Jackie Bradley

[kenmeister]

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

 

 

So you have a 25 man roster (until the 26 comes). Of the 25, you have 9 starters in the lineup, 5 starting pitchers, and these days 6 relievers that all see a lot of work, for 20 more or less "full-time" players, and 5 "part-time" players. The luxury tax - which has effectively become a salary cap, is $208 million I think? I believe the best teams are the ones where that top 20 players are all very competent, so the financial reward should in theory be more spread around. If you have 6 stars all making $30 million a year, that's $180 of your salary. Way too concentrated. In other words, I don't think paying anyone $30 million per year is worth it.

 

Possible distribution:

5 best players @ 20 million per year = $100 million

5 good players @ 12 million per year = $60 million

5 average players @ 6 million per year = $30 million

5 young players @ 2 million per year = $10 million

5 part-time players @ 1 million per year = $5 million

Total: $205 million payroll.

 

Of course when you have young stars like Rafael Devers making the league minimum, it throws the above math off, freeing up more room to overpay veterans, but that feels like a bad strategy to have a handful of $30 million per year players and then the rest all making almost nothing in comparison.

[moonslav59]

So you have a 25 man roster (until the 26 comes). Of the 25, you have 9 starters in the lineup, 5 starting pitchers, and these days 6 relievers that all see a lot of work, for 20 more or less "full-time" players, and 5 "part-time" players. The luxury tax - which has effectively become a salary cap, is $208 million I think? I believe the best teams are the ones where that top 20 players are all very competent, so the financial reward should in theory be more spread around. If you have 6 stars all making $30 million a year, that's $180 of your salary. Way too concentrated. In other words, I don't think paying anyone $30 million per year is worth it.

 

Possible distribution:

5 best players @ 20 million per year = $100 million

5 good players @ 12 million per year = $60 million

5 average players @ 6 million per year = $30 million

5 young players @ 2 million per year = $10 million

5 part-time players @ 1 million per year = $5 million

Total: $205 million payroll.

 

Of course when you have young stars like Rafael Devers making the league minimum, it throws the above math off, freeing up more room to overpay veterans, but that feels like a bad strategy to have a handful of $30 million per year players and then the rest all making almost nothing in comparison.

 

I think we'll go over the luxury tax line after we reset, so it's not really a hard cap.

 

I understand the 1 man making 1/7th of your budget argument. I agree, it doesn't look right, but Betts is worth 7 average players and then some, IMO.

 

I won't be heart broken, if Betts bolts, and there are limits to high high I'd go, but I'd make him a fair offer. I'm confident Bloom will spend that $30M wisely, if not on Betts, so either way is okay with me.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Maybe baseball fans -- and even Red Sox fans, insulated in the Nation -- don't really fully realize the rare opportunity ahead of Betts. Based on Mookie's first six years of production, on the eve of his prime, we may just witness a free agent who is worth and actually earns one of the top contracts in baseball. His next half dozen seasons may turn out comparable to the best signings in history; maybe not Bonds or Maddux, but think Manny Ramirez, who accumulated 29.6 b-WAR in his first six Boston years at ages 29-34. Most would acknowledge Manny as the Sox' all-time big-money free agent signing, and in those first six years he averaged 4.9 WAR, which resulted in All-Star selections and AL MVP votes every season. Does anyone here think it's unreasonable to expect Mookie Betts -- who averaged 7 WAR for six years from ages 21-26 -- to earn at least 4.9 WAR for the next six?

 

The problem as I see it isn't whether Mookie will be worth the investment. For those worried about his body size, I previously listed recent Hall of Famers considered short of stature and their WAR through their prime years; Mookie is on target for at least comparable Hall of Fame production. One player that didn't sustain stardom through his prime -- and someone with whom Betts was compared early on -- is Andrew McCutcheon. Injuries were surely a factor, but we don't if his training and lifestyle habits were similar to Mookie's.

 

Here's the issue: Sox management has continually alluded to the uncertainty of whether Betts wants to stay in Boston. Henry yesterday said one of the factors is "where Mookie wants to play — for the long term." Not for how much... Such words seem consistent with Kennedy's from months past: "If Mookie wants to play here, we will pay him."

Unless the front office is posturing in negotiation-mode (and is prepared for their best offer to fall short of someone else's max bid) then this case may really be beyond their control. That's where Bloom's connections at all levels of the industry will make the best of the situation...

