notin
-
Posts
54,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
53
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
And that is probably a big factor in why your men's league hockey team didn't sign you to a 12 year $400mill contract..
-
OK, but I would argue that most of them become an issue at some point. The only two I think were worthwhile were Manny and ARod (the Texas one). And even Manny was a sub 3 fWAR player the last half of his deal. So "working out better" might be a massive gray area. Mookie will be entering his age 28 season if he goes to free agency. That makes him slightly younger than Ramirez (29) and older than ARod (25) for their contracts. I don't think anyone doubts what Mookie will be worth the first 4 or 5 eyars of a new deal, but it's the part of it from that point on that becomes a big risk. and what impact will that have on the club? Will they be able to afford other players? Will his deal get in the way of extending Devers? Will the luxury tax penalties on draft pickcompensation leave the farm in even worse shape so no minimum wage players can fill a few gaps acceptably? I get that there is a lot here. But on the bright side, I think even in the unlikely event that the Sox trade Betts in the next 10 weeks, they will be bidders for his services come December regardless...
-
Barry Bonds?
-
Possible. Also possible Mookie does not retain his defensive value. We like to think defense is a perfectly repeatable skillset from year to year, but players have bad years defensively just like they have bad years offensively. Not to mention, the defensive metrics we use to quantify some of the defensive values are largely comparative. Will Mookie fare as well as other younger, defensively gifted right fielders come up? Will his presence prevent the Sox from ever upgrading that position defensively? I don't think bringing Mookie back is a bad idea at all, even with what will defintely be an outrageous contract. But I also don't think it's the slam dunk you appear to think it is. It's a risky move that could just as easily backfire as succeed. And if it backfires, the ramifications can be much, much worse than we like to think about (from a baseball fan viewpoint. I have to maintain some perspective here.)
-
Well, during the stretch they finished an average of 25 games back, 2016-2019, Trout has made $16mill, $20mill, $34mill, and $38mill. (Our sources have slightly different numbers apparently. No fault to either of us.) With Trout making that kind of money, the Angels were a combined 100 games out of first place over 4 seasons. Trout will make about $37.2 mill per year over the next ELEVEN seasons. Will they be able to build a better team around him while paying him that much and maintaining whatever their budget is? And at what point in those ELEVEN seasons will he stop performing at his current elite level? His money won't change, but his performance defintely will.
-
I think the gist of his post is that the Sox would be better off if Mookie was a flop as opposed to a hit? That's sooooo Maxbialystock...
-
Yes and no. I don't care how many years Henry shells out the tax money, which is typically less than they pay Rusney Castillo to stay out of MLB. But at some point, the draft penalties and IFA spending becomes an issue keeping a competitive team around Mookie...
-
Exactly how far into the future does your crystal ball read? We really don't know if he is going to remain healthy, and Bellhorn makes a valid point about the risk over 10-12 years. Albert Pujols looked like a good bet to not completely fall off the planet by age 33, yet there he is, a shadow of himself as a former player for the past 7 years, with 2 years and potentially $159 million (not a typo) remaining on that contract...
-
The advantage to Moreland is he is a guy the majority of the team already knows and presumably likes...
-
A good example. Since Trout's breakout season in 2012, the team has simply not been competitive most of the time. They won the division in 2013 and finished 3 games out in 2014 while missing the post season by one game. But in last 4 seasons, they have finished an average of 25 games back. But, hey, they did retain a future Hall of Famer....
-
Thames has been a much better overall player than Moreland the last 3 seasons, with a 4.9 fWAR to 2.3 fWAR advantage over that stretch. but it is possible that the Red Sox did not know how 1B was going to be handled by the time Thames signed his deal. Maybe they wanted to leave it open in the event that dealt Price/Eovaldi/whoever for a bad 1B contract? It is also possible the Sox tried to but were outbid by the Nationals. Just some possibilities. Thames deal is for a guaranteed $4mill...
-
But on that foot issue, on occasion those can be career killers. Allen Craig was very good player prior to his Lisfranc issues. But like nearly every injury, some players can play through them, as they are not all equally severe.
-
Boo! Trout will be a more expensive Pollock...
-
That's only true when Mookie reaches free agency, but then, yes, he is worth what the highest bidder says he is worth. If the Sox are trying to hammer out an extension prior to free agency, the Sox have to hit his price, however outrageous it might be...
-
I'd say the chances of Mookie being traded this offseason are getting lower by the day. To me, signing Mitch Moreland would kill any interest (which was microscopic on my part) I ever had in taking the bulk of the contract of Wil Myers (whose name I just realized rhymes with one of the characters in Stranger Things). Bloom has an understandably high asking price, and no one is going to meet it, which is a good thing for the 2020 Red Sox. But then what? Resetting by dealing Price or Eovaldi or both is not likely. Will failing to reset get in the way of the Sox signing Betts? The new CBA is not likely to be finalized before Betts signs anywhere, so that is potentially not a factor...
-
The contract given to Manny Ramirez and ARod were very rare in that both players were actually very good for the duration of the deals. Both were also very young at the time of signing them. Mookie might be incredible for the next 12 years. He also might not. But even if he is, will the Sox be able to make a good team around him? I'd rather watch a competitive team than a cellar dweller lead by the last days of a Hall of Famer...
-
Oh please. That Canadian health care will keep you propped up past the century mark...
-
I'd prefer a 5 year $225mill contract over a 10 year $350mill contract. The AAV never bothers me nearly as much as the years. I don't pay the bills, but I do have to watch for the duration. Although if the Sox got creative and offered a (obviously front loaded) $500 mill contract over 50 years, I think I might be OK with that level of circumvention...
-
Mookie might realize he is not better than Mike Trout, but also think Mike Trout shortchanged himself and he does not want to make the same mistake...
-
Correction. The current longest contract on the Dodgers is a 6 year $30mill contract given to Cuban pitcher Yasiel Sierra. But I think my point stands that the Dodgers do not play in the 9-12 year contract range and yet still remain competitive every season...
-
OK. But again, they do have some spending limits. Can we acknowledge that?
-
Your post was about the years teams were willing to guarantee. The longest contracts currently on the Dodgers roster are the 4 year deals given to AJ Pollock and Justin Turner. Kershaw's current deal is a 3 year contract...
-
Henry has been beyond generous and clearly wants to field the best team possible. But that doesn't mean he wants has no limits to what he spends. Or did the Sox pass on Gerrit Cole because they figured Eovaldi was good enough?
-
So the Dodgers are a small market franchise?
-
It's not about saving Henry's money. That's a cheap copout. Billionaire or not, he has clearly shown there are limits as to what he is going to spend on payroll. So if you give this contract to Mookie, will you be able to surround him with a competitive team for the life of that deal? The first couple seasons should not be a problem, but what happens when you have a declining 35yo RF making $38-40mill and no good young talent coming up? Everyone says they will be OK with the bad years as long as the team wins a title. But that changes when the bad years actually get here. I didn't see a single person in 2014 and 2015 justifying those awful years with even one "Hey, at least we won it all in 2013."
