Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Bellhorn04]

Well, according to a few articles about him in the minors, there was a feeling around the league of "Why is this guy still here?"

 

But his chances died with the hiring of Dombrowski, who was never a fan, and reportedly left Castillo's pre-signing tryout commenting he was, direct quote here, "a fourth outfielder at best."

 

He never got a fulll chance, but i don't think you will ever find a single person who pities him for it. A lot of people will never get a chance to play in MLB, but he is the only one paid $72 million to not play in MLB...

 

His .761 OPS in the minors is not much to get excited about. I don't know much about his fielding. But it looks like DD was right about him being a 4th outfielder.

[notin]

His .761 OPS in the minors is not much to get excited about. I don't know much about his fielding. But it looks like DD was right about him being a 4th outfielder.

 

He might very well have been a 4th outfielder in MLB, but a 4th outfielder is still a major leaguer...

[mvp 78]

He might very well have been a 4th outfielder in MLB, but a 4th outfielder is still a major leaguer...

 

A 4th OFer on a large contract that is not great in a luxury cap era.

[notin]

A 4th OFer on a large contract that is not great in a luxury cap era.

 

And that is why he is where here is...

[Kimmi]

DD gave up an incredible number of bodies, no question.

 

It still remains to have a final accounting of the actual future baseball value he gave up.

 

Yes, it will take years before we know that. The overall value might amount to relatively little. However, we are feeling the impact of it right now.

[Maxbialystock]

Back to the OP and the question asked in the thread title. Mookie was traded because his salary was going to be--and now in fact is--prohibitively expensive for a Sox team with an already high payroll and weak pitching. He was/is unaffordable if the goal was/is to produce a winning team capable of a 5th WS in the John Henry era.

[Kimmi]

Ben can be responsible for signing Castillo, but the decisions that lead to keeping him in AAA seem to be a bit further reaching...

 

Yes, that's all I was talking about, the signing part.

[Kimmi]

It'll be interesting to see if he signs next year or just retires.

 

I think he'll sign somewhere. Maybe a one year contract to try to prove himself.

 

Maybe the Sox will re-sign him.

[Donnie Sadler was short]

I think he'll sign somewhere. Maybe a one year contract to try to prove himself.

 

Maybe the Sox will re-sign him.

 

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

[Kimmi]

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

 

Tough call. I can understand the desire to be a major leaguer. OTOH, that's an awful lot of guaranteed money to pass up.

[Bellhorn04]

Back to the OP and the question asked in the thread title. Mookie was traded because his salary was going to be--and now in fact is--prohibitively expensive for a Sox team with an already high payroll and weak pitching. He was/is unaffordable if the goal was/is to produce a winning team capable of a 5th WS in the John Henry era.

 

I disagree. I think it was the length and consequent risk of the contract that did it.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I disagree. I think it was the length and consequent risk of the contract that did it.

 

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

 

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

 

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

[Kimmi]

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

 

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

 

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

 

1. If the going rate for stars in their prime is 10 years, the Sox should pass.

 

2. Henry will spend money. It doesn't have to be, nor should it be, a large amount for a monster contract. Not having a superstar on our team does not mean the team will be mediocre. A well balanced team that is above average to strong at every position will give you a better chance than a team with a superstar at one position and below average at several other positions.

[notin]

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

 

Maybe money was more important to him than being major leaguer. If all he wanted was to play baseball, he was still doing that in Pawtucket...

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

 

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

 

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

 

All I can really say is I'm confident that as long as Henry & Werner own the team, we will have one of the highest payrolls and we will not have mediocrity as a goal.

[cp176]

1. If the going rate for stars in their prime is 10 years, the Sox should pass.

 

2. Henry will spend money. It doesn't have to be, nor should it be, a large amount for a monster contract. Not having a superstar on our team does not mean the team will be mediocre. A well balanced team that is above average to strong at every position will give you a better chance than a team with a superstar at one position and below average at several other positions.

 

I don't believe that it has to be an either or picture. Having a superstar or two shouldn't make the likelihood of having numerous above average players on the field an impossibility.

[Bellhorn04]

You can understand Henry being a little wary of big contracts after the ones he's signed over the last decade and how they've panned out.

[notin]

I don't believe that it has to be an either or picture. Having a superstar or two shouldn't make the likelihood of having numerous above average players on the field an impossibility.

 

It becomes much less probable when you do not have that many in the farm system. Because if you do not supply them yourself, it is very difficult to acquire them from other teams or free agency (especially when you cannot spend because you have a ton of cash tied up in one superstar)....

[notin]

You can understand Henry being a little wary of big contracts after the ones he's signed over the last decade and how they've panned out.

 

I would agree, although I wqould hope hje would be less wary of a legitimate generational superstar at age 27 than a 31yo pitcher with a very good (but not generational) resume...

