A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[mvp 78]

Sorry, I meant 420/12 years (12 @ 35M). I will never mispost again.

 

This is about a difference of 5M per year.

[moonslav59]

Sorry, I meant 420/12 years (12 @ 35M). I will never mispost again.

 

This is about a difference of 5M per year.

 

I bet he'd sign $420M/13 ($32.2 AVV).

 

The guy might actually play 13 more years at a decent level, if not we still paid him the same amount.

[harmony]

But you have to admit there was some enjoyment in watching softlaw heavily overhype JBJ and then disappear after the early struggles

Not to mention softlaw's promotion of Will Middlebrooks.

[Hitch]

I'm thinking $400/12 or 420/13 with an AVV of $30.3 or $30.2M.

 

It might suck years 11 to 12 or 13, but if we front end load the deal, we could probably trade him those years, if the lux tax is still around and a serious issue.

 

He's not taking $300M/10. I think the minimum he gets, barring an injury or serious 2020 decline is $350M/10.

 

It might suck?

 

Paying a 38 to 40 year old $35m would be brutal.

[mvp 78]

It might suck?

 

Paying a 38 to 40 year old $35m would be brutal.

 

But you'd have more than enough time to find ways of making it less of a drag on the budget for 2030-2032.

[Hitch]

But you'd have more than enough time to find ways of making it less of a drag on the budget for 2030-2032.

 

Like trading a legit superstar because we made the mistake of putting ourselves in a tough spot by giving massive contracts to players we shouldn't have?

[mvp 78]

Like trading a legit superstar because we made the mistake of putting ourselves in a tough spot by giving massive contracts to players we shouldn't have?

 

There's a difference between preparing for something for 10 years (which I said) and flying by the seat of your pants like DD and getting stuck in a corner. You can hide one contract. You can't hide multiple s***** contracts like what DD signed.

[Hitch]

There's a difference between preparing for something for 10 years (which I said) and flying by the seat of your pants like DD and getting stuck in a corner. You can hide one contract. You can't hide multiple s***** contracts like what DD signed.

 

Except we don't live in a world of absolutes. There may be another superstar come through in the next few years and he'll need to be extended for huge money at some point. We may go 8 years without winning anything and the ownership will feel the need to go for another DD to halt the slide because the fans base absolutely WILL BE complaining. We could extend Devers/some other new stud long term and they could battle against injuries for years like Pedroia and end up being a sunken cost. There are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good while being handed out and/or in a position where we spend to compete but are still hamstrung by the contract to an aging player.

 

There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team.

 

Thirteen year contracts are just a s*** idea.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Unless the MLB commits Harry Caray and has another strike work stoppage, I would bet in the next decade the Red Sox will pay $35 million a year to some other player who's not as good as Mookie. I also guarantee that in another decade someone on some forum will post that "Nobody is worth half a billion dollars to play baseball" and then "Nobody is worth $600 million" then "$800 million" then "A billion!!!!"

 

And that's because the market rates will keep rising.

 

But I can't bet you $35 million, because I'm only a hundredaire, not a billionaire, like all the owners of all the MLB franchises who all could pay players like Betts... if they really wanted to...

[mvp 78]

Except we don't live in a world of absolutes. There may be another superstar come through in the next few years and he'll need to be extended for huge money at some point. We may go 8 years without winning anything and the ownership will feel the need to go for another DD to halt the slide because the fans base absolutely WILL BE complaining. We could extend Devers/some other new stud long term and they could battle against injuries for years like Pedroia and end up being a sunken cost. There are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good while being handed out and/or in a position where we spend to compete but are still hamstrung by the contract to an aging player.

 

There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team.

 

Thirteen year contracts are just a s*** idea.

 

New idea: let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of!

[Hitch]

New idea: let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of!

 

Oh look your favourite response to anything that challenges your mindset - a non sequitur.

 

What a shocker.

[mvp 78]

Oh look your favourite response to anything that challenges your mindset - a non sequitur.

 

What a shocker.

 

Go with what works.

