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

[Kimmi]

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

 

Laugh all you want. It would still not be a wise decision.

[BstHcpr]

Laugh all you want. It would still not be a wise decision.

 

OK. Enjoy Bryce Brentz in RF, or some other vastly inferior option.

[sk7326]

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.

 

You have to be realistic on some level - we're asking Betts to never put himself on the open market ever - which is wildly unrealistic. It would run counter to anybody's wish in any part of their career. If he's going to give up his free agency, then he has to be paid up front for it. Now how much of a raise should be get on his arb figures - because any such contract would require one. So let's say 3/75 for the arb years ... and then 3/100 for the free agency years - and that gets you to $185M (I did not do the math seriously in the 200). It's a deal which can manage risk for both parties. I don't worry about Betts' last 4 years as much either - but I don't see why he'd ever want to give them up, especially given he'll probably be able to get a ton from somebody by then.

 

As I have noted - I have zero interest in the luxury tax hit. There are ways to control for that - and if that is going to drive Judge Smails, er, ownership's thinking ... after monetizing every square inch of the Nation - he is in the wrong business. It's a budgetary choice (he is eating well either way).

[BstHcpr]

OK. Enjoy Bryce Brentz in RF, or some other vastly inferior option.

 

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.

 

That's right. We should bank on drafting players that come up and immediately have MVP type seasons. Foolproof strategy.

Edited August 7, 2017 by BstHcpr

[BstHcpr]

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.

 

"Tessie is the Royal Rooters rally cry

Tessie is the tune they always sung

Tessie echoed April through October nights"

 

Oh, no! Betts just signed with the Dodgers. Looks like it didn't work.

[Kimmi]

OK. Enjoy Bryce Brentz in RF, or some other vastly inferior option.

 

No, it does not have to be a vastly inferior option, just a less expensive one.

[Nick]

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.

 

As i responded to other poster, we are already paying Price $31M per year for additional 5 years. There has to be a limit to how many 'big splash' we can afford. There's a difference between Henry's money and Red Sox money. Henry is willing to spend Sox money (generated from baseball revenue) but Henry is unwilling to spend Henry's money. Sox has a budget. Not sure if they have 'surplus' but one thing Henry won't do is to make additional cash infusion to Sox.

[sk7326]

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.

 

This is largely true - except for one problem here. USUALLY, when you make the decision to "go all out to sign superstars" - you are talking about FAs, which usually means 30 year olds and the like. The decision is almost always enough early value to justify a contract with decline in it.

 

If you develop well - like the Sox have - and you have a 24 year old MVP-level performer - things are different ... a 10-year deal is not super smart - but there is no reason not to go all out to try to sign a kid who is young enough that you will be getting almost all prime years in the contract.

[Kimmi]

That's right. We should bank on drafting players that come up and immediately have MVP type seasons. Foolproof strategy.

 

I said nothing of the sort.

[Nick]

This is largely true - except for one problem here. USUALLY, when you make the decision to "go all out to sign superstars" - you are talking about FAs, which usually means 30 year olds and the like. The decision is almost always enough early value to justify a contract with decline in it.

 

If you develop well - like the Sox have - and you have a 24 year old MVP-level performer - things are different ... a 10-year deal is not super smart - but there is no reason not to go all out to try to sign a kid who is young enough that you will be getting almost all prime years in the contract.

 

Betts is not having a MVP year.

[sk7326]

As i responded to other poster, we are already paying Price $31M per year for additional 5 years. There has to be a limit to how many 'big splash' we can afford. There's a difference between Henry's money and Red Sox money. Henry is willing to spend Sox money (generated from baseball revenue) but Henry is unwilling to spend Henry's money. Sox has a budget. Not sure if they have 'surplus' but one thing Henry won't do is to make additional cash infusion to Sox.

 

The Red Sox are a mint - 3rd in the league in revenue - all of this is a choice. There is no cap - and given this team's resources we should not be okay with the team acting like there is one. This is not a justification for management being stupid - but letting prime players walk - actual good investments - out of some sense of a cap which doesn't exist.

