Who should the Sox have play CF on opening day?

[moonslav59]

it has been very frustrating for me to watch the dismantling of this team in general for sure although I do understand a couple of the moves. Benintenid's glove in my estimation had nothing to do with why we might have kept him. he was decent but I think that it was about his bat not his glove. Although i will forever be a JBJ fan, I don't think that paying him 12 million per made any sense at all but I am glad that he did not suffer a cut in pay. Losing Betts is pathetic in my estimation. Now, if Duran continues to look like he has looked which is better than just about everybody else going forward, I would put him in center field and enjoy the show.

 

The loss of Betts is really the only loss that does not fit in the Sox narrative over the last 20 years.

 

It's a huge loss, but I'm not sure it is the sign of a massive change in spending philosophy or team building strategy.

[cp176]

The loss of Betts is really the only loss that does not fit in the Sox narrative over the last 20 years.

 

It's a huge loss, but I'm not sure it is the sign of a massive change in spending philosophy or team building strategy.

 

I'm not sure that it signifies a massive change of any kind just yet either. Personally I liked Benintendi much more as an amateur player than I did as a professional one (just my personal opinion) and I think that paying JBJ 12 million a year to hit what .240 (I also know that batting average means very little to most these days), would have been a big time overpay regardless of how many baseballs he was able to keep in the ballpark. Actually I think that losing a player like Jackie hurts as much in the character and overall attitude department as much as anywhere. He is one of the good guys.

[Bellhorn04]

The loss of Betts is really the only loss that does not fit in the Sox narrative over the last 20 years.

 

It's a huge loss, but I'm not sure it is the sign of a massive change in spending philosophy or team building strategy.

 

Mookie is a great player and may make us regret losing him for years to come.

 

But $400 million is a lot of dough.

 

How's this for a little perspective. We all shudder when we think of the 142 million contract for Crawford.

 

What Mookie reportedly asked for, 420 million, was 3 CRAWFORD CONTRACTS.

 

And please don't anyone try to explain how there's no comparison between the two players. Crawford had been a damn good player when we signed him.

[notin]

Mookie is a great player and may make us regret losing him for years to come.

 

But $400 million is a lot of dough.

 

How's this for a little perspective. We all shudder when we think of the 142 million contract for Crawford.

 

What Mookie reportedly asked for, 420 million, was 3 CRAWFORD CONTRACTS.

 

And please don't anyone try to explain how there's no comparison between the two players. Crawford had been a damn good player when we signed him.

 

I thought Crawford deserved the AL MVP in 2010 over Josh Hamilton's home/road splits.

[mvp 78]

I thought Crawford deserved the AL MVP in 2010 over Josh Hamilton's home/road splits.

 

Now that is a performance in a contract year.

[Bellhorn04]

Now that is a performance in a contract year.

 

Very true. But even before 2010 he had been putting up 4 and 5 win seasons. 35.6 bWAR in his Rays career.

[mvp 78]

Very true. But even before 2010 he had been putting up 4 and 5 win seasons. 35.6 bWAR in his Rays career.

 

He was great for the Rays, but doing a 7.7 in your walk year is unbelievable.

[mvp 78]

And now I'm angry again because I wanted to see what Betts' was before they dealt him.

[Bellhorn04]

If we had retained Mookie for 375 mill or whatever, I'd be scared about one thing - injury. And not necessarily a major injury. Sometimes apparently minor injuries can mess up a player's career pretty badly.

[mvp 78]

If we had retained Mookie for 375 mill or whatever, I'd be scared about one thing - injury. And not necessarily a major injury. Sometimes apparently minor injuries can mess up a player's career pretty badly.

 

The Sox have enough $$$ to work around one contract that goes south. I think Mookie will be productive for 90% of that contract. I've said it all along that he was one of the few guys that were worth that (him and Trout). Soto, Tatis and Acuna are great, but I'd need to see them for two more years before I unloaded onto them. I have a sneaking suspicion that Soto won't hold up. I think Tatis could belong in that group with Betts and Trout. I have Acuna being just behind those guys.

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie Betts is an awesome talent and I deeply regret losing him.

 

As far as great modern players are concerned, there's Trout and Betts, and the rest have a long way to go to prove they belong in the same discussion.

[a700hitter]

Mookie Betts is an awesome talent and I deeply regret losing him.

 

As far as great modern players are concerned, there's Trout and Betts, and the rest have a long way to go to prove they belong in the same discussion.

You are supposed to build your teams around generational talents like that, not trade them for spare parts.

[mvp 78]

You are supposed to build your teams around generational talents like that, not trade them for spare parts.

