Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Red Sox exec Chaim Bloom says team will be competitive in 2020 without Mookie Betts

The Mookie Betts trade is finally, no-backsies official after a week of protracted negotiations.

The former MVP will join the Los Angeles Dodgers, who have solidified their place as the superpower of the National League in 2020. The Boston Red Sox will receive young outfielder Alex Verdugo, shortstop prospect Jeter Downs and catching prospect Connor Wong, then ... hope for the best in 2020.

Trading players like Betts and high-priced starting pitcher David Price while getting just one major leaguer in return usually comes with the expectation that the team will be worse the next year, but Red Sox chief baseball officer Chaim Bloom said Monday he expects the team to at least be competitive.

Bloom somewhat clarified his proclamation in a statement tweeted by the Red Sox, saying “we fully expect to compete for the postseason in 2020.”

Well, it’s not like he’d last long if he were honest…..

 

QLE Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:41 AM | 173 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bullshit, chaim bloom, mookie betts

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Walt Davis Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:12 AM (#5923371)
It's spring, all things are possible.

It's not 100% absurd -- it's not a worse-looking team than the Twins this time last year (he says without looking) and I didn't give them much more chance against Cle than I do the current Sox against the Yanks. And Cle, Angels, Rays, White Sox, A's, Astros aren't super-scary competition for the WC spots. JDM and hopefully Devers are still big bats, the OF defense should still be quite good, who knows what they were gonna get out of Price -- it will still take plenty of luck but ho-hum teams make the playoffs all the time.
   2. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 04:28 AM (#5923378)
They went from a team that was fundamentally still the same one that won 108 games and the World Series, the year before, to one that has a chance to be "competitive." Fucking yay.

It's inexcusable. They are not interested in winning, so I am not interested in watching. The freaking Marlins would be ashamed of bulling this bullshit. And I for one am going to pay as much attention to the team, as I pay the Marlins. I genuinely hope other people also cancel any subscriptions, refuse to buy tickets or merchandise, or stop however else they make money off your ass. Maybe if enough people do that, they might actually figure out how disgraceful this was. Maybe. I am not holding my breath.

Nobody should listen to their bullshit excuses and justifications. There aren't any. Seriously, this team can go fuck itself. ###########
   3. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 11, 2020 at 07:27 AM (#5923383)
Take it up with MLB. They wanted a salary cap and they got it. I find it amazing that sabermetric fans of a team would rather lock into a $400 million contract with a player that take him well into his 30s. Let some other team do that. You got most of his best years. So often it happens that the franchise icon turns into the punchline albatross. Indeed, that didn't used to matter to a team like the Red Sox. They would just outspend it. And fans got used to that. But with the draft penalties that make the luxury tax a salary cap, it does matter to them, and if I was a fan I'd be pleased about them refusing to get caught in that trap. I certainly hope that the penalty is removed in the next CBA, but right now it's there.
   4. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 07:50 AM (#5923385)
Betts wasn't costing the Red Sox $400 million this season. He was already under contract.
   5. Ron J Posted: February 11, 2020 at 08:03 AM (#5923387)
#4 You're kind of talking past each other. Specifically for the 2020 season, yes he was under contract. What #3 is talking about is the moves required to keep Betts in the fold in 2021 and beyond. And he's right that the contract that would turn the trick is a potential albatross contract. And that's before considering the cap ramifications.

Don't get me wrong. I feel for any Red Sox fan. And the whole situation bugs me too.

Having brooded on the way people are reacting, maybe the issue is that Betts is home grown talent. Somehow that seems to matter.
   6. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 08:47 AM (#5923392)
There are several issues here.

1) The Red Sox were never in any danger of facing draft penalties for 2020. That's entirely a Red Herring.

2) Being homegrown matters. This is a generational talent, that a team like the Red Sox should be willing to go all out for, to try and make a Red Sox player for life.
But it matters even more that he is Mookie fucking Betts. He is the second best, and probably most fun player in the league right now. He is a joy to watch, he is entertaining, and also has a charming personality and - unlike me - is a ray of ####### sunshine, that brightens the life of everybody around him, or even just following him from afar.

3) Even if you think signing him to ~400m is likely to be an albatross, that does not justify punting a team that was projected for mid-90s wins, and a solid chance at winning a WS. A team that is essentially the same as the 108 win WS winning from a season prior. It does not mean you have to trade him for a couple of low ceiling prospects, who even if they work out, are the kind of pieces you can fill through a variety of other ways.

4) The kind of logic of saying you should not pay Betts, basically means you don't end up paying anyone ever. For a team like the Red Sox, that is completely unacceptable. If you are not going to spend on Betts, WHO are you going to spend on? He is by any measure the second best player in MLB, since he made his debut. The only guy who you would take over him, is on a legit track for GOAT contender.
It is true that many mega deal contracts turn into albatrosses. But signing players of Betts quality in their 20s, almost never turns out poorly. Giving large contracts to the likes of ARod, is virtually never a problem (even though cheap ass teams like the Texans and Red Sox might like you to think it is). Those pay for themselves, easily enough.
The solution is to be smarter about signing large contracts, not never signing anyone ever at all. I have panned many, many mega contracts, and will continue to do so in the future. But nobody is panning the Trout signing. Because it is a bargain.
   7. Ron J Posted: February 11, 2020 at 08:53 AM (#5923394)
#6 And if there was an option to sign Betts to anything like the Trout contract they'd have been idiots not to jump. Best we can tell that's never been out there. Though I do think that the Red Sox gave up early.

Personally I'm on the page of, keep him, negotiate and decide after 2020. But that ship has sailed sadly.

And I'm also with you on everything you say in point 2.
   8. Zonk is UP-playing! Posted: February 11, 2020 at 09:03 AM (#5923395)
Or keep him till July... if the team's fortunes aren't looking so hot - seems to me the market for Betts gets bigger, not smaller.

If nothing else, the chances are you have more than just the Dodgers bidding - who knows what team finds itself a surprising contender and rolls the dice for a premier lineup anchor?

