Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

[Swiharts Ghost]

No question at this stage Mookie is the better player slightly more power more RBI slightly better fielder .Andrew was one hell of a player he was an outstanding CF who hit for power and had speed on bases .Andrew was a perennial MVP candidate for a 5 year period .I don’t have many comps of players like Mookie he’s a Unicorn .With this said I am not willing to go 10 years on Mookie for 300 plus .I just have to look at the odds that an injury or just a decline will make the contract horrible in about 4 years .if we can have opt outs for the team after year 3 ? I’m all in .

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

 

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

 

Here are cumulative bWAR scores for their entire Boston tenures (with ages in parenthesis): Betts 42.0 (21-26), Nomar 41.2 (24-29), Lynn 32.1 (22-28). So Mookie has already been at least as valuable, before two or three years of his prime have even kicked in.

 

I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter.

 

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

 

Why not us?

[Bellhorn04]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

 

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

 

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

 

Why not us?

 

You left out the Hall of Famers, Rice and Boggs.

 

And I don't think Mookie's going to surpass Trout's deal.

[Bellhorn04]

No question at this stage Mookie is the better player slightly more power more RBI slightly better fielder .Andrew was one hell of a player he was an outstanding CF who hit for power and had speed on bases .Andrew was a perennial MVP candidate for a 5 year period .I don’t have many comps of players like Mookie he’s a Unicorn .With this said I am not willing to go 10 years on Mookie for 300 plus .I just have to look at the odds that an injury or just a decline will make the contract horrible in about 4 years .if we can have opt outs for the team after year 3 ? I’m all in .

 

Team options? Forget it. Player options would be much more likely.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

You left out the Hall of Famers, Rice and Boggs.

 

And I don't think Mookie's going to surpass Trout's deal.

 

Betts is a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs, and on a path to Cooperstown, as well. Mookie might not get the total that Trout signed for -- 12 years for $430 -- but I think he'll get a higher AAV (my launchpad calculator tells me Trout's is $35.83 per year).

 

If Mookie produces another 7 WAR in his salary-drive 2020, someone is bound to give him at least another $4.17 mil...

[moonslav59]

Here are some numbers for ages 23-26:

 

Betts

.305 116 375 in 2762 PAs (.382 OBP/.535 SLG/ .917 OPS) Great defense

Yaz

.299 65 287 in 2565 PAs (.389/.471/.860) Great defense

Boggs

.344 16 173 in 1792 PAs (.421/.448/.869) Called up at 24.

Lynn

.301 71 328 in 2362 PAs (.370/.494/.864) Great defense

Rice

.311 149 468 in 2768 PAs (.362/.570/.932) Had a better yr at 22 than 23

Nomar

.337 113 420 in 2580 PAs (.386/.577/.963) Over rated on D

 

Now, look at their next 10 years:

OPS/ PAs

.883/ 6609 Boggs

.874/ 6459 Yaz

.852/ 4881 Lynn

.825/ 3443 Nomar

.819/ 5602 Rice

Edited November 10, 2019 by moonslav59

[Swiharts Ghost]

I don’t know what to think .I don’t think Mookie excepts anything under 300 and really why would he ? I just want to win Rings .

[moonslav59]

Betts is a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs, and on a path to Cooperstown, as well. Mookie might not get the total that Trout signed for -- 12 years for $430 -- but I think he'll get a higher AAV (my launchpad calculator tells me Trout's is $35.83 per year).

 

If Mookie produces another 7 WAR in his salary-drive 2020, someone is bound to give him at least another $4.17 mil...

 

Yess, but leaving out Boggs, leaves out one of the best examples of a Sox player who put up great numbers for 10 years after age 26. I think that was the point.

 

Using Nomar and Rice, two guys that faded quickly as they aged is just one side of the debate. (Although Rice had a great OPS after 26, he did not play as long as the others and faded quickly towards the end.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Yess, but leaving out Boggs, leaves out one of the best examples of a Sox player who put up great numbers for 10 years after age 26. I think that was the point.

 

Using Nomar and Rice, two guys that faded quickly as they aged is just one side of the debate. (Although Rice had a great OPS after 26, he did not play as long as the others and faded quickly towards the end.)

