Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

[sk7326]

Actually, the Rays did a great job tying up Longoria early. They didn't do so well with Matt Moore, but they did lock him up early and wisely traded him just in time.

 

Very fair point - and teams are getting smarter about that ... I should have said (generic small market team) but even then those teams will stretch itself to sign stars in their prime.

[moonslav59]

Ha, just a few days ago you had Beni as a platoon player.

 

Yes I did, and he may still end up as one, if he can't get better consistency vs lefties.

 

He's still at just .579 vs LHPs with nearly 100 PAs over his ML career.

 

He's at .868 vs RHPs. That's nearly a 300 point swing!

 

He's hot as hell right now. I'd keep trotting him out there everyday for now. I'm fine with adjusting line-ups based on who is hot and who is not. My biggest peave against JF is how he keeps slumping players in key line-up slots for too long.

[moonslav59]

Very fair point - and teams are getting smarter about that ... I should have said (generic small market team) but even then those teams will stretch itself to sign stars in their prime.

 

The Rays are even smarter. The sign their best guys to long term deal pre-prime.

 

They apparently missed on Matt Moore, but they we still smart enough to trade him before it was too late.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes I did, and he may still end up as one, if he can't get better consistency vs lefties.

 

He's still at just .579 vs LHPs with nearly 100 PAs over his ML career.

 

He's at .868 vs RHPs. That's nearly a 300 point swing!

 

He's hot as hell right now. I'd keep trotting him out there everyday for now. I'm fine with adjusting line-ups based on who is hot and who is not. My biggest peave against JF is how he keeps slumping players in key line-up slots for too long.

 

So you do believe in the 'hot hand' as a predictor?

[Bellhorn04]

The Rays are even smarter. The sign their best guys to long term deal pre-prime.

 

How many guys have they done this with? Longoria, Archer - who else?

[sk7326]

The Rays are even smarter. The sign their best guys to long term deal pre-prime.

 

They apparently missed on Matt Moore, but they we still smart enough to trade him before it was too late.

 

It also requires both sides to play ball - they probably benefited from Longoria's injury history here. (117 missed games the previous 2 seasons before signing the current deal)

[BstHcpr]

Kiermeier

[moonslav59]

So you do believe in the 'hot hand' as a predictor?

 

Yes, It's one of the rare things I go against the studies.

 

I know a hot hand can stop at any moment, but some players have long histories of extended hot streaks and slumps (like JBJ), but JF waits too long to move JBJ up when he's hot. By the time he moves him up, it's too late.

 

(One coudl argue moving him up caused his, but I disagree.)

[moonslav59]

How many guys have they done this with? Longoria, Archer - who else?

 

Matt Moore.

 

How many have the Sox done? True "pre-prime"?

[Kimmi]

Listen, the team has run its ship well. All I was pointing out was ... if this team is making Tampa Bay type of decisions with regards to re-signing stars in their prime, then we as fans of a high high revenue team have a right to not be on board with that. And when I see posters rack and stack future payroll and then say - well the tax limit is $X so they only have $Y to spend - that is just not true. They can spend more than $Y if the right guy came up - and as supporters of a high revenue (among the 3 highest) it's something fans can rightly demand.

 

Fans can demand it all they want, but Henry has every reasonable right not to do it. It's not like Henry is a tightwad. If he had a payroll of $100 million every year, then that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He has shown time and again that he is willing to spend his money and even eat tens of millions of dollars, which is no small thing.

 

I can understand people wanting to lock Betts up, no matter the cost. I wouldn't do it if it takes 10 years, but I can understand people wanting it. Just understand that Henry does have a spending limit, and rightly so. Therefore, spending huge on Mookie will result in less money being available elsewhere. Without foreseeable cost controlled players being available to take over roster spots, that could be a problem.

[Bellhorn04]

Matt Moore.

 

How many have the Sox done? True "pre-prime"?

 

I can only think of Lester and Pedroia.

[moonslav59]

I can only think of Lester and Pedroia.

 

Pedroia: technically, you are correct. We signed Pedey to a 6 year $40.5M contract in December of 2008 at age 25, but this was already after he won ROY in 2007 and MVP in 2008. I'm not sure I'd compare that to the Rays' signings. Longoria signed a 6 year deal in April of his first season in MLB. They signed Chris Archer in early April of 2014 after he'd only pitched 160 innings in the bigs. Matt Moore signed for 5 years/$14M in DEC '11 after just 9 IP that year and in his ML career. Kiermaier is more like the Pedey deal. He signed it after he'd already won 2 GGs and 1300+ PAs in the bigs.

 

Lester signed a $30M/5 deal in March of 2009- also at age 25. He'd just gone 16-6 3.21 in 2008 with 210 IP. I'm not sure this is comparable to the rays' signings also.

[sk7326]

Fans can demand it all they want, but Henry has every reasonable right not to do it. It's not like Henry is a tightwad. If he had a payroll of $100 million every year, then that would be one thing. But he doesn't. He has shown time and again that he is willing to spend his money and even eat tens of millions of dollars, which is no small thing.