There isn't a team in baseball that finds itself a contender that couldn't find salary space for him.

Of course, the Red Sox were clearly more interested in Price salary relief than anything else...
   9. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 11, 2020 at 09:42 AM (#5923405)
Eh, I think Mookie is a little overrated at this point. Like Bryce Harper, he won his MVP because he had a season that was well above his offensive norms, and for his career his OPS+ isn't any better than people like, well, Bryce Harper. (Mookie's also older than Harper, believe it or not, although by only nine days.)

His WAR numbers are propped up by defensive numbers that would have you believe he's a significantly better defensive right fielder than Roberto Clemente. It will be interesting to see if they change much moving into a more normal configuration like Dodger Stadium, as opposed to the unusual outfield in Fenway.

He's a great player, and the Sox were fools to dump him, but he's a long way from being Mike Trout, and I'd say he's in the conversation for the No. 2 player in the game, rather than the obvious choice.
   10. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 11, 2020 at 09:42 AM (#5923406)
It seems ridiculous to say but from a projection standpoint I think losing Price might hurt more than losing Mookie. Verdugo is a pretty good player and if he can perform the offense should still be very good. The pitching staff was already a bit thin with Price, taking him out is a big loss. I suspect the drop off from Price to ??? potentially Is a bigger loss in pure WAR. On top of that pitching has a cascade effect. A healthy and effective Price eats some innings. Now the Sox are likely going with openers which is going to wear down the bullpen quicker.
   11. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 09:42 AM (#5923407)
The Sox look like a high variability team to me. They still have good frontline talent in Bogaerts, Devers, JDM, Sale, although Sale is a big unknown I gather. Vazquez and JBJ are reliably averagish. The supporting players are sketchy though - Chavis, Moreland, Perez, Eovaldi and so on. This team could win 95 games or 75 games.

Fangraphs still ranks them as the 6th best team, in a jumble with the Mets, Rays, Nationals and A's. Behind them there's another group with the Braves, Indians, Cubs and Angels. But some seemingly solid teams lurk behind all of them, like the White Sox, the Brewers, the Cardinals, the Phillies.

I'd say that the Astros, Yankees and Dodgers tower above the rest of the league, and then there's a very big group of about 16 teams that can hope to be competitive. The Sox are one of them. They were probably gonna be one of them even with Betts and Price.
   12. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5923412)
Eh, I think Mookie is a little overrated at this point. Like Bryce Harper, he won his MVP because he had a season that was well above his offensive norms, and for his career his OPS+ isn't any better than people like, well, Bryce Harper. (Mookie's also older than Harper, believe it or not, although by only nine days.)

We just did this last week in another thread and it's still mostly wrong. Over the last 3 years he's been around the 10-12th best HITTER in baseball; over the last 2 seasons it's more like best 3-5. Just as a hitter. He's great, not remotely overrated.
   13. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:02 AM (#5923414)
Take it up with MLB. They wanted a salary cap and they got it. I find it amazing that sabermetric fans of a team would rather lock into a $400 million contract with a player that take him well into his 30s. Let some other team do that. You got most of his best years. So often it happens that the franchise icon turns into the punchline albatross. Indeed, that didn't used to matter to a team like the Red Sox. They would just outspend it. And fans got used to that. But with the draft penalties that make the luxury tax a salary cap, it does matter to them, and if I was a fan I'd be pleased about them refusing to get caught in that trap. I certainly hope that the penalty is removed in the next CBA, but right now it's there.


The ultimate virtual GM take.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the Red Sox will be really good this year without Mookie-the Red Sox will have worse talent overall, but we all know that this can be overcome by randomness/a couple of players popping or developing. Yes, there is a very good financial argument for dumping Betts, and a semi-defensible baseball argument, if you squint a little bit and project a lot of good Chaim Bloom moves into the future. And it goes without saying that a team must make its share of cynical personnel decisions in running a team. But when a team dumps a player as (a) great, (b) young, (c) beloved and (d) high character, as Mookie Betts, and that team is as disgustingly rich and profitable as the Red Sox...its such a nakedly cynical move, such an enormous #### you to their fans, its the rare occasion when you can squander years of goodwill in a day.

Having Mookie Betts be a Red Sox for life is of enormous value to your fans, far greater than marginally better positioning (again, debatable and highly contingent) for a couple of future playoff runs that may not even materialize.

Of course, virtual GMs everywhere, forever worried about some billionaire's bottom line and imaginary draft penalties, will continue to find ways to defend this deal.

   14. Greg Pope Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM (#5923415)
I assume that Red Sox fans expressed similar angst over the Montreal Expos trading their practically-homegrown, future-hall-of-fame, one-year-away-from-free-agency starting pitcher in 1998.
   15. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:07 AM (#5923417)
I assume that Red Sox fans expressed similar angst over the Montreal Expos trading their practically-homegrown, future-hall-of-fame, one-year-away-from-free-agency starting pitcher in 1998.

Yes because clearly the 98 Expos and 2020 Red Sox are in similar competitive and financial positions, so this really is a great burn.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5923418)
The ultimate virtual GM take.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the Red Sox will be really good this year without Mookie-the Red Sox will have worse talent overall, but we all know that this can be overcome by randomness/a couple of players popping or developing. Yes, there is a very good financial argument for dumping Betts, and a semi-defensible baseball argument, if you squint a little bit and project a lot of good Chaim Bloom moves into the future. And it goes without saying that a team must make its share of cynical personnel decisions in running a team. But when a team dumps a player as (a) great, (b) young, (c) beloved and (d) high character, as Mookie Betts, and that team is as disgustingly rich and profitable as the Red Sox...its such a nakedly cynical move, such an enormous #### you to their fans, its the rare occasion when you can squander years of goodwill in a day.

Having Mookie Betts be a Red Sox for life is of enormous value to your fans, far greater than marginally better positioning (again, debatable and highly contingent) for a couple of future playoff runs that may not even materialize.

Of course, virtual GMs everywhere, forever worried about some billionaire's bottom line and imaginary draft penalties, will continue to find ways to defend this deal.


