Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Saturday, November 16, 2019

Gumbo Limbo, Mookie Betts and “Not My Money”

Let’s get the part where you all hate me out of the way.  While the Boston area freezes its collective caboose off I’m down in Naples, FL sitting on the lanai with a cigar, a Guinness and some nachos looking at nearly clear blue skies.  I tell you this not to make you feel jealous (well, not “only” that) but for reasons I hope to make apparent.

Of course this is the Off-Season of Mookie and everything has to do with Mookie.  As a practical matter the Sox can do three things this winter;

1. Trade Mookie for some magic beans
2. Keep Mookie and hope for the best next year
3. Sign Mookie to a long term extension (this of course requires Mookie agreeing to such a deal)

As you can probably guess from the way I worked option 1 I am not a fan of that plan.  Star for prospect deals virtually never generate the kind of return that makes a meaningful difference.  For every Jeff Bagwell there are a thousand Frankie Montas types that get sent in the other direction.  There is a very real chance that Mookie Betts in 2020 alone will eclipse the collective return of whatever prospects the Sox might land in a deal for him.

Now to me what the Sox should do is have the following conversation with Mookie;

“How much do you want?” Followed by “here you go.”

One of the arguments we hear from time to time is “it’s not my money.”  But in fact it is.  I am under no illusions that the 15-20 Sox games I go to a year and the assorted merchandise I purchase makes a huge dent individually on the books of the Boston Red Sox but the fact is collectively as fans we DO impact the books.  The Red Sox charge, not without reason the highest ticket prices in baseball.  Parking at Fenway is a massive cost and even public transportation is not exactly inexpensive.  There is a real financial cost to fans who go to games and if the Sox are going to charge the most money of any team in baseball, I think they have an obligation to put the best possible product out there.

This brings me to Gumbo Limbo.  Last night I went to dinner at Gumbo Limbo.  This is a restaurant here in Naples, it is a bit pricey but the food is terrific, the service is top notch and the view of the Gulf of Mexico makes it the premier spot in the area to see the sunset.  You can say Gumbo Limbo owes me nothing but if the food becomes of lesser quality, if they put up a bunch of palm trees that block the view of the Gulf and they hire crummy waitstaff they are going to lose business at those prices.

The same is true of the Sox.  While on the one hand yeah, investing a ton o’dough in Markus Lynn Betts is going to hit their bottom line.  The Sox just raised ticket prices again.  To cry poor and say they “have” to deal him is nonsense.  If the Sox (or any other team) want their local fans to believe they are losing money they are welcome to open themselves up to a full independent audit of their books.  You and I both know that ain’t happening.

So with all that said I will add that I write this not to say that the Sox should just give Mookie whatever he wants.  I realize there is a point where it just doesn’t make sense to give him that money.  However to me trading him is a submission of sorts.  If they ride out 2020 and try to win in 2020 then Mookie gets a better deal from the Rockies or whatever fair enough.  However, if they trade him that is just saying “we aren’t going to try” and would be insulting to the fans of the Boston Red Sox who pay a lot of their hard earned money to attend games.

With all that said the reasons for keeping Mookie are obvious. He is a special talent, he comes across as a special person always smiling and he is beloved by fans and seemingly everyone within the organization.  This is the kind of guy you build around.  On top of that, while it shouldn’t matter, he is African-American and the Boston Red Sox organization has had more than a few failures over the years among the African-American community.

I circle back to my dinner experience last night.  In theory the restaurant can do whatever they want once I give them money, but I have every right to deserve an investment in my product. This is just as true with sports fandom.  The difference is that being a sports fan is ingrained.  If the Boston Red Sox trade Mookie, Xander and Benintendi for Neifi Perez and the rights to Ken Harrelson in the booth I’ll still be a Sox fan.  But I’ll be a pissed off Sox fan and pissing off your fan base is just bad business.

Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 16, 2019 at 03:37 PM | 100 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 12:38 AM (#5901783)
Now to me what the Sox should do is have the following conversation with Mookie;

“How much do you want?” Followed by “here you go.”


Okay, the number is 10/$450M.

   2. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 17, 2019 at 12:56 AM (#5901784)
So be it, then ride him next year and see if you can get him to a more manageable number. Don’t trade him.
   3. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5901805)
What happened to "here yo go"? :)
   4. plink Posted: November 17, 2019 at 12:02 PM (#5901811)
I feel like I'm in the same boat here -- keep him for the year, make a very large offer. If he signs, I will be sad, but temporarily sad instead of existentially sad.

That leads to an interesting question, though: is there a possible trade package where it would make sense (to me) to trade Mookie? Undoubtedly it would not seem fair to any non-Sox fan, but that's not the point.

So, would you trade Mookie now for (e.g.) Bo Bichette?
   5. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 17, 2019 at 12:08 PM (#5901812)
Okay, the number is 10/$450M.


If this is the request then the Sox should say OK, we aren't willing to go quite that high, go ahead and check the market, if you can get that than go for it. We sort of painted ourself in a corner trying to put together a WS capable team and we just can't offer that much for one player. Please just come back to us first if you have other offers.
   6. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 17, 2019 at 12:11 PM (#5901813)
So, would you trade Mookie now for (e.g.) Bo Bichette?


