Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

There will probably always be speculation that the Red Sox just didn't think Mookie was worth the investment. But I never see much discussion that maybe the Sox truly knew how great Mookie is, including his longterm value as a productive player and as the Face of the Franchise.

 

If internet hacks like me can use Stathead to confirm that Betts is the best all-around rightfielder through age 26 in baseball history, then we'd better believe that an entire analytics department working for one of the top organizations in the industry knows, too.

 

But everyone in Red Sox Nation -- and any nation -- is helpless to prevent an impending free agent from moving... if that's his intention.

Edited November 23, 2020 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75
Red Sox age

[Bellhorn04]

There will probably always be speculation that the Red Sox just didn't think Mookie was worth the investment. But I never see much discussion that maybe the Sox truly knew how great Mookie is, including his longterm value as a productive player and as the Face of the Franchise.

 

If internet hacks like me can use Stathead to confirm that Betts is the best all-around rightfielder through age 28 in baseball history, then we'd better believe that an entire analytics department working for one of the top organizations in the industry knows, too.

 

Here's one way to look at it.

 

Spilt the 12 year deal in two:

 

First half covers Mookie from age 28.5 to age 34.

Second half covers from age 34.5 to age 40.

 

The first half should be very good to great.

 

It's that second half that's scary. It's 6 years of well past prime years still on the books at $30 million per year.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Here's one way to look at it.

 

Spilt the 12 year deal in two:

 

First half covers Mookie from age 28.5 to age 34.

Second half covers from age 34.5 to age 40.

 

The first half should be very good to great.

 

It's that second half that's scary. It's 6 years of well past prime years still on the books at $30 million per year.

 

Maybe. OR... maybe Mookie performs at a bWAR level of his nearest comp, Hank Aaron.

 

All-Time WAR Rightfielders Age 22-26: 1. Betts 39.5, 2. Aaron 39.1.

 

Aaron's WAR age 34-40 was 37.7.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe. OR... maybe Mookie performs at a bWAR level of his nearest comp, Hank Aaron.

 

All-Time WAR Rightfielders Age 22-26: 1. Betts 39.5, 2. Aaron 39.1.

 

Aaron's WAR age 34-40 was 37.7.

 

As harmony might say, there is a wide range of possible outcomes.

[dgalehouse]

Blaming anyone but the check writer who certainly has the final say, is asinine. All that it basically says is that you are a member of the I hate Dombrowski club because he didn't do things the way I wanted to see them done. It is pretty simple really. That being said, i'm not sure that blaming anyone specifically other than Mookie Betts for this is a little bit of a stretch. An offer was made and he declined it. it is pretty simple really. Whatever, the "I hate DD and always will club" (which appears to be a rather small club)will continue to rant away.

Some folks just don't like Dombrowski's style and were not happy when he was hired. Mostly , they do like Cherington , and wanted to see him get more time. Most , not all, of these folks are reluctant to give D.D. much credit for the team's success during his tenure. And they are quick to blame him for anything negative that happened after his departure . That is probably not very fair or objective . But , then again, what is ?

[moonslav59]

It's all about the narrative that "we had to trade Mookie in 2020 to re-set the tax rate".

 

We didn't go over in 2018 and 2019 just because of DD's spending.

 

We went over because of Ben's spending too - especially in 2018 - with about $55 million of dead money still on the books.

 

And we went over because Henry authorized it - he wanted to go for broke, so to speak.

 

If you want to assign blame for the tax situation, there's no way you can leave out Ben or JH.

 

Ben was responsible for part of the budget issues that put us over the tax lines in 2018 and 2019, but again, we could have reset AND kept Betts.

[Bellhorn04]

Ben was responsible for part of the budget issues that put us over the tax lines in 2018 and 2019, but again, we could have reset AND kept Betts.

 

I agree with you. But there was a narrative that one of the big reasons they traded Mookie was to re-set the tax. (See the first post in this thread.)

 

Another part of that narrative that you may recall was the idea that after we re-set the tax, we would be in a better position to sign Mookie as a free agent.

[moonslav59]

I agree with you. But there was a narrative that one of the big reasons they traded Mookie was to re-set the tax. (See the first post in this thread.)

