starters instead of closers...

 

Who knows? He certainly did the next year.

[dgalehouse]

Baseball is the ultimate team sport. Obviously, one superstar cannot carry a mediocre team to the top . But MLB is also part of the entertainment industry. And that superstar certainly enhances the entertainment. Each owner will decide where he wants to draw the line with spending. And that line can greatly effect the quality of the product being offered. You can surely see that if you try . By the way , the Sox DID win a championship , with Mookie being a very big part of it . It was not that long ago , as I recall .

[Donnie Sadler was short]

Is this thread still alive? Jesus...they knew he wasnt going to re-sign with them so they got what they could. Dont you think that the Sox brass had inside info on his desire to remain?

[Bellhorn04]

Is this thread still alive? Jesus...they knew he wasnt going to re-sign with them so they got what they could. Dont you think that the Sox brass had inside info on his desire to remain?

 

Relax. You're guessing, same as us. I highly doubt Mookie told them he had no interest in ever signing a long-term deal with Boston. That would have been dumb.

 

Who the hell ever thought David Price would want to play 7 years in Boston? The 217 million did the trick, not his love of the city.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Baseball is the ultimate team sport. Obviously, one superstar cannot carry a mediocre team to the top . But MLB is also part of the entertainment industry. And that superstar certainly enhances the entertainment. Each owner will decide where he wants to draw the line with spending. And that line can greatly effect the quality of the product being offered. You can surely see that if you try . By the way , the Sox DID win a championship , with Mookie being a very big part of it . It was not that long ago , as I recall .

 

Betts also led the Red Sox to first place three straight years for the only time in their history 2016-18, pacing the team in WAR each season and finishing 2nd, 6th and 1st in AL MVP voting. Beyond the obvious tickets sales and fan adoration he generates, Mookie is exactly the type of core player a big market franchise covets when building for sustained contention.

 

Risky Business? Princeton can use a guy like Joel...

[mvp 78]

Relax. You're guessing, same as us. I highly doubt Mookie told them he had no interest in ever signing a long-term deal with Boston. That would have been dumb.

 

Who the hell ever thought David Price would want to play 7 years in Boston? The 217 million did the trick, not his love of the city.

 

The amount of teams that could afford that contract is tiny. Why would he just cross one of them off the list? Makes no sense.

[cp176]

No. You drew the conclusion that teams would therefore be better off without star players.

 

When it comes to the players I mentioned, the economics of baseball were different and those players (as far as I know) did not command the type of payroll-flexibility killing cotnracts some players get today. But they still did not win. Nowadays, teams certainly can limit themselves with huge contracts. Especially if they give them out rather freely, like DD did with Price and Eovaldi...

 

yes - I did what you constantly do

[cp176]

The 2020 Red Sox are part of what he did...

 

For sure - and that would include all of the various injuries incurred under his time as GM. Keep piling on you got plenty of allies here who know just exactly how much money should be spent and for which players.

[cp176]

For sure - and that would include all of the various injuries incurred under his time as GM. Keep piling on you got plenty of allies here who know just exactly how much money should be spent and for which players.

 

 

oh and my "look forward to" comment had everything to do with the teams that played at the ml level while he was the GM. I'm sorry if you were disappointed that he did not put together a championship farm team.

[notin]

For sure - and that would include all of the various injuries incurred under his time as GM. Keep piling on you got plenty of allies here who know just exactly how much money should be spent and for which players.

 

As do you apparently...

[notin]

oh and my "look forward to" comment had everything to do with the teams that played at the ml level while he was the GM. I'm sorry if you were disappointed that he did not put together a championship farm team.

 

Well, yesterday's cliff is today's abyss...

[notin]

yes - I did what you constantly do

 

Actually not.

 

Saying the best players do not always win titles is not even remotely the same as saying teams would be better off without them.

 

However, if someone did say allocating far too many resources to keep the best player hampers a team's ability to build a competitive team around that player (which was the original actual point), would you agree or not?

 

Most GMs would agree with that, which is why they frequently backload heavier contracts. It is a strategy that gives them more financial flexibility when the player is at his most productive and therefore easier to build a better team around him. And when he hits his more expensive years, he was unlikely to be as able to carry the team anyway...

[S5Dewey]

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?

 

Whoa, there Pardner.

I never said that the teams would have been better off without them. The teams would have been worse without them.

 

Now let's look at the Dodgers and why they signed Mookie to a long term contract: It wasn't because they have $300MM kicking around that they didn't know what to do with. They have the nucleus to make a strong run at a WSC and they see Mookie as the player to put them "over the top".

 

From the perspective of the Red Sox, if an owner's goal is to win the WSC and they don't have the second tier players or the economic latitude to sign them it's logical to say to a high priced player, "We didn't win WITH you and your salary we probably also won't win without you - so we're no worse off", and move that player. See ya Mookie. Yes, they'll probably take a negative hit at the box office but they'll also take a positive "hit" in their salary structure. Some of it really IS "all about the money."