No. I am vociferously against any trade of Betts unless he's part of a package for Mike Trout.

If he signs, I will be sad, but temporarily sad instead of existentially sad.

This. If the Sox trade Betts I am going to ignore them (and by extension, baseball) for quite a while.
   7. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 17, 2019 at 01:55 PM (#5901827)
That leads to an interesting question, though: is there a possible trade package where it would make sense (to me) to trade Mookie? Undoubtedly it would not seem fair to any non-Sox fan, but that's not the point.


What exactly “makes sense” is in the eye of the beholder but for me...no. I’m a firm believer that anyone is tradeable but some guys are untradeable because you value them in a way that makes a trade unreasonable. Thinking it through I need an MLB ready player with 5-6 years of control at an expected elite level (Vlad Jr.) another Highly rated prospect and a couple of lottery ticket types with either Price or Eovaldi also going the other way.

By way of example I give you two trades;

Miggy and DTrain for Miller, Maybin (both top 50 prospects as I recall) and others
Beckett and Lowell for Hanley, Anibal and others

And frankly I don’t know if I’d want to do either of those deals from the Sox standpoint because unlike the Marlins, the Sox should expect to be able to make a competitive offer for Mookie.
   8. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 17, 2019 at 03:01 PM (#5901837)
We sort of painted ourself in a corner trying to put together a WS capable team and we just can't offer that much for one player.
Betts’ salary to date certainly isn’t the reason the Red Sox “painted themselves in a corner” as far as the luxury tax, so it doesn’t seem like he should care much about that. However, it’s not like Boston’s luxury tax situation was a surprise - there was considerable discussion in the 2018 offseason and throughout last season. So, what accounts for the Red Sox’s sudden reversal? Just not making the 2019 playoffs? There are real advantages to avoiding the highest tax level with draft penalties and eventually resetting the tax calculation, but I fail to see why avoiding any 2020 tax should be a priority. Boston can stay under the draft penalty level, take 2 or 3 years to get completely under the tax threshold and have a relatively soft landing, but doing it in 1 year just about guarantees a hard landing that will have implications for years ahead. Seems strange that ownership is taking such a short term approach and risking the performance & financial implications that Jose suggests in his Intro.
   9. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 04:38 PM (#5901846)
Okay, the number is 10/$450M.



If this is the request then the Sox should say OK, we aren't willing to go quite that high, go ahead and check the market, if you can get that than go for it.


My point is that yeah, it's easy to say "JUST SIGN HIM NO MATTER THE COST!!!" But there's obviously a limit, and where the limit is is the really tough part. And everything so far seems to point to the idea that Mookie and Red Sox have different ideas about this number.
   10. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 17, 2019 at 06:31 PM (#5901853)
But there's obviously a limit, and where the limit is is the really tough part


Well sure, but there are parameters at least. He's not getting more then Trout. He'll get more then Machado per year and Harper's total. That's why 12/410 or 10/365 are reasonable type of guesstimates.

Either way it is a boatload of cash. We throw these numbers around but every so often I sit back and just think, holy sh*t, $350 mil is just an insane amount of money to make before you are 40 years old. You've got pro athlete, movie star, internet billionaire, crime boss...that's kind of it. Pretty exclusive club.
   11. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 07:06 PM (#5901855)
Well sure, but there are parameters at least. He's not getting more then Trout. He'll get more then Machado per year and Harper's total. That's why 12/410 or 10/365 are reasonable type of guesstimates.


Is that what you decided? Let Mookie know, ok?

Here's something that doesn't get mentioned as a possibility: Maybe the Red Sox have already written off the possibility of signing Betts. They've tried each of the past 3 offseasons, and it's unclear what they offered, but perhaps it was their best offer. That would explain why they committed to Sale and Eovaldi.
   12. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 17, 2019 at 07:21 PM (#5901857)
Is that what you decided? Let Mookie know, ok?


Geez mate, no need to be snarky about it.

If he's being sensible, the numbers I mentioned will be within his range of expectations. Unless Mookie and his agent are insane there is no sense in expecting more then Trout.

But hey if that doesn't seem like sound logic to you, then keep your infantile snark to yourself.
   13. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 17, 2019 at 07:27 PM (#5901858)
I think Hugh’s numbers are on point. Anytime there are discussions about contracts or trades you’ve got to start with some base assumptions. I’m assuming that Mookie is going to wind up with a deal like Hugh referenced and assuming that then I refer to the two stage negotiation I mentioned in the piece.
   14. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 17, 2019 at 07:59 PM (#5901863)
Maybe the Red Sox have already written off the possibility of signing Betts. They've tried each of the past 3 offseasons, and it's unclear what they offered, but perhaps it was their best offer. That would explain why they committed to Sale and Eovaldi.
How hard did the Red Sox try to sign Betts? Unless they made a fair market offer, they weren’t trying that hard. No numbers have leaked out, AFAIK, so that may be an indication that the bridges haven’t been burned. Yet.
   15. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 17, 2019 at 08:31 PM (#5901868)
How hard did the Red Sox try to sign Betts?


