Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Nick]

Tell me again the circumstances around Betts being traded to Dodgers? Did we low ball him? He was offended by the offer and his mom said "don't take that s*** from them"? I don't remember. It's been two days since I've been on this thread.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Tell me again the circumstances around Betts being traded to Dodgers? Did we low ball him? He was offended by the offer and his mom said "don't take that s*** from them"? I don't remember. It's been two days since I've been on this thread.

 

We're like the government report to the public on UAPs... a lot of speculation that ultimately admits we don't know anything.

 

You see, what really happened is that the Red Sox owners hired Bloom because of his connections to Friedman, who they knew coveted Betts -- and they used Mookie as bait to make a dirty break from Price... LA was the only team Boston could pay to take Price. The Brudstar Graterol distraction was just a play out of Project Dodger Bluebook.

[Kimmi]

I'm sure the kids will be happy if you do indeed spend the money on those nice things. If .

 

Give Bloom a chance. He will spend on the right deal.

[mvp 78]

Give Bloom a chance. He will spend on the right deal.

 

Agree

[moonslav59]

Give Bloom a chance. He will spend on the right deal.

 

While I whole-heartedly agree, I felt the same about Ben.

 

(I don't want to open the can of worms on which deals were Ben's and which were not his.)

[Bellhorn04]

So I e-mailed Jeff at Cot's Contracts about the AAV thing. He nicely replied a few hours later.

 

Here's the exchange:

 

My Q:

 

Hi Jeff

 

Some sources indicate that Mookie's AAV is 25.55 million because deferred money reduces the present value of his contract to 306.5 million. But Cot's shows it as the unadjusted 30.42 million. Can you clarify?

 

His A:

 

Hi,

 

I've done some digging on this because it came up when the Betts extension was announced. Here's what I've gleaned from sources around the game on Betts' AAV.

 

For purposes of calculating the Competitive Balance Tax, the deferred salary is included at its stated value because the interest rate on the deferred money (0%) is within one and one-half percentage points of the imputed loan interest rate (.43%). The relevant rule in the labor deal is Article XXIII E. (6)((ii) page 123 of the CBA. So that makes Mookie's AAV for tax purposes a straight 365/12.

 

But for purposes of calculating annual salaries, his salaries are discounted to reflect the present-day value. The Players Association calculates the deal's total present-day value at $306,657,882. I think the $25.55 million figure floating around is simply the present-day value divided by 12.

 

His 2021 salary would usually be $17.5 million, plus $5,416,667 to account for a 1/12th share of his $65 million signing bonus, for a $22,916,667 total. But, factoring in the deferred money, that figure is discounted to $18,658,692. So that's the 2021 figure you see listed in some comprehensive 2021 MLB salary listings.

 

Hope that helps!

jeff

[Bellhorn04]

Now I have to check out the thing about the interest rate, which confuses me a bit.

[moonslav59]

So I e-mailed Jeff at Cot's Contracts about the AAV thing. He nicely replied a few hours later.

 

Here's the exchange:

 

My Q:

 

Hi Jeff

 

Some sources indicate that Mookie's AAV is 25.55 million because deferred money reduces the present value of his contract to 306.5 million. But Cot's shows it as the unadjusted 30.42 million. Can you clarify?

 

His A:

 

Hi,

 

I've done some digging on this because it came up when the Betts extension was announced. Here's what I've gleaned from sources around the game on Betts' AAV.

 

For purposes of calculating the Competitive Balance Tax, the deferred salary is included at its stated value because the interest rate on the deferred money (0%) is within one and one-half percentage points of the imputed loan interest rate (.43%). The relevant rule in the labor deal is Article XXIII E. (6)((ii) page 123 of the CBA. So that makes Mookie's AAV for tax purposes a straight 365/12.

 

But for purposes of calculating annual salaries, his salaries are discounted to reflect the present-day value. The Players Association calculates the deal's total present-day value at $306,657,882. I think the $25.55 million figure floating around is simply the present-day value divided by 12.

 

His 2021 salary would usually be $17.5 million, plus $5,416,667 to account for a 1/12th share of his $65 million signing bonus, for a $22,916,667 total. But, factoring in the deferred money, that figure is discounted to $18,658,692. So that's the 2021 figure you see listed in some comprehensive 2021 MLB salary listings.

