Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[moonslav59]

With Lester, I don't believe he ever countered the team's offer. I think after the initial lowball offer, Lester felt disrespected to the point where he said the negotiations were done.

 

With Mookie, his counter was so unreasonable (IMO) that the writing was on the wall. No need for the Sox to make another offer.

 

That's the general opinion, and I don't disagree with those facts, but neither precludes a second offer by the Sox.

 

The Sox chose to go silent after their initial offers.

[Kimmi]

That's the general opinion, and I don't disagree with those facts, but neither precludes a second offer by the Sox.

 

The Sox chose to go silent after their initial offers.

 

They did choose to go silent. I understand what you're saying about optics, but I think they had good reason to do so.

 

The Sox really screwed up with Lester's first offer. The damage was done, unfortunately.

[moonslav59]

They did choose to go silent. I understand what you're saying about optics, but I think they had good reason to do so.

 

The Sox really screwed up with Lester's first offer. The damage was done, unfortunately.

 

I do think Lester's first offer was damaging, but Lester had said he was willing to take a "hometown discount," and maybe the Sox took that to an absurd extreme.

 

I do think it wouldn't have hurt, not just with fan optics, but I think they could have gotten him to agree to take the offer they ended up giving him as a FA.

 

(I'm not sure the Sox even wanted him at that price, either.)

 

Betts was different. His counter offer seemed absurd and one could say "insulting," but pick a number between the two- maybe 1/3 of the way between them and make another offer. It can't hurt with Betts, and it helps the fan's view.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

They did choose to go silent. I understand what you're saying about optics, but I think they had good reason to do so.

 

The Sox really screwed up with Lester's first offer. The damage was done, unfortunately.

 

And it was because of that lowball offer -- and the fact they showed Lester how much they valued him by trading him -- that I never thought he'd re-sign in Boston once he hit free agency. It's also why I was sure Mookie would never be re-signing here if traded... since, it can also be argued that every time the Sox offered Betts big money -- $100 mil, $200 mil, $300 mil -- each of those offers were also lowball according to his actual market value at the time.

[Kimmi]

I do think Lester's first offer was damaging, but Lester had said he was willing to take a "hometown discount," and maybe the Sox took that to an absurd extreme.

 

I do think it wouldn't have hurt, not just with fan optics, but I think they could have gotten him to agree to take the offer they ended up giving him as a FA.

 

(I'm not sure the Sox even wanted him at that price, either.)

 

Betts was different. His counter offer seemed absurd and one could say "insulting," but pick a number between the two- maybe 1/3 of the way between them and make another offer. It can't hurt with Betts, and it helps the fan's view.

 

Some of the FO's thinking with Lester was their philosophy, at the time, of not signing pitchers into their 30s to long term contracts. I'm not sure that Lester would have come back to the Sox even if they had given him a second offer. I agree, though, that it wouldn't have hurt.

 

I have never wanted to sign Mookie to that kind of contract, so in that regard, I'm glad the Sox didn't give him another offer.

[Kimmi]

And it was because of that lowball offer -- and the fact they showed Lester how much they valued him by trading him -- that I never thought he'd re-sign in Boston once he hit free agency. It's also why I was sure Mookie would never be re-signing here if traded... since, it can also be argued that every time the Sox offered Betts big money -- $100 mil, $200 mil, $300 mil -- each of those offers were also lowball according to his actual market value at the time.

 

I agree that neither Lester nor Mookie were likely to return to the Sox once they were traded.

 

I have to disagree with you about the Sox offers to Mookie being lowball offers. They were quite respectable offers (unlike the one to Lester), and you have to keep in mind that Mookie was still in his arb years and under team control. There is an understanding that for players who have not yet reached FA to receive that type of career security, they must be willing to give the team somewhat of a discount. The team cannot assume all of the risk without getting a discount in return. The offers to Mookie were more than fair.

