Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

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.

 

I love the idea of the idea! Fans always welcome a few ideas in Boston -- not as incentives to attend a Fenway game or two each summer, but to watch or listen to a hundred or more every six months out of a year.

[notin]

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.

 

I’m sure Friedman was thinking extension and fairly confident in getting it done. Otherwise why include Verdugo?

 

Bloom might have suspected this, but Friedman certainly never tipped his hand.

 

But what other teams were even involved in rumors? At the time it looked like the Sox only shot at keeping Betts was to deal him, reset, and hope it all worked out...

[Bellhorn04]

I’m sure Friedman was thinking extension and fairly confident in getting it done. Otherwise why include Verdugo?

 

Bloom might have suspected this, but Friedman certainly never tipped his hand.

 

But what other teams were even involved in rumors? At the time it looked like the Sox only shot at keeping Betts was to deal him, reset, and hope it all worked out...

 

San Diego was the other team that was rumored to be talking to the Sox about Betts.

[notin]

San Diego was the other team that was rumored to be talking to the Sox about Betts.

 

And given how their off-season went, they also would have very possibly extended him. No team looked more prime to spend then the Padres, since they had an elite farm of cheap players to fill the gaps and their GM was under the gun to produce a winner, per the owner.

 

Of the two, the Dodgers might have been the least likely, given that they had other potential mega deals coming up in the immediate future, primarily that of Cody Bellinger. (The Padres had Tatis, but there was no rush to lock him up just yet since he hasm't even reached arbitration.)

 

So if the sox kept him last year, he would have gone elsewhere via free agency since the Sox would probably not be able to afford him unless they cleared massive salaries elsewhere (Bogaerts and ?) And if they dealt him, the only two teams showing interest were both primed with cash to spend on an extension. So - who offers the best package? And was San Diego still trying to pawn off Myers as part of that deal? Plus not willing to take Price?

[Bellhorn04]

So if the sox kept him last year, he would have gone elsewhere via free agency since the Sox would probably not be able to afford him unless they cleared massive salaries elsewhere (Bogaerts and ?)

 

"Couldn't afford him" will always be a questionable concept IMO

[moonslav59]

"Couldn't afford him" will always be a questionable concept IMO

 

Very true, but clearly one main objective was to reset the tax and maybe even stay near the line for a year or two afterwards. Had we extended or re-signed Betts and kept the same budget restraints in place, it would mean going with in system or very inexpensive players at several other positions over the next 10 years.

 

Now, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We've had a very large contract on the books pretty consistently, or at least 2-3 players over $20M/yr for many years since Henry's arrival.

 

Look how Price's contract became a hindrance by just year 3 or 4 out of just 7.

 

Clearly the Sox could "afford" Betts, but at what cost to the rest of the roster construction going forward? I think the Sox made the choice that having Betts was not worth having Verdugo, Downs, Wong and the money from not signing Betts to spend on several free agents and/or extensions.

 

I do wonder when and if we'll ever sign anybody to a 7 or more year contract- maybe if they are 26 or 27 years old.

[oldtimer]

Very true, but clearly one main objective was to reset the tax and maybe even stay near the line for a year or two afterwards. Had we extended or re-signed Betts and kept the same budget restraints in place, it would mean going with in system or very inexpensive players at several other positions over the next 10 years.

 

Now, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We've had a very large contract on the books pretty consistently, or at least 2-3 players over $20M/yr for many years since Henry's arrival.

 

Look how Price's contract became a hindrance by just year 3 or 4 out of just 7.

 

Clearly the Sox could "afford" Betts, but at what cost to the rest of the roster construction going forward? I think the Sox made the choice that having Betts was not worth having Verdugo, Downs, Wong and the money from not signing Betts to spend on several free agents and/or extensions.

 

I do wonder when and if we'll ever sign anybody to a 7 or more year contract- maybe if they are 26 or 27 years old.

