Many columnists lament the Red Sox trading a star like Betts as a mistake by the front officeGETTY IMAGES
The Red Sox trading RF Mookie Betts to the Dodgers for "salary relief is a white flag" for this season, according to Dan Shaughnessy of the BOSTON GLOBE. Red Sox ticket prices "will not go down" despite fans being "asked to support a team that goes into the upcoming season with virtually no chance to compete with the Yankees." Shaughnessy: "Welcome to Tampa Bay North. Say hello to your Boston Rays" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/5). In Boston, Peter Abraham writes the Betts trade "represents an organizational failure" by the Red Sox. Abraham: "You build around a player like that. You don't trade him." The Red Sox should be "embarrassed they became one of those teams who felt compelled to trade a homegrown star" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/5). ESPN's Jeff Passan said "this is the Boston Red Sox" and if "anybody has the financial flexibility to go out and pay a guy like Mookie Betts, one would think it's the Red Sox" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 2/5). Also in Boston, Chad Finn writes under the header, "Trading Mookie Betts Marks One Of The Worst Days In Recent Red Sox History" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/5). In Providence, Bill Koch writes under the header, "Red Sox Have Set A Terrible Precedent With Mookie Betts Trade" (PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, 2/5).
SOX FANS SEEING RED: In L.A., Bill Shaikin writes this trade is an "abject betrayal of the fans in Boston, who pay the highest ticket prices in the major leagues." The Red Sox are "good enough to challenge for a playoff spot this year." However, the team "believed it would be better to get players" for Betts now, and "lose his salary, rather than play out the season with him and only get a draft pick if he left" in free agency (L.A. TIMES, 2/5). YAHOO SPORTS' Tim Brown wrote having the Red Sox "risk a season, to have them intentionally become a little less than they could be for even a single season, seems ... odd" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 2/4). ESPN's Tim Kurkjian said the Red Sox have "punted" on being competitive this coming season and "there's no way around this." He added, "You can't look at this and say, 'Good deal for the Red Sox'" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 2/5).In Boston, Bill Speros writes for the Red Sox, this upcoming season "will not be a bridge year," rather, it will be "Year Zero." Speros: "Everything begins anew from this point" (BOSTON HERALD, 2/5). The GLOBE's Abraham notes ahead of the Red Sox' Spring Training, there is "more a sense of dread than anticipation." By trading Betts, the "message to the rest of the players is that ownership decided this season isn't as important as the ones to follow" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/5). USA TODAY's Gabe Lacques writes, "It is more than a little embarrassing that a team such as the Red Sox saw fit to no longer employ Betts." The "best player on the best team in franchise history should not merely be considered an 'asset' to be bought and sold" (USA TODAY, 2/5).
OF ALL THE TEAMS TO DO IT: SI.com's Stephanie Apstein wrote this trade was a "selfish, senseless move" by the Red Sox. Owner John Henry signing off on the deal is a "dereliction of his duty as steward of one of the sport's most storied franchises." This is a "mistake on every level." The Red Sox roster is a "championship-level collection of players that is being dismantled because its absurdly wealthy owner doesn't feel like paying it" (SI.com, 2/4). THE RINGER's Michael Baumann writes this move is a "salary dump, and not from some woebegone Midwestern also-ran, but from the Boston Goddamn Red Sox," made in the "hopes that a public blinded by regional partisanship and hatred of player wealth will believe that it is in fact too poor to compete." This "mind-bogglingly greedy and self-defeating move" is a "disgrace for the Red Sox and for the league" (THERINGER.com, 2/5). In Boston, Sean McAdam writes this is "not a baseball trade." This is a "face-saving trade, executed by a team suddenly more focused, for the time being at least, on the bottom line rather than what's between the lines -- and that makes it a sad day in Red Sox history" (BOSTONSPORTSJOURNAL.com, 2/5). In DC, Dave Sheinin writes this move was "largely made because of money," but this was a "choice the Red Sox made -- not a necessity." Something "feels wrong" when the Red Sox are "essentially giving up on a season before it begins, over what amounts to small chunks of change for a financial behemoth of their size." This is the "kind of move" the A's and the Rays "of the world make" (WASHINGTON POST, 2/5).
BAD SIGN FOR MLB: In Toronto, Scott Stinson writes, "What does it say about your sport when a rich team doesn't want to pay market value for a recent MVP in the prime of his career?" (TORONTO SUN, 2/5). ESPN.com's Bradford Doolittle wrote without MLB's luxury tax structure, this trade "would not have happened." Doolittle: "Was incenting the value-salvaging move of dealing a marquee player like Betts away from the only team he's known -- one of baseball's flagship teams -- really what we wanted the luxury tax to be doing?" (ESPN.com, 2/4). The Globe's Shaughnessy said, "It’s a hard sell, especially when you have the kind of revenues that they have here, the TV money they have, the attendance they have." He added, "They had the highest payroll in baseball last year and they’ve won four World Series this century. The notion of trading your best player is a tough sell” (“Hot Stove,” MLB Network, 2/4).
