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.
A Mookie Betts Trade Return
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 8, 2019 20:53:23 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Almost all of the guys you mention in that second list either weren't as good as Mookie is, or signed their deal at an older age than Mookie is going to. Lots of them had issues with injury, which is a factor in decision making but is not something you can necessarily predict. And Some of them (Kershaw, Scherzer, Freeman) have worked out fine.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 8, 2019 21:22:16 GMT -5
Why does Price keep coming up in these discussions rather than Sale ? Price should have been the World Series MVP. The only reason he wasn't is because people are childish. I believe Sale has the warrior mentality. You can't fault the guy. He does not make excuses. His body fails him. Price also has injury issues but Price was there in the World Series and logically should have been the MVP. All I am saying is I am 100% confident that Sale's contract is a short and long term disaster. I have at least some confidence that may not be the case with Price. Yes, Price probably should have been the MVP but Pearce wasn't a bad choice either, but what does that got to do with anything? Price didn't exactly follow up his World Series dominance with a stellar injury free season. He's a good pitcher but it's no guarantee that he's better the next 3 years than Sale is the next 5. I'm not 100% confident that the Sox get nothing out of Sale. I'm not convinced that he won't need TJS in the near future, but I don't think that will sink the entire contract. As far as Price goes, you have a guy who is not what he used to be either, has missed time the past few years with his own injury issues, and is a guy that doesn't even want to be in Boston. And he makes more than Sale annually, too.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 8, 2019 23:32:25 GMT -5
It's official now...
HardballTalk @hardballtalk
Dan Shaughnessy: Mookie Betts is “overrated”
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Nov 9, 2019 1:57:06 GMT -5
It's official now... HardballTalk @hardballtalk Dan Shaughnessy: Mookie Betts is “overrated” You'd think the team's newspaper would try to build his value if they are trying to move him, right?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 9, 2019 2:09:06 GMT -5
It's official now... HardballTalk @hardballtalk Dan Shaughnessy: Mookie Betts is “overrated” Yeah, well....guys with five tools plus good plate discipline, smart baserunning, youth, and a good attitude usually are.
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on Nov 9, 2019 3:09:35 GMT -5
It's official now... HardballTalk @hardballtalk Dan Shaughnessy: Mookie Betts is “overrated” You'd think the team's newspaper would try to build his value if they are trying to move him, right? No, got to say how bad they are and how the team is better off without them despite how dumb that says for one of the best players in baseball
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 9, 2019 3:14:19 GMT -5
Actually that would be great if it was the other GMs that were 'overrating' him.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 9, 2019 5:31:39 GMT -5
CHB is over rated
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 9, 2019 5:36:33 GMT -5
Who is CHB ?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Nov 9, 2019 6:03:12 GMT -5
. Curly Haired Boyfriend, an unkind reference for the nabob of negativity Shaughnessy, also known as Shank. He is a wonderful wordsmith, but can be an assassin.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 9, 2019 7:44:38 GMT -5
. Curly Haired Boyfriend, an unkind reference for the nabob of negativity Shaughnessy, also known as Shank. He is a wonderful wordsmith, but can be an assassin. He's a very talented writer however he played on the angst of the masses especially pre-2004 and gave a voice and credence to insufferable "fans" and for that he's the devil.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Nov 9, 2019 7:57:42 GMT -5
The Globe should trade Shaughnessy to the NYT.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 9, 2019 8:55:16 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Not sure you can say Lesters deal ended up all that bad so far. Not being discussed much is Mookies age which greatly reduces the chances of the back end of a contract being all that lopsided, especially if you consider $ 8-10 years down the road. The new CBA could also change the landscape a bit. Throw on top of that the history of players peaking @ 27-30s years of age and Mookie could be a 40+ war player over the next 5 years. Considering the Sox were purchased for 380 million 17 years ago and are now valued at 3.2 billion makes me think they can afford to pay to keep one of the best players in team history. One who also happens to be a perfect teammate.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 9, 2019 9:02:59 GMT -5
All the reports say Lindor will be on the market as well. I wonder how much that would affect a potential Betts trade market.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 9, 2019 10:05:39 GMT -5
