Zack Scott explaining the Mookie trade and a lot more (article from Over the Monster)

[moonslav59]

46 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

moon, this started with you saying:

One ring with all that spending, unless you count 2020

Time to drop this, but I just want to say that if I didn't respect your baseball knowledge and IQ so much I would just ignore things like this instead of arguing them.  

 

Okay, that statement did caste doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 ring. You are right. But to me, this all started with a claim made that the Dodgers are "two steps ahead." I still think they are not. Maybe one step ahead, if you set the time frame at exactly 1 year or 5 years (2020-2024.)

It is tainted, IMO, but still  legit.

The Dodgers are the only team that  has 2 rings in 5 years, 6 years or 7 years. One could argue that puts them one step ahead. On spending, maybe 2 or 3 steps ahead of almost every other team.

If you go to 8 years, it's 2 for LAD & HOU although one could "taint" the 2017 Astros ring, too.

You have to go back to 2013 to add the next 2 ring team. That is a 12 year period: LAD, HOU & BOS. Go to 13 years and add SFG. Go to 15 years and SFG has 3, BOS, HOU & LAD with 2.

Go to 18 years: 3 BOS & SFG, 2 HOU & LAD.

Go to 21 years: 4 BOS, 3 SFG, 2 STL, HOU, LAD

You need to go back 27 years (1998) to get a team to match 4 rings (NYY). 29 years to get a 5 win team (NYY.) Nobody can argue the Yanks or Sox are 2 steps ahead, or even 1. Time frame matters, of course.

The Dodger have been way ahead in top money signings over the past few years, and they are one step ahead in rings over the last 1-7 years. I grant them that.

They made two of the highest paid contract signings, ever, last winter, while also having the third highest contract (Betts) already on the books. (Freeman was a top 50 signing back in 2022.) They just signed Snell, giving them 2 of the top 4 $/yr and 4+ year deals in MLB history and 4 in the top 20- plus the Yamo signing.

Highest value/year all time (more than 3 years)

1. Ohtani $46M LAD

2. Judge $40M

3. deGrom $37M

4. Snell $36.4M LAD

5. Cole $36M

6. Trout $35.5M

7. Strasburg $35M

8. Rendon $35M

9. Lindor $34.1M

10, Correa $33,3M 

11. Greinke $32,5M

12. Arenado & Seager $32.5M

14. Machado $31.8M

15. Devers $31.5M

16. Miggy & Price $31M

18. Kershaw $30.7M LAD

19. Betts $30.4M LAD

20. Scherzer, Machado $30M

[Bellhorn04]

More from Zack Scott on Mookie.

"Mookie Betts’ contract with the Dodgers offers another compelling example. He signed a $365MM deal with $115MM deferred. While the headline figure was impressive (second largest contract behind Trout!), the present value was $307MM, placing it below a few additional contracts (Bryce Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, and Gerrit Cole). This structure allowed the Dodgers to acquire a star player while satisfying Mookie and his agent’s desire to be seen as a top-two player. In Boston, we had tried to re-sign Betts, but our self-imposed $300MM limit wasn’t enough to meet this desire. A similar deferral structure to the Dodgers’ deal might have changed the outcome."

Too bad they didn't think of that. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

18 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

More from Zack Scott on Mookie.

"Mookie Betts’ contract with the Dodgers offers another compelling example. He signed a $365MM deal with $115MM deferred. While the headline figure was impressive (second largest contract behind Trout!), the present value was $307MM, placing it below a few additional contracts (Bryce Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, and Gerrit Cole). This structure allowed the Dodgers to acquire a star player while satisfying Mookie and his agent’s desire to be seen as a top-two player. In Boston, we had tried to re-sign Betts, but our self-imposed $300MM limit wasn’t enough to meet this desire. A similar deferral structure to the Dodgers’ deal might have changed the outcome."

Too bad they didn't think of that. 

He should have been grateful Boston offered him so much money, and thankful for the opportunity to wear a Red Sox jersey his whole career. Anyway, he was too short to pay more to longterm.

[mvp 78]

Or just pay him more without the deferrals. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Or just pay him more without the deferrals. 

Zack confirmed that $300 mill was their ceiling.  And when these guys set ceilings, they don't unset them. 

 

[jad]

Besides, he did not have the commitment we expect of RS players; I mean BOWLING??  Come on!  Couldn't he have used all the time he wasted on that sport to hone his baseball skills a bit?

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Zack confirmed that $300 mill was their ceiling.  And when these guys set ceilings, they don't unset them. 

 

Because they is dum dums. 

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, jad said:

Besides, he did not have the commitment we expect of RS players; I mean BOWLING??  Come on!  Couldn't he have used all the time he wasted on that sport to hone his baseball skills a bit?

If it wasn't for the annual Nomar bowling event, he would have been a lifer too! 

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Because they is dum dums. 

In a way it's a relief to have someone finally tell us exactly what happened.  Scott was very emphatic that Mookie Betts was more than willing to be a Red Sox for life, if he got a market value offer.  

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie still watches Red Sox games when he can.  First reason he gives is Cora.  He really thinks highly of Cora. 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2025/01/why-mookie-betts-still-enjoys-watching-red-sox-games.html

[Duran Is The Man]

27 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Zack confirmed that $300 mill was their ceiling.  And when these guys set ceilings, they don't unset them. 

 

Henry reminds me of my buddy's grandpa who told him in the 60s "there ain't no land on this planet worth $100 acre" when he bought 300 acres of "worthless ground". told him he was a fool for paying that much. and yeah....he ultimately sold it for millions.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Zack confirmed that $300 mill was their ceiling.  And when these guys set ceilings, they don't unset them. 

