Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[mvp 78]

He might. If guaranteed years mean more to him than salary.

 

The biggest factor will be what his agent tells him he can get him.

 

Also not sure why you think a $14mill AAV is insulting and then think a $15mill AAV should do the trick...

 

I didn't say it would. I have said that I think he keeps the 19.35 in lieu of extra years. I didn't say he'd opt out for 4/60. I questioned whether 15AAV was enough to have him opt out. I don't think it is.

 

Opt out make more sense for younger players who can get similar $$$'s for more years, not a 25% pay cut.

[mvp 78]

It also turned out that the same pandemic that turned it into a 60 game season may have heavily influenced Mookie's decision to take the Dodgers' offer.

 

I don't think it was.

[moonslav59]

I don't think it was.

 

Maybe not "heavily influenced," but to some extent, I feel it must have.

[oldtimer]

Maybe not "heavily influenced," but to some extent, I feel it must have.

 

Mookie seems to have looked for the best financial deal for him. Taking $30 mil for 12 years was a windfall for him. I'm just as happy the Sox felt the risk of such a deal was greater than the potential benefit. Time will tell which approach was the best. The Sox offered a big contract but Mookie chose not to accept. Would $30 mil for 10 years been too much to risk? I think so but can understand those who believe the opposite.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe not "heavily influenced," but to some extent, I feel it must have.

 

Me as well. Under normal circumstances, the deal he signed with the Dodgers was a team-friendly one, when you factor in the deferred money and the 25.55 million AAV.

[mvp 78]

Me as well. Under normal circumstances, the deal he signed with the Dodgers was a team-friendly one, when you factor in the deferred money and the 25.55 million AAV.

 

"TEAM FRIENDLY" $360M deal.

[mvp 78]

It was such a bargain that the Sox should have tried to offer him that!

[moonslav59]

Me as well. Under normal circumstances, the deal he signed with the Dodgers was a team-friendly one, when you factor in the deferred money and the 25.55 million AAV.

 

I don't think there is any doubt, for his age and his history, he was expected to make more- before COVID hit.

[mvp 78]

I don't think there is any doubt, for his age and his history, he was expected to make more- before COVID hit.

 

What are you talking about? People were clamoring for him to sign for 300M before the pandemic claiming it was stupid to not take the $$$.

[Bellhorn04]

"TEAM FRIENDLY" $360M deal.

 

As an accountant, I buy into the deferred money factor.

[Bellhorn04]

What are you talking about? People were clamoring for him to sign for 300M before the pandemic claiming it was stupid to not take the $$$.

 

And there were other people who said the Red Sox were lowballing him with the $300 mill offer.

 

People have some widely diverging opinions.

[mvp 78]

And there were other people who said the Red Sox were lowballing him with the $300 mill offer.

 

People have some widely diverging opinions.

 

I was just questioning moon’s idea that there wasn’t a doubt that he should be making more.

[moonslav59]

What are you talking about? People were clamoring for him to sign for 300M before the pandemic claiming it was stupid to not take the $$$.

 

"People"- LOL.

 

Look at the numbers some players got who were worse than Betts and older.

 

I guess I should say there "should be no doubt," because someone always doubts everything, whether it is worthy of doubting or not.

 

Is your position the pandemic did not lower his amount received- even by a little?

 

Does anyone hold that position?

[Larry Cook]

How many games does Betts miss with his latest injury?

[notin]

I didn't say it would. I have said that I think he keeps the 19.35 in lieu of extra years. I didn't say he'd opt out for 4/60. I questioned whether 15AAV was enough to have him opt out. I don't think it is.

 

Opt out make more sense for younger players who can get similar $$$'s for more years, not a 25% pay cut.

 

Yeah but at 34, a multi year deal of 3-4 years is still possible, as history has shown. At 35, probably significantly less so.

 

He’ll opt out if he thinks he can get a better deal. I have my doubts he wants his next contract hinging on his age 35 season, especially if his age 34 season is a really good one...

[mvp 78]

Is your position the pandemic did not lower his amount received- even by a little?

 

Does anyone hold that position?

 

Yes and yes.

[moonslav59]

Yes and yes.

 

Shocking!

[mvp 78]

Shocking!

 

Excuse me sir, but I have the market on posting like a teenage girl on here, not you.

[notin]

Excuse me sir, but I have the market on posting like a teenage girl on here, not you.

 

You might want to stop that, as you are in Florida and all teenage girl postings immediately catch the attention of Matt Gaetz...

[moonslav59]

LoL

[mvp 78]

You might want to stop that, as you are in Florida and all teenage girl postings immediately catch the attention of Matt Gaetz...

 

It's free money.

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie is definitely 'scuffling', by his standards. At .247 and .792 after last night's game.

[mvp 78]

WinXDanceXFreeAgency

[Nick]

Mookie is definitely 'scuffling', by his standards. At .247 and .792 after last night's game.

 

Dodgers can afford to carry him both financially and baseball wise. I rather build a team around Devers than Betts. Mostly due to age and power. If we must have a $30M position player, it's Devers. He'll only be 26 (?) when he turns free agent.

[mvp 78]

Dodgers can afford to carry him both financially and baseball wise. I rather build a team around Devers than Betts. Mostly due to age and power.

 

I love Devers, but I disagree entirely.

[Nick]

I love Devers, but I disagree entirely.

 

I understand....

[Nick]

Mookie seems to have looked for the best financial deal for him. Taking $30 mil for 12 years was a windfall for him. I'm just as happy the Sox felt the risk of such a deal was greater than the potential benefit. Time will tell which approach was the best. The Sox offered a big contract but Mookie chose not to accept. Would $30 mil for 10 years been too much to risk? I think so but can understand those who believe the opposite.

 

If the team was set, ie a top 3 team with younger talent, and luxury tax was not an issue, then yes I would have signed Betts. But he was not going to be the difference maker with this bunch RIGHT NOW. Building a team is all about timing, bringing in several players at the same time. You many only have a window of couple of years. We're not there.

[notin]

I love Devers, but I disagree entirely.

 

And I agree with yuo abou disagreeing.

 

Betts is a foundation. A Gold Glove corner OF with the potential and ability to challenge for the league lead in 5 categories. Devers is very good, but he is no Betts. And that is far from a slam on Devers...

[Bellhorn04]

As good as Mookie is, 10 year + contracts are flat out nuts.

 

-Mookie has already missed time this year for no less than 3 different injuries. Not much time altogether, but maybe those injuries are affecting him at the plate.

-Trout is on the shelf for a while. Who knows if this is the start of long-term injury issues for him?

-Lindor currently boasts an OPS of .565.

[notin]

As good as Mookie is, 10 year + contracts are flat out nuts.

 

-Mookie has already missed time this year for no less than 3 different injuries. Not much time altogether, but maybe those injuries are affecting him at the plate.

-Trout is on the shelf for a while. Who knows if this is the start of long-term injury issues for him?

-Lindor currently boasts an OPS of .565.

 

And Robinson Cano is currently suspended.

 

Those deals have nevr been good deals.

 

Taking it a step further, I’m pretty sure the only contracts that were 7 years or longer that actually worked out were the ones given to Manny Ramirez and Max Scherzer. I might be forgetting one or two, but the bulk of them have flopped at some point.