Author Topic: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers  (Read 3703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2020, 03:33:25 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15689
  • Tommy Points: 1455
  • On To Banner 18!
To be honest, I get that the Red Sox wanted to save costs and cut payroll, but wouldn't it have been smarter to just re-sign Betts, then trade him in a year or two? Or do you think his large contract would've deterred trade suitors away?

Nope, because they wanted to get under the luxury tax. Trading Betts was one way they could do it (along with David Price who essentially was a salary dump). Became the "perfect storm" that led to the trade.

Ah, I see.

Well, judging from from the mixed reviews here, I'd wager some people liked it, while others were pretty upset.

Where do you stand on that? Do you think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, or was it time to rebuild?

My honest opinion. If the Red Sox offered him 10/300M and not any higher, then I don't blame Betts for not taking it. Personally, I was hoping the Sox would offer him something around 10/350M, or 11/375M (basically between what Harper/Machado and Trout got for their contracts).

So I guess you could say I think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, BUT the Sox had been over the luxury tax for like 3 years in a row and once you reach like 4 years in a row and beyond, the penalties for it are really harsh apparently. Combination of dropping some Draft Pick spots and paying even more $$$. It's why other big market teams like the Dodgers also typically spend some years over the luxury tax, then reset and go back over. Only exception is the Yankees, because of course they are the Yankees. I think they spent like 15 years in a row being over the luxury tax and paid a ton in the taxes.

Anyways, I'm sure the Red Sox tried their best, but I imagine there wasn't much interest in JBJ (11M) and Eovaldi (17M) in the trade market. So David Price was the "best" option to trade for a salary dump. And I guess the Sox decided they didn't want to go higher than 300M for Betts, so they dealt him for some value before he hit FA and it helped to get the Sox under the luxury tax as they attached Price (and half his contract) to the trade as well.

I think the deal he got is very fair. Idk if I wanted the Sox to go more than 12 years though. I agree with others that while those contracts may be good the first 5-6 years, after that it gets real tough. I mean, paying a 39 or 40 year old Harper or Betts something like 30 or 35M+? Yeesh.

That's my take on it.

2020 honestly seemed like a "bridge year" for the Sox anyways. The rotation is garbage and frankly even if Chris Sale were healthy, the rotation would still be mediocre and besides that, they didn't do much in FA. Lost Porcello and a few others and didn't replace all of them since they didn't want to spend more and go back over the luxury tax again
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2020, 04:24:20 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4932
  • Tommy Points: 428
"News media reports said the Red Sox offered Betts a 10-year deal worth close to $300 million, and Betts countered by asking for 12 years and $420 million." 

This was reported in Feb 2020.  Reports also have that Mookie really wanted to get to free agency, even after the trade to the Dodgers, Covid changed his mind.

Personally, I'm OK with the trade, the second trade that is.  I think Dave Dembroski set the club back years with his trades and contracts.  Chris Sales 5ys/145M is a joke.

If the 10 years/$300M is true (and it seems reasonable that it is) then the Sox probably would have gone to 12 years and $365M.  But a year ago, Mookie still wanted to "test" free agency.  I recall statements along the lines of "I owe it to the union", that kind of thing.

I also think that Mookie likes LA better than Boston but before Covid, his plan was still to test free agency, not resign with LA.

Mookie is a good player, he deserves big money.  I don't think this is about the Sox being cheap though.  They could have kept him and continued to try and sign him through this season, and maybe post Covid, they would have but I don't think you can blame the Sox for doing the trade under the circumstances.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2020, 05:41:08 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
To be honest, I get that the Red Sox wanted to save costs and cut payroll, but wouldn't it have been smarter to just re-sign Betts, then trade him in a year or two? Or do you think his large contract would've deterred trade suitors away?

Nope, because they wanted to get under the luxury tax. Trading Betts was one way they could do it (along with David Price who essentially was a salary dump). Became the "perfect storm" that led to the trade.

Ah, I see.

Well, judging from from the mixed reviews here, I'd wager some people liked it, while others were pretty upset.

Where do you stand on that? Do you think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, or was it time to rebuild?

My honest opinion. If the Red Sox offered him 10/300M and not any higher, then I don't blame Betts for not taking it. Personally, I was hoping the Sox would offer him something around 10/350M, or 11/375M (basically between what Harper/Machado and Trout got for their contracts).

