Mookie Betts signing an extension with LAD (13y/380M)

I think maybe I'm thinking about two different separate opinions, that of the fans, and that of the players.

For Carlton Fisk, he considered himself a Red Sox first and foremost. It was in his blood. He grew up in New Hampshire as a Red Sox fan. That's where his heart was and why he wanted to be inducted as a Red Sox.

Yes, his indelible moment is that of a Red Sox, but yeah, you're probably correct that White Sox fans think of him as one of their own, although I still think he lacked that signature moment that truly set him apart in Chicago.

Relating it to Mookie, if he doesn't win in LA and is merely excellent than otherworldly for the Dodgers, do fans consider him a Dodger over being a Red Sox? He was the MVP and greatest player on the greatest Red Sox team of all-time.

It's way, way too early to answer now but will Mookie when he looks back think of himself primarily a Dodger or a Red Sox (if he does think about those types of thing at all)? Unlike Fisk, I think he'll see himself as a Dodger first, but we'll have to see about that. I guess only time will tell. Maybe with the no opt outs, we already have our answer?

I don't think that this was a very wise decision on the Dodgers part and I can't blame Mookie for grabbing it while it's there. This coming offseason is likely to have an extremely depressed market all the way around. The Dodgers outbid themselves. I like Mookie a lot but I wouldn't have wanted the Sox to give him that high of a salary through his age 39 season even in normal times with room under the cap.

I am happy for Mookie. Awful lot of money for 1 player no matter how good he is. If you are using a 200 mil payroll as a basis, I understand they could spend lots more, how many 30 mil a yr guys can you afford? It appeared the last 2 yrs that Mookie was holding out to FA and see what he could get paid. That strategy changed with the COVID problem. I have not seen anywhere where Mookie said he did not want to play in Boston and I have not seen where the sox have said they did not want to pay him. He was looking at securing the most money. It appeared as though they offered 300 mil for 10 and he did not even continue talking. To my limited knowledge he never came back with a counter to the 300 mil number. Once the sox saw that they decided to see what they could get for him. The only real negative I have about the trade is that they did not get any pitching. It is stupid to me to think that 300 mil for 10 was a low ball offer. The dodgers offered 2 more yrs at the same 30 mil per that the sox offered. With no known counter offer from Mookie who knows whether the sox would have come back with 36 for 10, same 360 total. The dodgers are taking a BIG risk to win their first WS in a long time. The sox focus appears to be staying competitive and build up the farm system. I hope that Bloom is the guy that finally gets us some good starting pitching.

Believe what was rumored by Boston's offer to be of a shorter, 7-8y offer of more money would have been much better.

As is, 120-150m of this new contract is going to be dead money it looks like. betts is a terrific, player.. A generational player, like Trout. Compare him as a Willie Mays minus for instance. Mays dropped way off from age 36 onwards. Still a fair player, but not nearly the SS he once was and remember.. Betts never hit 40+ HR every year to begin with.

A superstar, all around player would have been nice to keep and it really appears Boston tried, but it takes both parties to get it done and seems only one tried that hard in this instance in Boston.

I understandably see a lot of "That contract will be an albatross by the time player X is in year Y of that contract" and inevitably it most likely proves to be true.

But I guess my question comes down to this: If not Mookie Betts, what kind of premier talent do the Red Sox develop through their farm system, graduate to the majors at a relatively young age who becomes a free agent at a younger age do you actually extend to a long-term deal?

I mean, I don't think you can expect players to say, "Yeah, I'm among the best in the game, but my plan is to give the Red Sox a huge hometown discount for the rest of my career just because Red Sox fans love the Red Sox."

I mean if the Sox developed the next Ted Williams (as if there is such a thing), got him to the majors at a young age, watch him dominate the league and then had him become a free agent, do you sign him to a mega-deal paying him among the most in the game?

I'm not saying Mookie Betts is Ted Williams. I am asking at what level talent do you make that kind of large financial commitment because at some point if you have the best pitcher in the game or somebody who is among the top 5 players in the game, if not the best, you are going to have to pay him as such or you WILL lose him, knowing full well that the player who you sign now will likely not be anywhere near as dominant a dozen years from when you sign him?

Because if you're expecting somebody to be a spectacular player form ages 27 thru 39 you're going to be disappointed, and the other thing is that you will indeed lose the player, because if you're not willing to make that kind of plunge for a player like Mookie, then what player do you take that risk on?