 

It's cold out there in the real world.

[cp176]

Whoa, there Pardner.

I never said that the teams would have been better off without them. The teams would have been worse without them.

 

Now let's look at the Dodgers and why they signed Mookie to a long term contract: It wasn't because they have $300MM kicking around that they didn't know what to do with. They have the nucleus to make a strong run at a WSC and they see Mookie as the player to put them "over the top".

 

From the perspective of the Red Sox, if an owner's goal is to win the WSC and they don't have the second tier players or the economic latitude to sign them it's logical to say to a high priced player, "We didn't win WITH you and your salary we probably also won't win without you - so we're no worse off", and move that player. See ya Mookie. Yes, they'll probably take a negative hit at the box office but they'll also take a positive "hit" in their salary structure. Some of it really IS "all about the money."

 

It's cold out there in the real world.

 

i'm pretty sure that coming from where you come from that you understand the importance of all of Boston's greats.

[jad]

Whoa, there Pardner.

I never said that the teams would have been better off without them. The teams would have been worse without them.

 

Now let's look at the Dodgers and why they signed Mookie to a long term contract: It wasn't because they have $300MM kicking around that they didn't know what to do with. They have the nucleus to make a strong run at a WSC and they see Mookie as the player to put them "over the top".

 

From the perspective of the Red Sox, if an owner's goal is to win the WSC and they don't have the second tier players or the economic latitude to sign them it's logical to say to a high priced player, "We didn't win WITH you and your salary we probably also won't win without you - so we're no worse off", and move that player. See ya Mookie. Yes, they'll probably take a negative hit at the box office but they'll also take a positive "hit" in their salary structure. Some of it really IS "all about the money."

 

It's cold out there in the real world.

 

Well yes. But as a fan, I would much rather watch the RS fail to win a championship with expensive great players than watch them lose with crappy inexpensive ones.

[cp176]

Well yes. But as a fan, I would much rather watch the RS fail to win a championship with expensive great players than watch them lose with crappy inexpensive ones.

 

The game i think is changing for me and not in a particularly good way. Everyone likes to win for sure but for me it has always been about the chase not so much the win. It is hard to win it all and to be quite truthful I enjoy watching players that I have come to know over a period of years even if it means coming up a little short. The best, the stars attract me. If it means we overpay, so be it. I'm really not sure how to put it into words but I need to have a few players that I really want to follow and to keep track of than I do a collection of unfamiliar names and hopefuls. There has to be a good blend to keep me interested. It would seem that this opinion is a minority held opinion here. I truly realize the importance of a solid farm but all of this talk that relates to what the former gm's have done is for me tiresome. I would give as much credit to Lou Gorman and Dan Duquette as I would to any of the others.

[Bellhorn04]

Well yes. But as a fan, I would much rather watch the RS fail to win a championship with expensive great players than watch them lose with crappy inexpensive ones.

 

It's the expensive crappy players that really hurt a team.

[Bellhorn04]

Somebody mentioned how great it was that Yaz played his whole career with the Sox and was productive almost till the end.

 

And it was great.

 

But I think Yaz was on one-year contracts most of the time.

 

Now you have to sign a 12-year contract to keep your superstar. That's crazy.

[notin]

The game i think is changing for me and not in a particularly good way. Everyone likes to win for sure but for me it has always been about the chase not so much the win. It is hard to win it all and to be quite truthful I enjoy watching players that I have come to know over a period of years even if it means coming up a little short. The best, the stars attract me. If it means we overpay, so be it. I'm really not sure how to put it into words but I need to have a few players that I really want to follow and to keep track of than I do a collection of unfamiliar names and hopefuls. There has to be a good blend to keep me interested. It would seem that this opinion is a minority held opinion here. I truly realize the importance of a solid farm but all of this talk that relates to what the former gm's have done is for me tiresome. I would give as much credit to Lou Gorman and Dan Duquette as I would to any of the others.

 

It is great to have those players. I do hate to see those long term, payroll sucking contracts. But there were also 3 that I either liked or advocated fr the Red Sox to make.

 

1. Manny Ramirez. He was 27 at the time. A player who reaches free agency at 27 is certainly worth more consideration for a big deal than a 30-31yo free agent. And Manny was a productive hitter for the entire length of his deal, a rarity.

2. Jon Lester - It was looking like he probably would not live up to a 7 or 8 year deal (and he is struggling to do so), but I wanted the Sox to extend him.

3. Mookie Betts. My problem was never his contract, which certainly did not surprise me in terms of years and money. But I did not like the Price contract that (I felt) made it tougher to afford Mookie and (I felt) took us all but out of the Mookie bidding.

 

Beyond that? Not really. Although I certainly liked JD Martinez' contract when compared to the original asking price. And Bogaerts contract was brilliant and one I never thought we'd see happen since he is a Boras client and those players rarely avoid free agency with extensions...