 

Verdugo is not a spare part. Downs seems like he won't be a spare part either. I think the return for Mookie was fine. However, they just shouldn't have traded him in the first place.

[Bellhorn04]

You are supposed to build your teams around generational talents like that, not trade them for spare parts.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were not in favor of signing Mookie long-term because you felt too much of his game was dependent on speed.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe

Bogaerts is back throwing, so moving closer to a game ... Cora plans to use Verdugo in CF and RF in ST. Sounds like he'll get at least some RF during the season. Cora reiterated that there won't be a set OF lineup

[notin]

If we had retained Mookie for 375 mill or whatever, I'd be scared about one thing - injury. And not necessarily a major injury. Sometimes apparently minor injuries can mess up a player's career pretty badly.

 

I was saying that just the other day to Grady Sizemore and Dustin Pedroia...

[notin]

You are supposed to build your teams around generational talents like that, not trade them for spare parts.

 

But the Sox spent the foundation cash around players like Price, Sale, and Bogaerts. Would you prefer Betts over those three?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The loss of Betts is really the only loss that does not fit in the Sox narrative over the last 20 years.

.

 

We know some Sox fans will talk about Mookie forever, but I'd double his loss as nothing like it "in a Sox narrative over the last 40 years" (since the Fisk-Lynn-Burleson debacle). The Red Sox always keep their stars in their primes. Trading a guy just entering his prime and a year after he was the best player in the game was nothing like dealing Nomar or losing Pedro, who were no longer even the best player or pitcher on the team (Manny Shermaned his way out of town, enhanced LA for few months, then got caught about 17 times). Boggs and Clemens (pre-PEDs) best days were behind them.

 

This may even be sacrilege, but it is arguable based on WAR value: at the time of transaction, trading Betts was worse than selling Ruth. The Babe's six years in Boston were worth 19.1 WAR. Mookie's six-year WAR in Boston was 41.6.

 

Remember, the Babe was still doing the Ohtani-thing his last year in Boston. Unlike Betts, who led the majors in WAR in '18, Ruth didn't lead the AL or MLB in WAR in 1919, finishing second to Walter Johnson. Of course, Babe was only 24, but had unhealthy lifestyles (gone at age 53). Mookie might have a ways to go, though, before he beats George Herman's career WAR of 182.5...

[mvp 78]

I was saying that just the other day to Grady Sizemore and Dustin Pedroia...

 

Sizemore is a fair comp. Pedroia is not.

[mvp 78]

But the Sox spent the foundation cash around players like Price, Sale, and Bogaerts. Would you prefer Betts over those three?

 

Betts doesn't make the combined salary of Price AND Sale AND Xander.

[notin]

Betts doesn't make the combined salary of Price AND Sale AND Xander.

 

His deal is worth roughly Price plus Xander, right? Betts has $365mill committed to him, and Price ($217mill) plus Xander ($120mill/$140mill if the option vests) gets you in the neghborhood with $337-$357 mill (ignoring the opt out)...

[Bellhorn04]

We know some Sox fans will talk about Mookie forever, but I'd double his loss as nothing like it "in a Sox narrative over the last 40 years" (since the Fisk-Lynn-Burleson debacle). The Red Sox always keep their stars in their primes. Trading a guy just entering his prime and a year after he was the best player in the game was nothing like dealing Nomar or losing Pedro, who were no longer even the best player or pitcher on the team (Manny Shermaned his way out of town, enhanced LA for few months, then got caught about 17 times). Boggs and Clemens (pre-PEDs) best days were behind them.

 

This may even be sacrilege, but it is arguable based on WAR value: at the time of transaction, trading Betts was worse than selling Ruth. The Babe's six years in Boston were worth 19.1 WAR. Mookie's six-year WAR in Boston was 41.6.

 

Remember, the Babe was still doing the Ohtani-thing his last year in Boston. Unlike Betts, who led the majors in WAR in '18, Ruth didn't lead the AL or MLB in WAR in 1919, finishing second to Walter Johnson. Of course, Babe was only 24, but had unhealthy lifestyles (gone at age 53). Mookie might have a ways to go, though, before he beats George Herman's career WAR of 182.5...

 

The thing is, if you're really going to be fair about this, you can't just run away from the vast differences in the money then and now.

 

Keeping Mookie required putting roughly $400 million at risk.

 

Try and find a historical comparative to that.

[moonslav59]

Mookie is a great player and may make us regret losing him for years to come.

 

But $400 million is a lot of dough.

 

How's this for a little perspective. We all shudder when we think of the 142 million contract for Crawford.

 

What Mookie reportedly asked for, 420 million, was 3 CRAWFORD CONTRACTS.

 

And please don't anyone try to explain how there's no comparison between the two players. Crawford had been a damn good player when we signed him.

