Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

[Slasher9]

also, it seems teams can have their own merchandise for sale that isn't MLB officially licesnsed which would circumvent the sharing. Probably most of the stuff sold in the yawkey way shops falls under this category. wally stuff, green monstah shirts, fenway stuff, etc.

[notin]

also, it seems teams can have their own merchandise for sale that isn't MLB officially licesnsed which would circumvent the sharing. Probably most of the stuff sold in the yawkey way shops falls under this category. wally stuff, green monstah shirts, fenway stuff, etc.

 

Do teams do that or independant retailers? Or both?

 

Even then, some of the unlicensed stuff has agreements, especially if it has a players name or number on it...

[Slasher9]

Do teams do that or independant retailers? Or both?

 

Even then, some of the unlicensed stuff has agreements, especially if it has a players name or number on it...

 

i cant speak for certain but i would bet the farm that JH owns every red sox merch shop within 10 blocks of fenway park.

as for the player...i came across something that said only if it has both the # and the name on the jersey is there royalty compensation. it is interesting trying to research this. not much hard data / facts out there. the owners/clubs keep tight lid on this stuff.

[notin]

i cant speak for certain but i would bet the farm that JH owns every red sox merch shop within 10 blocks of fenway park.

as for the player...i came across something that said only if it has both the # and the name on the jersey is there royalty compensation. it is interesting trying to research this. not much hard data / facts out there. the owners/clubs keep tight lid on this stuff.

 

I think this is how Woodward and Bernstein got started...

[Kimmi]

I already posted a list of all the top contracts of all time. (Go to the Realistic thread. I just reposted it.)

 

It's not even close to 10:1, but the judging criteria is subjective.

 

I'd say it's more like 3:2 or 5:3, but if you narrow it down to 8+ year deals with players 27 or 28, my guess is the numbers are close to 1:1.

 

Even if the ratio is 1:1, which I don't think it is, that's still only a 50-50 shot of the contract being good. That's an awfully big risk to take when you're handing out that kind of money for that length of time.

 

Also, even if a player is worth the contract because of great play in the early years, you still will likely have those albatross years at the end of the contract that are difficult to work around.

[Kimmi]

i would guess a player like betts that sells a ton of #50 merch would be profitable for an owner into the $3-$400MM range. the flipside is that if you invest that amount of $$ into 1 player that prevents signing other players that could potentially bring us parades (see: pitchers).

many on here for years have been stating the JH doesnt care about budgets and that player payroll doesnt matter. clearly it does. 2020 will be the 2nd time during his ownership that this has been shown. we are finally getting out from the panda/hram contracts but are still saddled with price/sale. do we want to have $345/10 on the books for the next decade for 1 player?

 

Well said.

 

Posters often ask why we care about how much Henry spends since it's not our money. This is exactly why we should care, because it affects what the team can do in future years. Henry has been more than generous with his payroll, but no owner is going to spend without limit.

 

Do not make the mistake of tying that much money up in one player.

[moonslav59]

Even if the ratio is 1:1, which I don't think it is, that's still only a 50-50 shot of the contract being good. That's an awfully big risk to take when you're handing out that kind of money for that length of time.

 

Also, even if a player is worth the contract because of great play in the early years, you still will likely have those albatross years at the end of the contract that are difficult to work around.

 

Yes, 50-50 is a huge risk, and I didn't dive deep into the rating, but I think the ones that were signed younger did better.

 

BTW, which ratings do you disagree on? (Also, the 50-50 was on all contracts over $20M/yr. The mega deals- $25+M worked out better than 50-50.)

[Nick]

Well said.

 

Posters often ask why we care about how much Henry spends since it's not our money. This is exactly why we should care, because it affects what the team can do in future years. Henry has been more than generous with his payroll, but no owner is going to spend without limit.

 

Do not make the mistake of tying that much money up in one player.

 

There's no shortage of good players....what do you with Devers after signing Betts to 10 year, $350M contract? Chris Sale will still be on the books. I rather Sox be nimble. For me, JD's contract is great. If he's not injured, he'll opt out after 2020. He would have been well worth it for 3 years and he earned his pay.

[Kimmi]

Yes, 50-50 is a huge risk, and I didn't dive deep into the rating, but I think the ones that were signed younger did better.

 

BTW, which ratings do you disagree on? (Also, the 50-50 was on all contracts over $20M/yr. The mega deals- $25+M worked out better than 50-50.)

 

I think the Scherzer and Verlander contracts are good, and the rest of the ones I looked at are are iffy or still up in the air. ARod's last contract was bad. Kershaw might end up being worth his contract overall, but the last 2 years he was not, and he still has 2 years remaining.

 

As I mentioned before, even if a player is worth the contract on the whole due to some strong early years, it's tough to deal with the contract during the last 3-4 years. And even when the player is living up to the contract, that one player cannot carry the team alone.

