Why was Mookie traded, exactly?

[Hugh2]

The problem is when we try a thought experiment we think of individual players. Oh hey player x is short and he played a long time, or I remember player y who was a tall athletic guy and he couldn't do anything after age 29. Exceptions don't make the rule, the whole picture does. I'd like to see a sample size comparing such between thousands of players over the past couple of decades. This I do not have, so until I have this I will withdraw my argument that smaller players age worse, I still believe they do based on what I feel I've read in the past but I can't really make an argument over it right now.

[moonslav59]

The problem is when we try a thought experiment we think of individual players. Oh hey player x is short and he played a long time, or I remember player y who was a tall athletic guy and he couldn't do anything after age 29. Exceptions don't make the rule, the whole picture does. I'd like to see a sample size comparing such between thousands of players over the past couple of decades. This I do not have, so until I have this I will withdraw my argument that smaller players age worse, I still believe they do based on what I feel I've read in the past but I can't really make an argument over it right now.

 

Another factor is how maybe the big hulky players may have used PEDs to extend their careers more often than the little guys.

 

Should Bonds & Clemens and others be included in the study?

[Hugh2]

Another factor is how maybe the big hulky players may have used PEDs to extend their careers more often than the little guys.

 

Should Bonds & Clemens and others be included in the study?

 

I think you’re comparing it to an average, there’s probably another extreme too. Really big overweight players decline faster too. Unless you’re all hit first and can play 1B/DH and don’t lose match bat speed, think David Ortiz.

[moonslav59]

I think you’re comparing it to an average, there’s probably another extreme too. Really big overweight players decline faster too. Unless you’re all hit first and can play 1B/DH and don’t lose match bat speed, think David Ortiz.

 

There is over weight as in having some fat, then there are guys like muscle bound hulks like Bonds and Judge.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Here are regular season games played from baseball-reference's Stathead... I used 5 foot, 10 inches as the dividing line.

 

All-Time (since 1871):

=71 inches, all-time: 14,748 players

= 2,000 games: 55 players; >=71 inches, >= 2,000 games: 191 players

= 1,000 games: 451 players; >=71 inches, >= 1,000 games: 1,171 players

 

Divisional Era (1969-2021):

=71 inches, total: 8,582 players

= 2,000 games: 13 players; >=71 inches, >= 2,000 games: 128 players

= 1,000 games: 133 players; >=71 inches, >= 1,000 games: 749 players

 

When analyzing longevity, great players don't always have the longest careers, but guys that stuck around the longest (and kept on rosters by clubs) were almost always all-time greats. On the "short" list, most of the Top 20 are Hall of Famers. For the taller men, the Top 30 or so were Cooperstown caliber. Most of the former played around a century ago through WWII, while the majority of the latter played in the past 50 years.

[moonslav59]

Here are regular season games played from baseball-reference's Stathead... I used 5 foot, 10 inches as the dividing line.

 

All-Time (since 1871):

=71 inches, all-time: 14,748 players

= 2,000 games: 55 players; >=71 inches, >= 2,000 games: 191 players

= 1,000 games: 451 players; >=71 inches, >= 1,000 games: 1,171 players

 

Divisional Era (1969-2021):

=71 inches, total: 8,582 players

= 2,000 games: 13 players; >=71 inches, >= 2,000 games: 128 players

= 1,000 games: 133 players; >=71 inches, >= 1,000 games: 749 players

 

When analyzing longevity, great players don't always have the longest careers, but guys that stuck around the longest (and kept on rosters by clubs) were almost always all-time greats. On the "short" list, most of the Top 20 are Hall of Famers. For the taller men, the Top 30 or so were Cooperstown caliber. Most of the former played around a century ago through WWII, while the majority of the latter played in the past 50 years.

 

If you look at the ratios of big to small, the results look about even.

[notin]

There is over weight as in having some fat, then there are guys like muscle bound hulks like Bonds and Judge.

 

Very true.

 

There is a big difference between Doug Frobel (6'4" maybe 50-60 lbs?) and Jonathan Broxton (6'4", eats meal larger than Doug Frobel)

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think there is one shred of empirical evidence to support the premise that Mookie will not 'age well' as a player.

[moonslav59]

I don't think there is one shred of empirical evidence to support the premise that Mookie will not 'age well' as a player.

 

Agreed. One major factor in Mookie’s success is his off the charts “twitch reflexes.”

 

How many studies have been done on how well that ages?

[Bellhorn04]

Agreed. One major factor in Mookie’s success is his off the charts “twitch reflexes.”