This 100%.
   17. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5923419)
I assume that Red Sox fans expressed similar angst over the Montreal Expos trading their practically-homegrown, future-hall-of-fame, one-year-away-from-free-agency starting pitcher in 1998.


No, we also don't have the same reaction when a Yankee gets hurt as we do when Pedroia goes down again, or if a Jays pitcher starts shitting the bed compared with our starting pitcher going all Porcello on us, or if the Rays top prospect flames out, rather than our top pick. We're very different from most fans in that we care about what happens to our team and not as much about the fate of the other teams.

Actually, I think it sucks for all teams (except the Yanks) when they ship away their homegrown talent rather than hold onto them.

   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:09 AM (#5923420)
I assume that Red Sox fans expressed similar angst over the Montreal Expos trading their practically-homegrown, future-hall-of-fame, one-year-away-from-free-agency starting pitcher in 1998.

You really don't see the difference between one of richest three teams in MLB doing this vs. a team that couldn't even get its games broadcast in English?
   19. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:10 AM (#5923421)
I was mocking that point, snapper! Give me some credit.
   20. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:10 AM (#5923422)
His WAR numbers are propped up by defensive numbers that would have you believe he's a significantly better defensive right fielder than Roberto Clemente.

That's comparing apples and oranges. The Clemente numbers are not based on play-by-play metrics. They are much coarser estimates, and contain much more uncertainty. And as a result are also much more heavily regressed.

The Clemente numbers are the ones that should be viewed as far more suspect than the Betts numbers (as should defensive numbers of everyone in the pre-pbp data era, and early pbp data should be viewed with more caution than present day data, as methods have improved). But you shouldn't let the imperfect data and inherent uncertainty of the past, influence your opinion of modern day players that we are evaluating with much more accurate data and tools.
   21. Nasty Nate Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:13 AM (#5923423)
I don't know if Greg Pope is referring to this phenomenon, but I have found it slightly off-putting when I see the sentiment that it is somehow worse that the Sox have done this rather than when other teams do similar things.

To counter a partially-made-of-straw argument, I don't think the Sox are entitled to keep all their hometown stars forever just because they are the Sox.
   22. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5923428)
I assume that Red Sox fans expressed similar angst over the Montreal Expos trading their practically-homegrown, future-hall-of-fame, one-year-away-from-free-agency starting pitcher in 1998.

Who here is blaming the Dodgers? I credit them for taking advantage of the situation. It's not their fault that the Red Sox are trying hard to make the Marlins not be the laughingstock of the league anymore. I understand why their fans are ecstatic about getting Betts. As Red Sox fans were ecstatic about landing Pedro.
   23. Ron J Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:15 AM (#5923429)
#14 I think it bothers Red Sox fans a great deal more than it bothered Montreal fans. First of all the precedent had been set. Hell, they only got Pedro in the first place in an early salary dump (and as it was one of the first, there was actually more hand wringing about dumping Deshields than Pedro). Plus the talent pipeline still seemed … OK at that point. Not as deep as it had been a few years earlier of course but still.

There is the expectation of very loose financial constraints for Red Sox fans. Montreal fans kind of accepted that they had to accept dealing off top level talent every year. (And yes, it was anti-marketing with predictable revenue impact. Montreal ownership [even before Lauria] wanted a zero risk profit and actually paid a bonus to management for not creating situations that required a cash call.)
   24. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:16 AM (#5923430)
I don't know if Greg Pope is referring to this phenomenon, but I have found it slightly off-putting when I see the sentiment that it is somehow worse that the Sox have done this rather than when other teams do similar things.

I don't think I've seen this, but my stance is it's less understandable/defensible for rich teams to do it, and more understandable when small market teams decide they're priced out of a star.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:17 AM (#5923431)
I was mocking that point, snapper! Give me some credit.

Sorry, snagged the wrong quote! Fixed now.

And a Coke to you!
   26. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM (#5923432)
I don't know if Greg Pope is referring to this phenomenon, but I have found it slightly off-putting when I see the sentiment that it is somehow worse that the Sox have done this rather than when other teams do similar things.

To counter a partially-made-of-straw argument, I don't think the Sox are entitled to keep all their hometown stars forever just because they are the Sox.

It doesn't suck any more or less for the fans of any team. But it is far less justifiable for the Sox to let it happen, because they clearly have the resources.

It also sucks in particular for this Sox team to be so shameless, because they were in fact positioned to make a credible run at a WS. And are now at very best fringe contenders. It's worse when a 95 win talent team decides they need to cheap their way out of contention, than when a 75 win team punts a season. This isn't a terrible Sox team packaging AGon to get off Crawford and Beckett, which was objectively a great move, for a team that was out of contention, and needed to reset.
   27. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM (#5923433)
To counter a partially-made-of-straw argument, I don't think the Sox are entitled to keep all their hometown stars forever just because they are the Sox.


If Mookie played out 2020 and left for greener pastures, I'd wish him nothing but the best, and wouldn't hold it against the club (even if they didn't make an offer as high as I'd be willing to go).

But voluntary shipping out the player with the greatest combination of skill and likability that the team has developed in generations before they had to just pisses me off. I assume I'd feel the same way if I were a fan of the Rays instead of the Sox (though I suppose it might be a little more understandable if I were a fan of the Rays, given the legitimate restrictions to team building they operate under).
   28. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:20 AM (#5923436)
I don't think I've seen this, but my stance is it's less understandable/defensible for rich teams to do it, and more understandable when small market teams decide they're priced out of a star.


That may be, but it's also far worse for the fans when a team that has yet to win anything and is struggling to be competitive loses its biggest star, as opposed to a well-run, consistent contender with a recent World Championship in its back pocket.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:24 AM (#5923438)
That may be, but it's also far worse for the fans when a team that has yet to win anything and is struggling to be competitive loses its biggest star, as opposed to a well-run, consistent contender with a recent World Championship in its back pocket.

