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.
Mookie Betts signing an extension with LAD (13y/380M)
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 23, 2020 10:40:23 GMT -5
The pressure in Boston is pretty intense. Why go through all that when you can relax in So.Cal. in perfect weather and not worry about what the fans say. In LA half the fans show up in the 2nd and leave in the 7th. It's just entertainment to them and they have plenty of that all around them. If he body breaks down at age 35, they still have to pay him his 30Mil a year. Look at the MFY and their Elsbury contract. Not that that bothers me, but it's a lesson. He's set for life and I'm glad for him. Thanks for the memories. To each his own: Personally, I think California is the most overrated place I've ever seen and I've been all over the U.S., Europe and South America. When you factor in taxes, living in California doesn't really make any sense unless you absolutely love it or its ideal for your career. On the weather note, I prefer to have seasons and the winters don't really bother me at all. Yeah they're a bit long but having California weather all the time would get old to me pretty fast. Now, a lot of people dislike Boston... they think the people are rude and the weather is terrible. I will admit the night life is not ideal for a young athlete but they are on the road half the time anyway, and frankly U.S. nightlife is well out-classed by European or South American standards. In my view you'd be hard-pressed to find a better place to live than Boston and I believe Deutsche Bank ranked it as the highest quality of life in the country and top ten in the world. I do understand there are marketing/networking benefits to being out there. But I really don't understand the infatuation with it especially in the NBA.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 23, 2020 10:40:28 GMT -5
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? Neither. It starts next year.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 23, 2020 10:42:09 GMT -5
I don't think people are considering what is likely the yearly salary burden at the end of the contract. Honestly, the AAV on this contract is not bad.
By the time 2033 rolls around, and assuming baseball revenue growth that is consistent with the last 10 - 15 years, the yearly salary will be easily manageable for the Dodgers.
These kind of contracts will be the norm for top players. The length of the contract really should not scare people. If the Sox wont do it, then they will continue to see top talent leave. If Devers trajectory continues, he will be in line with a 10+ year contract also.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Jul 23, 2020 10:43:05 GMT -5
I don't see the Red Sox throwing a huge contract at a 30 yo elite outfielder after being unwilling to do so for a better, homegrown elite OF who is two years younger. Springer probably just had his best year.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jul 23, 2020 10:44:02 GMT -5
I don't think people are considering what is likely the yearly salary burden at the end of the contract. Honestly, the AAV on this contract is not bad. By the time 2033 rolls around, and assuming baseball revenue growth that is consistent with the last 10 - 15 years, the yearly salary will be easily manageable for the Dodgers. These kind of contracts will be the norm for top players. The length of the contract really should not scare people. If the Sox wont do it, then they will continue to see top talent leave. If Devers trajectory continues, he will be in line with a 10+ year contract also. That's why they need to lock up Devers now. Otherwise he's going to walk. Boston won't agree to the length. All this is fine if you have a strong player development program that churns out prospects. However that's a major issue for this franchise.
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Jul 23, 2020 10:48:34 GMT -5
Based on career WAR projections it's probably a pretty fair contract if he doesn't get hurt or have a quick drastic decline. Yes they will be overpaying him for the last several years but if he continues to perform at a high level through his prime years (28-33) LA will get a lot of surplus value from that.
Problem is there is some chance he gets hurt and the contract is a complete catastrophe. There's a smaller chance that he outperforms the contract, producing 60+ WAR during his time in LA and becomes an all-time great player.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Jul 23, 2020 11:01:29 GMT -5
The two biggest what ifs in the last 40+ years in this franchise is what if Mo Vaughn stayed and Fred Lynn stayed. Fred Lynn fine, but that Mo Vaughn take is pretty out there.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 23, 2020 11:24:58 GMT -5
I don't see the Red Sox throwing a huge contract at a 30 yo elite outfielder after being unwilling to do so for a better, homegrown elite OF who is two years younger. Springer probably just had his best year. I can see the interest and the fit, and I figured he'd be the guy the Sox naturally turned to if/when they lost Betts, but with Bloom at the helm, unless Springer gives the Sox a big discount, it probably won't happen. I don't think ownership dumped DD and hired Bloom so they can blow a bunch of money on 30 year old free agents. I think they hired Bloom to redevelop the farm system and make the small crafty moves and value deals, kind of what Andrew Friedman did so that when it was time to make an investment in the free agent market they had the money and farm system to get the premier pending free agent on the market. I can see the Sox extending Devers which would be wise. The pitching? I don't think Bloom will use free agency $ there. Probably trades (benintendi) and perhaps a scrap heap raid hoping to find the next Luis Tiant? I just don't see the Sox spending big until they're back in a position where one key free agent could put them over the top. They're nowhere near that right now, George Springer or no George Springer. Hopefully Duran gets a chance and gives the Red Sox a good reason not to spend money on OF help.
