Bad news. We just traded your tree to the West Coast for two saplings and a barren pine cone.And yes, I just put my Mookie ornament on the xmas tree, so I'm mad.View attachment 92724
Bad news. We just traded your tree to the West Coast for two saplings and a barren pine cone.And yes, I just put my Mookie ornament on the xmas tree, so I'm mad.View attachment 92724
He was worth 27 WAR in 2020? Man, what a stud.We got 13 WAR in return for 27.
And it sounds like their final off was $300 million. Which was and is laughably low.I actually don't think this changes the history that much. First it puts the lie to the story that Mookie has said he wasn't going to come back to Boston. He was going to go to free agency and get what he could, and the Sox were unwilling to accept that and assume the risk. So tried to avoid risk by trading him, and ultimately what they got was a couple mediocre years from Verdugo, Wong and to take Price's money of their books. And BTW, they were almost ready to do the deal for the same talent without getting Price off the books? Dear God.
We got 13 WAR in return for 27.
I'd rather have had him walk at free agency.
The new information seems to be the amount of the offers, and the fact that the Sale extension occurred after the Sox decided to move on from Mookie (reporting was never really precise on this point). And the fact that the Sox failed to work out a trade with the Dodgers in midseason of 2019. Mookie was pretty adamant that he would have considered returning to Boston if the $$$ were right; his remarks were not of the "yeah, right" variety, so it's good to see confirmation.And it sounds like their final off was $300 million. Which was and is laughably low.
Nothing Scott is revealing here will change anyone's mind about the deal except, as you say, to put lie to the idiotic idea that "Mookie was never coming back here."
Not too late.I’m very disappointed that this thread isn’t titled after the Scottish Trade.
First off, I agree with most of your points. This is not directed at you specifically, but the bolded this is exactly why ownership can do the things it does. They have that goodwill and no matter the protestations of some keyboard warriors on SoSH (myself very much included!), people are still gonna love the Sox, still going to show up, still take their kids, still buy merchandise, still tune into NESN, etc. Every time someone is critical about something ownership does on a board, inevitably someone jumps in with some version of "they won 4 titles since 2004, they are infallible". This ownership group ended the drought - dramatically - and the joy many have from that will last long into the future. I truly believe that view is the view that most Red Sox fans take. No one is telling their 8 year old, baseball obsessed child that they're no longer going to Fenway for a game because Soto isn't there. They would take that kid to see a bunch of AAAA scrubs because it's the Red Sox. And ownership knows that. FWIW, I still think ownership is pursuing other interests, chiefly the NBA franchise in LV, and is looking to conserve money. The Sox print money, so not sure why ownership would be compelled to spend more if it's not really going to change the amount of revenue they are bringing in. In other words, it has less to do with being beholden to mega-contracts; its that they don't have to pay for those contracts if people are still going to show up anyway. Which they do.I think this is kind of as simple as Henry believing that four titles earned Sox ownership the right to not be held hostage by mega contracts. As Scott says, it’s a lot like the Lester negotiations in that respect. And at the time, there weren’t a ton of these – Trout and I’m not sure I remember who else (Harper?).
Henry was ultimately proven wrong on both counts – mega contracts at huge dollars for a dozen years are now the norm, which is something he acknowledged with the Devers contract. And, we only need look at this board there are limits to how much goodwill those four titles earned.
All that said, I’m not 100% sure the thought process was completely wrong. If the league didn’t go in the mega contract direction Henry would’ve avoided tying up resources in deals that will almost certainly be underwater for ~50% of their length. I know it’s “not my money” but I get it.
Also, I think Henry has just generally believed that a better and more efficient use of dollars is in drafting and development. He may be right in theory that “Tampa North” is a more economically efficient way to build a club but it probably requires more organizational stability and discipline than the Sox have had. Put another way, I think it’s hard to do in a market like Boston.
All of which is to say, I think Henry did miscalculate here and Mookie (and his mom! Yay, moms) calculated correctly. And it’s too bad for us fans in the long run. But this team has given me too much joy for me to be outright angry about how it worked out. There’s always next year!
All this really makes me think that the next story I want from Scott is what went down with Dombrowski getting canned.
A huge difference is looking ahead to the cost controlled talent they can surround these very expensive guys with while they're still in their prime. Soto's window looks pretty damn rosy in that regard; Mookie's was anything but.I find it incredibly difficult to believe that this ownership group recoiled in horror at the idea of paying market value to Betts - a stud player, developed by the Sox, beloved by the fans, in his prime, who ultimately signed for $400M - but is suddenly extremely interested in shelling out $600M or so for Soto. Yes the team is different, yes Soto and Betts are two different players. But ownership is the same.