Not if the team can't pay the guy, as opposed to won't pay the guy. If the team legit can't afford a player, there's no one to blame. But if ownership just decides to be cheap, there are definitely people to blame.
   30. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:25 AM (#5923439)
That may be, but it's also far worse for the fans when a team that has yet to win anything and is struggling to be competitive loses its biggest star, as opposed to a well-run, consistent contender with a recent World Championship in its back pocket.

Yes I think that's also bad. I just understand, within the present economics of the game, why a lower revenue team would make that choice.
   31. Eddo Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:25 AM (#5923440)
Being homegrown matters.

I know what you mean, but as I think about this more, does it? If Verdugo has a better year than expected, Betts a worse one, and the Red Sox make or even win the Series, is this still a bad deal from a fan's perspective? (I get from a process-over-results perspective, but fandom is most decidedly not that.)

When the White Sox won in 2005, I certainly didn't enjoy it any less because Frank Thomas wasn't involved. That's not a perfect analogy, because he was still on the roster, but the fact that, other than Buehrle and Garland, most of the main players weren't lifetime Sox players didn't make it any less fun.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:29 AM (#5923441)
Not if the team can't pay the guy, as opposed to won't pay the guy. If the team legit can't afford a player, there's no one to blame. But if ownership just decides to be cheap, there are definitely people to blame.
Well it's infuriating that it's not even strictly a matter of cheapness in this case. Even with one year ducking under the tax threshold surrounded by years with payroll above the threshold, they didn't have to choose to do it in this manner (as has been discussed in numerous other threads).
   33. Buck Coats Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:37 AM (#5923447)
If Mookie played out 2020 and left for greener pastures, I'd wish him nothing but the best, and wouldn't hold it against the club (even if they didn't make an offer as high as I'd be willing to go).

But voluntary shipping out the player with the greatest combination of skill and likability that the team has developed in generations before they had to just pisses me off. I assume I'd feel the same way if I were a fan of the Rays instead of the Sox (though I suppose it might be a little more understandable if I were a fan of the Rays, given the legitimate restrictions to team building they operate under).


Yeah I mean Nationals fans weren't outraged that they got outbid for Harper and Rendon. Yankees fans weren't furious at the team when they got outbid for Cano. It's one thing to get outbid for your homegrown star - it's another thing to trade away your homegrown star a year early.
   34. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:52 AM (#5923461)
Honest question, how did you guys feel about losing Nomar?
   35. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:54 AM (#5923463)
A team that is essentially the same as the 108 win WS winning from a season prior.
You keep saying this without mentioning the 84-win, 19-games-back team from the season directly prior, and explaining how the 2020 team was somehow "essentially the same" as the 2018 team (despite, for example, Sale and Price being two years older and more injured) but different from the 2019 team.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:56 AM (#5923465)
Honest question, how did you guys feel about losing Nomar?
It was a complicated feeling. But the subsequent events of the ensuing months were so captivating that it got less emotional attention that perhaps otherwise.
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:56 AM (#5923466)

Honest question, how did you guys feel about losing Nomar?


Personally, I thought he was pretty miserable after the Arod deal fell through, and wasn't too interested in being there. But it still stung a little that it ended that way.


   38. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:58 AM (#5923468)
Personally, I thought he was pretty miserable after the Arod deal fell through, and wasn't too interested in being there. But it still stung a little that it ended that way.

Yeah this is how I remember it. He was a bit surly, which was almost entirely the team's fault of course, given that he was all but shipped out a few months prior. He had also turned down an extension at some point in the recent past (previous offseason? I forget).
   39. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 10:59 AM (#5923469)
If Mookie played out 2020 and left for greener pastures, I'd wish him nothing but the best, and wouldn't hold it against the club (even if they didn't make an offer as high as I'd be willing to go).

But voluntary shipping out the player with the greatest combination of skill and likability that the team has developed in generations before they had to just pisses me off.

It's one thing to get outbid for your homegrown star - it's another thing to trade away your homegrown star a year early.
So you'd prefer to be left with nothing but a draft pick? I don't get that. But I guess that's the difference between being a die-hard, emotionally invested fan of a particular team and being more of a fan of baseball generally.
   40. Greg Pope Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:03 AM (#5923472)
Not if the team can't pay the guy, as opposed to won't pay the guy. If the team legit can't afford a player, there's no one to blame. But if ownership just decides to be cheap, there are definitely people to blame.

I thought every team could afford their stars, if they only chose to. Yes, it may have been different in 1998.

Look, MLB basically instituted a salary cap. So in this case, the Red Sox are actually in the "can't pay the guy" category.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM (#5923473)
So you'd prefer to be left with nothing but a draft pick? I don't get that.


I'd prefer to have Mookie on my favorite team for as long as possible. How the hell is that hard to get?

But I guess that's the difference between being a die-hard, emotionally invested fan of a particular team and being more of a fan of baseball generally.


Just curious, which one am I?

   42. Nasty Nate Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:06 AM (#5923474)
So you'd prefer to be left with nothing but a draft pick?
A year of an elite player on the team isn't "nothing."
   43. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:08 AM (#5923475)
I'd prefer to have Mookie on my favorite team for as long as possible. How the hell is that hard to get?
What I don't get is preferring that, period, without any consideration of the consequences for the future. But like I said, I didn't get into baseball from the perspective of major emotional investment in a particular team.
   44. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:08 AM (#5923476)
I thought every team could afford their stars, if they only chose to. Yes, it may have been different in 1998.

Look, MLB basically instituted a salary cap. So in this case, the Red Sox are actually in the "can't pay the guy" category.


This is being willfully obtuse.

(A) There are other moves the Red Sox could and could have made to get under the cap.

(B) IT IS NOT A HARD CAP.
   45. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM (#5923477)
Just curious, which one am I?
I would guess you're both, but reacting to this situation from more of the former perspective?
   46. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:10 AM (#5923478)
But I guess that's the difference between being a die-hard, emotionally invested fan of a particular team and being more of a fan of baseball generally.


This is bizarre. You don't understand enjoying rooting for a player, but you fully understand being invested in the haul the club receives for that player?
   47. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:11 AM (#5923479)
What I don't get is preferring that, period, without any consideration of the consequences for the future. But like I said, I didn't get into baseball from the perspective of major emotional investment in a particular team.


