Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[notin]

Sure, and the guy who lost $100 at the track and the guy who lost $10 million to Bernie Madoff both lost money. Parallel cases!

 

Exactly

[notin]

What nobody seems to want to face is the state of the Sox at the time of said extension. The Sox sucked this year. They sucked last year. They’re probably gonna suck next year too. Mookie turning down the extension is going to be a blessing in disguise for the Sox. Your biggest bang for your buck on massive contracts usually comes up front. What’s the point of spending $35 mil a year if the first couple years, the team won’t be good. You make that deal if you’re on the cusp. You don’t make that deal if your team is a collection of s***

 

Like when the Yankees signed Aroldis Chapman to the largest contract ever for a close after the 2016 season (when the Yankees had the same record as the 2019 Red Sox)....

[Kimmi]

This thread is cooling off...lets spice it up...Lets say the Dodgers win the WS & Mookie is a beast. The media goes overboard with how stupid the red sox were to trade him etc. And...lets say its true that Mookie made it clear he was not to resign here. As the media massacre gets worse & worse...at some point does/should Mookie step up & say I told them I wanted to move on? Or does he sit there & let the Sox take all the $hit? I expect some good retorts on this....dont disappoint me!

 

Who is Mookie? Who are you talking about?

[Kimmi]

We still on this? Time to move on. For all we know Betts had zero interest to be here. Based on his media interviews it sure seemed like it.

 

It is time to move, for sure. Unfortunately, we as Red Sox fans, myself included, cannot let things go. We will be talking about Mookie for the rest of his Dodger career.

[Kimmi]

What nobody seems to want to face is the state of the Sox at the time of said extension. The Sox sucked this year. They sucked last year. They’re probably gonna suck next year too. Mookie turning down the extension is going to be a blessing in disguise for the Sox. Your biggest bang for your buck on massive contracts usually comes up front. What’s the point of spending $35 mil a year if the first couple years, the team won’t be good. You make that deal if you’re on the cusp. You don’t make that deal if your team is a collection of s***

 

I agree that the Sox are fortunate that Mookie turned down the extension, but not because the Sox are going to suck next year.

 

The Sox will be in contention in 2021.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It is time to move, for sure. Unfortunately, we as Red Sox fans, myself included, cannot let things go. We will be talking about Mookie for the rest of his Dodger career.

 

Not just us. You can bet if/when LA finally wins a ring, that FOX will be running clips of game-saving catches by Mookie the Dodger in every Red Sox broadcast from here til eternity.

[jad]

Sure, and the guy who lost $100 at the track and the guy who lost $10 million to Bernie Madoff both lost money. Parallel cases!

 

So you're saying now that trading Ruth was like losing $100 at the track? (I believe we could go on like this forever, each of us denouncing others' analogies as preposterous!)

Edited October 25, 2020 by jad

[Bellhorn04]

So you're saying now that trading Ruth was like losing $100 at the track? (I believe we could go on like this forever, each of us denouncing others' analogies as preposterous!)

 

What I pointed out in my reply to your post was that Mookie turned down an offer of at least $300 million from the Red Sox.

 

In Babe Ruth's day there was no free agency. The Red Sox could have kept him as long as they pleased.

 

I think to be fair about this, you have to look at the differences between the two situations.

[jad]

Let's hope we remember this Mookie better than the other one, who (I am reminded) hit a weak ground ball to first on this day some thirty-four years ago.

[dgalehouse]

What nobody seems to want to face is the state of the Sox at the time of said extension. The Sox sucked this year. They sucked last year. They’re probably gonna suck next year too. Mookie turning down the extension is going to be a blessing in disguise for the Sox. Your biggest bang for your buck on massive contracts usually comes up front. What’s the point of spending $35 mil a year if the first couple years, the team won’t be good. You make that deal if you’re on the cusp. You don’t make that deal if your team is a collection of s***

 

That is basically just a cheap shot at the Red Sox , disguised as a comment on Betts signing with the Dodgers being a good thing for the Sox.

[Kimmi]

Not just us. You can bet if/when LA finally wins a ring, that FOX will be running clips of game-saving catches by Mookie the Dodger in every Red Sox broadcast from here til eternity.

 

Oh definitely. I am already over all of the Mookie articles, tweets, and praise. I have nothing against the Dodgers, but not having to hear about Mookie all offseason would give me reason to pull against them.

[moonslav59]

"I thought I'd be a Red Sox for life."

-Mookie Betts tells David Ortiz

[oldtimer]

"I thought I'd be a Red Sox for life."

-Mookie Betts tells David Ortiz

 

What a disingenuous comment. If he wished to stay with the Sox he had $300 million reasons over 10 years. In reality he was looking for whatever he could get, even if the extraction of that much would have reduced not increased the competitiveness of the team. Like Kimmi, I find myself rooting for the Rays, in no small part because of the ridiculous coverage, which depicts Mookie as some kind of a hero.

