Hey, Let's Talk The Mookie Trade!

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,623
I think there was a fear that if he hit FA the Yankees would get him, so they looked specifically at LA and figured it a good place to keep him away from NY.
Mookie so far has been one of the few mega contacts that has paid off on the front end in that even if he utterly collapses and the second half is way underwater- they still have at least 1.5 WS victories tied directly to him.
If Soto can do that for Boston- 2 WS over the first 6 years, another WS loss and another 2 ALCS losses -but drag the team down to mid AL team his 2nd 6 years with aging overpaid Devers at his side…. Would it be worth it? Obviously it should be.

edt- trying to figure out how to make a Mookie thread into a Soto thread since until a few months ago all threads devolved into Mookie threads
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
38,150
Deep inside Muppet Labs
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.
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."
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,604
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."
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.

These are all interesting (to some) details. But, if anything, Scott's disclosures basically reinforce what was widely speculated at the time of the trade; as you said, nothing to change anyone's mind.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
29,394
Newton
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.
 

astrozombie

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2022
819
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.
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.
Also I joined SoSH post-Mookie trade. I won't rehash my feelings on that now (no one cares and someone probably already posted my sentiments 6 years ago) but let me say that 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.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,099
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.
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.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,858
Oh hey, the Mookie thread. I was hoping we would finally talk about him.

Four years into a twelve-year deal, it's not a bad time to think about how well the deal has worked out for the Dodgers so far (pretty, pretty good!) but also what Mookie's performance might be going forward. After a quick look at his Baseball Savant page, here are a few things that stand out:
  • Mookie's command of the strike zone remains impeccable and may be getting better after he enjoyed a career low in K% last year at 11.0% (the Ohtani effect, perhaps?) while maintaining his walk rate (11.8%, not a career-best but close). Relatedly, he is among the league's best in chase % and whiff %.
  • When Betts swings, he often makes quality contact, with a squared-up percentage ranked in the 99th percentile. He doesn't rate towards the top of the league in exit velocity or hard-hit percentage, but his xBA and xwOBA are elite, and his xSLG is generally solid, though it was elite in 2023 - he still has some pop.
  • Betts is still a savvy baserunner who picks his spots to steal bases (16sb vs 2cs in 2024 in 116g) and is ridiculously good at scoring runs.
  • However, as has been noted elsewhere, Betts has lost more than a step in sprint speed, dropping to 26.7 ft/s in 2024, down from the 27.2-27.4 ft/s he was in the previous 3 seasons and a far cry from the 27.9-28.3 range he was in prior to that, dropping from roughly 75% in the league to 31%.
  • Whether due to his decrease in sprint speed or his scattershot use in the field, his defensive value has gone from elite to slightly below average.
The go-forward narrative for Betts seems to be taking shape: he's an elite batter with impeccable control of the strike zone and enough pop in his bat to make it matter. He also has a very high baseball IQ, something that won't fade with age, and he makes smart decisions on the bases and in the field. His versatility to play several premium defensive positions is also an asset for the Dodgers, allowing them to maximize their roster value. That said, a lot of what made him an elite, dynamic player in his 20s - speed and defense - is fading quickly, which puts downward pressure on his value as he ages into his 30s. Maybe his speed and defense will rebound with better health this year, but the downward trajectories are for both are hard to reverse, IMO.

I think we will likely have a couple more elite seasons from Betts over the next 3-4 years, but we will also likely start seeing more mediocre ones from him. By his mid-30s, Betts seems like he'll be a high-floor player (2-3 WAR?) with an increasingly low ceiling (4-5 WAR?), which is still really valuable and enough to justify the size and length of the Dodgers deal. Still, I think it's also likely we don't see too many more superstar seasons from Mookie.

But I love Mookie, so I hope I'm embarrassingly wrong about my muted outlook.
 

astrozombie

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2022
819
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.
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.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,099
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.
MLB farm system ranks 2019/2020
LAD: 10/3 (yes they bought Mookie and still got stronger)
BOS: 30/20
 

astrozombie

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2022
819
MLB farm system ranks 2019/2020
LAD: 10/3 (yes they bought Mookie and still got stronger)
BOS: 30/20
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.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
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.

From COTS:
  • 12 years/$365M (2021-32)
    • signed extension with LA Dodgers 7/22/20
    • $65M signing bonus (paid in annual installments Nov. 1, 2021-35: $5M/year in 2021-32, $2M/year in 2033-34, $1M in 2035)
    • 21:$17.5M, 22:$17.5M, 23:$20M, 24:$25M, 25:$25M, 26:$25M, 27:$25M, 28:$30M, 29:$30M, 30:$30M, 31:$27.5M, 32:$27.5M
    • $115M in salary is deferred ($8M/year of 2021-25 salaries, $10M/year of 2026-27 salaries, $11M/year of 2028-32 salaries)
    • deferred money to be paid each July 1, 2033-44: $8M/year in 2033-37, $10M/year in 2038-39, $11M/year in 2040-44.
    • deferrals reduce present-day value to $306,657,882 (per MLBPA)
    • deal does not include an opt-out provision or a no-trade clause
    • if Betts is traded, deferrals are eliminated & salary is paid as earned
    • perks: hotel suite on road
    • Betts to donate $100,000 annually to club charity
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,638
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.
I agree with every word of this.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,062
Mobile, AL
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.
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.
 
Mar 30, 2023
272
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.
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
 
Last edited:

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
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
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.