mission27 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, kyle21121 said: I like how it’s being flipped that Mookie is the bad guy for being one of the best players in Baseball and wanting to be paid as such. That’s definitely not how it’s playing in Boston tbh. People are heated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle21121 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, mission27 said: That’s definitely not how it’s playing in Boston tbh. People are heated Blame ownership not Mookie tho. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, kyle21121 said: Blame ownership not Mookie tho. I'm sure ownership will lower ticket prices during the rebuild tho. Right? No way they just sit back and make a ton of money and then let people blame the player... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 23 minutes ago, kyle21121 said: Blame ownership not Mookie tho. Its both, how could it not be? Mookie was not willing to extend and ownership were being cheap. Put the two together and this is inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle21121 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 48 minutes ago, Deadpulse said: Its both, how could it not be? Mookie was not willing to extend and ownership were being cheap. Put the two together and this is inevitable. He wanted to test FA and not accept a low ball offer? I don’t see this as Mookie doing anything wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullsandBroncos Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Mookie never wanted to stay in Boston. He's the 2nd best player in baseball, sure. But imagine what he could be marketed as in LA or a bigger city than Boston. I loved Mookie. Wasn't my favorite player, but he was up there. I can understand it. If we offered him Trout money, he wouldn't have stayed anyway. I don't blame Mookie and I don't blame our FO. I'm mad and I'm gonna miss him, but he deserves the money and we weren't going to be any better this year because of money tied up in Price and Eovaldi. It's not John Henry we need to be mad at. It's Dombrowski. You don't give someone like Eovaldi a contract like he got for a string of games. Same for Price. If we offloaded Price and Eovaldi's contract, maybe we could've kept Mook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 23 minutes ago, kyle21121 said: He wanted to test FA and not accept a low ball offer? I don’t see this as Mookie doing anything wrong here. They offered him a market value deal afterwards, reports are he declined and asked for 15 years which is absurd. It's both, and it usually is in these situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ForTheThumb Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, kyle21121 said: I like how it’s being flipped that Mookie is the bad guy for being one of the best players in Baseball and wanting to be paid as such. Literally no one is saying this 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 5 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: I think this is a reasonable take, but I don't see how from a baseball talent perspective, you could then want to defend the Red Sox conduct here. Effectively, they had a choice to eat Price's deal as a way to buy more baseball talent, and they pocketed the money, with no plans to reinvest that in the team. (Also I deleted the rest of it because we could go down the rabbit hole on the trade deadline, but we're probably not that far off on what we think.) I didn't defend it from a baseball perspective outside of the initial decision to trade Betts. And I won't, there is no doubt a team like the Red Sox should be willing to eat the Price money for better prospects. But simply the act of trading Betts I agree with from a baseball perspective. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 12 hours ago, 1ForTheThumb said: This guy gets it. Trading him on the last year of his deal to get under the tax is fine Trading him along with price to save additional money is bad Eating half of prices contract on top of that is even worse 10 hours ago, 1ForTheThumb said: He wasn't signing a $400M extension even if it was on the table. That's obviously not true, but that money was never on a table, so we'll never know for sure. Making a definitive statement like that though seems foolish. Almost as foolish as walking away from 400 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ForTheThumb Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 44 minutes ago, N4L said: Trading him on the last year of his deal to get under the tax is fine Trading him along with price to save additional money is bad Eating half of prices contract on top of that is even worse That's obviously not true, but that money was never on a table, so we'll never know for sure. Making a definitive statement like that though seems foolish. Almost as foolish as walking away from 400 million. What? Lol. You make this move because you feel you can't compete this season and puts you in a better position for 2021 (and beyond). I will gladly shed some of that bad contract, especially when its' for a 34 pitcher who's had some recent injury concerns. Dumping Price is not bad, it's smart. This team won 84-games last season, literally couldn't afford to add anyone to it given the way the rosters currently constructed, and oh...they don't even have a manager right now. It makes all the sense in the world to punt on this season, and set yourself up better for the future. Betts wasn't signing any extension. "The Red Sox ownership is so cheap!" narrative is just lazy and misinformed. This ownership has consistently spent at one of the higher rates in the MLB. This is the same ownership that spent $61 million dollars on a 20-year old prospect from Cuba. And then was totally fine with shipping him out just one-year later. Teams have been doing what the Red Sox are currently doing; but, I guess people just weren't paying attention then. The Yankees did it. The Dodgers are doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 4 hours ago, Deadpulse said: They offered him a market value deal afterwards, reports are he declined and asked for 15 years which is absurd. It's both, and it usually is in these situations. $300M is not market value for him tbh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, 1ForTheThumb said: What? Lol. You make this move because you feel you can't compete this season and puts you in a better position for 2021 (and beyond). I will gladly shed some of that bad contract, especially when its' for a 34 pitcher who's had some recent injury concerns. Dumping Price is not bad, it's smart. This team won 84-games last season, literally couldn't afford to add anyone to it given the way the rosters currently constructed, and oh...they don't even have a manager right now. It makes all the sense in the world to punt on this season, and set yourself up better for the future. Betts wasn't signing any extension. "The Red Sox ownership is so cheap!" narrative is just lazy and misinformed. This ownership has consistently spent at one of the higher rates in the MLB. This is the same ownership that spent $61 million dollars on a 20-year old prospect from Cuba. And then was totally fine with shipping him out just one-year later. Teams have been doing what the Red Sox are currently doing; but, I guess people just weren't paying attention then. The Yankees did it. The Dodgers are doing it. Shedding additional salary that reduces your overall return of actual talent is the sticking point here. Again, trading Mookie and punting on this season is fine. I am not questioning it at all. What I am saying is that the redsox have a horrible farm system and they just traded one of the best players baseball has seen in the last 20 years to a team that has one of the best farm systems and chose to shed only half of a bad contract rather than get back additional talent. Redsox whould have been better off getting gavin lux + for Mookie, is basically what I am saying. Instead they chose to save money that they aren't going to even spend over the next few years. Its also not like they had to trade Mookie and price to get under the tax. If that was the case then I would completely understand it, but trading Mookie alone did the trick, so anything beyond that was not a move made for baseball reasons imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 We dont know if Lux was on the table, do we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Slateman said: We dont know if Lux was on the table, do we? We don't to be honest, but they undoubtedly received less compensation than otherwise due to attaching price to the deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.