 

Another part of that narrative that you may recall was the idea that after we re-set the tax, we would be in a better position to sign Mookie as a free agent.

 

Yes, that was part of the narrative, but it doesn't mean it was right.

 

While it would have been difficult to reset and keep Betts, it was entirely possible. Would not having JBJ and Perez while keeping Betts have made much of a difference in 2020- the reset year?

 

The real issue would have been going significantly over the line (after a reset) starting in 2021, assuming we tried to win in 2021.

 

Yes, Ben's spending was less than 50% of the reason, but still a big chunk, we went over in 2018, but his influence fell sharply in 2019 and was a small part of 2020.

 

I had held out hope that we might have been able to acquire Verdugo, Downs & Wong for Betts, dump half of Price's salary and STILL Re-sign Betts for 2021 and beyond. We could have afforded it after the reset, but we'd likely not have much left to spend on pitching, unless Henry agreed to go over the second tax line. We might have tried to dump Eovaldi and a a few lessers like Barnes or Vaz.

[S5Dewey]

We actually could have kept Betts and reset in 2020, even without dumping Price, JD or Eovaldi. (No JBJ and Perez.)

 

I only see one major flaw in that reasoning - Mookie Betts. IIMO they couldn't have signed him regardless of the salary implications. They couldn't have signed him for just one reason. He wouldn't have signed!

 

Betts had said all along that he intended to go to FA and his agent is probably the biggest proponent of FA. The Sox took him at his word, as they should have. At the end of the day the Sox had every reason to believe that he couldn't be signed so they traded him rather than have him go to FA in another year.

 

And BTW, the next time we have a salary crunch and a star player let's not say, "We can let him go and then sign him next year". Once a marquee player leaves he's gone. Accept it and go to Plan B.

[moonslav59]

I only see one major flaw in that reasoning - Mookie Betts. IIMO they couldn't have signed him regardless of the salary implications. They couldn't have signed him for just one reason. He wouldn't have signed!

 

Betts had said all along that he intended to go to FA and his agent is probably the biggest proponent of FA. The Sox took him at his word, as they should have. At the end of the day the Sox had every reason to believe that he couldn't be signed so they traded him rather than have him go to FA in another year.

 

And BTW, the next time we have a salary crunch and a star player let's not say, "We can let him go and then sign him next year". Once a marquee player leaves he's gone. Accept it and go to Plan B.

 

His 2020 season was an arb year-his last. They had every right to keep him for 2020. (BTW, he did sign with the Dodgers before hitting free agency.)

 

Of course, there was no guarantee he re-signs here, so that's why my "best case scenario" involved trading him, letting him reach free agency, then re-signing him.

[dgalehouse]

It is no sense keeping Mookie if that means that you cannot afford a top notch supporting cast to go with him. But was that really the case? We need to remember that the luxury tax was the owner's ploy to get around the lack of a salary cap. It is not some burden that has been imposed on them. The owners want to maximize their profits , just as the players want to maximize their earnings. That is understandable. But as fans , we just want a team we can get behind. Having a Mookie Betts makes that more likely . Without that , fan interest wanes , as was certainly obvious this year. The fans do not want to be the ones in the middle of the fight between the owners and the players. We are paying the bills , but we do care about our money also. And we don't have nearly as much of it as the players , much less the owners. And we do not have to spend it on baseball. Losing a player like Mookie most definitely does nothing to excite the fans. Nor does hearing that the " luxury tax " was the reason for it.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, that was part of the narrative, but it doesn't mean it was right.

 

While it would have been difficult to reset and keep Betts, it was entirely possible. Would not having JBJ and Perez while keeping Betts have made much of a difference in 2020- the reset year?

 

Cot's has our non-prorated 2020 payroll for tax purposes at about 198.5, or 9.5 below the threshold.

 

If you reverse the Dodgers trade

 

Add back Mookie 27

Add back Price 15

Total 42

 

That would put us over by 32.5

 

Subtract JBJ 11

Subtract Perez 6

Total 17

 

Still over by 15.5

[moonslav59]

Cot's has our non-prorated 2020 payroll for tax purposes at about 198.5, or 9.5 below the threshold.