 

Your idea was to no longer sign the top players because they would take up too much room in a non existent salary cap league. The only person that helps is the owner.

[Hitch]

Go with what works.

 

Your idea was to no longer sign the top players because they would take up too much room in a non existent salary cap league. The only person that helps is the owner.

 

It only works to stop conversation, which I guess is your only aim.

 

I suggest you read it again and maybe respond to what I posted rather than what you want to make it about.

[mvp 78]

You wrote this after a lot of "what if" comments:

 

"There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team."

 

In the current baseball system, the only way to get a top player is to give them a long contract. I proposed that giving a long contract is ok to Betts because you'll have over a decade of managing the team payroll to make one overpriced contract not the end of the world. You didn't refute my point at all. You just said you think my idea was s***. (I guess THAT isn't a conversation stopper???)

 

So when I then say "let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of," it's not trying to stop the conversation (which you already wanted stopped) it's explaining that if you aren't going to pay any long contracts, you'll never get the top FA's to sign. The only good that does for the team is save payroll. It doesn't put a better product on the field for sure.

 

Any argument that is "there are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good" is basically an argument for not signing anyone because YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN. I mean, every good decision could wind up being bad someday. Does that mean you never make any decisions? No, it means you should at least try to keep the best players around to the best of your ability. Otherwise, what are we doing here? We're just rooting for the team to best manage payroll, which only helps the owner.

[Hitch]

You wrote this after a lot of "what if" comments:

 

"There are a whole host of things that could happen, but the only thing we can probably count on is that the contract for a 38 to 40 year old (and possibly younger) will be a big drag on the team."

 

In the current baseball system, the only way to get a top player is to give them a long contract. I proposed that giving a long contract is ok to Betts because you'll have over a decade of managing the team payroll to make one overpriced contract not the end of the world. You didn't refute my point at all. You just said you think my idea was s***. (I guess THAT isn't a conversation stopper???)

 

So when I then say "let's just never sign any good players and make sure that ownership is taken care of," it's not trying to stop the conversation (which you already wanted stopped) it's explaining that if you aren't going to pay any long contracts, you'll never get the top FA's to sign. The only good that does for the team is save payroll. It doesn't put a better product on the field for sure.

 

Any argument that is "there are a whole host of things that could happen that mean we end up with bad contracts when we convinced they were good" is basically an argument for not signing anyone because YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN. I mean, every good decision could wind up being bad someday. Does that mean you never make any decisions? No, it means you should at least try to keep the best players around to the best of your ability. Otherwise, what are we doing here? We're just rooting for the team to best manage payroll, which only helps the owner.

 

Oh for Christ sakes, at least try and debate the issue in good faith. I said giving out 13 year contracts is a s*** idea. Which it almost always is. And I said this at the end of a post in which I gave several clear examples of why it isn't as easy as saying - "Oh we'll just manage the club correctly to take into account Mookie's contract which you too, obviously believe would be an albatross at this point as you're saying we'd need to manage it. So give it up with the 'you're the one trying to stop the conversation' when half your replies are useless shite about how people want Billionaires to be able to keep their money blah blah blah.

 

You have added to my point - you can think you're making good decisions and they turn into bad ones. So there's no way we can say for sure 'we'll just manage the club to absorb the terrible part of Mookie's contract,' as we don't know what mistakes may be made in the future when it comes to that point. We won't stop trying to extend players and spend money, but this argument we can just manage the worst years is utter nonsense. Nobody sets out to make mistakes, they happen. And as you clearly agree, giving Mookie a massive contract to play until he's f***ing forty is obviously one.

 

We're not going to stop making decisions and giving players contracts. That doesn't mean we have to commit to one we know will hammer us at the end.

 

But you've said several times, you're not interested in logical thinking on this. He's your favourite player and you want him paid for as much and as long as it takes. So this is all fairly pointless as you'll find anything to say to back it up and/or move the goal posts. You've been doing it consistently since the news broke.

