Jump to content

Which will be the more unforgiveable sin in Boston sports: Selling Babe Ruth or chasing Tom Brady away


Recommended Posts

If this was Brady 10 years ago (and Brady was traded) maybe you have a case between the two. Given Brady's age and the number of championships he brought to the Patriots I'm not sure how you could say Brady leaving is worse. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe Ruth and it isn't even close. Tom Brady staying here would have been a frustrating repeat of last season with him throwing to a bunch of stiffs and him wasting another year of his talent. Tom deserves a lot better considering how much he gave to the Patriots. I'm not mad at the Patriots or Belichick either. They were in trouble with cap space and were unlucky with draft picks that finally caught up with them. Maybe Tom can finish out is contract in Tampa and come back to us at 45 after the Patriots have regrouped to try and push for one more. I know it sounds silly and unrealistic but then again so does a 43 year old quarterback throwing 40 touchdowns and winning the Super Bowl. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, biggie. said:

Both were franchise altering events. Which one was worse?

How is this a franchise altering event? 

We don't win the Superbowl with Tom this year. We have a middling pick. This isn't franchise altering.

 

It's babe, not even close

Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe.  TB would have languished here and the decline talk would be through the roof since our supporting cast is pretty abysmal.  For what he's brought to the team, and what was bound to end sooner vs. later, I don't see much of an issue with him leaving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

How is this a franchise altering event? 

We don't win the Superbowl with Tom this year. We have a middling pick. This isn't franchise altering.

 

It's babe, not even close

We may not win the SB, but we definitely wouldn't be one of the worst teams in the league. God help us if Belichick decides to retire because we'll be early 90's bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, biggie. said:

We may not win the SB, but we definitely wouldn't be one of the worst teams in the league. God help us if Belichick decides to retire because we'll be early 90's bad.

Well, we're the 15th worst. I think with TB we still miss the playoffs this year due to a much tougher schedule than the previous year and the rise of Buffalo is happening regardless.

 

Thinking back, we win 1 Buffalo game with Tom, we may have won the Seahawks game but Cam played unreal. Possibly Chiefs game but that would be some revisionism. I can't see many more wins - 49ers and Denver ruined our defense, as did Buffalo the second time. As did LAR. Maybe we end up something like 9-7

Edited by Hunter2_1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth and it's not close. Ruth was traded in his prime to an arch rival and brought them 4 championships. How long do you think Brady is gonna play? How many more years do you think he's gonna go against the Pats?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get sidetracked but MLB contracts are nuts, Mookie was 27 when he got his massive contract. The entire concept of arbitration years and the general amount of time before free agency is insane. Lots of guys don't reach free agency for the first time till they are almost 30 because of it ( either from arbitration or signing a more team friendly deal to avoid it). Young players get screwed money wise .. but if you are able to hold out and be good long term you get rewarded with INSANE money compared to other sports. 

 

Mookie got 12 years, at age 26. Does anyone in the world really think he will be able to still be in the league at at 38? He's incredibly talented but he's a small guy overall.. 5 years of that contract could be horrendous. If MLB had limits on contracts similar to the NBA ( I think 5 years) then Mookie likely would have been resigned. The Red Sox have more than enough money to be able to afford wasting the money at the end of that contract but I have a hard time being too angry with them for trading him. Especially because I'm not sure he wanted to stay here anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 8:41 PM, Crimmage said:

Not to get sidetracked but MLB contracts are nuts, Mookie was 27 when he got his massive contract. The entire concept of arbitration years and the general amount of time before free agency is insane. Lots of guys don't reach free agency for the first time till they are almost 30 because of it ( either from arbitration or signing a more team friendly deal to avoid it). Young players get screwed money wise .. but if you are able to hold out and be good long term you get rewarded with INSANE money compared to other sports. 

 

Mookie got 12 years, at age 26. Does anyone in the world really think he will be able to still be in the league at at 38? He's incredibly talented but he's a small guy overall.. 5 years of that contract could be horrendous. If MLB had limits on contracts similar to the NBA ( I think 5 years) then Mookie likely would have been resigned. The Red Sox have more than enough money to be able to afford wasting the money at the end of that contract but I have a hard time being too angry with them for trading him. Especially because I'm not sure he wanted to stay here anyway.

 

I don't see how Mookie's size is relevant. Willie Mays was small and he played at a high level into his 40s. Ditto Rickey Henderson. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...