What would a Betts extension be?

[moonslav59]

I get the sentiment for wanting to keep Mookie regardless of the cost. The first half of the contract will be great. Mookie might even end up being worth the contract overall because of his great play during the first part of the contract.

 

But when those albatross years hit...

 

Ages 33-37 are not always albatrosses.

 

Barring injuries, I think Betts will have decent to good years those years, but I admit it's a huge gamble.

[Kimmi]

Big part of appeal about Betts is his athleticism to go along with his baseball skills.

 

I seriously doubt in 7 years, he'll be making the same type of running catches nor running the bases with abandonment as he's doing now. His power will certainly decline. He is NOT going to repeat last year's performance year after year.

 

I would agree Betts is worth $35M per year if he repeats last year's numbers for next ten years. I just don't think he can do it.

 

Players typically peak at about 27 years of age. They are already past peak at the age of 30. A 10 year contract that takes a player to age 37 is just insane.

 

It's very possible that 2018 is Mookie's career year. I'm not saying he won't continue to be an MVP candidate for several more years, but he may not hit 10.4 WAR again.

[Kimmi]

1. To delay free agency and control the player for an additional year or two.

2. The way arb deals are going, buying them out seems to make a lot of financial sense...

 

I will ask again, how are the Red Sox benefiting from the contract proposal Jacko gave?

 

In that proposal, the Sox will be paying Mookie more in his final 2 arb years than they would going year by year. Additionally, they are still giving him a free agent contract of $35 mil a year for 10 years. Is that supposed to be a bargain?

 

If they're going to offer that, why not just wait until he's a free agent and offer him the 10 yr/ $350 mil contract then?

[Kimmi]

Kimmi and dgalehouse are the voices of reason here. There's a point at which it gets stupid - and irresponsible - to hand out the kind of longterm commitment and amount of money that jacko is suggesting. I think we've hit a dangerous plateau with contracts going over $300mil for 7 or 10 years. Like Kimmi said, the team is taking on all of the risk, and getting value in terms of production for maybe half of it if they are lucky.

 

Knowing how likely it is for players to decline into their middle/late thirties, it's insanity to lock them up for that long. I'd rather trade Betts for what we can get in his last pre-FA year than break the bank and shackle the franchise to such a ridiculous degree. No one player is bigger than the team. Ever.

 

1. I think it's the first time DGalehouse and I have agreed on anything.

2. The Sox would be crazy to offer that deal and Mookie would be stupid not to accept.

3. Trading Betts next offseason is really not a bad idea.

4. The money saved from not signing Mookie to the mega contract could be put to very good use elsewhere.

[Kimmi]

Ages 33-37 are not always albatrosses.

 

Barring injuries, I think Betts will have decent to good years those years, but I admit it's a huge gamble.

 

No, they aren't always albatrosses. Mookie could be one of the exceptions to the rule.

[moonslav59]

No, they aren't always albatrosses. Mookie could be one of the exceptions to the rule.

 

Many of the worst long term deals on record involved players signed until age 40 or beyond.

 

While 37 is well beyond prime, many great players do pretty well in years 33-37, or at least do very well for many of those years.

[moonslav59]

I'd like to have Betts from ages 38-40 as well- not at $35M, of course, but I think he'll still be a plus player those ages.

 

I'd think about offering him an extension right now of $400M/15. The extra money helps Betts: the extra years brings down the AVV.

[fxkatt]

My offer would be 8 years for 255 million. If the answer is "no" then I wait till the end of arbitration, and make one more sensible offer. If the answer is "no" then we sign one or two top free agents with all that cash and continue our success story without him. (Mookie is terrific in many ways but I doubt his durability--could be wrong about it, but I can't see him power hitting or DH-ing in old age as in Ted Williams and David Ortiz) Edited December 31, 2018 by fxkatt

[dgalehouse]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

[moonslav59]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

 

True, but that doesn't mean we spend freely every single year.

 

Right now, we have Beni, Devers and ERod as key players on the cheap. How many do the Yanks and Dodgers have?

[fxkatt]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

 

Well, I'm not into Rotisserie. What I'm thinking is that Harper and Machado, like so many many big free agent sluggers before them, are most certainly going to be overpaid--and overpaying is always a disadvantage even to NY, LA, and Boston. We just did this stupid thing 4-5 years ago and got almost nothing but headaches in return for our lavish bucks. The examples are almost as long as the number of long, stupendously expensive, contracts.

