|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Mar 19, 2015 9:31:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 19, 2015 9:34:49 GMT -5
10 years, 140 million. Get it done.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 19, 2015 10:27:17 GMT -5
10 years, 140 million. Get it done. I'm going to assume you weren't serious. Using Yelich's 7/51 extension as the baseline, and with Mookie having an extra year of team control, you are paying 89M for 2 extra years over what Yelich got. Good article on Yelich's contract and similar ones. I'd love to lock up Betts on a deal like this. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-perfectly-reasonable-christian-yelich-extension/ |
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Mar 19, 2015 10:32:58 GMT -5
Perhaps it's in the best interests of a big market team to move the market price on pre-arb eligible long-term signings like this. But yes, I was mostly kidding even if 10/140 is easily worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 19, 2015 10:41:25 GMT -5
In this particular case, there's an additional benefit if the Sox get it done before opening day. The AAV would then be spread into this year, a year they've already said would be over the cap. Additionally, next year, a year in which they have a lot coming off the books, AAV would be increased there as well. The net result is that at some point down the road, Mookie will be making considerably more than his AAV which could be huge at the tail end.
ADD: It might even be beneficial to have more guaranteed years and less option years because option years aren't included in the ongoing AAV.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 19, 2015 10:51:55 GMT -5
10 years, 140 million. Get it done. The amount of players playing today that you can reasonably project ten years out? Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 19, 2015 10:57:14 GMT -5
In this particular case, there's an additional benefit if the Sox get it done before opening day. The AAV would then be spread into this year, a year they've already said would be over the cap. Additionally, next year, a year in which they have a lot coming off the books, AAV would be increased there as well. The net result is that at some point down the road, Mookie will be making considerably more than his AAV which could be huge at the tail end. ADD: It might even be beneficial to have more guaranteed years and less option years because option years aren't included in the ongoing AAV. I think in that circumstance it might be the opposite. They'd not want Betts AAV to increase in a year they are guaranteed to be over the cap, because of the penalty associated. We would see that added AAV in future years, but there is no guarantee that we'd be over the cap, or we may have future actions to restructure the payroll under the cap (Young players in, big contracts out). Typically team's like to see their savings in current years and worry about future years later, that's why we see a lot of backloading and deferred payments. Wasn't it a similar situation with the A-Gon extension, waiting till after the season to announce ? I guess if the thought is they would leverage his AAV 6-7 years from now to get under the limit that logic applies, but it seems to far away to be able to control. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 19, 2015 11:05:58 GMT -5
Agreed that you can't control it to that fine a point but, we have a lot of young players sitting in Pawtucket and at Boston and their salaries are going to be rising significantly during those years. The penalties for first year of exceeding the cap aren't as significant as multiple consecutive years. I doubt if the penalty this year would amount to much.
|
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Mar 19, 2015 11:09:19 GMT -5
I like that Yelich deal for the Marlins, the kid gets paid but the Marlins probably save a truck load in the long run. I would love to see Mookie get 7 and an option for similar $$
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 11:12:49 GMT -5
I like that Yelich deal for the Marlins, the kid gets paid but the Marlins probably save a truck load in the long run. I would love to see Mookie get 7 and an option for similar $$ Mookie has an extra season in there for $500k so it should bring down the AAV and total dollars. But I don't think anyone ever signed a contract that covered all 6 of their controlled years yet. Not recently anyway. Longoria comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 19, 2015 11:20:39 GMT -5
Love the idea if they can get 1 or even 2 FA years bought out. A Yelich-style deal would be great for the team, especially if we could get an option year on the end
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 19, 2015 12:49:49 GMT -5
The Red Sox have two very young players in Bogaerts and Betts that have come up at a pretty young age. And eventually I anticipate Moncada will be in the same situation.
These are guys who will most likely be free agents when they're 27 or 28 as opposed to the usual 29 or 30 years old.
If the Sox can find a way to capture those two or three years beyond their sixth year of service, and they truly believe in the player (we're not talking just any prospect) and you figure they do because these guys are up in the majors at such a young age, then the Sox should most definitely be willing to pay a lot of money to secure the player's services into the age 28, 29, and 30 seasons.
It's doubtful they can throw a good chunk of money upfront on Bogaerts because there's no way Boras doesn't take him to free agency at age 27 come November 2019. And in a way it's almost a shame that one of Bogaerts' six seasons with the Sox was a development year and not a prime year as you would anticipate those ages 27 - 30 seasons to be.
But if the Sox can get a different result from Betts' agent and Moncada's agent down the road in a scenario where Moncada is as good as the scouts and Sox think he is, then the Sox would be foolish not to throw a good deal of money upfront on the player to entice them to stick around for their late 20s.
I'd go higher than what Yelich is getting to secure Betts two to three seasons beyond his age 27 season.
Especially in today's market place, which is a lot cheaper than the market will be for a 27 year old five or six years from now (which I'm sure Boras is well aware of). Imagine what Porcello will get and think about how these young guys like Betts, Bogaerts, and Moncada could very well be elite players on the Sox.