 

If you reverse the Dodgers trade

 

Add back Mookie 27

Add back Price 15

Total 42

 

That would put us over by 32.5

 

Subtract JBJ 11

Subtract Perez 6

Total 17

 

Still over by 15.5

 

Yeah, we'd have to dump Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JD).

[moonslav59]

Cot's has our non-prorated 2020 payroll for tax purposes at about 198.5, or 9.5 below the threshold.

 

If you reverse the Dodgers trade

 

Add back Mookie 27

Add back Price 15

Total 42

 

That would put us over by 32.5

 

Subtract JBJ 11

Subtract Perez 6

Total 17

 

Still over by 15.5

 

Yeah, we'd have to dump Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JD), which wouldn't really affect our future going forward, as compared to as it is now.

 

(Also, Pillar, Moreland + Peraza= $10M.)

Edited November 23, 2020 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah, we'd have to dump Price or Eovaldi (or maybe JD), which wouldn't really affect our future going forward, as compared to as it is now..

 

So we could have kept Mookie and re-set the tax.

 

But that still wouldn't have guaranteed signing him as a free agent, so what would be the point of not trading him and getting something for him?

[dgalehouse]

It's possible that the Sox could have matched or even topped the Dodger's offer and Mookie would still have preferred going to L.A. But we do not know that . It is only speculation. The only thing we know is that he rejected the Sox' first offer , they traded him to the Dodgers , and he signed long term with L.A. without any apparent hesitation. He is happy , has another ring and is very wealthy. Meanwhile , the Sox had an abysmal season and are trying to figure out how to get back in the hunt. That's about it. What more is there to say?

[Bellhorn04]

It's possible that the Sox could have matched or even topped the Dodger's offer and Mookie would still have preferred going to L.A. But we do not know that . It is only speculation. The only thing we know is that he rejected the Sox' first offer , they traded him to the Dodgers , and he signed long term with L.A. without any apparent hesitation. He is happy , has another ring and is very wealthy. Meanwhile , the Sox had an abysmal season and are trying to figure out how to get back in the hunt. That's about it. What more is there to say?

 

I enjoy the back-and-forth jibber-jabber here, myself. A lot of it is just pointless, and a lot of it is redundant as heck. It's just banter, really.

[moonslav59]

So we could have kept Mookie and re-set the tax.

 

But that still wouldn't have guaranteed signing him as a free agent, so what would be the point of not trading him and getting something for him?

 

Yes, but I liked the trade, and I felt it made more sense.

 

I was just pointing out that we could have kept Mookie & reset.

[jad]

I enjoy the back-and-forth jibber-jabber here, myself. A lot of it is just pointless, and a lot of it is redundant as heck. It's just banter, really.

 

Yup. (Question: Is there ANYTHING any of us have read on a sports board that made us change our minds about ANYTHING?)

[Kimmi]

If you really buy into the theory that it was the tax concerns that prevented the Red Sox from keeping Mookie, then you have to blame Cherington too. Because a big chunk of the money on the payroll in 2018 and 2019 was carried over from Ben, and a big chunk of that chunk was dead money.

 

1. First off, my whole argument is not about the ability to sign Mookie, per se, because I never wanted him signed for that contract to begin with. In that regard, Dombrowski did us a huge favor. My concern is with the current lack of flexibility, either financially or with prospects, to improve our team. Note: I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that we have very little flexibility to do it.

 

2. Ben had some bad contracts on the book, at least one of which I do not believe was his doing. Regardless, while he may have contributed to our 2020 financial constraints, he at least had a farm system. You can better afford to tie your hands financially if you have the farm system. The farm system has always been my #1 gripe with Dombrowski.

[Kimmi]

DD’s methods worked. 2018 banner will fly forever. You live with the consequences. Yes, this rebuild will be longer and harder than any return to prominence since the first title in 04, but you still got a title. Remember, prior to 16 years ago, most Sox fans would sell their first born for what DD delivered and wouldn’t care if it was a 20 yr rebuild

 

Stop.