[dgalehouse]

Well, I'm not into Rotisserie. What I'm thinking is that Harper and Machado, like so many many big free agent sluggers before them, are most certainly going to be overpaid--and overpaying is always a disadvantage even to NY, LA, and Boston. We just did this stupid thing 4-5 years ago and got almost nothing but headaches in return for our lavish bucks. The examples are almost as long as the number of long, stupendously expensive, contracts.

 

You're right. We always remember the mistakes. There is certainly a need for caution. But how many championships have the small time , moneyball types won ?

[moonslav59]

You're right. We always remember the mistakes. There is certainly a need for caution. But how many championships have the small time , moneyball types won ?

 

Most use a combination of big signings and "moneyball" moves.

[Kimmi]

I'd like to have Betts from ages 38-40 as well- not at $35M, of course, but I think he'll still be a plus player those ages.

 

I'd think about offering him an extension right now of $400M/15. The extra money helps Betts: the extra years brings down the AVV.

 

You have gone off the deep end Moon.

[Kimmi]

My offer would be 8 years for 255 million. If the answer is "no" then I wait till the end of arbitration, and make one more sensible offer. If the answer is "no" then we sign one or two top free agents with all that cash and continue our success story without him. (Mookie is terrific in many ways but I doubt his durability--could be wrong about it, but I can't see him power hitting or DH-ing in old age as in Ted Williams and David Ortiz)

 

Mookie is terrific, but he alone is not going to make or break the team. Make him a reasonable offer, and if he declines, then you have to let him walk.

[Kimmi]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

 

It might be big business, but it's not good business to spend like drunken fools year after year.

 

I'm not asking Henry to become a tightwad. He spends more than enough money on the Red Sox, and he can keep the team highly competitive without handing out $300+ contracts.

[notin]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

 

Actually I bet if you asked any GM or owner about free agency, they’d tell you how dumb it is. Even I have noticed that nearly every contract given out to a star player ends badly for the team. Certainly they have noticed it as well. Hundreds of millions spent to get one or two seasons from a player and then watch as his deadweight slows everything down. Teams don’t avoid spending because they can’t afford it; they avoid because they don’t want that situation. These deadweight contracts are impossible to move, cannot be cut, and the only way to remain competitive is sometimes to just keep spending heavily in an endless cycle.

 

Free agency in baseball is often involves paying a player in his 30s for what he did in his20s . Teams do it because there is a lot of positive PR in telling your fan base “money will not be an obstacle to winning.” Fans love to hear that. The problem is, those players all age past their salary. And then the fans scream “So what? Go spend more!!”

 

I mean think about it. The Sox have a payroll north of$240million. And you’ve made about a dozen posts saying “I expect them to spend EVEN MORE!! Because they have to to win!!”

 

The problem with the bullpen isn’t that the Sox aren’t spending; it’s that they may have already spent their limit...

[cp176]

Actually I bet if you asked any GM or owner about free agency, they’d tell you how dumb it is. Even I have noticed that nearly every contract given out to a star player ends badly for the team. Certainly they have noticed it as well. Hundreds of millions spent to get one or two seasons from a player and then watch as his deadweight slows everything down. Teams don’t avoid spending because they can’t afford it; they avoid because they don’t want that situation. These deadweight contracts are impossible to move, cannot be cut, and the only way to remain competitive is sometimes to just keep spending heavily in an endless cycle.

 

Free agency in baseball is often involves paying a player in his 30s for what he did in his20s . Teams do it because there is a lot of positive PR in telling your fan base “money will not be an obstacle to winning.” Fans love to hear that. The problem is, those players all age past their salary. And then the fans scream “So what? Go spend more!!”

 

I mean think about it. The Sox have a payroll north of$240million. And you’ve made about a dozen posts saying “I expect them to spend EVEN MORE!! Because they have to to win!!”

 

The problem with the bullpen isn’t that the Sox aren’t spending; it’s that they may have already spent their limit...

 

In all honesty as much as I love seeing him in a Red Sox uniform, Mookie Betts is replaceable. Likely not with someone as capable as he is but someone not so bad that it would limit the team that much. If prevailing wisdom is that we are going to be so poor in the next few years, that we won't be able to compete, what sense would it make to even consider a long term signing? None - with that thought in mind, he should be traded for a windfall of potential talent.

