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

[Kimmi]

I am against giving almost anyone 10 year deals, but if there were a guy, mookie is it.

 

I can agree with this.

 

Then again, if ever there were a 30 year old pitcher to give a big contract to, it would be Price.

 

They just almost never work out.

[Kimmi]

If he'd take a 10 year deal this winter, I would. Roll in his arb years into the deal to lessen the luxury tax hit for his last 7 years.

 

$2750M/10 is tough to offer, but I'd be inclined to do it.

 

This would not be as bad since it's technically a 7 year deal in terms of his FA years. But still.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Kimmi

[Nick]

So?

 

Investing 10/275 on an organism that can have mechanical failures that diminish it's ability to perform is a bad investment.

 

A prudent business person would not do this.

 

i'm not convinced he's worth $275M over 10 years....

[Nick]

This would not be as bad since it's technically a 7 year deal in terms of his FA years. But still.

 

I dont like long term contracts (4 years look about right).....i can even live with this being Dustin"s final year. Players r commodities. U can always buy another one.

[Kimmi]

I dont like long term contracts (4 years look about right).....i can even live with this being Dustin"s final year. Players r commodities. U can always buy another one.

 

I have never been a fan of long term contracts. I'm with you, 4 years looks about right. Anything over that I consider long term. I realize that long term contracts are a reality and a necessity, but they should be the exception, not the norm. And 10 years is insane.

[moonslav59]

A 6 year, 200 million deal that gobbles up his arb years is sensible for both sides - buys some of his free agency, gives him a ton of security and huge raises in his arb years ... and gets him back into FA by age 30 where he can probably secure another monster contract.

 

The 6 years include 3 arb years which might pay him up to $50M total. You'd really sign him to $150M/3 for the following 3 years?

 

Plus, the $33.3M luxury tax hit would be worse than my 10 year offer of $275M/10.

 

I'd even prefer $300M/10 over $200M/6. Here's why:

 

1) Betts is young enough that his last 4 years are still close enough to prime to not worry too much.

2) The luxury tax hit would be lower by including the arb years in the extension (same with the $200M/6).

3) Contract costs in 6 years will likely be way higher than now, and Betts would likely get $350M/10 if he was a FA right now and 27 years old (not 24).

 

Bottom line: try like hell to lock him up before he hits the open market. He's worth the risk. I don't see flame-out potential with Mookie.

 

I hear 700's argument about "speed" guys and how they do not tend to hold top value pretty well, but Mookie has power, OB skills and is a tremendous defensive player beyond his speed.

[Nick]

I have never been a fan of long term contracts. I'm with you, 4 years looks about right. Anything over that I consider long term. I realize that long term contracts are a reality and a necessity, but they should be the exception, not the norm. And 10 years is insane.

 

Yep...

 

My point ultimately is that other teams have good players. It's not as thought we have the market cornered. Take a deep breath. Our record is pretty much the same as last year at this time. Do we miss Papi? yep. But we seem to be doing ok, especially since they gave in and grudgingly promoted Devers.

[moonslav59]

I have never been a fan of long term contracts. I'm with you, 4 years looks about right. Anything over that I consider long term. I realize that long term contracts are a reality and a necessity, but they should be the exception, not the norm. And 10 years is insane.

 

We're talking 10 years for a 24 year old. He'll be just 34 when the 10 year deal runs out.

 

You know me KImmi, I'm big on discouraging large and long contracts, I've posted the lists of largest and longest contracts and showed how most failed to come close to expectations- often during the first years even, but those deals were all for free agents who were mostly over age 29 or 30..

 

If we wait 3 years, we'll probably have to offer 10 years anyways but to a 28 year old not a 25 year old to keep him here in Boston.

 

IMO, Mookie is worth the risk.

 

[Kimmi]

Yep...

 

My point ultimately is that other teams have good players. It's not as thought we have the market cornered. Take a deep breath. Our record is pretty much the same as last year at this time. Do we miss Papi? yep. But we seem to be doing ok, especially since they gave in and grudgingly promoted Devers.

 

That's all I've been saying.

[Kimmi]

We're talking 10 years for a 24 year old. He'll be just 34 when the 10 year deal runs out.

 

You know me KImmi, I'm big on discouraging large and long contracts, I've posted the lists of largest and longest contracts and showed how most failed to come close to expectations- often during the first years even, but those deals were all for free agents who were mostly over age 29 or 30..

 

If we wait 3 years, we'll probably have to offer 10 years anyways but to a 28 year old not a 25 year old to keep him here in Boston.

