Sports Q

Sports Q: Are you satisfied with what the Red Sox got for Mookie Betts?

There's nothing satisfying about this deal.

Mookie Betts is a Los Angeles Dodger. Was it worth it?

Welcome to’s Sports Q, our daily conversation, initiated by you and moderated by Chad Finn, about a compelling topic in Boston sports. Here’s how it works: You submit questions to Chad through TwitterFacebook, and email. He’ll pick one each weekday to answer, then we’ll take the discussion to the comments. Chad will stop by several times per day to navigate. But you drive the conversation. 

Are you satisfied with what the Red Sox got for Mookie Betts?

You mean once we set aside the reality that they never should have traded him in the first place and this is the most disappointing transaction since the winter of 1981, when Haywood Sullivan “forgot” to issue Carlton Fisk a contract and he bolted to Chicago as a free agent?


Sorry, I can’t actually set that aside. There’s nothing satisfying about this deal.

I will acknowledge that Alex Verdugo, the 23-year-old outfielder acquired from the Dodgers, and Brusdar Graterol, a hard-throwing 21-year old righty who came over too after LA acquired him from the Twins, are promising players. Verdugo had nice numbers last year – an .817 OPS in 397 plate appearances, with 12 homers – before injuries cost him most of the last two months. He seems pretty similar to Andrew Benintendi, or at least what we expect Benintendi to be.

Graterol immediately becomes the top prospect in the Sox organization, though acquiring one hard-thrower who has already had Tommy John surgery doesn’t exactly count as replenishing the farm system. He’s basically Nathan Eovaldi insurance right now, which means he should probably get 25 starts in the big leagues this year. Man, I hate trading Betts for a pitching prospect. They’re all lottery tickets. And why were the Twins so quick to trade him for mediocre Kenta Maeda?

This is less of a haul than expected for Betts, the second-best player in baseball, and it emboldens my secondary belief that they should have waited to the deadline to trade him. My primary belief? They should have paid him. You don’t trade once-in-a-generation players entering their prime for two young players.


No, I’m not satisfied with the Betts deal. I’m somewhere between sad and angry. But what does everyone else think? I’ll hear you in the comments.


This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on