[moonslav59]

Just offer Mookie a fair and generous contract and let the chips fall where they may.

[Slasher9]

the FO is already trying to limit the blowback from the very much possible departure of one of the best players ever brought up thru the system. they need to hand him a blank contract and let him fill in the numbers.....

[oldtimer]

So you have a 25 man roster (until the 26 comes). Of the 25, you have 9 starters in the lineup, 5 starting pitchers, and these days 6 relievers that all see a lot of work, for 20 more or less "full-time" players, and 5 "part-time" players. The luxury tax - which has effectively become a salary cap, is $208 million I think? I believe the best teams are the ones where that top 20 players are all very competent, so the financial reward should in theory be more spread around. If you have 6 stars all making $30 million a year, that's $180 of your salary. Way too concentrated. In other words, I don't think paying anyone $30 million per year is worth it.

 

Possible distribution:

5 best players @ 20 million per year = $100 million

5 good players @ 12 million per year = $60 million

5 average players @ 6 million per year = $30 million

5 young players @ 2 million per year = $10 million

5 part-time players @ 1 million per year = $5 million

Total: $205 million payroll.

 

Of course when you have young stars like Rafael Devers making the league minimum, it throws the above math off, freeing up more room to overpay veterans, but that feels like a bad strategy to have a handful of $30 million per year players and then the rest all making almost nothing in comparison.

 

In reality, a first tier competitive balance tax of $208 mil means $208 Mil less about $15 mil for benefits and some amount for wiggle room needs to be left for mid season adjustments. If one choose $6 mil you really have $208 less $21 or $187 Mil for salaries and that has to include the 40 man roster over the 26 man. I agree for planning sakes that the team needs to decide on a heirachy of spending by position criticality. How that is done is part of the planning that FO needs to develop. To make this plan work, a number of low cost players need to be brought up through the conduit of the farm system on a yearly basis. Name a number (3, 4 or 5). Hard for a team in the upper echelon of competitiveness to develop enough farm to MLB's consistently to fill the need. Getting a few low cost FA's is an alternative.

 

The current Sox are in a bad position, with Pedey all but done and still on the books. They there are Price, Sale and Eovaldi all making big money and on long term contracts. Then Bogaerts at $20 Mil and JDM at $24 mil and Betts natuarally wanting to be paid according to his perceived value. It doesn't work and that is what Bloom is facing in his first year.

 

I can see the Sox going over the first tier, but not to be smewhat competitive. Bloom is facing tough decisions to return the payroll to a more sustainable amount while keeping the club competitive. Oakland and the Rays did it and on a much lower total salary basis.

[moonslav59]

the FO is already trying to limit the blowback from the very much possible departure of one of the best players ever brought up thru the system. they need to hand him a blank contract and let him fill in the numbers.....

 

I think we reset next year. We may deal Betts this winter or at the deadline, but I think Bloom will be allowed to go over the tax line in 2021- maybe even the second line and up to but not over the max line.

 

We can re-sign Betts or use his money plus the extra budget room to make some serious signings after 2020.

 

With some shrewd deals this winter, maybe the 2020 season won't be as bad as it might seem like it will be.

[oldtimer]

the FO is already trying to limit the blowback from the very much possible departure of one of the best players ever brought up thru the system. they need to hand him a blank contract and let him fill in the numbers.....

 

This isn't fast pitch softball where you can have one dominant player and still win. Eddie (the King) and his court don't work in MLBB.

[notin]

This isn't fast pitch softball where you can have one dominant player and still win. Eddie (the King) and his court don't work in MLBB.

 

Exactly.

 

Ted Williams (the actual best player ever to come up through the Sox farm) played for the team for 22 years and never won a title...

[Bellhorn04]

This isn't fast pitch softball where you can have one dominant player and still win. Eddie (the King) and his court don't work in MLBB.

 

Exactly.

 

Ted Williams (the actual best player ever to come up through the Sox farm) played for the team for 22 years and never won a title...

 

Very true, but 7-8 win players are still nice to have.

[moonslav59]

Baseball is not basketball. No one player can do it all.

 

It's one of the great things about the sport.

 

I hope nobody is saying Julio Lugo is better than Ted because he has a ring.

[notin]

Baseball is not basketball. No one player can do it all.

 

It's one of the great things about the sport.

 

I hope nobody is saying Julio Lugo is better than Ted because he has a ring.