[Kimmi]

It is no sense keeping Mookie if that means that you cannot afford a top notch supporting cast to go with him. But was that really the case? We need to remember that the luxury tax was the owner's ploy to get around the lack of a salary cap. It is not some burden that has been imposed on them. The owners want to maximize their profits , just as the players want to maximize their earnings. That is understandable. But as fans , we just want a team we can get behind. Having a Mookie Betts makes that more likely . Without that , fan interest wanes , as was certainly obvious this year. The fans do not want to be the ones in the middle of the fight between the owners and the players. We are paying the bills , but we do care about our money also. And we don't have nearly as much of it as the players , much less the owners. And we do not have to spend it on baseball. Losing a player like Mookie most definitely does nothing to excite the fans. Nor does hearing that the " luxury tax " was the reason for it.

 

Mookie is just as much to blame, even more so in my opinion, than ownership or the FO is for us losing him. The FO made Mookie a more than reasonable and more than respectable offer. To counter with $420 mil is kind of a slap in the face, if you ask me.

[Donnie Sadler was short]

i only see one major flaw in that reasoning - mookie betts. Iimo they couldn't have signed him regardless of the salary implications. They couldn't have signed him for just one reason. he wouldn't have signed!

 

Betts had said all along that he intended to go to fa and his agent is probably the biggest proponent of fa. The sox took him at his word, as they should have. At the end of the day the sox had every reason to believe that he couldn't be signed so they traded him rather than have him go to fa in another year.

 

And btw, the next time we have a salary crunch and a star player let's not say, "we can let him go and then sign him next year". Once a marquee player leaves he's gone. Accept it and go to plan b.

 

this^...he wasnt going to sign here!

[a700hitter]

I only see one major flaw in that reasoning - Mookie Betts. IIMO they couldn't have signed him regardless of the salary implications. They couldn't have signed him for just one reason. He wouldn't have signed!

 

Betts had said all along that he intended to go to FA and his agent is probably the biggest proponent of FA. The Sox took him at his word, as they should have. At the end of the day the Sox had every reason to believe that he couldn't be signed so they traded him rather than have him go to FA in another year.

 

And BTW, the next time we have a salary crunch and a star player let's not say, "We can let him go and then sign him next year". Once a marquee player leaves he's gone. Accept it and go to Plan B.

I think Mookie would have tested the FA market had it not been for COVID. I think the financial uncertainty resulting for the sport made him jump at the big money on the table. I think the financial impact of COVID will have a profound effect on this years FA market. Normally, big names start to come of the board by Turkey Day. I think the market will not develop until after the New Year. As it looks right now, there is an excellent chance that they will be playing to empty or mostly empty stadiums at the start of the season.

[cp176]

Some folks just don't like Dombrowski's style and were not happy when he was hired. Mostly , they do like Cherington , and wanted to see him get more time. Most , not all, of these folks are reluctant to give D.D. much credit for the team's success during his tenure. And they are quick to blame him for anything negative that happened after his departure . That is probably not very fair or objective . But , then again, what is ?

 

It's their juvenile jabs that are never ending that do bother me.lol They get under my skin - not really.

[Bellhorn04]

I think Mookie would have tested the FA market had it not been for COVID. I think the financial uncertainty resulting for the sport made him jump at the big money on the table.

 

This is the one thing we'll never know, unless Mookie fesses up about it one day, but I think there's a very good chance this is true. And I think he settled for a chunk less than he was hoping to get in free agency.

[moonslav59]

It's their juvenile jabs that are never ending that do bother me.lol They get under my skin - not really.

 

Like "the other side" refrains from "juvenile jabs" at the "coffee boy" and his supporters and occasional defenders.

[notin]

This is the one thing we'll never know, unless Mookie fesses up about it one day, but I think there's a very good chance this is true. And I think he settled for a chunk less than he was hoping to get in free agency.

 

It is possible.

 

The only we thing we do know is the Sox were not going to be able to bring him back without resetting, which was going to be near impossible without moving him. Moving other deals (Bogaerts, for example) might have been counterproductive if Betts still opted signing elsewhere...

[Bellhorn04]

It is possible.

 

The only we thing we do know is the Sox were not going to be able to bring him back without resetting

 

And who says we know that?

[Bellhorn04]

Like "the other side" refrains from "juvenile jabs" at the "coffee boy" and his supporters and occasional defenders.

 

moon, we're not on teams here.

 

700hitter is the only one who has used the "coffee boy" line.