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 redsox04071318champs on Mar 19, 2019 14:29:35 GMT -5
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. I'm going to guess that I'm neither and never will be. Which makes it hard to root for either side when they have their inevitable squabbles. As far as Mookie goes, I'd think that he'd be looking at 10 years $350 million or perhaps 11 years $385 million if he has another monster year this year. I would think this would set the benchmark for him.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 19, 2019 14:42:32 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. Agree, at least when it comes to data and long term pitcher extensions. Realistically, given Sale’s age and the shoulder issues - and shoulders being much different from elbows, which have a better track record for surgical fixes - Sale is the first one you walk away from for anything more than 3-4 years (although Sox could afford to eat a year if they think he would perform at his averages or better in years 1-3; but again, he’s a pitcher so data say it’s unlikely). The high value position players who are under 30 when their walk years arrive is where money should be invested, as their skill sets deteriorate more slowly. Xander, Mookie, Beni, Devers - and with Devers there may be internal options who elevate to the point where he becomes trade bait in his walk year (i.e. Dalbec or Casias, though one or both may never be MLB regulars, too; at least here you have some time to find out). I love JBJ but he will turn 30 in his walk year, so a market-value deal > 2-3 years for him is highly likely to prove a bad investment, market value being below Aaron Hicks who has performed better than JBJ when healthy. The only pitcher I’d look to extend at this point is Porcello because of his durability. Even then I wouldn’t go more than 3-4 years. btw, also agree that, if Red Sox believed that all were worth extending at market value, they could do so, luxury tax or not, and still turn a generous profit.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Mar 19, 2019 14:57:02 GMT -5
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. Agree, at least when it comes to data and long term pitcher extensions. Realistically, given Sale’s age and the shoulder issues - and shoulders being much different from elbows, which have a better track record for surgical fixes - Sale is the first one you walk away from for anything more than 3-4 years (although Sox could afford to eat a year if they think he would perform at his averages or better in years 1-3; but again, he’s a pitcher so data say it’s unlikely). The high value position players who are under 30 when their walk years arrive is where money should be invested, as their skill sets deteriorate more slowly. Xander, Mookie, Beni, Devers - and with Devers there may be internal options who elevate to the point where he becomes trade bait in his walk year (i.e. Dalbec or Casias, though one or both may never be MLB regulars, too; at least here you have some time to find out). I love JBJ but he will turn 30 in his walk year, so a market-value deal > 2-3 years for him is highly likely to prove a bad investment, market value being below Aaron Hicks who has performed better than JBJ when healthy. The only pitcher I’d look to extend at this point is Porcello because of his durability. Even then I wouldn’t go more than 3-4 years. btw, also agree that, if Red Sox believed that all were worth extending at market value, they could do so, luxury tax or not, and still turn a generous profit. In fact, it would seem likely that if all were extended to age and talent appropriate contracts, the Sox could keep this window of contention open for years, which would generate outrageous profit over an extended period. A couple of judicious trades and more low cost promotions of talents like Darwinzon, Chavis, Duran, Flores, Groome would keep this Big Red Sox Machine rolling for a decade. The formula has been discovered. Stick with the formula.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,436
|
Post by nomar on Mar 19, 2019 15:11:25 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. Totally agreed. The risk is on a whole different plane. But no pitcher is getting 10 years, either. That being said, even with the length being taken into account, give me the extension for a position player still.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 20, 2019 8:00:39 GMT -5
I'm sure this is going to be a minority opinion but at what point does it become more attractive to start selling your stars off with 1-2 years left of team control? You can't build a team with 40 million dollar men on the books unless we're drafting like it's 2011 every other year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2019 8:15:23 GMT -5
I'm sure this is going to be a minority opinion but at what point does it become more attractive to start selling your stars off with 1-2 years left of team control? You can't build a team with 40 million dollar men on the books unless we're drafting like it's 2011 every other year. It doesn't ever become attractive when you're a World Series contender. Isn't that the goal?
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 20, 2019 8:26:36 GMT -5
I'm sure this is going to be a minority opinion but at what point does it become more attractive to start selling your stars off with 1-2 years left of team control? You can't build a team with 40 million dollar men on the books unless we're drafting like it's 2011 every other year. It doesn't ever become attractive when you're a World Series contender. Isn't that the goal? That's my point though. How long can you be a world series contender when 1/2 your payroll is tied up in 2-3 guys and you're drafting duds?