This is the concern. Didn't they throw some half arsed 8/200 offer a year or 2 back? That's as insulting as that pathetic offer they made Lester a few years back.
Maybe Mookie was offended by the half arsed attempt? That I can understand.
   16. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 08:41 PM (#5901870)
I think the numbers are fine. But that doesn't mean Mookie agrees or that, even if he agrees, he wants to commit to those numbers right now. And is it really insane a player or agent to think that he'll set the new standard? He's not better than Trout, but signing Trout is not an option. It's the similar to the situation where David Price got 7/$217MM. He wasn't the best pitcher in baseball, just the best one available (he and Greinke).

Sorry for the snark, it was meant in good fun.
   17. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 08:47 PM (#5901872)
This is the concern. Didn't they throw some half arsed 8/200 offer a year or 2 back? That's as insulting as that pathetic offer they made Lester a few years back.


I think you're being quite unfair. At the time, Betts had 3 years left under control--if you guess something like $10M/$16M/$24M that means they were offering him 5 years/$150M for his free agent years. That's a pretty big number for a guy 3 years out from reaching FA. If anything, I'm surprised by his restraint in turning this down.
   18. Darren Posted: November 17, 2019 at 08:49 PM (#5901873)
And yes, the numbers have leaked. Hugh mentions one set. The other one was something like 5 years/$100M prior to 2017. No numbers have leaked about what they offered prior to 2019.
   19. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 17, 2019 at 09:05 PM (#5901875)
Yeah the 8/200 was a reasonable offer at the time.

One thing about the Sox is save Lester they’ve kept the guys they wanted to keep. They blew it with Lester of course but when they’ve decided to keep someone they’ve been pretty good about making it work. Varitek, Lowell, Beckett, Gonzalez, Bogaerts, Sale...for better or worse they’ve gotten the deals done. Mookie is a different level of player of course.
   20. plink Posted: November 18, 2019 at 04:33 PM (#5902117)
By way of example I give you two trades;

Miggy and DTrain for Miller, Maybin (both top 50 prospects as I recall) and others
Beckett and Lowell for Hanley, Anibal and others

And frankly I don’t know if I’d want to do either of those deals from the Sox standpoint because unlike the Marlins, the Sox should expect to be able to make a competitive offer for Mookie.

Yeah, both of those seem light to me. It seems that the Red Sox would need someone they could count on for value this season in return. Maybe if I squint my eyes, I could imagine Mookie to the Diamondbacks for Zac Gallen, Daulton Varsho, & Kristian Robinson. But really, that doesn't look good for either team.

Do people think that if Mookie gets to free agency, he'll beat Trout's contract?
   21. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 18, 2019 at 05:02 PM (#5902129)
At the time, Betts had 3 years left under control--if you guess something like $10M/$16M/$24M


Yes, now that you break it down, I can see the 8/200 was a reasonable offer, however he will end up getting $10.5/$20/$27.5 (projected), so actually $8 mil more then we would have guessed and that puts the first 5 FA at 5/142, still really nice numbers though so your point is spot on.

Do people think that if Mookie gets to free agency, he'll beat Trout's contract?


I've based all my numbers on no as that Trout contract is still really recent. I know the Angels got a bit of a discount but you can't expect a team to $8mil/WAR or Mookie would be looking at $48mil per year and that's not happening.

If he wants over $400 mil, then I think 12/410 type of thing is realistic. If he wants the higher AAV, then 10/365 is a fair offer.
   22. karlmagnus Posted: November 18, 2019 at 05:21 PM (#5902150)
At those prices (12/410 or 10/365), I would buy puts. I think the overwhelming probability would be long-term regrets from about year 4 of either contract. Betts' skills are overrated by WaR, and the non-hitting ones are bound to decline as he turns 30. I think the market is such that he will be hugely overpaid for the next decade, and I don't want the Sox to be the ones overpaying him.

The financial crunch is of course Dombrowski's fault. If only the Sox had kept Cherington, their "window" would have been longer, they might well have won in 2018 without the overkill of 108 wins, and the finances would now be in good shape with only one of Sale/Price/Eovaldi.

I'd like to keep EdRod if we can, and I'm extremely keen to keep Devers. Mookie may just be the price to pay for those two.

   23. villageidiom Posted: November 19, 2019 at 08:10 AM (#5902226)
I'd like to keep EdRod if we can, and I'm extremely keen to keep Devers. Mookie may just be the price to pay for those two.
That's an interesting question. If you were in charge of the Red Sox and had to choose, would you:

a) Sign Mookie Betts to a long-term contract.

OR

b) Sign Eduardo Rodriguez and Rafael Devers to long-term contracts.
   24. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 08:28 AM (#5902230)
Obviously there'd be negotiation, but if the final offer was 10/450 then back that dumptruck up, you idiots. He's the second best player in baseball entering his age 27 season! He's homegrown and beloved by the fans!

