Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Bellhorn04]

Well, according to a few articles about him in the minors, there was a feeling around the league of "Why is this guy still here?"

But his chances died with the hiring of Dombrowski, who was never a fan, and reportedly left Castillo's pre-signing tryout commenting he was, direct quote here, "a fourth outfielder at best."

He never got a fulll chance, but i don't think you will ever find a single person who pities him for it. A lot of people will never get a chance to play in MLB, but he is the only one paid $72 million to not play in MLB...

His .761 OPS in the minors is not much to get excited about. I don't know much about his fielding. But it looks like DD was right about him being a 4th outfielder.

[notin]

His .761 OPS in the minors is not much to get excited about. I don't know much about his fielding. But it looks like DD was right about him being a 4th outfielder.

He might very well have been a 4th outfielder in MLB, but a 4th outfielder is still a major leaguer...

[mvp 78]

He might very well have been a 4th outfielder in MLB, but a 4th outfielder is still a major leaguer...

A 4th OFer on a large contract that is not great in a luxury cap era.

[notin]

A 4th OFer on a large contract that is not great in a luxury cap era.

And that is why he is where here is...

[Kimmi]

DD gave up an incredible number of bodies, no question.

It still remains to have a final accounting of the actual future baseball value he gave up.

Yes, it will take years before we know that. The overall value might amount to relatively little. However, we are feeling the impact of it right now.

[Maxbialystock]

Back to the OP and the question asked in the thread title. Mookie was traded because his salary was going to be--and now in fact is--prohibitively expensive for a Sox team with an already high payroll and weak pitching. He was/is unaffordable if the goal was/is to produce a winning team capable of a 5th WS in the John Henry era.

[Kimmi]

Ben can be responsible for signing Castillo, but the decisions that lead to keeping him in AAA seem to be a bit further reaching...

Yes, that's all I was talking about, the signing part.

[Kimmi]

It'll be interesting to see if he signs next year or just retires.

I think he'll sign somewhere. Maybe a one year contract to try to prove himself.

Maybe the Sox will re-sign him.

[Donnie Sadler was short]

I think he'll sign somewhere. Maybe a one year contract to try to prove himself.

Maybe the Sox will re-sign him.

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

[Kimmi]

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

Tough call. I can understand the desire to be a major leaguer. OTOH, that's an awful lot of guaranteed money to pass up.

[Bellhorn04]

Back to the OP and the question asked in the thread title. Mookie was traded because his salary was going to be--and now in fact is--prohibitively expensive for a Sox team with an already high payroll and weak pitching. He was/is unaffordable if the goal was/is to produce a winning team capable of a 5th WS in the John Henry era.

I disagree. I think it was the length and consequent risk of the contract that did it.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

I disagree. I think it was the length and consequent risk of the contract that did it.

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

[Kimmi]

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

1. If the going rate for stars in their prime is 10 years, the Sox should pass.

2. Henry will spend money. It doesn't have to be, nor should it be, a large amount for a monster contract. Not having a superstar on our team does not mean the team will be mediocre. A well balanced team that is above average to strong at every position will give you a better chance than a team with a superstar at one position and below average at several other positions.

[notin]

I was surprised he didnt opt out after last year..yeah I know it was several million dollars but he had already made more than he could ever spend & if he opted out it wouldve shown that he had the fire to be a major leaguer.

Maybe money was more important to him than being major leaguer. If all he wanted was to play baseball, he was still doing that in Pawtucket...

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not discounting this possibility, but if this is true, it does not bode well for Red Sox fans because it means that ownership is suddenly abstaining from the market for superstars. Mookie never established the market for length and risk -- nor did the Dodgers -- MLB owners did that on their own, bidding against themselves for the likes of ARod, Miggie, Stanton, Harper, Machado, Trout, Cole etc. ad infinitum.

There's been talk on the forum lately that the Sox won't or shouldn't spend big again on free agents until Boston is back in contention and targets one or two pieces that can boost the club to the next level. What then? If the going rates for stars in their prime are 10-year contracts, will the Sox balk instead and allow rivals to nab all the best talent?

This is where the adage comes in the form of a question... we know all big market franchises can afford to stay competitive if they so chose, but can Boston afford the price of mediocrity?

All I can really say is I'm confident that as long as Henry & Werner own the team, we will have one of the highest payrolls and we will not have mediocrity as a goal.