[Kimmi]

"I thought I'd be a Red Sox for life."

-Mookie Betts tells David Ortiz

 

As one of the writers mentioned, the question is, when did he have this thought? Was it shortly before he was traded or was it when he was a youngster just getting his big league start?

 

Once he had a good bit of success, I don't think he necessarily believed this anymore. I'm not saying that he wanted out of Boston, but that he was going wherever the money was. If that meant leaving Boston, it was no big deal for him.

[jad]

What a disingenuous comment. If he wished to stay with the Sox he had $300 million reasons over 10 years. In reality he was looking for whatever he could get, even if the extraction of that much would have reduced not increased the competitiveness of the team. Like Kimmi, I find myself rooting for the Rays, in no small part because of the ridiculous coverage, which depicts Mookie as some kind of a hero.

 

Why? He thought he would be with them I assume because he thought they would offer him market value, which they did not. You may not agree with what he claims is his thinking on this, but there is nothing disingenuous about it. (Also, he seems to be trying not to criticize the organization he just left--actually, the organization that traded him away in order to get under the luxury tax. Many RS fans, by contrast, vilify him for not taking 50-100 million less than what the market proved he could get. But I have yet to hear a good reason offered why he should have done that. The Boston winters? The drivers? The beaches? The club life?)

[Kimmi]

What a disingenuous comment. If he wished to stay with the Sox he had $300 million reasons over 10 years. In reality he was looking for whatever he could get, even if the extraction of that much would have reduced not increased the competitiveness of the team. Like Kimmi, I find myself rooting for the Rays, in no small part because of the ridiculous coverage, which depicts Mookie as some kind of a hero.

 

The Sox gave Mookie a more than reasonable deal. I agree with you, he was after the most money, no matter what.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not really rooting for the Rays. I have nothing against the Dodgers. However, one reason why I really don't want the Dodgers to win is because of the endless and nauseating stories about Mookie that we'd hear.

[dgalehouse]

I'm not making Mookie out to be a hero. But he is a great ballplayer who was looking to maximize his earnings. I can't fault him for that. We all should know by now that baseball is a business. Sometimes a cold business. We can't expect a player to have loyalty to an organization, a city or the fans. The organization has no loyalty to the player. They will trade him , non tender him , cut him or DFA him in a minute , with no regrets. And the fans will turn on a player at the first sign of decline in performance. Loyalty is a nice word. But it is rare in the business of baseball. Mookie is a Dodger. He is rich beyond his dreams. He is happy. Move on. Who knows, maybe someday Jeter Downs will make us happy. I doubt it , but maybe he will.

[reYoukilis]

Its a business dependent on a good product winning, no? BTW Mookie was a Cherington acquisition.....just saying.

[oldtimer]

I'm not making Mookie out to be a hero. But he is a great ballplayer who was looking to maximize his earnings. I can't fault him for that. We all should know by now that baseball is a business. Sometimes a cold business. We can't expect a player to have loyalty to an organization, a city or the fans. The organization has no loyalty to the player. They will trade him , non tender him , cut him or DFA him in a minute , with no regrets. And the fans will turn on a player at the first sign of decline in performance. Loyalty is a nice word. But it is rare in the business of baseball. Mookie is a Dodger. He is rich beyond his dreams. He is happy. Move on. Who knows, maybe someday Jeter Downs will make us happy. I doubt it , but maybe he will.

I assume Seager will be looking for equivalent money, since he was probably the best Dodger player in the playoffs. two position players in long term contracts drawing down $65 mil between them. How does a team afford to do this and still have ace pitching and good players throughout? Good for the individual players to be rich beyond their fondest dreams, but what does it say about baseball going forward?

[Bellhorn04]

I assume Seager will be looking for equivalent money, since he was probably the best Dodger player in the playoffs. two position players in long term contracts drawing down $65 mil between them. How does a team afford to do this and still have ace pitching and good players throughout? Good for the individual players to be rich beyond their fondest dreams, but what does it say about baseball going forward?

 

And after Seager will be Bellinger.

 

It just means that's it very difficult to keep a bunch of stars on your team. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[notin]

I assume Seager will be looking for equivalent money, since he was probably the best Dodger player in the playoffs. two position players in long term contracts drawing down $65 mil between them. How does a team afford to do this and still have ace pitching and good players throughout? Good for the individual players to be rich beyond their fondest dreams, but what does it say about baseball going forward?

 

If Seager asked for $35mill annually, I would let him go. Paying that money to Mookie is one thing; he is of Cooperstown Caliber. Seager can be ranked anywhere among the top 5 shortstops to reach the market in 2021 He simply isn't the same type of unique talent...