[jad]

Yeah, that Mookie stiff! We sure showed him. 'Refusing to give the team a discount!' HOW DARE HE!

[notin]

I agree that neither Lester nor Mookie were likely to return to the Sox once they were traded.

 

I have to disagree with you about the Sox offers to Mookie being lowball offers. They were quite respectable offers (unlike the one to Lester), and you have to keep in mind that Mookie was still in his arb years and under team control. There is an understanding that for players who have not yet reached FA to receive that type of career security, they must be willing to give the team somewhat of a discount. The team cannot assume all of the risk without getting a discount in return. The offers to Mookie were more than fair.

 

The problem with that argument is Mike Trout signed a 12 year $426 million dollar contract prior to the 2019 season. Mookie 's agent was well aware and probably benchmarking the deal in some fashion at that point...

[mvp 78]

The problem with that argument is Mike Trout signed a 12 year $426 million dollar contract prior to the 2019 season. Mookie 's agent was well aware and probably benchmarking the deal in some fashion at that point...

 

Since 2015:

Trout - 47.2 fWAR

Betts - 38.8 fWAR

 

Nobody else has 30. They are in a class all their own. If you exclude 2015, Betts gets much closer to Trout as well.

[moonslav59]

Some of the FO's thinking with Lester was their philosophy, at the time, of not signing pitchers into their 30s to long term contracts. I'm not sure that Lester would have come back to the Sox even if they had given him a second offer. I agree, though, that it wouldn't have hurt.

 

I have never wanted to sign Mookie to that kind of contract, so in that regard, I'm glad the Sox didn't give him another offer.

 

They ended up offering him very close to what the Cubs gave him.

 

I was never convinced they actually hoped he'd take it.

 

I do think he'd have taken that offer had the Sox come back with something near that, soon after their initial offer. Maybe, not, but I think he would have.

 

Again, I'm not sue they wanted him at that price, of if that was just belatedly done for "optics."

[Nick]

Mookie was traded because Sox knew he was leaving. It would have been a monumental mistake not to trade him at that point. If you were my GM and kept Betts, I would have fired your ass.

 

By the way, David Price is pitching out of bullpen while collecting $16M each from the Dodgers and the Red Sox. We made the right call.

 

Not unlike marriage, sometimes one spouse wants to leave and that was Betts.

[moonslav59]

Not unlike marriage, sometimes one spouse wants to leave and that was Betts.

 

My first marriage ended this way, but years later, I realized it was all for the best.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Trout is great, no doubt about it. I sometimes wonder if his contract is counterproductive to winning. He is being paid so much money, the Angels can't spend quite as much elsewhere. The restraints that Trout's contract creates might explain why the Angels can't spend as much as they would like on their starting staff, for example.

[notin]

My first marriage ended this way, but years later, I realized it was all for the best.

 

Did your wife trade you for Alex Verdugo?

[Bellhorn04]

Trout is great, no doubt about it. I sometimes wonder if his contract is counterproductive to winning. He is being paid so much money, the Angels can't spend quite as much elsewhere. The restraints that Trout's contract creates might explain why the Angels can't spend as much as they would like on their starting staff, for example.

 

Nah. They saw fit to give Rendon $245 mill. They've got plenty of dough. Any failures in team construction are on them.

 

And Trout deserves every penny. The guy is unbelievable.

[Kimmi]

The problem with that argument is Mike Trout signed a 12 year $426 million dollar contract prior to the 2019 season. Mookie 's agent was well aware and probably benchmarking the deal in some fashion at that point...

 

No doubt that Mookie's agent is aware of what other players are signing for. When Trout signed that 12-year extension, he was no longer a pre-arb or arb player. My point was about players who are still in their first 6 years of service and still don't have a lot of bargaining power. If I'm not mistaken, Trout's previous extension, given during his arb years, was somewhat of a team discount.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Nah. They saw fit to give Rendon $245 mill. They've got plenty of dough. Any failures in team construction are on them.