In a gruesomely forgettable year, in the midst of some pretty dull sox iterations, Carl Everett and his maximum-security prison attitude (including but not limited to gems like his feud with “CHB”) provided entertainment both on and off the field. To this day I’m surprised nobody on that team got shanked with a sharpened toothbrush.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Nov 9, 2019 10:43:27 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Not sure you can say Lesters deal ended up all that bad so far. Not being discussed much is Mookies age which greatly reduces the chances of the back end of a contract being all that lopsided, especially if you consider $ 8-10 years down the road. The new CBA could also change the landscape a bit. Throw on top of that the history of players peaking @ 27-30s years of age and Mookie could be a 40+ war player over the next 5 years. Considering the Sox were purchased for 380 million 17 years ago and are now valued at 3.2 billion makes me think they can afford to pay to keep one of the best players in team history. One who also happens to be a perfect teammate. I think a couple of those deals worked out. Just saying the vast majority of long term deals do not. No doubt the Sox can afford to keep Mookie. But if they’re actually going to try and get down under the $208 threshold, I don’t see how it’s possible.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 9, 2019 10:43:36 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Not sure you can say Lesters deal ended up all that bad so far. Not being discussed much is Mookies age which greatly reduces the chances of the back end of a contract being all that lopsided, especially if you consider $ 8-10 years down the road. The new CBA could also change the landscape a bit. Throw on top of that the history of players peaking @ 27-30s years of age and Mookie could be a 40+ war player over the next 5 years. Considering the Sox were purchased for 380 million 17 years ago and are now valued at 3.2 billion makes me think they can afford to pay to keep one of the best players in team history. One who also happens to be a perfect teammate. Don’t get me wrong, because Mookie’s on my short list of favorite Sox players ever. But there are a few concerns. One, offense actually peaks earlier...*HR power* tends to peak when you’re describing, late 20s. But overall offense historically peaks around 24-25. I’m *sure* there’s a lot of attrition bias there, so I’m not entirely sure how to look at Mookie. His walk rates have gone up, which is a good sign, but he has very little opposite field power. That’s a problem, because hitters who rely on pulling for power tend to decline in their early 30s when bat speed starts to slow and they have to cheat early, resulting in a lot of rolled-over GB. I’m really not sure how Mookie ages, because he’s such an outlier to begin with. He’s better than McCutchen, but not insanely so. And McCutchen’s skills deteriorated very quickly at 29-30. Look at Altuve...he’s losing some value as well, at 29, despite a career-high 31 HR. I hope Mookie’s awesome right up until the day he quits, no matter who he plays for. But for a guy who’s 5’9” 180 lbs, relying on fast hands/wrists and pull-side power...there are some very real, legitimate concerns about his long-term production. I think it’s a good chance he averages 7-9 WAR/year from 26-29, but he could drop down to the 2-4 range pretty quickly unless he’s able to make up for declining power with higher BAs/OBPs, and maintain his outstanding RF defense. OTOH, as you say, by the end of 10 years, $35M AAV isn’t going to look so ridiculous...because the FA $/WAR calculus will probably be approaching $15M, so as long as he’s a solid starter, he’ll be providing sufficient value.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 9, 2019 10:48:11 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out?Depends on your definition of "worked out" but probably something like half of them? Which is pretty encouraging since Mookie would be younger, better, healthier, and more athletic than most of the really bad players on this list.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 9, 2019 10:59:13 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out? Not sure you can say Lesters deal ended up all that bad so far. Not being discussed much is Mookies age which greatly reduces the chances of the back end of a contract being all that lopsided, especially if you consider $ 8-10 years down the road. The new CBA could also change the landscape a bit. Throw on top of that the history of players peaking @ 27-30s years of age and Mookie could be a 40+ war player over the next 5 years. Considering the Sox were purchased for 380 million 17 years ago and are now valued at 3.2 billion makes me think they can afford to pay to keep one of the best players in team history. One who also happens to be a perfect teammate. Do players peak at 27-30s anymore or was that only true during the PEDs era? It just seems players are peaking earlier now without steroids. Which is a big reason why free agency is such a mess. During the steroid time guys peaks was 26/27 to 33/34, now most players seem to be in decline by the time they are free agents. No one knows how certain players will age, but so much of Betts value is in being a 5 tool player. You have to worry about decline when your talking 10 plus year contracts.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 9, 2019 11:05:42 GMT -5
I knew it was going to come to this. The biggest problem is Mookie has never countered the Sox offer. Say what you want but it’s called a negotiation for a reason. I love the guy you don’t give him 7 years without an opted out. Team one or both.