 

If rings are any measure, than the two best players in the NBA in the 1990’s and 2000’s were Steve Kerr and Robert Horry. I think at least one of them appeared on like 12 straight NBA title teams.

 

(Clearly this was part of a fix, right moon?)

[moonslav59]

If rings are any measure, than the two best players in the NBA in the 1990’s and 2000’s were Steve Kerr and Robert Horry. I think at least one of them appeared on like 12 straight NBA title teams.

 

(Clearly this was part of a fix, right moon?)

 

It wasn't fixed back then.

[notin]

It wasn't fixed back then.

 

Really? Not fixed during the Jordan/Kobe years? But it is now? Based on what?

 

Actually I don’t need to know. I know it isn’t...

[moonslav59]

Really? Not fixed during the Jordan/Kobe years? But it is now? Based on what?

 

Actually I don’t need to know. I know it isn’t...

 

Maybe it was fixed back then, too. I think the draft lottery was (and still is?).

 

It's fixed, now.

[Swiharts Ghost]

He's gone .I will remember this player as the greatest CF in my lifetime .

[oldtimer]

Very true, but 7-8 win players are still nice to have.

 

Would you rather have onne 7 win guy and three 1 win guys or four 2.5 win guys? The 7 win guy, you may have to tie up your money for 10 years to sign him. Personally, the chance of declining performance due to injury is higher for one 7 win guy.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Would you rather have onne 7 win guy and three 1 win guys or four 2.5 win guys? The 7 win guy, you may have to tie up your money for 10 years to sign him. Personally, the chance of declining performance due to injury is higher for one 7 win guy.

 

Agreed that the latter is always a risk, but normal declines for the same players as they age often make it worth it; say the 7 guy declines to 5, and the other four to 1 each... As for tying up money, it's not that rich clubs can't afford the contracts, it's the taxes they want to avoid. Then again, the union contract is up soon and the MLB is due for changes. But teams are well aware that they reap the benefits of long-term signings at the front end and just have to accept some lost investment at the back end. In terms of value, for someone making 30 mil for 10 years, you may have to look at it like you're actually paying him 43.3 mil for the first 6, then 10 mil for the last 4.

[S5Dewey]

Hmmm... this business of being a GM is getting easier all the time. All one has to do is look at the WAR of players (by position) and go after them in order of WAR. Then sign the highest WAR you can get at each position. The biggest responsibility of the GM will be organizing the parade!

[Bellhorn04]

Hmmm... this business of being a GM is getting easier all the time. All one has to do is look at the WAR of players (by position) and go after them in order of WAR. Then sign the highest WAR you can get at each position. The biggest responsibility of the GM will be organizing the parade!

 

Yes, it would be very simple, except for the paying them all part.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'm old school, and distrustful of any stat the average fan can't calculate quickly with elementary math operations. However, I try not to go all Goose Gossage -- "get that WAR off my mound" -- because WAR has supplanted all those numbers we (and the game for about a century) grew up on. WAR is the go-to stat for the people who run the MLB, from analytics departments to media nominating and voting on award winners. But observers like us who watch or listen to virtually every Red Sox game of the season know statistics can never replace the eye-test. Betts and Martinez didn't deserve to be All-Stars over Devers this summer, and even though Mookie had the highest WAR, few would dispute that Boston's MVPs this season were Devers and Bogaerts.

[moonslav59]

I'm old school, and distrustful of any stat the average fan can't calculate quickly with elementary math operations. However, I try not to go all Goose Gossage -- "get that WAR off my mound" -- because WAR has supplanted all those numbers we (and the game for about a century) grew up on. WAR is the go-to stat for the people who run the MLB, from analytics departments to media nominating and voting on award winners. But observers like us who watch or listen to virtually every Red Sox game of the season know statistics can never replace the eye-test. Betts and Martinez didn't deserve to be All-Stars over Devers this summer, and even though Mookie had the highest WAR, few would dispute that Boston's MVPs this season were Devers and Bogaerts.

 

Mookie did not have a higher fWAR than Bogey, and his superior defense did make him slightly better than Devers in my eye test and in WAR.

