|
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 15, 2016 18:35:21 GMT -5
Updated WAR - pretty impressive what we are witnessing. going into tonight's games
Trout 7.2 Altuve 6.9 MOOKIE 6.6 Donaldson 6.4 Machado 5.6
And I think we are going to see his number rise more quickly if he is kept batting at 3 (or 4, like today).
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 7, 2016 22:34:44 GMT -5
I'm curious to see what you guys think an extension would look like for Mookie, at this point. The 2016 season ended with him finishing 2nd in MVP voting, he was worth 9.6 bWAR and 7.8 fWAR, and won a GG and SS.
He is still under control for 4 more years, with the last 3 being arbitration years, and will be entering his age 24 season. In my opinion, he is the most important player for the Sox to lock up.
What do you guys think would be a good contract extension for both sides?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 8, 2016 5:03:54 GMT -5
I'm curious to see what you guys think an extension would look like for Mookie, at this point. The 2016 season ended with him finishing 2nd in MVP voting, he was worth 9.6 bWAR and 7.8 fWAR, and won a GG and SS. He is still under control for 4 more years, with the last 3 being arbitration years, and will be entering his age 24 season. In my opinion, he is the most important player for the Sox to lock up. What do you guys think would be a good contract extension for both sides? The Mike Trout extension. I would wait two years if I'm the Sox though, but maybe that's just me. I want Mookie for at least 2 more cheap years and then pay him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2016 5:42:52 GMT -5
I'd do 7 years 120 million right now.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Dec 8, 2016 6:07:10 GMT -5
I'd do 7 years 120 million right now. That sounds good for both sides. Would it be enough?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Dec 8, 2016 6:31:39 GMT -5
I'd do 7 years 120 million right now. That sounds good for both sides. Would it be enough? It doesn't sound anywhere near enough to me. With the increases set for the luxury tax, the Sox will have more money to give out without penalty. I would go for an 8 year / 200-220 million dollar contract. The contract you guys are pointing too seems like a 2012-2014 contract for a star player. The players' agents know there is alot of cash out there, they will be asking for high prices. He's very valuable player on offense and defense.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 8, 2016 6:42:32 GMT -5
I would do 10/220. Probably wouldn't get it done with no opt outs though.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 8, 2016 7:33:55 GMT -5
Those contacts are way too high. If they wait until the season starts (to avoid luxury tax for 2017) then 4 years and slightly over 60mil would make sense.
This would allow Mookie to become a free agent at 29 while giving him security in case of injury.
For the Red Sox they would get one year of his free agency and buyout his arb years at deflated rates while assuming greater risk. Anything much higher and the team should go year to year. (Remember, arbitration doesn't pay well for defense)
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 8, 2016 10:08:30 GMT -5
I'd do 7 years 120 million right now. I like the 7 year distance. It also takes him through more of his prime years with us. Even 7/150 (21 MM per) would be reasonable. In 2 years when Machado/Harper get their 400 mil contracts this will be a Chris Sale-like bargain.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Dec 8, 2016 13:11:48 GMT -5
I'd do 7 years 120 million right now. I like the 7 year distance. It also takes him through more of his prime years with us. Even 7/150 (21 MM per) would be reasonable. In 2 years when Machado/Harper get their 400 mil contracts this will be a Chris Sale-like bargain. At 7/120 you would be paying 24.9mil per year for three free agent years. At 7/150 you would be paying 31.15mil per year for three free agent years. This is far too much to pay while taking on unnecessary risk. If anyone wants to calculate for themselves, here is the simple formula (in millions): (Contract - 0.5) / (years - 2.2) = avg salary for FA years If the offer comes after the season begins to avoid luxury tax issues for 2017, then it would be: Contract / (years - 1.2) = avg salary for FA years It should strongly be considered that 1. Elite players prefer to become FAs while still in their 20s (trout will be 29) 2. Any extension adds significant risk from the Red Sox perspective, so the dollars would have to be discounted enough to offset the risk
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Dec 8, 2016 13:20:15 GMT -5
I think 7 years in the vicinity of 130M could be fair. I think they should wait until the season begins to avoid adding to the luxury tax, but if he comes out of the gate playing like last year his price will only go up.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 8, 2016 13:27:10 GMT -5
I think we need to wait for Mookie to prove himself since he hasn't won multiple MVPs yet. Moncada is clearly better since he's got some future MVPs in the bag already
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Dec 8, 2016 14:13:04 GMT -5
Agree, wait for 3 or 4 MVP's & try to sign him to a team friendly deal.
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Dec 8, 2016 15:20:35 GMT -5
Hopefully there is some success for the Redsox, and he takes a Trout deal this up coming year. TBH 6 years 200 mil is a total bargain.