 

IMO, Mookie is worth the risk.

 

 

As I responded to one of the other posters, if we're going to give out a 10 year contract, Mookie would be the guy to give it to. And if we're going to give him 10 years, I would most certainly do it now rather than wait until he hits FA, which in essence makes it a 7 year deal.

 

A 10 year contract is just something I can't get excited about. If we could lock him up now for 8 years, which is still a large contract, I'd be a lot more okay with that.

[moonslav59]

As I responded to one of the other posters, if we're going to give out a 10 year contract, Mookie would be the guy to give it to. And if we're going to give him 10 years, I would most certainly do it now rather than wait until he hits FA, which in essence makes it a 7 year deal.

 

A 10 year contract is just something I can't get excited about. If we could lock him up now for 8 years, which is still a large contract, I'd be a lot more okay with that.

 

I doubt we can even get him at 10 years. I seriously doubt we'd have any chance with 8, unless the numbers just blew him away.

 

If we sign him to 10, he'll be just 34 for almost his full last season under contract.

 

I'd go out of my way to try to make it happen this winter.

[cp176]

To be fair - it was charming when Manny did it. There is stuff to tighten up. Better fixing that stuff than the bat being afraid of breaking stuff.

 

 

Seriously? There were people that that thought that the way Manny went about his business was charming? If Benintendi has been told to stop dong the stupid things that he has been doing and he continues to do them once again he is either stupid or uncoachable. Stupid is tolerable - uncoachable is not. Particularly if you are 5'10 maybe and you might weigh in at 175.

[BstHcpr]

$180M/ 6 actually comes to about

 

$47M/3 for the arb years

and

$133M/3 for his first 3 FA years (just under $45M a year x 3!)

 

Nope.

 

Betts would have several 3/133 offers as a free agent.

[moonslav59]

Betts would have several 3/133 offers as a free agent.

 

He'll be looking for 10-12 years not 3, but if that's what he wanted, you're probably right.

 

My point was that if you are going to give $133M/3, why not add 4 more years at $117M? Assuming his 3 arb years count as $50M, that would be $300M/10 in total.

 

$29M a year is a bargain compared to $45M a year.

[BstHcpr]

I dont like long term contracts (4 years look about right).....i can even live with this being Dustin"s final year. Players r commodities. U can always buy another one.

 

Good luck signing quality free agents if you are only offering max four year deals. Maybe you dancing to the tune of Tessie will wow them into leaving hundreds of millions on the table.

[BstHcpr]

He'll be looking for 10-12 years not 3, but if that's what he wanted, you're probably right.

 

My point was that if you are going to give $133M/3, why not add 4 more years at $117M? Assuming his 3 arb years count as $50M, that would be $300M/10 in total.

 

$29M a year is a bargain compared to $45M a year.

 

When Bryce Harper signs for close to $500 million we will come back and laugh at your 10/300 offer for Mookie Betts.

[moonslav59]

When Bryce Harper signs for close to $500 million we will come back and laugh at your 10/300 offer for Mookie Betts.

 

Maybe.

 

The offer is really $250+M/7 after the arb years are taken away, and I said I might go higher.

 

He might laugh, but about $35M a year is pretty hefty and he gets the security 3 years before he becomes a FA. That takes away a lot of the risk for him.

 

I'm sure the Legacy Agency will know what to do. (They'd probably say "no".)

[BstHcpr]

Maybe.

 

The offer is really $250+M/7 after the arb years are taken away, and I said I might go higher.

 

He might laugh, but about $35M a year is pretty hefty and he gets the security 3 years before he becomes a FA. That takes away a lot of the risk for him.

 

I'm sure the Legacy Agency will know what to do. (They'd probably say "no".)

 

The only way Betts would sign that deal is if there is an opt out included. Probably after 5 or 6 years.

[moonslav59]

The only way Betts would sign that deal is if there is an opt out included. Probably after 5 or 6 years.

 

You're probably right, but we could back end the deal to discourage that, or just keep is even and let him walk after 6.

 

6 is better than 3.

[Spudboy]

I have never been a fan of long term contracts. I'm with you, 4 years looks about right. Anything over that I consider long term. I realize that long term contracts are a reality and a necessity, but they should be the exception, not the norm. And 10 years is insane.

 

Amen.

[Nick]

When Bryce Harper signs for close to $500 million we will come back and laugh at your 10/300 offer for Mookie Betts.