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 20, 2019 8:27:41 GMT -5
I'd be interested in seeing how much player salaries have gone up vs. the luxury tax limit and total payrolls. I'd also like to see those figures with just looking at the top tier paid players.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2019 8:29:50 GMT -5
It doesn't ever become attractive when you're a World Series contender. Isn't that the goal? That's my point though. How long can you be a world series contender when 1/2 your payroll is tied up in 2-3 guys and you're drafting duds? At least through this year, while they all have 1-2 seasons left. I'm not understanding the point. They either take another shot at a WS or they trade the guys now. There isn't another year where they have 1-2 seasons left on their deals.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Mar 20, 2019 8:38:19 GMT -5
That's my point though. How long can you be a world series contender when 1/2 your payroll is tied up in 2-3 guys and you're drafting duds? At least through this year, while they all have 1-2 seasons left. I'm not understanding the point. They either take another shot at a WS or they trade the guys now. There isn't another year where they have 1-2 seasons left on their deals. I'm not trying to point out that we take this path now, at all, nor am I exclusively talking about the Red Sox. I'm just speculating how long player salaries can inflate to where one superstar is taking up a larger proportion of a teams total salary and it doesn't impact any structural changes to how they build a team. Perhaps it's a simple as we see a slow down in player salary inflation. I have no ideal.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 20, 2019 8:57:34 GMT -5
FWIW, the caps will be going up considerably and the penalties will most likely be weakened in the next CBA. At least that's what it looks like to me based on payrolls vs revenues over the past few years and the effect the current penalties have had.
The fact that rosters are going to 26 also leads to higher caps.
Other leagues have also instituted limits on years which could help teams from getting into terrible deals that hurt everyone except for the guy who signs it and ends up being a ball and chain. This would be a nonstarter and very controversial but going the route of the NFL and getting rid of guaranteed contracts wouldn't hurt, not going to happen I know. Everyone else has to earn their pay why not athletes?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 20, 2019 9:13:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 20, 2019 9:19:13 GMT -5
This would be a nonstarter and very controversial but going the route of the NFL and getting rid of guaranteed contracts wouldn't hurt, not going to happen I know. Everyone else has to earn their pay why not athletes? Because everyone else has the option to quit their jobs and go work for a competitor who will pay them what they're worth. It's not fair that players have to assume all the risk, which is what's happening in a non-guaranteed contracts system.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 20, 2019 9:27:52 GMT -5
Who is guaranteed what in life? You are right "pay them what they are worth", earn it.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 20, 2019 9:32:55 GMT -5
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,263
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Mar 20, 2019 9:52:26 GMT -5
RE: "Mookie Betts says he loves it in Boston, would be a great place to spend his career, but recent extensions ‘don’t impact me that much.’"
He's got to be tired of being asked about other people's contracts. This has to be at least the third or fourth time this spring he's said essentially the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 20, 2019 9:53:29 GMT -5
I don't blame Mookie for his comments this morning, basically saying that he doesn't anticipate any sort of extension before he hits FA, but as a fan, it sucks.
I hope I'm wrong, and I can't possibly imagine they just let him walk with the only compensation being a mediocre round draft pick, but I also can't fathom them trading him, or some team putting together a realistic package for him, unless the Sox are just terrible for some reason in 2019 or 2020.
The whole situation just feels like it's either going to end great (with an extension), or disastrously (with him leaving in FA), with no middle ground
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 20, 2019 9:53:37 GMT -5
For those of us who are hoping for an extension, the “I’m going to free agency no matter what,” is rapidly looking less like a negotiating tactic than a defined strategy.I still believe if he gets to free agency he’s gone. LAD, PHIL, CHC, Houston, NYY, and whatever recently tanked teams now sitting on cash and on the cusp will all have a shot to get stupid with cash. If Mookie believes that’s the measuring stick for his value and respect - an many players do - then at some point it could well be that it just doesn’t make sense for the Sox . The PR heads on Jersey Street (that still sounds so wrong) will spin it as, “We made a very generous offer, but he decided he wanted more. We thank Mookie for his oustanding years in Boston and wish him well on this next chapter in his career .’(unless he goes to NYY or Houston; then that last part is left off). blah, blah, blah. But IF it happens - and I really hope it doesn’t - it will be a dark day for the Olde Towne Team.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Mar 20, 2019 10:02:45 GMT -5
Who is guaranteed what in life? You are right "pay them what they are worth", earn it. Well if contracts aren't guaranteed, owners are guaranteed that they'll never have to pay a contract that isn't favorable to them, while the players may very well have to accept a contract that isn't fair to them. That is NOT how the rest of the world operates. If I'm being underpaid, I get to ask for a raise or quit and find somebody who will pay me what I'm worth. If Mookie Betts is underpaid, he has no recourse until he's a free agent. Then, he'll get paid what he's worth until the moment his value changes, at which point he'll get cut or be underpaid again. This system would only be fair if the players could walk away from their contracts whenever they want, which would be disastrous for the game.
