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 swingingbunt on Jul 23, 2020 19:34:26 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. Yeah, I don't know about that. Mookie will get 10-5 no-trade rights when he still has 8 years left on the deal.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jul 23, 2020 20:26:53 GMT -5
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. Now that Mookie has made it clear he will officially not be returning to Boston I would hope the club would make extending Devers their top priority. With Devers and Xander they have two players to rebuild around long term. Casas is exciting but it will be a while before we know how good a major league player he will be.
Good point about the staff from the 80's. Who was the last really good SP the Sox developed in the system? Lester? I like to look at the teams from the late 90's and early 00's. It was a mix of homegrown talent, cast offs from other teams (Papi,), trades (Pedro, Schilling, Varitek, Lowe) and some free agent signings mixed in (Manny most notably).
But being able to develop in-house talent is key. That is why I was so dismayed by Dombrowski's tenure. The farm system was stripped bare to win that 2018 championship. Maybe the thought was enough elite talent had been developed in-house to allow that rebuilding to occur naturally over time. But central to that strategy is to make sure that all that young talent remains in Boston long term while it seemed that Dombrowski deprioritized the importance of a strong farm system. Losing Mookie was tough but if we go through the same thing with Devers in a few years it will be a very difficult pill to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 23, 2020 21:23:36 GMT -5
Good for Mookie. I'm glad Sox didn't sign a deal like this though. They are not in a position to be a threat to win a title. I don't have the passion for a single player like many do. I have though as everyone else does great passion for the team. So I understand those being upset over a player if that's their thing though it's not mine. You can't be a threat unless you have pitching and hitting and I just want to see them win whether homegrown or not. Until they get promising starting pitching - we're just not going to be good. Good luck to Mookie going forward. Good for the Dodgers trying to win now. And thank you Mookie for -- not signing with the #$@!!Yankees!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 23, 2020 21:53:32 GMT -5
Not going to lie. Hurts to see Mookie wearing blue.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 23, 2020 22:41:06 GMT -5
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 It's not that I wouldn't count them so much as I'd discount them because the financial outlay is not nearly as bad because the arb years that get bought out are much cheaper, and because the player is younger in the later years. Like, Tulowitzki's deal was only for just under $158M even though it was 10 years. And even THAT deal was bad enough at the end that he was released by the Jays with 2 years left on it. 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. There's not a no-trade clause, true, but after 5 years with the Dodgers he'll be a 10-5 guy and have no-trade rights. And as stated, a bunch of his deferred money would come due, a deterrent for an acquiring team, potentially.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,396
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 24, 2020 8:40:17 GMT -5
Not going to lie. Hurts to see Mookie wearing blue. Just watch clip of him getting the ball after his first hit, and it felt like I could cry. I’ve always said I don’t just want to win, I want to have the kind of team I WANT to see win. Losing Mookie makes the Sox much less likeable.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 24, 2020 14:46:22 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. My whole thought process is by looking at risk, the longer the contract the more risk. The idea of getting more years because it will give you more value is really a pipe dream if you look back in history. I'd rather pay more to reduce risk. The Red Sox have tons of money, they can blow by the luxury tax line anytime they want. What really hurts them is a bunch of bad contracts on long-term deals. You think some huge contracts mean the bar is being raised, yet that isn't always the case. ARod got a massive contract and it took over a decade for someone to get more years and his deal bought out service time. ARod was just a freak and his free agent years started at age 25. Meaning his deal ended at age 34. Betts deal isn't close to ARod per year if you adjust the money, yet it goes through age 39. The history of those contracts is horrible and still crazy risky even for elite players. Mike Hamptons 8 year deal was just topped 19 years later with Cole. My point being crazy long contracts don't reshape the market. Heck if anything most contracts have gotten shorter over the last two decades because most of a players best years are covered during service time. The one ten year deal that worked out awesome with ARod is a guy who admits to taking roids for years. We have to remember those are now gone and with it guys like Bonds and Clemens acting like they don't age in their mid 30s to late 30s. We'll be 100% fine if we never give out a ten year deal ever. This is baseball, not Basketball. It's about your collection of talent, not just star players. Our whole recent success has been built on going for it in short spurts, then retooling and going for it again. We can't complain about the success can we? I get it, I bitch all the time because as fans we always want more. Yet that's kinda the brilliance of our owner. Don't lock yourself into too many contracts that can hurt you for a decade, stay in the 5-7 year range. What's funny is the Dodgers did the same thing for years and only did this because they are desperate to get over the hump. Yet I think Cole made more sense for them, Kershaw not being Kershaw in the playoffs has killed them for years. It's why they wanted Price and now he opts out.