 

I'm not saying there was no good reasons for letting Betts walk.

 

I'm just saying we have let a lot of players walk- some stars, but most were on the wrong side of 30 or had health issues.

 

Betts is a unique case, but I do NOT think his loss signals a major change in team building strategy. It was a tough call to make. Earmarking 1/6 to 1/7 of your player budget to one guy for 10+ years is something that does not come up very often.

 

We did it for Price for 7 years. And, we ended up dumping him.

 

Manny was signed for 8 years, and we dumped him, too.

[moonslav59]

But the Sox spent the foundation cash around players like Price, Sale, and Bogaerts. Would you prefer Betts over those three?

 

Price: no, but at the time, his signing made sense, so I find it hard to use him as a tool on why we let Betts walk, assuming he would have signed with us for $1M more than the Dodgers.

[moonslav59]

The thing is, if you're really going to be fair about this, you can't just run away from the vast differences in the money then and now.

 

Keeping Mookie required putting roughly $400 million at risk.

 

Try and find a historical comparative to that.

 

Exactly.

 

As much as I argued to keep Betts, this would have been unchartered territory for the Sox, despite their history of some pretty big contracts in the recent past.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The thing is, if you're really going to be fair about this, you can't just run away from the vast differences in the money then and now.

 

Keeping Mookie required putting roughly $400 million at risk.

 

Try and find a historical comparative to that.

 

I can't pro-rate or compare dollars, but in context, Fisk, Lynn and Burleson were allowed to go because the Red Sox refused to meet their new free agent market values. Fisk's free agency was supposedly a timing error, but we all knew Boston didn't want to triple his salary. Lynn's either; they traded him during his arbitration hearing.

 

It may also be fair going forward to see how much the Red Sox wind up paying Verdugo, Downs and Wong, and how much WAR the trio earns, compared to Betts and Price in LA.

[notin]

I can't pro-rate or compare dollars, but in context, Fisk, Lynn and Burleson were allowed to go because the Red Sox refused to meet their new free agent market values. Fisk's free agency was supposedly a timing error, but we all knew Boston didn't want to triple his salary. Lynn's either; they traded him during his arbitration hearing.

 

It may also be fair going forward to see how much the Red Sox wind up paying Verdugo, Downs and Wong, and how much WAR the trio earns, compared to Betts and Price in LA.

 

The bottom line with Betts was he wanted a LOT of money and he was not willing to simply sign anything. At the time, he had reportedly expressed a strong desire to test free agency. The Sox were defintely in a habit of spening a lot, and really, despite the lack of activity the past few offseasons, still are spending a lot.

 

It's real easy to say they should have just extended Betts, but it doesn't look he was was too willing to sign anything. The Sox had a very free-spending GM for the bulk of his career here, and Betts remained unextended. It's very possible the oandemic changed his mind in LA, especially since he signed the extension just before the start of the abbreviated season. Perhaps he was unwilling to be judged on a 60 game sample?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The bottom line with Betts was he wanted a LOT of money and he was not willing to simply sign anything. At the time, he had reportedly expressed a strong desire to test free agency. The Sox were defintely in a habit of spening a lot, and really, despite the lack of activity the past few offseasons, still are spending a lot.

 

It's real easy to say they should have just extended Betts, but it doesn't look he was was too willing to sign anything. The Sox had a very free-spending GM for the bulk of his career here, and Betts remained unextended. It's very possible the oandemic changed his mind in LA, especially since he signed the extension just before the start of the abbreviated season. Perhaps he was unwilling to be judged on a 60 game sample?

 

Or he just wanted to sign in a place with palm trees all along...

[Bellhorn04]

The bottom line with Betts was he wanted a LOT of money and he was not willing to simply sign anything. At the time, he had reportedly expressed a strong desire to test free agency. The Sox were defintely in a habit of spening a lot, and really, despite the lack of activity the past few offseasons, still are spending a lot.

 

It's real easy to say they should have just extended Betts, but it doesn't look he was was too willing to sign anything. The Sox had a very free-spending GM for the bulk of his career here, and Betts remained unextended. It's very possible the oandemic changed his mind in LA, especially since he signed the extension just before the start of the abbreviated season. Perhaps he was unwilling to be judged on a 60 game sample?

 

Or he just wanted to sign in a place with palm trees all along...

 

We'll never know unless Mookie tells all someday. Which he won't. He's a tough and smart cookie. I respect that.

[notin]

We'll never know unless Mookie tells all someday. Which he won't. He's a tough and smart cookie. I respect that.

 

What we do know is extensions and signings do not happen unless both parties agree. It's not just a matter of filling out some forms and mailing them into the head office...