5GoldGlovesOF,75

Based on this logic, Boston should sign Mookie at $35 Million AAV asap, because his value will surely rise to $40 by next winter after he has another of his usual 7 WAR seasons in 2020...

Numbers really don't matter as most MLB clubs can afford to pay Mookie -- if they want to; the last franchise that sold was small-market Kansas City, for a billion dollars. Betts reportedly set his price at 420 for 12; that's 35 Mil per year. If top pitchers -- ballplayers who play every five or six days -- are worth $36 or 35 per (Cole, Strasburg) -- and Boston has already given Price and Sale over $30 per year -- then a top position player who performs every day is worth $35. Check market price; it's like King Crab legs on a menu.

Here it is, the thread some posters may be loathe to even look at... but that I certainly hope some folks on a forum called talksox would relish: Red Sox fans tonight finally have an inkling that Mookie Betts is considering remaining in a Boston uniform... if his price is met. While driving my eight-year old son to karate, we listened to Lou Merloni on WEEI. A source said the Red Sox offered Betts $300 million for 10 years, but that he'll probably have to be traded because Mookie countered with $420 million for 12. Without emotion, my son -- the diehard Red Sox fan -- said, "Then pay him 420." Debate was not an option. Numbers are irrelevant to fans who connect with their favorite players. Especially since the most important part of this news isn't about digits, but that a counteroffer from the Betts' camp has opened a door for Mookie to stay in Boston for the rest of his career. The Red Sox are a multi-billion dollar franchise owned by billionaires. They, as much as anyone in the industry, can afford the market value of one of the best players in the majors, and in franchise history (and certainly their best player since they've owned the club). For those who fear the horrors of committing so much to one player and are certain such a contract will hamstring our team for years, maybe a decade... I give you the Philadelphia Phillies. You may recall, the city of brotherly Santa-booing paid stupid money for Bryce Harper -- and a year later they have thrown another 150 million at three more over-30 guys: a pitcher who's never won more than 12 games in a season in his career, a shortstop coming off TJ surgery and an outfielder who missed half of '19. Merloni said Betts and Boston are $100 million apart. If the Red Sox reset by the end of 2020, they save that extra $100 million in luxury tax penalties alone. They can and should reset by trading a few high-priced players... but not their superstar Hall of Famer. The Sox need to reset so they can keep Mookie Betts.

It might be four players, if you believe Merloni's source, who says Mookie already turned down 30 and wants 40... But I agree with those who say it's both tricky and lucky to land so many guys in one offseason and hit on all of them at once; naturally, it's safer to splurge for the sure thing -- but even future HOFers don't usually play great for entire longterm contracts. I just can't agree with those who put number limits on AAVs, as in "he's worth X, but not worth Y". Whatever Betts signs for will establish the current market value for a player of his talents... unless he suffers an injury in before next winter.

I'd disagree about Bradley -- a lot of fans love watching him play center, and he's a good guy (signing for the kids, taking pics at Winter Weekend -- I know such appearances are nigh obligatory, but JBJ was really nice to all ages, when other players acted like they were getting root canals). Eovaldi is also a hero -- at least in my house -- as a Yankee-killer; even Price is more popular to some for three straight starts in '18... But obviously, most fans aren't as fanatical as us, who argue online all winter about strategies that no one with any real power will ever care about. Yes, we will still watch NESN after Betts is traded, but the average member in good standing of RS Nation at least needs an up-and-coming replacement like Verdugo to cheer for and not a mere Naylor. Can't you just hear them, the second someone stumbles around in right field... "We traded Mookie for this?!?" Click... off.

I get that deadline buyers-and-sellers are an annual part of the game these days, but I don't believe the Red Sox will ever clean house of brand favorites when this regime is on record of committing to winning every year. Good young players are the basis of sustaining a contender and guys fans can identify with and root for, a combination of what every franchise is always seeking.

I don't think so this year -- not if they trade Mookie before the season, which basically says we're giving up on the season. Once the s*** hits the fan, the fan will be washing hands seeking a clean break... if/when the new guys get back in contention, viewers will tune back in.

I just can't see this as feasible -- but can envision open fan revolt, as in all those revolted by such a scenario. And it won't just be noise.... if the Red Sox do a dump and get back crap (and these aren't puns), half the disgusted fans will tune out NESN as soon as the record sucks, which will only take about a month or so in.

Those Sox firesales in 2012 and 2014 came during last-place years. Yes, dumping players helped lead to doormat finishes -- but no one wants that... and not many expect Boston to have a losing record in '20. Even with all the injuries in '19, the Red Sox still had a winning team; it was just a major disappointment to most because of expectations after '18.

... not for those of us looking forward to this season.

Ha, true -- except a year ago everybody combined both mindsets. This year, they are polar opposites... like political parties- I mean, riots.

There seem to be two basic mindsets for Red Sox fans this winter: 1). assume that the most recent season is an indication of what will happen next -- and this is inherent in how most sports fans always view their teams (I blame it on football culture, trying to predict next Sunday based on last Sunday; such thinking is unavoidable, but doesn't apply the same way in every sport); 2). consider the assembled roster of core players, including their ages and body of work, and give them the benefit of the doubt that these above-average professionals know what they're doing. I choose to use the latter rationale, which I think -- and trust -- the Boston brass has, as well. Sure, this offseason has been defined by payroll limitations (whether imposed by MLB rules or self-imposed by the owners)... but it's not unreasonable if the front office has decided, "These are the stars we've invested in, now let's watch them perform when they have something to prove..."

So far SD stands for stupid deal. Does any poster here that's not a Yankee fan actually think keeping a Hall of Famer for at least one more year is worse than Michael Myers (oh, the horror), two #5 starters (from the NL, no less), a spare outfielder, an overweight hitter with no position (been there, cut that), and an A-ball suspect?