 

I can understand people wanting to lock Betts up, no matter the cost. I wouldn't do it if it takes 10 years, but I can understand people wanting it. Just understand that Henry does have a spending limit, and rightly so. Therefore, spending huge on Mookie will result in less money being available elsewhere. Without foreseeable cost controlled players being available to take over roster spots, that could be a problem.

 

Why rightly? His ability to eat? His ability to make oodles of profit? Some crackpot notion of "justness"? While the link between revenue and cost is tenuous (they are separate decisions by a firm) ... the fans who spend the most out of pocket of any fan base (at least for now - and I know the Yankees and Cubs are in the convo) should expect the team to throw its weight around, weight other teams don't have.

 

If you are advocating that this team run like a higher payroll Twins, where we shrug and say "well, Betts graduated - time for more freshmen" (this assumes Betts continues to churn out All-Star/MVP timber seasons of course), then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Kimmi]

Why rightly? His ability to eat? His ability to make oodles of profit? Some crackpot notion of "justness"? While the link between revenue and cost is tenuous (they are separate decisions by a firm) ... the fans who spend the most out of pocket of any fan base (at least for now - and I know the Yankees and Cubs are in the convo) should expect the team to throw its weight around, weight other teams don't have.

 

If you are advocating that this team run like a higher payroll Twins, where we shrug and say "well, Betts graduated - time for more freshmen" (this assumes Betts continues to churn out All-Star/MVP timber seasons of course), then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Rightly because it's his money, and like I said, it's not like he's been a tightwad. He is spending like a big market team. Again, the fans can expect and demand whatever they want, but Henry is going to spend whatever he sets as his limit, not what the fans demand. As long as he's spending around the luxury tax limit every year, and willing to go over it to a reasonable extent, I'm good with that.

 

I hate losing our players to free agency, believe me. It will break my heart if Betts walks. From a fan's perspective, I would be thrilled if the Sox give him a 10 year deal in order to keep him, but that kind of contract goes against every ounce of rational thinking that I have. And probably more so because we are set to lose several cost controlled players at the same time.

[moonslav59]

Rightly because it's his money, and like I said, it's not like he's been a tightwad. He is spending like a big market team. Again, the fans can expect and demand whatever they want, but Henry is going to spend whatever he sets as his limit, not what the fans demand. As long as he's spending around the luxury tax limit every year, and willing to go over it to a reasonable extent, I'm good with that.

 

I hate losing our players to free agency, believe me. It will break my heart if Betts walks. From a fan's perspective, I would be thrilled if the Sox give him a 10 year deal in order to keep him, but that kind of contract goes against every ounce of rational thinking that I have. And probably more so because we are set to lose several cost controlled players at the same time.

 

I'm usually against large and long contracts. The vast majority are failures or near failures, but extending Betts 7 years beyond the 3 he already has, at his age, is a good gamble. Almost all his years would fall within prime or very near prime. That's what's different about extending vs signing a 30 year old FA to 6-7 years.

[Kimmi]

I'm usually against large and long contracts. The vast majority are failures or near failures, but extending Betts 7 years beyond the 3 he already has, at his age, is a good gamble. Almost all his years would fall within prime or very near prime. That's what's different about extending vs signing a 30 year old FA to 6-7 years.

 

Two things I have agreed with in terms of a big contract to Betts:

 

1. If you're going to give a contract like that to anyone, Betts would be the guy.

2. Extending him now for 10 years would be far preferable to waiting until he hits FA and then giving him a 10 year deal.

 

That said, as good of a gamble as he seems, we all thought that Price was as good of a gamble that you could have for a 30+ pitcher, and that didn't take long to turn in the wrong direction. (Yes, I realize that it could still work out.)

[Bellhorn04]

I think Betts would listen on an extension that takes him 3 or 4 years beyond the 3 he has, to give him another shot at a big payday later (as has already been discussed.)

[sk7326]

I think Betts would listen on an extension that takes him 3 or 4 years beyond the 3 he has, to give him another shot at a big payday later (as has already been discussed.)

 

I think this is the right answer ... I would expect something like a 6 year/150-180M sort of deal ... and besides, guys like him you figure out and then work around the rest

[Kimmi]

I think Betts would listen on an extension that takes him 3 or 4 years beyond the 3 he has, to give him another shot at a big payday later (as has already been discussed.)

 

I think this is the right answer ... I would expect something like a 6 year/150-180M sort of deal ... and besides, guys like him you figure out and then work around the rest

 

I agree, this would be the right answer. I posted earlier that signing him to a 7-8 year deal would be good. I'd even be willing to to go a little higher in yearly salary for fewer years. It would still be a long term contract, but to me, it boils down to really being a 4 or 5 year deal. I can live with that.

 

I'm not sure if Mookie would be willing to go that route, but the point of him getting another shot at a big payday is quite valid.

[moonslav59]

Remember, any extension now would include 3 arb years, where Betts might make $45-50M, so if you are talking $180M/6, you're really giving him an extension of about $130M/3 or about $43M a year x 3.

[sk7326]

Remember, any extension now would include 3 arb years, where Betts might make $45-50M, so if you are talking $180M/6, you're really giving him an extension of about $130M/3 or about $43M a year x 3.

