Thursday, November 20, 2014

What is Mookie Betts?

It’s hot stove season, which means a lot of rumors. Rumors about free agents. Rumors about players under contract. Rumors about possible trades. It’s a lot of fun.

During the trade rumors portion, Mookie Betts’s name has come up quite a bit. And, why wouldn’t he? He’s an attractive prospect that I’m sure any number of teams would like to add to their roster. It seems, though, that many in Red Sox Nation are completely opposed to letting that happen. Which brings me to one question.

Why not?

Oh, sure. I know you’re aware that I consider every player to be potential trade bait in the right deal. There are no names on the roster that another team could include that would stop me from at least reading the entire trade offer. Obviously, if the first three names are Ortiz, Pedroia, Bogaerts…the name at the end better be Trout. But, at least I’d read and see what it said.

But, this is even beyond that. Frankly, I think the Sox should be actively trying to sell “high” on Betts. After all, what is he? What’s the best you expect out of him? I’m not even talking about this season. What’s the best you expect out of Mookie Betts, ever? I’m guessing it’s not 2004 Manny Ramirez. I’m guessing it’s not 2011 Jacoby Ellsbury either. 2008 Dustin Pedroia? Maybe. 2013 Jacoby Ellsbury? More likely.

Isn’t that really what we’re looking at as a peak for Betts? Especially the next handful of years? .285-15-70? Why is that untouchable? After all, we just had a guy do that, and we couldn’t let him leave for the big contract elsewhere fast enough. Good riddance. We can replace you with Jackie Bradley Jr.

Now that guy is untouchable?

Sure, Mookie was fun last season. He was exactly what the team needed at the end of a lost, dreary season. He was a blast of excitement. He was something enjoy as he showed us all what he could do.

But, it’s not like he was having Phil Plantier’s September call-up. So, why would we guard him with an iron shield? Heck, the Sox don’t even have a position open for him at the moment.

Shouldn’t he be the first name on the offer sheet to Philadelphia? Shouldn’t he be the exact chip that you’d use to get a proven top of the rotation lefty with a great postseason resume? Shouldn’t he be the guy that Philly overvalues from afar? Instead, people are actually willing to stop a deal for Cole Hamels, or anyone else for that matter, if Mookie’s name in brought up. It’s unbelievable.

Am I wrong with Mookie’s assessment? Do people think he is, in fact, going to be 2005 David Ortiz? Or, are people confusing “fun” with “productive”? (Maybe it’s an infielder thing. They certainly confuse the two when it comes to the second baseman)

What is Mookie Betts?

1 comment:

  1. I think he is 2013 Jacoby at the league minimum for 6 years. Hard to part with that. Wouldn't trade that for Hamels. Hamels is good but it's at the declining period of his career and will cost 110 million. Betts best years are still ahead of him and they don't come with the giant price tag.


What people are reading this week