|
|
KB24
Rookie
Posts: 147
|
Post by KB24 on Mar 20, 2019 11:34:14 GMT -5
I don't blame Mookie for his comments this morning, basically saying that he doesn't anticipate any sort of extension before he hits FA, but as a fan, it sucks. I hope I'm wrong, and I can't possibly imagine they just let him walk with the only compensation being a mediocre round draft pick, but I also can't fathom them trading him, or some team putting together a realistic package for him, unless the Sox are just terrible for some reason in 2019 or 2020. The whole situation just feels like it's either going to end great (with an extension), or disastrously (with him leaving in FA), with no middle ground If Mookie has another stellar year in 2019 and the Sox offer something along the lines of 11/385 in the early offseason that gets declined then I don't think there's any other reasonable rationale than Mookie just doesn't want to play in Boston. Dombrowski has to protect the franchise at that point and deal him before 2020 so they aren't left entirely holding the bag.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 20, 2019 11:46:19 GMT -5
I don't anticipate Sale or Martinez walk unless they demand downright outrageous offers.
If Boras convinces Xander he can get $200M+ on the open market, he's certainly not signing a pre-FA extension, and probably leaving. Of all of the guys who are up in the next few years, I feel like he's the most likely to actually get something crazy on the open market, probably more than he should.
I don't believe it's going to take anything crazy to extend Sale and JDM. Sale's might be somewhat of a discussion because of his tendency to wear down after the ASG and into October, but I think they'll pay him top end money regardless.
I would hope that Mookie doesn't put them in a position where they have to actively look to trade him either next offseason or before the 2020 trade deadline. But if he hasn't shown willingness to extend at a reasonable #, which should probably be just lower than Trout's, you have to at least look
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 20, 2019 12:30:01 GMT -5
I would hope that Mookie doesn't put them in a position where they have to actively look to trade him either next offseason or before the 2020 trade deadline. But if he hasn't shown willingness to extend at a reasonable #, which should probably be just lower than Trout's, you have to at least look I certainly think they'll have to listen to offers, especially if they have no intention of approaching Trout's contract figure. I don't think that they don't have the intention of approaching Trout's deal. I think the Sox want to see if Mookie has a year like 2016 again as opposed to his 2017 season when he was merely great but not top 2 in the game kind of great. Expecting him to repeat 2018 doesn't make sense. If he was regularly doing that he'd be even better than Trout who is consistently spectacular year in and year out. Mookie was a touch better than Trout in 2018, but that wasn't the case previously so it's hard to think he'd get more annually than Trout, but if he is as great in 2019 as he was in 2016 I don't see why he wouldn't get around $35 million/year and I don't know why the Sox wouldn't go to that figure. I do worry if that happened, he might at some point have some nagging injuries or something that sets him on the path that Andrew McCutchen is on. Betts and McCutchen were considered comps earlier although there were questions previously if Betts could be quite as good as 2x MVP McCutchen - and as it turns out he's better, but once that wasn't the thought and McCutchen has dropped off. So there is a risk in simply handing Mookie all that money, but I guess you can say the same thing for Trout as well. I do think the Sox are going to give it their best effort to go get Mookie, although I don't think Mookie accepts anything unless it's record breaking - prior to free agency. I do think the Sox will find common ground with Sale and the way every hitter on the team is trying to emulate JD Martinez, I think the Red Sox have to find a way to extend him as well. JD Martinez's value to the Red Sox exceeds his WAR, etc. I know the defense isn't great when he plays in the OF, but the offense is spectacular and he impacts the lineup when he's in it and he impacts the lineup when he's in the clubhouse acting as resident hitting guru. His teammates are buying into JD Martinez's approach. He has Mookie as a protege, now JBJ, and he's been working with Devers as well. It's spreading. He's too important a guy. So that leaves Mookie. I'm assuming that Xander does not come back and that's how they'll have the money for Sale, JDM, and Mookie. I would think Xander can get 8 years $200 million, but I'm not sure the Sox will go there. I think the Sox want a bit of hometown discount from Sale and they'd probably want one from Xander as well. Xander might bend a little (I get the sense that he really, really wants to stay..), but I don't know if it will be enough for a deal to happen.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 20, 2019 13:27:45 GMT -5
