Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

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.)

 

 

2020 will be his age 27 season, so a 10-year extension would encompass 28 through 37 -- unless the Sox renegotiate this winter with a Godfather contract that starts next March.

[moonslav59]

2020 will be his age 27 season, so a 10-year extension would encompass 28 through 37 -- unless the Sox renegotiate this winter with a Godfather contract that starts next March.

 

Yes, but you said a 3 year opt out would go to age 32. It's 31.

 

I actually don't think to age 37 is all that bad.

 

3 years in peak prime (29-31)

2 years in prime (32-33)

3 in post prime (34-35)

2 in past prime (36-37)

Edited November 16, 2019 by moonslav59

[notin]

Bottom line - if you want the good years of Betts, you have to be willing to also pay heavily for the declining years of Betts as well...

[moonslav59]

Bottom line - if you want the good years of Betts, you have to be willing to also pay heavily for the declining years of Betts as well...

 

Yes, or give an opt out with a heavily front loaded deal.

[Swiharts Ghost]

Yes, but you said a 3 year opt out would go to age 32. It's 31.

 

I actually don't think to age 37 is all that bad.

 

3 years in peak prime (29-31)

2 years in prime (32-33)

3 in post prime (34-35)

2 in past prime (36-37)

 

Moon come on .5 years of over pay ? Hell no man .

[moonslav59]

Moon come on .5 years of over pay ? Hell no man .

 

I think by the time Betts reaches year 6, contracts will be so high, $30M will not be a big overpay. The last 2-3 years might hurt, but the first 7-8 will mopre than make up for it, IMO.

 

I think he's probably worth $50M x 4, so paying him $130M/7 for the remainder is not a gross overpay.

 

I realize it's a gamble, but Betts is special. He's a freak with his off-the-charts twitch times.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

They're all professional athletes, but Betts is an exceptional athlete among his peers. Wiry sinew and quick-twitch hand-eye outlasts bulk built in a gym. Every contract is a risk with career-ending injuries just around the corner, so consideration has to be given to how a man achieves his status in the first place when projecting long range...

[moonslav59]

They're all professional athletes, but Betts is an exceptional athlete among his peers. Wiry sinew and quick-twitch hand-eye outlasts bulk built in a gym. Every contract is a risk with career-ending injuries just around the corner, so consideration has to be given to how a man achieves his status in the first place when projecting long range...

 

True, but what is the precedent for projecting how unique and exceptional twitch reflexes age?

 

We keep hearing how small and speedy players tend to age poorly, but how many of them his 30+ HRs routinely?

 

Past precedent shows power ages well, but apparently some feel not for Betts.

 

Look, I get it's a huge risk- very huge. It could go terribly wrong. I'm not anywhere near 100% sure $330/10 would be a plus deal for us.

 

I'm also not so sure the Yanks would pay him more.

Edited November 16, 2019 by moonslav59

[S5Dewey]

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...

That may be true but it has little to nothing to do with my post. What I was saying in a nutshell is that it takes a lot of courage for a GM to trade a high-performance player whom the fans have become accustomed to having around because there's somebody in AAA who "shows every sign" of being ML ready.

 

A bird in the hand.... especially to the fans who are, at the end of the day, expecting the FO to do as much as possible to put a winning team on the field.

 

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do and I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it's gutsy.

Edited November 17, 2019 by S5Dewey

[notin]

That may be true but it has little to nothing to do with my post. What I was saying in a nutshell is that it takes a lot of courage for a GM to trade a high-performance player whom the fans have become accustomed to having around because there's somebody in AAA who "shows every sign" of being ML ready.

 

A bird in the hand.... especially to the fans who are, at the end of the day, expecting the FO to do as much as possible to put a winning team on the field.

 

In a lot of cases, the fans actually cling to the AAA player more than the MLB player, but that usually happens with players a lot less talented than Betts. But then, that’s not even the case with Betts. Heck the Sox don’t even have a replacement for Bradley lined up in the minors.

 

Really the best comp we might have is Fred Lynn. Not only was Lynn a high performing player, he was amazingly popular. Not sure why he was traded away, especially for that incredibly mediocre package, but the team and fan base survived.

 

Sox fans are lucky that the team has really always at least tried to put a winning team on the field. They never sold everything off for a bunch of minor leaguers who were 3 to 4 years away. But they are in a bind right now, left with a massive budget and a very, very weak minor league system incapable of picking up the pieces. They need/want to shed some salary, but most of the more expensive players are unreadable. The one guy that they might be able to move and plug a few holes is Betts...

[S5Dewey]

In a lot of cases, the fans actually cling to the AAA player more than the MLB player, but that usually happens with players a lot less talented than Betts. But then, that’s not even the case with Betts. Heck the Sox don’t even have a replacement for Bradley lined up in the minors.

 

Really the best comp we might have is Fred Lynn. Not only was Lynn a high performing player, he was amazingly popular. Not sure why he was traded away, especially for that incredibly mediocre package, but the team and fan base survived.

