Jackie Bradley

[Swiharts Ghost]

Betts is the real deal. Letting him get away will be worse than letting Bagwell go. Much worse.

 

Maybe the most emotion I’ve seen out of Moon in the Mookie situation ...like the kids say “ s*** got real “ ...

[moonslav59]

Maybe the most emotion I’ve seen out of Moon in the Mookie situation ...like the kids say “ s*** got real “ ...

 

I've been on the sign Betts band wagon a long time.

 

If Betts was going to be 32 when we sign him, I'd be signing another tune, but when you can get maybe half the years of a deal in prime and a couple more near prime, I'm okay with a couple bad years at the end.

 

I know, some will say, wait 7-8 years and say that, and I get that point of view, but this is Mookie freakin' Betts we're talking about!

 

Here's a look at the best WAR seasons by a Sox player since 1972, which is when I became a Sox fan:

10.4 Betts 2018

9.5 Ellsbury '11

8.9 Boggs '87

8.8 Boggs '85

8.6 Boggs '88

8.6 Lynn '79

8.3 Boggs '89

8.3 Betts '16

8.2 Valentin '95

7.9 Pedey '11

...

20. Betts 6.6 in 2019

 

(Go back to 1967:

11.1 Yaz '67

10.4 Betts '18

9.6 Petrocelli '69 (WOW! Rico better than any year by Boggs!)

9.5 Ellsbury '11

9.3 Yaz '68

8.9 Boggs '87

8.9 Yaz '70

 

Bogey's best? 6.8

Dewey's 6.6

Beltre's 6.4

Papi's 6.3

Mo's 6.3

Youk's & AGon's 6.2

JD's & Devers's 5.9

Manny's 5.8

(Bett's also had a 5.3 in 2017.)

Edited October 25, 2019 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

2016-2019 WAR

 

34.9 Trout

 

30.7 Betts (Mookie is closer to Trout than Yelich)

 

25.4 Yelich

24.2 Rendon

23.2 Lindor

22.8 Altuve

22.6 J Ramirez

22.4 Arenado

21.7 Bryant

20.5 Bregman

19.8 Freeman

19.7 Y Grandal

19.7 Bogaerts

 

Other notables:

17. Machado 18.1

19. Judge 17.8

25. Harper 15.6

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

More Mookie (I've revised the numbers and corrected some of my math) from Baseball-Reference: Betts averaged 7 WAR for his first six seasons at ages 21-26 (including 2.3 in only 52 games at age 21) for a total of 42. If he averages 4.6 WAR for the next six seasons for ages 27-32 -- in what is considered a ballplayer's prime -- Mookie will accumulate 27.6 WAR and have a career total of 69.6. For comparison, here are the top three Red Sox products of the expansion era, with their WAR averages and totals for ages 27-32: Yaz avg. 7.45 x 6 = 44.7; Boggs avg. 7.55 x 6 = 45.3; Fisk avg. 4.2 x 6 = 25.2. All three earned a lot more WAR after that for many more years en route to the Hall of Fame. After age 32, Yaz played 11 more years, Boggs played 9 more, Fisk played 13 more.

 

Baseball-Reference lists the following WAR averages for HOF outfielders: LF 65.5, CF 71.1, RF 71.5... if Mookie Betts averages 4.6 WAR for ages 27-32 he will have 69.6. He will already be worthy of a bronze plaque; a status that took his esteemed predecessors an entire decade more of playing time to achieve...

[notin]

Betts is the real deal. Letting him get away will be worse than letting Bagwell go. Much worse.

 

I disagree.

 

At least the Sox will have gotten 5 or 6 great years from Betts. All they got from having Bagwell was a mediocre middle reliever...

[kenmeister]

I've been on the sign Betts band wagon a long time.

 

If Betts was going to be 32 when we sign him, I'd be signing another tune, but when you can get maybe half the years of a deal in prime and a couple more near prime, I'm okay with a couple bad years at the end.

 

I know, some will say, wait 7-8 years and say that, and I get that point of view, but this is Mookie freakin' Betts we're talking about!