 

fWAR

6.8 Bogey

6.6 Betts

5.9 Devers

3.5 Vaz

3.2 JD

2.0 Beni

1.4 JBJ

1.3 Holt

 

BWAR

6.8 Betts

5.3 Devers

5.2 Bogey

3.3 JD

2.2 Vaz

2.0 JBJ

1.7 Beni

1.3 Moreland

1.0 Holt

[notin]

I'm old school, and distrustful of any stat the average fan can't calculate quickly with elementary math operations. However, I try not to go all Goose Gossage -- "get that WAR off my mound" -- because WAR has supplanted all those numbers we (and the game for about a century) grew up on. WAR is the go-to stat for the people who run the MLB, from analytics departments to media nominating and voting on award winners. But observers like us who watch or listen to virtually every Red Sox game of the season know statistics can never replace the eye-test. Betts and Martinez didn't deserve to be All-Stars over Devers this summer, and even though Mookie had the highest WAR, few would dispute that Boston's MVPs this season were Devers and Bogaerts.

 

I would disagree that Betts was not the MVP of the Red Sox this past year. But what gets held against him is how he did vs expectations. Bogaerts and Devers greatly exceeded theirs at the plate. Mookie did not, in fact he took a step back. But even wth that regression, his OPS was still only .001 below Devers and .024 less than Bogaerts. Those differences, especially the one with Devers, are largely insignificant. Couple those negligible differences with the defense he brought, and he was easily their most valuable player. (Although, like with hitting, Devers exceeded his expected defensive play while Betts was held to a loftier standard)...

[Bellhorn04]

I would disagree that Betts was not the MVP of the Red Sox this past year. But what gets held against him is how he did vs expectations. Bogaerts and Devers greatly exceeded theirs at the plate. Mookie did not, in fact he took a step back. But even wth that regression, his OPS was still only .001 below Devers and .024 less than Bogaerts. Those differences, especially the one with Devers, are largely insignificant. Couple those negligible differences with the defense he brought, and he was easily their most valuable player. (Although, like with hitting, Devers exceeded his expected defensive play while Betts was held to a loftier standard)...

 

Interesting that fWAR gives Bogey the nod.

[notin]

Interesting that fWAR gives Bogey the nod.

 

Yes, by a slim margin of 0.2 fWAR. But then bWAR gives Betts a very significant advantage of 6.8 to 5.2. (Devers had 5.3 bWAR.)

 

I give the overall nod to Betts...

[notin]

Keon Broxton, a very good defensive/no hit CF, has elected free agency after being DFA'd, despite harmony's insistence he was a necessary bridge during the rebuild for Seattle and Boston would have to acquire him via trade...

[moonslav59]

Keon Broxton, a very good defensive/no hit CF, has elected free agency after being DFA'd, despite harmony's insistence he was a necessary bridge during the rebuild for Seattle and Boston would have to acquire him via trade...

 

I was going to bring this up, too.

 

UZR/150 over the last 3 years combined (1500+ innings in CF)

 

18.8 H Bader

13.0 B Buxton

11.4 Kiermaier

9.7 M Taylor

9.5 J Dyson

7.6 L Cain

6.9 Keon Broxton

5.3 M Margot

4.3 E Inciarte

4.1 JBJ

4.0 D DeShields

4.0 A Hicks

3.2 G Springer

2.8 K Pillar

[Slasher9]

Yes, by a slim margin of 0.2 fWAR. But then bWAR gives Betts a very significant advantage of 6.8 to 5.2. (Devers had 5.3 bWAR.)

.

 

this right here shows how flawed war is. not even debatable.

[notin]

this right here shows how flawed war is. not even debatable.

 

Why? They measure different contributions. That's like saying batting average is flawed because it's not the same as slugging percentage...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

My eye-tests weren't looking at WAR totals when deciding that Bogaerts and Devers were more valuable than Betts in 2019. I watched all the games, and Betts seldom sparked the offense as a leadoff or came through in the clutch when the Sox were still in it. He struck out a lot to lead off games, and popped up to right a lot with runners on base. I also read game threads on this site and another, and most posters agreed with this assessment. He also wasn't quite as sharp in the field during the first half, with some uncharacteristic miscommunications that were maybe endemic of a lack of hunger and focus that the whole club seemed to display. Mookie seemed to be better the last two months, when the Sox faded and the pressure was off.

 

Mookie Betts is my favorite player, I want him to be a Red Sox for his entire Hall of Fame career, and I think if he's allowed to go elsewhere it will turn out to be Boston's biggest regret since Bagwell. But Bogie and Rafie were the most consistent players all season, hitting and making plays more when it mattered.