|
|
|
Post by agastonguay13 on Jul 23, 2020 11:26:15 GMT -5
I'm 99% on the side of the players when it comes to CBA and labor negotiation topics, but the 1% where I might side with the league is on a max term of contracts. I don't care about capping the actual dollar amount a player can earn per season, but I would like to see a cap placed on the max length of a contract. Nothing crazy small, something in the range of 6-8 years I think would be ok. These long deals are going to be burdensome down the road. Admittedly not quite as prohibitively considering the inflation of player salaries on a year to year basis, but still burdensome. I would want the structure to enable top players like Betts, Soto, Bellinger, etc... to be able to cash in BIG twice, should their performance warrant another contract after the first one. So, say a guy exceeds rookie status at age 22, he plays his 6 years as he would in the current structure, and is 27 when he hits free agency. he signs a 6 year max contract for whatever dollar amount the market sets for him. He plays the 6 years until age 33, and upon hitting free agency, his performance still warrants another max contract of 6 years. He then signs for those 6 years again, for whatever the market dictates. That contract carries him through his age 39 season, upon which he could sign another max contract (if offered, unlikely) or sign smaller contracts, as will likely be offered based on history of aged players' performance.
I dunno, maybe you just allow teams to continue to pay players for as long as they care to, but create some exceptions towards the luxury tax for contracts of players who are no longer on X team. Players still get their crazy money and guaranteed years (which I genuinely want for them) and teams have more space under luxury tax because Y player who they signed for 11 years has been injured for years 5-8 and in year 9 his performance has seen a major decrease. This allows the team to claim an exception where only Z% of players salary now counts against cap until either end of contract or performance rebounds?
I'm not a mathematician, lawyer or accountant, I just feel like the game would see more parity if players weren't locked up to 10+ year contracts and teams penalized for a player's injury history/underperformance.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 23, 2020 11:26:25 GMT -5
The two biggest what ifs in the last 40+ years in this franchise is what if Mo Vaughn stayed and Fred Lynn stayed. Fred Lynn fine, but that Mo Vaughn take is pretty out there. Bagwell, Beltré, Freddy Sanchez, Schilling.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 23, 2020 11:35:01 GMT -5
Fred Lynn fine, but that Mo Vaughn take is pretty out there. Bagwell, Beltré, Freddy Sanchez, Schilling. Those are ifs, but Bagwell, Sanchez, and Schilling (back in 1988) didn't have a choice in the matter - they were traded, as they didn't get developed, play out their tenure and then leave as a free agent. Beltre did of course, but I think I was a lot more affected by the loss of Mo Vaughn than Adrian Beltre. We kind of knew it was a pillow contract and it's not like he was ours for years and five minutes later the rumors swirled that Adrian Gonzalez would be traded to Boston (of course we didn't know that giving up Rizzo would be as regrettable as it has been). With Mo Vaughn, the Sox tried to replace him with Bernie Williams but the Yankees re-signed him despite some rumors that he was coming to Boston - I think Duquette was interested in him. Vaughn played well with the Angels until he got hurt and the Angels were never really visible until after he got hurt. Brian Daubach was plucky and easy to root for but he was certainly a big step down from Mo Vaughn who could have helped them perhaps in 1999 and 2000, and who knows? He probably doesn't fall down the Anaheim dugout steps had he stayed in Boston so who knows what he could have done? That said, I'm fine with how things went in 04 even if Millar wasn't Mo Vaughn.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 23, 2020 12:05:04 GMT -5
Quite the interesting gamble on the Dodgers' side. On a micro industry level, the Covid pandemic's impact on sports, and tickets, and even tv advertisers is unknown. This essentially bets that sports will return to normal. On a macro level, the Dodgers and Betts are looking at the value of the future money based on US inflation. Let's say that with the pandemic deficit, that inflation and interest rates will increase in the next decade. With the current low rates, the value of the money is somewhat close to present value. But if the deficit causes the US to print money, if interest rates get to 5 or even 10 percent, the value of the deferred comp could shrink significantly. This essentially hedges the Dodgers if things don't return to normal and we get the late 70s staglation. The contract is long enough that we might have 4 presidential administrations, stagflation, hyperinflation, multiple recessions and recoveries... The finance folks building the value of the deferrals are much smarter than me. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 23, 2020 12:54:16 GMT -5
The contract is long enough that we might have 4 presidential administrations, stagflation, hyperinflation, multiple recessions and recoveries... The finance folks building the value of the deferrals are much smarter than me. Or not. Bobby Bonilla says hi!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 23, 2020 13:28:22 GMT -5