 

And Trout deserves every penny. The guy is unbelievable.

 

Since free agency began, it's always been unfathomable to fans how much pros get paid to play a game. But if we take numbers out, no one would argue whether or not players like Trout, Betts or Lindor deserve to make wages at the top of their markets. No one would even argue if owners can afford them, since rich guys bought the teams, and are either making profits or are wealthy enough to absorb losses... otherwise, they sell (players or clubs).

 

The contracts for Machado and Harper, Betts and Cole, Tatis and Lindor, etc., etc. show that the cost to acquire -- or retain -- top talent continues to rise. Fans really don't care exactly how many digits are on paychecks of their favorites... just how many are on price tags for ballpark pretzels, beer and parking.

[Kimmi]

No doubt that Mookie's agent is aware of what other players are signing for. When Trout signed that 12-year extension, he was no longer a pre-arb or arb player. My point was about players who are still in their first 6 years of service and still don't have a lot of bargaining power. If I'm not mistaken, Trout's previous extension, given during his arb years, was somewhat of a team discount.

 

Also, as great a player as Trout is, that contract is crazy.

[Bellhorn04]

The contracts for Machado and Harper, Betts and Cole, Tatis and Lindor, etc., etc. show that the cost to acquire -- or retain -- top talent continues to rise. Fans really don't care exactly how many digits are on paychecks of their favorites... just how many are on price tags for ballpark pretzels, beer and parking.

 

Not all fans are created equal, of course. If you go on any team's fan forum site you will see a lot of discussion of contracts and what kind of job the GM is doing.

 

Playing the armchair GM, like playing fantasy sports, has become a popular pastime.

[Kimmi]

Mookie was traded because Sox knew he was leaving. It would have been a monumental mistake not to trade him at that point. If you were my GM and kept Betts, I would have fired your ass.

 

By the way, David Price is pitching out of bullpen while collecting $16M each from the Dodgers and the Red Sox. We made the right call.

 

Not unlike marriage, sometimes one spouse wants to leave and that was Betts.

 

Whether it was Betts who really wanted to leave or it was the Red Sox simply not willing to go any higher with their offer, once it became apparent that we were not retaining him, it was absolutely the right call to trade him.

 

I have zero regrets about the trade.

[Kimmi]

My first marriage ended this way, but years later, I realized it was all for the best.

 

As we will all come to realize with the Betts trade.

[Bellhorn04]

Also, as great a player as Trout is, that contract is crazy.

 

If Trout stays healthy, which is always a big if, that contract will pay dividends to the team. He is the elitest of the elite.

[Bellhorn04]

Whether it was Betts who really wanted to leave or it was the Red Sox simply not willing to go any higher with their offer, once it became apparent that we were not retaining him, it was absolutely the right call to trade him.

 

I have zero regrets about the trade.

 

The only possible cause for regret is that they traded him to the team that was in the best position to sign him to an extension. I'll always wonder if they took that into consideration or if they assumed Mookie wanted to hit free agency.

 

As far as how Bloom did on the return, I'd say he did great.

[Kimmi]

The only possible cause for regret is that they traded him to the team that was in the best position to sign him to an extension. I'll always wonder if they took that into consideration or if they assumed Mookie wanted to hit free agency.

 

As far as how Bloom did on the return, I'd say he did great.

 

I'm not sure that it mattered. Once Betts was traded, I don't think he was coming back either way.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The only possible cause for regret is that they traded him to the team that was in the best position to sign him to an extension. I'll always wonder if they took that into consideration or if they assumed Mookie wanted to hit free agency.

 

As far as how Bloom did on the return, I'd say he did great.

 

Good point on this speculation. The notion that our new Baseball Officer possibly knew his former colleague's intentions to lock up Betts may have been appealing to the traders, sparing them another offseason enduring media and fan demands and accusations, supplemented by more "lowball" offers and company lines about radar blips.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure that it mattered. Once Betts was traded, I don't think he was coming back either way.

