Fire Bloom .

[moonslav59]

What we'll never know is whether COVID-19 impacted Mookie's decision to take the Dodgers offer, which was really not much better than the Red Sox offer, especially since it included a pile of deferred money.

 

If you figure the money you could make on more upfront money vs deferred money, the difference is less than it appears.

 

Yes, I think the COVID situation changed the market, too, but that was likely more in LA's favor.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

$300M to me is not a lowball offer to anybody. Lester was a lowball offer, and what Bloom offered Bogey, and Raffy before the season was lowball.

 

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm.

 

A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom.

 

Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

[jad]

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm.

 

A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom.

 

Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

 

Agree. when you're talking about putting together a contract for one of the best players in the league (Betts, Ohtani, Devers, Judge), this is NOT the time to be thinking about saving money, or making a great deal, or talking 'home-town discount' or anything of that nature.

[Hugh2]

300 million while still under team control is an insanely reasonable offer. Regardless, you don't start negotiations with an above rate big. I think Mookie and his agent said they were dead set on going to FA, turning down 300 million is a pretty good indicator of this. I don't think we'll ever know for certain, but I feel it's insanely realistic to assume Covid changed a lot. An uncertain future and 365 million waving in front of your face would get a lot of people to change their minds.

 

I bet if it was Covid17 Betts would be on this team with a 300 million dollar deal. No way we can ever wager this, but I would if we could.

 

Of course, it's entirely plausible I am 100% correct and Bloom traded Betts away last offseason for Prospects.

[Bellhorn04]

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm.

 

A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom.

 

Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

 

That first offer of 8/$200 million came after the 2016 season, I believe, which was 3 years prior to his free agency, so it has to be evaluated in that context. Plus there's no indication that Mookie's side made a counteroffer.

 

Bottom line, Dombrowski didn't get it done!

[Old Red]

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm.

 

A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom.

 

Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

 

No one knows for sure what would have happened if the Sox would have offered Mookie more the first time just like no one knows what would have happened if they would have made an offer to Raffy 3 years ago. What we do know now is that Raffy’s value has gone up every year, and now it will cost a lot more to sign him. Atlanta apparently has figured this out, and Boston hasn’t.

[Bellhorn04]

No one knows for sure what would have happened if the Sox would have offered Mookie more the first time just like no one knows what would have happened if they would have made an offer to Raffy 3 years ago. What we do know now is that Raffy’s value has gone up every year, and now it will cost a lot more to sign him. Atlanta apparently has figured this out, and Boston hasn’t.

 

There's a lot of risk in these early lockups too. Have you heard of a player named Tatis Jr. who got $340 million and is now famous for motorbike accidents and PED suspensions? Big ouch for the Padres, no?

[moonslav59]

Put it this way: when the Red Sox reportedly offered Mookie $200M -- the one his mother famously talked him out of accepting -- it was below market-value at the time to sign a star of his stature longterm.

 

A couple years later when they offered him $300M, it was again below his market value at the time. Each time, his agent knew it, he knew it, and apparently so did his mom.

 

Maybe Boston could've locked up Mookie for his prime if they had offered him a little over market value the first time, instead of a little less...

 

I think $300M was a fair offer and close to "market value," at the time. I would not offer more than the market value, unless you know you'd do that when he gets to free agency.

 

I think the Sox likely felt no player is worth more than that or for more than 10 years. The record of these large and long deals support their thinking, but man, what a PR hit the team takes when he walks.

 

(This is coming from the poster, who I believe, suggested the highest and longest offer out of anyone else on the board.)

[Old Red]

There's a lot of risk in these early lockups too. Have you heard of a player named Tatis Jr. who got $340 million and is now famous for motorbike accidents and PED suspensions? Big ouch for the Padres, no?

 

Big ouch yes. Trout hasn’t made the Angels any better, and Washington won a WS after letting Harper leave. I’ve said many times that I’m against $300M contracts no matter who it is, but if you want to keep up with the Joneses I guess you have to do it. If will be interesting to see how Atlanta turns out with locking up their young talent.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Old Red

[Bellhorn04]

Bloom did a very nice job with Whitlock's deal, IMHO, adding two years of control beyond when he would have been a free agent. And the two extra years are team options with small buyouts.

