How Much is the Most You'd Pay Mookie?

[notin]

Maybe the issue isn't really whether Boston can afford Betts and quality teammates -- for the duration of a longterm contract -- but that the rich businessmen who bought the Sox just can't stomach losing money on the MLB's tax penalties. Just because billionaires can take the hit doesn't mean it still doesn't rankle their very nature.

 

As for the Angels, I understand discussing parallels with the Trout extension, but maybe his club isn't under quite the constant pressure and scrutiny as the baseball fanbase in New England. Don't Angels fans leave no-hitters in progress to beat the traffic? Is it possible that the Angels even have 20 or so fans rabid enough to type about their team on forums all winter... or are there only a couple devotees so lonely they have to go start trouble on Dodger forums? How many here think Trout will finish his entire contract in Anaheim?

 

 

Now see to me, this means the Angels re under MORE pressure to win than the Red Sox.

 

Pretty much everyday, someone clings to our "rabid fanbase" as a reason the Sox have to keep spending more and putting better and better teams on the field. But isn't the opposite true? Isn't citing the addicited fanbase as a reason the Sox need to keep improving like saying your heroin dealer needs to put out a quality product or else?

 

Most of us spent the overwhelming majority of our lives without seeing a title. But we kept coming back. A lot of us saw Don Zimmer hand away the season for one of the best Red Sox teams ever. But we kept coming back. Bill Buckner and the 86 World Series? Kept coming back. We have endured Butch Hobson and Bobby Valentine. But we kept coming back. Know why? We're hooked. We need out Red Sox fix. The "rabid fanbase" shows up for games, buys hats and jerseys, and subscribes to NESN no matter what.

 

Now a team like the Angels? They're fans are less demanding. However, like most fans, they absolutely show up when the team wins, giving us such fads as thunder sticks and rally monkeys. But when the Angels lose? What do they do? Put on Dodger gear? Go watch movies? Write screenplays? Pay immense Orange County taxes? They don't go to games. We know that much.

 

So why do people think the Sox, who are so popular in New England that their fans actually tolerate Sweet Caroline during every home game, are the team that NEEDS to put a good product on the field while teams like the Angels can just fill out their roster with a bunch of PCL also-rans?

[mvp 78]

I wonder if Mookie would accept some deferred money like Sale did.

 

If only we could Bobby Bonilla him.

[mvp 78]

Extend Devers, let Mookie go for $420 M elsewhere

 

I don't believe he signs for that much. He would have to have the most monster of all contract years to get anywhere near that.

 

I think he really is like a 375/12 or 330/10 kinda guy on the open market at best.

[Bellhorn04]

i was just referring to player stats as they age. Mays played exceptional baseball into his late 30's. if Mookie was able to mirror that productivity his 10 year contract will be "worth" it. at least from strictly a player production vs salary aspect.

 

I know, I was just pointing out the insane difference in the money.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Now see to me, this means the Angels re under MORE pressure to win than the Red Sox.

 

Pretty much everyday, someone clings to our "rabid fanbase" as a reason the Sox have to keep spending more and putting better and better teams on the field. But isn't the opposite true? Isn't citing the addicited fanbase as a reason the Sox need to keep improving like saying your heroin dealer needs to put out a quality product or else?

 

Most of us spent the overwhelming majority of our lives without seeing a title. But we kept coming back. A lot of us saw Don Zimmer hand away the season for one of the best Red Sox teams ever. But we kept coming back. Bill Buckner and the 86 World Series? Kept coming back. We have endured Butch Hobson and Bobby Valentine. But we kept coming back. Know why? We're hooked. We need out Red Sox fix. The "rabid fanbase" shows up for games, buys hats and jerseys, and subscribes to NESN no matter what.

 

Now a team like the Angels? They're fans are less demanding. However, like most fans, they absolutely show up when the team wins, giving us such fads as thunder sticks and rally monkeys. But when the Angels lose? What do they do? Put on Dodger gear? Go watch movies? Write screenplays? Pay immense Orange County taxes? They don't go to games. We know that much.

 

So why do people think the Sox, who are so popular in New England that their fans actually tolerate Sweet Caroline during every home game, are the team that NEEDS to put a good product on the field while teams like the Angels can just fill out their roster with a bunch of PCL also-rans?

 

Good post, notin, but if some of us lived in So. Cal instead of the Northeast and rooted for the Angels, I don't think we'd have as much time to implore the GM to import a rotation worthy of postseason contention. It just takes too long for old guys to get up off the pavement, from stumbling after roller-blading blondes in hot pants, who were actually waving to someone else.

[mvp 78]

i was just referring to player stats as they age. Mays played exceptional baseball into his late 30's. if Mookie was able to mirror that productivity his 10 year contract will be "worth" it. at least from strictly a player production vs salary aspect.

 

Will Mookie be more like Willie Mays or Slasher as he ages. Will have to think long and hard about this muscle twitch memory or whatever... Tough call.

[Bellhorn04]

Now see to me, this means the Angels re under MORE pressure to win than the Red Sox.