 

Sox fans are lucky that the team has really always at least tried to put a winning team on the field. They never sold everything off for a bunch of minor leaguers who were 3 to 4 years away. But they are in a bind right now, left with a massive budget and a very, very weak minor league system incapable of picking up the pieces. They need/want to shed some salary, but most of the more expensive players are unreadable. The one guy that they might be able to move and plug a few holes is Betts...

 

Fans cling to a AAA player more than a ML player? Who do you have in mind, Bryce Brentz? I'd be interesting who you think there is in the minors whom fans would rather see at the ML level than any of the starting 8 position players. Maybe Lin.. because there is no established 2nd baseman.

[notin]

Fans cling to a AAA player more than a ML player? Who do you have in mind, Bryce Brentz? I'd be interesting who you think there is in the minors whom fans would rather see at the ML level than any of the starting 8 position players. Maybe Lin.. because there is no established 2nd baseman.

 

I was speaking in general. There isn’t anyone currently in the Sox farm garnering any immediate interest from fans. But that hasn’t always been the case.

 

But I do remember Jacoby Ellsbury over incumbent Coco Crisp as a fan favorite. Heck I remember the Boston press getting all wound up over Steve Lyons as a replacement for Wade Boggs...

[Larry Cook]

I was speaking in general. There isn’t anyone currently in the Sox farm garnering any immediate interest from fans. But that hasn’t always been the case.

 

But I do remember Jacoby Ellsbury over incumbent Coco Crisp as a fan favorite. Heck I remember the Boston press getting all wound up over Steve Lyons as a replacement for Wade Boggs...

 

How about when greenwell was the heir apparent to rice?

[cp176]

There was already a drop off in viewership the last 2 years. Losing Betts will not add anyone.

 

Will people who wanted to buy a Betts jersey, still buy one of Devers or Bogey? Probably, many will.

 

IMO, Betts will earn the $330M/30 year deal he may get.... and then some.

 

I think that all who post here would like to see Bloom succeed. Much of what he does and has done may prove to be just what we need in Boston but the suggestion that basically giving away a player like Mookie Betts for unproven minor leaguers or any young potentially good major leaguers to save money for the franchise wouldn't come with a fan loss, in my opinion is not accurate. Yes long time fans and arm chair GM's who might agree with much of what Bloom advocates will probably hang in there but if the trade did not bring in some exceptional talent right now, a lot of money might appear to be saved for ownership but I think that in the long run it could be quite costly. i might be wrong but I believe that the majority of fans are not data driven 24 hour a day followers of the ups and downs of the franchise. They are simply fans who love their team. In coming to Boston, Bloom is entering the real arena. Trading away a generational talent like Betts may seem like the right thing to do in order to rebuild what many of you think is a stagnant minor league system, but it could come at a great cost. "Joe average" wants to see Mookie Betts stay in Boston. We like our stars.

[Bellhorn04]

True, but what is the precedent for projecting how unique and exceptional twitch reflexes age?

 

We keep hearing how small and speedy players tend to age poorly, but how many of them his 30+ HRs routinely?

 

I'm guessing that Hank Aaron had exceptional twitch reflexes.

[Bellhorn04]

In a lot of cases, the fans actually cling to the AAA player more than the MLB player, but that usually happens with players a lot less talented than Betts. But then, that’s not even the case with Betts. Heck the Sox don’t even have a replacement for Bradley lined up in the minors.

 

Really the best comp we might have is Fred Lynn. Not only was Lynn a high performing player, he was amazingly popular. Not sure why he was traded away, especially for that incredibly mediocre package, but the team and fan base survived.

 

The team and the fan base 'survived' the loss of Lynn, Fisk and others, but the first half of the 80's was incredibly dismal as a result.

[notin]

The team and the fan base 'survived' the loss of Lynn, Fisk and others, but the first half of the 80's was incredibly dismal as a result.

 

 

 

Ok but part of that reason was the incredibly stupid returns. The Sox traded Lynn, Hobson and Burleson for Carney Lansford, Mark Clear, a couple aging players and a “prospect” who sucked in the minors.

 

If the Sox deal Betts, they might ultimately get nothing. But it looks like Sullivan asked for nothing up front....

[Kimmi]

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?

 

Well, you don't necessarily trade him the year before he reaches FA. That's not what I'm saying. Try to extend him to a reasonable and somewhat team friendly deal like we did with Bogaerts.

 

However, if he is going to go the same route that Mookie is going, then yes, it becomes a real possibility that he gets traded a year early. But whether he gets traded a year early or we just let him walk as a FA depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is who would replace him.

 

I get very emotionally attached to our players, especially our home grown ones. I hate to see them leave the team just as much as anyone does. But I have become that opposed to long term contracts.

[Kimmi]

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."

 

You have to have that farm system. I don't expect the farm players to be at Mookie's level, but if you have a handful cost controlled players on your team, and other prospects that can be traded to fill a hole or two, that opens up the flexibility so much.