Per #23, I'd sign Mookie to the long term contract. Devers is under team control for 4 more years. ERod for 2. I really like Devers, and ERod is a good pitcher. But both of them combined are going to in a good season give you what Mookie gives you in a down year, about 6 WAR.

If you really, truly, desperately want to get under the luxury cap, trade Price and/or Sale and/or JMart and eat a metric ####### of money. You've got the money to spend, the Red Sox gross revenue is over $500m/year and that's not counting NESN money. You don't have guys who are averaging 7.5 WAR a season because there's only two who've been doing so over the last five years.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:13 AM (#5902241)
Per #23, I'd sign Mookie to the long term contract. Devers is under team control for 4 more years. ERod for 2.

Correct. If you have a bunch of good players reaching FA and you can only sign one, you sign the first. That way you keep the group together as long as possible.
   26. jmurph Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:28 AM (#5902245)
a) Sign Mookie Betts to a long-term contract.

OR

b) Sign Eduardo Rodriguez and Rafael Devers to long-term contracts.

Not a tough decision: you sign Mookie ASAP, sign Devers when necessary (as Scott points out, there's time), and then wait until Rodriguez is a free agent and make a decision then (don't see any reason to extend a pitcher early).

We are lucky to be fans of a team that basically never has to make tough decisions based on money, let's not let them sell us this BS that they have to.

(Cokes)
   27. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:59 AM (#5902257)
Per #23, I'd sign Mookie to the long term contract. Devers is under team control for 4 more years. ERod for 2. I really like Devers, and ERod is a good pitcher. But both of them combined are going to in a good season give you what Mookie gives you in a down year, about 6 WAR.


Agreed with the signing of contracts when you need to, but you are a bit off in Devers and ERod's value. They combined this year for 11.3 WAR (6.0 ERod / 5.3 Devers). So change your last sentence to 'give you what Mookie gives you in a peak year' and it's all good. WHICH SHOWS HOW INSANELY GOOD BETTS IS. He is legitimately worth a good/very good 3B and a very good SP.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:13 AM (#5902261)
They combined this year for 11.3 WAR (6.0 ERod / 5.3 Devers).

I'm hugely skeptical of that 6.0 WAR number for ERod. 203 IP of a 126 ERA+ isn't that good. Other 6 win pitchers are Strasburg (209 IP, 138 ERA+) and Flaherty (199, 155).

Fangraphs has him at 5.0 RA9-WAR and 3.7 fWAR. His ERA was 3.81, his FIP 3.86.

By ERA- Rodriguez is at 79. Berrios and Hendricks are exactly the same. Hendricks has 4.1 RA9, which scales to 4.6 if you give him the same innings as Rodriguez. Berrios has 4.1.

I'd put Rodriguez down as a 4-4.5 win pitcher last year. Something funky is going on at BRef.
   29. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:21 AM (#5902263)
I am as big an EdRod fan as you’ll find. I think there is a reasonable chance he just had his Jon Lester 2008 season and is about to become a consistent star.

But man he’s a pitcher, counting on a pitcher is a fools errand. TINSTAAPP has some truth even at the big league levels where star pitchers can become ordinary overnight (see Sale, Chris). The Sox have two more years of him and four of Devers, worrying about them now is unnecessary.
   30. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM (#5902274)
Baseball has decided that they will pay young stars peanuts, relative to their value, during the first 5 years of their careers. If they turned the system upside down, they could get away from long term contracts that begin at age 27 or 28. Good luck!
   31. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM (#5902276)
Sox have two more years of him and four of Devers, worrying about them now is unnecessary.


Wouldn't it be wiser to pay Devers for the next 10 years, rather than wait 4 years and see him walk? Is Devers more of a gamble now, as a long term investment, or will he be more of a gamble when he turns 25 or 26? (He may be a guy that you can give a long term contract to when his 5 years are up. But the point remains.)
   32. villageidiom Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:46 AM (#5902279)
"Do A, and in a few years do B" is not really a response to the premise of "if you had to choose either A or B which would you choose".
   33. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5902289)
"Do A, and in a few years do B" is not really a response to the premise of "if you had to choose either A or B which would you choose".


What's this in response to?
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM (#5902297)
Wouldn't it be wiser to pay Devers for the next 10 years, rather than wait 4 years and see him walk?

No. It's better to have Betts and Devers together for 4 years, and then Betts for 6 more, than to have Betts and Devers together for 1 year, and Devers for 9 more.

Multiple stars at the same time is what wins Championships. I'd much rather have 3 5-win players for 3 years, than 1 5-win player for 10 years.
   35. PreservedFish Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:22 AM (#5902299)
"Do A, and in a few years do B" is not really a response to the premise of "if you had to choose either A or B which would you choose".


It's tantamount to a rejection of the premise. None of us have any damn idea what situation the 2024 Red Sox will be in.
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM (#5902301)
It's tantamount to a rejection of the premise. None of us have any damn idea what situation the 2024 Red Sox will be in.