 

Lets see if the Nationals can field a competitive team with paying one player 25% of the cap money.

[Bellhorn04]

Lets see if the Nationals can field a competitive team with paying one player 25% of the cap money.

 

I'm pretty sure he's suggesting it'd be the Yankees or Dodgers paying Harper 500 million.

 

I'm not convinced Harper will get 500 million. That would be a 54% escalation on Stanton's contract. At some point the madness must end. You can see in the rules of the new CBA that the owners are serious about putting the brakes on salaries. As you say paying one guy an AAV of 50 million or 25% of your cap is going to hurt.

[Nick]

Good luck signing quality free agents if you are only offering max four year deals. Maybe you dancing to the tune of Tessie will wow them into leaving hundreds of millions on the table.

 

You have no overall salary structure plan.....give me your 25 man roster and see if you can fit it under $220M....then I can take you seriously about offering one player 25% of the cap. We are already paying one player $31M per year.

[Nick]

I'm pretty sure he's suggesting it'd be the Yankees or Dodgers paying Harper 500 million.

 

I'm not convinced Harper will get 500 million. That would be a 54% escalation on Stanton's contract. At some point the madness must end. You can see in the rules of the new CBA that the owners are serious about putting the brakes on salaries. As you say paying one guy an AAV of 50 million or 25% of your cap is going to hurt.

 

Let's see if ANY team can pay that much and field a competitive team.

 

UNLESS THERE'S A HUGH INFLATION WE ARE CLOSE TO MAXING OUT ON BOTH GATE AND TV REVENUE. LOOK AT NESN VIEWERSHIP AS ONE EXAMPLE.

[Bellhorn04]

The luxury tax threshold under the new CBA tops out at 210 million in 2021. And that number includes about 20 million for benefits and players not on the 25 man roster. So as far as salaries for the 25 man roster the limit will go no higher than 190 million.

[S5Dewey]

Let's see if ANY team can pay that much and field a competitive team.

 

UNLESS THERE'S A HUGH INFLATION WE ARE CLOSE TO MAXING OUT ON BOTH GATE AND TV REVENUE.

 

I thought that same thing back in the '70's when I heard that Catfish Hunter was going to be paid $3.2MM to play baseball for five years, too. But you're right. This has to end someplace.

 

In my case, I subscribe to DirecTV and I get the least expensive package I can get that includes NESN for ~$100/month. I can get a package that's essentially the same for ~$60/mo without NESN, so I'm paying almost $500/year for NESN, or ~$4/game. That's do-able for me but OTOH I'm a tad more rabid about the Sox than the average fan AND I don't have those other financial nuisances like raising kids any more. :-)

 

So where's my cutoff point where I'd say NESN is too expensive for me? I don't know, but I do know that it's higher than it would be for an average family of 4 who wasn't as rabid as I am about the Sox. But that limit is there someplace and I think we have to be approaching it.

[S5Dewey]

One source of revenue the Sox have been very successful at tapping is the in-park advertising dollar. I've sat in several areas of Fenway park over the past few years and I've counted the ads I can see from my seat. (Yes, I have. ADD runs rampant! LOL) It's been my experience that wherever I sit I can always see at about 100 ads, whether they're on the walls, above the walls, on the tarp, etc.

 

And of course there's the radio/tv subliminal ads. "Here's the starting lineup brought to you by_______". "According to the Amica Pitch Zone.....". And that doesn't begin to include all the "free" advertising promo's NESN gets for their own shows.

[Bellhorn04]

The money for the player salaries ultimately comes from the end users, us, whether it's through tickets, food and drink at the park, merchandise, internet or cable TV charges, products of the advertisers etc. We're not all getting rapidly wealthier, so the baseball gravy train can't keep speeding along forever.

[Hugh2]

Let's see if ANY team can pay that much and field a competitive team.

 

UNLESS THERE'S A HUGH INFLATION WE ARE CLOSE TO MAXING OUT ON BOTH GATE AND TV REVENUE. LOOK AT NESN VIEWERSHIP AS ONE EXAMPLE.

 

I'm still waiting for the HUGH inflation in my paycheck.

[Kimmi]

Good luck signing quality free agents if you are only offering max four year deals. Maybe you dancing to the tune of Tessie will wow them into leaving hundreds of millions on the table.

 

This is why having the players on the farm ready to step in when guys like Betts are ready to walk is so important. Personally, I'd stick with the shorter term deals for 2nd tier type players rather than going all out to sign the superstars.