Who is guaranteed what in life? You are right "pay them what they are worth", earn it. Well if contracts aren't guaranteed, owners are guaranteed that they'll never have to pay a contract that isn't favorable to them, while the players may very well have to accept a contract that isn't fair to them. That is NOT how the rest of the world operates. If I'm being underpaid, I get to ask for a raise or quit and find somebody who will pay me what I'm worth. If Mookie Betts is underpaid, he has no recourse until he's a free agent. Then, he'll get paid what he's worth until the moment his value changes, at which point he'll get cut or be underpaid again. This system would only be fair if the players could walk away from their contracts whenever they want, which would be disastrous for the game. I like the way the NFL does it. Reasonable short term contracts to start, player gets to FA quicker and gets paid accordingly with bonuses and years. That is one of the reasons Bell sat out this past year in Pitt. Steelers were giving him a very low guarantee and the Jets gave him 35M guaranteed. Then if the player earns it he gets the bigger base salaries later on in the contract. If he isn't good enough to justify the cap space he is on the market again. They make plenty and they have to earn it for the most part, but those don't always workout either.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 20, 2019 15:58:09 GMT -5
Well if contracts aren't guaranteed, owners are guaranteed that they'll never have to pay a contract that isn't favorable to them, while the players may very well have to accept a contract that isn't fair to them. That is NOT how the rest of the world operates. If I'm being underpaid, I get to ask for a raise or quit and find somebody who will pay me what I'm worth. If Mookie Betts is underpaid, he has no recourse until he's a free agent. Then, he'll get paid what he's worth until the moment his value changes, at which point he'll get cut or be underpaid again. This system would only be fair if the players could walk away from their contracts whenever they want, which would be disastrous for the game. I like the way the NFL does it. Reasonable short term contracts to start, player gets to FA quicker and gets paid accordingly with bonuses and years. That is one of the reasons Bell sat out this past year in Pitt. Steelers were giving him a very low guarantee and the Jets gave him 35M guaranteed. Then if the player earns it he gets the bigger base salaries later on in the contract. If he isn't good enough to justify the cap space he is on the market again. They make plenty and they have to earn it for the most part, but those don't always workout either. Personally, I wish MLB had something like Larry Bird rule x 2 or 3 players where you can re-sign or extend 2 or 3 of your own players but have a percentage of their salary (say, somewhere between 10-20%) not count againt the lux tax. Whereas if you sign a FA he counts full salary against the tax. Teams wiuld designate who these 2-3 players are. Doesn’t mean they can’t resign/extend other players, just that non-designated salaries count 100% against the tax.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2019 16:21:10 GMT -5
I would hope that Mookie doesn't put them in a position where they have to actively look to trade him either next offseason or before the 2020 trade deadline. But if he hasn't shown willingness to extend at a reasonable #, which should probably be just lower than Trout's, you have to at least look I certainly think they'll have to listen to offers, especially if they have no intention of approaching Trout's contract figure. The problem with Mookie is that’s he’s essentially untradeable. Just like he, or Trout, won’t get their “true” contract worth (which would be in excess of $50M AAV at $8M per win), they also won’t return their true value in trade. As someone who’s looking more and more like a Trout-level (or a smidge below, to be realistic) performer...a perennial 7-9 WAR player...Mookie *reasonably* should return what Sale did, even with just 2 years. Maybe a bit more, since his projected value for two years is nearly Sale’s for three, admittedly at greater cost but with substantially less risk as a positional player vs pitcher. That’s basically two top-20 prospects (one of them a top-3, a 65-FV player; the other a 55-60), plus probably an additional top-100-150 (45+ or 50 FV).. And that’s because over two years, Mookie looks to be worth $140-160M in production value but cost only $45-$50M. So $100M in excess value is a big price to pay, and from the Sox’s standpoint, they need an overpay (say, $120-14M EV) to justify the huge hit to their competitiveness, and the fan base blow-back. To top it off, there are very few teams that have the prospect capital to do that deal (there are only 5 top-5 prospects, and dropping out of that zone means bumping up the other players...so who out there has a 3-20-120 combo, or, say, an 8-12-90?). SD and ATL could do it. Houston could possibly, if they’d part with Whitley-Tucker-James-Nova. And maybe the Sox could find a partner like the Mets, who would do DeGrom/Syndergaard plus Giménez and Mauricio. But the list of partners is real short...it’s really ONLY contenders or borderline contenders with deep systems and/or very high-end controlled talent.
|
|
|