I think the Dodgers should have at least TRIED to keep Beltre. BUT, I think the Times caught BELTRE in a lie.
He says he would have taken LESS money if the Dodger brass simply came to him and told him their plans.
How do you explain that?
"We're gonna pay you less cuz we want to give it to some other high-priced player?"
Do you really believe that Beltre would have resigned with the Dodgers for less money than he got in Seattle? No way.
The liar is Beltre.
I also think he is going to be an average player this year (and any year that isn't a contract year), so I don't personally consider it a huge loss.