Mookie Betts: Trade or Extend

[Larry33]

I would much rather have extended Betts over Sale, that's for sure!

 

Kind of late for that don't you think! It's like closing the barn door after the horse has gone out.

[Bellhorn04]

Kind of late for that don't you think! It's like closing the barn door after the horse has gone out.

 

And then there's that other equine expression: 'You can't put the s**t back in the horse.'

[notin]

And then there's that other equine expression: 'You can't put the s**t back in the horse.'

 

But you can get it back in a puppy, which is odd...

[OH FOY]

On TV the other day, Mookie is real adamant that he wants to test Free Agency. So you either have to give him a Contract that you will be gambling like at the Casino, especially as he gets older, or move him now, that he is a rental.

Time to have move him was past July Deadline, for the good Prospects. You'll get something but not what everybody thinks.

Not like a Sale deal, where you will get the other teams Top Prospects.

Sending Mookie to a team that was going for a pennant run this year, plus 1 more year next year was the smart move.

Now that is hindsight, but its common sense too, since he's not going to sign. And he's been adamant about all year.

Now you have to overpay. You wont get the Prospects back that you should have.

Your not going to have the money either, and other teams will have by 2021, and not affect rest of Roster.

Astros will have 144 million before they hit Luxury Cap penalty, and you get into a bidding War.

Edited September 11, 2019 by OH FOY!

[oldtimer]

On TV the other day, Mookie is real adamant that he wants to test Free Agency. So you either have to give him a Contract that you will be gambling like at the Casino, especially as he gets older, or move him now, that he is a rental.

Time to have move him was past July Deadline, for the good Prospects. You'll get something but not what everybody thinks.

Not like a Sale deal, where you will get the other teams Top Prospects.

Sending Mookie to a team that was going for a pennant run this year, plus 1 more year next year was the smart move.

Now that is hindsight, but its common sense too, since he's not going to sign. And he's been adamant about all year.

Now you have to overpay. You wont get the Prospects back that you should have.

Your not going to have the money either, and other teams will have by 2021, and not affect rest of Roster.

Astros will have 144 million before they hit Luxury Cap penalty, and you get into a bidding War.

 

It's a dilemma with no correct answer. Whatever the new GM does, he will be criticized.

[OH FOY]

You need a Cherrington of 2013 this year.

[notin]

It's a dilemma with no correct answer. Whatever the new GM does, he will be criticized.

 

I withhold all criticisms pending what any potential deal actually is.

 

I get one year of Betts isn't going to bring back what we all think he is worth...

[OH FOY]

It's a dilemma with no correct answer. Whatever the new GM does, he will be criticized.

 

Agree, we backed ourselves into a Corner, mostly because of Long High Salaries.

Only very smart signing or extension was Bogey. That was a great move.

I want the woman as a GM.

Men screwed it up enough.

[notin]

You need a Cherrington of 2013 this year.

 

Mixed emotions.

 

Unloading 3 big contracts was a big deal for this franchise and paved the way for a miraculous 2013 team. But that trade itself brought back NOTHING to the Sox. Fortunately they had somewhat of a farm system left at the time, because adding Webster, de la Rosa, Loney, and Sands didn't bolster it in any conceivable way. Even the fallout was nothing. The Sox dealt Webster and de la Rosa for Wade Miley, who in turn was dealt for Carson Smith, who was a dead end. There wasn't even some sort of Brock Holt type throw-in who worked out anywhere in this chain. And of course, Sands and Loney proved to be useless, which surprised on one. But other than clearing salary, that was a dead end.

 

If the Sox are happy just clearing salary, this could be a problem. Because while a reset is a good thing, if it only positions them to sign more free agents and leave themselves with another set of big contracts pushing the luxury tax limits, we will be in the same position again in 3 or 4 years...

[jacksonianmarch]

notin, you are absolutely correct. The sox needed to jettison big, bloated contracts but did so by sending a prime 1b in Gonzalez coming off a really good year. The Dodgers decided to take on Beckett and Crawford in order to get AdGon. He had a slow start to his season in which he was moved to LAD, but he was coming off a .957OPS season where he hit .330. He ended up being more an .800OPS player than a .900+ guy in LA and the sox got the salary relief needed to add to their roster in smaller pieces. Their staff was loaded. Their farm was loaded. Bogey came up during the title run and everything Cherries touched turned to gold. The sox farm going into 2012 was ranked 10th in the game and jumped to 9th in 2013 with Xander ready for prime time and JBJ in the upper levels. Right now, the sox have the worst farm in baseball by far. If the sox use an in prime player to jettison bad contracts, they wont have the reinforcements in the minors to step in. You need to deal off your assets to get farm talent and eat the bad contracts that are on the books.

[notin]

Agree, we backed ourselves into a Corner, mostly because of Long High Salaries.

Only very smart signing or extension was Bogey. That was a great move.

I want the woman as a GM.

Men screwed it up enough.

 

Would you trade Bogaerts to Cleveland for Francisco Lindor and highly-ranked prospect Nolan Jones?

 

In some respects, this deal makes sense for both teams.

 

Cleveland gets an expensive but cost-controlled SS replacement for Lindor, who is another one adamant about not signing an extension and whose salary is positioned to skyrocket in the next couple years. And will be more expensive than Bogaerts in a couple seasons tops. Boston gets one of the few players in the league who is only a mild step down from Betts, and whose arbitration salaries might fit in with a reset strategy. And they add a top prospect in Nolan Jones, a 21yo third baseman who posted an .860 OPS in limited AA action this year, and would easily take over the top spot on the Sox prospects rankings. (The Sox don't need a 3B, but he is easily tradable or movable to 1B or OF.)

Edited September 11, 2019 by notin

[jacksonianmarch]

The Guardians wouldn't do that. They have Lindor for two more seasons and he is the face of that franchise. Two more seasons also correlates with their window as a small market team.

[notin]

The Guardians wouldn't do that. They have Lindor for two more seasons and he is the face of that franchise. Two more seasons also correlates with their window as a small market team.

 

First of all, thnk you for the input. Trade suggestions do often get disregarded in these forums.

 

Whether or not the Guardians make that type of move, I can see why they wouldn't, but also why they would. Bogaerts isn't a huge step down from Lindor, is someone Francona is clearly familiar with, and is locked up at a $20mill AAV for 6 more seasons. Lindor will be making more than that in 2021 guaranteed, and then leave.

 

I do disagree that the Guardians window is only 2 seasons. They are in the post-season hunt this year with next to nothing from Kluber and Carrasco, and already dealt Bauer. I don't think they fear losing those arms kills their chances. Especially since Bieber and Clevinger are looked up for the next few seasons, and with Bogaerts and a few of their other players, can still keep them in the hunt in the AL Central.

 

Lindor is the face of the franchise, but franchise players get dealt all the time by small market teams, who sometimes need to be bold to stay competitive. And no team likes deciding the window is closing and going into some drawn out rebuild that leaves thousands of empty seats every day.

 

They didn't deal Bauer for some package of younger MLB players with lots of control for the purpose of going into a rebuild...

[jacksonianmarch]

First of all, thnk you for the input. Trade suggestions do often get disregarded in these forums.

 

Whether or not the Guardians make that type of move, I can see why they wouldn't, but also why they would. Bogaerts isn't a huge step down from Lindor, is someone Francona is clearly familiar with, and is locked up at a $20mill AAV for 6 more seasons. Lindor will be making more than that in 2021 guaranteed, and then leave.

 

I do disagree that the Guardians window is only 2 seasons. They are in the post-season hunt this year with next to nothing from Kluber and Carrasco, and already dealt Bauer. I don't think they fear losing those arms kills their chances. Especially since Bieber and Clevinger are looked up for the next few seasons, and with Bogaerts and a few of their other players, can still keep them in the hunt in the AL Central.

 

Lindor is the face of the franchise, but franchise players get dealt all the time by small market teams, who sometimes need to be bold to stay competitive. And no team likes deciding the window is closing and going into some drawn out rebuild that leaves thousands of empty seats every day.

 

They didn't deal Bauer for some package of younger MLB players with lots of control for the purpose of going into a rebuild...

 

Exactly, their deals this year should make you more aware of the fact that they are going for it in the short term.

[notin]

Exactly, their deals this year should make you more aware of the fact that they are going for it in the short term.

 

Not really.

 

If they were going for it short term, they would have just kept Bauer.

 

If they were looking to the future, they would have just kept Trammell.

 

That they settled for the intermediary package suggests they want to postpone any type of rebuild and stay competitive as long as possible...

[Kimmi]

I am 100% against trading him. I want to extend him for 10 years and $300M or more.

 

That being said, if the Sox plan is not to re-sign him, then I see the benefit in trading him before we get nothing after he walks.

 

Not knowing what the Sox plans are makes debating this issue hard to take a side.

 

From the get go, I have been against signing Mookie to a long term deal like you mentioned. If the Sox don't think that they can extend him before he hits free agency, then it makes all the sense in the world to trade him. I felt that way last year too, when we were all feeling really good about the team and didn't foresee this collapse. It just makes too much sense not to.

 

I know this won't go over too well, but frankly, I'm tired of Mookie's attitude about getting the most money in free agency. I know that baseball is a business, and he deserves it, and bla, bla, bla, but give me a Xander Bogaerts attitude any day of the week over a Mookie attitude.

[Kimmi]

It's hard to know what the right thing to do is. The money and the risk are exorbitant.

 

Speaking of which, Mike Trout is having a foot problem right now...

 

If he's looking for a 10 year deal, the decision is an easy one, IMO.

[Kimmi]

He is going to free agency so my blank check idea won’t work right now.

I want to trade him for prospects, reset the LT, and hand him the blank check after 2020 season.

 

Trading him, then re-signing him as a free agent is a great plan, if it can be done. I am not handing him a blank check though.

[Kimmi]

You need a Cherrington of 2013 this year.

 

!!!

 

It can be done!

[Kimmi]

I withhold all criticisms pending what any potential deal actually is.

 

I get one year of Betts isn't going to bring back what we all think he is worth...

 

One year of Betts won't bring back what we'd like, but it will bring back much more than the draft pick we'd get if he walked as a free agent.

[Bellhorn04]

One year of Betts won't bring back what we'd like, but it will bring back much more than the draft pick we'd get if he walked as a free agent.

 

The changes they made with free agent compensation really have an impact on decisions like this one.

 

Theo used to feast on the compensation picks.

[moonslav59]

From the get go, I have been against signing Mookie to a long term deal like you mentioned. If the Sox don't think that they can extend him before he hits free agency, then it makes all the sense in the world to trade him. I felt that way last year too, when we were all feeling really good about the team and didn't foresee this collapse. It just makes too much sense not to.

 

I know this won't go over too well, but frankly, I'm tired of Mookie's attitude about getting the most money in free agency. I know that baseball is a business, and he deserves it, and bla, bla, bla, but give me a Xander Bogaerts attitude any day of the week over a Mookie attitude.

 

Betts will be 27 next year. If we sign him for 10 years, it's really just 9 more years, with his last season coming at age 36.

 

While it may be true that players with his body type don't always age that well, I'm thinking most of the 9 years will every good to great years. The last 2-3 years may seem like a big overpay, but I doubt he'll be like Pablo or HRam by then.

[oldtimer]

One year of Betts won't bring back what we'd like, but it will bring back much more than the draft pick we'd get if he walked as a free agent.

 

Young players tend to be underpaid, especially when they turn out to be stars or near stars. Arbitration does boost their pay over time and we will see Mookie in his 4th year of arbitation get paid very well (Moon estimates $28 mil). Most businesses today have risk managers who would look the length of contract as a dollar value. Trying to understand risk as its long term effect on the team's success seems like a complex thing. Ten years could indeed leave the Sox in a tough position for multiple years. I tend to like shorter contracts but free agency is a competitive business. If he truly looks to take the highest paying and longest contract out there, it may well be more than he is worth to the Sox, considering the risk. I can see the dilemma of wanting to keep such a good young player while on the other hand not wanting to handcuff the team going forward. Guys like Devers will also be coming along and looks like he will also draw star contract levels.

 

I have expressed in the past that the clubs should set up a structure of a percent of the budget (assuming $208Mil -$15 mil is the target budget) for each group (pitching and field players) and further budget withing those groups %tages for Ace through 5th starters and Closers through set up men and BP arms. Do the same for field players (up the middle, key positions, DH, etc). Once those %tages are in the plan, it would point out when the contract is too rich and also might point out how many younger players need to be on the roster. Do the Sox have such a plan now? Certainly didn't look that way under DD.

 

Right now the Sox are messed up from a poorly structured set of contracts with 3 possible underperforming pitchers getting a big share and also Pedroia being sunken money. We also have Bogie, JDM and soon to be Betts big contracts along with JBJ's likely price. I would think the Sox should attempt to bring a planned salary structure in over a period of years and stick with it unless there are very strong reasons to deviate. The $208 million is by no means a small total budget and a good GM should be able to live within that number.

[jad]

From the get go, I have been against signing Mookie to a long term deal like you mentioned. If the Sox don't think that they can extend him before he hits free agency, then it makes all the sense in the world to trade him. I felt that way last year too, when we were all feeling really good about the team and didn't foresee this collapse. It just makes too much sense not to.

 

I know this won't go over too well, but frankly, I'm tired of Mookie's attitude about getting the most money in free agency. I know that baseball is a business, and he deserves it, and bla, bla, bla, but give me a Xander Bogaerts attitude any day of the week over a Mookie attitude.

 

Yeah,, players wanting to get money sucks. Let the owners have it instead.

[moonslav59]

Yeah,, players wanting to get money sucks. Let the owners have it instead.

 

It's okay for Henry, who is richer than God, to want to squeeze every penny to make a profit, but Mookie has attitude issues for wanting what he can make on the open market.

[dgalehouse]

Those darn greedy players are always trying to put the squeeze on the poor owners .

[moonslav59]

Those darn greedy players are always trying to put the squeeze on the poor owners .

 

Look what Oprah makes. Need I say more.

[notin]

Look what Oprah makes. Need I say more.

 

Yeah but what’s her batting average?

[moonslav59]

Yeah but what’s her batting average?

 

.178?

[Michigan adam]

.178?

 

Yeah but what is her CERA?