A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[moonslav59]

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.

 

Betts has power, too, and many players add power as they get into their mid to late 30's.

 

Plus, my offer is not about getting value from him at ages 38-40. It's about lowering the AVV and front end loading it drastically allows us to trade him and save tens of millions on the lux tax budget.

[Slasher9]

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

 

the only way to do that once DD did all those DD things was to trade him. we lose him for 1 year but gain him back for the next decade. this is the way

[notin]

the only way to do that once DD did all those DD things was to trade him. we lose him for 1 year but gain him back for the next decade. this is the way

 

It is a longshot, but it is still a shot. There was just too much of a mess made by Dombrowski...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Moon, all your number breakdowns in values per age look reasonable today, but what some dissenters also need to realize is that four or five years from now, guys like Soto and Acuna may be signing their own longterm contracts for $40 or $50 mil per year. With market adjustments, Mookie's salary at say -- $35 mil at age 35 -- may only be the going rate for average 3.5 to 4 WAR position players.

[mvp 78]

the only way to do that once DD did all those DD things was to trade him. we lose him for 1 year but gain him back for the next decade. this is the way

 

I hope so.

[Hitch]

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.

 

Or, I could just call ******** where I see it and engage when you occasionally make a point. I'll see which one takes my fancy as we move forward.

[mvp 78]

Moon, all your number breakdowns in values per age look reasonable today, but what some dissenters also need to realize is that four or five years from now, guys like Soto and Acuna may be signing their own longterm contracts for $40 or $50 mil per year. With market adjustments, Mookie's salary at say -- $35 mil at age 35 -- may only be the going rate for average 3.5 to 4 WAR position players.

 

I think that's probably too much salary inflation, but you never know.

[notin]

Moon, all your number breakdowns in values per age look reasonable today, but what some dissenters also need to realize is that four or five years from now, guys like Soto and Acuna may be signing their own longterm contracts for $40 or $50 mil per year. With market adjustments, Mookie's salary at say -- $35 mil at age 35 -- may only be the going rate for average 3.5 to 4 WAR position players.

 

But the point isn't whether or not Mookie will be worth it. He won't. Not for the duration. The point is the Sox do apparently have some sort of budget and because of alot of mistakes in the recent past, getting Mookie into it right now is not possible. If Mookie signed for $35million, and the Sox still had Price, his entire contract falls into the 95% tax rate, meaning the Red Sox are paying $68.3million for Betts, not $35million. (I expect some sort of correction on my numbers from Bellhorn.)

 

Is $68.3 million the market value for Betts? When will it be?

 

Next year, with no penalty, the Sox can at least go over again with a much lower tax rate on his deal...

[Hitch]

Betts has power, too, and many players add power as they get into their mid to late 30's.

 

Plus, my offer is not about getting value from him at ages 38-40. It's about lowering the AVV and front end loading it drastically allows us to trade him and save tens of millions on the lux tax budget.

 

This all comes with the giant assumption that he is still playing at least well enough to be garnering trade interest as he enters his later years of course. Or that he doesn't get injured. Or that he doesn't slow down.

 

And I would argue a large part of his power is based in his speed, and specifically hand speed. Not two things known to stick around as you age.

 

I mean, we can agree that the contract would be very risky, at the very least no?

[mvp 78]

This all comes with the giant assumption that he is still playing at least well enough to be garnering trade interest as he enters his later years of course. Or that he doesn't get injured. Or that he doesn't slow down.

 

And I would argue a large part of his power is based in his speed, and specifically hand speed. Not two things known to stick around as you age.

 

I mean, we can agree that the contract would be very risky, at the very least no?

 

I believe he is one of the few instances where you take that risk.

[Hitch]

I believe he is one of the few instances where you take that risk.

 

That's fine, I have no truck with that. I don't agree but I understand the point. It's just sometimes the argument is being put forward as if the risk is small. I don't think it is.

 

For what it's worth, I think Mookie at 10 years $300m would have been worth it. Start tagging on more money and years though and it's passed the point I'm comfortable with. Not that I have much say in these matters.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think that's probably too much salary inflation, but you never know.