 

Boggs was my favorite player to watch during his days with Boston, with his unwavering, methodical approach to hitting, fouling off borderline pitches then literally placing line drives all over the place. He played in an era when everyone touted Rickey Henderson as the greatest leadoff batter of all time, but I'd argue Boggs was better -- at least at the leadoff man's first job: getting on base. Rickey could steal and hit jump-start HRs, but the percentages all favor the Chicken Man...

 

1982-92, Boggs' 11-years as a Red Sox: .338 batting average, with a slash of .428/.462/.890... Wade's 18 year career (retired at 41): .328, .415/.443/.858

1982-92 RHenderson, in Oakland & NY: .288 batting average, with a slash of .406/.452/.858... Rickey's 25 year career (retired at 44): .279, .401/.419/.820

 

Boggs was 6-2, 190 -- a lot bigger than Betts, who skeptics predict will break down because of his size and reliance on speed (and therefore never earn a longterm contract).

But Henderson was 5-10 -- a whopping inch taller than Betts -- with both listed at 180 pounds. And Rickey ran right into his 40s, with 25 SBs at age 42...

[Sox75]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

 

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

 

Here are cumulative bWAR scores for their entire Boston tenures (with ages in parenthesis): Betts 42.0 (21-26), Nomar 41.2 (24-29), Lynn 32.1 (22-28). So Mookie has already been at least as valuable, before two or three years of his prime have even kicked in.

 

I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter.

 

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

 

Why not us?

 

"I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter."

 

Yes!

[moonslav59]

"I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter."

 

Yes!

 

So, is giving him $40M x 6 better than $30M x 10?

 

The difference is $60M/4. Are you saying you wouldn't want Betts at $15M a year for 4 years from ages 33-36? (Looking at inflation and rising player costs, my guess is the $300M/10 will turn out better.

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie isn't going to take a 6 year deal. If you want to give him more flexibility you have to give him an opt-out.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So, is giving him $40M x 6 better than $30M x 10?

 

The difference is $60M/4. Are you saying you wouldn't want Betts at $15M a year for 4 years from ages 33-36? (Looking at inflation and rising player costs, my guess is the $300M/10 will turn out better.

 

I'm looking at it a couple of ways. From the Sox (and Sox fans) standpoint, having Mookie through his prime (28-33) is more important, and maybe more preferable, than committing to 10 years.

 

From Betts' viewpoint, he could then become a free agent again, land another huge contract, and maybe retire somewhere warmer and closer to his roots. Of course I'd want Boston to re-sign him again, since I expect him to thrive and produce throughout his career... but another 30 for 4 or 5 more years (34-37 or 38) would be in play.

 

With two big future paydays instead of one, Mookie stands to make over $400 million...

[moonslav59]

I'm looking at it a couple of ways. From the Sox (and Sox fans) standpoint, having Mookie through his prime (28-33) is more important, and maybe more preferable, than committing to 10 years.

 

From Betts' viewpoint, he could then become a free agent again, land another huge contract, and maybe retire somewhere warmer and closer to his roots. Of course I'd want Boston to re-sign him again, since I expect him to thrive and produce throughout his career... but another 30 for 4 or 5 more years (34-37 or 38) would be in play.

 

With two big future paydays instead of one, Mookie stands to make over $400 million...

 

I get why Mookie would like it, but if he wants $300M/10 or even $320M/10, and I was prepared to give $240M/6, I'd do it.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I get why Mookie would like it, but if he wants $300M/10 or even $320M/10, and I was prepared to give $240M/6, I'd do it.

 

Of course I would, too. But since Mookie has always bet on himself -- from the time he wouldn't budge as a draft pick and the Sox caved to his demands at the signing deadline -- the shorter years at bigger AAV could maybe take the place of Bell's suggested opt-out (which technically would be when his next contract runs out).

 

Although if the Betts camp insists on an opt-out, which is understandable with union labor negotiations looming, it would still be worth it to get another three or four Mookie years guaranteed (especially at prime ages 29,30,31). However, no more annual player option deals like JD's, please...

[moonslav59]

Of course I would, too. But since Mookie has always bet on himself -- from the time he wouldn't budge as a draft pick and the Sox caved to his demands at the signing deadline -- the shorter years at bigger AAV could maybe take the place of Bell's suggested opt-out (which technically would be when his next contract runs out).