Xander who I think ends up at third in 4 or 5 years, and my Fave player of course I want to sign but Boras has sunk his claws into them. Hopefully JBJ sees the faitb the redsox showed him when he struggled for 2+ years. I think we've seen what kind of player hell be for the next 4 years of his prime. He's a 3 to 4 win player unless he has a power breakout one year. I think his value will drop after 30 when he defensI've value erodes a bit. Where he could still sit in RF somewhere and rifle down baserunners.
Perfect world all 4 are signed 7 years 600 mil total. Real world we lose 2 or 3 to FA and pay out the bum for Mookie and Xander
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 8, 2016 17:59:14 GMT -5
The way I look at, if your going to take the risk of a long term deal you need to buy out 2 free agent year, I would prefer 3. Next 4 years what's he set to make around 45 million or so? So your buying out 3 years at 25 million per on a 7 year 120 million deal.
Mike Trout got 6 years 144 million what two years ago, but Mookie is not yet at Mike Trout level, rather lock him up now before his price goes up.
Maybe he will only take a 6 year deal, so 6 years 95 to 100 million. Sure that's not market level, but that's what a young player like Betts gets. You either take the security of a 100 million or you play it out year by year to try and get every last dime. That places all the risk on the player though.
If that's not even close to what Betts wants, then I might wait another year.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 7, 2017 9:50:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 7, 2017 9:55:05 GMT -5
Wow, a tweet posted as an article with no source named and the title of the article is almost as long as the article itself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 7, 2017 9:56:22 GMT -5
Wow, a tweet posted as an article with no source named. Not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to the fact that if you click through there isn't much to the article, that's because BSJ is a subscription website and the rest of the article is behind the paywall.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 7, 2017 10:00:05 GMT -5
Wow, a tweet posted as an article with no source named. Not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to the fact that if you click through there isn't much to the article, that's because BSJ is a subscription website and the rest of the article is behind the paywall. Oh, that makes sense now, thanks. They should have something immediately below the last sentence instead of way down at the bottom. So, is anyone subscribed to give us the gist?
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Sept 7, 2017 10:20:13 GMT -5
The gist is the Sox supposedly made Betts an offer of 5 years 100 mil sometime in March. Mookie turned it down and prefers to go year-to-year at this point. It mentions, the negotiations were positive.
It's easy for me to say but if there's $100 mil guaranteed and you will still be 30 at your next opportunity for more money, I would take it. I'm also assuming there's no other club options on additional free agency years. You never know what happens. It's a nice sign that Mookie has the confidence in his ability to stay healthy, put up the numbers and to top that amount. He just needs to adjust to how they are pitching him now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 7, 2017 10:35:24 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to the fact that if you click through there isn't much to the article, that's because BSJ is a subscription website and the rest of the article is behind the paywall. Oh, that makes sense now, thanks. They should have something immediately below the last sentence instead of way down at the bottom. So, is anyone subscribed to give us the gist? It is confusing if you don't already know it's a subscription site, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 8, 2017 6:21:50 GMT -5
The gist is the Sox supposedly made Betts an offer of 5 years 100 mil sometime in March. Mookie turned it down and prefers to go year-to-year at this point. It mentions, the negotiations were positive. The most important extension the next 3 years for the Sox is this man. I'm glad the extension talks were positive. If the Sox offer more money next time, maybe he takes it. That year to year thing will go out the door if you offer enough.
|
|
|
Post by tookme55 on Sept 8, 2017 6:51:34 GMT -5
Is it possible that he does not want to play in Boston?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,519
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 8, 2017 12:45:45 GMT -5
Is it possible that he does not want to play in Boston? I think he's looking for the maximum payday and keeping his options open once 2020 ends is the way he thinks he'll do that. At this point I don't think the Sox will sign him long-term, but I think they'll certainly continue to try. I might be in the minority here but I think the Red Sox will sign a lot fewer players that make up the current core than I think some expect. I think Betts, if he plays things this way, will likely be gone after 2020, and I think that JBJ is also gone after 2020, and I think Bogaerts is gone after 2019, along with Porcello. I think it's iffy that Kimbrel and Pomeranz return after 2018. I do think, if healthy, the Sox will do everything in their power to re-sign Sale. I do anticipate that the Sox over the next few years will bring in a number high priced talent from other organizations whether it's a FA signing or a trade.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedKyle on Sept 8, 2017 13:24:28 GMT -5
I'm fine going year to year with him if he's fine with it. Whatever it takes to keep him here till the end. Is it possible that he does not want to play in Boston? I think that's quite a stretch.
|
|