[Bellhorn04]

Actually I bet if you asked any GM or owner about free agency, they’d tell you how dumb it is. Even I have noticed that nearly every contract given out to a star player ends badly for the team. Certainly they have noticed it as well. Hundreds of millions spent to get one or two seasons from a player and then watch as his deadweight slows everything down. Teams don’t avoid spending because they can’t afford it; they avoid because they don’t want that situation. These deadweight contracts are impossible to move, cannot be cut, and the only way to remain competitive is sometimes to just keep spending heavily in an endless cycle.

 

I don't think a GM of a big market team like Epstein, Cashman or DD would call it dumb. I think they would call it a necessary evil that has to be used judiciously, but that you will get burned on sometimes regardless. If I'm not mistaken Theo Epstein actually said something pretty close to that when he was here. And he's obviously decided to keep utilizing it for the Cubs.

[notin]

I don't think a GM of a big market team like Epstein, Cashman or DD would call it dumb. I think they would call it a necessary evil that has to be used judiciously, but that you will get burned on sometimes regardless. If I'm not mistaken Theo Epstein actually said something pretty close to that when he was here. And he's obviously decided to keep utilizing it for the Cubs.

 

But really, free agency was something the players fought for. Not the owners, not theGMs, not the fans. It’s not their for our benefit or the Sox benefit.

 

And I’m really not sure any GM or owner in the league would call the Sox tightwads right now seeing as to how their payroll is close to a quarter billion dollars. At some point, like any economic bubble, that situation will burst...

[notin]

I don't think a GM of a big market team like Epstein, Cashman or DD would call it dumb. I think they would call it a necessary evil that has to be used judiciously, but that you will get burned on sometimes regardless. If I'm not mistaken Theo Epstein actually said something pretty close to that when he was here. And he's obviously decided to keep utilizing it for the Cubs.

 

 

Also, you left out all my really good lines from that post!! Come on, man!!

[notin]

Some fans have a rotisserie league outlook. They want to prove they can beat you while spending the same as you do. This is commendable. But MLB is not like that. It is not fantasy, it is reality. It is big business. When the top players become free agents , there are only a handful of teams that are in the running for them. If you are not one of them , you will have a tough time getting to the top and staying there. That's just how it is.

 

 

Also - and more important- who gives a f*** what some fans think? I know some people believe otherwise, but Dombrowski doesn’t check out message boards for ideas on how to run a team. If the Sox aren’t spending, that ests solely with him or his boss.

 

Fans have all kinds of ideas on how to run a team. Some a right, some are wrong. All are irrelevant.

 

Also, let’s face it. We’re also probably also all wrong...

Edited December 31, 2018 by notin

[jacksonianmarch]

True, but that doesn't mean we spend freely every single year.

 

Right now, we have Beni, Devers and ERod as key players on the cheap. How many do the Yanks and Dodgers have?

 

Yankee pre arb players 2019

Judge

Torres

Voit

Andujar

Sanchez

Montgomery

Holder

[Bellhorn04]

But really, free agency was something the players fought for. Not the owners, not theGMs, not the fans. It’s not their for our benefit or the Sox benefit.

 

No argument that the players are the main beneficiaries.

 

However, I think you could certainly argue that the current system has been pretty damn good for the Red Sox franchise.

[notin]

No argument that the players are the main beneficiaries.

 

However, I think you could certainly argue that the current system has been pretty damn good for the Red Sox franchise.

 

For a business or as a winning team?

[Bellhorn04]

For a business or as a winning team?

 

Both.

[notin]

Both.

 

As a winning team, certainly it works. As a business, I’m not so sure. I don’t know much about their profitability vs operating costs and I can’t tell you how much revenue is due to their ability to sign free agents as opposed to their means, like TV and radio deals...

[Bellhorn04]

As a winning team, certainly it works. As a business, I’m not so sure. I don’t know much about their profitability vs operating costs and I can’t tell you how much revenue is due to their ability to sign free agents as opposed to their means, like TV and radio deals...

 

It would take some analysis, but I believe there is correlation between the team's on-field results, revenues and increase in franchise market value.

[notin]

It would take some analysis, but I believe there is correlation between the team's on-field results, revenues and increase in franchise market value.

 

 

But whether or not they are justified by the long term payroll increase and corresponding worse years is another analysis.

 

So can we expect a full report by, say, 2pm-ish?

[Bellhorn04]

But whether or not they are justified by the long term payroll increase and corresponding worse years is another analysis.

 

So can we expect a full report by, say, 2pm-ish?

 

Ha, forget it. Too much work and no pay.