I don't think people are considering what is likely the yearly salary burden at the end of the contract. Honestly, the AAV on this contract is not bad. By the time 2033 rolls around, and assuming baseball revenue growth that is consistent with the last 10 - 15 years, the yearly salary will be easily manageable for the Dodgers. These kind of contracts will be the norm for top players. The length of the contract really should not scare people. If the Sox wont do it, then they will continue to see top talent leave. If Devers trajectory continues, he will be in line with a 10+ year contract also. I'm fairly certain that 13 year contracts will not become the norm for top players. Unless by top players you mean the 1%. History shows that contracts that run to age 39 are bad for the team the majority of the time. Revenues aren't going to increase that much that Betts deal seems small. Just look at a certain guy who plays 2B who numerous people complain about his contract and that was way under market value and not crazy long. Contract length should always scare you! We'll be just fine long-term if we don't give out 10 plus year long contracts. Heck unless this Pandemic is over by next April it could take Baseball a half of decade to recover and greatly drive down players salaries for years. Betts worried about that, hence we he didn't try the market and took a deal now.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 23, 2020 15:31:25 GMT -5
The two biggest what ifs in the last 40+ years in this franchise is what if Mo Vaughn stayed and Fred Lynn stayed. Fred Lynn fine, but that Mo Vaughn take is pretty out there. I'd go with Freddie Lynn and lester. Both enjoyed fenway and wanted to stay. Lester said publicly multiple times wanted to stay, but we saw (if true) was low balled by the Sox and then traded. One party (lester) made the effort while the Sox did not. Lynn was part of the purge of stars, other than Yaz moved over 3 seasons by Sullivan. He, of all those guys moved was the best, other than the Fisk contract fiasco.. Another of his blunders during that span. As for what another poster mentioned about california.. Whole heartidly agree. Nice weather, but oppressive taxes and government, was like that 40y ago as well when stationed there (San Diego) and worse when went there on a visit with my family, who wanted to see it in '07. Florida has the nice weather, same beaches, only not the rocky ones. actually warm water one doesn't freeze in, far less taxes, NO state income tax and no oppressive government trying to limit what one says, or does, or a state ruled by unions.. IOW.. It's still a free state and beholden to the people.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 23, 2020 16:31:19 GMT -5
The pressure in Boston is pretty intense. Why go through all that when you can relax in So.Cal. in perfect weather and not worry about what the fans say. In LA half the fans show up in the 2nd and leave in the 7th. It's just entertainment to them and they have plenty of that all around them. If he body breaks down at age 35, they still have to pay him his 30Mil a year. Look at the MFY and their Elsbury contract. Not that that bothers me, but it's a lesson. He's set for life and I'm glad for him. Thanks for the memories. To each his own: Personally, I think California is the most overrated place I've ever seen and I've been all over the U.S., Europe and South America. When you factor in taxes, living in California doesn't really make any sense unless you absolutely love it or its ideal for your career. On the weather note, I prefer to have seasons and the winters don't really bother me at all. Yeah they're a bit long but having California weather all the time would get old to me pretty fast. Now, a lot of people dislike Boston... they think the people are rude and the weather is terrible. I will admit the night life is not ideal for a young athlete but they are on the road half the time anyway, and frankly U.S. nightlife is well out-classed by European or South American standards. In my view you'd be hard-pressed to find a better place to live than Boston and I believe Deutsche Bank ranked it as the highest quality of life in the country and top ten in the world. I do understand there are marketing/networking benefits to being out there. But I really don't understand the infatuation with it especially in the NBA. I thought that was Florida? I've been to both CA and FL and I absolutely abhor Florida.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 23, 2020 16:39:24 GMT -5
What annoys me the most about Mookie's contract is that it isn't even all that bad. David Price is making 32 million per year. Mookie will be making roughly 30 million per year over the life of the contract. Considering his age and inflation I'd be willing to bet in 5 years we'll see the "Andrew Benintendi's" of the world to start creeping up into that range (unless COVID-19 manages to kill baseball). The point is, as time goes on, cost of players will go up. He has a very good track record of being healthy. He has GREAT contact and on-base skills which should age gracefully. At his worst during his prime he'll likely be "only" a 20/20 guy. He's going to be worth the money for the first 6 years of his deal (barring health) then he's a gamble for the next 3 and will probably be a bad deal for 3, but by then who knows what players salaries will look like anyways.
