Register now to remove this ad

Page 75 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,125 of 1787

Thread: Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

  1. #1111
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbialystock View Post
    The best explanation I can think of for these humoungous salaries is some combination of butts in seats and TV ratings.

    That said, however, the LA Angels, who have been consistently lousy on the field, have regularly drawn 3M+ in attendance, even before Mike Trout arrived in 2011. Less surprising is that the Dodgers have always drawn well and usually lead MLB with 4M annual attendance. They did not need Mookie for attendance purposes.

    So too the Sox with the 2d smallest ballpark in MLB. In the early years of John Henry's reign, they were always "sold out" and drew 3M a year. Since 2009 or so when the Sox finally admittedly they were padding the attendance numbers. the worst they have done is 2.8M+ and that includes when they were dead last in the AL East. Thus John Henry probably didn't need Mookie to maintain attendance.

    The Phillies, on the other hand, might have been smart to pick up Bryce Harper because attendance jumped a lot from 2018 to 2019. Without Harper in 2018 it was 2.158M. With Harper it was 2.727M in 2019.

    And the reverse happened to the Washington Nationals, whose attendance before Bryce Harper's rookie season was 1.9M and thereafter was around 2.4 to 2.5M. After they lost him, their attendance dropped from 2.53 M in 2018 to 2.26M in 2019 even though 2019 was the year they won the World Series.

    I think the idea of Bryce Harper, especially given his first full season in MLB (2012) was at age 19, is far greater than the actual performance on the field. He's had two good years out of eight (excluding 2020 and 2021): his rookie year, 2012, when his WAR was 5.2, and three years later when he was the NL MVP with a 9.7 WAR. In the other six years his WAR's were 3.7, 1.0, 1.5, 4.8, 1.8, and 4.5. For that 1.8 WAR in 2018 (in which he played 159 games) he was paid $21.6M. As soon as he left (2019), the Nationals won it all, so his "production" wasn't missed, but the idea of him was.
    I love the idea of the idea! Fans always welcome a few ideas in Boston -- not as incentives to attend a Fenway game or two each summer, but to watch or listen to a hundred or more every six months out of a year.

  2. #1112
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    It's probably fair to say that the Dodgers figured they had a shot at keeping him and that was an extra inducement in the deal.

    And the Red Sox should have been aware of this, needless to say.
    I’m sure Friedman was thinking extension and fairly confident in getting it done. Otherwise why include Verdugo?

    Bloom might have suspected this, but Friedman certainly never tipped his hand.

    But what other teams were even involved in rumors? At the time it looked like the Sox only shot at keeping Betts was to deal him, reset, and hope it all worked out...

  3. #1113
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    I’m sure Friedman was thinking extension and fairly confident in getting it done. Otherwise why include Verdugo?

    Bloom might have suspected this, but Friedman certainly never tipped his hand.

    But what other teams were even involved in rumors? At the time it looked like the Sox only shot at keeping Betts was to deal him, reset, and hope it all worked out...
    San Diego was the other team that was rumored to be talking to the Sox about Betts.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  4. #1114
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    San Diego was the other team that was rumored to be talking to the Sox about Betts.
    And given how their off-season went, they also would have very possibly extended him. No team looked more prime to spend then the Padres, since they had an elite farm of cheap players to fill the gaps and their GM was under the gun to produce a winner, per the owner.

    Of the two, the Dodgers might have been the least likely, given that they had other potential mega deals coming up in the immediate future, primarily that of Cody Bellinger. (The Padres had Tatis, but there was no rush to lock him up just yet since he hasm't even reached arbitration.)

    So if the sox kept him last year, he would have gone elsewhere via free agency since the Sox would probably not be able to afford him unless they cleared massive salaries elsewhere (Bogaerts and ?) And if they dealt him, the only two teams showing interest were both primed with cash to spend on an extension. So - who offers the best package? And was San Diego still trying to pawn off Myers as part of that deal? Plus not willing to take Price?

  5. #1115
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    So if the sox kept him last year, he would have gone elsewhere via free agency since the Sox would probably not be able to afford him unless they cleared massive salaries elsewhere (Bogaerts and ?)
    "Couldn't afford him" will always be a questionable concept IMO
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  6. #1116
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    "Couldn't afford him" will always be a questionable concept IMO
    Very true, but clearly one main objective was to reset the tax and maybe even stay near the line for a year or two afterwards. Had we extended or re-signed Betts and kept the same budget restraints in place, it would mean going with in system or very inexpensive players at several other positions over the next 10 years.

