McAdam: Dodgers' signing of Mookie Betts yet another blow to Red Sox

At this point, it's getting harder and harder to catalog all the bad things that have hit the Red Sox in the last 11 months.

There was the middle-of-the-game firing of president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski, followed by the refusal to address the news for the next few weeks.

There was the "mutual agreement'' by which Alex Cora ceased being the manager of the Red Sox.

There was the discovery that their best pitcher, Chris Sale, would be lost for this season and part of next thanks to Tommy John surgery.

Finally, there was the decision to trade Mookie Betts -- their best player and one of the handful of best players in the game -- to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, right on the eve of a bizarro, truncated 2020 season, it did: Betts agreed to a 12-year contract extension with the Dodgers.

The fact that the deal eliminates what small chance the Red Sox had of pulling off the ol' Aroldis Chapman Daily Double (trade off a player for prospects, then re-sign said player) isn't the toughest part to accept.

Rather, it's the willingness of Betts to sign with the Dodgers before he had played a single regular season game for them.



Remember, during the last few seasons, Betts routinely said he wanted to reach free agency and test the market. That, ostensibly, was why he rejected any contract extension offers by the Red Sox over the last three years. Each time, the message was clear: Thanks just the same, but I want to wait and see what else might be out there.

On Tuesday, however, that narrative got tossed to the side when the Dodgers gave Betts a 12-year, $365 million deal.

Where to start?

First, it's clear that Betts wasn't actually interested in testing the market. If he had, he would have played out his season in Los Angeles and had all 30 teams bid for his services, maximizing his return.

Instead, Betts happily accepted the Dodgers' mega-offer, which, depending on the metric utilized, makes him either the highest or second highest-paid player in the game.

(To be fair, we'll never know what role the pandemic played in all of this. With potential free agents facing a vastly different economic landscape this winter, did Betts take less from the Dodgers Tuesday than he might have had the coronavirus not shuttered the game for four months and wreaked havoc on the economy?)

Still, the abrupt reversal by Betts doesn't reflect well on the Red Sox. Either the Red Sox didn't offer him full market value with their contract extension offer, or Betts was never interested in remaining here.

Every chance they got in the last year, the Red Sox identified Betts as the kind of player they wanted to spend his entire career in Boston. Now, we have little choice but to question the sincerity of their efforts.

Were the Red Sox intent on extending Betts....but only at a price with which they were comfortable? Did they want him to be a Red Sox player for life...but only at their number?

And what does it say about Betts that, after spending 5 1/2 seasons in Boston, he was quickly convinced that Los Angeles was a more suitable home after only a few months? Betts never got to complete a full spring training in Arizona and, as noted, hasn't so much as had a regular season at-bat with the team, but was undeterred about committing himself to them.

We'll never know what role Boston's reputation for being less hospitable to players of color may have played in his decision-making. Betts expertly dodged controversy during his tenure in Boston and never voiced any complaints, but may have kept any negative personal experiences to himself.

If, on the other hand, the Red Sox had some doubts about the wisdom of giving any player that sort of money, they're entitled to that viewpoint. Some organizations draw a financial line in the sand past which they don't dare cross -- either because they don't trust a player to hold up physically across a dozen years, or think that devoting that large a percentage of their annual payroll to one player, no matter how talented, isn't an efficient marshaling of their resources.

They're allowed that point of view. But they're also obligated to share it publicly, instead of insisting that they did everything they could to re-sign Betts when Tuesday's news strongly hints that, in fact, they did not.

Chances are good that we'll never know the full story. How much did the Red Sox offer? Were they genuine in their pursuit, or going through the motions? Was Betts willing to remain in Boston had the Red Sox met his asking price? Or was he determined to play elsewhere, given the chance?

To a certain extent, it doesn't matter anymore. The Red Sox got a good young major leaguer (Alex Verdugo) and two valued prospects (Jeter Downs and Connor Wong) in return. It's possible -- though not probable -- this deal will look better in the years to come.

For now, however, it's one more story of a player who didn't/couldn't stay in Boston, and one more brace of bad news for the franchise in a year in which the bad news never seems to stop.