Are long term, big money contracts worth it?

[Slasher9]

to Lefty's thread: i 100% agree with trying to lockup X-Bo & Mookie to a LTC right now.

[southpaw777]

Hey Slash:cool:

What do you think about 10-12 year deals at 200m? Obviously thats just basic. Structure of the deals is yet to be determined. Just giving a basis for discussion.

[Slasher9]

Hey Slash:cool:

What do you think about 10-12 year deals at 200m? Obviously thats just basic. Structure of the deals is yet to be determined. Just giving a basis for discussion.

 

personally i would have no problems locking up any of the 3 "B" boys to a 10 year deal. i bet we could do it right now with all 3 getting $150MM for 10 years + incentives (million for each AS appearance, Million for each season 185+ hits, million for each season 25+ HR's, million for each season 100+ RS, million for each season 100+ rbi's, million for each season 35+ steals, 5MM for an MVP, etc......

[sk7326]

A realistic extension framework for Betts or Bogaerts is on the order of 7 years, 200 million. Maybe a bit more.

 

It buys a couple of UFA years for the Red Sox and locks the guys in at a price which is fair by today's market and quite reasonable for future ones.

 

For the players, it's a lot of money. And it gets them free before age 30 so they can try it again.

[southpaw777]

A realistic extension framework for Betts or Bogaerts is on the order of 7 years, 200 million. Maybe a bit more.

 

It buys a couple of UFA years for the Red Sox and locks the guys in at a price which is fair by today's market and quite reasonable for future ones.

 

For the players, it's a lot of money. And it gets them free before age 30 so they can try it again.

 

I went with a 10-12 at a bit of a lesser rate and more guarenteed year. Take them until they are 36. Maybe an opt out after 6-7?

30m per for them is hard to swallow. I dont think it will come to that with these two...i could be wrong, but I believe the more years will allow for more in the 20m w/incentives range, not 30m...thats top starter money.

Edited June 1, 2016 by southpaw777

[Dojji]

Whether they're worth it or not, they're the price of admission. All this financial parity was always going to force the talent price skyward. you have to throw out old ideas of how much players cost. The big contract is simply one of the numerous ways to build up a talented roster, not to be either overutiluzed or underutilized.

 

We've kind of overdone it in the last few years trying to end our basement days, it will take some time before the Red Sox are really unencunbered financially again enough to use their financial muscle.

 

Then there's the fact that said muscle while still among the top 10, isn't one of the top 2-3 financial teams anymore, as other teams have managed to exploit the same factors that allowed us to wield financial strength well above the actual size of the New England media market. The fact of the matter is we are now a big market team but no longer one of the top 2 markets by an absurd margin like we used to be. The rest of the league has caught up to our level of market exploitation and the New England market itself is more top 10 than top 2. So we should be more prepared than we were in the past to have our financial overtures beaten by other rich teams.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

 

 

 

Then there's the fact that said muscle while still among the top 10, isn't one of the top 2-3 financial teams anymore, as other teams have managed to exploit the same factors that allowed us to wield financial strength well.

 

I believe the Sawx do have a top 3 payroll.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

[Dojji]

Yes, and we will still be a powerful financial team, but the only reason our payroll is that high right now is because we had to replace wasted contracts. Other teams can compete directly with us like they couldn't in the past.

[Slasher9]

I believe the Sawx do have a top 3 payroll.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

 

are they closer to #4 or #2?

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

are they closer to #4 or #2?

 

Why not click the link and see for yourself?

 

Or there's always google.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

Yes, and we will still be a powerful financial team, but the only reason our payroll is that high right now is because we had to replace wasted contracts. Other teams can compete directly with us like they couldn't in the past.

 

What do you mean by replacing wasted contracts?

[Slasher9]

What do you mean by replacing wasted contracts?

 

read your link and see for yourself.

or there's always google.

[sk7326]

Yes, and we will still be a powerful financial team, but the only reason our payroll is that high right now is because we had to replace wasted contracts. Other teams can compete directly with us like they couldn't in the past.

 

They can because the industry is swimming in cash. The Red Sox are still in a position to be able to make a Sandoval sized mistake and have it only marginally affect their ability to be buyers this year.

[Dojji]

We're actually in a better financial situation when the league as a whole is struggling, since the Red Sox enjoy steady support. I'm not saying we're headed for the poor house, but the rising tide is floating other boats more than ours -- which is fine, I actually prefer a high-parity league on the whole, looking beyond my favorite team's own interests.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

read your link and see for yourself.

or there's always google.

 

I did, and they came in exactly 3rd in payroll.