 

Here's a look at the best WAR seasons by a Sox player since 1972, which is when I became a Sox fan:

10.4 Betts 2018

9.5 Ellsbury '11

8.9 Boggs '87

8.8 Boggs '85

8.6 Boggs '88

8.6 Lynn '79

8.3 Boggs '89

8.3 Betts '16

8.2 Valentin '95

7.9 Pedey '11

...

20. Betts 6.6 in 2019

 

(Go back to 1967:

11.1 Yaz '67

10.4 Betts '18

9.6 Petrocelli '69

9.5 Ellsbury '11

9.3 Yaz '68

8.9 Boogs '87

8.9 Yaz '70

 

Bogey's best? 6.8

Dewey's 6.6

Beltre's 6.4

Papi's 6.3

Mo's 6.3

Youk's & AGon's 6.2

JD's & Devers's 5.9

Manny's 5.8

(Bett's also had a 5.3 in 2017.)

 

Very cool research. Think about how much money Ellsbury made for himself due to that one season ...

[moonslav59]

I disagree.

 

At least the Sox will have gotten 5 or 6 great years from Betts. All they got from having Bagwell was a mediocre middle reliever...

 

My point was about NOT letting Bagwell go and Not letting Betts go, either.

 

With the lousy comp pick we might get for Betts, we'll be lucky to get a decent RP'er.

[OH FOY]

Relax, everybody speculating. Everything starts with JD's decision.

[notin]

My point was about NOT letting Bagwell go and Not letting Betts go, either.

 

With the lousy comp pick we might get for Betts, we'll be lucky to get a decent RP'er.

 

And a trade of Betts might yield a lot more than Larry Anderson...

[moonslav59]

And a trade of Betts might yield a lot more than Larry Anderson...

 

I would hope so.

 

The comps are not really that good, since Bags was traded as a prospect and Betts is proven and making $28M+.

[moonslav59]

Relax, everybody speculating. Everything starts with JD's decision.

 

And, the team's JD decision, if he decides to stay.

[jacksonianmarch]

Teams need to tender players far sooner than before as well. It used to be December, but I think it is sometime in November this year. The problem in years past was the market was already down by the time the non tenders hit the market, so they wanted them to join the FA frenzy

[Kimmi]

I guess Betts could get run over by Machado, too.

 

Note: Pedey will turn 38 right as his contract runs out. If we signed Betts to 10 years right now, he will have turned 37 just as his contract expires. If we sign him after next year as a free agent, he'll be the same age as Pedey after his 10 year deal expires.

 

Here's some major differences, though.

 

Pedey signed an 8 year deal, so his contract years run from age 31 to 38- virtually all the but maybe 2-3 years are post prime.

If Betts signs a 10 year deal at 2 years younger than Pedey was when he signed his deal, he'll have all but 4-5 years post prime. That's huge.

 

Pedey's OPS before the signing:

.861 2011

.797 2012

.787 2013 (signed extension 7/24/13)

 

Betts's OPS before signing:

1.078 2018

.915 2019

____ 2020?

 

Pedey plays a more physically demanding position (2B) than Betts (RF).

 

People claim speed does not age well, but power does. Betts has way more power than Pedey ever had. Pedey never had a SLG% above .493. Betts has been at .535 the last 4 years combined and .578 the last 2 years.

 

I think Betts will be highly productive at ages 29, 30, 31,32.

I think he will be productive at ages 33, 34 and maybe 35

He might be okay, but below his pay value at ages 36, 37 & 38. (How much below might be the biggest worry.)

 

6 or 7 good years and maybe 3-4 not worth the money years.

 

Yes, it will suck, if he gets hurt or declines sharply at an early age, but this is the guy I'd break the guidelines for.

 

I am aware of the differences between the two players. A 10 year contract to any player is just crazy, I don't care how good he is.

 

Eventually, the contract will become an albatross. Might it only be the last 3 years? Maybe, maybe not. But when it does become one, it will put the Sox in a similar situation to what we're dealing with now with Pedroia.

[Kimmi]

I am aware of the differences between the two players. A 10 year contract to any player is just crazy, I don't care how good he is.

 

Eventually, the contract will become an albatross. Might it only be the last 3 years? Maybe, maybe not. But when it does become one, it will put the Sox in a similar situation to what we're dealing with now with Pedroia.