The Red Sox have always been able to afford talent without having to wait for the farm to develop. People crow about their top 5 in spending since 2004. I don't think the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees have a lot of "cost-controlled talent" and that doesn't seem to be stopping them from signing Soto.A huge difference is looking ahead to the cost controlled talent they can surround these very expensive guys with while they're still in their prime. Soto's window looks pretty damn rosy in that regard; Mookie's was anything but.
MLB farm system ranks 2019/2020The Red Sox have always been able to afford talent without having to wait for the farm to develop. People crow about their top 5 in spending since 2004. I don't think the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees have a lot of "cost-controlled talent" and that doesn't seem to be stopping them from signing Soto.
Yes... or maybe Red Sox ownership is gonna be content to not land Soto (or any of the big FA) and just let the kids play. Cheap contracts without the additional FA spending. I guess we'll see soon.MLB farm system ranks 2019/2020
LAD: 10/3 (yes they bought Mookie and still got stronger)
BOS: 30/20
I agree with every word of this.I think this is kind of as simple as Henry believing that four titles earned Sox ownership the right to not be held hostage by mega contracts. As Scott says, it’s a lot like the Lester negotiations in that respect. And at the time, there weren’t a ton of these – Trout and I’m not sure I remember who else (Harper?).
Henry was ultimately proven wrong on both counts – mega contracts at huge dollars for a dozen years are now the norm, which is something he acknowledged with the Devers contract. And, we only need look at this board there are limits to how much goodwill those four titles earned.
All that said, I’m not 100% sure the thought process was completely wrong. If the league didn’t go in the mega contract direction Henry would’ve avoided tying up resources in deals that will almost certainly be underwater for ~50% of their length. I know it’s “not my money” but I get it.
Also, I think Henry has just generally believed that a better and more efficient use of dollars is in drafting and development. He may be right in theory that “Tampa North” is a more economically efficient way to build a club but it probably requires more organizational stability and discipline than the Sox have had. Put another way, I think it’s hard to do in a market like Boston.
All of which is to say, I think Henry did miscalculate here and Mookie (and his mom! Yay, moms) calculated correctly. And it’s too bad for us fans in the long run. But this team has given me too much joy for me to be outright angry about how it worked out. There’s always next year!
All this really makes me think that the next story I want from Scott is what went down with Dombrowski getting canned.
The bold is why I have accepted that what happened happened and no counter-narrative of "why didn't the Sox sign him for that" will hold. Covid and work stoppage changed everything.The thing that's interesting (or frustrating) to me is that Mookie did not end up going out on the market as a FA, but signed a deal with the Dodgers during Covid for 12/365 that included a chunk of deferred money. A contract that's probably less than what he could have gotten if he went on the FA market, and probably less than what the Sox expected him to get on the FA market.
And with the deferred money, I'm not sure how much better this contract is than the 300 million or so the Sox offered before they traded him. Given the timing of the signing, I think the pandemic probably influenced his decision to accept the Dodger offer at least somewhat. I'd like to think that the Sox would have been willing to make the same offer if he had stayed, but we'll never know - and we'll never know if he would have accepted the same offer from the Sox.
A person directly involved in the negotiations just flatly stated that he absolutely would've signed, possibly for even less than what the Dodgers got him. Covid had nothing to do with it. He wanted a market-rate offer and the Sox didn't even crack $300 million.The bold is why I have accepted that what happened happened and no counter-narrative of "why didn't the Sox sign him for that" will hold. Covid and work stoppage changed everything.
I'm not sure that's quite what Zack Scott said. He said that Mookie would've signed with the Sox if they met his price. It's possible that his price was $400m when he was with the Sox, but that he dropped his price after he got to LA and the pandemic hit.A person directly involved in the negotiations just flatly stated that he absolutely would've signed, possibly for even less than what the Dodgers got him. Covid had nothing to do with it. He wanted a market-rate offer and the Sox didn't even crack $300 million.
View: https://twitter.com/ZackScottSports/status/1864512390466773215?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
View: https://twitter.com/ZackScottSports/status/1864455745271390269?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://x.com/XKMeaning/status/1864536384167419937I'm not sure that's quite what Zack Scott said. He said that Mookie would've signed with the Sox if they met his price. It's possible that his price was $400m when he was with the Sox, but that he dropped his price after he got to LA and the pandemic hit.
Sorry, not on X so I can't see the answer to the question posed.
View: https://twitter.com/ZackScottSports/status/1864536761373716522Sorry, not on X so I can't see the answer to the question posed.