The downside of the young talent is the loss in service years for a development year like Bogaerts had. When you take Bogaerts career in the future, I'm sure 2014 will not be one of his best seasons, and I'm not knocking the Sox for going with him in 2014. There's no way you don't, but that's the one downside of dealing with young talent - it takes awhile for them to develop, and a lot of times it's in that year 4 or 5 or even 6 of the service time.
With guys with elite talent, though, I think you make the investment and find a way to keep them beyond six years and you do it as early as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 14:22:31 GMT -5
Why extend Mookie now, when he's barely had a chance to hang out with Xander and JBJ and be introduced to their agent, Scott Boras?
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 19, 2015 15:39:10 GMT -5
Why extend Mookie now, when he's barely had a chance to hang out with Xander and JBJ and be introduced to their agent, Scott Boras? Because we don't want him to hook up with Scott Boras...
I know it was a rhetorical question but I couldn't resist
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 19, 2015 17:08:53 GMT -5
I am having a hard time believing this. I know he is gonna be great...but it took the Angels 2+ years to extend a player who had just about the best start to a career since....well since the game began. FO begins to look like cheapskates with this move.
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 19, 2015 18:09:05 GMT -5
I am having a hard time believing this. I know he is gonna be great...but it took the Angels 2+ years to extend a player who had just about the best start to a career since....well since the game began. FO begins to look like cheapskates with this move. WTF? The FO would be cheap because they lock up a guy early on? Yeah, they may get a good deal if he turns out to be a perennial all-star. But they are taking on risk too. These aren't NFL contracts, they're fully guaranteed. Calling the FO cheap for this is unfair (and that's being kind). |
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Mar 19, 2015 18:26:31 GMT -5
10 years, 140 million. Get it done. Beat me to it. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Mar 19, 2015 18:44:14 GMT -5
I would give it a year
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 19, 2015 19:50:23 GMT -5
I am having a hard time believing this. I know he is gonna be great...but it took the Angels 2+ years to extend a player who had just about the best start to a career since....well since the game began. FO begins to look like cheapskates with this move. WTF? The FO would be cheap because they lock up a guy early on? Yeah, they may get a good deal if he turns out to be a perennial all-star. But they are taking on risk too. These aren't NFL contracts, they're fully guaranteed. Calling the FO cheap for this is unfair (and that's being kind). it was a poorly worded point..your right. That judgement should be made when/if an offer is ever extended. However, it would seem that the obvious intent is to have a team friendly deal and the guy has barely played in the majors....it reeks of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays....and it just doesn't seem necessary at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 19, 2015 20:04:09 GMT -5
WTF? The FO would be cheap because they lock up a guy early on? Yeah, they may get a good deal if he turns out to be a perennial all-star. But they are taking on risk too. These aren't NFL contracts, they're fully guaranteed. Calling the FO cheap for this is unfair (and that's being kind). it was a poorly worded point..your right. That judgement should be made when/if an offer is ever extended. However, it would seem that the obvious intent is to have a team friendly deal and the guy has barely played in the majors....it reeks of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays....and it just doesn't seem necessary at this time. If the deal isn't in the best interest of the player, he wouldn't sign it. The player isn't signing it as a favor to the team. Financial security has real value. I have no idea how you could spin this to be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2015 20:52:46 GMT -5
...It's doubtful they can throw a good chunk of money upfront on Bogaerts because there's no way Boras doesn't take him to free agency at age 27 come November 2019. And in a way it's almost a shame that one of Bogaerts' six seasons with the Sox was a development year and not a prime year as you would anticipate those ages 27 - 30 seasons to be. ... I'm fairly certain that Boras is no longer representing Bogaerts. Someone corrected me on that a while back. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 19, 2015 21:04:49 GMT -5
it was a poorly worded point..your right. That judgement should be made when/if an offer is ever extended. However, it would seem that the obvious intent is to have a team friendly deal and the guy has barely played in the majors....it reeks of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays....and it just doesn't seem necessary at this time. If the deal isn't in the best interest of the player, he wouldn't sign it. The player isn't signing it as a favor to the team. Financial security has real value. I have no idea how you could spin this to be a bad thing. I am not saying it is a bad thing for the player....but the way I feel about these type of deals is harder to explain and fits more in line with ownership/employee relationships in general. Suffice it to say that I hope Mookie Betts has the greatest career.....cashes in as a Free Agent...and the MLB players union holds a strict line during the next CBA and forces owners to give up a year or 2 of control to reach free agency. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 19, 2015 21:35:18 GMT -5
...It's doubtful they can throw a good chunk of money upfront on Bogaerts because there's no way Boras doesn't take him to free agency at age 27 come November 2019. And in a way it's almost a shame that one of Bogaerts' six seasons with the Sox was a development year and not a prime year as you would anticipate those ages 27 - 30 seasons to be. ... I'm fairly certain that Boras is no longer representing Bogaerts. Someone corrected me on that a while back. FWIW, Baseball reference lists Scott Boras as Xander's agent. I wish he wasn't. Then maybe the Sox would be able to buy out some years, but with Boras as his agent that's not happening unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 22:18:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2015 22:23:01 GMT -5
|
|