[mvp 78]

Oh for Christ sakes, at least try and debate the issue in good faith. I said giving out 13 year contracts is a s*** idea. Which it almost always is. And I said this at the end of a post in which I gave several clear examples of why it isn't as easy as saying - "Oh we'll just manage the club correctly to take into account Mookie's contract which you too, obviously believe would be an albatross at this point as you're saying we'd need to manage it. So give it up with the 'you're the one trying to stop the conversation' when half your replies are useless shite about how people want Billionaires to be able to keep their money blah blah blah.

 

You have added to my point - you can think you're making good decisions and they turn into bad ones. So there's no way we can say for sure 'we'll just manage the club to absorb the terrible part of Mookie's contract,' as we don't know what mistakes may be made in the future when it comes to that point. We won't stop trying to extend players and spend money, but this argument we can just manage the worst years is utter nonsense. Nobody sets out to make mistakes, they happen. And as you clearly agree, giving Mookie a massive contract to play until he's f***ing forty is obviously one.

 

We're not going to stop making decisions and giving players contracts. That doesn't mean we have to commit to one we know will hammer us at the end.

 

But you've said several times, you're not interested in logical thinking on this. He's your favourite player and you want him paid for as much and as long as it takes. So this is all fairly pointless as you'll find anything to say to back it up and/or move the goal posts. You've been doing it consistently since the news broke.

 

A reminder that I'm the one stifling conversation here.

 

I have not moved any goal posts. Yes, I'll will find stuff to say to back up my opinion as will people that think Mookie shouldn't be signed. That's what everyone does.

 

I've consistently said that they can and should pay Mookie. Anyone else is fine to disagree with that. It doesn't bother me. It seems to bother other people when I say that ownership should spend the money rather than putting it in their pockets. I wonder why?

[moonslav59]

It might suck?

 

Paying a 38 to 40 year old $35m would be brutal.

 

1) You're wrong on the numbers: $420M/12 is not $35M a year.

2) I said front end load it, so by year 9-11, he's making only $20M a year and could possibly trade him, then.

3) He might be pretty dam good at ages 38-41.

[Bellhorn04]

I've consistently said that they can and should pay Mookie. Anyone else is fine to disagree with that. It doesn't bother me. It seems to bother other people when I say that ownership should spend the money rather than putting it in their pockets. I wonder why?

 

How much spending is enough to satisfy people?

 

They spent more than any other team in baseball the last two years.

 

This year they'll be all the way down to third or fourth highest in spending.

[Hitch]

A reminder that I'm the one stifling conversation here.

 

I have not moved any goal posts. Yes, I'll will find stuff to say to back up my opinion as will people that think Mookie shouldn't be signed. That's what everyone does.

 

I've consistently said that they can and should pay Mookie. Anyone else is fine to disagree with that. It doesn't bother me. It seems to bother other people when I say that ownership should spend the money rather than putting it in their pockets. I wonder why?

 

Pointing out things to say in support of your argument is fine, constantly making positions for posters that they have neither said no indicated is s***. And something you seem to be hell bent on doing.

[mvp 78]

How much spending is enough to satisfy people?

 

They spent more than any other team in baseball the last two years.

 

This year they'll be all the way down to third or fourth highest in spending.

 

I just want them to retain the greatest positional player they've developed since Ted Williams. That's all I'm asking.

[Hitch]

1) You're wrong on the numbers: $420M/12 is not $35M a year.

2) I said front end load it, so by year 9-11, he's making only $20M a year and could possibly trade him, then.

3) He might be pretty dam good at ages 38-41.

 

1) You're right, I saw the 10 x $350m figure you ended the post with and got mixed up.

2) and 3) are both laughable in my view.

[notin]

I just want them to retain the greatest positional player they've developed since Ted Williams. That's all I'm asking.

 

I wanted that, too. But they started this process when they signed Price to that unreasonable deal that a lot of people loved...

[Hitch]

How much spending is enough to satisfy people?

 

They spent more than any other team in baseball the last two years.

 

This year they'll be all the way down to third or fourth highest in spending.