I was really hoping the Sox could get into a bidding war to re-acquire his services and, if they lost, it was because he went into the $420 million range.
Edit: It wasn't a slight on Benintendi, just that he's an above-average, nice player. Maybe it'll take longer than "5 years", but we'll get there soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 23, 2020 16:44:23 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that 13 year contracts will not become the norm for top players. Unless by top players you mean the 1%. History shows that contracts that run to age 39 are bad for the team the majority of the time. Revenues aren't going to increase that much that Betts deal seems small. Just look at a certain guy who plays 2B who numerous people complain about his contract and that was way under market value and not crazy long. Contract length should always scare you!We'll be just fine long-term if we don't give out 10 plus year long contracts. Heck unless this Pandemic is over by next April it could take Baseball a half of decade to recover and greatly drive down players salaries for years. Betts worried about that, hence we he didn't try the market and took a deal now. Yes, top players would probably constitute the handful of position players that are among the top players at a given time. I didn't say 13. I said 10+, just to clarify. There are already, what 6-7 guys that have them. Pitchers won't get because of inherent pitching risk. You are just plain wrong about the bolded. Every situation should be assessed with risk. Injury history, service time status, position, body type...etc. as best as you can. To just say we should not give out 10 plus year contracts is an extremely short sighted approach to roster construction. Your also forgetting that the Betts contract, by definition, is the market for this type of player. I haven't read much in the way of this being an egregious overpay.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 23, 2020 16:51:15 GMT -5
I didn't say 13. I said 10+, just to clarify. There are already, what 6-7 guys that have them. Pitchers won't get because of inherent pitching risk. It's basically Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, Machado, ARod twice, Cano, Pujols, Votto, Jeter, Tulo. And that includes guys getting their arb years bought out, which doesn't really count to me. And Stanton's was designed so that he'd be likely to opt out after this year, but he probably won't now. Someone correct me if I'm missing someone. I think the >10 club is just Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, and the first ARod deal. Looking at the guys who've finished those kind of deals, I have to admit I'm in no rush to hand out that long of a contract, honestly. ARod's first deal was the only one that didn't become an albatross for the final 3 or so years, I think?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 23, 2020 17:14:25 GMT -5
I didn't say 13. I said 10+, just to clarify. There are already, what 6-7 guys that have them. Pitchers won't get because of inherent pitching risk. It's basically Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, Machado, ARod twice, Cano, Pujols, Votto, Jeter, Tulo. And that includes guys getting their arb years bought out, which doesn't really count to me. And Stanton's was designed so that he'd be likely to opt out after this year, but he probably won't now. Someone correct me if I'm missing someone. I think the >10 club is just Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, and the first ARod deal. Looking at the guys who've finished those kind of deals, I have to admit I'm in no rush to hand out that long of a contract, honestly. ARod's first deal was the only one that didn't become an albatross for the final 3 or so years, I think? Betts is the best bet to be better than the rest on that list, I'd insist. Though Trout's not about to flounder.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 23, 2020 17:40:48 GMT -5
I didn't say 13. I said 10+, just to clarify. There are already, what 6-7 guys that have them. Pitchers won't get because of inherent pitching risk. It's basically Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, Machado, ARod twice, Cano, Pujols, Votto, Jeter, Tulo. And that includes guys getting their arb years bought out, which doesn't really count to me. And Stanton's was designed so that he'd be likely to opt out after this year, but he probably won't now. Someone correct me if I'm missing someone. I think the >10 club is just Trout, Betts, Harper, Stanton, and the first ARod deal. Looking at the guys who've finished those kind of deals, I have to admit I'm in no rush to hand out that long of a contract, honestly. ARod's first deal was the only one that didn't become an albatross for the final 3 or so years, I think? i don't think you should not count the arb year buyouts. That is part of the assessment that a team has to make. Any injury or underperformance can happen at any point in the duration of the contract
