How Much is the Most You'd Pay Mookie?

[moonslav59]

Now that some numbers have been rumored, how much is the most you'd pay Mookie?

[Bellhorn04]

I'll say 10 years and 375 million.

[moonslav59]

I'd go $400M/12 to,lower the AVV.

[moonslav59]

I'll say 10 years and 375 million.

 

Cast your vote.

[Elktonnick]

Cast your vote.

 

None of the above. A ten year contract is insanity. Any club who signs one for that long will regret it after five years.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Numbers really don't matter as most MLB clubs can afford to pay Mookie -- if they want to; the last franchise that sold was small-market Kansas City, for a billion dollars.

 

Betts reportedly set his price at 420 for 12; that's 35 Mil per year. If top pitchers -- ballplayers who play every five or six days -- are worth $36 or 35 per (Cole, Strasburg) -- and Boston has already given Price and Sale over $30 per year -- then a top position player who performs every day is worth $35.

 

Check market price; it's like King Crab legs on a menu.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If top pitchers -- ballplayers who play every five or six days -- are worth $36 or 35 per (Cole, Strasburg) -- and Boston has already given Price and Sale over $30 per year -- then a top position player who performs every day is worth $35.

 

Based on this logic, Boston should sign Mookie at $35 Million AAV asap, because his value will surely rise to $40 by next winter after he has another of his usual 7 WAR seasons in 2020...

[moonslav59]

None of the above. A ten year contract is insanity. Any club who signs one for that long will regret it after five years.

 

Choose $300M/12 or less as your vote.

[mvp 78]

12/420

[Hitch]

Numbers really don't matter as most MLB clubs can afford to pay Mookie -- if they want to; the last franchise that sold was small-market Kansas City, for a billion dollars.

 

Betts reportedly set his price at 420 for 12; that's 35 Mil per year. If top pitchers -- ballplayers who play every five or six days -- are worth $36 or 35 per (Cole, Strasburg) -- and Boston has already given Price and Sale over $30 per year -- then a top position player who performs every day is worth $35.

 

Check market price; it's like King Crab legs on a menu.

 

The issue isn't about affording him. We know the Red Sox can afford him, it's about being able to put a balanced team on the field without getting hammered on draft picks/int money every few years because we're consistently over the cap.

 

If he got anywhere near this, the next 3/4 years we're going to have an insane amount of money of our cap tied up with just a few players. And after they clear and we need to bring in new players and build a new squad (less some picks and Int money) and Mookie will still have 8/9 years on a contract and edging ever closer to a decline that is inevitable with a player so blessed with speed as a tool.

 

I like the guy and would love to keep him, but for the numbers being bandied around - its crazy.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

We all know Boston can afford Mookie -- Kennedy said there is a way to keep both Betts and JD -- and one way to do that is to reset. The latter should be Bloom's goal by the end of the season, either way.

 

We know some people are repulsed by the dollars; it's always been like that and always will be: "$100,000?!?! A million?!!! Ten million? A hundred mil?! Billion, trillion, kajillion..."

 

We can also predict the current Boston ownership isn't suddenly going to start spending like a mid-market team... but here's the problem for those who want Mookie traded: as soon as the Red Sox begin to lose games and fans, they'll feel compelled to "make a splash" -- and instead of spending to keep a homegrown future Hall of Famer, we'll soon have another Carl Crawford or Panda Sandoval to boo. Bank on it.

[Bellhorn04]

We all know Boston can afford Mookie -- Kennedy said there is a way to keep both Betts and JD -- and one way to do that is to reset. The latter should be Bloom's goal by the end of the season, either way.[/b]

 

I thought Kennedy was implying they could reset this year, and keep Betts and JD, if they were able to trade Price.

[Slasher9]

$350/10 is what it will take.

we could have had him locked up for less AAV if we had done the blank contract 2 years ago like i wanted to do.

[Hitch]

We all know Boston can afford Mookie -- Kennedy said there is a way to keep both Betts and JD -- and one way to do that is to reset. The latter should be Bloom's goal by the end of the season, either way.

 

We know some people are repulsed by the dollars; it's always been like that and always will be: "$100,000?!?! A million?!!! Ten million? A hundred mil?! Billion, trillion, kajillion..."

