Hitch

1) You're right, I saw the 10 x $350m figure you ended the post with and got mixed up. 2) and 3) are both laughable in my view.

Pointing out things to say in support of your argument is fine, constantly making positions for posters that they have neither said no indicated is s***. And something you seem to be hell bent on doing.

And yet that was with massive payrolls. Not exactly fitting with this narrative people are desperate to build about him being cheap.

Oh for Christ sakes, at least try and debate the issue in good faith. I said giving out 13 year contracts is a s*** idea. Which it almost always is. And I said this at the end of a post in which I gave several clear examples of why it isn't as easy as saying - "Oh we'll just manage the club correctly to take into account Mookie's contract which you too, obviously believe would be an albatross at this point as you're saying we'd need to manage it. So give it up with the 'you're the one trying to stop the conversation' when half your replies are useless shite about how people want Billionaires to be able to keep their money blah blah blah. You have added to my point - you can think you're making good decisions and they turn into bad ones. So there's no way we can say for sure 'we'll just manage the club to absorb the terrible part of Mookie's contract,' as we don't know what mistakes may be made in the future when it comes to that point. We won't stop trying to extend players and spend money, but this argument we can just manage the worst years is utter nonsense. Nobody sets out to make mistakes, they happen. And as you clearly agree, giving Mookie a massive contract to play until he's f***ing forty is obviously one. We're not going to stop making decisions and giving players contracts. That doesn't mean we have to commit to one we know will hammer us at the end. But you've said several times, you're not interested in logical thinking on this. He's your favourite player and you want him paid for as much and as long as it takes. So this is all fairly pointless as you'll find anything to say to back it up and/or move the goal posts. You've been doing it consistently since the news broke.

And winning which he does routinely with this club.

It only works to stop conversation, which I guess is your only aim. I suggest you read it again and maybe respond to what I posted rather than what you want to make it about.

Oh look your favourite response to anything that challenges your mindset - a non sequitur. What a shocker.

Except we don't live in a world of absolutes. There may be another superstar come through in the next few years and he'll need to be extended for huge money at some point. We may go 8 years without winning anything and the ownership will feel the need to go for another DD to halt the slide because the fans base absolutely WILL BE complaining. We could extend Devers/some other new stud long term and they could battle against injuries for years like Pedroia and end up being a sunken cost. There are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good while being handed out and/or in a position where we spend to compete but are still hamstrung by the contract to an aging player. There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team. Thirteen year contracts are just a s*** idea.

Like trading a legit superstar because we made the mistake of putting ourselves in a tough spot by giving massive contracts to players we shouldn't have?

Hopefully most people. I dunno, maybe stepping in and not allowing a girl to get pummelled for entertainment is possibly the best course of action? Jesus, Slasher.

It might suck? Paying a 38 to 40 year old $35m would be brutal.

I think only one person said he'd be a clear starter. He's a rotating bench piece, unless JJB gets traded for pitching.

Every time you propose a trade an angel dies.

The way people throw accusations around about people's lives without the full facts is nauseating. And some homophobia thrown in for good measure, too. Nauseating.

I'd make that trade.

I don't expect him to be traded, but if he were, for pitching. Take on a worse contract for a decent pitcher, on a team looking to save some cash.

I hope he finds the joy of the game in another player and keeps throwing that ball.

Do you really believe this to be true? That the only reason they traded Mookie was to get rid of half of Price?

Yeah I hear you, and I really understand why you feel the game you love is slipping away from you. For what it's worth, I think the ticket prices are a way too high, but I think JH knows this is an unpopular move but that he thinks it is one that will be beneficial to the Red Sox in the coming years. They can't run organisations like we see the game as fans. They need a long term look too, to see that the team is in a healthy position. It's in a healthier position now for the future, even if this season isn't. In the last year or so people posed the question in here - would you rather win a WS and then finish last a couple of years, to win it again the season after. A lot of people (and forgive me if I'm wrong but I think I remember you being one of them) said 'no they'd rather contend every year, because that's where the fun is'. I think this season might be a tough one (although I wouldn't be surprised to see us do well) but after that I think we are looking good to retool and compete for a long time, after the mistakes of some of the contracts given out the last few years. But yeah, we need a pitcher. I'm hoping we flip Wong with Chavis for one personally, but we will see. I don't really get why you keep bringing up this 'rich mans budget' thing. The team is run to a budget, not JH's personal wealth.

I know quite a few sportsmen in the UK who play football (soccer) at the highest level. The football players in particular find it astonishing players in US sports can just be moved city and team without the players consent. As I am sure most know, in the European set up within most sports, players have to agree to being moved to another club or they can stay exactly where they are until their contract runs down. I also once interviewed Brent Severyn who played for the Islanders/Ducks/Stars. We covered this, he couldn't believe there could be system where players had that much power. The differences between the set ups is vast and very interesting to someone like me who loves sports on both sides of the pond.

This is what it comes down to. I get the kids have their heroes and losing Mookie hurts (although I find it queasy to be polite, to see how some adults are acting over it all), but does anyone think Mookie really cares that much about some brokenhearted kid in New England? After the 2017 season when he only hit .264 and had the worst year of his young career, the Sox offered him 8 years at $200. He was only 25. He said no. He's only ever wanted to test free agency, and he's testing it to get the most money possible. All this 'baseball isn't a business to me' stuff is all well and good, but the man you are crying to be signed up no matter the cost, sees it as that - a business. And he's going to the team that shells out, no matter how many men/children are devastated by his decision. His loyalty is to his next contract. So let's not make it out like we traded away a guy desperate to stay and sign with the team he loves. He's going to follow the money.

You can't have it all ways though. People have been (rightly) saying that Henry gave too much away when he said we needed to be under the tax this year. Bloom's job is not to keep the fans updated. It's to do the best for the club. If he has to be vague or use misdirection, so be it.

Very happy with the trade. Far better deal than the original one. I now wonder if we can flip Wong and Chavis for a pitcher.

Me too, in the main. And yet somehow, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Yup, although, Rosenthal is questioning that and saying they aren't.