Well, we know they'll be rolling in huge piles of cash, barring a total economic collapse.
   37. PreservedFish Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:43 AM (#5902311)
Sure, but shipping Betts away now so you can pay and ERod and Devers in 2024-2029 is like saying a bird in the hand is not worth two birds that might be or might not be in the bush several years hence.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:51 AM (#5902313)
Sure, but shipping Betts away now so you can pay and ERod and Devers in 2024-2029 is like saying a bird in the hand is not worth two birds that might be or might not be in the bush several years hence.

Right, it's beyond dumb. The Red Sox can afford any or all of them. Saying you're going cheap now so you can extend them is just window dressing.
   39. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5902314)
No. It's better to have Betts and Devers together for 4 years, and then Betts for 6 more, than to have Betts and Devers together for 1 year, and Devers for 9 more.


Of course. But what I'm proposing is a revolution. Pay the kids. Let the older veterans fight for the scraps.
   40. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 19, 2019 at 01:52 PM (#5902384)
If you were in charge of the Red Sox and had to choose, would you: a) Sign Mookie Betts to a long-term contract. OR b) Sign Eduardo Rodriguez and Rafael Devers to long-term contracts.
It’s not an “or” situation. Boston can sign Betts, and eventually extend Devers & Rodriguez if they want to.
   41. villageidiom Posted: November 19, 2019 at 04:58 PM (#5902458)
What's this in response to?
At the time, jmurph in #26.
It’s not an “or” situation.
The hypothetical I explicitly proposed as an "or" situation is by definition an "or" situation.
It's tantamount to a rejection of the premise. None of us have any damn idea what situation the 2024 Red Sox will be in.
None of you will be in charge of the Red Sox, but nobody had trouble with the premise being unrealistic on that basis.
   42. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 19, 2019 at 06:48 PM (#5902476)
By the 2024 rolls around the Sale contract will have one year left, Price will be gone, Bogaerts will have a couple years left, the Luxury Tax amount is likely to be higher or different (or maybe gone depending on what happens with the CBA next winter though that is unlikely). I confidently gamble on Betts now over Rodriguez/Devers from 2024-2029. One thing about Mookie is that he is a guy I don't worry about going forward. He comes across as a serious guy who works hard and is always looking to improve. He doesn't have the concerns that some guys have. Now who knows, maybe he's shoving steroids in like Sandoval with cupcakes or he routinely beats his wife but so far he has been perfect in every way. I think when you have a guy like that, as great a player as he is, you lock him up and figure out the rest.

It's like making a trade. The majority of the time the team that wins a trade is the one that gets the best player in the deal. If you were trading Mookie for Devers/Rodriguez (or say Torres/German to put real names on it) the team getting Mookie would be getting the best player. I'll ride that.

That's my feeling.
   43. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 07:44 PM (#5902484)
If you were trading Mookie for Devers/Rodriguez (or say Torres/German to put real names on it) the team getting Mookie would be getting the best player.


True, but it's easier to replace Betts than it would be to replace Devers AND ERod.

edit...with a good enough player. You might not get a player as good as Betts, but you don't necessarily need one if the rest of the team is solid.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 07:53 PM (#5902485)
True, but it's easier to replace Betts than it would be to replace Devers AND ERod.

Disagree. Betts projects to 6.5 WAR (Steamer), Devers to 4.5, Rodriguez to 3.0. There are far more 4 win players available than 6+ win players.
   45. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 19, 2019 at 08:19 PM (#5902488)
Devers ceiling may be higher than 4.5...I don't know. Plus, he's cheap right now.
   46. Darren Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:17 PM (#5902496)
I'm realizing now that I may be coming at this all from a different perspective than a lot of others are. A couple of things that influence my thinking:

--I remember when the Yankees were outspending everyone else and their fans were incensed when they wouldn't spend more when an opportunity arose to improve the team. I was always kind of grossed out by that. Like, when is enough enough? It feels gross to be acting the way that I felt was gross not so long ago.

--In a similar vein, I agree with the idea that baseball teams make tons of money (and the Red Sox are among the richest), and that they be willing to invest that in the players. But the Red Sox are spending more than anyone else. Why should they be expected to go even further beyond what the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, etc. spend?

--There's a common sentiment that goes something like: I understand they want to get under the luxury tax limit, but why NOW? It's so crazy that they're doing it now, at the worst possible time! But would it have made more sense right after their 2018 championship? Right after their 2017 or 2016 AL East championships? Next year?

So those are a few things I'm thinking about when I get snarky and probably sound defensive.
   47. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:36 PM (#5902502)
I get what you are saying Darren, but to me Mookie is different. He is a special player. He should be, dare I say it, Jeter, or Ortiz, or Yaz, or Ripken, it just seems crazy to me for a team able and willing to spend more than any other team to not keep a true superstar in uniform.