[Kimmi]

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...

 

Even with a team that has a payroll like Boston's, tying up so much money in one player really limits the flexibility of the team, both long and short terms. And near the end of the contract, when Mookie is likely to not be performing up to the contract level, the contract will be that much more restrictive.

[Bellhorn04]

I think we're in a no-win situation with Mookie. Losing him will hurt on the field and keeping him will hurt in the long-term cost.

[Kimmi]

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.)

 

 

We have to remember that a player is typically already in decline by age 30. I know there are exceptions, but that's the overwhelming trend.

 

If something were to happen where Mookie got injured or just declined more rapidly than expected, we'd be on the hook for the rest of that contract. Not likely to happen, but for me, the risk is too great.

[Kimmi]

Yes, but you said a 3 year opt out would go to age 32. It's 31.

 

I actually don't think to age 37 is all that bad.

 

3 years in peak prime (29-31)

2 years in prime (32-33)

3 in post prime (34-35)

2 in past prime (36-37)

 

You are being too generous with your prime years. Mookie is already entering 'post prime'.

[moonslav59]

I think that all who post here would like to see Bloom succeed. Much of what he does and has done may prove to be just what we need in Boston but the suggestion that basically giving away a player like Mookie Betts for unproven minor leaguers or any young potentially good major leaguers to save money for the franchise wouldn't come with a fan loss, in my opinion is not accurate. Yes long time fans and arm chair GM's who might agree with much of what Bloom advocates will probably hang in there but if the trade did not bring in some exceptional talent right now, a lot of money might appear to be saved for ownership but I think that in the long run it could be quite costly. i might be wrong but I believe that the majority of fans are not data driven 24 hour a day followers of the ups and downs of the franchise. They are simply fans who love their team. In coming to Boston, Bloom is entering the real arena. Trading away a generational talent like Betts may seem like the right thing to do in order to rebuild what many of you think is a stagnant minor league system, but it could come at a great cost. "Joe average" wants to see Mookie Betts stay in Boston. We like our stars.

 

You have to factor in what he does with the money saved by trading Betts. That, in a sense, is part of the trade.

 

I think most Sox fans would understand that- just like they did when we traded AGon, although that involved dumping the much fan-hated CC.

 

We won a ring in 2013, clearly as a result of the money saved on that deal and how Ben spent it wisely.

 

Sure, we'll likely lose some fans by trading Betts, but if we present the trade in the right way, by announcing we will go all out to re-sign him in 2021, then maybe it won't have the negative impact many seem to think it might have.

 

Plus, if Bloom spends Betts's money wisely, maybe we'll end up going farther than many fans expect, and the "lost" fans will come back quickly.

 

As you know, I'm all for bringing Betts back, and it seems like I'm in a minority on this site, so I guess that means people are okay with losing fans from 2021-2030 but not 2020 alone.

[moonslav59]

You are being too generous with your prime years. Mookie is already entering 'post prime'.

 

You just said players decline at age 30 (not true for many of the better players), so how is he "post prime" at age 27?

[Bellhorn04]

If you're dreaming big on Mookie, you're dreaming he's the next best thing to Willie Mays, who performed as if in his prime until around age 35.

[Bellhorn04]

Some might argue it's better to risk a burdensome contract than to risk having to watch the next best thing to Willie Mays star for another team for 7-8 years.

 

After all, we always manage to survive the burdensome contracts, and even win titles while carrying them.

[moonslav59]

There are a lot of players who performed very well after age 30 and even 32 or 33, and I'm not talking about the steroid group.

 

Dewey Evans is one- he actually did better as he aged, and he barely lost anything on defense.

 

Here's a list of the best players age 30-37 just from 2000 to 2019 (2500+ PAs)- notice how many near the top were little guys:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=2500&type=8&season=2019&month=0&season1=2000&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=30,37&filter=&players=&startdate=&enddate=

 

WAR from age 30-37

42.4 Edmonds

41.0 Beltre

38.2 C Jones

37.0 I Suzuki

35.9 B Giles

34.5 ARod

33.5 Jeter

32.0 Zobrist

31.1 J Giambi

31.0 Thome

30.1 Kent

20 players from 24.1 to 29.9, including Cano, J Damon & M Cameron

19 players from 20.0 to 24.0, including Kinsler & J Valentin

(P Polanco & B Gardner almost made the list.)

 

Betts has better numbers than most of these guys at age 27. Sure,many players didn't even last to age 37, but how many players, with numbers like Betts, went on to be total busts after age 30? I'm sure there are many, like Pujols, but there are many that did not, too.

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

Chipper's on the list, Kimmi.

[Kimmi]

You just said players decline at age 30 (not true for many of the better players), so how is he "post prime" at age 27?

 

I said already in decline by age 30, not starting to decline at age 30. Peak age is generally accepted to be 27, so I will concede that he is not post prime yet. However, some skills are already in decline by the age of 23.