[jad]

There's a lot of risk in these early lockups too. Have you heard of a player named Tatis Jr. who got $340 million and is now famous for motorbike accidents and PED suspensions? Big ouch for the Padres, no?

 

Well, we don't know that! Yet. His suspension saves the P's a half-year of his salary (correct?) and he has a long career ahead of him.

[Old Red]

Bloom did a very nice job with Whitlock's deal, IMHO, adding two years of control beyond when he would have been a free agent. And the two extra years are team options with small buyouts.

 

Bloom did do a very nice job with Whitlock that I’ll admit.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, we don't know that! Yet. His suspension saves the P's a half-year of his salary (correct?) and he has a long career ahead of him.

 

No, we don't know yet, but it does demonstrate some of the risks you're incurring when you give a young athlete a guaranteed contract in the hundreds of millions.

[Old Red]

No, we don't know yet, but it does demonstrate some of the risks you're incurring when you give a young athlete a guaranteed contract in the hundreds of millions.

 

Soto will be the next young big risk.

[Bobe2]

There's a lot of risk in these early lockups too. Have you heard of a player named Tatis Jr. who got $340 million and is now famous for motorbike accidents and PED suspensions? Big ouch for the Padres, no?

 

All the players on these big contracts have opt out’s in the first few years because they don’t want to leave a penny on the table, maybe it’s time the teams get an opt out near the end of the contract when the players are declining, seems fair to me

[moonslav59]

If you are ever going to large and long again, it should be with someone like Betts.

 

Now that Devers is nearing crunch time, I feel almost the same as with Betts, but I can understand holding firm to the theory of avoiding extra large and extra long contracts.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Bloom did a very nice job with Whitlock's deal, IMHO, adding two years of control beyond when he would have been a free agent. And the two extra years are team options with small buyouts.

 

I also agree with this, and have posted before I think it's the company blueprint going forward for the next young Red Sox core.

 

I just wish Devers was a part of the plan, but we all concede it's too late for him to fit that model.

 

The Sox will find new sources of power, as always, but man, there have been few here quite like young Raffy. And I've been watching a long time...

[moonslav59]

All the players on these big contracts have opt out’s in the first few years because they don’t want to leave a penny on the table, maybe it’s time the teams get an opt out near the end of the contract when the players are declining, seems fair to me

 

Actually, none of the biggest contracts have opt out.

 

Top All Time Contracts:

How many have/had opt outs?

$426M Trout

$365M Betts

$341M Lindor

$340M Tatis

$330M Harper

$325M Stanton

$325M Seager

$324M Cole

$300M Machado

$275M ARod '08

$260M Arenado

$252M ARod '01

$248M Miggy

$245M Strasburg

$245M Rendon

$240M Pujols

$240M Cano

$225M Votto

(Price had an opt out with his $217M deal.)

[jad]

If you are ever going to large and long again, it should be with someone like Betts.

 

Now that Devers is nearing crunch time, I feel almost the same as with Betts, but I can understand holding firm to the theory of avoiding extra large and extra long contracts.

 

But "holding firm" on that these days means you are also "holding firm" on not signing anyone like Betts, Ohtani, Soto, Tatis, Judge, etc. etc. because that's what they want and will get on the open market. Not a good recipe for success by eliminating (1) the best players available and (2) from an economic point of view, the players fans will pay money to come and see.

[Bobe2]

Actually, none of the biggest contracts have opt out.

 

Top All Time Contracts:

How many have/had opt outs?

$426M Trout

$365M Betts

$341M Lindor

$340M Tatis

$330M Harper

$325M Stanton

$325M Seager

$324M Cole

$300M Machado

$275M ARod '08

$260M Arenado

$252M ARod '01

$248M Miggy

$245M Strasburg

$245M Rendon

$240M Pujols

$240M Cano

$225M Votto

(Price had an opt out with his $217M deal.)

I stand corrected, but maybe they should it might make them easier to swallow, otherwise these contracts will eventually harm baseball

Edited August 17, 2022 by Bobe2

[moonslav59]

But "holding firm" on that these days means you are also "holding firm" on not signing anyone like Betts, Ohtani, Soto, Tatis, Judge, etc. etc. because that's what they want and will get on the open market. Not a good recipe for success by eliminating (1) the best players available and (2) from an economic point of view, the players fans will pay money to come and see.