Look, if this was Trout or Arenado I wouldn’t expect the Sox to go insane for him, but Mookie is our guy,
   48. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:37 PM (#5902503)
The funny thing is on the old RLRS blog you were the one screaming to bring Mookie up early and I was somewhat uncertain about him. I’m thinking you may have been right on that one.
   49. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:47 PM (#5902504)
What flusters me is that they can get under the salary cap if they eat a whole bunch of money, which they have in bushels. What they don't have in bushels are consistent 6+ WAR players. In fact, there's only two of those dudes in baseball, and one of them is on the team right now and needs a contract. So even if you're arguing for getting under the cap, you pick Price or Sale, and add Eovaldi, and pick up 50% of their salaries, and suddenly you've got prospects and salary relief... without sacrificing Benintendi, Betts, Bogaerts, or Devers.

Also, baseball teams are actively colluding to spend less money on players, so #### yes the Red Sox should spend more. Every team should be spending more!

True, but it's easier to replace Betts than it would be to replace Devers AND ERod.


They already have all three! This is a false choice! And on top of that, Fenway Sports Group is printing money because Liverpool is once again the best soccer team in the world on fairly sane wages!
   50. Darren Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:54 PM (#5902507)
The funny thing is on the old RLRS blog you were the one screaming to bring Mookie up early and I was somewhat uncertain about him. I’m thinking you may have been right on that one.


I have no recollection of this but I'm glad I might have been right about something.
   51. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:00 PM (#5902508)
Scott, they can’t actually get under the cap by eating money. If they trade Price but pay 60% of his salary I’m pretty sure that money counts toward the cap still.
   52. Darren Posted: November 19, 2019 at 10:15 PM (#5902510)
You're right Jose, but if they eat 60% of his money, they are off the hook for the other 40%, which might be enough.
   53. SandyRiver Posted: November 20, 2019 at 09:05 AM (#5902546)
Wouldn't it be wiser to pay Devers for the next 10 years, rather than wait 4 years and see him walk? Is Devers more of a gamble now, as a long term investment, or will he be more of a gamble when he turns 25 or 26? (He may be a guy that you can give a long term contract to when his 5 years are up. But the point remains.)

I think Devers is the real deal, but I also think it would be wise to wait 1-2 years and see if he's a consistent 5+ WAR player before tossing gobs of cash his way. The downside of that would be if he became a consistent 6-7 WAR player, jacking up the price, but that's a nice problem to have and by 2021 the Sox should have less luxury tax vulnerability than at present.

Also, I hope management's lux tax goal is merely to avoid draft pick impacts, not to duck out of paying any at all. As many above have noted, the Sox have bucks galore; they also need to rebuild a somewhat depleted farm system.
   54. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2019 at 09:19 AM (#5902552)
46. Darren Posted: November 19, 2019 at 09:17 PM (#5902496)
I'm realizing now that I may be coming at this all from a different perspective than a lot of others are. A couple of things that influence my thinking:

--I remember when the Yankees were outspending everyone else and their fans were incensed when they wouldn't spend more when an opportunity arose to improve the team. I was always kind of grossed out by that. Like, when is enough enough? It feels gross to be acting the way that I felt was gross not so long ago.

--In a similar vein, I agree with the idea that baseball teams make tons of money (and the Red Sox are among the richest), and that they be willing to invest that in the players. But the Red Sox are spending more than anyone else. Why should they be expected to go even further beyond what the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, etc. spend?

--There's a common sentiment that goes something like: I understand they want to get under the luxury tax limit, but why NOW? It's so crazy that they're doing it now, at the worst possible time! But would it have made more sense right after their 2018 championship? Right after their 2017 or 2016 AL East championships? Next year?
Good post Darren. I have a similar perspective.
   55. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2019 at 10:39 AM (#5902581)
I can't find it, but didn't VI or someone make a comprehensive post showing that they could get under the threshold without trading the pitchers or Mookie? Furthermore, I believe the team has said that they would prefer to get under it, but they aren't forcing themselves to do it this offseason.

The idea to trade Sale or Eovaldi to reach the self-imposed payroll goal seems completely backwards to me. First of all, they need starting pitchers. Also, they just signed those deals last offseason and they would be selling low. If the team has gone from agreeing to the deals to needing to be rid of any part of the contractual obligation they can in just one year, it would be a remarkable display of incompetent planning. Even with some skepticism, I think the team deserves a little more credit than that. The same is partially true with regards to Price, although if some other team was absolutely in love with him, I guess a trade would become slightly more practical/plausible.
   56. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 20, 2019 at 10:58 AM (#5902592)
The idea to trade Sale or Eovaldi to reach the self-imposed payroll goal seems completely backwards to me.


I would be totally fine with the Sox trading Eovaldi, and a new GM is the perfect cover to do so. I just don't think he's worth anywhere near what is contract is. Will he have a stretch of 10 very good starts? Definitely. Will he then get hurt? Yes.

Trading Sale is silly. He's better than any other available pitcher other than Cole, trading him now would definitely be trading while he has the lowest value.

I do agree also with a bunch of Darren's post - but as Jose points out - Mookie is a product of the Sox system, he's not a FA with no connection to the team. I would be fine with the Sox trading JD also, for the same reason, there's no real history with him.
   57. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2019 at 11:04 AM (#5902596)
I would be totally fine with the Sox trading Eovaldi, and a new GM is the perfect cover to do so. I just don't think he's worth anywhere near what is contract is.
No other team thinks he's worth anywhere near what the contract is!

