As soon as the words came out of the mouth of Mookie Betts, the (over)reactions soon followed.
Earlier this week, Betts publicly confirmed what many had already suspected: he wasn't interested in signing a contract extension before reaching free agency.
The clues had been there for some time: the lack of engagement from his side when the Sox attempted twice (at minimum) to get him extended; his habit of quickly redirecting or changing the topic when asked about his contractual status.
Wednesday's remarks, however, made it official, seemingly closing the door on any talks between now and November of 2020.
There was no animus on the part of Betts. He showed no evidence that he had ruled out staying in Boston long-term.
"Like I said, I love it here and I think this is a great place to be, spend your career here,'' said Betts, "but that doesn't mean sell yourself short.”
Again, there was nothing disqualifying in his comments. He didn't hint that he hated the weather, or the expectations. He didn't suggest that he was unhappy with management or ownership. There was nothing about wanting to play closer to his (Tennessee) home.
The only hint came in the "sell yourself short,'' remark. That indicates Betts wants to be paid his full market value, which is entirely his right. Reading between the lines, that hints the Sox have been attempting to get something of a hometown discount in their previous entreaties. That, too, is their right: most extensions fit that description. The player gets the security of a long-term deal, and in exchange, the team typically realizes some savings.
Within minutes of the comments from Betts, some began painting a doomsday scenario. Betts, they maintained, was signaling he would never sign a long-term deal to remain in Boston, and thus, the best course of action for the Sox would be to begin fielding trade offers for him.
Which is, of course, utter nonsense.
Forget for a minute that Betts in no way suggested he wouldn't remain in Boston past 2020. Instead, he indicated that he wanted to let the process play out and would prefer to see where the market stands in another 20 months.
Instead, let's focus on the wrong-headed notion the Sox would be better off "getting something'' now for Betts, rather than risk losing him to free agency after the 2020 season.
1. If this is going to be determined by dollars offered, the Red Sox are as well-positioned as any team.
We're not talking about the Tampa Bay Rays or Miami Marlins here. The Red Sox -- by virtue of their attendance, fan support and not incidentally, the cash cow that is NESN -- have among the game's highest revenues. They're enormously popular with a well-established brand. Among the 29 other franchises, only the Cubs, Yankees and Dodgers could potentially be ranked above them when it comes to resources.
Translation: if the Red Sox are outbid on Betts in another year and a half, it will be because they're unwilling to outspend the competition, not because they're unable to do so.
2. Even in a worst-case scenario (i.e. Betts signs elsewhere), there's tremendous value in having Betts for another two seasons.
It's easy to make the case that Betts is among the, say, five best players in the game. It's no stretch to suggest that he may well be the second-best player, behind only Mike Trout.
For the next two years, Betts will play the regular season at 26 and 27, turning 28 a week or so into the 2020 postseason. That represents the absolute prime of his career.
Other than a few minor maladies, Betts has been injury-free for his career. There are no chronic conditions to carefully manage.
As extraordinary as Betts was in 2018 -- compiling a 10.9 WAR, among the best seasons for a position player in the last 20 or so years -- there's nothing that precludes him from having two seasons like it this year and next.
Scary though it may be for the rest of baseball, it's possible that Betts hasn't yet reached his peak. For a team positioned to contend for a championship for at least that window -- 2019 and 2020 -- that's invaluable.
Put simply, and pardon the obviousness of this statement -- the Sox have a much better chance of winning another World Series (or two) with Betts than they do without him.
3. The Red Sox shouldn't be motivated by the allure of top prospects.
Again, this is not some rebuilding team, having to worry about windows closing and starting over. Well-run franchises can adjust as they go, balancing short-term needs without sacrificing long-term goals.
The Rays or Marlins or Royals or Reds might be distracted by maximizing their return for a star player creeping closer to free agency, but the Sox need not be.
How many "can't-miss'' prospects, a year or so from contributing at the big league level, would it take to make up for the loss of Betts? Three? Four? And for that matter, what guarantee is there the elite prospects would fully realize their potential in Boston.
Go back and check some prospect lists from Baseball America a few years ago and see how many failed to become the players they were projected to be. If you think there's risk in holding onto a major asset because he's not assured of still being here in 2021, what's the risk level in assessing 20-year-old players who've yet to play above Double-A?
_____________________
_____________________
