Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[moonslav59]

"Once-in-a-lifetime" is an overstatement.

 

But he's the second-best player of his generation for sure.

 

Weel, Trout was never part of our organization, so to me, Betts was "a once in a lifetime talent" with the Sox, and we couldn't afford to keep him.

 

Thanks Dave.

 

We paid Price $31M x 7, Sale $26M x 5 and HRam/JD $22M/yr x 4 and 5 yrs, but $30.4M x 12 was too much for the best of the best.

[moonslav59]

Maybe "once in a Boston lifetime." Who was the best talent to come u through the Sox system before him? Maybe Boggs?

 

Clemens, Yaz, Teddy

[notin]

"Once-in-a-lifetime" is an overstatement.

 

But he's the second-best player of his generation for sure.

 

One thing about the "once in a lifetime status" for Mookie is, unlike players like Harper and Trout, Mookie was never a really highly regarded prospect. BA ranked him one time, and even then at #74, back before the 2014 season where was ranked below Garin Cecchini (#74). In 2013, Fangraphs had him at #15 in the Sox system. For some perspective, Brandon Jacobs was #13 that year and Anthony Ranaudo was #14.

 

So Mookie was really not so much a "once in a lifetime" player as much as he was a "came from nowhere" player who was just overlooked by every evaluating staff out there.

 

The big question for us Sox fans is, can we find another player to rise up so far from such obscurity? It's tough to picture, say, Hudson Potts or Connor Wong being so successful.

 

On the other hand, Betts numbers in the minors were good (.880 OPS in 1315 PA), but they were also far from legendary. Wong has a .852 OPS in 904 PA and Potts has a rather pedestrian .743 OPS in 1792 PA, but has also been very young for every level.

 

Obviously I don't think Wong and/or Potts are sure things to be the next Betts. But it is actually not out of the realm of possibility that someone is...

.

[notin]

Clemens, Yaz, Teddy

 

All of whom were before Boggs.

 

I went with Boggs as he was a clear HOF talent. Whether or not Mookie was a "better Hall of Famer" seems a bit nitpicky to me. At some point, we have to recognize the elite qualities of anyone in Cooperstown...

[moonslav59]

All of whom were before Boggs.

 

I went with Boggs as he was a clear HOF talent. Whether or not Mookie was a "better Hall of Famer" seems a bit nitpicky to me. At some point, we have to recognize the elite qualities of anyone in Cooperstown...

 

Okay. You didn't say last best talent.

 

Boggs had a very unique talent, and he greatly improved his D as he matured.

[notin]

Okay. You didn't say last best talent.

 

Boggs had a very unique talent, and he greatly improved his D as he matured.

 

And like Betts, no one considered Boggs to be much of a prospect...

[Bellhorn04]

Weel, Trout was never part of our organization, so to me, Betts was "a once in a lifetime talent" with the Sox, and we couldn't afford to keep him.

 

Thanks Dave.

 

It's definitely not on Dave. It was John and Tom who decided $400 million was too much.

[Bellhorn04]

We paid Price $31M x 7, Sale $26M x 5 and HRam/JD $22M/yr x 4 and 5 yrs, but $30.4M x 12 was too much for the best of the best.

 

HRam = 88 million

Mookie = 365 million

 

Do those look like comparable amounts? They don't to me, when one is more than four times as big...

[notin]

It's definitely not on Dave. It was John and Tom who decided $400 million was too much.

 

Well, did they just decide that number was too much on its own? Or was the decision it was too much on top of all the other expenses Dombrowski was responsible for? Those are very different questions...

[jad]

Clemens, Yaz, Teddy

 

And don't forget what's-his-name ... B- ... Babe Ruth, that's it. Wasn't he a Sox for life? ... or ... yeah, maybe he was just too expensive for the bean counters back in the day.

[Bellhorn04]

And don't forget what's-his-name ... B- ... Babe Ruth, that's it. Wasn't he a Sox for life? ... or ... yeah, maybe he was just too expensive for the bean counters back in the day.

 

Yes, imagine our chintzy owners getting hung up over only 400 million beans.