 

Also, I was fully on board with Pedroia's extension at the time it happened, mostly because Pedroia gave the team a discount (which Mookie will not do), and I thought it was a good deal. I have now changed my mind about it. Eight years for Pedroia was stupid, despite the discounted AAV.

 

Give a shorter term contract with a higher AAV rather than the other way around.

[moonslav59]

I am aware of the differences between the two players. A 10 year contract to any player is just crazy, I don't care how good he is.

 

Eventually, the contract will become an albatross. Might it only be the last 3 years? Maybe, maybe not. But when it does become one, it will put the Sox in a similar situation to what we're dealing with now with Pedroia.

 

Would a 10 year deal to a 23 year old be okay?

[Kimmi]

Would a 10 year deal to a 23 year old be okay?

 

I wouldn't do it.

[Bellhorn04]

Frankly, teams shouldn't be giving 10 year deals to anyone. But someone will always be willing to do it, as we saw with Harper and Machado.

[moonslav59]

I am aware of the differences between the two players. A 10 year contract to any player is just crazy, I don't care how good he is.

 

Eventually, the contract will become an albatross. Might it only be the last 3 years? Maybe, maybe not. But when it does become one, it will put the Sox in a similar situation to what we're dealing with now with Pedroia.

 

It's a trade-off.

 

We expected more good years from Pedey, and had he not got hurt, maybe they would have off set his final 2 years.

 

It is a big gamble, but getting 2 more prime years on the front end for Betts makes the gamble worth it.

 

Take the Price deal. Would it look so bad had we gotten the 2 years before he came here added to his deal? Sure, it might still look bad, but clearly not as bad.

Year 1: 3.11 ERA in 171 IP

Year 2: 2.45 in 221 IP.

 

Take the Pedroia deal: what if he signed it 2 years earlier. It would be over right now and we'd have this instead:

2012: 4.3 WAR

2013: 4.9 WAR

Hell, I'd almost take Pedey on a 10 year deal with those two years added and the final two still to come.

 

Even the Pablo and HRam deals would look much better, if we signed them 2 years earlier and they put up the same numbers with us. They might still look bad, but not horrible.

 

Betts is still young. He's got a lot of prime still left to go. Losing him for the meat of his prime would be a shame.

[Kimmi]

Frankly, teams shouldn't be giving 10 year deals to anyone. But someone will always be willing to do it, as we saw with Harper and Machado.

 

Amen, brother Bell.

[Kimmi]

It's a trade-off.

 

We expected more good years from Pedey, and had he not got hurt, maybe they would have off set his final 2 years.

 

It is a big gamble, but getting 2 more prime years on the front end for Betts makes the gamble worth it.

 

Take the Price deal. Would it look so bad had we gotten the 2 years before he came here added to his deal? Sure, it might still look bad, but clearly not as bad.

Year 1: 3.11 ERA in 171 IP

Year 2: 2.45 in 221 IP.

 

Take the Pedroia deal: what if he signed it 2 years earlier. It would be over right now and we'd have this instead:

2012: 4.3 WAR

2013: 4.9 WAR

Hell, I'd almost take Pedey on a 10 year deal with those two years added and the final two still to come.

 

Even the Pablo and HRam deals would look much better, if we signed them 2 years earlier and they put up the same numbers with us. They might still look bad, but not horrible.

 

Betts is still young. He's got a lot of prime still left to go. Losing him for the meat of his prime would be a shame.

 

Yes, it will be tough to lose Mookie. But the money saved from not signing him will go a long way in replacing his production.

 

I understand how good Mookie is. I understand that he is still relatively young. I still don't think it's a good idea to give a 10 year contract.

[moonslav59]

Yes, it will be tough to lose Mookie. But the money saved from not signing him will go a long way in replacing his production.

 

I understand how good Mookie is. I understand that he is still relatively young. I still don't think it's a good idea to give a 10 year contract.

 

I can understand your position, and the history of long contracts is pretty bad, especially how they end.

 

I just think Mookie is special. I'd rather get him for less years, and I think he's probably worth $45M x 4 years, then $25M x 2 and maybe $10M x 4, so $300M/10 looks about right to me.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I can understand your position, and the history of long contracts is pretty bad, especially how they end.

 

I just think Mookie is special. I'd rather get him for less years, and I think he's probably worth $45M x 4 years, then $25M x 2 and maybe $10M x 4, so $300M/10 looks about right to me.