Maybe the answer to some is NEVER take that plunge unless you get a major hometown discount, so if that's the case fine, but if you develop an amazing talent and that talent doesn't do the I'll take the security up front and give you an extra service year, you're likely going to lose that talent while he is still very much in the prime of his career with several prime years still left (if he doesn't drop off the age cliff around age 30).

I guess that's the question I pose to some regarding the long-term deal.

Arenado signed a team-friendly extension. Acuna signed a team-friendly extension. Yellich signed a team-friendly extension. Bogaerts isn't quite at that level, but he just signed an extension last year. You can still keep lots of your homegrown guys; you just can't do it if they are dead set on getting the most money and most years possible, because 13 year contracts are crazy. The Sox are just unlucky that their superstar was one of the guys who valued his money above everything. That's not a knock on Mookie, as it's his right to do so, it just is what is is. 

Edit: The other possibility, as discussed above, is that Mookie just didn't want to be in Boston. Again, not a lot you can do there other than walk away.

I personally think it's more complex than "he didn't want to be here" and "he loved it here". I don't think Boston was his absolute favorite place, but I don't think he disliked it to the point where he absolutely wouldn't have signed back in free agency if the Red Sox offered the most. Betts seems a very peaceful person, and living and working in Boston, especially as a member of the Red Sox is anything but peaceful. I can definitely see (in my personal view of the situation not at all rooted in facts...) him feeling like playing in Boston took more of a toll on his mental health than he would've preferred and thinking that if he was going to sign back here for what amounts to the rest of his career, he'd want to be compensated at the top of the market for it. Fast forward to this situation with LAD; he's with a contender that has gobs of money available to pay him, Covid was almost assuredly going to decrease what he'd get in free agency, and LA is about as laid back a baseball fandom as can be found. Why risk playing the 60 game season and underperforming/getting injured and further decreasing his market value when the Dodgers are going to build you a Scrooge McDuckian vault to get you to stay.

I also, probably unpopularly, don't blame the Red Sox for refusing to pay him ~$30,000,000/yr for the next 12/13 years. I love the player and person Betts is now, but to expect any player, especially a player with Betts' build and skillset to maintain that value, even with a reasonable rate of depreciation, is irresponsible. I know this sounds like I'm rationalizing after the fact, but I've believed this since last season and advocated for moving him to a contender at the trade deadline in 2019 to try and maximize value.

I wonder if this would have been an issue had the Red Sox tried much earlier to lock him in to a more team friendly deal. I know his mantra was to hit free agency, but if after 2016 when he came in 2nd in MVP voting, had they offered him a 7(?) year contract to buy out his arb years and extend him to 2023 at ~$20mm/year AAV would he have taken it, or even seriously negotiated? We'll never know, but it's clear that the Red Sox strategy of "take them through arbitration and pay them the free agent rate or let them walk" does nothing but come back to bite teams that do it.

Sorry for rambling. I just have lots of thoughts...

For whatever it's worth, the players you're mentioning were two front offices ago.

It's not that they're being capricious. The ownership clearly did not discuss with Dombrowski a plan coming off the 2018 season on how to prioritize keeping/extending or eventually losing the current players on the roster. If they needed to get under the CBT this year, that needed to be communicated then. The way Dombrowski operated, signing the Sale extension and paying Eovaldi what he did is what then hamstrung the team.

I have no problem with a team setting a budget that is either at the top or extremely close to the top of the list in MLB. What I have a problem with is the absymal lack of planning that led to a situation in which the Red Sox felt they would be unable to extend or re-sign him, and therefore wanted to trade him to make sure they weren't left with nothing but a draft pick if he left.

True, it was not this FO, but many decisions appear to be driven from ownership. My concern is that once the reset comes through and the spigot reopens, they will yet again feel the need to reload immediately, and they’ll spend on whatever is immediately shiniest, not plan for five years ahead.

In my opinion it was an incredibly stupid decision. If the Sox had signed him with the same numbers I'd almost feel ill.  And that would be with Mookie playing in a ballpark ideally suited to his hitting profile.

Question, so for luxury tax since this is a shortened season does the hit stay at 375m with the approx 10M this year or does it pro-rate to a full season and affect it and then the luxury tax total is 392M? That is a difference of 28.84M to 30.15M?