So I guess you could say I think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, BUT the Sox had been over the luxury tax for like 3 years in a row and once you reach like 4 years in a row and beyond, the penalties for it are really harsh apparently. Combination of dropping some Draft Pick spots and paying even more $$$. It's why other big market teams like the Dodgers also typically spend some years over the luxury tax, then reset and go back over. Only exception is the Yankees, because of course they are the Yankees. I think they spent like 15 years in a row being over the luxury tax and paid a ton in the taxes.

Anyways, I'm sure the Red Sox tried their best, but I imagine there wasn't much interest in JBJ (11M) and Eovaldi (17M) in the trade market. So David Price was the "best" option to trade for a salary dump. And I guess the Sox decided they didn't want to go higher than 300M for Betts, so they dealt him for some value before he hit FA and it helped to get the Sox under the luxury tax as they attached Price (and half his contract) to the trade as well.

I think the deal he got is very fair. Idk if I wanted the Sox to go more than 12 years though. I agree with others that while those contracts may be good the first 5-6 years, after that it gets real tough. I mean, paying a 39 or 40 year old Harper or Betts something like 30 or 35M+? Yeesh.

That's my take on it.

2020 honestly seemed like a "bridge year" for the Sox anyways. The rotation is garbage and frankly even if Chris Sale were healthy, the rotation would still be mediocre and besides that, they didn't do much in FA. Lost Porcello and a few others and didn't replace all of them since they didn't want to spend more and go back over the luxury tax again

Thanks for sharing your take. Take my TP.

There probably wasn't much incentive considering the net negative rotation, and the luxury tax penalties. Feels strange to witness Betts in a Dodgers uniform.  :o

To be honest, I was shocked Harper got that much money. He's an excellent player, but I'd take Betts over him 10/10
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2020, 12:41:12 AM »

Online SparzWizard

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9420
  • Tommy Points: 557
After a historic 11-0 1st inning and 15-3 thrashing of the Atlanta Braves in Game 3, the Dodgers find themselves down 3-1 to the Braves after losing Game 4.

Nothing against the Dodgers, but it would be fun to watch the Dodgers get bounced in the playoffs and those LA fans can settle down. Don't want too many championships coming in here in just 1 month's time. Already sick of the Lakers fans boasting around. 95% of Lakers fans are Dodgers fans here anyway.

Plus it'd be funny if the Astros come back up from 0-3 against the Rays, beat them, and make it to the World Series and win it all again but clean lol.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2020, 01:39:22 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7784
  • Tommy Points: 215
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2020, 02:13:13 AM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4768
  • Tommy Points: 553
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.

TP for Tom Petty!
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2020, 09:26:41 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29289
  • Tommy Points: 3589
  • Yup
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.

TP for Tom Petty!

Weird.  I tunes just shuffled onto a Tom Petty song as I clicked on this thread.  What is the reference?  Just TP?

Yup

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2020, 12:44:10 PM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3349
  • Tommy Points: 495
To be honest, I get that the Red Sox wanted to save costs and cut payroll, but wouldn't it have been smarter to just re-sign Betts, then trade him in a year or two? Or do you think his large contract would've deterred trade suitors away?

Nope, because they wanted to get under the luxury tax. Trading Betts was one way they could do it (along with David Price who essentially was a salary dump). Became the "perfect storm" that led to the trade.

Ah, I see.

Well, judging from from the mixed reviews here, I'd wager some people liked it, while others were pretty upset.

Where do you stand on that? Do you think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, or was it time to rebuild?

My honest opinion. If the Red Sox offered him 10/300M and not any higher, then I don't blame Betts for not taking it. Personally, I was hoping the Sox would offer him something around 10/350M, or 11/375M (basically between what Harper/Machado and Trout got for their contracts).

So I guess you could say I think the Sox were better off keeping Betts, BUT the Sox had been over the luxury tax for like 3 years in a row and once you reach like 4 years in a row and beyond, the penalties for it are really harsh apparently. Combination of dropping some Draft Pick spots and paying even more $$$. It's why other big market teams like the Dodgers also typically spend some years over the luxury tax, then reset and go back over. Only exception is the Yankees, because of course they are the Yankees. I think they spent like 15 years in a row being over the luxury tax and paid a ton in the taxes.

