|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Mar 19, 2019 15:48:14 GMT -5
News has it that Trout is going to sign a 12 year, $430 million extension with the Angels. Let's assume this goes as reported.
Now we have the brackets: Harper 13 years, $330 million, Trout 12 years, $430 million. You really have to ask: Does this mean that Trout is going to be stuck with a not-quite-good-enough team for the rest of his career because he eats up too much of salary and they won't surround him with quite enough other good to excellent players to get over the hump? Or are they going to commit to whatever they need to do to get him a championship or two?
And now Mookie Betts' situation comes into clear focus. Clear-eyed argument is that he is a better player than Harper, but a little (not much) less than Trout. It sure looks as though it is going to take upwards of $400 million over a comparable length contract to sign him, and I bet, even if he is willing to take slightly less than Trout, that he will want a 4 in the LH column of his new contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 19, 2019 15:51:23 GMT -5
News has it that Trout is going to sign a 12 year, $430 million extension with the Angels. Let's assume this goes as reported. Now we have the brackets: Harper 13 years, $330 million, Trout 12 years, $430 million. You really have to ask: Does this mean that Trout is going to be stuck with a not-quite-good-enough team for the rest of his career because he eats up too much of salary and they won't surround him with quite enough other good to excellent players to get over the hump? Or are they going to commit to whatever they need to do to get him a championship or two? And now Mookie Betts' situation comes into clear focus. Clear-eyed argument is that he is a better player than Harper, but a little (not much) less than Trout. It sure looks as though it is going to take upwards of $400 million over a comparable length contract to sign him, and I bet, even if he is willing to take slightly less than Trout, that he will want a 4 in the LH column of his new contract. Well 400 million divided by 11 years is 36.36 million/year so I think you have the right idea. |
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 19, 2019 22:59:34 GMT -5
News has it that Trout is going to sign a 12 year, $430 million extension with the Angels. Let's assume this goes as reported. Now we have the brackets: Harper 13 years, $330 million, Trout 12 years, $430 million. You really have to ask: Does this mean that Trout is going to be stuck with a not-quite-good-enough team for the rest of his career because he eats up too much of salary and they won't surround him with quite enough other good to excellent players to get over the hump? Or are they going to commit to whatever they need to do to get him a championship or two? And now Mookie Betts' situation comes into clear focus. Clear-eyed argument is that he is a better player than Harper, but a little (not much) less than Trout. It sure looks as though it is going to take upwards of $400 million over a comparable length contract to sign him, and I bet, even if he is willing to take slightly less than Trout, that he will want a 4 in the LH column of his new contract. Well 400 million divided by 11 years is 36.36 million/year so I think you have the right idea. I wrote this elsewhere in response to a post umassgrad made that I agreed very much with: Do a crescendo-decrescendo deal, with pre-FA arb buyout at a rough estimate $28M. Add eleven years, so 12 total, at 28-33-35-35-38-40-40-38-38-35-35-30. At peak, and about where you’d expect peak production, he’s the game’s highest paid player. At the back, when his production might be expected to decline some, there’s a little room created to offset it with outside talent. That deal comes out to 12/425. It is *absolutely* reasonable to reduce those numbers slightly to end up in the 12/400 range, and I’d say preferably at the back end, or to add a year and go 13/$431M, to top Trout’s deal. Nobody is Mike Trout, and a player of his caliber without suspected enhancement hasn’t been seen in 70 years. Mookie’s not at that caliber, but he’s much closer to Trout than Harper or Machado. He’s also marketable and just an *exciting* player in every single aspect of the game. He really, really ought to remain in the Bean. Get ‘er done. |
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Mar 20, 2019 6:22:51 GMT -5
Ok I said this before, we know the money Betts should not get more than Trout. So if the Sox offer him just under Trout money like I said before he says no than after this season you have to trade him. He doesn’t want to sign here. He has two seasons left. I mean it’s that important to him to be paid more than Trout? He will not get more than Trout.
Betts said no to 8 years 200 million according to the NY post I think. But this was in 2017. I just saw Bergman just got an extension. We’re the only team not signing our own kids. Very frustrating especially now we have a great team with a perfect manager.
On a side note it was funny that the Sox had the highest payroll last year but really the media never mentioned we carried almost 40 million in dead money. Still carrying dead money this year. Petey days are numbered. I hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by benfromma on Mar 20, 2019 6:48:27 GMT -5
The Red Sox have the money to sign Mookie and he is at least either the equal of Trout or real tiny small step just below. The only problem is there is a salary penalties tax when you go over different levels and baseball teams want to avoid these at all cost. The cost of this is penalty is paid in money(a stiff tax)and a draft placement (we lost 10 slots this year). So knowing teams do not want to go above certain levels we have to be aware we can't sign everyone, so sign Mookie at the number Trout signed at and it limits you. We have Sale, Benintendi, Bogaerts, Bradley, Porcello coming up for contracts either this year or in the next few years if we sign Mookie who do we sign and let go. We also have needs to fill to build a roster each year will we the have the money to do it. Two years ago Ortiz retired and we didn't sign his replacement and this year we need bullpen replacements and have the money but didn't want to spend over the limit because of the penalties. So in my opinion we sign Mookie because he is the best player we have and build our roster from there but need to be very careful not to make mistakes(Sandoval) and find valve players.
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Mar 20, 2019 8:08:50 GMT -5
We’re all obviously huge Mookie fans, and I wouldn’t doubt it if he puts up a few more Troutish WAR seasons (like, 9+ fWAR), but his body frame and how he generates his power will more than likely deteriorate more rapidly than Trout’s frame. I’m confident Trout will be extremely valuable through the end of his deal, but as for Mookie, I’m not so sure how he’ll be in his mid to late 30s. He’ll still be an asset with the glove, baserunning, and more than likely contact hitting, but how will his body hold up?
Edit: I should add that Mookie will absolutely deserve whatever contract he gets (and will likely deserve more, like Trout), but I just mean it’ll be interesting to see how his skill set ages into his 30s. Trout’s frame looks built to last.
|
|