Dbacks are out; just traded for Marte. As if they had the goods to get Betts...

Ya, he keeps misspelling reSET; been doing it all winter. Wishful thinking, hoping a club coming off an offseason after a franchise record win total is going to blow it up and make it easier for a rival to maybe get back to its first World Series in over a decade.

Ah-choo. Here's the list of all the major leaguers from 1871 to 2019 who had 125 HRs, 125 SBs, .300 BA, .875 OPS, and less than 500 Ks (min. 3500 PA) in their first six seasons: Mookie Betts.

"I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that they trade Mookie between now and the deadline as we would all know the direction of the 2020 team that very instant. I suspect that is not an outcome the Sox brass is interested in. The Sox as a business outside of its standard fair hard assets lives off of the speculation by fans that their could be greatness in a particular edition of the team. Remove that speculation and a significant portion of the Sox fan base could just plain tune out for a year. That is an issue in this environment that includes so many entertainment options. Getting them back if they tune out for a year could be an problem." "jung, the buzz about Mookie being traded has really picked up hard the last few days...One thing I think we have already learned about Bloom is that the dude is patient." Jung and Bell, I want to agree with you both... this is the kind of unfamiliar, convoluted cold-stove season Sox fans have been dealing with all winter. One thing for sure: Bloom is the extreme opposite of Dombrowski (thus far). Another: if Mookie is dealt, there's no way they're moving JBJ to right, Beni to center and JD to anywhere in the outfield -- that would be weakening three positions instead of just one. I think I'll stay on this thread today; there's no way our unflappable new Chief Officer will fall for some of those salary-dump proposals on the Realistic thread... (like a straight swap a Yankee fan belched of Betts for Pollock -- ya, right; Yanks should throw in Judge for Kike Hernandez, and Billy Crystal for Will Smith).

I already agreed with that scenario, with the possibility of signing all three of Springer, Robbie Ray and Liam Hendricks instead... But the reality is that none of us know what teams can and can't afford, lux tax be damned; just look at the clubs that recently spent big bucks at market value -- and not just Yanks:Cole, Washington:Strasburg, Angels:Rendon... ...but Twins: Donaldson, Pineda, Bailey; Phils:Wheeler, Didi (and Harper); BJs:Ryu, Roark; Dbacks:MadBum; ChiSox:Grandal; Keuchel, Edwing; Atl:Ozuna, Hamels, Smith; SD:Machado; Col: Arenado; Cards:Goldy, etc.... Texas also made some big bids and is opening a new stadium (they once shocked the world on ARod), Atlanta only signing Ozuna for one year gives them options, Mets and LA are players, Cubs -- like Boston -- will have the resources if they lower payroll, SF needs a new cornerstone... A better question might be: who probably can't afford Betts? Tampa, KC, Cleveland, Oakland, Miami, Pittsburgh and Cincy? I'd add Baltimore, but not too long ago they overpaid for Chris Davis.

It's a fact that that's your opinion.

What fact: someone's opinion? While I agree that Moon's scenario would be ideal for fans who are pessimistic about Boston's chances this year, it is my opinion that once Mookie leaves, he's gone for good. I have never spoken to Betts personally, but history shows only a rare few guys out of hundreds of traded free agents that re-signed with their original clubs the next year. More importantly, he has never once said he would love to play his entire career in the balmy 30-degree April nights of New England, nor have I ever even seen him quoted that playing in front of a rabid fanbase of mostly full-houses on an annual contender is a priority. As for money, there have been big-time free agents, when choosing between the two highest bidders, who took the second-best offer because of personal preferences. Nobody really knows anything -- except Mookie, his family, his agents and maybe the Red Sox.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2020/01/26/discussions-are-evolving-mookie-betts-trade-talks-with-dodgers-padres/P5BDPvQWmknsMklY8YMK7K/story.html With this latest from Speier, I'm sensing things are getting serious. Thankfully (I guess) most of the names in play are -- gasp -- prospects that many keep insisting could never be swapped for one year of a Hall of Famer... At least Bloom waited until he had two rivals bidding against each other. No matter the return, when/if this goes down it will be a sad overall day for the Nation... and it's already sad that it ever had to come to this. People can keep spinning the narrative that it's all the fault of an ex-GM who spent large on other players -- with the blessing of his rich bosses -- but I'll never be convinced that when Betts is traded it isn't just because he didn't want to be here anymore.

The City Council of LA would love to blame those dastards from Houston and Boston, but Rendon and Soto say Hi.

But to one team -- because that's all it will take -- that one year could be THE YEAR when they commit to do anything and everything to win it all. And even some numbers guys here have said they'd sacrifice five years for a title or be happy with a championship every five years (I'm paraphrasing). What do you think is the percentage of Dodgers fans that would agree to those terms, after not having won since '88 and thinking they were robbed of two recent rings? This is my Sunday morning in a morbid offseason, debating trading Mookie Betts for three prospects who probably will never even earn a combined career WAR as high as his before he sprints to Cooperstown...

I was just going off Gammons' tweet from last night, when he quotes two NL execs speculating about Betts for "a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski)" Sox covet young pitching depth above all else, but would also need a player with at least star potential to replace the second-best outfielder in the MLB.

I'd hold out for Verdugo, and they can keep Pollock and Maeda. LA won't need Verdugo if they get Mookie Betts; they'll have a starting outfield of Betts, Bellinger and Pederson (avg. 37 HRs), with Pollock and Chris Taylor as decent back-ups. The Dodgers will also want to keep Maeda, their #4 starter last year, since they lost Ryu and Hill.