You are overlooking the distinct possibility that one year of Mookie Betts plus a high draft pick may be significantly more valuable than what the Red Sox got in return.



   48. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:16 AM (#5923484)
But like I said, I didn't get into baseball from the perspective of major emotional investment in a particular team.


I thought you were a wacko Cubs fan.
   49. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:17 AM (#5923486)

You are overlooking the distinct possibility that one year of Mookie Betts plus a high draft pick may be significantly more valuable than what the Red Sox got in return.


It also extends the window for the Red Sox and Betts to come together on a deal.
   50. Traderdave Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:20 AM (#5923489)
If I may digress back to post #2 in this thread, how did you get those f-bombs past the nanny?
   51. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:22 AM (#5923491)
It also extends the window for the Red Sox and Betts to come together on a deal.


Bingo.
   52. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:28 AM (#5923496)
The nanny recognizes righteous fucking anger.
   53. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:32 AM (#5923499)
I thought every team could afford their stars, if they only chose to. Yes, it may have been different in 1998.

The Expos weren't getting $200M in shared revenue back then, totally different world. In 1998 the entire Expos payroll was $8.3M (O's led the league at $72M) while Pedro earned $7.5M.

Look, MLB basically instituted a salary cap. So in this case, the Red Sox are actually in the "can't pay the guy" category.

It's not a cap, and the Red Sox were nowhere near the threshold where non-financial penalties happen. Total red herring.
   54. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:34 AM (#5923503)
This is bizarre. You don't understand enjoying rooting for a player, but you fully understand being invested in the haul the club receives for that player?
Not what I meant at all. Of course everyone understands rooting for a player. But I do think there's a difference between being more of a fan of baseball generally - being drawn to the game, the great players, the analytical/intellectual aspects, the history, etc. etc. as opposed to coming to baseball through having a passionate investment in the fate of the local team. Not saying one point of entrance is better or worse than the other at all, and of course one can be both with different emphases at different times.

I got into baseball more through collecting cards and then playing a sim game in high school (with EraserX, remember him?) rather than attaching to a team emotionally. A lot of my friends have that attachment to various teams (in baseball and other sports), and I've sometimes been a little jealous of them because it seems fun to care that deeply about a team. To PF's #48, I did feel some of that with the Cubs in 2015-16, and it was great. But at heart I'm still more of a fan of baseball as a game, a tradition, a subject of analysis, etc., and players as supremely skilled athletes. The particular laundry they're wearing just doesn't have as much emotional resonance.*

Am I explaining this well at all?

*Except I'm starting to hate the Astros.
   55. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:36 AM (#5923507)
You are overlooking the distinct possibility that one year of Mookie Betts plus a high draft pick may be significantly more valuable than what the Red Sox got in return.
Certainly a possibility, but that's also not where the anti-trade people are coming from at all. The anti-trade people seem to hate the trade as a concept, period, regardless of the return.
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:49 AM (#5923514)
Am I explaining this well at all?


You're doing a swell job explaining how you can became a fan. You're doing a terrible job explaining how this relates at all to the previous posts you've made.

I'm a Red Sox fan. Mookie Betts is the single greatest combination of talent and appeal the team has produced in my nearly 50 years of fandom. I want him to root for him on my favorite club for as long as possible*.

You don't get that.

You can, however, understand why I'd really care if the Sox maximize their haul for him when he leaves.

Yeah, your entry into the sport doesn't really explain this.

*It's probably worth noting here, even if I'm not sure how it relates, that being a Red Sox fan in 2020 is much different than being a Red Sox fan in 2000. I've been spoiled immensely over these last two decades, and my perspective has undoubtedly changed in that time frame.

   57. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:49 AM (#5923515)
Certainly a possibility, but that's also not where the anti-trade people are coming from at all. The anti-trade people seem to hate the trade as a concept, period, regardless of the return.


Uh, can't it be both? I both hate the trade as a concept, and am unconvinced it is a good baseball move (which makes me hate the concept even more).
   58. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 11:59 AM (#5923518)
You're doing a terrible job explaining how this relates at all to the previous posts you've made.
It relates in that my approach to baseball fandom, I think, explains why I don't really relate to the "I want them to keep Mookie, regardless of the potential consequences" perspective. My take on it is more cost-benefit - yeah, it's unfortunate, but the Occam's Razor explanation seems to be that they didn't think they were going to be able to sign him to a contract that wouldn't become an albatross, and decided to prioritize the future over 2020. Without the emotional investment in a team, that's not something I would get particularly upset about.
   59. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:03 PM (#5923522)
My take on it is more cost-benefit - yeah, it's unfortunate, but the Occam's Razor explanation seems to be that they didn't think they were going to be able to sign him to a contract that wouldn't become an albatross, and decided to prioritize the future over 2020. Without the emotional investment in a team, that's not something I would get particularly upset about.


Without an investment in the team, why would I care whether it maximizes its return?


   60. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:06 PM (#5923525)
*It's probably worth noting here, even if I'm not sure how it relates, that being a Red Sox fan in 2020 is much different than being a Red Sox fan in 2000. I've been spoiled immensely over these last two decades, and my perspective has undoubtedly changed in that time frame.


In 2000 you would have secretly cherished Betts' departure because it would have allowed you to wallow in that "woe is Red Sox fans!" thing you guys defined yourselves by.
   61. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM (#5923530)
Without an investment in the team, why would I care whether it maximizes its return?


Silly man, it's a deep investment in the best probabilistic evaluation, projection and fiscal processes in running a baseball team. It's the type of emotional investment that pays off when you get a raging hard on thinking about 2023 payroll flexibility.
   62. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:14 PM (#5923533)
The Boston Red Sox will receive young outfielder Alex Verdugo, shortstop prospect Jeter Downs


Whoa
   63. villageidiom Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:24 PM (#5923538)
In 2000 you would have secretly cherished Betts' departure because it would have allowed you to wallow in that "woe is Red Sox fans!" thing you guys defined yourselves by.
#### you. Seriously.