 

Those are reasonable incremental evaluations (based on estimates of contributions on the field, I assume, with peaks at the front and decline at the end of the contract). Let's say Betts' production is worth top of the pay-scale the next four years, with a few top-fives in WAR and MVP voting; if any of those campaigns result in another world title, I wonder how much additional off-field value can be factored in as the face -- and back (sales of #50 uniforms and t-shirts) -- of the franchise?

[Bellhorn04]

I can understand your position, and the history of long contracts is pretty bad, especially how they end.

 

I just think Mookie is special. I'd rather get him for less years, and I think he's probably worth $45M x 4 years, then $25M x 2 and maybe $10M x 4, so $300M/10 looks about right to me.

 

I would consider the bells and whistles approach. Front-loaded and with an opt-out.

[moonslav59]

I would consider the bells and whistles approach. Front-loaded and with an opt-out.

 

I'm for just about anything it takes to keep him here, unless some clown GM offers him the world.

 

Let's see what Cole gets, this winter.

[moonslav59]

Those are reasonable incremental evaluations (based on estimates of contributions on the field, I assume, with peaks at the front and decline at the end of the contract). Let's say Betts' production is worth top of the pay-scale the next four years, with a few top-fives in WAR and MVP voting; if any of those campaigns result in another world title, I wonder how much additional off-field value can be factored in as the face -- and back (sales of #50 uniforms and t-shirts) -- of the franchise?

 

If he has a great 6 years then declines quickly, he may still be a draw at the gate and TV.

[kenmeister]

I can understand your position, and the history of long contracts is pretty bad, especially how they end.

 

I just think Mookie is special. I'd rather get him for less years, and I think he's probably worth $45M x 4 years, then $25M x 2 and maybe $10M x 4, so $300M/10 looks about right to me.

 

I just don't rate him as highly as you do. I think 2018 was an outlier.

[moonslav59]

I just don't rate him as highly as you do. I think 2018 was an outlier.

 

I can see that position as being reasonable, but obviously I disagree. Here's why:

 

1) Betts does not ever have to repeat 2018 to be worth $300M/10.

 

2) 2018 was his best season, but he's had a season pretty close and 3 other seasons of high productivity:

BWAR (Year) fWAR

10.9 (2018) 10.4

9.7 (2016) 8.3

6.8 (2019) 6.6

6.4 (2017) 5.3

5.9 (2015) 4.8

 

3) He just turned 27. He likely has 5-6 prime years left and 2-3 near prime years.

 

If Betts puts up these WAR numbers in the next 10 years, would you say he's worth $300M/10?

 

7 '19 (age 27)

8 '20 (28)

7 '21 (29)

7 '22 (30)

6 '23 (31)

5 '24 (32)

4 '25 (33)

4 '26 (34)

3 '27 (35)

3 '28 (36)

 

Amount of players in MLB over the last 10 years with the above WAR totals at the ages listed:

 

Ages:

 

35-36: 33 @ 3.0+ (36 at 2.9 or better) 3-4 per year

 

33-34: 32 @ 4.0+ (34 at 3.8 or better) 3-4 per year

(Look at some of the names on this list and tell me Betts isn't as good or better)

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=33,34&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=&page=1_50

 

31-32: 33 @ 6.0+ and 44 @ 5+ WAR

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=31,32&filter=&players=0&startdate=&enddate=&page=1_50

 

[kenmeister]

Sometimes I don't get WAR. Last year, Mookie had a 6.8 WAR, Xander had a 5.2 WAR, and Rafael had 5.3 WAR. From following the team I would have thought Betts was the least of the three. Was it defense that made the difference?

[Bellhorn04]

Sometimes I don't get WAR. Last year, Mookie had a 6.8 WAR, Xander had a 5.2 WAR, and Rafael had 5.3 WAR. From following the team I would have thought Betts was the least of the three. Was it defense that made the difference?

 

Yes, the main difference was defense.

 

Xander and Devers did both have higher offensive WAR's than Mookie.

[moonslav59]

Yes, the main difference was defense.

 

Xander and Devers did both have higher offensive WAR's than Mookie.

 

...and the defense isn't even close, despite some improvement on D from Devers and steady D by Bogey.