Pay Mookie!

[moonslav59]

The drop off might be greater, but there are still good outfielders available.

 

Rank the following 4 SP/RF combos:

 

1. Betts and Andrew Cashner

2. Betts and Jason Vargas (or any available SP you like better)

3. Yasiel Puig and Price

4. Domingo Santana and Price

 

I can see the argument that, given the rest of the Sox team, the last two make for a better overall team. Yes Crazy Puig/ Santana / whoever in RF is a bigger drop off, but the Sox still have Bogaerts, Devers, Martinez, and Benintendi. Those are 4 pretty good anchors...

 

Good points, but maybe we can trade for a decent pitcher with a big contract (but not too big to move us past the reset line).

[mvp 78]

The Sox should not have signed him to begin with. The years on that contract were/are the problem.

 

Trading him right now while trying to contend would be a mistake.

 

For anyone wanting to punt this season and reload, then trading him is obviously the right choice. I'm not in that boat.

 

And thanks!

 

The big question is “what does ownership want”?

 

To me, it seems they are more concerned with saving on payroll than winning.

[mvp 78]

I don't think Mookie's fair market value is 5-6 years, based on the contracts that are being thrown around.

 

But if I'm a GM, that's about what I would willingly pay him, with a higher AAV. I might reluctantly go 7-8 years for a guy like Mookie, the key word here being 'reluctantly'.

 

And you would be outbid.

[Kimmi]

So, trading Betts for Verdugo is not "punting," but trading Price for a bag of balls is?

 

I'm not sure I agree.

 

We need starting pitching more than we need offense. I think the team would survive without Betts. I don't think they would survive without Price. That is in no way saying that Price is a better player than Betts is.

[Kimmi]

Maybe the logic is the Sox can sacrifice some offense but really have no pitching depth to speak of?

 

Exactly.

[Kimmi]

The big question is “what does ownership want”?

 

To me, it seems they are more concerned with saving on payroll than winning.

 

I honestly can't say what ownership wants. They have been all over the place this offseason. However, they did say at one point that their priority was remaining competitive. Can they do that and get under the tax limit at the same time? We shall see.

[mvp 78]

I honestly can't say what ownership wants. They have been all over the place this offseason. However, they did say at one point that their priority was remaining competitive. Can they do that and get under the tax limit at the same time? We shall see.

 

The 10M dollar question for sure!

[Kimmi]

And you would be outbid.

 

Without a doubt.

 

Given the choice between letting Mookie walk or signing him to a 10+ year contract, I'm going with the former every time.

[mvp 78]

Without a doubt.

 

Given the choice between letting Mookie walk or signing him to a 10+ year contract, I'm going with the former every time.

 

And I go with the superstar player. IMO, Mookie has the skillset to be worth a 10 year deal. I believe he’d earn more than he’s paid the first 6 years, would be adequate for 2-3 and you’d have to suck up the last few years. To me, the value of Mookie as “future HOF/face of the franchise” is a strong box office draw. Is it a bit if a PR move? Sure, but the majority of the chat I’ve heard elsewhere is that fans want Mookie to stay no matter what. Most fans don’t care about the lux tax. Does that mean they are correct? No, but I think the value is good enough in this case that I would pull the trigger on a long term deal. I just believe in Mookie more than Machado/Harper and others.

[Kimmi]

And I go with the superstar player. IMO, Mookie has the skillset to be worth a 10 year deal. I believe he’d earn more than he’s paid the first 6 years, would be adequate for 2-3 and you’d have to suck up the last few years. To me, the value of Mookie as “future HOF/face of the franchise” is a strong box office draw. Is it a bit if a PR move? Sure, but the majority of the chat I’ve heard elsewhere is that fans want Mookie to stay no matter what. Most fans don’t care about the lux tax. Does that mean they are correct? No, but I think the value is good enough in this case that I would pull the trigger on a long term deal. I just believe in Mookie more than Machado/Harper and others.

 

I believe in Mookie more than Machado/Harper also. If there were a player to give such a contract to, it would be Mookie. I'm just so opposed to this type of contract because of the flexibility it takes away from the team for both the short and long terms. That's an awful lot of money to tie up in one player.

[moonslav59]

I believe in Mookie more than Machado/Harper also. If there were a player to give such a contract to, it would be Mookie. I'm just so opposed to this type of contract because of the flexibility it takes away from the team for both the short and long terms. That's an awful lot of money to tie up in one player.

 

I totally understand this position, but to me, Mookie is probably worth $300+M/6 (not on the open market as a FA but in reality), so giving him $120M for the last 6 years is not bad.

[Bellhorn04]

I totally understand this position, but to me, Mookie is probably worth $300+M/6 (not on the open market as a FA but in reality), so giving him $120M for the last 6 years is not bad.

 

But you probably won't like the $35 million AAV for those last 6 years so much, when those years inevitably arrive.

[notin]

I totally understand this position, but to me, Mookie is probably worth $300+M/6 (not on the open market as a FA but in reality), so giving him $120M for the last 6 years is not bad.