 

Billionaires something something.

[mvp 78]

Pointing out things to say in support of your argument is fine, constantly making positions for posters that they have neither said no indicated is s***. And something you seem to be hell bent on doing.

 

Non sequitur conversation stopper.

 

If I ask a question, it's just a question. I'm not inferring that anyone believes that. I just assumed that someone could reasonably make the case that choosing not to retain Mookie was not to save ownership money, but for some other purpose.

 

Does payroll flexibility today help the Red Sox down the line? Nobody knows. I'd just rather put all my eggs into the basket of one of the 3 best players in the game. Interesting that this position gets people hot and bothered.

[moonslav59]

I see it this way, in real dollar value to a team like Boston, betts might be worth this much at these ages:

 

(BTW, the trade value site had him worth 50 which is counting the $27M he makes, this year.)

 

28: $55M

29: $50M

30: $45M

31: $40M

32: $35M

33: $35M

34: $30M

35: $25M

36: $25M

37: $20M

38: $20M

39: $15M

40: $15M

 

That's $420M/13.

 

Maybe $15M will be an overpay, but $40M at age 31 might be an underpay.

[moonslav59]

1) You're right, I saw the 10 x $350m figure you ended the post with and got mixed up.

2) and 3) are both laughable in my view.

 

Ok, maybe he's not worth $20M at ages 38-40. You could scale it so he's at $10M a year by then, and if he's not worth it, trade him and pay all $10M, and it still saves us $22M on the lux tax line. (The lux tax line goes to the new team, and all that counts for us is what we pay them.)

[Hitch]

Non sequitur conversation stopper.

 

If I ask a question, it's just a question. I'm not inferring that anyone believes that. I just assumed that someone could reasonably make the case that choosing not to retain Mookie was not to save ownership money, but for some other purpose.

 

Does payroll flexibility today help the Red Sox down the line? Nobody knows. I'd just rather put all my eggs into the basket of one of the 3 best players in the game. Interesting that this position gets people hot and bothered.

 

Why are you so disingenuous on this? Nobody cares about your last line. People may disagree, but they don't see it as a wild statement. What people (at least speaking for myself) are finding tiresome is your continued posting of why some posters would prefer billionaires to get rich rather than keeping the best talent at the club. This you know, is ********, but you keep doing it whenever backed into a corner to explain your logic. People just understand why the move was made.

 

The amusing thing is you agree the latter parts of the contract would be a burden as you said we'd need to plan to manage that part so its not much of a burden. Yet when others bring this up, it's the 'Billionaires wallet' nonsense.

[Hitch]

Ok, maybe he's not worth $20M at ages 38-40. You could scale it so he's at $10M a year by then, and if he's not worth it, trade him and pay all $10M, and it still saves us $22M on the lux tax line. (The lux tax line goes to the new team, and all that counts for us is what we pay them.)

 

Just trade a a 38/39 year old that relies on speed for $10m? I don't see a queue at the door.

 

This is also assuming he's very good for the rest of it. Something a million miles away from being certain.

 

I get why people want to keep him. If they don't think it;s a massive risk, I don't know what else to say.

[mvp 78]

Why are you so disingenuous on this? Nobody cares about your last line. People may disagree, but they don't see it as a wild statement. What people (at least speaking for myself) are finding tiresome is your continued posting of why some posters would prefer billionaires to get rich rather than keeping the best talent at the club. This you know, is ********, but you keep doing it whenever backed into a corner to explain your logic. People just understand why the move was made.

 

The amusing thing is you agree the latter parts of the contract would be a burden as you said we'd need to plan to manage that part so its not much of a burden. Yet when others bring this up, it's the 'Billionaires wallet' nonsense.

If you don't like my posts, instead of constantly referring to them as non sequiturs and s***, you could just use the ignore feature.

[Bellhorn04]

I wanted that, too. But they started this process when they signed Price to that unreasonable deal that a lot of people loved...

 

A lot of things led to this. Not least of them being Mookie's own philosophy.