 

We can also predict the current Boston ownership isn't suddenly going to start spending like a mid-market team... but here's the problem for those who want Mookie traded: as soon as the Red Sox begin to lose games and fans, they'll feel compelled to "make a splash" -- and instead of spending to keep a homegrown future Hall of Famer, we'll soon have another Carl Crawford or Panda Sandoval to boo. Bank on it.

 

I'm not repulsed by the dollars. The market set the price and it is what it is, as ridiculous as it's gotten, but I am worried about what the dollars will do to the ability to invest in other areas.

 

Your last point is just baseless. There's little point discussing such things.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I'm not repulsed by the dollars. The market set the price and it is what it is, as ridiculous as it's gotten, but I am worried about what the dollars will do to the ability to invest in other areas.

 

Your last point is just baseless. There's little point discussing such things.

 

Thanks for the support. I've seen bad spending over and over on free agents since free agency started in the mid-70s. If a club isn't going to invest on its best homegrown player about to enter his prime, already with stats on a Hall of Fame trajectory, then who? Acuna or Soto in five years? Maybe, but first let's see them each earn 40 WAR in a half decade like Mookie just did. Meanwhile, the Red Sox can try to patch together three or four players who won't even add up to one Betts.

[Bellhorn04]

$350/10 is what it will take.

we could have had him locked up for less AAV if we had done the blank contract 2 years ago like i wanted to do.

 

I honestly think it's going to take more than $350 now.

[notin]

I honestly think it's going to take more than $350 now.

 

And it's not likely he settles for the same AAV as Rendon...

[mvp 78]

Thanks for the support. I've seen bad spending over and over on free agents since free agency started in the mid-70s. If a club isn't going to invest on its best homegrown player about to enter his prime, already with stats on a Hall of Fame trajectory, then who? Acuna or Soto in five years? Maybe, but first let's see them each earn 40 WAR in a half decade like Mookie just did. Meanwhile, the Red Sox can try to patch together three or four players who won't even add up to one Betts.

 

That Manny contract was ridiculous! They could never win with that on the books!

[mvp 78]

Also, 10 poll options are clearly too many.

[notin]

That Manny contract was ridiculous! They could never win with that on the books!

 

Remember the uproar when Pedro signed his extension with Boston for 6 years $75mill? Nowadays a $12.5mill AAV gets you an aging Brett Gardner or most of Will Smith...

[mvp 78]

Remember the uproar when Pedro signed his extension with Boston for 6 years $75mill? Nowadays a $12.5mill AAV gets you an aging Brett Gardner or most of Will Smith...

 

Until it prices out the fans, the price of contracts will keep going up. There has not been a market correction since.

[Hitch]

Thanks for the support. I've seen bad spending over and over on free agents since free agency started in the mid-70s. If a club isn't going to invest on its best homegrown player about to enter his prime, already with stats on a Hall of Fame trajectory, then who? Acuna or Soto in five years? Maybe, but first let's see them each earn 40 WAR in a half decade like Mookie just did. Meanwhile, the Red Sox can try to patch together three or four players who won't even add up to one Betts.

 

Apologies if the last line of my post seemed hostile, I wasn't going for that, it's just not a concept worth discussing as you've pulled it out of thin air and presented it as almost certain.

 

Let me preface this by saying *IF* we could at least get rid of Price, but also possibly Evoaldi, I wouldn't be as hostile to offering him a longer term deal, however, I'm mostly against long deals to anyone. He will probably be great for the next three years - years in which we are stuck with Price (Could see the physio's room often), Sale (could see the physio's room often) Evoaldi (has literally moved his own bed into the physio's room)and JD. You're talking near enough around $130/$140 a year on 5 players (3 of which are highly suspect) including Mookie. Five that's it. We're also paying Bogey $20m and Devers will make big leaps up in arbitration, ERod, Beni, too, to name a few. So the only way I can see us winning or being there or thereabouts is by going over the cap repeatedly, hammering us on Draft picks and Int money. If we don't go over the cap repeatedly, I don't see how we contend, wasting Mookie's best years.