Back then, the one thing that Red Sox fans defined themselves by was faith. Faith that someday in our lifetime this team would actually win it all. We didn't define ourselves by misery; we endured the misery. We were taunted by people who wanted us to lose faith, wanted us to believe that the team would never win.

I will not stand by while some ####### tries to define Red Sox fans after the fact in some way that retroactively justifies other fans having been ########. I will not put up with anyone trying to suggest that the abused actually wanted the abuse, like we were asking for it. #### you.
   64. villageidiom Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:27 PM (#5923541)
(A) There are other moves the Red Sox could and could have made to get under the cap.
Such as?
   65. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:30 PM (#5923543)
I think I speak for everyone here, when I say that PF can go fuck a blender. And the nanny agrees with me.
   66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5923544)
Such as?

Non-tender Bradley, don't sign Moreland, Perez, or Peraza. That's $23M.
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5923545)
I think I speak for everyone here, when I say that PF can go #### a blender. And the nanny agrees with me.

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic, and agrees with you guys.
   68. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:33 PM (#5923546)
Without an investment in the team, why would I care whether it maximizes its return?
It's not a matter of necessarily caring about a team maximizing its return - it's a matter of understanding their reasons and not getting upset about it.
   69. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:34 PM (#5923547)
The Boston Red Sox will receive young outfielder Alex Verdugo, shortstop prospect Jeter Downs

Whoa
I assume he's going to have to change his name, right?
   70. craigamazing Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:34 PM (#5923548)
Such as?


JBJ?
   71. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:40 PM (#5923551)
I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic, and agrees with you guys.

I can assure you from the other Mookie threads, that he could not be further from siding with "us guys."

And has also consistently been as antagonistic as possible towards Red Sox fans who hate this trade, and frankly a massive prick about the whole thing. See for example post 43 in this thread:
It's difficult to express how entitled people here look posting things like "I'm done with this team" and "HENRY OUT."
   72. Nasty Nate Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM (#5923554)
(A) There are other moves the Red Sox could and could have made to get under the cap.

Such as?
They could have let Sale play out his deal, which expired after 2019.
   73. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:48 PM (#5923558)

I can assure you from the other Mookie threads, that he could not be further from siding with "us guys."

And has also consistently been as antagonistic as possible towards Red Sox fans who hate this trade, and frankly a massive prick about the whole thing. See for example post 43 in this thread:


Hmm, out of character.
   74. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:50 PM (#5923560)
It's not a matter of necessarily caring about a team maximizing its return - it's a matter of understanding their reasons and not getting upset about it.


That's not what you said that kicked all of this off. You said:

"You'd prefer to be left with nothing but a draft pick. That's what I don't get."

That's caring about the return, not understanding Chaim's plight.
   75. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 12:59 PM (#5923562)
I wasn't really being sarcastic, although I was being way too snide, for which I apologize. No reason for me to take an annoying tone. However, it is my memory of Red Sox fans back in those days (and I was surrounded by them, having spent much of my life in New England) that many clearly believed that being a Sox fan was a kind of special burden. Obviously Sox fans did not enjoy losing, but many did take a kind of pride in being (supposedly) so especially benighted and put-upon. I do think that the Mookie would be received somewhat differently in that context.

I'm not apologizing for criticizing (some) fans here for acting entitled. They were acting entitled. I'm still amazed at the spectacle of fans calling for the head of the owner of what has probably been the most wildly successful franchise of the last two decades. Imagine saying "I am done with this team" with a straight face to a fan of the Pirates or the Orioles or the Mariners or Indians. "This team" that will only spend as much as $200M on payroll and that only wins a World Series every five years or so.

I haven't been beating that drum since the first day, because one or two comments explained that people are just airing their (justifiable) outrage, and don't really mean these things. I guess that's fine. I get it.

I have zero problem with most of the Sox fans here or their take on the trade, and empathize with the pain of losing such a good and entertaining player. Mostly I have tried to defend the trade on baseball terms, but 100% get (for example) SOSH U's take, that it may or may not make baseball sense but that it's just so sad and crappy that he doesn't really care if it does.
   76. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:02 PM (#5923564)
This is a better expression of what I was trying to say:

What I don't get is preferring [2020 with Mookie], period, without any consideration of the consequences for the future.
I just don't really relate to the point at which fanhood fundamentally precludes thinking about the cost/benefit aspect. You're not thinking about this in terms of preferring to have a few extra wins in 2020 over the potential future benefit of getting more players in return. It's "this is *my* guy, and I want him playing for *my* team, and that's it."

I'm not saying you're "wrong" (how could you be?), just that it's a different way of looking at it - and, honestly, one that I don't think Major League front offices can afford to have in 2020.
   77. Captain Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:03 PM (#5923565)
So how about this deal: 400m over 10 years, 50m a year the first 5 years, with a mutual opt out after that 5 years?
   78. villageidiom Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:05 PM (#5923567)
Non-tender Bradley, don't sign Moreland, Perez, or Peraza. That's $23M.
And a 22-man roster.

They shed effectively $42 million in AAV for 2020 in the trade. They're at $19 million under the cap now, which means they were $23 million above before the trade, with those four players you advocate dropping. Saving $23 million by dropping them gets them exactly to the cap. But they need to fill the 4 roster spots vacated by the four you said to drop, which will cost $2.3 million at the minimum salary. You failed, but don't stop now. Who else are you adding to the list?
   79. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:08 PM (#5923568)
VI you should probably acknowledge that it absolutely doesn't matter to anyone other than John Henry's heirs if they're a few million above or below the line.
   80. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:09 PM (#5923569)
I just don't really relate to the point at which fanhood fundamentally precludes thinking about the cost/benefit aspect. You're not thinking about this in terms of preferring to have a few extra wins in 2020 over the potential future benefit of getting more players in return. It's "this is *my* guy, and I want him playing for *my* team, and that's it."


