A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[notin]

The extensions for Sale and Bogaerts weren't done until March, 2019. It seems extremely likely that the reported $300 million offer to Betts, which occurred that same offseason, would have occurred well before that.

 

OK, but did it end there?

 

"Mookie, how is $300 million?"

 

"Not convinced."

 

"OK. I tried."

[mvp 78]

OK, but did it end there?

 

"Mookie, how is $300 million?"

 

"Not convinced."

 

"OK. I tried."

 

From reports, yes.

[Bellhorn04]

OK, but did it end there?

 

"Mookie, how is $300 million?"

 

"Not convinced."

 

"OK. I tried."

 

As I assume you know, the same reports are that Mookie countered at $420 million, and that's where the talks ended.

[Bellhorn04]

I believe the Red Sox FO, at their annual season-ending press conference after 2018, were talking about the future of the team and they said while they'd love to be able to keep all of Betts, Bogaerts and Sale, they didn't think they'd be able to keep all of them.

 

I think they went to Mookie first, and based on his counter-offer they decided he was simply determined to go to free agency. This was in keeping with all Mookie's words and actions on the matter.

 

Then they went to Sale and Bogaerts and got those extensions done.

 

Seems perfectly simple and logical to me.

[moonslav59]

I can see how a $420M counter proposal was met with silence, but if they really wanted Betts, why not counter with $325M or whatever?

[Bellhorn04]

I can see how a $420M counter proposal was met with silence, but if they really wanted Betts, why not counter with $325M or whatever?

 

Maybe his counteroffer pissed them off or they interpreted it as a message that he simply wasn't interested in a price that was in their range. Keep in mind that he still had a full 2 years to free agency, so they were offering him security and hoping for a reduced price in return. Also, they had made other extension offers to him in the past that got no traction.

 

Strange things happen in these negotiations. It was often asked why the Red Sox and Lester had no further discussions after their initial lowball offer of 4/$70 million.

[moonslav59]

Maybe his counteroffer pissed them off or they interpreted it as a message that he simply wasn't interested in a price that was in their range. Keep in mind that he still had a full 2 years to free agency, so they were offering him security and hoping for a reduced price in return. Also, they had made other extension offers to him in the past that got no traction.

 

Strange things happen in these negotiations. It was often asked why the Red Sox and Lester had no further discussions after their initial lowball offer of 4/$70 million.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, but as with Lester, the question always remains: how much did we really want him, if we made no counter offer.

 

As it turned out with Lester, our supposed final FA offer ended up not being that far from what the Cubs got him for.

 

If we came back with $325M, and Mookie responded $415, then I get it.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, but as with Lester, the question always remains: how much did we really want him, if we made no counter offer.

 

As it turned out with Lester, our supposed final FA offer ended up not being that far from what the Cubs got him for.

 

If we came back with $325M, and Mookie responded $415, then I get it.

 

We only know what's been reported, of course. Maybe something further did happen before the talks shut down.

[oldtimer]

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view, but as with Lester, the question always remains: how much did we really want him, if we made no counter offer.

 

As it turned out with Lester, our supposed final FA offer ended up not being that far from what the Cubs got him for.

 

If we came back with $325M, and Mookie responded $415, then I get it.

To me the extreme length of the contract was even more of an issue than the yearly dollar amount. I'd like to see how baseball execs handle and monetize risk in long term contract situations.

[Kimmi]

He gets less money up front. He'll get some of it paid after he retires. Clearly, he's not living paycheck to paycheck so I don't know if it really matters all that much if a portion is deferred. I believe the Sox were still paying Manny deferred money in 2020.

 

So the Dodgers are still paying Mookie $365 million in total, including having to pay him after he retires, when they'll get zero production from him. I get the benefit of lowering his AAV, but I have always preferred a higher AAV if it can snag a player for fewer years.

[Kimmi]

Sox could have gotten that if they offered it IMO. Staying put and not countering above 300M was dumb.

 

My understanding is that the latest offer was over $300M. Regardless, the Sox were not dumb in going any higher than they did.