 

Like I said, I was for offering Betts a lot more than he ended up getting. I'm also the "Devers Forevers" guys, but I'm just saying I understand the strategy not to do it.

[moonslav59]

I stand corrected, but maybe they should it might make them easier to swallow, otherwise these contracts will eventually harm baseball

 

Most of the guys who get opt outs are signing extensions with teams that go beyond their arb years. It gives them some security while also giving them an upperhand, if they end up doing very well. (The Bogey situation is an example.)

 

It's interesting to see that the biggest contract given to a player, Price, saw the player not opting out.

[Old Red]

Last place in the Div, and last Wild Card spot standings update. Finally back to 500. 3 games back in the L column to get out of last place in the Div, and sitting at the Kiddie table, and 5 games back in the L column for the last Wild Card spot. Things have tightened up, but going to have to beat the Div teams starting Friday to get them tighter. 1 game at a time, and Let’s Go Sox!

[notin]

I stand corrected, but maybe they should it might make them easier to swallow, otherwise these contracts will eventually harm baseball

 

Wait. What side are you on?

 

All along you’ve accused Bloom and Henry of being cheap and not spending enough and advocating the Sox spend $300mill and calling out people who believe/know the payroll has limits as “wanting to save Henry’s money”, but now you think large contracts will ruin baseball?

 

Heck even I don’t like large contracts because they limit the Sox by tying up the budget in expensive, aging, and declining players. But I never went so far as to say they would eventually ruin baseball…

[jad]

If paying your employees market value for their services ruins your business, you need a new business model.

[Bellhorn04]

Actually, none of the biggest contracts have opt out.

 

Top All Time Contracts:

How many have/had opt outs?

$426M Trout

$365M Betts

$341M Lindor

$340M Tatis

$330M Harper

$325M Stanton

$325M Seager

$324M Cole

$300M Machado

$275M ARod '08

$260M Arenado

$252M ARod '01

$248M Miggy

$245M Strasburg

$245M Rendon

$240M Pujols

$240M Cano

$225M Votto

(Price had an opt out with his $217M deal.)

 

Stanton had an opt-out I believe.

[Bellhorn04]

If paying your employees market value for their services ruins your business, you need a new business model.

 

A wild oversimplification. Major league baseball is not like most businesses.

 

Most teams can't even think about paying "market value" to someone like Soto.

[Bellhorn04]

In most businesses you don't give employees guaranteed contracts for up to 14 years and hundreds of millions that you may have to pay even if they do a lousy job or get hurt and can't work most of the time.

 

The idea that major league baseball is like any other business is just comical.

[oldtimer]

Like I said, I was for offering Betts a lot more than he ended up getting. I'm also the "Devers Forevers" guys, but I'm just saying I understand the strategy not to do it.

 

It comes down to valuing a lineup that is good top to bottom with lower risk of losing a big part of the production due to injury (or other like Tatis, Sale, Price-you name them) or putting your money into a few stars and filling in with lesser journeymen players and accepting the risk of losing a major part with a single injury. My preference is to develop a team based on a tiered pay schedule and sticking with it. Others sign their young stars to lucrative quasi-long term contracts early. Baltimore is doing that, and it comes closest to resulting in a tiered schedule. If the Yankees pay Judge $50 mil a year on a longer term contract, they are accepting a huge risk.

[jad]

In most businesses you don't give employees guaranteed contracts for up to 14 years and hundreds of millions that you may have to pay even if they do a lousy job or get hurt and can't work most of the time.

 

The idea that major league baseball is like any other business is just comical.

 

The money figures are different, but I know many businesses where you have de facto guaranteed contracts which get paid despite the employees' performance (including the two examples listed below). Board members also continue to serve on boards despite the performance of their company. The point of this discussion, however, is different. In most businesses, the most desirable employees demand the most money. You cannot as a business owner or manager (whether it's Walmart or Hollywood) just say "I'm going to pay my employees less than they could make elsewhere" and expect to get your choice of who to hire.