SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by dmaineah on Mar 13, 2019 15:29:37 GMT -5
6/120 seems about right for Bogaerts age 27-32, maybe 6/132 that's it. The Sox probably let him walk because it's to rich considering others on the team approaching free agency that they'd rather sign & they think his agent probably thinks he can get him more both in years and total dollars.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 14, 2019 14:52:49 GMT -5
Could Sale and the Sox be close to an extension? Long term 35 million/per.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 14, 2019 14:56:20 GMT -5
Could Sale and the Sox be close to an extension? Long term 35 million/per. I've read that Sale is quite open to an extension and the Sox mgmt would really like him back, but where did you hear/read this? And where did you get 35 million from?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 14, 2019 15:01:44 GMT -5
Could Sale and the Sox be close to an extension? Long term 35 million/per. I've read that Sale is quite open to an extension and the Sox mgmt would really like him back, but where did you hear/read this? And where did you get 35 million from? This article gives the $35 million figure, but it sounds like the writer is kind of making things up.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Mar 14, 2019 15:53:26 GMT -5
Yeah, Sale will not be getting a 7x35 contract.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Mar 14, 2019 16:26:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 15, 2019 8:43:24 GMT -5
The White Sox are especially egregious. The deal the Red Sox gave JD Drew 12 years ago is bigger than any deal the Chicago White Sox have ever given out. That's disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 15, 2019 8:56:06 GMT -5
The White Sox are especially egregious. The deal the Red Sox gave JD Drew 12 years ago is bigger than any deal the Chicago White Sox have ever given out. That's disgusting. The Pirates are pretty bad too. Biggest contract was signed back in 2000. 6/60 for Jason Kendall.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 15, 2019 9:17:37 GMT -5
The Pirates are at least sort of a small market team though. The White Sox TV revenue estimates are at least twice what the White Sox are. Plus... Reinsdorf has a 40% stake in NBCSN Chicago. Doesn't let the Pirates off the hook entirely, but man... the White Sox are a top-half revenue team.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 15, 2019 11:34:25 GMT -5
It's pretty crazy that the Cardinals have had the success they have without ever spending over 120 million on a player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2019 11:51:27 GMT -5
The Pirates are at least sort of a small market team though. The White Sox TV revenue estimates are at least twice what the White Sox are. Plus... Reinsdorf has a 40% stake in NBCSN Chicago. Doesn't let the Pirates off the hook entirely, but man... the White Sox are a top-half revenue team. I know they're still pretty awful on paper, but no major signings during THIS offseason, in THAT division, is pretty egregious. I mean what are they waiting for? What better time to buy could there be?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 19, 2019 9:22:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 19, 2019 9:32:51 GMT -5
So Trout's 12/430 kicks in when he's approaching his age 30 season.
How on earth does Mookie not insist on at least matching that and potentially buying out his ARB3 year as a 27-year-old?
I have to think the Angels felt forced to pay that much for ages 30-42 because they're the Angels, he's their franchise player, and they haven't been good. Hopefully Mookie and the Sox both agree that it's not necessary and everyone can be better off on a deal similar to Machado and Harper.
I felt really good about a Mookie extension when Machado and Harper signed, I feel a lot less confident in a Mookie extension on the back of the Trout deal
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Mar 19, 2019 9:40:36 GMT -5
Root for the millionaires!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2019 9:44:04 GMT -5
At least there is no more Mookie nonsense with his insistence that no one's signed contract has an effect on his.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,758
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 19, 2019 10:03:28 GMT -5
So Trout's 12/430 kicks in when he's approaching his age 30 season. How on earth does Mookie not insist on at least matching that and potentially buying out his ARB3 year as a 27-year-old? I have to think the Angels felt forced to pay that much for ages 30-42 because they're the Angels, he's their franchise player, and they haven't been good. Hopefully Mookie and the Sox both agree that it's not necessary and everyone can be better off on a deal similar to Machado and Harper. I felt really good about a Mookie extension when Machado and Harper signed, I feel a lot less confident in a Mookie extension on the back of the Trout deal It looks like it wipes out the final 2 years of his current contract, so that changes the math. 27-38 years old
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2019 10:11:09 GMT -5
Root for the millionaires! Are there any millionaires in this scenario? Seriously, what's Trout's net worth at this point? His baseball earnings are over half a billion with his new contract. I'm going to guess Trout is a millionaire and not a billionaire yet.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 19, 2019 10:13:54 GMT -5
So $36M a year comprises a little more than 17% of a $210M budget - that’s the 2020 Lux tax ceiling. If Sale gets at least David Price money, that’s another 6.6%. Price’s deal runs until 2022. So that means the Sox, theoretically would have 3 players occupying about 31% of their payroll - two of them pitchers. And that’s without factoring in extensions for Xander, JBJ, and Porcello. Also doesn’t factor in extensions for Devers and Benintendi over that period.