[Kimmi]

There's no shortage of good players....what do you with Devers after signing Betts to 10 year, $350M contract? Chris Sale will still be on the books. I rather Sox be nimble. For me, JD's contract is great. If he's not injured, he'll opt out after 2020. He would have been well worth it for 3 years and he earned his pay.

 

Completely agree.

 

In an ideal situation, you would have the next great player ready to step in from the farm when previous great player becomes too expensive to retain. Continuing to sign players to mega contracts just continues the cycle of having lost money on the books.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Completely agree.

 

In an ideal situation, you would have the next great player ready to step in from the farm when previous great player becomes too expensive to retain. Continuing to sign players to mega contracts just continues the cycle of having lost money on the books.

 

I think poor value on the back end of long contracts is the price you pay for tying up a great player. Not many of those on Moon's list turned out to be great contracts, but teams have to take a shot sometimes at the investment -- to ensure some combo of competitiveness and continuity with their fanbase. The guys you can count on with proven track records are a safer bet than continually rolling the dice by recycling through unproven prospects. The latter is a reality for small market clubs.

 

The next great player is never guaranteed. The next Mookie Betts may never be a Red Sox, unless they sign a guy like Soto or Acuna when they hit free agency in their primes. In the meantime, we know what we have in Mookie.

[Bellhorn04]

Completely agree.

 

In an ideal situation, you would have the next great player ready to step in from the farm when previous great player becomes too expensive to retain. Continuing to sign players to mega contracts just continues the cycle of having lost money on the books.

 

But in reality great players like Mookie Betts are rare. And even acquiring Mookie involved blind luck, considering it was in the 5th round.

[Kimmi]

I think poor value on the back end of long contracts is the price you pay for tying up a great player. Not many of those on Moon's list turned out to be great contracts, but teams have to take a shot sometimes at the investment -- to ensure some combo of competitiveness and continuity with their fanbase. The guys you can count on with proven track records are a safer bet than continually rolling the dice by recycling through unproven prospects. The latter is a reality for small market clubs.

 

The next great player is never guaranteed. The next Mookie Betts may never be a Red Sox, unless they sign a guy like Soto or Acuna when they hit free agency in their primes. In the meantime, we know what we have in Mookie.

 

I think that operating like a small market club has a lot of merit. Just because we are a big market club does not mean that we have to spend like drunken sailors. I understand that signing free agents is necessary. I also understand that there are times when we have to hand out a somewhat big contract. That should be the exception, however, not the norm. I don't understand the thinking that we shouldn't be doing something because we're not a small market club.

 

I love Xander's extension. That's how you ensure competitiveness and continuity, not by signing someone to a mega contract like the one Mookie is going to get.

 

I understand that the next great player is not guaranteed. However, the stronger the farm system, the greater the chance of graduating those great players.

[Kimmi]

But in reality great players like Mookie Betts are rare. And even acquiring Mookie involved blind luck, considering it was in the 5th round.

 

I'm not talking about every player being the caliber of Mookie Betts.

 

Guys like Pedroia, Xander, and Devers will do.

[S5Dewey]

Completely agree.

 

In an ideal situation, you would have the next great player ready to step in from the farm when previous great player becomes too expensive to retain. Continuing to sign players to mega contracts just continues the cycle of having lost money on the books.

 

I agree in theory but it takes a lot of courage to operate that way. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Devers is playing solid defense and has an OPS of ~1.00 and the Sox trade him the year before he become a FA because there's another player in Pawtucket (Worcester) who's playing well?

[notin]

I agree in theory but it takes a lot of courage to operate that way. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Devers is playing solid defense and has an OPS of ~1.00 and the Sox trade him the year before he become a FA because there's another player in Pawtucket (Worcester) who's playing well?

 

But there’s outcry when players like that depart via free agency.

 

How many posts on this board have referenced “not understanding why people were trying to save Henry’s money.” Answer: no one, but some knew there was a budget limit.

 

Or how many thought players like Jacoby Ellsbury didn’t re-sign because the Soxnevdr made a good offer, despite Pete Abe repeatedly insisting they did. The ghost of Jon Lester still haunts the front office.

 

Outcry or not, a lot of fans live and die with the only season that matters is this one, and you can worry about next year next year. For fans, that’s ok. But front offices can not operate that way...

[Swiharts Ghost]

But there’s outcry when players like that depart via free agency.

 

How many posts on this board have referenced “not understanding why people were trying to save Henry’s money.” Answer: no one, but some knew there was a budget limit.

 

Or how many thought players like Jacoby Ellsbury didn’t re-sign because the Soxnevdr made a good offer, despite Pete Abe repeatedly insisting they did. The ghost of Jon Lester still haunts the front office.

 

Outcry or not, a lot of fans live and die with the only season that matters is this one, and you can worry about next year next year. For fans, that’s ok. But front offices can not operate that way...

 

Daaaaaaaaaang Notin !! Incredible post my friend .

[OH FOY]

If I were Jeter and the Marlins, I would give 30+ Million to Mookie. He'll turn it around.

