|
Post by Rufus-T on Oct 21, 2020 22:42:01 GMT
So, sound like it is Betts who is he one who wanted out.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Oct 22, 2020 2:41:12 GMT
The Tigers didn't win a World Series with Cabrera; the Angels didn't win a World Series with Pujols. If the Dodgers win a World Series with Betts, it's complete apples to oranges. Put it another way: would you pay Patrick Mahomes an exorbitant contract to get a Bills title? Or would you just like being the Bills and thinking about four Super Bowl losses forever? If you're a team that hasn't won jack squat in a long time/forever, that title is worth it - - I'm sure Cubs and White Sox fans can confirm that. Not to me. One title for 12 years of misery? Was the one WS title the Yankees got with A-Rod worth it? could the Red Sox have kept Betts if they hadn't wasted millions on David Price, Pablo Sandoval, Rusney Castillo? Paying Mahomes doesn't guarantee a Super bowl no more than Albert Pujols guaranteed a WS for the Angels. The opposite might be true. Look at the late 90's Yankees. A team wallpapered with pricey FA's, no. Biggest FA on the 1998 Yanks, Tino Martinez. They had a great farm, grafted useful, cheap additions and won four straight. When they decided to put out an all-star team, they didn't have the success they had earlier.
Yankee fans aren't long suffering. If Dodgers get a championship, that's something they haven't had in 32 years. It's worth it for most then. And paying Betts doesn't automatically make them a worse drafting team - - that's what got the Tigers and Angels in trouble. If you're picking homegrown talent like Bellinger and Buehler and Seager, you've got price controlled players.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 22, 2020 12:05:46 GMT
The Tigers didn't win a World Series with Cabrera; the Angels didn't win a World Series with Pujols. If the Dodgers win a World Series with Betts, it's complete apples to oranges. Put it another way: would you pay Patrick Mahomes an exorbitant contract to get a Bills title? Or would you just like being the Bills and thinking about four Super Bowl losses forever? If you're a team that hasn't won jack squat in a long time/forever, that title is worth it - - I'm sure Cubs and White Sox fans can confirm that. Not to me. One title for 12 years of misery? Was the one WS title the Yankees got with A-Rod worth it? could the Red Sox have kept Betts if they hadn't wasted millions on David Price, Pablo Sandoval, Rusney Castillo? Paying Mahomes doesn't guarantee a Super bowl no more than Albert Pujols guaranteed a WS for the Angels. The opposite might be true. Look at the late 90's Yankees. A team wallpapered with pricey FA's, no. Biggest FA on the 1998 Yanks, Tino Martinez. They had a great farm, grafted useful, cheap additions and won four straight. When they decided to put out an all-star team, they didn't have the success they had earlier.
This is the real question. I would've overpaid for Betts (whatever overpaying is in sports these days); the problem is the Sox had already pissed away their money elsewhere. Relates to what I was saying earlier, they aren't afraid to spend money, they just spend it in the wrong places more often than not. I don't want to bitch too much about a front office that gave us four titles in 15 years after 86 years of misery, they clearly have some clue of what they're doing (even if they fell into '13, that team was not built to win and they know it). But some of their moves regarding who to pay and not to pay over the years have been baffling to say the least. Also Yanks won four out of five. 96, 98-2000. 97 was the Marlins, thank God.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 22, 2020 12:07:44 GMT
So, sound like it is Betts who is he one who wanted out. Really it's probably both. He wanted to go, might've stayed for the right price, but the Sox made it easy by lowballing him.
|
|