Edited September 11, 2020 by notin

[cp176]

It is great to have those players. I do hate to see those long term, payroll sucking contracts. But there were also 3 that I either liked or advocated fr the Red Sox to make.

 

1. Manny Ramirez. He was 27 at the time. A player who reaches free agency at 27 is certainly worth more consideration for a big deal than a 30-31yo free agent. And Manny was a productive hitter for the entire length of his deal, a rarity.

2. Jon Lester - It was looking like he probably would not live up to a 7 or 8 year deal (and he is struggling to do so), but I wanted the Sox to extend him.

3. Mookie Betts. My problem was never his contract, which certainly did not surprise me in terms of years and money. But I did not like the Price contract that (I felt) made it tougher to afford Mookie and (I felt) took us all but out of the Mookie bidding.

 

Beyond that? Not really. Although I certainly liked JD Martinez' contract when compared to the original asking price. And Bogaerts contract was brilliant and one I never thought we'd see happen since he is a Boras client and those players rarely avoid free agency with extensions...

 

Well ok to be perfectly fair to the people here that do seem to project that they know best for the Red Sox now and as the team moves forward, I really wasn't all that enthralled with some of the long term contracts. Sandoval, Price, and Eovaldi came with great risk in my opinion. As for Chris Sale, yes I would make that trade certainly again and I would be that guy who would have signed him. I am also aware of the risk involved there too. I just think that he is the type of player who helps so much that you keep him around. i think that it was worth the risk. i'm fine with the Bogaerts and Martinez signings as well. I have to say though that I found the game more enjoyable to watch when it at least looked as though we were going to be solid on the mound and likely would have a chance to win it all. Actually I think that the concept of the long range contract has been costly and has hurt the game of baseball. Maybe things will start to change.

[notin]

Well ok to be perfectly fair to the people here that do seem to project that they know best for the Red Sox now and as the team moves forward, I really wasn't all that enthralled with some of the long term contracts. Sandoval, Price, and Eovaldi came with great risk in my opinion. As for Chris Sale, yes I would make that trade certainly again and I would be that guy who would have signed him. I am also aware of the risk involved there too. I just think that he is the type of player who helps so much that you keep him around. i think that it was worth the risk. i'm fine with the Bogaerts and Martinez signings as well. I have to say though that I found the game more enjoyable to watch when it at least looked as though we were going to be solid on the mound and likely would have a chance to win it all. Actually I think that the concept of the long range contract has been costly and has hurt the game of baseball. Maybe things will start to change.

 

If you were on that other website, I had numerous rants about the Sandoval contract. Now, granted, they guy I wanted them to get as a stopgap 3B (the late Luis Valbuena) did not turn into that much better of a player. But at least he stunk at a discount rate...

[notin]

Well ok to be perfectly fair to the people here that do seem to project that they know best for the Red Sox now and as the team moves forward, I really wasn't all that enthralled with some of the long term contracts. Sandoval, Price, and Eovaldi came with great risk in my opinion. As for Chris Sale, yes I would make that trade certainly again and I would be that guy who would have signed him. I am also aware of the risk involved there too. I just think that he is the type of player who helps so much that you keep him around. i think that it was worth the risk. i'm fine with the Bogaerts and Martinez signings as well. I have to say though that I found the game more enjoyable to watch when it at least looked as though we were going to be solid on the mound and likely would have a chance to win it all. Actually I think that the concept of the long range contract has been costly and has hurt the game of baseball. Maybe things will start to change.

 

In fact, this off season is one where I am glad not to be GM. (Like that was a tough bullet for me to dodge.)

 

The free agent the Sox need the most to really get back into contention quickly is Trevor Bauer. There might be a Perfect Storm brewing to make this possible with 1) per MLB Network talking heads on High Heat, there will be fewer teams actually spending money, a list that does not include the Red Sox, 2) the Sox are in desperate need of SP 3) the Sox have been very public about achieving their tax reset, which should be the green light to spend again, and 4) Bauer's personal hate-hate relationship with the Yankees' Gerrit Cole (which, at best, is a tie breaker in his decision-making process, if it enters at all.)

 

But the problem is, Bauer is very likely looking for a deal in the neighborhood or what David Price had, if not more. His goal might even to be a bigger contract than Cole, just because. This is a major step to putting the Sox right back in this type of mess we have today, especially since, so far, Bauer has simply not been as good of a pitcher as even Price was at the same ages. Bauer is still certainly a very, very good pitcher. But even Price had a much, much better track record (31.1 fWAR, 1 Cy Young award) entering free agency than Bauer (19.3 fWAR and counting)...

[dgalehouse]

Somebody mentioned how great it was that Yaz played his whole career with the Sox and was productive almost till the end.

 

And it was great.

 

But I think Yaz was on one-year contracts most of the time.

 

Now you have to sign a 12-year contract to keep your superstar. That's crazy.

 

A lot of things have changed over the years . Much of it has been for the better . But not all of it.