I'm thinking of it in terms of I really like Mookie Betts and I want to see him on my favorite team for as long as possible, and I'm willing to live with a return on his services that may be suboptimal. How that perspective is a mystery to you is a mystery to me.
   81. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:12 PM (#5923571)
This SoSH and ElRoy back and forth is baffling to me for the same reasons that it's baffling to SoSH, but it also carries the additional, errr, baffling factor in that it's as if they're discussing SoSH's irrational wish to continue to cheer for, like, Brock Holt or some average-ish player, and not his completely rational wish to continue to cheer for one of the 2-5 best players in baseball who was already under contract.
   82. Eddo Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:16 PM (#5923573)
I'm a Red Sox fan. Mookie Betts is the single greatest combination of talent and appeal the team has produced in my nearly 50 years of fandom. I want him to root for him on my favorite club for as long as possible*.

SoSH, I think you're actually doing a clear job of explaining your frustration - it's because you're a huge Mookie fan and a huge Red Sox fan and you want that to overlap. That's totally cool!

But for the Red Sox part - is there anything you would consider trading Betts for? Obviously, if the Angels sent over Trout while on some sort of meth binge, I assume you'd be happy. But if the team truly believed they only had one more year of Betts, is there any sort of trade that wouldn't piss you off?
   83. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:24 PM (#5923576)
How that perspective is a mystery to you is a mystery to me.
I'm not saying it's "mysterious" - I understand where you're coming from - it's just that I don't particularly relate to it. That's what I meant previously when I said I don't "get it," not that it's incomprehensible to me. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
   84. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:25 PM (#5923577)
Without an investment in the team, why would I care whether it maximizes its return?


You just asked the ultimate question about saber fanaticism and pretend GMing, so join the club. The membership is still small, but we have the consolation of being right -- as you are here.

It's not a matter of necessarily caring about a team maximizing its return - it's a matter of understanding their reasons and not getting upset about it.


But he's saying their reasons are stupid and only supportable by saber fanaticism and pretend GMing. Which is true -- that is in fact the only way they can be supported. There's no sense in which this can be defended in baseball terms, or aesthetic terms. The only way it can be remotely defended is through some imaginary baseball return on the money "saved," and that return is virtually always overestimated by saber fanatics and pretend GMs and prospect fetishists. All this crap is just an offshoot of Moneyball, ultimately one of the more unhelpful books in baseball history. Curses on it.

   85. Sunday silence: Play Guess How long season lasts Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:27 PM (#5923578)
This team could win 95 games or 75 games.


But is this really anything more than an obvious observation? Given that teams with the exact same RUns Scored/Runs Given up can be +/- 5 games, that's a 10 game spread right there. And given that the season hasnt even started yet a 20 game swing doesnt seem much of a prediction. Hell could they win 96 under the right circumstances?
   86. PreservedFish Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:36 PM (#5923586)
But is this really anything more than an obvious observation?

No. It is an obvious observation. I wasn't hoping to blow anyone's mind with this comment.

It's also a rebuttal of the idea that the Sox have punted the season or that they don't care about winning. Comment #2 compares the Red Sox to the Marlins. The Marlins, in their signature fire sale, went from a WS win to 108 losses. Not seeing much of a parallel there.

It may be disheartening to realize that this year the Sox will willingly place themselves "in the mix" of competitive teams instead of striving to rise above that mix. But it's very possible that the Red Sox fervently believe that this move adds more future wins to the organization.

Yes, it's also possible that it's just a cost-cutting measure and they don't particularly care about the win impact. I just keep coming back to this question:

1. Is John Henry all of a sudden a craven greedy monster?
2. Or is there a chance that he's acting in good faith and thinks that this is the right way forward for the team?

Given Henry's marvelous success with the team (and with Liverpool too!), I think #2 is more likely than the Sox fans here are giving him credit for. Doesn't mean you have to stop hating the trade, but it may mean that the perceived disconnect between the org and its fans is less drastic than portrayed.
   87. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:36 PM (#5923587)
I'm not saying you're "wrong" (how could you be?), just that it's a different way of looking at it - and, honestly, one that I don't think Major League front offices can afford to have in 2020.


There's nothing unique to 2020 about any of this. Teams have had financial considerations to deal with for the entirety of the free agent era -- now in its 44th offseason. The change has come from without, and that change is the support for moves like this teams have been able to garner from the commentariat community, which again is almost entirely a product of Moneyball. Front offices and ownership can simply get away with things they never used to be able to get away with. (*) Take a time machine back to 1998 and there's no way the Red Sox could have gotten away with this, and the reasons have nothing to do with finances. (And I know Mo Vaughn, but he was fat and older and about ready to fall off a cliff and they didn't just pocket the money they saved. And there was a massive outcry even then, in excess of the Betts outcry. Though even that is hard to measure, given the proliferation of blab sites now. And there was the perceived necessity for a smear campaign back then.)

(*) Which we can easily see in the fast-growing, still relatively young, support for "rebuilds" or even better, "real rebuilds."
   88. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:41 PM (#5923589)
1. Is John Henry all of a sudden a craven greedy monster?
2. Or is there a chance that he's acting in good faith and thinks that this is the right way forward for the team?

There are many other options, one being a philosophical disinclination to being in the tax repeatedly, one (which I think is actually true) is an aversion to lengthy deals post-Carl Crawford, etc. I'm sure it's a mix of many things.
   89. SoSH U at work Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:47 PM (#5923590)
But if the team truly believed they only had one more year of Betts, is there any sort of trade that wouldn't piss you off?


That's a good question, and I don't know for sure what my answer is. If it were strictly a talent for talent trade, I might feel differently. If the Sox were still chasing their first title since WWI instead of their fifth, I might feel differently.

But this was partly about salary. And that changes things. And I can't help but look back to the extension they gave Sale last year that I absolutely hated, and now salaries are an issue. So instead of watching at least one more year of one of the most likable Sox players of my lifetime, I get to follow the decline years of Drake LaRoche's No. 1 fan.

It's complicated.

   90. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:48 PM (#5923591)
But it's very possible that the Red Sox fervently believe that this move adds more future wins to the organization.


