This is a good example of what I was talking about before. If this was happening in almost any other team, it would be seen as the norm. But in places like Boston, NY and LA, teams are expected to sign players no matter what the cost. But it doesn't guarantee anything. And in fact, can actually be bad for the team. I think moving Betts and getting a decent haul of near-ready prospects will turn out better for the Sox. Sox fans may hate it in the short term, but that's because they expect management to spend money with reckless abandonment.
Earlier in the thread, there were numerous players and contracts the Red Sox had to keep paying that were essentially a bonfire of money going up in flames. Most gigantic contracts are toxic halfway through them and by the end guys are worth maybe 25% of their salaries . . . and the Red Sox have already seen that recently with Sale and Price (in addition to the slew of examples earlier in the thread). Sale at times is electric, but he keeps getting banged up and shut down. Boston still owes him $145 million. Price has had his ups and downs and also has been injured. They still have to shell out $96 million for Price.
Betts isn't exactly Conan the Barbarian size wise. To think that he will continue playing at this level for another 10-12 years is foolish. His speed is going to start diminishing, his range is going to start shrinking, and who knows if he can keep his power numbers up. While we don't know what will happen, if he starts stringing together seasons like he had in 2017, he won't be worth anywhere close to $400+ million. He has done very well so far based on his insane bat speed. What happens if he loses that by a smidge?
And for whomever suggested the Red Sox fans should care that ownership is pocketing our money, what happens in 2027 when Betts is hitting .250 with 12 home runs, 8 steals, and is no longer a great fielder? Can the fans complain that Betts is the one pocketing our money?
The last three seasons, Pujols was below league average and had negative WAR. The Angels paid him $81 million for that level of performance and still owe him $59 million and another $10 million deferred. Cabrera the past three seasons has brought close to nothing to the table for the Tigers. They paid him $88 million over that time and still owe him another $124 million. But I am sure people will argue . . . well, that's different.
So forgive me if I am a fan and I don't want the Red Sox to overpay Mookie by $150-200 million for production he will never get . . . in seasons when he will likely be getting huge checks to be an average (or worse) player. But yet, that makes the RED SOX the stupid ones in this situation? Yeah, sure, as fans we often talk about these giant contracts like they are getting paid out in Monopoly money, but at some point even teams with deep pockets have to evaluate that they keep making dumb financial decisions. Yeah, I get it, it's not really my money they are spending so why should anyone care?
The Red Sox need to take a closer look at the Patriots model. Get the greatest amount of production out of players on their low dollar contracts and let someone else pay them huge dollars for their eventual decline in production. Small market MLB teams have been able to stay relevant by finding talented young guys, gaming the arbitration system, and then letting them walk or trading them for more prospects. Sure, I like Betts, but I would rather not see him in his mid to late 30's as an anchor holding back younger kids and getting a truckload of money to get in the way. But maybe that's just me and my thinking is way off kilter.
