That doesn't make one bit of sense.Bagwell for Anderson was offset in my mind with Varitek and Lowe.
Apparently.I'm just venting
A "Thank you Mookie Betts" thread doesn't make sense for it, though.
That doesn't make one bit of sense.Bagwell for Anderson was offset in my mind with Varitek and Lowe.
Apparently.I'm just venting
That doesn't make one bit of sense.
Apparently.
A "Thank you Mookie Betts" thread doesn't make sense for it, though.
Maybe this is naive thinking on my part but for superstar players like Betts, I think there could be a measurable impact in one's public perception/marketability, and in turn in the amount of money made via endorsements, if they spend their entire career with one organization (e.g., Derek Jeter), or at least remain with the same organization that they rose to prominence in for the remainder of their career (e.g., David Ortiz), versus players who jump ship halfway through their career and their new organization never gets to see them at their best (Pujols, Griffey). I'm not sure if/how this can be measured in a reliable way but I think it should be taken into consideration.We've been over this before but timing matters. The 10/$300 offer was made after 2018. Instead of accepting, he played for $20M in 2019 and $27M in 2020. So effectively the offer was 8 years and $253 post-arbitration. If he had accepted, he would have made $300M from 2019-2028 and then became a free agent in 2029 at 36 years old, with potential to sign a contract at 36 and make some more $$.
Under the current situation, instead he has made $47M in 2019 and 2020. He will now be a free agent. If he signs a (making this up) 12 year, $360M deal with the Dodgers, he will have made $407M from 2019 through 2032, and would then become a free agent in 2033 at 40 years old. Under that scenario I'd assume he retires at contract end.
So the delta between those scenarios would be $107M that he would have to make from age 36 on. Who knows what contracts will look like in 10 years. But it's safe to say that if he does end up getting over $350M from the Dodgers then he will have made a really wise choice, and that you could argue it truly was all about the money.
I don't think that's the case at all, unless we believe that baseball is somehow unique in how players market themselves outside the game. Bouncing to a new team every few years certainly hasn't hurt Lebron James marketability, and you'd be hard pressed to prove he'd be more marketable had he not gone to Miami or now LA, and remained in Cleveland. And Trout isn't exactly breaking the bank outside the game. The Angels pay him way more than he makes in endorsements. Can't say that's the same as Lebron and the Lakers.Maybe this is naive thinking on my part but for superstar players like Betts, I think there could be a measurable impact in one's public perception/marketability, and in turn in the amount of money made via endorsements, if they spend their entire career with one organization (e.g., Derek Jeter), or at least remain with the same organization that they rose to prominence in for the remainder of their career (e.g., David Ortiz), versus players who jump ship halfway through their career and their new organization never gets to see them at their best (Pujols, Griffey). I'm not sure if/how this can be measured in a reliable way but I think it should be taken into consideration.
I have no idea if Griffey and Pujols’ marketability suffered when they switched teams, but, if it did, it’s probably because they stopped being good players, not because they moved teams. If Griffey was putting up MVP numbers on the Reds every year there’s no reason he wouldn’t have been just as “marketable” as he was on Seattle.Maybe this is naive thinking on my part but for superstar players like Betts, I think there could be a measurable impact in one's public perception/marketability, and in turn in the amount of money made via endorsements, if they spend their entire career with one organization (e.g., Derek Jeter), or at least remain with the same organization that they rose to prominence in for the remainder of their career (e.g., David Ortiz), versus players who jump ship halfway through their career and their new organization never gets to see them at their best (Pujols, Griffey). I'm not sure if/how this can be measured in a reliable way but I think it should be taken into consideration.
I would go so far as to argue that the NBA has proven that player movement is a large part of what drives fan interest and engagement. Think about how much buzz there was around their off-season last summer with Leonard, Irving, Durant, etc.I don't think that's the case at all, unless we believe that baseball is somehow unique in how players market themselves outside the game. Bouncing to a new team every few years certainly hasn't hurt Lebron James marketability, and you'd be hard pressed to prove he'd be more marketable had he not gone to Miami or now LA, and remained in Cleveland. And Trout isn't exactly breaking the bank outside the game. The Angels pay him way more than he makes in endorsements. Can't say that's the same as Lebron and the Lakers.
The idealism of a player staying with the same team from start to finish is antiquated. We romanticize it because it was commonplace in a time when players had no choice in the matter. Ted Williams was a lifelong Red Sox because had no alternative, not because of some altruistic loyalty or a greater marketability.
Was that due to San Francisco, or due to him doubling his home run output? Do we think that he wouldn't have been "famous and marketable" if he were hitting 73 Home Runs in Pittsburgh?Also we should maybe note that for every Griffey whose legacy was possibly affected by switching teams there’s a counterexample like Barry Bonds who went from Pittsburgh to SF and, if anything, got more famous and marketable.
That was eight years after he arrived. He was plenty “known” from 93-2000. Anyway, if you think Bonds is a weird example, what about A-Rod, Clemens, or Mark McGwire?Was that due to San Francisco, or due to him doubling his home run output? Do we think that he wouldn't have been "famous and marketable" if he were hitting 73 Home Runs in Pittsburgh?
Reggie Jackson. Nolan Ryan.That was eight years after he arrived. He was plenty “known” from 93-2000. Anyway, if you think Bonds is a weird example, what about A-Rod, Clemens, or Mark McGwire?
Oh, those are weird examples too? Ok, how about Mike Piazza, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Vlad Guerrero, Miguel Cabrera, or, ahem, Josh Beckett, Manny Ramirez, Chris Sale, and Pedro Martinez. Do those work?
This isn’t even new! How many teams did Rickey Henderson play for? Does anyone think less of him for it?
(I deleted one example for fear of further derailing the conversation)
At any rate, I think our basic point is the same, which is that performance and personality dictate how you’re perceived rather than whether it’s with any specific team. If you personally think it’s cool when a guy like Chipper Jones stays with one team, that’s cool, but I am not sure it matters for like visibility or anything like that.
got more famous and marketable.
Those two aren't the same thing.Does anyone think less of him for it?
Yup.Honestly, I'm really happy for Mookie. The Red Sox were not going to do a 12 year deal nor a $65m signing bonus. I wish him every success. He earned it, every penny.