[sk7326]

Betts is not having a MVP year.

 

5th in all of baseball by bWAR, 8th in fWAR. Down-ish offensive year ... best outfielder by a Secretariat-esque margin. It's a really good year - enough to be on the AL MVP podium ...

[Kimmi]

As i responded to other poster, we are already paying Price $31M per year for additional 5 years. There has to be a limit to how many 'big splash' we can afford. There's a difference between Henry's money and Red Sox money. Henry is willing to spend Sox money (generated from baseball revenue) but Henry is unwilling to spend Henry's money. Sox has a budget. Not sure if they have 'surplus' but one thing Henry won't do is to make additional cash infusion to Sox.

 

The Sox do have a budget, no matter how much people want to say or think otherwise. Sure, Henry could spend more if he wanted to, but he is not going to. Many of the same people who want to sign big name free agents to large contracts are the same people who then expect Henry to DFA the player and eat millions of dollars the minute the contract goes bad, and they almost always do. That is a lot easier said than done. It is not a realistic way to run a baseball team.

 

We are fortunate that Henry is willing to do that to a certain extent. Eating Pablo's contract was huge. As a businessman, he cannot afford to this on a regular basis.

[Kimmi]

This is largely true - except for one problem here. USUALLY, when you make the decision to "go all out to sign superstars" - you are talking about FAs, which usually means 30 year olds and the like. The decision is almost always enough early value to justify a contract with decline in it.

 

If you develop well - like the Sox have - and you have a 24 year old MVP-level performer - things are different ... a 10-year deal is not super smart - but there is no reason not to go all out to try to sign a kid who is young enough that you will be getting almost all prime years in the contract.

 

I understand all of that. As I posted earlier, signing Mookie now to a 10 year deal would be far preferable to waiting until he's a free agent to sign him to a 10 year deal. Also, it there were a player that I would give a year deal to, it would be Mookie.

 

All that said, I'm don't think it's worth the risk. JMO.

[BstHcpr]

The Sox do have a budget, no matter how much people want to say or think otherwise. Sure, Henry could spend more if he wanted to, but he is not going to. Many of the same people who want to sign big name free agents to large contracts are the same people who then expect Henry to DFA the player and eat millions of dollars the minute the contract goes bad, and they almost always do. That is a lot easier said than done. It is not a realistic way to run a baseball team.

 

We are fortunate that Henry is willing to do that to a certain extent. Eating Pablo's contract was huge. As a businessman, he cannot afford to this on a regular basis.

 

There's nothing more nauseating than an armchair businessman pleading poverty, and being an apologist for multibillionaire owners of multiple sports franchises.

[Nick]

There's nothing more nauseating than an armchair businessman pleading poverty, and being an apologist for multibillionaire owners of multiple sports franchises.

 

Is that you, Bernie?

[BstHcpr]

Is that you, Bernie?

 

Bernie?

[SoxnCycles]

Bernie?

[Bellhorn04]

There's nothing more nauseating than an armchair businessman pleading poverty, and being an apologist for multibillionaire owners of multiple sports franchises.

 

The money to pay for the players comes from us though. We're the revenue. Owners don't like to lose money, and you can't really blame them.

[Bellhorn04]

You have to be realistic on some level - we're asking Betts to never put himself on the open market ever - which is wildly unrealistic. It would run counter to anybody's wish in any part of their career. If he's going to give up his free agency, then he has to be paid up front for it. Now how much of a raise should be get on his arb figures - because any such contract would require one. So let's say 3/75 for the arb years ... and then 3/100 for the free agency years - and that gets you to $185M (I did not do the math seriously in the 200). It's a deal which can manage risk for both parties. I don't worry about Betts' last 4 years as much either - but I don't see why he'd ever want to give them up, especially given he'll probably be able to get a ton from somebody by then.