 

On guys like Soto and Acuna? Half a decade from now? Maybe you're right, because first they'd have to produce six seasons of 42 WAR like Mookie just did... which may be difficult, according to this list:

 

Greatest Career WAR Ages 21-26 RF (min. 500 games):

 

1. Mookie Betts 42.0

2. Hank Aaron 37.4

3. Reggie Jackson 28.2

4. Bobby Bonds 26.0

 

Edit: that's Greatest ever -- so, describing Betts as a "generational talent" may be limited, since the baseball-ref range is 1871 to 2019

Edited February 12, 2020 by 5GoldGloves:OF,75

[moonslav59]

This all comes with the giant assumption that he is still playing at least well enough to be garnering trade interest as he enters his later years of course. Or that he doesn't get injured. Or that he doesn't slow down.

 

And I would argue a large part of his power is based in his speed, and specifically hand speed. Not two things known to stick around as you age.

 

I mean, we can agree that the contract would be very risky, at the very least no?

 

Very risky, yes, but like I said, if he has an AVV of $32.3M ($420/13), but only get's paid $10M a year the last 3 years, we could trade him AND PAY EVERY DOLLAR to the other team. We'd save $22.3M on the lux tax budget each of his last 3 years.

 

That $30M lost was really paid for his earlier years, when he was, in theory, underpaid.

[Hitch]

Very risky, yes, but like I said, if he has an AVV of $32.3M ($420/13), but only get's paid $10M a year the last 3 years, we could trade him AND PAY EVERY DOLLAR to the other team. We'd save $22.3M on the lux tax budget each of his last 3 years.

 

That $30M lost was really paid for his earlier years, when he was, in theory, underpaid.

 

Is there any precedent for a deal happening as heavily skewed as you've made it? I can't think of one...

[Slasher9]

Is there any precedent for a deal happening as heavily skewed as you've made it? I can't think of one...

 

Giancarlos 13 year contract but that one is upside down. low money the first few years then ramps up quick to $32MM per season for the middle years.

[Hitch]

Yeah there's one or two that way around I can think of. I don't recall any the way Moon is laying it out though. And you'd wonder why more are not done that way if possible.

[Slasher9]

The two sides agreed to defer that payment for 10 years, but with an 8% annual interest rate. So by the time Bonilla started receiving those payments, he was owed $29.8 million, which was split into annual payments of $1,193,248.20 over 25 years.

 

Of course, there have been similarly outrageous deals over the years. The Washington Nationals have kind of made deferments their thing — they will pay Stephen Strasburg $10 million each year from 2024-30 and Max Scherzer $15 million each year from 2022-28.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But the point isn't whether or not Mookie will be worth it. He won't. Not for the duration. The point is the Sox do apparently have some sort of budget and because of alot of mistakes in the recent past, getting Mookie into it right now is not possible. If Mookie signed for $35million, and the Sox still had Price, his entire contract falls into the 95% tax rate, meaning the Red Sox are paying $68.3million for Betts, not $35million. (I expect some sort of correction on my numbers from Bellhorn.)

 

Is $68.3 million the market value for Betts? When will it be?

 

Next year, with no penalty, the Sox can at least go over again with a much lower tax rate on his deal...

 

Thanks for pointing this out; I think I've seen a projected '20 Betts' extension quoted as high as $79 mil with the lux. tax. So if Mookie actually said what Rice said he said, then that may be the first public Dirty Water quote in this whole drama... and open one ray of light through the blinds.

 

I will say this, if Mookie's words were part of a Boston set-up -- a secret pact to transfer him out West for a year, in exchange for prospects and spending room, only to bring him back for eternity -- then I will be even more shocked than if Manfred investigates the Yankees for sign swiping.

[mvp 78]

That's fine, I have no truck with that. I don't agree but I understand the point. It's just sometimes the argument is being put forward as if the risk is small. I don't think it is.

 

For what it's worth, I think Mookie at 10 years $300m would have been worth it. Start tagging on more money and years though and it's passed the point I'm comfortable with. Not that I have much say in these matters.

 

We'll have to see what the bidding looks like next winter. Maybe he doesn't have a great season this year and the Sox can get him for about 300? Maybe someone comes in and does offer 420/12 or more? I have to trust that the FO has a number that they will stop at. I may not agree with that number (being a big fan of Mookie's) and I certainly have a right to grumble about it.

 

I think that once the games actually start, we'll have a lot more to talk about than hypothetical FA markets. It'll be a good thing.

