Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[notin]

And who says we know that?

 

John Henry. The guy who ordered the reset....

[Bellhorn04]

John Henry. The guy who ordered the reset....

 

Just because he ordered a re-set doesn't mean it had anything to do with their ability or intentions to sign Mookie after 2020 or not.

 

It's entirely possible they gave up completely on keeping Mookie but wanted the re-set anyway.

[Bellhorn04]

From what we know, all the Red Sox had to do to keep Mookie was agree to his proposal of $420 million, or maybe a slightly lower amount.

[moonslav59]

moon, we're not on teams here.

 

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

 

Are you saying that the "coffee boy" statement was the only juvenile statement made by those who are hyper critical of Ben?

 

I see very little difference between the hypercritical Ben and hypercritical DD crowds, teams or whatever you want to call the groupings, in terms of juvelinility.

[moonslav59]

From what we know, all the Red Sox had to do to keep Mookie was agree to his proposal of $420 million, or maybe a slightly lower amount.

 

Had we kept him, that price was sure to drop during these economic times, as it did with the Dodgers.

[moonslav59]

Just because he ordered a re-set doesn't mean it had anything to do with their ability or intentions to sign Mookie after 2020 or not.

 

It's entirely possible they gave up completely on keeping Mookie but wanted the re-set anyway.

 

Very true.

 

It's also possible they were prepared to go after him as a free agent, had he reached it-not saying they would have or likely would have gotten him.

 

The re-set order certainly made it more difficult to keep him, especially if there was also a directive to reign in spending beyond the re-set.

 

We just re-set, and there are no signs we plan on jumping over the tax lines, this year.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Very true.

 

It's also possible they were prepared to go after him as a free agent, had he reached it-not saying they would have or likely would have gotten him.

 

The re-set order certainly made it more difficult to keep him, especially if there was also a directive to reign in spending beyond the re-set.

 

We just re-set, and there are no signs we plan on jumping over the tax lines, this year.

 

I think the "order" also included getting rid of Price -- because of his contract, before his no-trade kicked in, and because of his attitude. I have no evidence, just a sense of what a company may weigh as a means to balance a budget and change public perception about its product... though few here seem to agree on this possibility.

[moonslav59]

I think the "order" also included getting rid of Price -- because of his contract, before his no-trade kicked in, and because of his attitude. I have no evidence, just a sense of what a company may weigh as a means to balance a budget and change public perception about its product... though few here seem to agree on this possibility.

 

I agree on every point made here despite it all being just speculation.

[Bellhorn04]

Are you saying that the "coffee boy" statement was the only juvenile statement made by those who are hyper critical of Ben?

 

I see very little difference between the hypercritical Ben and hypercritical DD crowds, teams or whatever you want to call the groupings, in terms of juvelinility.

 

I haven't seen many juvenile comments directed toward either of late.

[Bellhorn04]

Had we kept him, that price was sure to drop during these economic times, as it did with the Dodgers.

 

No doubt. Of course that was an unforeseeable factor.

 

Although...the trade took place on February 10, when COVID-19 was just beginning to rear its head, but we had no idea how bad it would be.

[moonslav59]

No doubt. Of course that was an unforeseeable factor.

 

Although...the trade took place on February 10, when COVID-19 was just beginning to rear its head, but we had no idea how bad it would be.

 

The trade looks pretty good for both sides, now.

 

We only lost 1/3 of a season of Betts and got Verdugo and a couple good prospects.

 

The Dodgers won a ring and didn't even have to pay Price anything, this year. (neither did we.)

Edited November 24, 2020 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

The trade looks pretty good for both sides, now.

 

We only lost 1/3 of a season of Betts and got Verdugo and a couple good prospects.

 

The Dodgers won a ring and didn't even have to pay Price anything, this year. (neither did we.)

 

If you look at those 'COVID-19 benefits' in isolation, they look good for the team.

 

But if you look at the overall impact, not so good.

[moonslav59]

If you look at those 'COVID-19 benefits' in isolation, they look good for the team.

 

But if you look at the overall impact, not so good.

 

Very true.

 

Not having to pay Price made a very bad situation slightly better- for both clubs.

[cp176]

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

 

Now come on. i'm speaking solely for myself here. I'm not taking any sides. That being said, I am not the one who feels as though they just can't help themselves from more nonsense spew with respect to DD. i'm pretty sure that as long as they feel the urge to continue flapping away about him, i'll continue to throw my two cents worth right back.

[cp176]

Are you saying that the "coffee boy" statement was the only juvenile statement made by those who are hyper critical of Ben?

 

I see very little difference between the hypercritical Ben and hypercritical DD crowds, teams or whatever you want to call the groupings, in terms of juvelinility.

 

i'll of course admit that I did not nor do i now for that matter think that Ben Cherington was much of a GM but I don't think that these petty little jabs made of late have much to do with anything that I might have said. Past GMs don't really interest me as much as they seem to with respect to the "I hate (and forever will) Dave Dombrowski" crowd. Actually, it really isn't much of crowd.

[moonslav59]

Now come on. i'm speaking solely for myself here. I'm not taking any sides. That being said, I am not the one who feels as though they just can't help themselves from more nonsense spew with respect to DD. i'm pretty sure that as long as they feel the urge to continue flapping away about him, i'll continue to throw my two cents worth right back.

 

That's what this site is designed for- discussion about anything to do with the Sox, and GM debates often go on forever.

 

I'm fine with people giving their 2 cents, and yes, some in nonsense directed towards both Ben and DD.

 

That's my 2 cents.

[moonslav59]

i'll of course admit that I did not nor do i now for that matter think that Ben Cherington was much of a GM but I don't think that these petty little jabs made of late have much to do with anything that I might have said. Past GMs don't really interest me as much as they seem to with respect to the "I hate (and forever will) Dave Dombrowski" crowd. Actually, it really isn't much of crowd.