 

We could have given him more, but with deferrals that would bring the actual cost to the team to $300M, but Betts the satisfaction that the contract says $330M or the like.

Another botched event in Sox history.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The real reason John Henry refused to pay market value for Betts happened during the 2018 World Series, when Mookie disguised himself and brought leftovers from a team party to the homeless people.

The owner was apoplectic. "He gave them food for FREE..." rasped Mr. Potter from Pottersville. "We're not giving him another cent -- Mookie owes US money!!!!"

[Bellhorn04]

Bumping so I can argue with Joe B. about why Betts was traded. 🙂

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

33 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Bumping so I can argue with Joe B. About why Betts was traded. 🙂

Come on. It was obvious to the smartest men in the front office in front of all the other offices on the same floor of the same building that once he was past his prime, Mookie would pull an oblique after he won three more World Series.

[notin]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Bumping so I can argue with Joe B. about why Betts was traded. 🙂

Because the Sox wouldn’t give two more years.  End of story…

[Bellhorn04]

59 minutes ago, notin said:

Because the Sox wouldn’t give two more years.  End of story…

Well, maybe a higher AAV would have done it, too.  But the main point is that it wasn't because he didn't want to stay in Boston.

[notin]

27 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Well, maybe a higher AAV would have done it, too.  But the main point is that it wasn't because he didn't want to stay in Boston.

How much higher?  They were right there per the article.  Scott says “10 years $200mill” was a real offer, and when asked if the Sox went higher he says “about $100million more.”  I suppose an argument exists about his intentional vagueness, but it’s not difficult to see an offer very close to 10 years $300mill, which is the same AAV that Mookie signed with LA.

Only two years shorter…

[moonslav59]

I think COVID may have affected the offer he finally signed with LAD.

Nobody knows what Betts would have taken before he was traded. Obviously, the final offer we made was not enough. My position was we should have offered more years and maybe the AAV goes down- and that seemed to be JHs major concern.

Letting him go was almost as bad as letting the Babe go.

We decided to keep Sale and Nate, instead.

Another aspect to consider was the JH budgets from 2020>>> Had they stayed aboutt he same, and Betts was making $30+ AAV, what sort of team would we have had around him- even had we kept DD or hired the best GM in MLB history, instead of Bloom> Breslow?

[JoeBrady]

On 5/24/2026 at 9:20 AM, Bellhorn04 said:

Bumping so I can argue with Joe B. about why Betts was traded. 🙂

Same thing I always say.  I think Mookie wanted to move on, and was professional enough to tell the FO to get whatever they could for him.  For all I know, he might have told them to trade him to the Dodgers.  I'd have no problem with that, and I'd respect him for saying so.

[JoeBrady]

19 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Obviously, the final offer we made was not enough.

From EVERYTHING I heard, he took less from the Dodgers on a per-season basis.

[JoeBrady]

19 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Had they stayed aboutt he same, and Betts was making $30+ AAV, what sort of team would we have had around him

I don't think we'd have had anything.  There were three reasons why DD was replaced after 2019:

• 84-78
• Highest payroll in baseball
• Worst farm in baseball

None of those things were going to change any time soon.

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

Same thing I always say.  I think Mookie wanted to move on, and was professional enough to tell the FO to get whatever they could for him.  For all I know, he might have told them to trade him to the Dodgers.  I'd have no problem with that, and I'd respect him for saying so.

But:

1) Mookie insists he wanted to stay in Boston but didn't receive what he thought was a market value offer; and

2) Zack Scott backs this up.  Scott said

"He should be beloved. Mookie would have signed with us for maybe even a little less. We didn't get there."

So why do you think they're lying?

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

I don't think we'd have had anything.  There were three reasons why DD was replaced after 2019:

• 84-78
• Highest payroll in baseball
• Worst farm in baseball

None of those things were going to change any time soon.

But the 2021 team made it to the ALCS.  

[Old Red]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But:

1) Mookie insists he wanted to stay in Boston but didn't receive what he thought was a market value offer; and

2) Zack Scott backs this up.

Mookie also said the reported 10yr/$300M offer the Red Sox reportedly made didn’t happen.

[Bellhorn04]

4 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Mookie also said the reported 10yr/$300M offer the Red Sox reportedly made didn’t happen.

Correct, and Scott also backs this up, saying it was close but not all the way there.  

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But:

1) Mookie insists he wanted to stay in Boston but didn't receive what he thought was a market value offer; and

2) Zack Scott backs this up.  Scott said

"He should be beloved. Mookie would have signed with us for maybe even a little less. We didn't get there."

So why do you think they're lying?

No specifics.  "He would've signed for less'?  Less than what?  How much was he offered?  How much did he ask for?  People that are at the table usually have more details.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But the 2021 team made it to the ALCS.  

So?  Mookie might have been looking at the same thing as me and thought the future was 5 year away.  The fact that the team made the playoffs once in that 5-year period backs that up.

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, Old Red said:

Mookie also said the reported 10yr/$300M offer the Red Sox reportedly made didn’t happen.

From NBC:

As a reminder, the Red Sox reportedly offered Betts a 10-year, $300 million deal.

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

No specifics.  "He would've signed for less'?  Less than what?  How much was he offered?  How much did he ask for?  People that are at the table usually have more details.

Understood.

My position is that there's no evidence that Mookie wanted out or asked to be traded.  That's all speculation.  As far as I know no one in the organization has ever said this was the case.  The simple fact is that the Red Sox traded him.