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jul 24, 2020 20:16:08 GMT -5
This Mookie contract is scary. For an undersized player who relies so heavily on his athleticism and explosiveness, I’m not sure what a mid-30’s Mookie is gonna give. Best case, he hits like Gary Sheffield late in his career. But so much of Mookie’s value is what he gives you in the field as well
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Jul 25, 2020 7:34:19 GMT -5
There’s also a decent chance that by his mid 30s Mookie has already produced 40-45 WAR for the Dodgers, making anything he is able to produce in the second half of the contract surplus value.
Everyone is stating the obvious that Mookie won’t be worth 30 million when he’s 39, but if the Dodgers get the player we know for the next 5-6 years they will be getting an incredible bargain for what they’re paying him.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jul 25, 2020 8:18:10 GMT -5
There’s also a decent chance that by his mid 30s Mookie has already produced 40-45 WAR for the Dodgers, making anything he is able to produce in the second half of the contract surplus value. Everyone is stating the obvious that Mookie won’t be worth 30 million when he’s 39, but if the Dodgers get the player we know for the next 5-6 years they will be getting an incredible bargain for what they’re paying him. You have put for finger on the basic calculus of how much dead money you are willing to take on for a brief period of potential excess value -- sort of the 2009 ARod impact. Add in that regular season WAR is also not necessarily predictive of post season value, so even his "earning" his contract may not lead to the reason you are buying him -- the WS. The Dodgers would make the playoffs with or without Betts, so you are further betting that he will perform at a similar elite level during the playoffs. (Price is a second category of guys who were overpaid in value during the regular season but may have "earned" the value with a brief playoff run.) But we've seen playoffs decided more by deep rosters and brief supernovas like Victorino, Pearce, Joe Kelly and Rick Porcello. I guess the way I look at it, I would not mortgage 8 years of being hamstrung with a dead contract like Price (that impacts the basic team makeup and ability to make the playoffs) for one great season where he might lead to a ws. I realize others may disagree.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,652
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2020 9:05:31 GMT -5
There’s also a decent chance that by his mid 30s Mookie has already produced 40-45 WAR for the Dodgers, making anything he is able to produce in the second half of the contract surplus value. Everyone is stating the obvious that Mookie won’t be worth 30 million when he’s 39, but if the Dodgers get the player we know for the next 5-6 years they will be getting an incredible bargain for what they’re paying him. You have put for finger on the basic calculus of how much dead money you are willing to take on for a brief period of potential excess value -- sort of the 2009 ARod impact. Add in that regular season WAR is also not necessarily predictive of post season value, so even his "earning" his contract may not lead to the reason you are buying him -- the WS. The Dodgers would make the playoffs with or without Betts, so you are further betting that he will perform at a similar elite level during the playoffs. (Price is a second category of guys who were overpaid in value during the regular season but may have "earned" the value with a brief playoff run.) But we've seen playoffs decided more by deep rosters and brief supernovas like Victorino, Pearce, Joe Kelly and Rick Porcello. I guess the way I look at it, I would not mortgage 8 years of being hamstrung with a dead contract like Price (that impacts the basic team makeup and ability to make the playoffs) for one great season where he might lead to a ws. I realize others may disagree. I think both you and trajancc make good points. I mean, if you're a Dodgers fan, that hunger for that next World Series championship is probably more severe given the 31 years that have passed and the feeling of being so close (and cheated out of) the 2017 Series and having a real chance (until Rich Hill was pulled) in 2018, and then having a 106 win team in 2019. But then again the hunger is always there for every fanbase. It's been about 10 minutes and the Red Sox haven't won the World Series and I'm starved for the next one - plus after the 85 years with no winning, I'm leery of adopting that haughty Yankee attitude that the next one is right around the corner - and for even that team, like the Dodgers, doing things mostly the right way - they haven't even been to the Series in a decade, the risk of the dead money for putting your team over the top is still worth it to me, although I can understand why others disagree. On a smaller level, you mentioned brief supernovas like Victorino, which he was, but yes, Victorino cost $39 million over 3 years, which was laughable considering most thought him washed up and the contract to be terrible. So when it's over he gave them one last solid season and two seasons of injuries, not unlike that of Keith Foulke who gave the Sox one glorious year and a bunch of injured ones for his contract which was considered big at the time. No regrets there. Yet, I know there's a humungous difference between 13 years $360 million and a 3 year deal worth $40 million. I think if the Dodgers can win one World Series or Mookie gives them five excellent years and three to five productive ones, it'll have been worth it for them. Hell, if the Dodgers win one and Mookie has impact it'll be worth it to them. The only other thing about that contract is that it's about $27 million/year. By time 2032 rolls around, the average salary will probably have jumped up to about $15 million/year by then, so it won't be so brutal - and the next Mookie (if there is such a thing) will probably make $50 million annually in a free agent contract.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 25, 2020 11:37:41 GMT -5
Yeah I don't think anyone thinks he's going to be worth his AAV for even the last 4-5 years of this contract. The question is whether he overproduces enough up front to make it worth it however much he'll underproduce on the back end.
|
|
|