 

The "hate" Dombrowski cowd?

[oldtimer]

The "hate" Dombrowski cowd?

The idea of hating DD is just one person's invention. Many may dislike the way he ran the payroll up with underperforming long term contracts. In addition, many are also exasperated with the dismantling of the minors. That's a different thing than hating DD. Most have moved on from DD to a discussion of what can be done to make the team more competitive in the long term.

[Hugh2]

I think Alex Verdugo is going to be a stud, not as good as Mookie, but 300 million dollars + cheaper for 5 years. I firmly believe unless the Sox gave Mookie similar money (they weren't going to) he was going to leave Boston. You can't fall in love with these guys and it would be bad business to invest close to 1/2 a billion dollars when the offense is not your problem.

 

The trade will look even better if Downs turns into your everyday 2nd baseman. Not sure he's ready yet so maybe they can get a Cesar Hernandez on a 1-year deal?

 

In hindsight, I wonder what the market for Mookie Betts would have looked like this year if stayed with Boston? Team budgets are tight and people are afraid of making long-term commitments but at the same time, he would be the clear-cut top FA in the market.

[Bellhorn04]

In hindsight, I wonder what the market for Mookie Betts would have looked like this year if stayed with Boston? Team budgets are tight and people are afraid of making long-term commitments but at the same time, he would be the clear-cut top FA in the market.

 

My guess on that hypothetical is that he would have signed with the Dodgers.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

My guess on that hypothetical is that he would have signed with the Dodgers.

 

I probably agree, but without another ring and more national fame that came with starring in the '20 postseason, the contract would have been for less... maybe considerably less. We shall soon see how the bidding for top free agents plays out in this Covid winter.

[notin]

My guess on that hypothetical is that he would have signed with the Dodgers.

 

Well, we do know they had the money and were willing to pay...

[Hugh2]

The only thing that would have lost Mookie Money this year would be the Covid Market. Still, there's just no way to tell how a big market team might have responded. A team like TB needs to cut back in a covid world where NY or LA can just blink.

 

Unfortunately, there is not a marquee FA to give us a template to go on. If there was, and the market is depressed, then you could argue a guy would take a one year deal and jump back in the waters next year.

 

The one thing Mookie would have going for him is he would clearly be the best FA in the market (by a lot) and his value would be sky high right now. I suspect if he opted to sign a contract this offseason and Covid truly did drive the price down he still gets over 300 million.

[notin]

The only thing that would have lost Mookie Money this year would be the Covid Market. Still, there's just no way to tell how a big market team might have responded. A team like TB needs to cut back in a covid world where NY or LA can just blink.

 

Unfortunately, there is not a marquee FA to give us a template to go on. If there was, and the market is depressed, then you could argue a guy would take a one year deal and jump back in the waters next year.

 

The one thing Mookie would have going for him is he would clearly be the best FA in the market (by a lot) and his value would be sky high right now. I suspect if he opted to sign a contract this offseason and Covid truly did drive the price down he still gets over 300 million.

 

Safe bet considering he did not sign his extension with LA until July, long after Spring Training had been cancelled and the season suspended due to COVID. So we do know what his minimum COVID World money would have looked like...

[moonslav59]

The idea of hating DD is just one person's invention. Many may dislike the way he ran the payroll up with underperforming long term contracts. In addition, many are also exasperated with the dismantling of the minors. That's a different thing than hating DD. Most have moved on from DD to a discussion of what can be done to make the team more competitive in the long term.

 

I dislike a few things he did, but overall, I'm glad we had him as our GM, and the great 2018 season outweighs the cliff we are in, now.

[moonslav59]

I think Alex Verdugo is going to be a stud, not as good as Mookie, but 300 million dollars + cheaper for 5 years. I firmly believe unless the Sox gave Mookie similar money (they weren't going to) he was going to leave Boston. You can't fall in love with these guys and it would be bad business to invest close to 1/2 a billion dollars when the offense is not your problem.

 

The trade will look even better if Downs turns into your everyday 2nd baseman. Not sure he's ready yet so maybe they can get a Cesar Hernandez on a 1-year deal?

 

In hindsight, I wonder what the market for Mookie Betts would have looked like this year if stayed with Boston? Team budgets are tight and people are afraid of making long-term commitments but at the same time, he would be the clear-cut top FA in the market.

 

Yes, and Verdugo does not need to end up nearly as good as Betts. We traded 40% of a season from Betts for over 4 years of Verdugo.

 

Downs and Wong can add gravy to the deal.

 

Saving $16M a year on Price was also a plus, although some here feel otherwise.

[Bellhorn04]

Saving $16M a year on Price was also a plus, although some here feel otherwise.

 

That kind of falls into the coin flip category.

 

But the Hindsight Jury will make a final ruling after the 2021 or 2022 season. (It's possible that 2021 will decide it one way or the other.)

[moonslav59]

That kind of falls into the coin flip category.

 

But the Hindsight Jury will make a final ruling after the 2021 or 2022 season. (It's possible that 2021 will decide it one way or the other.)

 

Even if he does well, if he wouldn't have made a difference here with the Sox, and we spend those savings wisely to the point where we see a plus beyond 2021, it might still be a plus for us.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if he does well, if he wouldn't have made a difference here with the Sox, and we spend those savings wisely to the point where we see a plus beyond 2021, it might still be a plus for us.

 

You can't really say for sure he would make no difference.

[jad]

Even if he does well, if he wouldn't have made a difference here with the Sox, and we spend those savings wisely to the point where we see a plus beyond 2021, it might still be a plus for us.

 

As Nadal said when asked if Kyrgios could be a top-10 player if he [X, Y, Z], "Eef eef eef."