[Bellhorn04]

I would agree, although I wqould hope hje would be less wary of a legitimate generational superstar at age 27 than a 31yo pitcher with a very good (but not generational) resume...

 

But again, with nearly twice as much money at risk. That matters too.

[notin]

But again, with nearly twice as much money at risk. That matters too.

 

And presumably more good years and a better ROI...

[Bellhorn04]

And presumably more good years and a better ROI...

 

"Presumably", yes.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Say Bloom achieves his goal of "sustained" title contention by hitting on low budget pick-ups like Arauz, Munoz and Arroyo, who all develop into above-average regulars (and by spitting on the proverb "you get what you pay for"). Will he then trade them for prospects whenever one nears big money status? Are Red Sox fans ok with recycled rosters every couple years, as long as the transitions don't disrupt the standings too much?

 

If so, enjoy Devers while you can, before he turns 27...

[Bellhorn04]

Say Bloom achieves his goal of "sustained" title contention by hitting on low budget pick-ups like Arauz, Munoz and Arroyo, who all develop into above-average regulars (and by spitting on the proverb "you get what you pay for"). Will he then trade them for prospects whenever one nears big money status? Are Red Sox fans ok with recycled rosters every couple years, as long as the transitions don't disrupt the standings too much?

 

If so, enjoy Devers while you can, before he turns 27...

 

We're not turning into the Rays, any more than the Dodgers did when they hired Friedman.

[mvp 78]

We're not turning into the Rays, any more than the Dodgers did when they hired Friedman.

 

I like the Dodgers version of the Rays for sure.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

We're not turning into the Rays, any more than the Dodgers did when they hired Friedman.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But just look at how many wins Tampa and LA have had... in this century's most-days-in-first-place, non-crapshoot seasons.

[notin]

Say Bloom achieves his goal of "sustained" title contention by hitting on low budget pick-ups like Arauz, Munoz and Arroyo, who all develop into above-average regulars (and by spitting on the proverb "you get what you pay for"). Will he then trade them for prospects whenever one nears big money status? Are Red Sox fans ok with recycled rosters every couple years, as long as the transitions don't disrupt the standings too much?

 

If so, enjoy Devers while you can, before he turns 27...

 

While I don't think the Sox are going to let every expensive player walk, what would you prefer? To be in contention every year or have a player Devers on the occasional last place team?

[Nick]

While I don't think the Sox are going to let every expensive player walk, what would you prefer? To be in contention every year or have a player Devers on the occasional last place team?

 

it's always about the value you get back....Yeah, I would take 2 Devers for 1 of our own....I'll fall in love with the new Devers

[Bellhorn04]

it's always about the value you get back....Yeah, I would take 2 Devers for 1 of our own....I'll fall in love with the new Devers

 

Of course, it's extraordinarily unlikely you're going to get two Devers back.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

While I don't think the Sox are going to let every expensive player walk, what would you prefer? To be in contention every year or have a player Devers on the occasional last place team?

 

We're living it this summer, but it's not Rafie's fault, nor would it be Mookie's, whether he was making $27 million -- which the Red Sox agreed to pay him -- or horrors, $30.4 million (his average annual salary when the LA extension kicks in).

 

Just looking at this century, the only superstar fan favorite Boston really let walk was Pedro ((for Manny and Nomar, most would agree, it was time to go). Martinez, many suspected, was on or soon-to-be-on the downside of other-wordly; at the time I wished the Sox gave him one more year like the Mets did, but history shows that was an overpay.

 

Fans love stars, but everyone prefers a winning team. I've seen blogs arguing that position-by-position, the '75 Sox had better players than the '18 Sox, but to me there's no doubt that the latter is the best club in franchise history... as defined by total wins in the regular, and strength of comp in the postseason ('04 will always be the greatest, but that adjective has different criteria).

 

I loathe last place, am realistic about ever winning a ring, and all I can ask for is an annual contender -- and how entitled is that. But before this century, the Red Sox were always pretty good: since 1967, 25 winning teams in 30 years, only one in last place. Since '04, there have been four titles and four doormats (including this one) for the bottomsy-turvy Schizophrenic Sox. Wish they would make up our minds!

 

I know economic landscapes change, but I don't think this ownership will ever stop spending big, nor stop giving out $30 million dollar annual salaries -- like they already gave Price, Sale, and reportedly offered Betts. And unless the pandemic or collusion drastically changes the market, I totally expect another longterm contract -- for someone not as good as Mookie -- in Boston's near future. When I cite the cost of mediocrity, I don't mean total suckitude like '20... just a team missing the playoffs like '19 and becoming even more irrelevant in a region where sports talk radio doesn't even discuss them when they're winning 119 games.