 

How many studies have been done on how well that ages?

 

I don't know, but I suspect those twitch reflexes were part of Aaron's success.

[moonslav59]

I don't know, but I suspect those twitch reflexes were part of Aaron's success.

 

Excellent comp.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't think there is one shred of empirical evidence to support the premise that Mookie will not 'age well' as a player.

 

I too agree and would add that Mookie Betts and Willie Mays are about the same size and both are bonafide five tool players: hit, hit with power, field, throw, and run the bases. It amazes me that both have/had great throwing arms. Almost as amazing was having great speed as well as real home run power although Mays hit more dingers than Mookie will.

 

I don't think the Sox let Mookie go because they thought he would wear out, but simply because they thought he was overpriced.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think the Sox let Mookie go because they thought he would wear out, but simply because they thought he was overpriced.

 

That's pretty close to how I feel.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

That's pretty close to how I feel.

 

I tend to agree, and that's why I continue to be frustrated at the franchise. I have no issue reminding anyone to ignore the numbers -- and I know that it's nigh impossible for humans who make non-immortal wages -- but it's so much easier to decide one thing: is the performer worth top-of-the-market salary? Yes or no? Fans in LA who already have one season they'll never forget may always say yes.

 

Club owners and GMs can't ignore all the other factors: budget, window, eggs in one basket, etc... but fans can (until they won't let us).

[Bellhorn04]

I tend to agree, and that's why I continue to be frustrated at the franchise. I have no issue reminding anyone to ignore the numbers -- and I know that it's nigh impossible for humans who make non-immortal wages -- but it's so much easier to decide one thing: is the performer worth top-of-the-market salary? Yes or no? Fans in LA who already have one season they'll never forget may always say yes.

 

Mookie is definitely worth top-of-the-market salary. Will he be worth it for 12 years, or even 6? No one knows. My biggest concern over that time is injury, not underperformance.

[notin]

I don't think there is one shred of empirical evidence to support the premise that Mookie will not 'age well' as a player.

 

No, but there is a lengthy history with tens of thousands of precedents predicting he will decline.

 

Now, how far he declines is one part of it, and would he still have been worth his rather lofty salary is another…

[moonslav59]

No, but there is a lengthy history with tens of thousands of precedents predicting he will decline.

 

Now, how far he declines is one part of it, and would he still have been worth his rather lofty salary is another…

 

Another factor to consider is how much Betts exceeds his contractual value in the first half of the contract.

 

Maybe he underperforms by $50M at the end of the deal, but exceeded it by $60M over the first half.

 

It seems like all the focus is placed on the end part.

 

Now, that being said, many of the large and long contracts don't look all that great in the first half either.

 

[Kimmi]

Another factor to consider is how much Betts exceeds his contractual value in the first half of the contract.

 

Maybe he underperforms by $50M at the end of the deal, but exceeded it by $60M over the first half.

 

It seems like all the focus is placed on the end part.

 

Now, that being said, many of the large and long contracts don't look all that great in the first half either.

 

 

Mookie will likely be worth his contract over the long haul, due to his performance during the first part of the contract. Even so, those last years are going to be tough to deal with.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Betts is gone. He got an offer from the Dodgers he couldn't refuse. Thanks, Mookie for 2018 and good luck to you. Right now, I'm more interested in the player the SOX received for Betts. Verdugo hasn't exactly been chopped liver; he's been good since he's been a SOX and I see him getting even better. One can't put a price on the enthusiasm Dugo brings to each and every game he plays.

[Nick]

Another factor to consider is how much Betts exceeds his contractual value in the first half of the contract.

 

Maybe he underperforms by $50M at the end of the deal, but exceeded it by $60M over the first half.

 

It seems like all the focus is placed on the end part.

 

Now, that being said, many of the large and long contracts don't look all that great in the first half either.

 

 

I rather have G Cole than Betts this year.

[Nick]

Dodgers CBT History

2021: $262,111,667 payroll on day 1.....

2020: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $204,653,651 did not exceed the $208M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2019: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $204,918,530 did not exceed the $206M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2018: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $195,039,730 did not exceed the $197M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2017: $36,209,572 tax on payroll of $253,633,893 with $195M threshold and 50 percent rate as a fifth-time payor.

2016: $31,775,817 tax on payroll of $252,551,634 with $189M threshold and 50 percent rate as a fourth-time payor.

2015: $43,567,472 tax on payroll of $297,918,681 with a $189M threshold and a 40% tax as a third-time payor.