Let's not go crazy here -- that really isn't possible.
   91. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 11, 2020 at 01:59 PM (#5923594)
But he's saying their reasons are stupid and only supportable by saber fanaticism and pretend GMing. Which is true -- that is in fact the only way they can be supported. There's no sense in which this can be defended in baseball terms, or aesthetic terms. The only way it can be remotely defended is through some imaginary baseball return on the money "saved," and that return is virtually always overestimated by saber fanatics and pretend GMs and prospect fetishists. All this crap is just an offshoot of Moneyball, ultimately one of the more unhelpful books in baseball history. Curses on it.
Or, alternatively, trading a player before you lose him to free agency has been something that teams have done for baseball reasons since Day 1 of free agency.
   92. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:01 PM (#5923595)
Jesus, Verdugo was part of the sexual assault events that Kapler got involved in, too?

Yeeeesh.

Ick.
   93. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:04 PM (#5923596)
Or, alternatively, trading a player before you lose him to free agency has been something that teams have done for baseball reasons since Day 1 of free agency.


Empirical question that can be answered with research. There was certainly more of an outcry BITD if/when it happened, and far less propensity to credit the potential return on the saved money/prospects than we have now. Prospects and farm systems are far more fetishized today, to the point of absurdity, really.(*) As are "future wins." These are entirely exogenous changes to finances or the financial system or the financial health of the franchises.

(*) And this in turn is a product not just of Moneyball, but of the internet. We have far more ability to real-time follow prospects now, so they seem far more tangible and far less distant than BITD pre-net. The relative "brand value" of Mookie Betts versus a top prospect is far lower today than BITD. (Not that the Sox got a top prospect back; this was just a hypothetical example.)

   94. villageidiom Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:35 PM (#5923604)
VI you should probably acknowledge that it absolutely doesn't matter to anyone other than John Henry's heirs if they're a few million above or below the line.
You can likewise acknowledge that you weren't motivated to make the same statement to people saying the Red Sox had plenty of options for getting under the line, but were motivated to say it when supporting evidence was questioned. Your concerns have been noted.
   95. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:39 PM (#5923605)
And a 22-man roster.

They shed effectively $42 million in AAV for 2020 in the trade. They're at $19 million under the cap now, which means they were $23 million above before the trade, with those four players you advocate dropping. Saving $23 million by dropping them gets them exactly to the cap. But they need to fill the 4 roster spots vacated by the four you said to drop, which will cost $2.3 million at the minimum salary. You failed, but don't stop now. Who else are you adding to the list?


Eat Eovaldi's contract down to $5M per year and give him away.
   96. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:39 PM (#5923606)
Back then, the one thing that Red Sox fans defined themselves by was faith. Faith that someday in our lifetime this team would actually win it all. We didn't define ourselves by misery; we endured the misery. We were taunted by people who wanted us to lose faith, wanted us to believe that the team would never win.
Let’s not air brush the Pants Pissers from the picture. Those poor fellows had been burned so often that they were determined not to be fooled again, and interpreted any set back as a sign of impending doom. They were more right than wrong for decades, but their legacy now seems largely forgotten.
   97. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:45 PM (#5923607)
I also think I speak for everyone, when I say that ####### a blender would still be too good of a fate for The Yankee Spinner.
   98. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:49 PM (#5923608)
You can likewise acknowledge that you weren't motivated to make the same statement to people saying the Red Sox had plenty of options for getting under the line, but were motivated to say it when supporting evidence was questioned. Your concerns have been noted.

? I've said it many, many times in other threads.

EDIT: Also I STARTED the "your concern is noted" in response to YC, you can't use it on me!
   99. . Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:52 PM (#5923610)
Eat Eovaldi's contract down to $5M per year and give him away.


Plus they added payroll in the offseason with guys like Peraza.

There are a million ways they could have arranged their finances to achieve their ostensible goals and still kept Betts this year. But they didn't do that, and they didn't do that because they didn't want to pay him in free agency. Before analyzing and commenting on the situation, people should have that fact clearly in mind. And like SoSH said, they didn't act last offseason or in-season in a way commensurate with getting their finances in order to ultimately pay Mookie. They did the opposite.
   100. jmurph Posted: February 11, 2020 at 02:57 PM (#5923613)
Flip
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Bubble Thread
(3141 - 11:00pm, Sep 27)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogFinal Weekend OMNICHATTER, for Sept. 26-27, 2020
(57 - 10:57pm, Sep 27)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogLos Angeles Angels fire GM Billy Eppler after five seasons
(6 - 10:56pm, Sep 27)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogRon Roenicke let go as Boston Red Sox manager; team will begin search immediately
(5 - 10:44pm, Sep 27)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Brave New World
(227 - 10:38pm, Sep 27)
Last: MY PAIN IS NOT A HOLIDAY (CoB).

NewsblogFormer San Francisco Giants OF Hunter Pence announces retirement, ending 14-year MLB career
(13 - 10:00pm, Sep 27)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogYadier Molina collects career hit number 2,000 Thursday night
(43 - 9:19pm, Sep 27)
Last: baxter

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1931 Ballot
(5 - 6:14pm, Sep 27)
Last: MrC.

NewsblogOT - August/September 2020 College Football thread
(76 - 4:50pm, Sep 27)
Last: ramifications of an exciting 57i66135

NewsblogCardinals starter Dakota Hudson to undergo Tommy John surgery
(2 - 4:50pm, Sep 27)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(9747 - 3:12pm, Sep 27)
Last: ramifications of an exciting 57i66135

NewsblogWaPo: If baseball keeps these grotesque expanded playoffs, it will have lost its soul
(31 - 1:25pm, Sep 27)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogDodgers' Mookie Betts unseats Yankees' Aaron Judge for MLB's top jersey
(12 - 11:11am, Sep 27)
Last: bfan

NewsblogThom Brennaman resigns as Reds broadcaster
(42 - 9:41pm, Sep 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogTrevor Bauer Should Just Admit It
(17 - 6:21pm, Sep 26)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 0.7745 seconds
69 querie(s) executed