Pay Mookie!

[Hitch]

It's not about saving Henry's money. That's a cheap copout.

 

Billionaire or not, he has clearly shown there are limits as to what he is going to spend on payroll. So if you give this contract to Mookie, will you be able to surround him with a competitive team for the life of that deal? The first couple seasons should not be a problem, but what happens when you have a declining 35yo RF making $38-40mill and no good young talent coming up?

 

Everyone says they will be OK with the bad years as long as the team wins a title. But that changes when the bad years actually get here. I didn't see a single person in 2014 and 2015 justifying those awful years with even one "Hey, at least we won it all in 2013."

 

Yup. All of this.

[notin]

If they are willing to pay Eovaldi and Price the amounts they are paying, they should be willing to pay Mookie (a guy who offers so much more to the franchise) a metric f*** ton more than that. He's worth the money according to Fangraphs.

 

OK. But again, they do have some spending limits. Can we acknowledge that?

[Maxbialystock]

The only thing I would say is that Mookie needs to realize he's not as good as Mike Trout. No shame in that, but it's a cold fact.

 

Exactly.

[notin]

Your post was about the years teams were willing to guarantee. The longest contracts currently on the Dodgers roster are the 4 year deals given to AJ Pollock and Justin Turner. Kershaw's current deal is a 3 year contract...

 

Correction.

 

The current longest contract on the Dodgers is a 6 year $30mill contract given to Cuban pitcher Yasiel Sierra. But I think my point stands that the Dodgers do not play in the 9-12 year contract range and yet still remain competitive every season...

[notin]

Exactly.

 

Mookie might realize he is not better than Mike Trout, but also think Mike Trout shortchanged himself and he does not want to make the same mistake...

Edited January 31, 2020 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

If they are willing to pay Eovaldi and Price the amounts they are paying, they should be willing to pay Mookie (a guy who offers so much more to the franchise) a metric f*** ton more than that. He's worth the money according to Fangraphs.

 

He's been worth the money so far, but let's acknowledge that the risk factor is crazy.

 

Mike Trout had a foot problem that shelved him for the last part of the 2019 season.

 

If that foot becomes a chronic issue, even Trout will be underwater. (Sorry.)

[S5Dewey]

Mookie might realize he is better than Mike Trout, but also think Mike Trout shortchanged himself and he does not want to make the same mistake...

 

Regardless of what Mookie thinks about his talent he may be faced with a Reality Check sooner or later. Right or wrong, Trout is considered by many to be the Gold Standard for baseball players and gets paid accordingly. You and I and Mookie and Mookie's agent may not believe that's true but that doesn't matter. What matters is what some team is willing to pay him. If no team is willing to pony up more money than Trout is getting Mookie will be "forced" to take less than Trout money...or sit out a season.

 

It'll be interesting to see where this ends up if he signs with the Sox - or anyone else for that matter. It's been my experience that when two parties want to get things settled one side pays more than they said they would and the other party accepts less than they said they would.

[notin]

Regardless of what Mookie thinks about his talent he may be faced with a Reality Check sooner or later. Right or wrong, Trout is considered by many to be the Gold Standard for baseball players and gets paid accordingly. You and I and Mookie and Mookie's agent may not believe that's true but that doesn't matter. What matters is what some team is willing to pay him. If no team is willing to pony up more money than Trout is getting Mookie will be "forced" to take less than Trout money...or sit out a season.

 

It'll be interesting to see where this ends up if he signs with the Sox - or anyone else for that matter. It's been my experience that when two parties want to get things settled one side pays more than they said they would and the other party accepts less than they said they would.

 

That's only true when Mookie reaches free agency, but then, yes, he is worth what the highest bidder says he is worth.

 

If the Sox are trying to hammer out an extension prior to free agency, the Sox have to hit his price, however outrageous it might be...

[notin]

He's been worth the money so far, but let's acknowledge that the risk factor is crazy.

 

Mike Trout had a foot problem that shelved him for the last part of the 2019 season.