2014: $26,621,124 tax on payroll of $277,737,082 with a $189M threshold and a 30% rate as a second-time payor.

2013: $11,415,958 tax on payroll of $243,234,050 with a $178M threshold and a 17.5% rate as a first-time payor.

 

Interesting that they stayed under the cap in 2020 to win the World Series. Dodgers added two big contracts in 2021, Betts and Bauer. Luxury tax doesn't seem to bother the owners.

Edited June 18, 2021 by Nick

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

I rather have G Cole than Betts this year.

 

I agree with this. However, I would say there's at least a half dozen starters I would prefer over Betts. SOX need a quality starter and I have no idea how they'll acquire one.

[notin]

Betts is gone. He got an offer from the Dodgers he couldn't refuse. Thanks, Mookie for 2018 and good luck to you. Right now, I'm more interested in the player the SOX received for Betts. Verdugo hasn't exactly been chopped liver; he's been good since he's been a SOX and I see him getting even better. One can't put a price on the enthusiasm Dugo brings to each and every game he plays.

 

I’d gladly take the package to Sox received for Betts over the one the Marlins received for Miguel Cabrera…

[Larry Cook]

The package we got for Betts is really interesting.

 

Verdugo has really worked out better than well.

 

Wong and downs look completely lost at the plate and are really struggling!

[moonslav59]

The package we got for Betts is really interesting.

 

Verdugo has really worked out better than well.

 

Wong and downs look completely lost at the plate and are really struggling!

 

It's about more than just Verdugo & Co.

 

The savings on the budget will bring us player after player for years and years plus Verdugo and anything we get from Downs and Wong.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's about more than just Verdugo & Co.

 

The savings on the budget will bring us player after player for years and years plus Verdugo and anything we get from Downs and Wong.

 

Betts is gone, but the aspect to consider here going forward with the current admin is what happens when a guy like Verdugo, if he continues to progress into stardom, gets closer to free agency. As a fan, I'm not going to say I'm worried yet, but I will continue to be skeptical until Bloom signs or extends any Red Sox player longterm.

[Bellhorn04]

It's about more than just Verdugo & Co.

 

The savings on the budget will bring us player after player for years and years plus Verdugo and anything we get from Downs and Wong.

 

LOL you're making it sound like an endless bonanza. But just for one thing, Verdugo will start making real money before you know it...

[Kimmi]

Dodgers CBT History

2021: $262,111,667 payroll on day 1.....

2020: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $204,653,651 did not exceed the $208M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2019: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $204,918,530 did not exceed the $206M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2018: The Dodgers' CBT payroll of $195,039,730 did not exceed the $197M threshold for MLB's competitive balance tax.

2017: $36,209,572 tax on payroll of $253,633,893 with $195M threshold and 50 percent rate as a fifth-time payor.

2016: $31,775,817 tax on payroll of $252,551,634 with $189M threshold and 50 percent rate as a fourth-time payor.

2015: $43,567,472 tax on payroll of $297,918,681 with a $189M threshold and a 40% tax as a third-time payor.

2014: $26,621,124 tax on payroll of $277,737,082 with a $189M threshold and a 30% rate as a second-time payor.

2013: $11,415,958 tax on payroll of $243,234,050 with a $178M threshold and a 17.5% rate as a first-time payor.

 

Interesting that they stayed under the cap in 2020 to win the World Series. Dodgers added two big contracts in 2021, Betts and Bauer. Luxury tax doesn't seem to bother the owners.

 

Of course the luxury tax bothers the owners. That's why they all eventually hit the reset button.

[Kimmi]

I agree with this. However, I would say there's at least a half dozen starters I would prefer over Betts. SOX need a quality starter and I have no idea how they'll acquire one.

 

Our big midseason acquisition will be Chris Sale.

[Kimmi]

Betts is gone, but the aspect to consider here going forward with the current admin is what happens when a guy like Verdugo, if he continues to progress into stardom, gets closer to free agency. As a fan, I'm not going to say I'm worried yet, but I will continue to be skeptical until Bloom signs or extends any Red Sox player longterm.

 

My opinion is that if Verdugo is willing to extend before free agency and is reasonable about it, the Sox will get it done. IMO, Mookie was unwilling and unreasonable. If Verdugo ends up treating his free agency like Mookie did, then we have to let him walk. The next young star will be ready to take his place.

 

The Sox will spend money and they will sign a big contract or two. However, I don't think they will go crazy on a contract, nor should they.