 

And with Betts, Bogaerts, Price, Sale and Eovaldi making $140mill between them, the farm better do a heckuva job filling in those other 20 roster spots. Or other 23 if those last 3 can’t stay healthy.

 

The problem is, the Sox really don’t have the farm system right now to support this type of deal...

[moonslav59]

But you probably won't like the $35 million AAV for those last 6 years so much, when those years inevitably arrive.

 

No, and maybe I'll kick myself for ever wanting such a long deal, but maybe if we front end structure it, we could deal him towards the end, if it's not working out.

 

I'm thinking Betts at 39-40 might be a steal at "just" $20M a decade from now.

[moonslav59]

And with Betts, Bogaerts, Price, Sale and Eovaldi making $140mill between them, the farm better do a heckuva job filling in those other 20 roster spots. Or other 23 if those last 3 can’t stay healthy.

 

The problem is, the Sox really don’t have the farm system right now to support this type of deal...

 

Don't worry, we've been told, the farm will be rebuilt again.

[Bellhorn04]

I'll say this, if it comes to Mookie being a free agent and we're in on it, as a fan I'll certainly be hoping we have the highest bid.

[Elktonnick]

I'll say this, if it comes to Mookie being a free agent and we're in on it, as a fan I'll certainly be hoping we have the highest bid.

While I would hate to see Mookie in another uniform anything over 7 years is too long IMO. I would however offer him an annual salary that would make him the highest paid player per year over that time.

[Larry Cook]

Does Mookie become Pedroia part 2 on a long term deal?

[Bellhorn04]

Does Mookie become Pedroia part 2 on a long term deal?

 

That's the $400 million question.

[mvp 78]

Does Mookie become Pedroia part 2 on a long term deal?

 

You can hide a Pedroia deal, a Mookie deal either works or is a drain.

[Elktonnick]

You can hide a Pedroia deal, a Mookie deal either works or is a drain.

Thank you Captain Obvious!

[notin]

Don't worry, we've been told, the farm will be rebuilt again.

 

The Portland team should change their mascot to the Phoenix...

[notin]

Does Mookie become Pedroia part 2 on a long term deal?

 

If you think the Pedroia deal is a drain, I don’t know what to say. Pedroia was paid less last year than two players who weren’t even on the team...

[mvp 78]

Thank you Captain Obvious!

 

You’re welcome. I figured a complete dumbass like you would need some easy posts to digest.

[Elktonnick]

You’re welcome. I figured a complete dumbass like you would need some easy posts to digest.

 

Didn't realize you were so thin skinned. I am sorry that I offended you.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Elktonnick

[TylerD]

Mookie is a once in a life time player. Amazing both defensively and offensively...... I just don't get why we wouldn't try and bring him back. He's expensive, as are all the top players in the league. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

[TylerD]

You’re welcome. I figured a complete dumbass like you would need some easy posts to digest.

 

Wow, them fighting words.....

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Mookie is a once in a life time player. Amazing both defensively and offensively...... I just don't get why we wouldn't try and bring him back. He's expensive, as are all the top players in the league. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

 

The boring and depressing cold stove season is about to turn. I fought all winter against the narrative that the Red Sox have to trade a Hall of Famer for players not as good so they can free up money to sign other players not as good. I'm burned out by prevailing logic and about to concede with a just-as-tired warning: be careful what you wish for.

 

Look at Boston's needs and at next year's free agent class. If the Sox reset -- and don't re-sign Betts -- they may use the savings to target a starting pitcher, a closer and another outfielder. Say they sign three above-average players like Robbie Ray, Liam Hendriks and Starling Marte... I try to convince myself those pieces will make the team better than keeping Mookie. Then I calculate value: the above trio produced a cumulative 7.4 WAR last year; Mookie averages 7 WAR himself, per year, in every season of his career.

 

Yes, longterm contracts almost always end up as burdens. But large market franchises like Boston are historically the few with financial resources that help cut their losses easier than others. But I believe Betts is a rare elite five-tool athlete with as good a chance as any other player in baseball to actually earn his salary.

The argument that Mookie's frame or height guarantees he'll break down sooner than someone two or three inches taller is dubious (that's as nice as I can put it). I know guys 5'9" who never stopped practicing, working out and honing their talents, and who saw their game peak in their mid-30s -- and even some who hit better than ever in their 50s in old-timer's leagues vs. ex-pros and D1 hurlers. None were world class athletes like Betts.

 

I'll end with this: one thing that could age Mookie faster is New England weather. His body and career will thrive better in whatever warmer and sunny city he chooses. I wish him good skill (he won't need any luck).

[mvp 78]

Wow, them fighting words.....

 

Old grizzled poster mvp walks into the TalkSox Saloon.

Spits into a spitoon.

Makes a post that goes kaboom.

Turns around and heads back to his room.

[mvp 78]

Mookie is a once in a life time player. Amazing both defensively and offensively...... I just don't get why we wouldn't try and bring him back. He's expensive, as are all the top players in the league. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

 

It's the difference in mindset.

 

Some posters want maximum payroll flexibility.

 

some posters want maximum talent at the MLB level.