[notin]

Its a business dependent on a good product winning, no? BTW Mookie was a Cherington acquisition.....just saying.

 

Mookie was drafted in 2011. Cherington did not take over as GM until the 2012 season...

[jad]

I assume Seager will be looking for equivalent money, since he was probably the best Dodger player in the playoffs. two position players in long term contracts drawing down $65 mil between them. How does a team afford to do this and still have ace pitching and good players throughout? Good for the individual players to be rich beyond their fondest dreams, but what does it say about baseball going forward?

 

? Not sure what you mean here. What it says about baseball is that players are getting what owners consider market value for their services, which they absolutely should get. If players made less, owners would pocket more. There seems to be a collective illusion among some fans (not you), that if players made less, why then seats to games would cost $3, there would be plenty of them available on game day, and one's favorite team would win the WS every other year.

[harmony]

I assume Seager will be looking for equivalent money, since he was probably the best Dodger player in the playoffs. two position players in long term contracts drawing down $65 mil between them. How does a team afford to do this and still have ace pitching and good players throughout? Good for the individual players to be rich beyond their fondest dreams, but what does it say about baseball going forward?

Fortunes can change quickly.

 

The Red Sox have a losing record (108-114) since the "best team ever" won the World Series on this date two year ago.

[mvp 78]

Fortunes can change quickly.

 

The Red Sox have a losing record (108-114) since the "best team ever" won the World Series on this date two year ago.

 

Still a higher winning % than the all time Seattle Mariners mark of .470 (3246-3655). AND the Sox record includes one of the most dreadful of all time seasons in a small sample of 1.37 years.

 

In order for the Mariners to get above .500, they'd have to have a winning percentage of .600 (97 wins per year) for over 12 straight years.

[harmony]

Still a higher winning % than the all time Seattle Mariners mark of .470 (3246-3655). AND the Sox record includes one of the most dreadful of all time seasons in a small sample of 1.37 years.

 

In order for the Mariners to get above .500, they'd have to have a winning percentage of .600 (97 wins per year) for over 12 straight years.

And to top it off the Mariners are envious of the Red Sox and their No. 4 pick in the 2021 draft.

[oldtimer]

? Not sure what you mean here. What it says about baseball is that players are getting what owners consider market value for their services, which they absolutely should get. If players made less, owners would pocket more. There seems to be a collective illusion among some fans (not you), that if players made less, why then seats to games would cost $3, there would be plenty of them available on game day, and one's favorite team would win the WS every other year.

 

What my main concern is that the CBT threshold sets a soft limit on the amount that can be applied for the entire teams salary and benefit costs. When one or two players get a significant percentage of that payroll the owners either have to shoulder the burden of a higher payroll increased by an escalatory tax, plus there are impacts on draft choices and international money. Lets face it, the also good players wind up being paid less and the team becomes less competitive overall. The guys making $35 million don't care about the guy making $3.5 million who is really contributing. By the way, the risk associated with long term contracts can be monetized and for contracts that run 10 years or more, they are onerous and can kill a team's competitiveness for years to come.

[moonslav59]

What my main concern is that the CBT threshold sets a soft limit on the amount that can be applied for the entire teams salary and benefit costs. When one or two players get a significant percentage of that payroll the owners either have to shoulder the burden of a higher payroll increased by an escalatory tax, plus there are impacts on draft choices and international money. Lets face it, the also good players wind up being paid less and the team becomes less competitive overall. The guys making $35 million don't care about the guy making $3.5 million who is really contributing. By the way, the risk associated with long term contracts can be monetized and for contracts that run 10 years or more, they are onerous and can kill a team's competitiveness for years to come.

 

Agreed.

 

I think the union needs to change its approach.

 

Push for raising the minimum salary by a lot.

 

Push for starting the arb year one year earlier, even if you add one more on the end.

 

Push for minimum team player budget thresholds with stiffer penalties than paying the players enough to reach the line. Raise that line yearly by more than the max line is raised.

 

Push for a 42 or 44 man roster.

[mvp 78]

And to top it off the Mariners are envious of the Red Sox and their No. 4 pick in the 2021 draft.

 

I do appreciate the Mariners for giving the Sox Varitek, Lowe and Dave Henderson. Bonus points for stealing Buhner from the Yankees too.

[harmony]

I do appreciate the Mariners for giving the Sox Varitek, Lowe and Dave Henderson. Bonus points for stealing Buhner from the Yankees too.

Trivia: In the deadline trades between the Red Sox and the Mariners in 1996-97, what player produced the highest WAR for his new team?

 

Boston surely relished the 0.5 fWAR Dave Henderson posted with the Red Sox (and, of course, the two-out, two-strike homer Hendu hit the ninth inning of Game 5 of the 1986 ALCS).