 

Pretty much everyday, someone clings to our "rabid fanbase" as a reason the Sox have to keep spending more and putting better and better teams on the field. But isn't the opposite true? Isn't citing the addicited fanbase as a reason the Sox need to keep improving like saying your heroin dealer needs to put out a quality product or else?

 

Most of us spent the overwhelming majority of our lives without seeing a title. But we kept coming back. A lot of us saw Don Zimmer hand away the season for one of the best Red Sox teams ever. But we kept coming back. Bill Buckner and the 86 World Series? Kept coming back. We have endured Butch Hobson and Bobby Valentine. But we kept coming back. Know why? We're hooked. We need out Red Sox fix. The "rabid fanbase" shows up for games, buys hats and jerseys, and subscribes to NESN no matter what.

 

Now a team like the Angels? They're fans are less demanding. However, like most fans, they absolutely show up when the team wins, giving us such fads as thunder sticks and rally monkeys. But when the Angels lose? What do they do? Put on Dodger gear? Go watch movies? Write screenplays? Pay immense Orange County taxes? They don't go to games. We know that much.

 

So why do people think the Sox, who are so popular in New England that their fans actually tolerate Sweet Caroline during every home game, are the team that NEEDS to put a good product on the field while teams like the Angels can just fill out their roster with a bunch of PCL also-rans?

 

The rabidity of the Red Sox fanbase is more variable now than it once was.

[mvp 78]

Good post, notin, but if some of us lived in So. Cal instead of the Northeast and rooted for the Angels, I don't think we'd have as much time to implore the GM to import a rotation worthy of postseason contention. It just takes too long for old guys to get up off the pavement, from stumbling after roller-blading blondes in hot pants, who were actually waving to someone else.

 

I lived in SoCal and still rooted for the Sox. There are Angels fans, but they are definitely the minority and really relegated to Orange County. And sports fandom is completely different out there. Aside from old school Lakers and Raiders fans, there's nothing even close to the rabid fandom Northeast teams have.

[mvp 78]

The rabidity of the Red Sox fanbase is more variable now than it once was.

 

Broken by success and pink hats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kidding about that last part.

[notin]

I lived in SoCal and still rooted for the Sox. There are Angels fans, but they are definitely the minority and really relegated to Orange County. And sports fandom is completely different out there. Aside from old school Lakers and Raiders fans, there's nothing even close to the rabid fandom Northeast teams have.

 

My point exactly.

 

A GM for that team has to do so much better just to garner interest in the multitude of "casual fans." Red Sox fans tune in no matter what. Not even Joe Kerrigan could get us to turn off NESN...

[mvp 78]

My point exactly.

 

A GM for that team has to do so much better just to garner interest in the multitude of "casual fans." Red Sox fans tune in no matter what. Not even Joe Kerrigan could get us to turn off NESN...

 

Waiting to hear the connection to how Trout's contract is at fault for lack of interest from fans.

 

Honestly, the Angels fanbase is just very bandwagony. Anyone that actually wants to go see baseball isn't going to waste time at a park where vending staff are 50% rats.

 

If you live near LA, you should be a Dodgers fan unless you have a huge personality flaw and/or just want to see the Disney fireworks every night.

[Slasher9]

Will Mookie be more like Willie Mays or Slasher as he ages. Will have to think long and hard about this muscle twitch memory or whatever... Tough call.

 

there was only 1 Willie Mays. there are 7 billion Slashers. Odds say he will age like Slasher?

[notin]

Waiting to hear the connection to how Trout's contract is at fault for lack of interest from fans.

 

Honestly, the Angels fanbase is just very bandwagony. Anyone that actually wants to go see baseball isn't going to waste time at a park where vending staff are 50% rats.

 

If you live near LA, you should be a Dodgers fan unless you have a huge personality flaw and/or just want to see the Disney fireworks every night.

 

Who said anything about Trout's contract causing fan disinterest?

 

What stands in the way of fan interest is the lack of winning. Trout making as much money as he does - along with other contracts - does make it more difficult for the Angels to get the arms they need. After all, as many like to point out, pitching = parades.

 

My point on this thread was they are very bandwagony. So the only way to get them interested it t put together a winning team. But that has not been happening. And right now, many of them stay away from Edison Park rather than watch the most exciting player in the game. And we both know why; they're not a good team. They have not played a meaningful September game in 4 years. That can make a lot of fanbases a lot smaller.

 

We both know why the Angels are not a good team. They cannot pitch. Every talented pitcher they have had the past few years has dealt with multiple injuries. One also passed away.

 

So what would you think - does Trout's contract make it easier or more difficult to get good pitchers? Yes, they have other bad contracts as well. Trout is just a piece in this puzzle. Those have the same effect, and the cumulative effect of paying Trout, Upton, Rendon and Pujols does or does not help the Angels get better pitching?

[mvp 78]

there was only 1 Willie Mays. there are 7 billion Slashers. Odds say he will age like Slasher?

 

I highly doubt there are billions of Betts though.

[Slasher9]

Trouts contract + Pujols contract 100% prevents them from spending money on quality FA pitching. not sure of the draft/pipeline of young pitchers in the Angels Org but my guess is that its not much better then ours.