 

I fully expect Betts to have several additional years of good performance, barring injuries. He is getting paid more than $30 million a year and should produce. The risk is high that he will either get injured or will decline after 5 years, but his salary will remain.

[moonslav59]

I fully expect Betts to have several additional years of good performance, barring injuries. He is getting paid more than $30 million a year and should produce. The risk is high that he will either get injured or will decline after 5 years, but his salary will remain.

 

Agreed, but he may play good enough for 6-7 years to nearly reach the value of his contract, and the decline will not matter.

[oldtimer]

Agreed, but he may play good enough for 6-7 years to nearly reach the value of his contract, and the decline will not matter.

 

Thats the risk a team has to accept to sign a guy for such a long contract. I hope I live long enough to see his contract through.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

Mookie would not have eliminated the Sox, but IMO, the Sox would have had to been the highest bidder by a fair amount. I don't think that was happening, otherwise they wouldn't have let him go in the first place. So maybe the Sox did take into consideration that the Dodgers would extend him.

[moonslav59]

Mookie would not have eliminated the Sox, but IMO, the Sox would have had to been the highest bidder by a fair amount. I don't think that was happening, otherwise they wouldn't have let him go in the first place. So maybe the Sox did take into consideration that the Dodgers would extend him.

 

I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

 

We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

 

As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.

[Kimmi]

I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

 

We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

 

As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.

 

Completely agree Moon.

[Bellhorn04]

This is the first year of Mookie's extension.

 

He's been struggling lately.

 

He missed some games with lower back stiffness. Then he got hit in the right forearm by a pitch.

 

12 year contracts are risky business.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

 

We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

 

As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.

 

This is the first year of Mookie's extension.

 

He's been struggling lately.

 

He missed some games with lower back stiffness. Then he got hit in the right forearm by a pitch.

 

12 year contracts are risky business.

 

I liked the Betts trade from the start. You offer the guy 300 m, as the Red Sox did, and that wasn't good enough for him. You don't want players like that on your team.

[jad]

I liked the Betts trade from the start. You offer the guy 300 m, as the Red Sox did, and that wasn't good enough for him. You don't want players like that on your team.

 

Actually, players who are offered 300 million are EXACTLY the players you want on your team.

[Bellhorn04]

It's a long season, but as of right now, Verdugo has posted better numbers in 2021 than Mookie.

[Bellhorn04]

Actually, players who are offered 300 million are EXACTLY the players you want on your team.

 

jad, as of right now, 341 million man Lindor is hitting .212, and 365 million man Mookie is hitting .240.

[Bellhorn04]

Based on the numbers for the last 3 seasons, Lindor may already be in serious decline as a hitter.

 

And his extension doesn't even start until next year!

[notin]

Based on the numbers for the last 3 seasons, Lindor may already be in serious decline as a hitter.

 

And his extension doesn't even start until next year!

 

Well, his OPS is 2019 was .854, which is better than his career average was even at the time (and second highest of his career). 2020 and 2021 have consisted of 345 plate appearances total, which for him is just over half of one season.

 

The body is not cold yet...

[notin]

It's a long season, but as of right now, Verdugo has posted better numbers in 2021 than Mookie.

 

I have both on my fantasy team. Verdugo is saving me while Mookie is killing me...

[Bellhorn04]

Well, his OPS is 2019 was .854, which is better than his career average was even at the time (and second highest of his career). 2020 and 2021 have consisted of 345 plate appearances total, which for him is just over half of one season.

 

The body is not cold yet...

 

OPS+

 

2018 132

2019 117

2020 101

2021 71

 

Not a great trend for a 341 million dollar man.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Actually, players who are offered 300 million are EXACTLY the players you want on your team.

 

It hasn't worked out very well for M.Trout and the Angels. If Trout wasn't such a greedy doofus, he would have signed for less, giving the Angels more resources for starting pitching.

 

True, Betts has won two World Series titles and so it is hard against his success. Although, when he won in 2018, the Red Sox weren't trapped in a 300+ million dollar contract.