 

If that foot becomes a chronic issue, even Trout will be underwater. (Sorry.)

 

Boo!

 

Trout will be a more expensive Pollock...

[notin]

He's been worth the money so far, but let's acknowledge that the risk factor is crazy.

 

Mike Trout had a foot problem that shelved him for the last part of the 2019 season.

 

If that foot becomes a chronic issue, even Trout will be underwater. (Sorry.)

 

But on that foot issue, on occasion those can be career killers. Allen Craig was very good player prior to his Lisfranc issues.

 

But like nearly every injury, some players can play through them, as they are not all equally severe.

[Maxbialystock]

If they are willing to pay Eovaldi and Price the amounts they are paying, they should be willing to pay Mookie (a guy who offers so much more to the franchise) a metric f*** ton more than that. He's worth the money according to Fangraphs.

 

Careful with the "they." DD was the one willing to pay Eovaldi and Price and so convinced Henry they were essential for the "rebuild" or whatever he called it. DD has been summarily fired, so I think your use of "they" is in fact incorrect. Dumping DD and signing the Rays' GM is a pretty strong signal that exorbitant salaries are no longer de riguer.

 

And let's not forget how quickly Mookie made it to the big club. After the 2013 season when the Yankees "stole" Jacoby Ellsbury for $145M for 7 years. They were no doubt hoping Jacoby could replicate his "annus mirabilis" (2011) with that short porch in Yankees Stadium right field. Many Sox fans thought Ellsbury was also irreplaceable. However, the Sox already had one obvious CF, JBJ, and one possible, Mookie, both of whom arrived for good in 2014. Ellbury proved to be dead weight for the Yankees and one of many reasons why they now take a different approach.

 

Oh, and how do we know that Mookie's annus mirabilis (2018) wasn't the result of being told what pitch is coming? Anyone? Anyone?

 

Plus Mookie is just one guy in a lineup of 9, and even that even doesn't include the fact that pitching is so very important--last year there were times when the Sox carried 13 pitchers and 12 position players on their active roster. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement" and is more and more used as a player's yardstick. In 2018 Mookie's was was an MVP's 10.9. Last year it dropped down buy 4 to 6.8. If we assume WAR means what he says, that drop should have cost the Sox 4 games, but in fact they went from winning 108 games in 2018 to winning 84 games last year. One player does not a lineup or a team make.

 

This reminds of the very recent episode of Bryce Harper, who also demanded much more than a king's ransom from the Nationals--and got it from the Phillies. In 2018, the year before Bryce joined them, the Phillies went 80-82. In 2019, with Harper supposedly giving his all, the Phillies went 81-81. And the poor Nationals, who no longer had the estimable services of their super-great (according to his salary) RF? They won it all.

 

However, I checked the Phillies attendance for those two years and confirmed that attendance jumped almost 600,000 from 2018 to 2019--almost certainly because of the acquisition of Bryce Harper. Such a jump--or decrease--in attendance is unlikely for the Sox because of the size of Fenway combined with their overall success in the John Henry era.

 

$300M for 10 years is more than abundant recompense unless you or your agent thinks it's "all about how Mookie is valued in this firm."

Edited January 29, 2020 by Maxbialystock

[Hitch]

Good post.

[Slasher9]

maxbialystock is back. we dont always agree but it is good to see his posts again.

[notin]

maxbialystock is back. we dont always agree but it is good to see his posts again.

 

I think the gist of his post is that the Sox would be better off if Mookie was a flop as opposed to a hit?

 

That's sooooo Maxbialystock...

[mvp 78]

I think the gist of his post is that the Sox would be better off if Mookie was a flop as opposed to a hit?

 

That's sooooo Maxbialystock...

 

It's something for sure!

[Maxbialystock]

It's something for sure!

 

What it is--is my parsimonious yankee blood talking. I was actually born in New England (near Boston), plus both of my parents grew up there. To me $300M is beyond a king's ransom. With it Mookie and his family will want for nothing.