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 23, 2020 17:45:42 GMT -5
ill add there is not a no trade clause in the contract, which is good for the Dodgers long term financial health. A trade with eating some of the salary is certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jul 23, 2020 17:55:06 GMT -5
ill add there is not a no trade clause in the contract, which is good for the Dodgers long term financial health. A trade with eating some of the salary is certainly possible. If he’s traded those deferrals become present day $.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jul 23, 2020 18:25:36 GMT -5
I don't see the Red Sox throwing a huge contract at a 30 yo elite outfielder after being unwilling to do so for a better, homegrown elite OF who is two years younger. Springer probably just had his best year. I can see the interest and the fit, and I figured he'd be the guy the Sox naturally turned to if/when they lost Betts, but with Bloom at the helm, unless Springer gives the Sox a big discount, it probably won't happen. I don't think ownership dumped DD and hired Bloom so they can blow a bunch of money on 30 year old free agents. I think they hired Bloom to redevelop the farm system and make the small crafty moves and value deals, kind of what Andrew Friedman did so that when it was time to make an investment in the free agent market they had the money and farm system to get the premier pending free agent on the market. I can see the Sox extending Devers which would be wise. The pitching? I don't think Bloom will use free agency $ there. Probably trades (benintendi) and perhaps a scrap heap raid hoping to find the next Luis Tiant? I just don't see the Sox spending big until they're back in a position where one key free agent could put them over the top. They're nowhere near that right now, George Springer or no George Springer. Hopefully Duran gets a chance and gives the Red Sox a good reason not to spend money on OF help. I don't disagree with your take. The only thing I can think is how long will the Red Sox fans tolerate paying some of the highest ticket prices in baseball (once they start allowing fans back in) to watch mediocre teams while the farm is rebuilt in the hopes of catching the next Mookie lightning in a bottle again?
After 4 world championships I don't think Sox fans have turned into a group who now expect a championship every year. But they do want to watch teams that are competitive and exciting. This team is neither and under your "rebuilding with Bloom" scenario they won't be for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 23, 2020 18:48:22 GMT -5
I can see the interest and the fit, and I figured he'd be the guy the Sox naturally turned to if/when they lost Betts, but with Bloom at the helm, unless Springer gives the Sox a big discount, it probably won't happen. I don't think ownership dumped DD and hired Bloom so they can blow a bunch of money on 30 year old free agents. I think they hired Bloom to redevelop the farm system and make the small crafty moves and value deals, kind of what Andrew Friedman did so that when it was time to make an investment in the free agent market they had the money and farm system to get the premier pending free agent on the market. I can see the Sox extending Devers which would be wise. The pitching? I don't think Bloom will use free agency $ there. Probably trades (benintendi) and perhaps a scrap heap raid hoping to find the next Luis Tiant? I just don't see the Sox spending big until they're back in a position where one key free agent could put them over the top. They're nowhere near that right now, George Springer or no George Springer. Hopefully Duran gets a chance and gives the Red Sox a good reason not to spend money on OF help. I don't disagree with your take. The only thing I can think is how long will the Red Sox fans tolerate paying some of the highest ticket prices in baseball (once they start allowing fans back in) to watch mediocre teams while the farm is rebuilt in the hopes of catching the next Mookie lightning in a bottle again?
After 4 world championships I don't think Sox fans have turned into a group who now expect a championship every year. But they do want to watch teams that are competitive and exciting. This team is neither and under your "rebuilding with Bloom" scenario they won't be for the foreseeable future.
Devers extension would really be nice. Has anything been said on that tho? I've not heard a thing, other than what read here, the globe and Weei, which isn't much. One other thing is finally developing starters, which this team hasn't done since the early 80's in Clemens, Schilling, John Tudor and Bob Ojeda. That bunch, over a few year period in the mid 80's was it for the drafting of talented starters.
|
|
|