Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

[moonslav59]

I know -- I keep fluctuating, wondering whether they hired Bloom as the best man to arrange a way to keep Betts or because Bloom is the best man to make the most out of trading Betts.

 

Maybe he's the best at deciding which choice is best and then doing it.

[moonslav59]

I'll reserve judgment until we see an actual trade package put forward for Mookie, but conventional wisdom seems to hold that the Red Sox are going to have trouble getting elite young talent in return given his 2020 salary, only one year of control, and the fact that every sentient being in the solar system knows that he's 99.9% going to free agency without an extension at this point. Short of some team getting desperate and stupid (which certainly could happen), whatever we get back is going to feel very underwhelming.

 

If it comes to it, I'd certainly take the 6-7 WAR (on the low end) Mookie will provide in 2020, and take my chances signing him in the offseason, over a couple of middling prospects that may never pan out, or another Allen Craig/Joe Kelly type trade (such control, wow, so value).

 

We're not talking about just any trade of any player, but one of the finest talents that this franchise has produced in its long and storied history...and whatever their respect for Bloom's skills in wheeling and dealing, you can bet Henry & Co. are also heavily weighing the PR consequences of trading him for a return that does not reflect that.

 

Trading for one year of Betts during the off season also will give the receiving team a comp pick after 2020.

 

Some teams might view the one year at $30Mmore favorably than if Betts had a $30M x 5 yeara deal.

 

I'm not buying into the idea that we'll get crap for Betts via a trade. For the same reason most here want us to keep Betts, other GMs would love to have him. A one year deal is less risky. The comp pick is coveted by many GMs. Several teams are looking at making one big step towards being a top contender in 2020. With parity the way it is, adding Betts could make several teams an instant, major contender.

[Bellhorn04]

And they would be better positioned to do so if they achieve the goal of resetting, right?

 

A little better positioned, and that's all.

 

The tax savings of re-setting are a drop in the bucket compared to Mookie Betts's next contract.

[moonslav59]

A little better positioned, and that's all.

 

The tax savings of re-setting are a drop in the bucket compared to Mookie Betts's next contract.

 

My guess is, if we reset and look to re-sign (after trading) or keep Betts in 2021 and beyond, we will likely go over the tax line in 2021 by a lot, and maybe over for several years afterwards.

 

It makes a pretty big difference in how much that tax would be in 2021 after a reset or at 50%+ for being over for 3+ years, especially if we end up being over by the amount of Betts's contract or more.

 

20% of $34M is $6.8M. 50% is $17M. The difference is over $10M, which could sign a very decent FA or 2 pretty good ones.

[Bellhorn04]

My guess is, if we reset and look to re-sign (after trading) or keep Betts in 2021 and beyond, we will likely go over the tax line in 2021 by a lot, and maybe over for several years afterwards.

 

It makes a pretty big difference in how much that tax would be in 2021 after a reset or at 50%+ for being over for 3+ years, especially if we end up being over by the amount of Betts's contract or more.

 

20% of $34M is $6.8M. 50% is $17M. The difference is over $10M, which could sign a very decent FA or 2 pretty good ones.

 

$10 mill is a lot of money, sure. But it's still a pittance compared to what it will cost to retain Mookie.

[Slasher9]

$10 mill is a lot of money, sure. But it's still a pittance compared to what it will cost to retain Mookie.

 

but that $10MM tax would make Mooks contract equate to $41MM per year instead of $31MM per year. he is profitable for JH at the second number. we have to reset the LT in order to obtain Mook on a LTC when he hits FA.

[Bellhorn04]

but that $10MM tax would make Mooks contract equate to $41MM per year instead of $31MM per year.

 

Not per year. For one year or maybe two. The re-set benefits you for two years at most.

 

If the re-set inspires you to spend like crazy again it may do more harm than good.

 

Also, the current CBA expires after 2021.

 

There are a lot of variables in all this stuff.

[Slasher9]

Not per year. For one year or maybe two. The re-set benefits you for two years at most.

 

If the re-set inspires you to spend like crazy again it may do more harm than good.

 

Also, the current CBA expires after 2021.

 

There are a lot of variables in all this stuff.

 

true. it will be interesting to watch the 2021 CBA battle unfold.....michael buffer better keep his voice ready for that one....

[notin]

A little better positioned, and that's all.

 

The tax savings of re-setting are a drop in the bucket compared to Mookie Betts's next contract.

 

That "drop in the bucket" represents more money that the Sox received in the Direct TV deal. The savings will be less than the cost of promoting Rusney Castillo, yet he remains in the minors.

[Bellhorn04]

That "drop in the bucket" represents more money that the Sox received in the Direct TV deal. The savings will be less than the cost of promoting Rusney Castillo, yet he remains in the minors.

 

It's a drop compared to $350 million or thereabouts. It's certainly not enough to impact how much they're willing to bid for Mookie. IMHO.

[notin]

It's a drop compared to $350 million or thereabouts. It's certainly not enough to impact how much they're willing to bid for Mookie. IMHO.

 

Well, we don't know how the impact is perceived. It's also possible Bloom doesn't want the draft pick penalties...

[Bellhorn04]

Well, we don't know how the impact is perceived. It's also possible Bloom doesn't want the draft pick penalties...

 

Re-setting has no bearing on draft pick penalties. Those apply if you exceed the first threshold by more than 40 mill, regardless. That's why we got whacked with a penalty in 2018.