[moonslav59]

And don't forget what's-his-name ... B- ... Babe Ruth, that's it. Wasn't he a Sox for life? ... or ... yeah, maybe he was just too expensive for the bean counters back in the day.

 

Just a minor omission... LOL.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, did they just decide that number was too much on its own? Or was the decision it was too much on top of all the other expenses Dombrowski was responsible for? Those are very different questions...

 

I don't doubt that some of those short term expenses like Price, JDM and Eovaldi could have had some impact on the decision.

 

But those expenses are gone after 2022, leaving only Sale and Bogey after that.

 

Mookie's contract, meanwhile will be running an entire DECADE after that.

 

How the sheer length and dollar volume of Mookie's contract wouldn't be the primary concern is beyond me.

[moonslav59]

I don't doubt that some of those short term expenses like Price, JDM and Eovaldi could have had some impact on the decision.

 

But those expenses are gone after 2022, leaving only Sale and Bogey after that.

 

Mookie's contract, meanwhile will be running an entire DECADE after that.

 

How the sheer length and dollar volume of Mookie's contract wouldn't be the primary concern is beyond me.

 

I look at it this way: he's likely "worth" $50-60M a year for the next 4-6 years, $30M/yr for the next 2-4 years, and $20M/yr the last 2-4 years.

[Bellhorn04]

I look at it this way: he's likely "worth" $50-60M a year for the next 4-6 years, $30M/yr for the next 2-4 years, and $20M/yr the last 2-4 years.

 

My guess is the Sox internal valuations came in lower than that for the second half of the deal.

[notin]

I don't doubt that some of those short term expenses like Price, JDM and Eovaldi could have had some impact on the decision.

 

But those expenses are gone after 2022, leaving only Sale and Bogey after that.

 

Mookie's contract, meanwhile will be running an entire DECADE after that.

 

How the sheer length and dollar volume of Mookie's contract wouldn't be the primary concern is beyond me.

 

Maybe but it seems that way with a lot of MLB contracts, if not all of them. At best, you're conjecting. If the Sox had one player in the last 25 years you would give that type of deal to, who would it have been?

[moonslav59]

My guess is the Sox internal valuations came in lower than that for the second half of the deal.

 

Even if he's worth $10M/yr for his last 3 years, he's still worth $31M x 12.

 

$180M/3

$150M/3

$60M/3

$30M/3

 

Total: $420M/12

 

Here's a more conservative view:

$120M/2

$95M/2

$80M/2

$40M/2

$20M/2

$10M/2

 

Total $365M/12

 

It's hard to doubt the second valuation. It seems "light" to me.

Edited October 19, 2020 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

Maybe but it seems that way with a lot of MLB contracts, if not all of them. At best, you're conjecting. If the Sox had one player in the last 25 years you would give that type of deal to, who would it have been?

 

We gave $217/7 to Price 4 years ago.

 

If we gave the same to Betts, we'd be in a sense adding $148M for his last 5 years.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe but it seems that way with a lot of MLB contracts, if not all of them. At best, you're conjecting. If the Sox had one player in the last 25 years you would give that type of deal to, who would it have been?

 

Oh, I would have given him the $400 mill.

 

But here's the actual quote from Werner 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.”

 

It says nothing in there about luxury tax or any other considerations, just about the length of the deal.

 

We can all conjecture about other reasons to our heart's content. But that's what the man said.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if he's worth $10M/yr for his last 3 years, he's still worth $31M x 12.

 

$180M/3

$150M/3

$60M/3

$30M/3

 

Total: $420M/12

 

Here's a more conservative view:

$120M/2

$95M/2

$80M/2

$40M/2

$20M/2

$10M/2

 

Total $365M/12

 

It's hard to doubt the second valuation. It seems "light" to me.

 

Left unmeasured is the risk of things going terribly wrong, for Mookie or even for the economy of baseball itself.

 

I hate projecting injuries to players, but all it takes is one play. I still remember watching the play on which Bo Jackson's sports careers ended.