[mvp 78]

Who said anything about Trout's contract causing fan disinterest?

 

So what would you think - does Trout's contract make it easier or more difficult to get good pitchers? Yes, they have other bad contracts as well. Trout is just a piece in this puzzle. Those have the same effect, and the cumulative effect of paying Trout, Upton, Rendon and Pujols does or does not help the Angels get better pitching?

 

1. I was just messing with you.

 

2. Trout's contract does not affect getting good pitching for all but the smallest of small market teams. Though, it could help a little by increasing fan interest/$$$'s and maybe other MLB players would be more likely to sign with a team that has one of the greates players that has ever lived on it.

[mvp 78]

Trouts contract + Pujols contract 100% prevents them from spending money on quality FA pitching. not sure of the draft/pipeline of young pitchers in the Angels Org but my guess is that its not much better then ours.

 

They just signed Anthony Rendon though. They could have spent that money on pitching if they wanted to.

[Slasher9]

I highly doubt there are billions of Betts though.

 

exactly. thats why i have previously advocated giving him a blank contract to fill in the numbers. and now i am advocating trading Mookie to reset LT so that we can afford to pay him when he hits FA.

[Slasher9]

They just signed Anthony Rendon though. They could have spent that money on pitching if they wanted to.

 

it is bizarre to me. were they in on Cole at all?

[mvp 78]

Teheran is the 6th highest paid player on the Angels at $9M (behind Trout, Rendon, Pujols, Upton and Simmons).

 

Maybe the real problem is the Angels roster creation? Would they be better replacing Upton and Simmons with starting pitchers and still having Pujols/Trout/Rendon contracts on the book? The Angels rotation will make less than $20M combined. That's less than Trout, Rendon, Pujols or Upton.

[mvp 78]

exactly. thats why i have previously advocated giving him a blank contract to fill in the numbers. and now i am advocating trading Mookie to reset LT so that we can afford to pay him when he hits FA.

 

And we'll never agree because I'm a hardline "if he walks out the door, he never comes back."

 

I re-sign him and fix the cap some other way.

[mvp 78]

it is bizarre to me. were they in on Cole at all?

 

They were supposed to be.

 

@martinonyc

Paired with the industry perception that Cole wants west coast is perception that Angels are ready to go bonkers for him and spend whatever it takes. But again, Yankees in on him as of now.

 

Pre-Rendon deal:

 

The Angels are now projected to sit roughly $70 million below the 2020 luxury-tax threshold, which is set at $208 million, according to information from Cot's Contracts. Owner Arte Moreno has declined to reveal his operating budget for next season, but Eppler acknowledged that the team "probably" has the means to sign multiple players to $20 million-plus contracts. Speaking five hours before Cole made his decision, Eppler expressed optimism about his ability to acquire front-line starting pitchers besides Cole, specifically through the trade market.

[Slasher9]

i know this is "revisionist" to a T but last offseason if we:

- held off on Sale contract extension

- did not sign Eovaldi

- did not sign Pearce

- tore up Porc's final year and signed him to a 3 year ext at a lower AAV

 

would the above gotten us under the LT threshold last year and reset?

[Bellhorn04]

i know this is "revisionist" to a T but last offseason if we:

- held off on Sale contract extension

- did not sign Eovaldi

- did not sign Pearce

- tore up Porc's final year and signed him to a 3 year ext at a lower AAV

 

would the above gotten us under the LT threshold last year and reset?

 

No doubt. That's a heapin' helpin' of savings.

[mvp 78]

No doubt. That's a heapin' helpin' of savings.

 

Thanks DD!

 

And JH for not saying no until the offseason.

[oldtimer]

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

 

Totally agree and since no choice other than long contracts at high dollars were allowed, I didn't vote. Perhaps it will take that much wrapped up into a very long term contract, but I too would rather let players go than participate in the insanity of 10 year contracts.

[jacksonianmarch]

I am entirely hoping the sox re-sign him to something record setting.

[mvp 78]

I am entirely hoping the sox re-sign him to something record setting.

 

#metoo

[jacksonianmarch]

#metoo

 

My rationale is more due to the way the sox window is shaping up. Trust me, I am not in love with the Cole contract, but we are staunchly in window and were in need of an ace. Boxes checked. Will his contract hinder us over the long haul? Likely, but if we win a title or two in window, then it is worth it. With Betts, the sox are tumbling down a cliff and have a fair amount of players not likely to outperform their 2020 contracts and beyond. That means adding a prime Mookie on a record setting deal is likely to waste the most important seasons of a long term contract, which are usually the first few. By the time the sox org is ready to take down the Yanks, Mookie might be 30+ and as a smaller player, might be showing some wear and tear. I know Mookie makes the sox better. I know that re-signing Mookie for however many years makes the sox better likely over 2020-2022. Beyond that, he will probably still be good, but may not outperform the contract. Maybe he does? Who knows, but it becomes less likely.

[mvp 78]

I'm a glass half full kinda guy on the Mookie contract.