[moonslav59]

Is there any precedent for a deal happening as heavily skewed as you've made it? I can't think of one...

 

I think there has only been 1 thirteen year deal.

[Hitch]

I think there has only been 1 thirteen year deal.

 

I mean is there precedence where a contract is so obviously set up to be able to get out of luxury tax implications towards the end of a long contract? I can't imagine the league look upon such things too favourably.

[mvp 78]

I mean is there precedence where a contract is so obviously set up to be able to get out of luxury tax implications towards the end of a long contract? I can't imagine the league look upon such things too favourably.

 

Problem is that we have no idea what the luxury tax will look like in 13 years. After the next CBA, everything could be completely different. Mookie's deal will be signed before we have any clue what the next CBA looks like.

[moonslav59]

I mean is there precedence where a contract is so obviously set up to be able to get out of luxury tax implications towards the end of a long contract? I can't imagine the league look upon such things too favorably.

 

Why should they or the union care. Front-loading a contract helps the player. The money he makes can be put to use and earn interest.

 

As far as I know, there are no rules against it, and I do know some players get deferred payments long after they retire. That seems worse than my idea.

 

Worse than my idea to have Pedey tear up his contract owing him $25M over the next 2 years, retire, then sign him to a $26M lifetime services contract.

 

[moonslav59]

Problem is that we have no idea what the luxury tax will look like in 13 years. After the next CBA, everything could be completely different. Mookie's deal will be signed before we have any clue what the next CBA looks like.

 

True, but some sort of tax has been around since 1997, and even if it goes away, we might still be able to cut salary by Trading an aging Betts making $10M a year. If there's no tax anymore, than that's one more point in favor of locking Betts up long term.

[Hitch]

Why should they or the union care. Front-loading a contract helps the player. The money he makes can be put to use and earn interest.

 

As far as I know, there are no rules against it, and I do know some players get deferred payments long after they retire. That seems worse than my idea.

 

Worse than my idea to have Pedey tear up his contract owing him $25M over the next 2 years, retire, then sign him to a $26M lifetime services contract.

 

 

 

The union won't care, the league might. I can't see them being too pleased with such ways of getting around any possible luxury tax implications.

 

But that's why I asked, I don't know enough on the subject.

[moonslav59]

The union won't care, the league might. I can't see them being too pleased with such ways of getting around any possible luxury tax implications.

 

But that's why I asked, I don't know enough on the subject.

 

Well, it's not obvious that is the purpose. We might keep Betts as $10M might be a bargain by then, if he's still producing.

 

To me, the pay structure I suggested matches up more to him projected value by year than just paying him $32.3M x 12 years, and it helps the player.

 

It also assumes we can find a trade partner, if he sucks by then, but then again, if we offer to pay his full contract as I mentioned we could theoretically do, then that would be an obvious skirting around paying taxes- but still not likely illegal, unless the rules change by then.

[notin]

Thanks for pointing this out; I think I've seen a projected '20 Betts' extension quoted as high as $79 mil with the lux. tax. So if Mookie actually said what Rice said he said, then that may be the first public Dirty Water quote in this whole drama... and open one ray of light through the blinds.

 

I will say this, if Mookie's words were part of a Boston set-up -- a secret pact to transfer him out West for a year, in exchange for prospects and spending room, only to bring him back for eternity -- then I will be even more shocked than if Manfred investigates the Yankees for sign swiping.

 

If Mookie had a $40mill AAV, it would be $79mill. It all depends on the stating point (and how much is actually over)...

[Bellhorn04]

I think there has only been 1 thirteen year deal.

 

2 now - Stanton and Harper.

[Kimmi]

It’s not about trading him for the sake of just doing something. It would be to improve the team beyond 2020 and or to free up more budget space for acquiring pitching. We have a huge whole in our staff. If trading JBJ allows to get a better pitcher than the step down value between JBJ and Pillar, then we can be better in 2020, too.

If that can not be done, then we keep Jackie.

 

There are some who want to trade Jackie, just for the sake of having him off the team. They don't like his 'light bat'.

 

Now that we have Pillar, trading Jackie to upgrade the pitching makes some sense, although I don't think that Jackie being traded is a foregone conclusion.

[Kimmi]

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?

 

Or by paying Mookie $18 mil a year for 5 years to play for another team so that we can clear some money off the books.