[notin]

We gave $217/7 to Price 4 years ago.

 

If we gave the same to Betts, we'd be in a sense adding $148M for his last 5 years.

 

So Betts = Sale + Price

[Maxbialystock]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that much value in any player. I think Trout is better than Mookie, and he has not been able to turn Angels around--nor will he. You can maybe say a great player puts butts in seats, but the Dodgers already have great attendance.

 

To remind: Mookie is just one of nine in the lineup and one of nine in the field; he is one of 13 position players, with the other 12 all being pitchers, which Mookie doesn't do.

 

I gotta say, however, he has made a bunch of nice defensive plays in the postseason. They all went ape last night when he grabbed that dinger, but the one I liked was the opposing hit into the right field corner which Mookie fielded so well, then threw so well, the hitter didn't even try for 2B. I also liked that grab when he realized almost immediately that the only way to get that line drive was to stay put and jump as high as he could. In other words, money aside, I think he is a real asset for MLB (and the Dodgers of course).

[jad]

Left unmeasured is the risk of things going terribly wrong, for Mookie or even for the economy of baseball itself.

 

I hate projecting injuries to players, but all it takes is one play. I still remember watching the play on which Bo Jackson's sports careers ended.

 

Yup. Do you remember his comment as he was limping off the field? "Hip pointer. ... Not a bad one."

[notin]

Bo Jackson Trivia Time

 

Bo Jackson enhanced his legend by becoming the first player to play in the All Star game for two different sports when he played in the 1989 MLB All Star game and the 1990 Pro Bowl.

 

Who is the only other athlete to play in an All Star games for two sports?

[Bellhorn04]

Bo Jackson Trivia Time

 

Bo Jackson enhanced his legend by becoming the first player to play in the All Star game for two different sports when he played in the 1989 MLB All Star game and the 1990 Pro Bowl.

 

Who is the only other athlete to play in an All Star games for two sports?

 

Brian Jordan?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Of course I meant "Boston" generational talent. By the way, I could care less about Mike Trout, who wasn't drafted, developed or signed by the Red Sox, and who won zero rings for the Sox.

 

Thanks to the posters who named the Red Sox stars of past generations. Williams, Yaz, Rice, Clemens and Boggs were all Hall of Fame worthy, and each produced at the top of their profession with HOF tools: hitting and power -- Ted, Yaz, Rice; pitching -- Rog; batting and getting on base -- Wade. Yaz, also a Gold Glover, was probably the most multi-faceted.

 

But none of them had the combination of tools of Betts, a true five-tool player who has already won a batting crown, set a record for three-homer games, and has been the MLB's run-scoring machine and very best rightfielder for the half a decade before entering his prime. If any Red Sox player ever deserved a top of the market contract -- and that's all he received from LA -- then it was Mookie.

 

And Werner's words infer Boston drew the line with its final offer..

 

p.s. I've always agreed with Moon's estimates of Betts' front-loaded values for the first half of his contract... as well as dismissing the "albatross" of the second half, which probably won't even be egregious in six years after cost-of-living increases on the average MLB salary.

[notin]

Brian Jordan?

 

That didn’t take long at all.

 

Yes Brian Jordan made the Pro Bowl his rookie year with the Falcons and played in the 1999 MLB All Star game as a Brave...

[moonslav59]

Left unmeasured is the risk of things going terribly wrong, for Mookie or even for the economy of baseball itself.

 

I hate projecting injuries to players, but all it takes is one play. I still remember watching the play on which Bo Jackson's sports careers ended.

 

Yes. I never said it would not be a big risk.

 

I think he's worth it, but I can understand those who feel otherwise.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not signing Mookie was the best thing the Sox could have done. There will be havoc wreaked on baseball with covid 19 and the Sox dodged a bullet by trying to stay nimble

[moonslav59]

Not signing Mookie was the best thing the Sox could have done. There will be havoc wreaked on baseball with covid 19 and the Sox dodged a bullet by trying to stay nimble

 

We'll see.

 

If contract costs drop in the next few years, you'll be right, but many feel he took a COVID discount as it is.