    Now, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We've had a very large contract on the books pretty consistently, or at least 2-3 players over $20M/yr for many years since Henry's arrival.

    Look how Price's contract became a hindrance by just year 3 or 4 out of just 7.

    Clearly the Sox could "afford" Betts, but at what cost to the rest of the roster construction going forward? I think the Sox made the choice that having Betts was not worth having Verdugo, Downs, Wong and the money from not signing Betts to spend on several free agents and/or extensions.

    I do wonder when and if we'll ever sign anybody to a 7 or more year contract- maybe if they are 26 or 27 years old.
    Sox 4 Ever

  7. #1117
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,715
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Very true, but clearly one main objective was to reset the tax and maybe even stay near the line for a year or two afterwards. Had we extended or re-signed Betts and kept the same budget restraints in place, it would mean going with in system or very inexpensive players at several other positions over the next 10 years.

    Now, that doesn't mean it can't be done. We've had a very large contract on the books pretty consistently, or at least 2-3 players over $20M/yr for many years since Henry's arrival.

    Look how Price's contract became a hindrance by just year 3 or 4 out of just 7.

    Clearly the Sox could "afford" Betts, but at what cost to the rest of the roster construction going forward? I think the Sox made the choice that having Betts was not worth having Verdugo, Downs, Wong and the money from not signing Betts to spend on several free agents and/or extensions.

    I do wonder when and if we'll ever sign anybody to a 7 or more year contract- maybe if they are 26 or 27 years old.
    I fully expect Betts to have several additional years of good performance, barring injuries. He is getting paid more than $30 million a year and should produce. The risk is high that he will either get injured or will decline after 5 years, but his salary will remain.

  8. #1118
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by oldtimer View Post
    I fully expect Betts to have several additional years of good performance, barring injuries. He is getting paid more than $30 million a year and should produce. The risk is high that he will either get injured or will decline after 5 years, but his salary will remain.
    Agreed, but he may play good enough for 6-7 years to nearly reach the value of his contract, and the decline will not matter.
    Sox 4 Ever

  9. #1119
    Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,715
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Agreed, but he may play good enough for 6-7 years to nearly reach the value of his contract, and the decline will not matter.
    Thats the risk a team has to accept to sign a guy for such a long contract. I hope I live long enough to see his contract through.

  10. #1120
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    So if he did get to free agency you think he would have eliminated the Red Sox from the bidding?

    If Mookie was the hard cold businessman we think, that would not be smart business.

    But it's all speculation and a moot point either way.
    Mookie would not have eliminated the Sox, but IMO, the Sox would have had to been the highest bidder by a fair amount. I don't think that was happening, otherwise they wouldn't have let him go in the first place. So maybe the Sox did take into consideration that the Dodgers would extend him.

  11. #1121
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    Mookie would not have eliminated the Sox, but IMO, the Sox would have had to been the highest bidder by a fair amount. I don't think that was happening, otherwise they wouldn't have let him go in the first place. So maybe the Sox did take into consideration that the Dodgers would extend him.
    I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

    We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

    As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.
    Sox 4 Ever

  12. #1122
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

    We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

    As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.
    Completely agree Moon.

  13. #1123
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    This is the first year of Mookie's extension.

    He's been struggling lately.

    He missed some games with lower back stiffness. Then he got hit in the right forearm by a pitch.

    12 year contracts are risky business.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  14. #1124
    I'm not sure it matters. I think the Sox knew they were not going to sign him had he reached free agency, either.

    We got Verdugo, Downs, Wong and a mess of money saved for 60 games of Betts.

    As much as I wanted Betts, here- maybe more than anybody else, that's a winning deal.
    This is the first year of Mookie's extension.

    He's been struggling lately.

    He missed some games with lower back stiffness. Then he got hit in the right forearm by a pitch.

    12 year contracts are risky business.
    I liked the Betts trade from the start. You offer the guy 300 m, as the Red Sox did, and that wasn't good enough for him. You don't want players like that on your team.

  15. #1125
    Quote Originally Posted by Fan_since_Boggs View Post
    I liked the Betts trade from the start. You offer the guy 300 m, as the Red Sox did, and that wasn't good enough for him. You don't want players like that on your team.
    Actually, players who are offered 300 million are EXACTLY the players you want on your team.
    "Fans have become more entitled than anything. So they're starting to question our motives for the game, or how we approach the game. The ones that do question -- like who are you? Just shut up and watch the game tonight." --Kevin Durant on players' lack of effort in regular season games.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •