Mookie Betts: Trade or Extend

[DontCallMeUncleRico]

One could argue Henry is greedier than Mookie.

 

Henry's a business man taking risk with his capital. Mookie's the one playing a kids game for millions of dollars.

[DontCallMeUncleRico]

And when your boss tells you you can live comfortably on 20K less per year than you get now, and therefore you can expect that as a pay cut, exactly how do you react?

 

HUGE difference between what I make and what Mookie makes. Terrible post.

[Larry33]

Owners has been throwing out millions of dollars for highly regarded Free Agents so there's nobody to blame but themselves they've created the mess and now they try to blame the player. I don't blame Mookie one bit get the most you can get to play the game it won't last forever there will always be fans everywhere you play and if you're good and lucky enough to make in HOF you'll be remembered as one of the great player by all the baseball world.

 

Mookie has his mind made up with his own market value set so it look like he ready to test the free agent market I don't think he'll be willing to sign without checking out what is out there first.

[jad]

HUGE difference between what I make and what Mookie makes. Terrible post.

 

That's an excellent response. Now, if you would please answer the simple question I asked: your boss notes that you can live comfortably on 20% less than you make now and thus gives you a salary cut. How do you react? (Your boss, of course, will keep that 20% to do ... whatever.)

[S5Dewey]

That's an excellent response. Now, if you would please answer the simple question I asked: your boss notes that you can live comfortably on 20% less than you make now and thus gives you a salary cut. How do you react? (Your boss, of course, will keep that 20% to do ... whatever.)

 

IMO this is a question none of us can answer because we can't relate to someone who's making $25/M/year.

 

I am fairly certain that if someone were making, say, $80,000/year with a family of four cutting that to $64K would hurt badly. It would cut into the ability to pay the mortgage and buy food, and it would certainly cut into 'available income', that money that's used for vacations, etc., as well as trips to Fenway Park. It would be a huge impact.

 

Now let's look at someone making $25M/Year and getting their income cut to $20M/year. They'd continue to eat as well as they did and could certainly still provide better than adequate housing for their family. In fact, they could probably have two or three 'adequate' homes spread throughout the world. That $5M reduction in play might make them choose between having a nice yacht or their own jet...but it's hard for me to work up much sympathy for that.

 

More than that, though, that $20M/year for even 5 years would allow them to invest a good portion of it so they'd never have to work again at the end of the contract and continue an opulent lifestyle. OTOH, the person making $64,000 is probably destined to work until he's at least 55 and more likely at least until he's reached the minimum age to collect Social Security and even then only if he's invested wisely. That's not to mention that 'investing wisely' when raising a family is a difficult thing to do while providing for that family.

 

What I've said doesn't begin to address Moon's point about the players wanting a bigger piece of the pie but it does address the original question of how would you feel if you got a 20% pay cut. We can't address that because we have no way of relating to someone who's 'cut' for one year amounts to more than most of us will make in a lifetime.

 

Edit- afterthought: It would be interesting to know what the average (or the mean) income for ticket buyers at Fenway Park is. Maybe that's why the players don't get a lot of sympathy when they want millions to play baseball.

Edited September 22, 2019 by S5Dewey

[jad]

IMO this is a question none of us can answer because we can't relate to someone who's making $25/M/year.

 

I am fairly certain that if someone were making, say, $80,000/year with a family of four cutting that to $64K would hurt badly. It would cut into the ability to pay the mortgage and buy food, and it would certainly cut into 'available income', that money that's used for vacations, etc., as well as trips to Fenway Park. It would be a huge impact.

 

Now let's look at someone making $25M/Year and getting their income cut to $20M/year. They'd continue to eat as well as they did and could certainly still provide better than adequate housing for their family. In fact, they could probably have two or three 'adequate' homes spread throughout the world. That $5M reduction in play might make them choose between having a nice yacht or their own jet...but it's hard for me to work up much sympathy for that.

 

More than that, though, that $20M/year for even 5 years would allow them to invest a good portion of it so they'd never have to work again at the end of the contract and continue an opulent lifestyle. OTOH, the person making $64,000 is probably destined to work until he's at least 55 and more likely at least until he's reached the minimum age to collect Social Security and even then only if he's invested wisely. That's not to mention that 'investing wisely' when raising a family is a difficult thing to do while providing for that family.

 

What I've said doesn't begin to address Moon's point about the players wanting a bigger piece of the pie but it does address the original question of how would you feel if you got a 20% pay cut. We can't address that because we have no way of relating to someone who's 'cut' for one year amounts to more than most of us will make in a lifetime.

 

Edit- afterthought: It would be interesting to know what the average (or the mean) income for ticket buyers at Fenway Park is. Maybe that's why the players don't get a lot of sympathy when they want millions to play baseball.

 

Well yes. But the issue is that players don't 'need' money (anymore than someone making 80K 'needs' every nickel of that). They view it as a statement of their value and worth. It takes a lot of introspection to disassociate those two things, and I doubt a 25-year-old multi-millionaire is in a position to do that. Additionally, that pay-cut (as the player and his agent well know) will not go to fans; it won't go to helping the hungry; and it won't go to dropping ticket prices. It will go into the owners' pockets or to other players.

 

And that's an interesting question on the income of ticket-buyers, and probably a difficult one to answer, since many season tickets go to corporations, and many (a majority?) of those that go to individuals end up resold. In any case, we know they aren't over-priced, since there are butts in the seats. It won't matter if Mookie (and all other players for that matter) gets 40million/year or plays for nothing; the ticket prices will remain the same.

Edited September 22, 2019 by jad

[notin]

One could argue Henry is greedier than Mookie.

 

All of MLB is a couple thousand people who fight over several billion dollars. They’re all greedy; that’s why CBA’s exist...

[notin]

IMO this is a question none of us can answer because we can't relate to someone who's making $25/M/year.

 

I am fairly certain that if someone were making, say, $80,000/year with a family of four cutting that to $64K would hurt badly. It would cut into the ability to pay the mortgage and buy food, and it would certainly cut into 'available income', that money that's used for vacations, etc., as well as trips to Fenway Park. It would be a huge impact.

 

Now let's look at someone making $25M/Year and getting their income cut to $20M/year. They'd continue to eat as well as they did and could certainly still provide better than adequate housing for their family. In fact, they could probably have two or three 'adequate' homes spread throughout the world. That $5M reduction in play might make them choose between having a nice yacht or their own jet...but it's hard for me to work up much sympathy for that.

 

More than that, though, that $20M/year for even 5 years would allow them to invest a good portion of it so they'd never have to work again at the end of the contract and continue an opulent lifestyle. OTOH, the person making $64,000 is probably destined to work until he's at least 55 and more likely at least until he's reached the minimum age to collect Social Security and even then only if he's invested wisely. That's not to mention that 'investing wisely' when raising a family is a difficult thing to do while providing for that family.

 

What I've said doesn't begin to address Moon's point about the players wanting a bigger piece of the pie but it does address the original question of how would you feel if you got a 20% pay cut. We can't address that because we have no way of relating to someone who's 'cut' for one year amounts to more than most of us will make in a lifetime.

 

Edit- afterthought: It would be interesting to know what the average (or the mean) income for ticket buyers at Fenway Park is. Maybe that's why the players don't get a lot of sympathy when they want millions to play baseball.

 

His entire point was not to tell other people what they do and don’t need financially.

 

Uncle Rico is accusing Mookie of being excessively greedy. They all are. Every owner. Every player. Every agent.

 

It’s just a big deal with Mookie because he’s good enough to actually get crazy levels of money. If, say, Mitch Moreland turned down a $200mill extension, we’d laugh and let him walk...

[notin]

HUGE difference between what I make and what Mookie makes. Terrible post.

 

It’s not even about the amount. Too many try the “if I did that at work” arguments. It’s a different world. Normies like us can’t compare our situations to MLB players, but by the same token, it isn’t right when we get judgmental of theirs...

[jad]

It’s not even about the amount. Too many try the “if I did that at work” arguments. It’s a different world. Normies like us can’t compare our situations to MLB players, but by the same token, it isn’t right when we get judgmental of theirs...

 

Agree. I really don't care what they make (I care more about what owners make, since they're the ones that extort money from the public in the form of tax breaks, etc.). But our attitudes toward money are curious: few of us (wage earners--I'll omit figures) think 'I have way way way more money than I need to live comfortably'. Instead, we think 'I need vacations, tuition for my kids, money for my business ventures, a new house, ...' i.e., our imagined 'needs' expand to align with our 'means', and we never have quite enough. I imagine the same psychology applies to those who make 100x more than we do.

[dgalehouse]

Fans have trouble identifying with players making millions and looking for more . I get it . What I don't get is why they side with the owners , who have so much money that they really don't even need this nonsense . But they continue to soak the fans . The fans take it and continue to ask questions like , " If we pay JBJ 10 million , what will that do to our budget ?" " Will it put us over the limit ? " Too funny .

[S5Dewey]

Agree. I really don't care what they make (I care more about what owners make, since they're the ones that extort money from the public in the form of tax breaks, etc.). But our attitudes toward money are curious: few of us (wage earners--I'll omit figures) think 'I have way way way more money than I need to live comfortably'. Instead, we think 'I need vacations, tuition for my kids, money for my business ventures, a new house, ...' i.e., our imagined 'needs' expand to align with our 'means', and we never have quite enough. I imagine the same psychology applies to those who make 100x more than we do.

 

Many years ago I read of a survey taken across the country regarding earnings. Almost every person surveyed said that they could be much better off and happier if they made 10% more than they already made.

[moonslav59]

Fans have trouble identifying with players making millions and looking for more . I get it . What I don't get is why they side with the owners , who have so much money that they really don't even need this nonsense . But they continue to soak the fans . The fans take it and continue to ask questions like , " If we pay JBJ 10 million , what will that do to our budget ?" " Will it put us over the limit ? " Too funny .

 

I say that all the time, but don't confuse that with siding with the owners. I'm just being realistic. The system is designed to allow the owners to make much more than the players, even the highest paid ones. It is what it is, and until Henry shows he doesn't care about a budget, I'm going to assume he does and post accordingly.

 

I'm always on the worker's & player's side.

[notin]

Fans have trouble identifying with players making millions and looking for more . I get it . What I don't get is why they side with the owners , who have so much money that they really don't even need this nonsense . But they continue to soak the fans . The fans take it and continue to ask questions like , " If we pay JBJ 10 million , what will that do to our budget ?" " Will it put us over the limit ? " Too funny .

 

Congrats, Denny. On your most clueless post ever!!! I didn’t think you could do it, you know, since the premise of posts like that have been explained to you only about a million f***ing times. But here you still are!!

[Swiharts Ghost]

Henry's a business man taking risk with his capital. Mookie's the one playing a kids game for millions of dollars.

 

Really well Said .

[moonslav59]

Really well Said .

 

Mookie is the one stuffing Henry's pockets with boatloads of cash while also driving the team's value up by tens of millions.

[dgalehouse]

Congrats, Denny. On your most clueless post ever!!! I didn’t think you could do it, you know, since the premise of posts like that have been explained to you only about a million f***ing times. But here you still are!!

Congrats , Notin . On your most insulting and obnoxious post ever . And that is saying something .

[notin]

Congrats , Notin . On your most insulting and obnoxious post ever . And that is saying something .

 

It is. Thank you. That means a lot coming from you.

 

After all, it seems like you stopped talking about baseball a while ago and instead decided to focus on the content of other people’s posts. Whether you’re using the Nerdwell’s to denigrate them, or commenting that they must want to save Henry’s money, or calling them an “idiot with an audience and a keyboard”, or telling them they’re not subjective.

 

When did it stop being about baseball to you?

[dgalehouse]

It is. Thank you. That means a lot coming from you.

 

After all, it seems like you stopped talking about baseball a while ago and instead decided to focus on the content of other people’s posts. Whether you’re using the Nerdwell’s to denigrate them, or commenting that they must want to save Henry’s money, or calling them an “idiot with an audience and a keyboard”, or telling them they’re not subjective.

 

When did it stop being about baseball to you?

 

It's all baseball related . And my comment about bums ( not idiots ) with an audience and a keyboard was about the writer , Wittenmeyer and his hit piece on Theo Epstein . No reason for you to take it personally , unless you are , in fact , Wittenmeyer . My preference for old school thinking conflicts with the trendy analytics of today . That is where the fictional Nerdwell brothers come in . Again , no need to take it personally . It's all in fun . I do find it amusing that fans are concerned about the owners exceeding their self imposed luxury tax . And one thing I have absolutely no doubt about is that objectivity is pretty much dead . I have no problem with you , or anyone , disagreeing with anything I say . But the " clueless " thing is insulting . And I really don't need or want to have anything " explained " to me . I have been around the block many times .

[notin]

It's all baseball related . And my comment about bums ( not idiots ) with an audience and a keyboard was about the writer , Wittenmeyer and his hit piece on Theo Epstein . No reason for you to take it personally , unless you are , in fact , Wittenmeyer . My preference for old school thinking conflicts with the trendy analytics of today . That is where the fictional Nerdwell brothers come in . Again , no need to take it personally . It's all in fun . I do find it amusing that fans are concerned about the owners exceeding their self imposed luxury tax . And one thing I have absolutely no doubt about is that objectivity is pretty much dead . I have no problem with you , or anyone , disagreeing with anything I say . But the " clueless " thing is insulting . And I really don't need or want to have anything " explained " to me . I have been around the block many times .

 

It’s tangentially related at best. For most of the season, it seems like your bigger concern is with Red Sox fans as opposed to Red Sox. You can say it’s all in fun all you want, but that doesn’t make any of it less true. Old school or new school is a matter of preference. But you spent the majority of the season in Poster Critic Mode, going so far as to say fans have no business talking about resets and WAR and other stats, and how fans like me are killing baseball. So should we all apologize to you for not liking the game the way you want us to?

 

If you don’t need anything explained to you, then I have no idea why you still get on people for “trying to save John Henry money.” Seriously. It’s a stupid comment. We all know how wealthy he is, but we also saw that the spending can and will stop at some point. Most of us did, anyway. Not sure why this was lost on you, or especially after two slow off-seasons followed by a slow trade deadline and a ton of stories about how DD was going fired and the spending was going to stop. Also the million or so posts in this board explaining that the spending does have limits. Did you miss those? Maybe you were out circling the block then?

[jad]

(OK. I admit defeat. I think I would have to spend the entire week reviewing older posts to understand the nuances of this argument. I'm not even certain of the topic. But my incisive opinion: Mookie is a very good baseball player; he deserves to make a lot of money; I don't know how much.)

[vegasbob]

I think we have some rancor in the clubhouse. Hope it doesn't lead to a fight in the showers, which can be slippery wen wet

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie is the one stuffing Henry's pockets with boatloads of cash while also driving the team's value up by tens of millions.

 

Neither Mookie nor Henry are the bad guys.

 

Not sure why we need someone to be the bad guy.

[Bellhorn04]

I think we have some rancor in the clubhouse.

 

Based on what?

[Slasher9]

i'm not sure how many people on here are fortunate enough to be wealthy or have friends/acquaintances that are. there are many traits that these individuals share but 1 stands out. it is very very hard to separate wealthy individuals from their money.

we have been blessed....BLESSED...with an owner that has been willing to spend...nay OVER spend...his money on player payroll. on top of the payroll he has paid an obscene amount of "tax" to MLB over the past few years for going over the LT threshold. he is basically giving his $$ away. dont kid yourself by thinking its Red Sox $$. its not. its john henry's money. if he decides he only wants a $100MM payroll...guess where that other $140MM goes? nowhere. it stays in John Henry's bank account. no doubt his wife gives him so much grief every year he "over spends" on a baseball team.

as for Mr. Betts. who can begrudge a man from trying to earn as much of these billionaires money as possible? the boston red sox make a TON of cash selling #50 jerseys and tshirts. they use his likeness and name in advertising. come see the MVP. if an owner is willing to give mookie a $430MM contract i cannot blame him 1 bit for taking it. and that is what he will end up signing for.

 

owners are 1%ers because they are cutthroat/shrewd/insanely intelligent businessman/woman. they dont get there by giving $$ away.

thank you John Henry for giving your $$ away and granting us 4 parades in the process. i honestly never thought i would see even 1 in my lifetime.

[moonslav59]

Neither Mookie nor Henry are the bad guys.

 

Not sure why we need someone to be the bad guy.

 

I wasn't trying to imply Henry is a bad guy, but I do know he'll walk away with a heck of a lot more money then Mookie, when all is said and done.

[Bellhorn04]

I wasn't trying to imply Henry is a bad guy, but I do know he'll walk away with a heck of a lot more money then Mookie, when all is said and done.

 

And my post wasn't really directed at you, it was just a general comment on the back and forth.

[jad]

...

 

owners are 1%ers because they are cutthroat/shrewd/insanely intelligent businessman/woman. they dont get there by giving $$ away.

thank you John Henry for giving your $$ away and granting us 4 parades in the process. i honestly never thought i would see even 1 in my lifetime.

 

I think we have plenty of evidence around us that "insanely intelligent" is not something that applies to 1%ers, or even that small sub-set of them who happen to own sports franchises.

[moonslav59]

And my post wasn't really directed at you, it was just a general comment on the back and forth.

 

I figured that's what you meant, but I wanted to highlight my support for Henry.

 

He's the best thing that ever happened to the Sox. There is no close second place.

[moonslav59]

I think we have plenty of evidence around us that "insanely intelligent" is not something that applies to 1%ers, or even that small sub-set of them who happen to own sports franchises.

 

Most of the insanely wealthy are insanely intelligent, at least in some area(s).

 

(Note: Trump is a pretender 1%'er.)