The only way you don’t deal him is if you go for it with the same guys for another run. Tinker with the pen. Maybe a low cost starter or two on the rebound. I mean this team has talent.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 9, 2019 11:58:24 GMT -5
No one knows how certain players will age, but so much of Betts value is in being a 5 tool player. You have to worry about decline when your talking 10 plus year contracts.I don't understand why Mookie's athleticism is held against him so much when all the really bad contracts are Price Fielder and Miguel Cabrera and Chris Davis. Look at how long Ichiro held up, and Betts is basically the same guy except a much better all around hitter. Hell, Brett Gardner is still a good player and he was never remotely in Mookie's class. I guess the idea is that small guys don't age well, but I think that's actually a middle infielder thing, and that's just where most of the smaller guys end up playing. As an outfielder, I think being smaller probably just means less weight on your knees and your back and less momentum for when you crash into a wall or make a diving catch. Predicting the second half of a player's career is one of the hardest things to do and I make no definitive claims about Mookie's future, but don't think you can convince me that anyone besides maybe Trout has significantly better odds of aging well than Betts does.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 9, 2019 12:23:23 GMT -5
Trout, Harper, Machado and Arrenado all have one year of their current deals under their belt so I agree it’s too early to judge. But look at some of the current deals. Pujols, Cabrera, Stanton, Votto, Cano, Fielder, Scherzer, Greinke, Heyward, Posey, Kershaw, Chris Davis, Tulowitzki, Price, Tanaka, Ellsbury, Lester, David Wright, Upton, Freeman, Choo, Cueto. How many of those have worked out?Depends on your definition of "worked out" but probably something like half of them? Which is pretty encouraging since Mookie would be younger, better, healthier, and more athletic than most of the really bad players on this list. What is your definition of "worked out"? I count 12 that clearly don't look like they worked out. Stanton and Freeman are way too young to know and Freeman deal ends at age 31 I think. Kershaw also didn't sign a huge long-term deal, yet has greatly declined. Tanaka deal is worth it only because they got his young years. Heck Lester is one of the better deals and he'd have to have a big year to even reach the 10 million per bwar level. I didn't include Price in the clearly but I wouldn't say that has worked out besides the Championship. A guy like Votto you can debate because he was so good, but he's now in rapid decline with a bunch of years left. Like the Posey deal isn't bad even though he declined, but that's mainly because it doesn't take him into his late 30s. I look at that list and don't see many that have worked out that well and even some that did still look horrible as the players age. Betts might be younger, but he's going to likely get a very long term deal of 10 to 13 years, taking him through his age 37-40 seasons. We have no clue how players age, yet tons of examples of athletic players declining rapidly in there early 30's. Heck that's a negative in my book given how much of Betts value comes from his athletic ability. Sure seems the best hope is he's like Votto, where he was so productive early on that he makes it ok on the backside.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 9, 2019 12:50:06 GMT -5
No one knows how certain players will age, but so much of Betts value is in being a 5 tool player. You have to worry about decline when your talking 10 plus year contracts.I don't understand why Mookie's athleticism is held against him so much when all the really bad contracts are Price Fielder and Miguel Cabrera and Chris Davis. Look at how long Ichiro held up, and Betts is basically the same guy except a much better all around hitter. Hell, Brett Gardner is still a good player and he was never remotely in Mookie's class. I guess the idea is that small guys don't age well, but I think that's actually a middle infielder thing, and that's just where most of the smaller guys end up playing. As an outfielder, I think being smaller probably just means less weight on your knees and your back and less momentum for when you crash into a wall or make a diving catch. Predicting the second half of a player's career is one of the hardest things to do and I make no definitive claims about Mookie's future, but don't think you can convince me that anyone besides maybe Trout has significantly better odds of aging well than Betts does. Most players lose athletic ability when they get into their 30s and so much of his value comes from being a five tool player. You can always find exceptions, yet guys like Ichiro are just that. I don't disagree about Betts having better odds than most. Yet the odds for any player are horrible. I wouldn't want to bet on any player signing a 10-13 year deal, because the odds aren't good.