So the Sox could maybe save $10-20m by dumping part of his contract? Given their lack of pitching, I'd rather just have him on the team for 3 years and cross my fingers and hope for the best (like with most pitchers). Or at least wait to trade him after a decent stretch.
   58. PreservedFish Posted: November 20, 2019 at 11:14 AM (#5902600)
Does anyone else find all the talk about luxury tax and salary deeply boring? I know this stuff matters, but I just can't care anymore. I hate that it seems like it's impossible to talk baseball now without also talking about money.
   59. pikepredator Posted: November 20, 2019 at 03:04 PM (#5902701)
Given their lack of pitching, I'd rather just have him on the team for 3 years and cross my fingers and hope for the best (like with most pitchers).


Those are my thoughts. The prospect of Sale/Price/Eovaldi imploding is real, but any pitcher can fall apart. If all three of those guys were on the Blue Jays (to pick a random opponent) I'd be wishing they'd trade them out of the division because if they do bounce back - even just 2 of the 3 - look out. I think having true confidence in pitchers' health is mostly an illusion.
   60. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 20, 2019 at 07:20 PM (#5902810)
Pike, yeah I hate it too but as you say, it’s pretty relevant at the moment.

And I’m with you on the pitching, sale in particular I am optimistic about. Dude has pinpoint control and good off speed stuff, I think he just had one of those years.
   61. Nasty Nate Posted: November 20, 2019 at 09:00 PM (#5902834)
Breaking news about a Sox outfielder!

Ok, former outfielder.

Ellsbury released.
   62. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 20, 2019 at 09:04 PM (#5902835)
In Yankee news Greg Bird also booted from the 40 man. Am I crazy or would he be worth a look for the Sox?
   63. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 20, 2019 at 09:47 PM (#5902842)
Am I crazy or would he be worth a look for the Sox?


Why? Because of 46 games 4 years ago? I would much rather give playing time to Chavis or Dalbec. ####, I'd even be down with the Sox signing Ellsbury for the minimum if he can pass a physical.
   64. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 20, 2019 at 10:46 PM (#5902852)
Greg Bird looked good in his late-2015 debut (135 OPs+), but missed all of 2016 after shoulder surgery, and then was the best player in MLB during the 2017 Spring Training before fouling a ball off his foot. He’s had a series of injuries since then and been ineffective, but some team without much to lose should take a chance that he can put his injuries behind him. I wouldn’t think the Red Sox would be in that group.
   65. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 20, 2019 at 11:07 PM (#5902854)
It’s amazing it’s been four years since he was useful. I honestly thought it was more recent than that.
   66. villageidiom Posted: November 21, 2019 at 09:32 AM (#5902889)
I'd even be down with the Sox signing Ellsbury for the minimum if he can pass a physical.
The only way Ellsbury passes a physical is if he's walking down the street and a physical is moving in the opposite direction.
   67. John DiFool2 Posted: November 21, 2019 at 10:32 AM (#5902914)
Breaking news about a Sox outfielder!

Ok, former outfielder.

Ellsbury released.


Sad.

I recall his very first hit, on a routine grounder to SS. He easily beat it out.

Seems like yesterday.
   68. Darren Posted: November 22, 2019 at 07:34 PM (#5903332)
I do not care for the name Gumbo Limbo. What is that?
   69. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 22, 2019 at 07:44 PM (#5903334)
It is a restaurant at the Ritz in Naples, FL. Beautiful view of the Gulf.
   70. Darren Posted: November 22, 2019 at 08:23 PM (#5903342)
but that name? No good. I'm sure it's good though.
   71. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 22, 2019 at 08:29 PM (#5903344)
What’s wrong with the name?
   72. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 22, 2019 at 08:32 PM (#5903346)
   73. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 22, 2019 at 08:33 PM (#5903347)
It sounds like a cheesy themed franchise.
   74. Darren Posted: November 22, 2019 at 09:02 PM (#5903349)
oh that makes sense then, carry on.

   75. Darren Posted: November 22, 2019 at 09:23 PM (#5903353)
I guess the Turpentine Tree restaurant would have been gross.
   76. PreservedFish Posted: November 22, 2019 at 09:24 PM (#5903354)
I believe it's the resemblance to Cabo Wabo, Sammy Hagar's spring breaker Sodom and Gomorrah. Definitely made me think of this amusing fake Guy Fieri menu.
   77. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 23, 2019 at 08:39 AM (#5903385)
Definitely made me think of this amusing fake Guy Fieri menu.