[OH FOY]

From everything I read on Bloom, he's huge on WAR, does Mookie's WAR equal to 30+ Million, and will it project it for the term of the contract?

 

Calling Harmony, you there?

[moonslav59]

I agree in theory but it takes a lot of courage to operate that way. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Devers is playing solid defense and has an OPS of ~1.00 and the Sox trade him the year before he become a FA because there's another player in Pawtucket (Worcester) who's playing well?

 

I think we also got spoiled when we had a short period when a lot studs came up at the same time.

 

We hard a lot of, "Don't worry, we'll rebuild the farm in no time."

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But the idea of signing an established young player long term entails both living for today and planning for tomorrow. That is the opportunity that many clubs may consider when it comes to Betts... and that is the opportunity I hope -- as a fan -- that Boston's billions will be able to prevent. If he wants to stay...

[Bellhorn04]

But the idea of signing an established young player long term entails both living for today and planning for tomorrow. That is the opportunity that many clubs may consider when it comes to Betts... and that is the opportunity I hope -- as a fan -- that Boston's billions will be able to prevent. If he wants to stay...

 

Unfortunately the price tag has reached the point that you just can't win.

 

It would make plenty of sense to sign Mookie to a 6 year contract.

 

But when it has to be a 12 year contract, it doesn't really make sense.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Unfortunately the price tag has reached the point that you just can't win.

 

It would make plenty of sense to sign Mookie to a 6 year contract.

 

But when it has to be a 12 year contract, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I totally agree. I've been advocating shorter term, higher AAV for Mookie... but more clubs are offering longer and -- I hate to say this -- cheaper contracts, like 10 years for $100 million -- to lock up players in their early-20s. Because of that trend, every agent for every player at different ages and levels wants more years.

 

I'm not advocating collusion, but if all teams scaled back years, the MLB game would benefit, with more clubs able to field competitive rosters more often. Superstars will still be rich beyond their dreams. Problem is, it only takes one owner -- like the one that gave ARod 10 years way back when -- to drive up costs and drive down a lot of future rosters.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not advocating collusion, but if all teams scaled back years, the MLB game would benefit, with more clubs able to field competitive rosters more often. Superstars will still be rich beyond their dreams. Problem is, it only takes one owner -- like the one that gave ARod 10 years way back when -- to drive up costs and drive down a lot of future rosters.

 

And it only takes 2 owners to hand over absurd contracts to Harper and Machado.

[jacksonianmarch]

Harper said length was important. Machado too. Betts is the kind of guy who would probably love the idea of a long term contract with a short term opt out.

 

The Betts offer I’d make is a 10 year $300 mil deal with $120 mil coming in the first 3 seasons and then an opt out. The final 7 years pay out $180 mil

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And it only takes 2 owners to hand over absurd contracts to Harper and Machado.

 

...And thus the current "market value" for guys at the top of the payscale. This is why I'm all in on Betts -- because he's better than Harper and Machado, and he both deserves and is going to get top-of-the-market pay. But if one of the four or five richest franchises in the industry can't afford that right now and going forward, then the entire system is broken.

 

I don't think the latter is the case -- I suspect the guy just wants to take his services elsewhere -- leaving the company with no choice but to plan for such an inevitability.

[Bellhorn04]

Harper said length was important. Machado too. Betts is the kind of guy who would probably love the idea of a long term contract with a short term opt out.

 

The Betts offer I’d make is a 10 year $300 mil deal with $120 mil coming in the first 3 seasons and then an opt out. The final 7 years pay out $180 mil

 

And I would do that. But I suspect it won't be enough.

[moonslav59]

Harper said length was important. Machado too. Betts is the kind of guy who would probably love the idea of a long term contract with a short term opt out.

 

The Betts offer I’d make is a 10 year $300 mil deal with $120 mil coming in the first 3 seasons and then an opt out. The final 7 years pay out $180 mil

 

I could see $120/3 with opt out plus $210/7 for the remainder. Total: $330M/10 getting the job done.

 

If contracts keep going up and the new CBAn is more favorable to the players, Betts can opt out at a decent age to get one last big deal (bigger than $210/7).

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I could see $120/3 with opt out plus $210/7 for the remainder. Total: $330M/10 getting the job done.

 

If contracts keep going up and the new CBAn is more favorable to the players, Betts can opt out at a decent age to get one last big deal (bigger than $210/7).

 

I like it -- just no opt outs every year like JD's. If we're paying Mookie 40+ per, he has to agree to wear our uni through (preferably) age 32...

[moonslav59]

I like it -- just no opt outs every year like JD's. If we're paying Mookie 40+ per, he has to agree to wear our uni through (preferably) age 32...

 

If we sign Betts after 2020, and he opts out after 3 years, we'd have him through age 31, not 32.

 

28 2020 last arb year

29 2021 yr 1

30 2022 yr 2

31 2023 yr 3 (He'd turn 32 Oct 7th.)