 

I do wonder if some of these enormous contracts are counterproductive when it comes to winning--less money you can spend elsewhere.

 

This debate rages in football. Are you better off paying an elite QB 40 million per year or not? While I prefer the 40 million dollar QB, no single baseball player carries the same importance as an elite QB. So, yes, I support paying P.Mahomes and A.Rodgers 35-40 million per year; I don't support paying Mookie Betts 35 million per year.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Fan_since_Boggs

[mvp 78]

It hasn't worked out very well for M.Trout and the Angels. If Trout wasn't such a greedy doofus, he would have signed for less, giving the Angels more resources for starting pitching.

 

True, Betts has won two World Series titles and so it is hard against his success. Although, when he won in 2018, the Red Sox weren't trapped in a 300+ million dollar contract.

 

I do wonder if some of these enormous contracts are counterproductive when it comes to winning--less money you can spend elsewhere.

 

This debate rages in football. Are you better off paying an elite QB 40 million per year or not? While I prefer the 40 million dollar QB, no single baseball player carries the same importance as an elite QB.

 

You think it's Trout's fault?

 

Not Pujols? Not Upton?

 

Trout is actually worth his contract. The team has just been constructed poorly around him and their system has always kinda been trash.

 

They have always surrounded Trout with garbage contracts: Pujols, Upton, Vernon Wells, Josh Hamilton, CJ Wilson.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

 

True, Betts has won two World Series titles and so it is hard against his success. Although, when he won in 2018, the Red Sox weren't trapped in a 300+ million dollar contract.

 

I do wonder if some of these enormous contracts are counterproductive when it comes to winning--less money you can spend elsewhere.

 

This is a common claim whenever a team splurges big on a single player, and sometime it proves to be true (we're looking at you G.Stanton in Miami... or maybe ARod in Texas?).

 

But there are exceptions... which either shows an owner's true wealth or willingness to invest... or maybe, how much others might be raking in, while they're pleading hardships.

 

When the Padres inked Machado -- after the Hosmer deal -- I heard and read how they'd never have anything left for pitching. Then in the past year they've been stockpiling quality pitchers: Clevinger, Snell, Darvish, etc... and that was before they exteneded Tatis for kajillions.

[Bellhorn04]

It hasn't worked out very well for M.Trout and the Angels. If Trout wasn't such a greedy doofus, he would have signed for less, giving the Angels more resources for starting pitching.

 

Disagree. Trout earns his paycheque and then some.

 

Angels paid Rendon 245 mill. I think they're OK for money.

[notin]

OPS+

 

2018 132

2019 117

2020 101

2021 71

 

Not a great trend for a 341 million dollar man.

 

And those last two years represent 345 plate appearances spread across 2 seasons. This year’s .220 BABIP could also be a factor...

[notin]

Disagree. Trout earns his paycheque and then some.

 

Angels paid Rendon 245 mill. I think they're OK for money.

 

Agreed. The Halos problem isn’t Trout’s contract. It’s the deals of Pujols, Upton and Rendon. Plus having a farm system only capable of producing fragile pitchers...

[Bellhorn04]

And those last two years represent 345 plate appearances spread across 2 seasons. This year’s .220 BABIP could also be a factor...

 

I'm only half-serious.

 

Right now, though, old school Mets fans can only see a guy that signed a $341 million extension that doesn't even start until next year, and is hitting .203 on a team struggling to score runs.

[notin]

It's a long season, but as of right now, Verdugo has posted better numbers in 2021 than Mookie.

 

Since the trade

 

Verdugo (314 PAs): OPS+ 132

Betts (340 PAs): OPS+ 141

 

All things considered (unloading Price, years of control, freed up payroll, getting Downs and Wong), the early returns do look good here...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And those last two years represent 345 plate appearances spread across 2 seasons. This year’s .220 BABIP could also be a factor...

 

Lindor is .000 on BABIPTOMARWIN