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Nov 9, 2019 13:48:08 GMT -5
I really hate the idea of trading Betts, but I get it from a baseball standpoint if we might just lose him for a draft pick next year if he won’t sign an extension. We also have some big decisions in the next couple years, Erod, Devers, possibly Benny extensions. We have big contracts with negative value right now in Sale, Price, and Eovaldi with no guarantee they will regain some value. If ownership really wants to reset the tax at some point it might not get any easier with retaining Betts.
I also understand from an opposing teams point of view they may not want to give up premium high end prospects for paying Betts 28 mil or so for a possible 1 year rental.
I’m ready to get roasted for this idea. Lol. So if we have trade Betts and we also have to offer some sort of sweetener to guarantee the kind of prospect return we would love. What about Erod being that guy. With 2 years left before free agency coming off a career season with 19 wins his trade value may never be this high again. The prospect return should then be really massive, replenish our farm system in a hurry, and give us even more payroll flexibility. That would probably seal the deal for a TOR pitching prospect, stud outfielder, and whatever else we want. It would be one less extension the FO has to worry about, and we could still throw bucket loads of money to Mookie next year if we want to.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 9, 2019 14:27:19 GMT -5
I REALLY HATE GIVING ANYONE A 10-YEAR PLUS CONTRACT! And yes that goes for Mookie who I love and would hate to leave. IF all of our rotation was healthy, I could see us not even considering a trade of Markus Betts, but that is not the case.
You have to be somewhat upset with what Detroit and the Angels did with Miggie and Pujols. The players believe, and rightfully so, why not give me 10 or 12 years. To me it is VERY often a deal that hurts the club.
I keep going back and forth in how I want this to work out, and signing Mookie for, say, $350 million is down-right scary. No one knows if that kind of contract will ham-string the Sox, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became a problem. It may become a huge problem!
I get what you say about Shaughnessy and often he upsets me, but his latest article made me think about the Mike Trout contract. As great as he is, and he is one the best of all time, the Angels NEVER even sniff the playoffs. Our team in 2013 had some really average players in key roles, and they were able to do something special. One great positional player gets to bat around 4 times a game. One great positional player, by himself, won't take a team to the promise land.
In someways I am disappointed with the way Mookie has decided to play this. I almost wish he was a jerk....which he is not. He is a great guy, but not negotiating with the Boston Red Sox, one of the top organizations in all of baseball who do everything 1st class, makes me wonder some. If his goal is only to get that extra few million, it is, IMO, wrong. I would think the Sox have offered him, at least, 30 million a year...and he still wants to play it this way? If Boston and the Sox are not enough, I guess we really give the idea of trading him serious thought.
Mookie is an outstanding player, but just like with Fred Lynn, he is not thinking about how Fenway helps him and how unique the Sox organization really is. There are few teams that will be a better fit for him. There are few places he could go that would insure his numbers would be as good and he would compete yearly for a championship. If that extra few million per year, he MAY get, is so important, maybe a trade, in the long run, is the best thing for my team.
|
|
|