 

Hope that helps!

jeff

 

This shows why I trust cots.

[Bellhorn04]

Just like that Mookie is en fuego. Lifted his OPS from .799 to .846 in 3 games.

[moonslav59]

Just like that Mookie is en fuego. Lifted his OPS from .799 to .846 in 3 games.

 

While Verdugo has been in a somewhat long down trend.

[Maxbialystock]

While Verdugo has been in a somewhat long down trend.

 

His OPS's by month: April .863, May .755, June .718, July .659.

[moonslav59]

His OPS's by month: April .863, May .755, June .718, July .659.

 

I guess the word “somewhat” was being kind.

[dgalehouse]

Just like that Mookie is en fuego. Lifted his OPS from .799 to .846 in 3 games.

 

The cream does tend to rise to the top.

[sk7326]

Tell me again the circumstances around Betts being traded to Dodgers? Did we low ball him? He was offended by the offer and his mom said "don't take that s*** from them"? I don't remember. It's been two days since I've been on this thread.

 

I like the Occam's Razor answer to this. Betts had a ton of leverage for a ginormous contract and the Red Sox did not want to give it to him. And when the Dodgers ALSO were willing to take David Price's deal it became more attractive. That said, the baseball ops people DID do a good job making it a tolerable baseball deal. Verdugo's slump is worrisome - but getting a legit starting OF out of a salary dump is better than teams normally do in this sort of thing. Jeter Downs is the team's best prospect - which makes it even better.

 

Really the Dodgers are the dream for the Sox - a team that has the depth to trade a guy like Downs and barely notice it.

[Maxbialystock]

I like the Occam's Razor answer to this. Betts had a ton of leverage for a ginormous contract and the Red Sox did not want to give it to him. And when the Dodgers ALSO were willing to take David Price's deal it became more attractive. That said, the baseball ops people DID do a good job making it a tolerable baseball deal. Verdugo's slump is worrisome - but getting a legit starting OF out of a salary dump is better than teams normally do in this sort of thing. Jeter Downs is the team's best prospect - which makes it even better.

 

Really the Dodgers are the dream for the Sox - a team that has the depth to trade a guy like Downs and barely notice it.

 

I absolutely thought that trade made sense and Betts was unaffordable for the Sox. Getting some usable players/prospects was a bonus, paid for by the reality of continuing to pay half of Price's salary.

[redsoxrules]

Just like that Mookie is en fuego. Lifted his OPS from .799 to .846 in 3 games.

 

And? In another 10 to 15 games it could be back down 800

[Behindenemylines]

I absolutely thought that trade made sense and Betts was unaffordable for the Sox. Getting some usable players/prospects was a bonus, paid for by the reality of continuing to pay half of Price's salary.[/quote

 

Whether the Sox got enough for Betts won’t be known until Downs is playing for the Sox a few seasons. If Verdugo production stays the same and Downs can become a productive starting second basemen then yes they did. Betts is always going to be the best of these players, but if the sum of the parts give you the success for Sox then that’s gold. Long term the Betts contract will be a burden for the Dodgers just like every mega ten year deal that we have seen. Also, remember the Sox receive a serviceable backup catcher and got rid of Price’s contract. I hated seeing Betts get traded, but if the Sox make the playoffs pre - Downs Era I will feel a lot better about the trade.

[sk7326]

And? In another 10 to 15 games it could be back down 800

 

Betts is one of the 5 best players in baseball and the best position player the Red Sox spat out since Fred Lynn. There is no trade where he would not be the best player - and frankly the most likely to produce value over the next 5 years. We have not seen the extra money saved deployed yet really anyway.

 

That said, once the Red Sox made the deal - they got a better return than you normally get from these things.

[sk7326]

I absolutely thought that trade made sense and Betts was unaffordable for the Sox. Getting some usable players/prospects was a bonus, paid for by the reality of continuing to pay half of Price's salary.[/quote

 

Whether the Sox got enough for Betts won’t be known until Downs is playing for the Sox a few seasons. If Verdugo production stays the same and Downs can become a productive starting second basemen then yes they did. Betts is always going to be the best of these players, but if the sum of the parts give you the success for Sox then that’s gold. Long term the Betts contract will be a burden for the Dodgers just like every mega ten year deal that we have seen. Also, remember the Sox receive a serviceable backup catcher and got rid of Price’s contract. I hated seeing Betts get traded, but if the Sox make the playoffs pre - Downs Era I will feel a lot better about the trade.

