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