5GoldGlovesOF,75

Bloom has to win any Betts trade or it's no deal. We might as well shut down the simulator, because Bloom has to get a prospect haul; it's the first year of the most important job of his life, and this transaction could very well define his career going forward. I read where someone said Verdugo for Betts is equal, because it's five years of Verdugo for one of Betts. It is unfathomable to me that any Red Sox fan truly believes that. One year living in the penthouse isn't the same as five in a treehouse -- even if the latter has the potential to have a roof installed, then shingled and insulated, and maybe even get electricity and plumbing some day. I like Verdugo, but what is his ceiling? Is it even Benintendi (who was once the MLB's NUMBER ONE prospect)? I know Betts could become McCutcheon, but based on his consistent accomplishments he could also continue on his Mays-Aaron trajectory. With Verdguo, all we've got now is to hope he's Josh Reddick and hope he's not Ryan Kalish...

$35 Mil AAV for an MLB star isn't outrageous at all in the current market -- not after what two guys just signed for: a pitcher making $36 and a third baseman who's not as good as Betts making $35... Fans have to have perspective -- no matter how much annual income their entire household brings in (as well as maybe their entire neighborhoods, villages, provinces and nearby third-world countries). We don't know which team will give Mookie the most years, but we should assume that all would have to concede he's worth $35 Mil per NOW... and barring injury, that number will only go up by next winter.

Those four. Though Kike and Taylor are Holt-type guys, which means Bloom-type guys...

Again -- begrudgingly. As a fan in 2020, I hate the idea of giving up on 2020, especially before it even begins. Maybe the Sox and Mook have a secret arrangement -- which is highly doubtful, but makes one wonder how many tacit deals are agreed upon with players, agents, tamperers etc. that are never leaked to the press...

Buster Onley tweeted his hypothetical Dodgers lineup if they get Betts. It's notable that Verdugo is not in it: ... for conspiracy theorists (and I'm gullible), the crappy SD rumors could be a way of setting fans up for begrudging acceptance of a better return from LA -- that we demand Bloom holds out for: "Well, at least we got Verdugo instead of Myers." But any Betts trade will suck for 2020 because the Red Sox won't have Mookie...

I don't -- I started the Pay Mookie! thread... but when Buster Onley was asked to rank whether LA winds up with Betts -- from 1 to 10 -- he said, "8.5". Substitute Gray for Wong; we really need pitching with promise.

I'd think LA would want to pair 25-year-old Seager at short with the rookie Lux at second. Betts would obviously make Pederson or Verdugo expendable, but Joc's one I've always wanted to keep out of Fenway. Verdugo and pitching prospects please... whelm me.

Dewey, thanks for the reply, and elaborations. Since all these Red Sox offers to Betts always seem to leak after the fact, one has to wonder if he would even agree to meet in the middle at this point. Most likely, and appropriately so, he only signs an extension before hitting the open market if the Sox meet his overpay proposal. As for my son, he is experienced in negotiations with his mother on extending screen times, delaying bath times, sleep times and chores, and when to start homework. But it will be impossible to explain to him the luxury tax and how a wealthy team that can afford to pay Mookie would choose to trade him instead. I hope somebody from the Boston brass reads these forums before it's too late -- there's a lot of competition for kids' attention and spare time these days, and alienating youth that still love baseball by taking their favorite players away from them could disillusion potential lifelong fans...

Good post, notin, but if some of us lived in So. Cal instead of the Northeast and rooted for the Angels, I don't think we'd have as much time to implore the GM to import a rotation worthy of postseason contention. It just takes too long for old guys to get up off the pavement, from stumbling after roller-blading blondes in hot pants, who were actually waving to someone else.

MLB.com posted another Betts-to-SD no-date; I won't call it an update, because it says nothing new. The return continues to be... unpalatable. Not even whelmed. Paraphrasing now: "You won't like Bloom's trade acquisitions right away, but in the end you'll learn to hate them."

But... nobody is worth that much to play baseball!

I'll say this again (per baseball-ref): Mays 170 pounds. Clemente 175 pounds. Aaron 180 pounds... Mookie Betts 180 pounds.

Maybe the issue isn't really whether Boston can afford Betts and quality teammates -- for the duration of a longterm contract -- but that the rich businessmen who bought the Sox just can't stomach losing money on the MLB's tax penalties. Just because billionaires can take the hit doesn't mean it still doesn't rankle their very nature. As for the Angels, I understand discussing parallels with the Trout extension, but maybe his club isn't under quite the constant pressure and scrutiny as the baseball fanbase in New England. Don't Angels fans leave no-hitters in progress to beat the traffic? Is it possible that the Angels even have 20 or so fans rabid enough to type about their team on forums all winter... or are there only a couple devotees so lonely they have to go start trouble on Dodger forums? How many here think Trout will finish his entire contract in Anaheim?

Not even close; what Dodger greats are they losing? They overpaid to extend Kershaw.

I get it, Hitch, and I'm glad I'm not Bloom trying to fit holes into squares. But that's his job and he's pretty good at it or Henry and Co. wouldn't have hired him. The way it stands now, it's reset every third year, but in between the Sox will splurge to stay as competitive as possible.

The reality is that top players command longterm contracts. Harper 13 years, Trout 12, Machado 10 years, Cole 9 years, etc. Teams that refuse to give great players the years won't get great players... or will continue to lose great players when they reach free agency... like small-market franchises.

Ixnay, edRay oxSay

Thanks for the support. I've seen bad spending over and over on free agents since free agency started in the mid-70s. If a club isn't going to invest on its best homegrown player about to enter his prime, already with stats on a Hall of Fame trajectory, then who? Acuna or Soto in five years? Maybe, but first let's see them each earn 40 WAR in a half decade like Mookie just did. Meanwhile, the Red Sox can try to patch together three or four players who won't even add up to one Betts.

It still makes sense that Mookie's camp would open negotiations asking for Trout money; his stats and accomplishments, while not as all-time lofty, are at least comparable in the realm of runner-up. And if Betts has another great year, and salaries continue to trend up, then market values will get closer when he finally does sign. This is why it seems inevitable Boston is going to trade Mookie -- if they're not going to meet his price now, why would anyone think they're going to pay him more in a year?

We all know Boston can afford Mookie -- Kennedy said there is a way to keep both Betts and JD -- and one way to do that is to reset. The latter should be Bloom's goal by the end of the season, either way. We know some people are repulsed by the dollars; it's always been like that and always will be: "$100,000?!?! A million?!!! Ten million? A hundred mil?! Billion, trillion, kajillion..." We can also predict the current Boston ownership isn't suddenly going to start spending like a mid-market team... but here's the problem for those who want Mookie traded: as soon as the Red Sox begin to lose games and fans, they'll feel compelled to "make a splash" -- and instead of spending to keep a homegrown future Hall of Famer, we'll soon have another Carl Crawford or Panda Sandoval to boo. Bank on it.

Forget what he's asking for a second -- and just compare Betts to a starting pitcher who only plays every five days... or to a third baseman who has averaged 3.9 WAR in seven seasons. (Betts has averaged 7 WAR through six). Don't you think Mookie is worth more than Price and Sale, who will make $32 Mil and $30 Mil this year? Isn't Betts worth at least as much as Rendon, who just signed for $35 AAV? Mookie is asking for fair market value. He's earned it, he deserves it, and he will get it from someone...

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.