 

On a player basis - they didn't, full stop. But depending on what they do with the financial flexibility plus the players it could be an adequate result. Mookie was the best position player the franchise produced since Fred Lynn.

[Bellhorn04]

On a player basis - they didn't, full stop. But depending on what they do with the financial flexibility plus the players it could be an adequate result. Mookie was the best position player the franchise produced since Fred Lynn.

 

I was a big Freddie fan too, but what about Rice and Boggs? They're in the Hall of Fame, not Fred.

[notin]

I was a big Freddie fan too, but what about Rice and Boggs? They're in the Hall of Fame, not Fred.

 

 

And why Fred Lynn in the first place? Do people think Lynn was better than Betts?

[notin]

I was a big Freddie fan too, but what about Rice and Boggs? They're in the Hall of Fame, not Fred.

 

Bagwell, too, since he only mentioned organization and made no reference to playing in Boston…

[Bellhorn04]

And why Fred Lynn in the first place? Do people think Lynn was better than Betts?

 

Best since Yaz, or best since Ted Williams.

[sk7326]

I was a big Freddie fan too, but what about Rice and Boggs? They're in the Hall of Fame, not Fred.

 

Lynn's career was derailed by injuries so that is a bit forward looking of course. Boggs is a fair comparison - Rice less so. (Rice is not a great Hall of Famer)

 

The Red Sox have not had many 5-tool sort of talents like Betts, full stop. Lynn was the last one in the neighborhood. But sure, go back to Yaz or Ted Williams - that's totally cool.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I was a big Freddie fan too, but what about Rice and Boggs? They're in the Hall of Fame, not Fred.

 

Ya, I think of two things in the Lynn comps: 1) he was just a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs -- those two were Hall of Fame hitters in Boston, while Lynn was 4 1/2 tool guy (led Sox in stolen bases his first two seasons); 2) Lynn was traded in his prime, after the Sox decided they couldn't pay him market value for whatever reasons...

[mvp 78]

Betts is one of the 5 best players in baseball and the best position player the Red Sox spat out since Fred Lynn. There is no trade where he would not be the best player - and frankly the most likely to produce value over the next 5 years. We have not seen the extra money saved deployed yet really anyway.

 

That said, once the Red Sox made the deal - they got a better return than you normally get from these things.

 

Yaz > Boggs > Rice > Evans > Nomar > Lynn

 

For now, Betts somewhere in the Rice/Evans/Nomar discussion. Depending on how he ages, he could be better than Boggs. Maybe he drops off the map like Nomar or ages poorly like Rice did?

[mvp 78]

Ya, I think of two things in the Lynn comps: 1) he was just a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs -- those two were Hall of Fame hitters in Boston, while Lynn was 4 1/2 tool guy (led Sox in stolen bases his first two seasons); 2) Lynn was traded in his prime, after the Sox decided they couldn't pay him market value for whatever reasons...

 

If we are just talking “peak” it’s hard to overstate late 70’s Rice.

[mvp 78]

Lynn's career was derailed by injuries so that is a bit forward looking of course. Boggs is a fair comparison - Rice less so. (Rice is not a great Hall of Famer)

 

The Red Sox have not had many 5-tool sort of talents like Betts, full stop. Lynn was the last one in the neighborhood. But sure, go back to Yaz or Ted Williams - that's totally cool.

 

Which of Yaz or Ted were 5 tool guys?

[Bellhorn04]

Which of Yaz or Ted were 5 tool guys?

 

Pretty sure that's not what he meant.

 

Ted was only a 2 tool guy, but they were mega-tools.

[sk7326]

Which of Yaz or Ted were 5 tool guys?

 

I was not being clear ... if someone wants to trace Betts' unique talent back towards Yaz or Williams I am cool with it. But I do agree with you - Betts is a talent the Red Sox have very rarely, if ever, had. Honestly for a comp to Betts the Red Sox have ever had, you probably have to go to Reggie Smith if Fred Lynn does not do it for you.

Edited July 18, 2021 by sk7326