Anyways, I'm sure the Red Sox tried their best, but I imagine there wasn't much interest in JBJ (11M) and Eovaldi (17M) in the trade market. So David Price was the "best" option to trade for a salary dump. And I guess the Sox decided they didn't want to go higher than 300M for Betts, so they dealt him for some value before he hit FA and it helped to get the Sox under the luxury tax as they attached Price (and half his contract) to the trade as well.

I think the deal he got is very fair. Idk if I wanted the Sox to go more than 12 years though. I agree with others that while those contracts may be good the first 5-6 years, after that it gets real tough. I mean, paying a 39 or 40 year old Harper or Betts something like 30 or 35M+? Yeesh.

That's my take on it.

2020 honestly seemed like a "bridge year" for the Sox anyways. The rotation is garbage and frankly even if Chris Sale were healthy, the rotation would still be mediocre and besides that, they didn't do much in FA. Lost Porcello and a few others and didn't replace all of them since they didn't want to spend more and go back over the luxury tax again

The average annual value of the deal Betts took with the Dodgers compared to what we rumored to offer over 10 years was roughly the same.  If Betts wasn’t willing to commit then I really don’t blame the Sox for dealing him.  If the player really wants to be here there has to be some give and take. Look at the Boagarts and Pedrioa deals that were fair to both sides. 

The Sox goal under Bloom is to have sustained success, where the backend of the Betts deal could get a little ugly and hinder them.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2020, 02:03:36 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15689
  • Tommy Points: 1455
  • On To Banner 18!
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.

To be honest, Mookie was also fairly "meh" through much of our 2018 playoff run but thankfully guys like JBJ, Pearce and others stepped up. And Mookie did hit that HR in the World Series clinching Game 5 too.

My biggest takeaway from last night though was, Kershaw yet again choking. I like Kershaw but he's truly becoming the Peyton Manning and James Harden of the MLB (though Peyton does have 2 rings). Phenomenal and historically great regular season guy who typically chokes and comes up short in the playoffs often.

Missed Game 2 due to a late injury, then with the team down 2-1 in Game 4 he gives up 4 runs in 5 innings. He was fantastic against the Brewers in that series, but after that he's been shaky (even in the Padres game last round he gave up like 3 runs in 5 innings I think but LAD put up a lot of runs).
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2020, 02:04:51 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10531
  • Tommy Points: 1335
  • Entitled waves will wash us all away
The average annual value of the deal Betts took with the Dodgers compared to what we rumored to offer over 10 years was roughly the same.  If Betts wasn’t willing to commit then I really don’t blame the Sox for dealing him.  If the player really wants to be here there has to be some give and take. Look at the Boagarts and Pedrioa deals that were fair to both sides. 

The Sox goal under Bloom is to have sustained success, where the backend of the Betts deal could get a little ugly and hinder them.

I agree on the AAV, but those last two years are definitely what sealed the deal for Mookie. By that point, he will almost be 40. It is pretty safe to say that if Mookie signed here on a 10 yr contract for $300M that he wouldn't be signing s 2yr/$65M contract at that point in his career.

I don't particularly have an opinion on the trade. On the surface, we dealt a top-end talent for not top-end prospects. Perhaps if we could have signed and traded Mookie (thus guaranteeing he would be in LA 'forever'), we could have received more back; but, it is what it is. I am not going to wish ill-will on him as a player - he should be excellent for at least 8 years of that contract. If he falls apart now, well, then the Sox made an excellent decision (but I don't see that happening).

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2020, 02:12:05 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7784
  • Tommy Points: 215
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.

TP for Tom Petty!

Weird.  I tunes just shuffled onto a Tom Petty song as I clicked on this thread.  What is the reference?  Just TP?

I can't be sure, but I figured it was for me being petty, LOL. I'm still a little sour with Mookie (and yeah, I know that not everyone agrees with me on this issue).
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2020, 02:21:07 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7784
  • Tommy Points: 215
Mookie hitting .143 (2-for-14) through 4 games in the NLCS. Gotta admit, that makes me happy.

To be honest, Mookie was also fairly "meh" through much of our 2018 playoff run but thankfully guys like JBJ, Pearce and others stepped up. And Mookie did hit that HR in the World Series clinching Game 5 too.

My biggest takeaway from last night though was, Kershaw yet again choking. I like Kershaw but he's truly becoming the Peyton Manning and James Harden of the MLB (though Peyton does have 2 rings). Phenomenal and historically great regular season guy who typically chokes and comes up short in the playoffs often.

