McAdam: If Mookie Betts is traded, the Red Sox owe their fan base some answers

By general consensus, it now seems more likely than not that the Red Sox will trade Mookie Betts over the next week.

Where, we don't know, though we can pretty much narrow it down to somewhere in southern California.

For whom is equally uncertain, though if it's the Dodgers, Alex Verdugo is almost certainly part of the return package.

The Red Sox, presumably, will say that they obtained the best value possible for their former MVP, and that the young players acquired will help in the organization's quest for sustainability.

What would be more interesting to know, however, is precisely why they traded Betts in the first place.

To date, there's been no mention of motive, which is somewhat understandable, since teams aren't in the habit of telegraphing their intentions publicly. That's understandable, of course. No team wants to talk about the process before a deal is official. For one thing, it's considered bad form to talk about one of your own players before a deal is done. For another, trades collapse all the time and prematurely explaining the rationale behind a deal is, at best, counterproductive.

But, again, we're working under the theory that a trade will be made. And at that point, while they go about addressing the "who'' part, maybe it would be a good idea to tackle the "why.''

Because that hasn't yet been articulated by the Red Sox.

Some possibilities:

1. Are they trading Betts because they can't afford to re-sign him? 

If so, that seems a stretch. If the San Diego Padres can afford to sign Manny Machado for $300 million, then certainly the Red Sox -- playing in a much bigger market, with a much bigger fan following, charging much more for tickets and with far more local media revenue - can afford Betts, even if, as speculated, he's looking for $400 million or more.

If the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim can afford two players (Anthony Rendon, Albert Pujols) worth nearly $500 million combined, then surely the Red Sox can afford $545 million -- the total bill for Chris Sale ($145) and Betts (again, assuming $400 million or so, give or take).

On and on we could go, but you get the picture.

2. Did Betts tell them that he wasn't inclined to sign here long-term?

The answer to this, frankly, is very likely "no.'' There have been whispers that Betts doesn't like Boston, had some bad off-the-field experiences here and/or would prefer to play closer to his Tennessee home.

Maybe those rumors are true and maybe they aren't. But it would be short-sighted of Betts to articulate this to the Red Sox. Why would you want that known, even if it were true? Such strategy would eliminate a big-market team from the free-agent bidding. Moreover, if that message got leaked by the team -- hardly out of the question when you consider how PR-conscious this ownership group is -- it could make Betts unpopular in Boston if the Red Sox failed to trade him before this season.

3. Do they believe committing $400 million -- or anything close -- to a single player to be a bad investment?

This would actually be an understandable response. It's one thing to (falsely) claim that they can't afford a contract of that magnitude. But it's quite another to say that it doesn't make good business sense to give out a deal like that.

Look at a list of, say, the 20 biggest contracts ever handed out. If we're being generous, we can say that a few worked out for the respective teams: Max Scherzer's current deal (seven years, $210 million) has produced two Cy Young Awards and two other Top 3 finishes in Cy Young voting, plus the recent world championship.

Most on the list are too new to evaluate, though, regardless of whether the Angels ever reach the postseason again -- much less win a World Series -- we can surmise that the deal for Trout is a pretty good deal for the team. It's too soon to know about Manny Machado, Rendon, Bryce Harper and others.

But do you know how far we had to go down the list to find one (Scherzer) no one would argue? Seventeen spots.

Before you get to Scherzer, there are plenty of purely bad contracts: Robinson Cano, Giancarlo Stanton, Miguel Cabrera...

4. Are they doing it merely to get under the first competitive balance tax (CBT) threshold of $208 million?

This one won't go over well.

Even fans who understand the value of the Red Sox re-setting their tax rate -- as the Yankees, Cubs and Dodgers have all done in recent years -- don't want that to come at the expense of a player like Betts.

Trade David Price? Sure. Cash out on Nathan Eovaldi? OK. Trim Jackie Bradley Jr's money? Understandable.

But sacrificing Betts at the altar of responsible payroll management will be an unpopular tact. If nothing else, it will spotlight how poorly the Red Sox have managed their resources in recent years. It looks like bad management when you have to move on from your best player while keeping others who clearly far more overpaid and far less valuable.

5. Did they decide they can't risk losing him for just a draft pick, so they thought it best to get as much as they can for him while they still can?

This is quite likely both the most logical choice, and the actual one. Betts has signaled again and again that he intends to test the market -- whether he's in Boston or elsewhere. (In turn, this has depressed his value on the trade market since interested teams go into negotiations knowing that Betts almost certainly won't sign an extension with them).

You could make the argument that this is sound thinking on the part of the Red Sox, since, if you think fans are disenchanted with a couple of good prospects in return for one of the five best players in the game, how do you think they would feel about watching him sign elsewhere this December -- with only a pick after the fourth round in the 2021 draft to remember him by?

If the Sox settle on this as their public explanation for a Betts trade, it may not be popular, but at the very least, it will be an honest accounting.