Barring the luxury tax going up to $240 million or so in the next CBA, this is going to get a bit fugly.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 19, 2019 10:38:26 GMT -5
I'd honestly be pretty wary of signing a Mookie extension right now. It doesn't look like he's going to take a discount, and I'm uncomfortable giving $350-400 million to a guy who's value largely comes from defense and speed. If he's close to the hitter that he was last year, then of course you do it, but would anybody be shocked if he's a 5-6 WAR player over the next couple of years instead of an 8-10 WAR player? He might be a true-talent 140 WRC+ guy right now, and I'm not sure I want to give that guy Trout money through his late-30's. No reason not to wait a year and see how he hits, since you're going to being paying a premium right now anyway.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Mar 19, 2019 10:39:04 GMT -5
Trout is being payed 67M over the next 2 years, then a 10 year, 360M extension for his free agency.
So my guess for Betts is 50M (20 this, probably 30 next) over the next 2 years, then you tack on 10 years, 335M for his free agency. So an 11/365M extension beginning 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 19, 2019 11:22:26 GMT -5
Trout is being payed 67M over the next 2 years, then a 10 year, 360M extension for his free agency. So my guess for Betts is 50M (20 this, probably 30 next) over the next 2 years, then you tack on 10 years, 335M for his free agency. So an 11/365M extension beginning 2020. Do you think he'll take less than Trout in an extension before he hits free agency? Well, Mookie is elite, but Trout has sustained a higher average level of performane for several more years, so technically, no, he should get less. But will he? Depends totally on the market. He just became the most valuable player in his Free Agent class. Any GM worth his sand would have to make his best offer between now and this fall and, if a deal cannot be reached, solicit trade options and deal him for max value in fall/winter before his walk year. Hate to say it because I love him, but it’s the business part of the sport. If there were no luxury tax, or the level had increased with league revenues like the NFL/NBA the calculus waould be different, but team’s wishes/needs to get below the tax create a different reality.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Mar 19, 2019 11:49:32 GMT -5
Do you think he'll take less than Trout in an extension before he hits free agency? Well, Mookie is elite, but Trout has sustained a higher average level of performane for several more years, so technically, no, he should get less. But will he? Depends totally on the market. He just became the most valuable player in his Free Agent class. Any GM worth his sand would have to make his best offer between now and this fall and, if a deal cannot be reached, solicit trade options and deal him for max value in fall/winter before his walk year. Hate to say it because I love him, but it’s the business part of the sport. If there were no luxury tax, or the level had increased with league revenues like the NFL/NBA the calculus waould be different, but team’s wishes/needs to get below the tax create a different reality. I agree with what you’re saying in general, but in this case, even if they make a massive offer this year and he rejects it, he’s not going to get dealt. Just from a roster standpoint, he’ll still likely be providing significant excess value over his salary. For the Red Sox, a team that will still be trying to win in 2020, that present value is more valuable than any future excess value from a prospect return. More importantly though, from an optics perspective, Mookie is the franchise player - it would run totally counter to the image that ownership has tried to build up with players like Pedroia, Ortiz, and Mookie. Unless he massively regresses, they’ll do everything they can to resign him even in free agency. (Or at least enough to make it look like they tried.)
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 19, 2019 11:53:41 GMT -5
Do you think he'll take less than Trout in an extension before he hits free agency? Well, Mookie is elite, but Trout has sustained a higher average level of performane for several more years, so technically, no, he should get less. But will he? Depends totally on the market. Honestly that deal is Trout taking a home town discount.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 13:24:16 GMT -5
So $36M a year comprises a little more than 17% of a $210M budget - that’s the 2020 Lux tax ceiling. If Sale gets at least David Price money, that’s another 6.6%. Price’s deal runs until 2022. So that means the Sox, theoretically would have 3 players occupying about 31% of their payroll - two of them pitchers. And that’s without factoring in extensions for Xander, JBJ, and Porcello. Also doesn’t factor in extensions for Devers and Benintendi over that period. Barring the luxury tax going up to $240 million or so in the next CBA, this is going to get a bit fugly. I get that Sale is the one who's been the most publicly open to an extension, but like... if there's a really an inability to sign everyone (which you cannot convince me there is but whatever, different conversation), why is the pitcher even on the table? He's a pitcher, this is the easiest math in the world.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 13:29:45 GMT -5
So Trout's 12/430 kicks in when he's approaching his age 30 season. How on earth does Mookie not insist on at least matching that and potentially buying out his ARB3 year as a 27-year-old? I have to think the Angels felt forced to pay that much for ages 30-42 because they're the Angels, he's their franchise player, and they haven't been good. Hopefully Mookie and the Sox both agree that it's not necessary and everyone can be better off on a deal similar to Machado and Harper. I felt really good about a Mookie extension when Machado and Harper signed, I feel a lot less confident in a Mookie extension on the back of the Trout deal Yeah, I think you're right and I think the Phillies footsteps were getting too loud as well. I was hopeful that Mookie would sign once Machado and Harper were signed. But now, the price to make Mookie the highest paid player ever just went up by about $100M to roughly half a billion dollars. I would have perceived Betts as a sign at all costs player for the Sox yesterday. Now, I would think the situation could be more fluid.Counterpoint:
|
|
|