 

So if he did get to free agency you think he would have eliminated the Red Sox from the bidding?

 

If Mookie was the hard cold businessman we think, that would not be smart business.

 

But it's all speculation and a moot point either way.

[Bellhorn04]

Good point on this speculation. The notion that our new Baseball Officer possibly knew his former colleague's intentions to lock up Betts may have been appealing to the traders, sparing them another offseason enduring media and fan demands and accusations, supplemented by more "lowball" offers and company lines about radar blips.

 

It's probably fair to say that the Dodgers figured they had a shot at keeping him and that was an extra inducement in the deal.

 

And the Red Sox should have been aware of this, needless to say.

[Maxbialystock]

The best explanation I can think of for these humoungous salaries is some combination of butts in seats and TV ratings.

 

That said, however, the LA Angels, who have been consistently lousy on the field, have regularly drawn 3M+ in attendance, even before Mike Trout arrived in 2011. Less surprising is that the Dodgers have always drawn well and usually lead MLB with 4M annual attendance. They did not need Mookie for attendance purposes.

 

So too the Sox with the 2d smallest ballpark in MLB. In the early years of John Henry's reign, they were always "sold out" and drew 3M a year. Since 2009 or so when the Sox finally admittedly they were padding the attendance numbers. the worst they have done is 2.8M+ and that includes when they were dead last in the AL East. Thus John Henry probably didn't need Mookie to maintain attendance.

 

The Phillies, on the other hand, might have been smart to pick up Bryce Harper because attendance jumped a lot from 2018 to 2019. Without Harper in 2018 it was 2.158M. With Harper it was 2.727M in 2019.

 

And the reverse happened to the Washington Nationals, whose attendance before Bryce Harper's rookie season was 1.9M and thereafter was around 2.4 to 2.5M. After they lost him, their attendance dropped from 2.53 M in 2018 to 2.26M in 2019 even though 2019 was the year they won the World Series.

 

I think the idea of Bryce Harper, especially given his first full season in MLB (2012) was at age 19, is far greater than the actual performance on the field. He's had two good years out of eight (excluding 2020 and 2021): his rookie year, 2012, when his WAR was 5.2, and three years later when he was the NL MVP with a 9.7 WAR. In the other six years his WAR's were 3.7, 1.0, 1.5, 4.8, 1.8, and 4.5. For that 1.8 WAR in 2018 (in which he played 159 games) he was paid $21.6M. As soon as he left (2019), the Nationals won it all, so his "production" wasn't missed, but the idea of him was.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Maxbialystock

[notin]

Good point on this speculation. The notion that our new Baseball Officer possibly knew his former colleague's intentions to lock up Betts may have been appealing to the traders, sparing them another offseason enduring media and fan demands and accusations, supplemented by more "lowball" offers and company lines about radar blips.

 

You do like a Front Office with sinister, self-serving motivations.

 

It’s also extremely possible that trading one year of control of a $25 million outfielder will only appeal to a limited number of teams. And those willing to take on $48mill of the $96mill still owed to an aging pitcher struggling to re-capture his form whittled the field down further. And those actually willing to give back something potentially useful for that package isolated the deal in the Dodgers.

 

I think if one of Bloom’s professional goals was to avoid media scrutiny, he would have stayed in Tampa...

[jad]

Not all fans are created equal, of course. If you go on any team's fan forum site you will see a lot of discussion of contracts and what kind of job the GM is doing.

 

Playing the armchair GM, like playing fantasy sports, has become a popular pastime.

 

That is, I think, exactly right. I don't play fantasy sports, and don't understand why anyone does. (Don't explain it! I'm not saying I'm right; I'm just saying it's among things I don't want to bother to care about.). But that is very likely why I am opposed to 'complete rebuild', trading away popular players, and despise 'tanking' in any form.