Obviously, we know the reason he was traded was that ownership didn't feel comfortable with Betts' price point and we can assume that 30M annually was their top dollar. They decided it was worth it to sell a year of Betts for multiple years of Verdugo and prospects and the risk of Betts signing elsewhere.
The only real questions are: should they have traded him and did the receive adequate value back?
To me, if they weren't going to sign him for anything higher than their original offer, then you just have to trade him. However, if I owned the team I would have worked a little harder to keep him around. Theoretically, I say the shouldn't have traded him. Was the value they received back worth the one year of Betts? For sure.
I understand "why" they traded him and agree that the trade was a good trade. However, I don't think they should have let it get to that point.