 

As I have noted - I have zero interest in the luxury tax hit. There are ways to control for that - and if that is going to drive Judge Smails, er, ownership's thinking ... after monetizing every square inch of the Nation - he is in the wrong business. It's a budgetary choice (he is eating well either way).

 

I would agree that the only offer to Mookie that makes sense for all concerned is a 6 or maybe 7 year offer.

[BstHcpr]

The money to pay for the players comes from us though. We're the revenue. Owners don't like to lose money, and you can't really blame them.

 

Have you seen the TV deals and franchise valuations lately? Baseball owners are not losing money.

[Bellhorn04]

Have you seen the TV deals and franchise valuations lately? Baseball owners are not losing money.

 

They're not losing money right now, I agree, but we're talking more about where things are headed.

[BstHcpr]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]527[/ATTACH]

 

Are MLB payrolls a high agenda for Bernie Sanders? I don't get it.

[jacksonianmarch]

Harper is going to get a record setting contract, but he'll fashion it to maximize his return.

 

I think his contract ends up being 10 years $330 mil with the contract being front loaded and an opt out after year three. I can see the contract being effectively two contracts.

 

3 years $130 mil

7 years $200 mil

 

This would allow him to have a bonkers AAV of $43.3 mil for years 1-3 and a chance to re-enter FA as a 29 year old when the cap is higher. This would also allow a team like the Yankees to have him count as $33 mil AAV vs $43 mil he'd actually earn. The 7 years $200 mil will be an insurance policy against injury.

[Bellhorn04]

Harper is going to get a record setting contract, but he'll fashion it to maximize his return.

 

I think his contract ends up being 10 years $330 mil with the contract being front loaded and an opt out after year three. I can see the contract being effectively two contracts.

 

3 years $130 mil

7 years $200 mil

 

This would allow him to have a bonkers AAV of $43.3 mil for years 1-3 and a chance to re-enter FA as a 29 year old when the cap is higher. This would also allow a team like the Yankees to have him count as $33 mil AAV vs $43 mil he'd actually earn. The 7 years $200 mil will be an insurance policy against injury.

 

Seems possible.

[SoxnCycles]

Are MLB payrolls a high agenda for Bernie Sanders? I don't get it.

 

You asked "Bernie?", I answered.

Yoiu'll have to ask Nick what he meant by it.

[cp176]

What budget right? Of course there is one, but no one (repeat no one) knows how much John Henry is willing to spend at any time. I get a kick out of how we all want to try to spend his money for him. Is it possible that he stays within a budgetary limit? - yes I suppose it is. Is it possible that he blows right through the budget that you folks have set for him?-yes I suppose it is. All that being said, I would maybe go as high as 5 years for whatever to sign Mookie. Anymore and he ain't worth it. He is replaceable.

[BstHcpr]

What budget right? Of course there is one, but no one (repeat no one) knows how much John Henry is willing to spend at any time. I get a kick out of how we all want to try to spend his money for him. Is it possible that he stays within a budgetary limit? - yes I suppose it is. Is it possible that he blows right through the budget that you folks have set for him?-yes I suppose it is. All that being said, I would maybe go as high as 5 years for whatever to sign Mookie. Anymore and he ain't worth it. He is replaceable.

 

You're saying it's possible Henry increases or decreases the payroll? Insightful.

[sk7326]

What budget right? Of course there is one, but no one (repeat no one) knows how much John Henry is willing to spend at any time. I get a kick out of how we all want to try to spend his money for him. Is it possible that he stays within a budgetary limit? - yes I suppose it is. Is it possible that he blows right through the budget that you folks have set for him?-yes I suppose it is. All that being said, I would maybe go as high as 5 years for whatever to sign Mookie. Anymore and he ain't worth it. He is replaceable.

 

Nothing easier to replace than a 24 year old top ten player

Edited August 7, 2017 by sk7326

[BstHcpr]

Nothing easier to replace than a 24 year old top ten player

 

We have Rusney Castillo.