Mookie Betts is an MVP, a World Series winner, a batting champion, a Gold Glove recipient, and likely a future Hall of Famer.
He is also a member of the Los Angeles Dodgers, thanks to a trade that was long rumored but shocking nonetheless. Though the Red Sox had made it clear that they were looking to clear salary this offseason, the decision to move on from a superstar in his prime is difficult to fathom.
Usually when a player of this magnitude is dealt, it’s because of factors unrelated to on-field performance. That certainly was not the case with Betts, a magnetic presence who represented the Red Sox with class and handled the Boston media with aplomb.
And while the Sox are coming off a disappointing 2019 campaign, they are not in a position that necessitates a rebuild. In an ideal world, Betts would have remained in Boston for the entirety of his career.
Betts was ultimately jettisoned for financial reasons, namely because he was looking to test free agency after this season and had reportedly rejected a 10-year, $300 million offer from Boston.
Despite the economic rationale for the move, fans were upset that the Red Sox had not done more to keep the face of their franchise in the fold. As stunning as the news was, however, a team trading its “face of the franchise” may become more common in the future.
Franchise Players on the Trade Block
This offseason alone, franchise players like Francisco Lindor and Nolan Arenado have been at the forefront of lingering trade rumors. These are among the best and most charismatic players in all of baseball, and yet their teams can envision a future without them.
“Payroll flexibility” has become the catchphrase of the moment among front office executives, who are wary of committing significant portions of their respective team’s payroll to a single player.
Then there’s the luxury tax, which has a threshold set at $208 million for the 2020 season. Clubs that exceed that number are taxed for each dollar that they go over the threshold, and teams that have exceeded it multiple years in a row pay a higher rate. The luxury tax is not a salary cap, a fact which has not stopped many clubs from treating it as such.
With so many organizations concerned about paying the tax, superstars like Betts who seek fair compensation for their services can be viewed as expendable.
Extensions and Hometown Discounts
It’s not that baseball teams have completely given up on trying to keep their homegrown players for the long term. Last offseason, a trend emerged in which clubs signed top young players to extensions that bought out arbitration years and, in some cases, the player’s first few years of free agency.
Most notably, the Angels locked up the game’s best player, Mike Trout, for 12 years and $426.5 million. Likewise, the Braves inked phenom Ronald Acuña Jr. to an eight-year, $100 million deal. Other young players like Boston’s Xander Bogaerts agreed to extensions to stay with their clubs for the foreseeable future.
These deals are beneficial to teams because they get to keep their stars at a discounted price, and beneficial to players because they receive guaranteed money and financial security.
However, when a club and a star player are unable to agree on an extension, the player’s impending free agency presents a dilemma. As demonstrated by Boston trading Betts, organizations may be willing to trade a franchise player with a year or more of control left if they believe they won’t be able to sign him on the open market.
Even when the package the team gets back in the trade is underwhelming, it is still preferable to only receiving a draft pick for said player’s departure.
Following the Rays Model
It seems ludicrous that a team that resides in one of the nation’s most lucrative sports markets couldn’t negotiate a long-term deal with a generational talent like Mookie Betts. But baseball’s current economic climate is epitomized by Boston’s AL East rival, the Tampa Bay Rays, a team that lacks a true “face of the franchise” yet remains competitive every year.
Driven by Ivy League educated number crunchers (current Red Sox executive Chaim Bloom used to be one), the Rays have mastered the art of winning on a budget while constantly shuffling their personnel. Teams like the Red Sox can afford to buy big name free agents, but the Rays have proven that you can win even without high profile players on your roster. Although trading Mookie Betts is an emotional blow to Red Sox Nation, the front office can rationalize the decision by presenting it as part of a larger organizational plan.
Searle’s Final Say
Ultimately, baseball fans should expect more superstars in their prime to be traded within the next few years. Not only are organizations reluctant to pay the luxury tax, but they are also confident in their ability to replenish talent through smart drafting and development.
While I expect the pattern to continue, its impact on the game remains to be seen.
Teams may be inclined to trade their homegrown stars, but the game benefits from franchises holding on to these players for more than just five or six seasons.
The longer this CBA is in effect, the worse it seems to be for the players. First it’s the draft picks, now seeing a guy like Betts traded in his prime? Something tells me the next labor stoppage is right around the corner and the biggest issue is the owners being greedy while also being unable to refrain from making the big splash deal/signing. The CBA shouldn’t reflect owner’s buyer’s remorse by restricting the earning potential for players in my humble opinion. If an owner signs a player for $400 million and it doesn’t work out, that’s on them, not the next 2 generations of players (cough cough Tom Hicks)!