Missed Game 2 due to a late injury, then with the team down 2-1 in Game 4 he gives up 4 runs in 5 innings. He was fantastic against the Brewers in that series, but after that he's been shaky (even in the Padres game last round he gave up like 3 runs in 5 innings I think but LAD put up a lot of runs).

Agree about Kershaw. I like him on a personal level, and in the regular season he's one of the all-time greats, IMO, but yeah, in the playoffs, he usually just doesn't get the job done. It's an amazing study in psychology, actually—it seems he has some sort of mental block when it comes to the postseason. Last season, when he was pitching against the Nats, my brother-in-law and I were sitting there watching, and we both said, "He's gonna give up a homer," and sure enough he gave up back-to-back homers to Rendon and Soto.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2020, 03:58:28 PM »

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3349
  • Tommy Points: 495
The average annual value of the deal Betts took with the Dodgers compared to what we rumored to offer over 10 years was roughly the same.  If Betts wasn’t willing to commit then I really don’t blame the Sox for dealing him.  If the player really wants to be here there has to be some give and take. Look at the Boagarts and Pedrioa deals that were fair to both sides. 

The Sox goal under Bloom is to have sustained success, where the backend of the Betts deal could get a little ugly and hinder them.

I agree on the AAV, but those last two years are definitely what sealed the deal for Mookie. By that point, he will almost be 40. It is pretty safe to say that if Mookie signed here on a 10 yr contract for $300M that he wouldn't be signing s 2yr/$65M contract at that point in his career.

I don't particularly have an opinion on the trade. On the surface, we dealt a top-end talent for not top-end prospects. Perhaps if we could have signed and traded Mookie (thus guaranteeing he would be in LA 'forever'), we could have received more back; but, it is what it is. I am not going to wish ill-will on him as a player - he should be excellent for at least 8 years of that contract. If he falls apart now, well, then the Sox made an excellent decision (but I don't see that happening).

I disagree on the return back.  Downs is a top 3 prospect for us, and could be an above average 2nd baseman maybe more for years to come for the Sox.   Verdugo is only a year plus removed from being a top prospect himself, and we have 4 more years of cost control with him. 2 strong years to start his career.  Wong immediately became the top catching prospect in our system.  Without having a ton of leverage I thought Bloom made out well. 

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2020, 09:04:02 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10531
  • Tommy Points: 1335
  • Entitled waves will wash us all away
The average annual value of the deal Betts took with the Dodgers compared to what we rumored to offer over 10 years was roughly the same.  If Betts wasn’t willing to commit then I really don’t blame the Sox for dealing him.  If the player really wants to be here there has to be some give and take. Look at the Boagarts and Pedrioa deals that were fair to both sides. 

The Sox goal under Bloom is to have sustained success, where the backend of the Betts deal could get a little ugly and hinder them.

I agree on the AAV, but those last two years are definitely what sealed the deal for Mookie. By that point, he will almost be 40. It is pretty safe to say that if Mookie signed here on a 10 yr contract for $300M that he wouldn't be signing s 2yr/$65M contract at that point in his career.

I don't particularly have an opinion on the trade. On the surface, we dealt a top-end talent for not top-end prospects. Perhaps if we could have signed and traded Mookie (thus guaranteeing he would be in LA 'forever'), we could have received more back; but, it is what it is. I am not going to wish ill-will on him as a player - he should be excellent for at least 8 years of that contract. If he falls apart now, well, then the Sox made an excellent decision (but I don't see that happening).

I disagree on the return back.  Downs is a top 3 prospect for us, and could be an above average 2nd baseman maybe more for years to come for the Sox.   Verdugo is only a year plus removed from being a top prospect himself, and we have 4 more years of cost control with him. 2 strong years to start his career.  Wong immediately became the top catching prospect in our system.  Without having a ton of leverage I thought Bloom made out well.

Maybe I am exaggerating a little on the return, but when you trade away an MVP in his prime, you should expect to get back slam-dunk, home run top prospect(s). I am not saying we did especially poorly and these guys easily could pan out; but it was a little underwhelming at the time of the trade and I think that is mostly because Mookie was an expiring contract.

Re: Mookie Betts agreed to 12 year/$365M deal with Dodgers
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2020, 09:36:23 PM »

Online SparzWizard

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9420
  • Tommy Points: 557
I can't believe the Astros are gonna come back up from an 0-3 deficit. 7-2 at the 8th inning right now