 

But, if you are an agent, especially Mookie's agent, $300M is just downright insulting in view of Trout's $426M and Mookie's cumulative WAR, which reportedly is second only to Mike's, 2014-19.

 

That said, however--and this for me (and, I note, for bellhorn) is the real kicker--the risk is entirely on John Henry. If Mookie is a bust or injured or in an accident or whatever, he gets every dime. Mookie gets his hundreds of millions and his agent gets his millions, and John Henry and the Sox fans get what?

 

And, even if Mookie wins three more MVP's, the Sox pitching could continue to fail--despite the incredible salaries being paid to Price and Sale and even Eovaldi--and the Sox would continue to pay top dollar (overall team salary) with little to show for it in the won/lost columns.

 

Last year, for example, the great one, Mike Trout, won his 3d MVP (he has also come in 2d in MVP voting 4 times--zowie!), and the LA Angels finished with 72 wins and 90 losses. I seriously doubt that New Englanders--with our presumed yankee parsimonious streak--will stand for that. And why should we?

[jad]

What it is--is my parsimonious yankee blood talking. I was actually born in New England (near Boston), plus both of my parents grew up there. To me $300M is beyond a king's ransom. With it Mookie and his family will want for nothing.

 

But, if you are an agent, especially Mookie's agent, $300M is just downright insulting in view of Trout's $426M and Mookie's cumulative WAR, which reportedly is second only to Mike's, 2014-19.

 

That said, however--and this for me (and, I note, for bellhorn) is the real kicker--the risk is entirely on John Henry. If Mookie is a bust or injured or in an accident or whatever, he gets every dime. Mookie gets his hundreds of millions and his agent gets his millions, and John Henry and the Sox fans get what?

 

And, even if Mookie wins three more MVP's, the Sox pitching could continue to fail--despite the incredible salaries being paid to Price and Sale and even Eovaldi--and the Sox would continue to pay top dollar (overall team salary) with little to show for it in the won/lost columns.

 

Last year, for example, the great one, Mike Trout, won his 3d MVP (he has also come in 2d in MVP voting 4 times--zowie!), and the LA Angels finished with 72 wins and 90 losses. I seriously doubt that New Englanders--with our presumed yankee parsimonious streak--will stand for that. And why should we?

 

But then, if we "won't stand for that," what does that mean? What will we do? Not go to games? (So?) Not listen to the radio? Refuse to read the box score? Write angry e-mails to JH or to the Globe?

[Bellhorn04]

But then, if we "won't stand for that," what does that mean? What will we do? Not go to games? (So?) Not listen to the radio? Refuse to read the box score? Write angry e-mails to JH or to the Globe?

 

Yeah, I always get a chuckle when someone says something like that. The best is when something is described as 'unacceptable'.

[Jack Flap]

But then, if we "won't stand for that," what does that mean? What will we do? Not go to games? (So?) Not listen to the radio? Refuse to read the box score? Write angry e-mails to JH or to the Globe?

 

If I don't get my way on this, as God is my witness, I will...cancel...the, uh...Red Sox.

[mvp 78]

What it is--is my parsimonious yankee blood talking. I was actually born in New England (near Boston), plus both of my parents grew up there. To me $300M is beyond a king's ransom. With it Mookie and his family will want for nothing.

 

But, if you are an agent, especially Mookie's agent, $300M is just downright insulting in view of Trout's $426M and Mookie's cumulative WAR, which reportedly is second only to Mike's, 2014-19.

 

That said, however--and this for me (and, I note, for bellhorn) is the real kicker--the risk is entirely on John Henry. If Mookie is a bust or injured or in an accident or whatever, he gets every dime. Mookie gets his hundreds of millions and his agent gets his millions, and John Henry and the Sox fans get what?

 

And, even if Mookie wins three more MVP's, the Sox pitching could continue to fail--despite the incredible salaries being paid to Price and Sale and even Eovaldi--and the Sox would continue to pay top dollar (overall team salary) with little to show for it in the won/lost columns.