[jacksonianmarch]

Re-setting has no bearing on draft pick penalties. Those apply if you exceed the first threshold by more than 40 mill, regardless. That's why we got whacked with a penalty in 2018.

 

Resetting does apply to draft return for a QO player. If the sox reset, hold onto Mookie, and he signs elsewhere, the sox will get a 1st round supplemental pick.

[Bellhorn04]

Resetting does apply to draft return for a QO player. If the sox reset, hold onto Mookie, and he signs elsewhere, the sox will get a 1st round supplemental pick.

 

Right. Obviously that's no help as far as signing Mookie as a FA.

[cp176]

You do realize Betts has only one more year, right? Let’s not compare this to what trading away Roger Clemens in 1988 would have been like.

 

But by your logic, keeping Betts for 2020 and letting him walk for a fourth round pick after a season that rests entirely on the health of 3 pitchers coming off injury, and also by not resetting, have positioned the team to struggle to re-sign Betts after 2020 is the smart way to go here.

 

And who said “next to nothing.” Whatever the package is, it will be better than a single fourth round pick (which is your choice)...

 

What are you saying notin? Come on now, I don't remember mentioning the Clemens trade. Also are you trying to imply that I don't realize that Betts has one more year to go? You have absolutely no idea what my logic is. Oh and thanks for putting words in my mouth which I did not intend to say. What I said was that trading away Betts for next to nothing in return, without making a really strong effort to sign him, will not be looked upon favorably by many fans no matter how it is spun. They (we) do not see things the way you and a couple of other posters see see things. Just a different perspective than yours.

[cp176]

how many parades has mike trout been a part of?

 

Sucks he plays for the Angels doesn't it.

[cp176]

how did trading away nomar work out?

 

hmm let see - Nomar is to Mookie as ______________ would be too ______________. You get to fill in the blanks.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

hmm let see - Nomar is to Mookie as ______________ would be too ______________. You get to fill in the blanks.

 

a player definitely tired of Boston to a player maybe tired of Boston

 

44.2 WAR through age 35 to 42 WAR through age 26

 

couldn't get more money to knows he'll get more money

 

frown is to smile

[Slasher9]

hmm let see - Nomar is to Mookie as ____Fisk__________ would be to _____Yaz_________. You get to fill in the blanks.

 

its like Madlibs

[notin]

hmm let see - Nomar is to Mookie as ______________ would be too ______________. You get to fill in the blanks.

 

Ages 23-26

 

Betts: 30.6 fWAR

Nomar 27.6 fWAR

 

Not the biggest difference over a 4 year span...

[moonslav59]

hmm let see - Nomar is to Mookie as ______________ would be too ______________. You get to fill in the blanks.

 

Nomar is to Mookie as Mia Hamm is to Ronaldo.

[cp176]

its like Madlibs

 

Now that does bring back some memories.

 

Gary Gieger (who I bet you never heard of) to Fred Lynn I think is closer.

[cp176]

Nomar is to Mookie as Mia Hamm is to Ronaldo.

 

I think that you are giving Nomar too much credit!

[cp176]

Ages 23-26

 

Betts: 30.6 fWAR

Nomar 27.6 fWAR

 

Not the biggest difference over a 4 year span...

 

 

I'm futuristic!!! Don't look back on what has been, look ahead to what might be! (hmm think I remember where that came from - just kidding actually I do)

[cp176]

a player definitely tired of Boston to a player maybe tired of Boston

 

44.2 WAR through age 35 to 42 WAR through age 26

 

couldn't get more money to knows he'll get more money

 

frown is to smile

 

 

very very nice job

[Bellhorn04]

Ages 23-26

 

Betts: 30.6 fWAR

Nomar 27.6 fWAR

 

Not the biggest difference over a 4 year span...

 

True. We were very fortunate with how everything shook out with Nomar. He was not the same player after 2003.

[Kimmi]

I mostly agree, Kimmi. But I do think pleasing the fans is a kind of necessary evil of doing business sometimes. After all, they are the ones who pump all the money into the team's coffers that allows the team to pay the salaries of the players.

 

If the team is winning, the fans will be happy. There will be more fans in the seats if the team is winning without Mookie versus if the team is not winning with Mookie.

[Bellhorn04]

If the team is winning, the fans will be happy. There will be more fans in the seats if the team is winning without Mookie versus if the team is not winning with Mookie.

 

It doesn't always work that way though. I was looking through attendance numbers last night after I posted that.

 

The 2013 team actually drew less fans than the 2012 team.

[Kimmi]

It's ludicrous to blame DD if we don't keep Betts.

 

It's not DD's fault that Mookie turned up his nose at a $200 million extension offer because he has his heart set on something more astronomical like $350 million.

 

It's not DD'd fault that Mookie is the second best player in the game and is all about the money.

 

Also, after the 2020 season the team's albatross count will not be that bad.

 

Price and Eovaldi will each have 2 years left. Pedroia will have 1. Castillo will be off the books.

 

They will definitely be able to break the bank for Mookie - if that's what they want to do.

 

I agree that Dombrowski should not be blamed for our probably inability to retain Mookie. Mookie is just going to cost too much.

[Kimmi]

I'd go with the latter. Look how he dealt Archer (favorable contract, but a shadow of himself as a pitcher) and quickly improved his team by getting Meadows and Glasnow...

 

I don't think it's necessarily one or the other. I think it's that they feel that Bloom is the best man to make the correct decision about Mookie in terms of both long and short term goals.