[Kimmi]

Unless Betts only took it due to the unknown impact of the COVID outbreak...

 

I am 100% positive that Mookie jumped on that deal with great relief.

[Bellhorn04]

So the Dodgers are still paying Mookie $365 million in total, including having to pay him after he retires, when they'll get zero production from him. I get the benefit of lowering his AAV, but I have always preferred a higher AAV if it can snag a player for fewer years.

 

But in the history of free agency signings, are there any where it was reported that the player agreed to take a higher AAV for fewer years?

[moonslav59]

But in the history of free agency signings, are there any where it was reported that the player agreed to take a higher AAV for fewer years?

 

The only examples I can think of are players who sign 1 year deals hoping they can strike it big the following winter, but I can't think of specific examples of players who could have signed for 3+ years but took a 1-2 year deal.

 

The fact is, the vast majority of high impact players take large and long deals, and if we ever want another high impact player, we will have to splurge at that point.

 

I agree with Kimmi's philosophy, and even she had admitted that there comes times when you have to make a big splash. She just wants them spread out more and for as short a term as possible.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree with Kimmi's philosophy, and even she had admitted that there comes times when you have to make a big splash. She just wants them spread out more and for as short a term as possible.

 

I get the philosophy too. I'm just not sure it's possible to put that particular one into practice.

[moonslav59]

I get the philosophy too. I'm just not sure it's possible to put that particular one into practice.

 

In general, could we not build solid and consistently productive and highly competitive teams without so many big splash signings?

 

Signing more mid level free agents and fewer high level ones?

 

I get what you are saying: we are not going to get top talent by offering them $40M/yr for 3 years vs some other team offering them $35M/yr (or even $30M/yr) for 6+ years. I doubt that has ever happened, too.

[Bellhorn04]

So the Dodgers are still paying Mookie $365 million in total, including having to pay him after he retires, when they'll get zero production from him.

 

The Red Sox are still paying Manny, I think. It's one of those things that usually only the accountants know about.

 

Speaking of accountants, the lower AAV for the deferred money is of course based on present value discounting of future cash flows at an imputed interest rate.

[Kimmi]

But in the history of free agency signings, are there any where it was reported that the player agreed to take a higher AAV for fewer years?

 

I'm not sure if the deals are ever reported as such, but yes, I do think happens. Porcello's extension with us comes to minds. Most people felt that his AAV was a little higher than it should have been, but that he could have received a lengthier deal had he gone to FA.

[Bellhorn04]

In general, could we not build solid and consistently productive and highly competitive teams without so many big splash signings?

 

Signing more mid level free agents and fewer high level ones?

 

I get what you are saying: we are not going to get top talent by offering them $40M/yr for 3 years vs some other team offering them $35M/yr (or even $30M/yr) for 6+ years. I doubt that has ever happened, too.

 

All this stuff is open for debate and there are no simple answers, because every strategy entails its own risks.

 

In 2013, Ben did that mid level free agents thing, right?

 

And it worked brilliantly, for one year.

 

Victorino is a classic example. 3 years/39 million. He was fantastic for one year and useless for two. Good signing or not? I don't complain about it because he helped us get a ring. But if we didn't get the ring it would look pretty bad.

[Kimmi]

In general, could we not build solid and consistently productive and highly competitive teams without so many big splash signings?

 

Signing more mid level free agents and fewer high level ones?

 

I get what you are saying: we are not going to get top talent by offering them $40M/yr for 3 years vs some other team offering them $35M/yr (or even $30M/yr) for 6+ years. I doubt that has ever happened, too.

 

I don't think it would happen where there is a difference of 3 years offered. I'm thinking more along the lines of offering a 4 year contract as opposed to a 5 year contract.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure if the deals are ever reported as such, but yes, I do think happens. Porcello's extension with us comes to minds. Most people felt that his AAV was a little higher than it should have been, but that he could have received a lengthier deal had he gone to FA.

 

I do remember some talk about that. But let's look at the actual numbers.

 

Porcello's extension was for 4/82.5 million.

