Glad you said that. It gives me an excuse to make a point.
Talksoxers know I am hard over on those big contracts for top players, which I continue to believe are gambles that usually do not pay off. I'm a cheapskate.
On the other hand, I've often thought Mookie Betts and Willie Mays are a lot alike. When Willie was inducted into the HOF, he said something like, "I have to be honest, I never saw anyone better." I agree with that--he's my fav even though Mike Trout has had an absolutely spectacular career so far.
Mookie and Willie are roughly the same size--Mookie 5'9", Willie 5'10", but Mookie 10 lbs heavier at 180 to Willie's 170. Small guys with terrific coordination and arm strength to throw and swings to hit dingers and legs to steal bases. 5 tool guys with a whole lot of cumulative WAR.
Willie came up in 1951 at age 20 and played through the 1973 season--and missed most of 1952 and all of 1953 because of service in the Army. His cumulative WAR was 156 for 23 seasons, which is about 7 per. In 1971 at age 40 his WAR was 6.3.
And for all of that incredible career and reaching icon status, Willie Mays cumulative freaking salary was $1.8M. That's a big reason why he kept playing--his biggest salaries were at the tail end of his career. The dollar went a lot further then, but let's not kid ourselves. Curt Flood was right to break the reserve clause, and Willie Mays is a prime example why. After he retired, he was more than willing to be a greeter or whatever because he needed the money.
So, while I am against the exorbitant salaries I read about today, I do understand that the owners of the past--and most notably the owner of the Chicago Black Sox--believed players should live in penury.
I seem to recall that while he was the starting right fielder for the Brooklyn Dodgers--when they were good--Carl Furillo had an offseason job in construction to make ends meet. In 1960 when he was 38, the Dodgers dumped him to avoid paying a pension due a 15 year player, so he sued them and won.