 

Although if the Betts camp insists on an opt-out, which is understandable with union labor negotiations looming, it would still be worth it to get another three or four Mookie years guaranteed (especially at prime ages 29,30,31). However, no more annual player option deals like JD's, please...

 

My point was more directed at fans who would give $240M/6 but let him walk over $320M/10. If none are out there, I apologize for creating a strawman.

[redsoxrules]

Boggs was my favorite player to watch during his days with Boston, with his unwavering, methodical approach to hitting, fouling off borderline pitches then literally placing line drives all over the place. He played in an era when everyone touted Rickey Henderson as the greatest leadoff batter of all time, but I'd argue Boggs was better -- at least at the leadoff man's first job: getting on base. Rickey could steal and hit jump-start HRs, but the percentages all favor the Chicken Man...

 

1982-92, Boggs' 11-years as a Red Sox: .338 batting average, with a slash of .428/.462/.890... Wade's 18 year career (retired at 41): .328, .415/.443/.858

1982-92 RHenderson, in Oakland & NY: .288 batting average, with a slash of .406/.452/.858... Rickey's 25 year career (retired at 44): .279, .401/.419/.820

 

Boggs was 6-2, 190 -- a lot bigger than Betts, who skeptics predict will break down because of his size and reliance on speed (and therefore never earn a longterm contract).

But Henderson was 5-10 -- a whopping inch taller than Betts -- with both listed at 180 pounds. And Rickey ran right into his 40s, with 25 SBs at age 42...

 

Betts ain't no Rickey Henderson. And also, Rickey slowed down as soon as he hit 30. I mean yeah he stil stole quite a few bases after 30 but not near what he did under 30.

A lot of Betts value is based on his speed ( defense , base running ). Once betts hits 30 he's already going to decline.

 

He's my favorite current sox but no way I give him a 400 Million contracts. He wasn't even the best Sox this year. I'm sorry but if you want a 400 million contract you best be the team's best player every year on his team like trout is.

[moonslav59]

Betts ain't no Rickey Henderson. And also, Rickey slowed down as soon as he hit 30. I mean yeah he stil stole quite a few bases after 30 but not near what he did under 30.

A lot of Betts value is based on his speed ( defense , base running ). Once betts hits 30 he's already going to decline.

 

He's my favorite current sox but no way I give him a 400 Million contracts. He wasn't even the best Sox this year. I'm sorry but if you want a 400 million contract you best be the team's best player every year on his team like trout is.

 

Bets dipped and Bogey soared, but one could argue Betts, with his superior defense, was still the best on the team.

 

I won't argue with anyone who says Bogey was better, but I also won't hold that against Betts.

 

I don't think anyone gives him $400M, even if it's for 15 years. My guess is he gets something between $320/10 and $350/10. I'm not sure who will offer that or more.

 

[Larry Cook]

Any team that signs betts to a long term nine figure deal is nuts. Welcome to Pedroia part 2.

 

Betts is entering his walk year. He has massive motivation to have a monster year.

 

We need to put him in the lead off spot and let him tee off on opposing pitchers, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of a resurgent Martinez.

 

At the end of the year, we let Betts walk. He wants to play for Atlanta, so let them worry about Betts when he breaks down in year 5 or 6.

[moonslav59]

Any team that signs betts to a long term nine figure deal is nuts. Welcome to Pedroia part 2.

 

Betts is entering his walk year. He has massive motivation to have a monster year.

 

We need to put him in the lead off spot and let him tee off on opposing pitchers, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of a resurgent Martinez.

 

At the end of the year, we let Betts walk. He wants to play for Atlanta, so let them worry about Betts when he breaks down in year 5 or 6.

 

You seem pretty sure of that breakdown, and I'm not saying there's no significant chance of a steep decline, but to me, Betts will earn his 10 year contract in his first 6-7 years of the deal. Yes, it would suck, if he was horrible the last 3-4 years, but I'd still sign they guy longterm.