 

How much more than 82.5 million could he have expected to get on the free agent market, is the question. I can't imagine it was a huge amount.

 

I think this might be a valid example, but that the differences involved were not very large.

[Kimmi]

The Red Sox are still paying Manny, I think. It's one of those things that usually only the accountants know about.

 

Speaking of accountants, the lower AAV for the deferred money is of course based on present value discounting of future cash flows at an imputed interest rate.

 

Speaking of accountants, I do not understand your second sentence at all. LOL

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking of accountants, I do not understand your second sentence at all. LOL

 

There is a much simpler way of expressing it:

 

"A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow."

 

Us accountants live by this principle. Always trying to defer tax liabilities and such.

[Kimmi]

All this stuff is open for debate and there are no simple answers, because every strategy entails its own risks.

 

In 2013, Ben did that mid level free agents thing, right?

 

And it worked brilliantly, for one year.

 

Victorino is a classic example. 3 years/39 million. He was fantastic for one year and useless for two. Good signing or not? I don't complain about it because he helped us get a ring. But if we didn't get the ring it would look pretty bad.

 

The same could be said about the splash type moves that Dombrowski made too. If we didn't the ring in 2018, things would look pretty bad. The same with the Dodgers signing of Mookie.

[Kimmi]

I do remember some talk about that. But let's look at the actual numbers.

 

Porcello's extension was for 4/82.5 million.

 

How much more than 82.5 million could he have expected to get on the free agent market, is the question. I can't imagine it was a huge amount.

 

I think this might be a valid example, but that the differences involved were not very large.

 

Agreed that the differences might not be very large. Shaving one year off of a 12 year contract like Mookie's wouldn't matter much anyway. But I do think that a 4 year contract versus a 5 year contract at a slightly higher AAV is worth it.

[Bellhorn04]

The same could be said about the splash type moves that Dombrowski made too. If we didn't the ring in 2018, things would look pretty bad. The same with the Dodgers signing of Mookie.

 

I agree about 2018, but to be fair, we did win the division 3 years in a row so we had multiple shots at it, at least.

 

The Dodgers signing of Mookie wouldn't be heralded as such a slam dunk win if they didn't win it this year. But his extension doesn't even start till next year, so that would be more a case of fans being fans.

[Kimmi]

There is a much simpler way of expressing it:

 

"A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow."

 

Us accountants live by this principle. Always trying to defer tax liabilities and such.

 

OK, that makes sense.

 

So Mookie would have been better off taking the Sox offer?

[Kimmi]

I agree about 2018, but to be fair, we did win the division 3 years in a row so we had multiple shots at it, at least.

 

The Dodgers signing of Mookie wouldn't be heralded as such a slam dunk win if they didn't win it this year. But his extension doesn't even start till next year, so that would be more a case of fans being fans.

 

Fair on both counts.

 

As Moon said yesterday, I hope we are all still posting at the end of Mookie's contract.

[Bellhorn04]

OK, that makes sense.

 

So Mookie would have been better off taking the Sox offer?

 

Technically, the Dodgers deal pays him 7 million more, for 2 years more, if he's still playing at ages 39 and 40.

 

But I'm inclined to think that if Mookie was really ready to negotiate a deal with the Sox they would have gone as high as 350 million maybe?

[notin]

The Red Sox are still paying Manny, I think. It's one of those things that usually only the accountants know about.

 

Speaking of accountants, the lower AAV for the deferred money is of course based on present value discounting of future cash flows at an imputed interest rate.

 

You're going off on this deferred money angle like it's a new discovery and teams have not been doing it for decades. The sport makes a big deal out of Bobby Bonilla Day every year when he still cashes a check, but ignores how much money that deal apparently saved the Mets and the flexibility it gave them.

 

This is an old strategy and been used probably hundreds of time. So it is possible the Sox made such an offer and Betts still declined. Or it is possible Dombrowski is a moron and never thought to do so. (But I highly doubt the latter. I'm sure DD has done deferred money deals before, or at the very least prepared them.)