 

Well the front 3 years are arguable here - the idea is to give big raises on arb level deals to make giving up FA attractive. And it makes sense for him - gets him into the FA derby by age 30

[moonslav59]

Well the front 3 years are arguable here - the idea is to give big raises on arb level deals to make giving up FA attractive. And it makes sense for him - gets him into the FA derby by age 30

 

Yes, I doubt Betts takes a home discount extension, but they do offer security against injury or serious decline before reaching free agency.

 

What an extension can do, is provide that security and some more up-front money, so players and their families can enjoy the MEGA rich life earlier. Instead of giving Betts $50M/3 + $110M/3 ($160M/6 total), you structure it something like this:

 

$20M, $22M, $24M, $28M, $32M, $34M

 

or

 

$66M/3 + $94M/3

 

The player can invest the early money and end up making more than a back-ended contract worth less overall money.

[jacksonianmarch]

You pay the premium to own him for his 3 post arb years so you aren't paying him for 10 years post arb. I think the comp is going to be the Mike Trout extension. Trout's 6 year $144 mil contract covered his 3 arb years and his first 3 seasons of FA. That's an AAV of $24.5 mil. Thing is, though, Trout signed it prior to his final pre-arb season. He played 2014 under his pre-arb agreement and started his new contract in 2015. Mookie will be staring at a nice first arb pay-day, so at least the spectre of a career altering injury shouldn't shy him away from getting a good initial payday. I could see Betts getting somewhere along the lines of a 6 year $160 mil extension, which allows Betts the opportunity to hit the open market after banking $160 mil at the age of 30.

[BstHcpr]

You pay the premium to own him for his 3 post arb years so you aren't paying him for 10 years post arb. I think the comp is going to be the Mike Trout extension. Trout's 6 year $144 mil contract covered his 3 arb years and his first 3 seasons of FA. That's an AAV of $24.5 mil. Thing is, though, Trout signed it prior to his final pre-arb season. He played 2014 under his pre-arb agreement and started his new contract in 2015. Mookie will be staring at a nice first arb pay-day, so at least the spectre of a career altering injury shouldn't shy him away from getting a good initial payday. I could see Betts getting somewhere along the lines of a 6 year $160 mil extension, which allows Betts the opportunity to hit the open market after banking $160 mil at the age of 30.

 

Trout dramatically undersold his value. He'd be looking at a $600 million contract if he waited.

[jacksonianmarch]

Trout dramatically undersold his value. He'd be looking at a $600 million contract if he waited.

 

Trout got guaranteed BIG money prior to even being arbitration eligible while allowing himself to return to the market at 29. I cannot fault him for that.

[BstHcpr]

Trout got guaranteed BIG money prior to even being arbitration eligible while allowing himself to return to the market at 29. I cannot fault him for that.

 

I wanted to see that bidding war so badly. Guess, we'll have to settle for Harper.

[jacksonianmarch]

Harper's contract is going to be interesting. I don't think we will see a ridiculous $400+mil total. I predicted a 10 year $330 mil contract with an opt out after year 3. The first 3 seasons would be pretty heavily front loaded, allowing Harper to maximize his AAV, allowing him to re-enter FA should he choose, and allowing the signing team to drop the lux tax number due to AAV of the contract.

 

I could see a 3 yr $130 mil start and a 7 year $200 mil finish

[Emp9]

Two things I have agreed with in terms of a big contract to Betts:

 

1. If you're going to give a contract like that to anyone, Betts would be the guy.

2. Extending him now for 10 years would be far preferable to waiting until he hits FA and then giving him a 10 year deal.

 

That said, as good of a gamble as he seems, we all thought that Price was as good of a gamble that you could have for a 30+ pitcher, and that didn't take long to turn in the wrong direction. (Yes, I realize that it could still work out.)

 

Not sure we ALL thought that. I would've preferred we traded for a top SP before we signed someone like Price or Cueto to big money. Given our starting staff at the time, signing Price was logical enough, but still risky. I hope we get to sign Betts and JBJ to extensions. Much less risk than a 30+ SP. Although I do worry a little about JBJ getting hurt in the field.

[sk7326]

Trout got guaranteed BIG money prior to even being arbitration eligible while allowing himself to return to the market at 29. I cannot fault him for that.

 

This.

[sk7326]

Harper's contract is going to be interesting. I don't think we will see a ridiculous $400+mil total. I predicted a 10 year $330 mil contract with an opt out after year 3. The first 3 seasons would be pretty heavily front loaded, allowing Harper to maximize his AAV, allowing him to re-enter FA should he choose, and allowing the signing team to drop the lux tax number due to AAV of the contract.

 

I could see a 3 yr $130 mil start and a 7 year $200 mil finish

 

Yeah - something like that. And what is interesting is - I think it is good for both sides. Again - if Harper triggers his opt out - it means the club has gotten a ton of value out of him.

 

So yeah a deal which will have a huge headline number (10 years/400 million) but is in practical terms is a lot smaller (4 years 170 million or something)