 

Last year, for example, the great one, Mike Trout, won his 3d MVP (he has also come in 2d in MVP voting 4 times--zowie!), and the LA Angels finished with 72 wins and 90 losses. I seriously doubt that New Englanders--with our presumed yankee parsimonious streak--will stand for that. And why should we?

 

Again for the people in the back:

 

the Angels didn't lose because of Trout's contract or his performance which exceeded the contract value.

[mvp 78]

What it is--is my parsimonious yankee blood talking. I was actually born in New England (near Boston), plus both of my parents grew up there. To me $300M is beyond a king's ransom. With it Mookie and his family will want for nothing.

 

But, if you are an agent, especially Mookie's agent, $300M is just downright insulting in view of Trout's $426M and Mookie's cumulative WAR, which reportedly is second only to Mike's, 2014-19.

 

That said, however--and this for me (and, I note, for bellhorn) is the real kicker--the risk is entirely on John Henry. If Mookie is a bust or injured or in an accident or whatever, he gets every dime. Mookie gets his hundreds of millions and his agent gets his millions, and John Henry and the Sox fans get what?

 

And, even if Mookie wins three more MVP's, the Sox pitching could continue to fail--despite the incredible salaries being paid to Price and Sale and even Eovaldi--and the Sox would continue to pay top dollar (overall team salary) with little to show for it in the won/lost columns.

 

Last year, for example, the great one, Mike Trout, won his 3d MVP (he has also come in 2d in MVP voting 4 times--zowie!), and the LA Angels finished with 72 wins and 90 losses. I seriously doubt that New Englanders--with our presumed yankee parsimonious streak--will stand for that. And why should we?

 

The TalkSox's George Will, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Who am I kidding, no women have posted on here in months. VA and kimmi, please come back and break up this sausage fest.

[mvp 78]

If I don't get my way on this, as God is my witness, I will...cancel...the, uh...Red Sox.

 

I'll write up some picketing signs for all of us.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

MLB.com posted another Betts-to-SD no-date; I won't call it an update, because it says nothing new.

 

The return continues to be... unpalatable. Not even whelmed.

 

Paraphrasing now: "You won't like Bloom's trade acquisitions right away, but in the end you'll learn to hate them."

[mvp 78]

MLB.com posted another Betts-to-SD no-date; I won't call it an update, because it says nothing new.

 

The return continues to be... unpalatable. Not even whelmed.

 

Paraphrasing now: "You won't like Bloom's trade acquisitions right away, but in the end you'll learn to hate them."

 

In any case, that discussion gives us a fairly clear picture of what the Padres' package for Betts might look like: a prospect or two (say, catcher Luis Campusano and/or lefty Adrian Morejon), a controllable big league piece or two (say, Josh Naylor and/or Joey Lucchesi) and Myers plus cash.

 

Campusano, Morejon, Margot, Lucchesi and Myers isn't that bad of a return. I don't know what else people expect out of a one year rental.

 

Without Myers included, the Sox would probably only get Margot and Campusano. A big part of the deal seems to be clearing Myers off the books. If the Sox solely want to get under the lux tax, just take back a smaller return.

[notin]

In any case, that discussion gives us a fairly clear picture of what the Padres' package for Betts might look like: a prospect or two (say, catcher Luis Campusano and/or lefty Adrian Morejon), a controllable big league piece or two (say, Josh Naylor and/or Joey Lucchesi) and Myers plus cash.

 

Campusano, Morejon, Margot, Lucchesi and Myers isn't that bad of a return. I don't know what else people expect out of a one year rental.

 

Without Myers included, the Sox would probably only get Margot and Campusano. A big part of the deal seems to be clearing Myers off the books. If the Sox solely want to get under the lux tax, just take back a smaller return.

 

I think the whole reason the Padres want to make a deal like this is to get rid of Myers. They don't need outfielders. They are bringing back Margot and Franchy Cordero and have already acquired Tommy Pham and Trent Grishman. The upgrade in RF would be nice, likely Betts over Grishman. But Myers is owed something like $67mill over the next 3 years and that is just too much for the fifth outfielder...