 

So now we're into Mookie's 30/31 aged seasons, and the big money has come off the books, but we have a desolate farm which is bad at the moment, but close to useless in two or three years if we stay over the cap all the time. Can we supply a great team to go around Mookie then? We'll likely have little coming through but much more ability to move around financially. You keep suggesting we will make stupid splashes with the Mookie money, what's to stop us making stupid splashes then? When we have holes, EVERYWHERE?

 

Then we're in to to Mookie's 33+ seasons when the contract will be start to become a harsh anchor on us. We know it will hurt us in later years. It's an absurd idea to give a man that speed and twitch muscles are is his primary weapons.

 

I like the guy, I hate long contracts. I just don't see how we make it work without offloading at least Price for the full amount. And even then it'll be tough.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Apologies if the last line of my post seemed hostile, I wasn't going for that, it's just not a concept worth discussing as you've pulled it out of thin air and presented it as almost certain.

 

Let me preface this by saying *IF* we could at least get rid of Price, but also possibly Evoaldi, I wouldn't be as hostile to offering him a longer term deal, however, I'm mostly against long deals to anyone. He will probably be great for the next three years - years in which we are stuck with Price (Could see the physio's room often), Sale (could see the physio's room often) Evoaldi (has literally moved his own bed into the physio's room)and JD. You're talking near enough around $130/$140 a year on 5 players (3 of which are highly suspect) including Mookie. Five that's it. We're also paying Bogey $20m and Devers will make big leaps up in arbitration, ERod, Beni, too, to name a few. So the only way I can see us winning or being there or thereabouts is by going over the cap repeatedly, hammering us on Draft picks and Int money. If we don't go over the cap repeatedly, I don't see how we contend, wasting Mookie's best years.

 

So now we're into Mookie's 30/31 aged seasons, and the big money has come off the books, but we have a desolate farm which is bad at the moment, but close to useless in two or three years if we stay over the cap all the time. Can we supply a great team to go around Mookie then? We'll likely have little coming through but much more ability to move around financially. You keep suggesting we will make stupid splashes with the Mookie money, what's to stop us making stupid splashes then? When we have holes, EVERYWHERE?

 

Then we're in to to Mookie's 33+ seasons when the contract will be start to become a harsh anchor on us. We know it will hurt us in later years. It's an absurd idea to give a man that speed and twitch muscles are is his primary weapons.

 

I like the guy, I hate long contracts. I just don't see how we make it work without offloading at least Price for the full amount. And even then it'll be tough.

 

I get it, Hitch, and I'm glad I'm not Bloom trying to fit holes into squares. But that's his job and he's pretty good at it or Henry and Co. wouldn't have hired him. The way it stands now, it's reset every third year, but in between the Sox will splurge to stay as competitive as possible.

[Swiharts Ghost]

Don’t laugh it’s the years that scare me so the most AAV for me on Mookie is 45 a year for 5 . If another team wants to pay him for his mid to late 30s on let them . Edited January 29, 2020 by Swiharts Ghost

[Bellhorn04]

I'd go $400M/12 to,lower the AVV.

 

Plus some of us will be dead by the time Year 11 rolls around. Good thinking.

[notin]

Don’t laugh it’s the years that scare me so the most AAV for me on Mookie is 45 a year for 5 .

 

I'd prefer a 5 year $225mill contract over a 10 year $350mill contract.

 

The AAV never bothers me nearly as much as the years. I don't pay the bills, but I do have to watch for the duration.

 

Although if the Sox got creative and offered a (obviously front loaded) $500 mill contract over 50 years, I think I might be OK with that level of circumvention...

[mvp 78]

Plus some of us will be dead by the time Year 11 rolls around. Good thinking.

 

Not my problem. That's when my post count finally reaches the top!

[mvp 78]

Was

"All I want to see is one Red Sox WS title before I die."

 

Is

"Please don't sign the greatest modern day Red Sox player to a long contract that I won't outlive."

[Bellhorn04]

That Manny contract was ridiculous! They could never win with that on the books!

 

Manny's contract was one of the big exceptions, no question.

[notin]

Plus some of us will be dead by the time Year 11 rolls around. Good thinking.

 

Oh please. That Canadian health care will keep you propped up past the century mark...