You'll like this clip from Patton Oswalt - Black Angus Steak

It's NSFW - swearing
   78. Darren Posted: November 23, 2019 at 10:47 AM (#5903396)
Here's an important question during what looks to be a cold stove in New England: what comedians do you all like?
   79. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 23, 2019 at 02:00 PM (#5903436)
Robin Williams, Jimmy Carr. God help me Bill Cosby.
   80. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 23, 2019 at 02:06 PM (#5903437)
Hannibal Buress. Demetri Martin.
   81. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 23, 2019 at 02:17 PM (#5903443)
Patton Oswalt - whenever I listen to him I am struck by how much detail/story telling he puts into his jokes, he just really enhances them
Mitch Hedburg - pretty much the opposite of Oswalt - no real depth, but man he makes you laugh with such simple jokes
Hannibal Buress, Nate Bargatze, Chris D'Elia, Ben Bailey (the Cash Cab guy, not a ton of material out there, but such a great delivery), I'll listen to them all if here I them, never switch the station if they are on
   82. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: November 23, 2019 at 03:26 PM (#5903467)
I don't like comedians, they're not funny enough.
   83. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:13 AM (#5903552)
Gilbert Gottfried.
   84. Darren Posted: November 24, 2019 at 06:02 PM (#5903590)
Interesting answers. Two votes for Buress. Bargatze, to me, is the best comic most people probably haven't heard of.
   85. villageidiom Posted: November 24, 2019 at 06:32 PM (#5903594)
   86. puck Posted: November 24, 2019 at 06:58 PM (#5903596)
Hedburg brings to mind and oldie, Steven Wright. Demetri Martin sort of fits in with this group to me. Though he does other stuff like songs and the stuff he does with charts.
I recently saw Jerry Seinfeld, who is still great.
In the disgraced category, I enjoyed Louis CK. I hope he can come back some day. I hear he is touring, but haven't heard about the material.
I liked Maria Bamford's netflix show more than her standup. But some of that is good.
Kinane is good from what I've heard.
Chelsea Peretti's show on netflix was pretty good. I like her on Brooklyn 99, but she is different on stage than her character, but still funny.

Hmm, Bargatze, I have not heard of this person. There is a comedy radio station in the Denver area which helps one hear of folks. Though I wonder if anyone can sound funny in 2 minute clips. Mike Birbiglia, Maz Jobrani, do they hold up for a whole show?

I should probably see more people live--they are funnier that way. It's harder to stand out on the radio or on a tv special. I like Oswalt too, I bet he'd be pretty funny live.
   87. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:08 PM (#5903610)
I’ve seen a few live shows over the years. The best I ever saw was The Amazing Jonathan. Oh man was he a hoot.
   88. Darren Posted: November 24, 2019 at 08:10 PM (#5903611)
Bargatze also has a great baseball bit: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ets989/little-league-star
   89. Sunday silence Posted: November 24, 2019 at 11:42 PM (#5903644)
there's too many to name, but foul-mouthed Lisa Lampanelli just kills me.
   90. Darren Posted: November 25, 2019 at 07:07 PM (#5903884)
According to MLBTR, the Red Sox have put Brian Johnson on outright waivers.
   91. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: November 25, 2019 at 10:13 PM (#5903915)
That’s too bad, I’ve always had a soft spot for Johnson.
   92. Dock Ellis Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM (#5903994)
According to Reddit, Mookie is no longer following the Red Sox on Twitter or IG.
   93. Nasty Nate Posted: November 26, 2019 at 11:46 AM (#5904006)
From the twitterverse:

@alexspeier
Follow Follow @alexspeier
More
For those who’ve been wondering: Mookie Betts is now following the Red Sox again on Instagram. As you were.
   94. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: November 26, 2019 at 02:42 PM (#5904062)
For those who’ve been wondering: Mookie Betts is now following the Red Sox again on Instagram. As you were.

Our long national nightmare is over.

The Sox should now dump a bunch of money all over him and sign him for life (or at least 10 years).
   95. Darren Posted: November 28, 2019 at 09:48 AM (#5904333)
Stupid Red Sox let Drew Pomeranz get away and now he's worth 4 years, $34M. No wonder they fired Dombrowski.
   96. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: December 02, 2019 at 12:54 PM (#5904859)
Sandy Leon traded to Cleveland for a guy who is presumably human.

Alex Speier says they are offering a contract to JBJ. That stuns me. That makes me thing the hulabaloo over getting below the luxury tax may genuinely be a want rather than a need.
   97. Nasty Nate Posted: December 02, 2019 at 12:57 PM (#5904861)
This happened last week, but Brian Johnson made it through waivers so is still with the organization.
   98. Darren Posted: December 02, 2019 at 02:54 PM (#5904932)
It will be interesting to see if Pillar gets tendered, given that JBJ did. I am a little surprised that they didn't either nontender him our trade him before the deadline.
   99. Jose Goes to Absurd Lengths for 50K Posted: December 02, 2019 at 09:16 PM (#5905068)
Apparently they non-tendered Marco Hernandez. That seems odd. I wonder if that means they are getting close to a deal with Holt or simply that they have a lot more faith in Tzu-Wei Lin than I do.
   100. Darren Posted: December 03, 2019 at 08:41 AM (#5905130)
You're missing the obvious answer, Jose. It's clear that Pedroia is at 100%, best shape of his life. Pencil him in for 5-7 WAR, then write over that pencil with pen. #CFBPSForever

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6474 seconds
58 querie(s) executed