 

I think the plan will be to hover around the tgax line until July (No JBJ & Leon, at least at their arb rates), then we'll decide to keep Betts and make a playoff push- perhaps going over the tax line to do it, or trade Betts and maybe others to improve the rebuild chances and quicken the turn around. (Personally, I'd still make him a hefty offer as a FA- maybe $320/10.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

An MLB.com writer proposed some rather underwhelming trade proposals of Betts to the Mets: Nimmo and Matz? Diaz and Smith? What, you want someone with star potential... how about McNeil -- but we'd need Betts and Eovaldi.

 

Pass, pass, pass. He finally came up with a one-for-one: Betts for Thor.

 

That's getting warmer, but still not worth it to me for one of the game's top five players (plus, isn't there some kind of new GM rule advising against ever trading an All-Star position player for a pitcher straight up?). Syndergaard is good, but is coming off a season where he led the NL in earned runs allowed. As I've said from the beginning of the offseason, I wouldn't consider moving Mookie unless I was overpaid... McNeil and Thor?

 

Bloom and the Sox are smart enough to listen to all offers, but also to wait them all out unless an overwhelming, publically-perceived win looks guaranteed.

[notin]

Betts ain't no Rickey Henderson. And also, Rickey slowed down as soon as he hit 30. I mean yeah he stil stole quite a few bases after 30 but not near what he did under 30.

A lot of Betts value is based on his speed ( defense , base running ). Once betts hits 30 he's already going to decline.

 

He's my favorite current sox but no way I give him a 400 Million contracts. He wasn't even the best Sox this year. I'm sorry but if you want a 400 million contract you best be the team's best player every year on his team like trout is.

 

Well, Rickey did steal 535 bases after age 30. That total alone would be ranked 31st on the All Time list.

 

But more important, after age 30, Henderson still had a career OBP of .403 and an OPS of .811...

[jad]

Well, Rickey did steal 535 bases after age 30. That total alone would be ranked 31st on the All Time list.

 

But more important, after age 30, Henderson still had a career OBP of .403 and an OPS of .811...

 

Stop trying to introduce facts to the argument! What's important is the courage of one's convictions, passion!, one's refusal to submit or yield (wait ... that's quoting Milton's Satan ...)

[notin]

MLBTR has an article about how the Padres [plan to package a few prospects for an upgrade to the MLB roster. And they really do have to do it, since they risk losing some during the Rule 5 draft.

 

This is a trade scenario that screams "Betts to San Diego!!!" loud enough to be hard at both poles simultaneously....

[notin]

Stop trying to introduce facts to the argument! What's important is the courage of one's convictions, passion!, one's refusal to submit or yield (wait ... that's quoting Milton's Satan ...)

 

Do we allow literary references?

[Slasher9]

rickey was a guaranteed PED user. no doubt about it. you cannot use his "longevity" as a comp to a player that is tested.

[notin]

rickey was a guaranteed PED user. no doubt about it. you cannot use his "longevity" as a comp to a player that is tested.

 

So the only reason you suspect he used PEDs was his longevity? By that logic, isn't Tom Brady also juicing? Also Cy Young?

[kenmeister]

Here are some numbers for ages 23-26:

 

Betts

.305 116 375 in 2762 PAs (.382 OBP/.535 SLG/ .917 OPS) Great defense

Yaz

.299 65 287 in 2565 PAs (.389/.471/.860) Great defense

Boggs

.344 16 173 in 1792 PAs (.421/.448/.869) Called up at 24.

Lynn

.301 71 328 in 2362 PAs (.370/.494/.864) Great defense

Rice

.311 149 468 in 2768 PAs (.362/.570/.932) Had a better yr at 22 than 23

Nomar

.337 113 420 in 2580 PAs (.386/.577/.963) Over rated on D

 

Now, look at their next 10 years:

OPS/ PAs

.883/ 6609 Boggs

.874/ 6459 Yaz

.852/ 4881 Lynn

.825/ 3443 Nomar

.819/ 5602 Rice

 

I love comparisons like this. So what idiot left Boggs in the minors for so long?

[Slasher9]

So the only reason you suspect he used PEDs was his longevity? By that logic, isn't Tom Brady also juicing? Also Cy Young?

 

no. that isn't even one of the reasons i know he was using PED's. when did i say that?

[notin]

no. that isn't even one of the reasons i know he was using PED's. when did i say that?

 

It was the only aspect of his career you mentioned. So why do you suspect PEDs so strongly?