[mvp 78]

I think the whole reason the Padres want to make a deal like this is to get rid of Myers. They don't need outfielders. They are bringing back Margot and Franchy Cordero and have already acquired Tommy Pham and Trent Grishman. The upgrade in RF would be nice, likely Betts over Grishman. But Myers is owed something like $67mill over the next 3 years and that is just too much for the fifth outfielder...

 

Yeah, the Sox can only take Myers if they are also moving Price. Otherwise, what's the point? Don't trade Mookie unless you can get under the lux tax.

[notin]

Yeah, the Sox can only take Myers if they are also moving Price. Otherwise, what's the point? Don't trade Mookie unless you can get under the lux tax.

 

On some levels I like the idea of a Price/Myers swap, but it won't get the Sox under the limit.

 

The AAV differnce is big enough ($17.2mill) to make this deal worthwhile. But how much of that do the Sox haveto spend to replace Price? For all his faults, the guy is not a bad pitcher. And to prelace him will cost probably $12mill per year.

 

So dealing Price for Myers probably only gets the Sox about $5mill closer to resetting. They could try and move Bradley and clear another $11mill, but would that be enough? can they move Bradley without taking anything back?

[Slasher9]

if they shed JBj now and Price at the deadline i think that would get them under (without adding any more $). but that would mean we have to count on Price staying healthy and pitching acelike.

but really, the single best thing my man chaim can do is to trade mookie. i just dont think JH opens his checkbook for mookie after this season if the LT isn't reset.

[mvp 78]

On some levels I like the idea of a Price/Myers swap, but it won't get the Sox under the limit.

 

The AAV differnce is big enough ($17.2mill) to make this deal worthwhile. But how much of that do the Sox haveto spend to replace Price? For all his faults, the guy is not a bad pitcher. And to prelace him will cost probably $12mill per year.

 

So dealing Price for Myers probably only gets the Sox about $5mill closer to resetting. They could try and move Bradley and clear another $11mill, but would that be enough? can they move Bradley without taking anything back?

 

The only way it makes sense that JBJ was tendered was if they truly thought it was ok if they went into the season above lux tax.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

You're right. The fact that Mookie has made a counter offer is a very good thing for those of us who want to keep him. However. this would be a good time to educate your son on how bargaining works.

 

While I don't have an personal insight on how much either party is willing to settle for at the same time I do have some experience in bargaining and here's what I'm confident of. 1) The Sox don't expect to get him signed for 10/$300. 2) Mookie doesn't expect to get 12/$420.

 

This is what happens in a bargaining process: The two parties start talking with their positions at numbers they don't expect to be there at the end. They start at the extremes and then bargain their way toward some middle ground. The fact that Mookie has made them an offer is good news because the Sox now know what Mookie's position is and that he's willing to talk. Our FO now now has to weigh the ramifications of paying him some amount between $300M & $420M and decide how much they can afford to pay him, pay others, and still make a profit.

 

This is progress and any progress is good. That doesn't guarantee that the two parties will come to an agreement but at least they're now talking with their positions outlined.

 

Dewey, thanks for the reply, and elaborations. Since all these Red Sox offers to Betts always seem to leak after the fact, one has to wonder if he would even agree to meet in the middle at this point. Most likely, and appropriately so, he only signs an extension before hitting the open market if the Sox meet his overpay proposal.

 

As for my son, he is experienced in negotiations with his mother on extending screen times, delaying bath times, sleep times and chores, and when to start homework. But it will be impossible to explain to him the luxury tax and how a wealthy team that can afford to pay Mookie would choose to trade him instead.

 

I hope somebody from the Boston brass reads these forums before it's too late -- there's a lot of competition for kids' attention and spare time these days, and alienating youth that still love baseball by taking their favorite players away from them could disillusion potential lifelong fans...