The Value of Mookie Betts

[BusRaker]

Seems like in the real world (SS=5) they do significantly better than 47. Although it's hard to believe that any of these relationships would be a purely linear or Pythagorean relationship.

Team WAR below 1.0 since 2002:

2013 Marlins -0.8 62-100
2003 Tigers -1.0 43-119
2002 Tigers -0.4 55-106
2004 DBacks -0.2 51-111
2004 Royals +0.9 58-104

Average 53.8

 

[gammoseditor]

 
You think someone would pay him $50 million a year?  Really?

 
I think he would at least come close.  The closest comp in free agent history is Alex Rodriguez.  Trout is going to be two years younger.  MLB revenues have more than doubled since Arod signed his deal.  It's been a very long time since a young star went year to year and hit free agency as young as possible.  That's because the smaller market teams are locking them up.  

 

[BusRaker]

If I could measure the standard deviation of the WAR of a team (would need to do this by position), compare it to the total WAR and actual record of the team (versus expectation), I think I could prove my point about many good players being more productive than a couple great ones.

 

[Rasputin]

This pretty much sums up the idea of trading Betts.

It's more than just prospect splooge, though. If there is a plan, it's built around a handful of young guys. If you trade those guys, it's not really a plan, is it?

 

[DJnVa]

It's more than just prospect splooge, though. If there is a plan, it's built around a handful of young guys. If you trade those guys, it's not really a plan, is it?

 
Sure it is. The plan could be to trade valuable young cost-controlled players, for equally valuable, more established players.
 
That said, keep Mookie.

 

[epraz]

If I could measure the standard deviation of the WAR of a team (would need to do this by position), compare it to the total WAR and actual record of the team (versus expectation), I think I could prove my point about many good players being more productive than a couple great ones.

 
If you have say 50 WAR to distribute, I agree that it would be best to distribute it evenly across your team.  But nobody builds a roster that way because there's no guarantee of how many WAR you end up with.  And for front office execs for teams that don't have a hard cap on their finances, getting such a good player makes the rest of their job a lot easier.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

 
JBJ's minor league numbers:
 
2011 (21, A-, A) - .686 ops
2012 (22, A+, AA) - .911 ops
2013 (23, AAA) - .842 ops
 
Betts' minor league numbers:
 
2012 (19, A-) - .658
2013 (20, A, A+) - .923
2014 (21, AA, AAA) - .960
 
First stint in the majors:
 
JBJ (2013) - 37 g, 107 pa, .189/.280/.337/.617, 68 ops+
Betts (2014) - 52 g, 213 pa, .291/.368/.444/.812, 128 ops+
 
Betts is, offensively speaking, far superior to Bradley.  At every level, two years younger.

 
To piggy back on this, JBJ's K rates were alarming - K'ing 20+% of the time in 2013 (AAA).
 
Let me also add, sure, Betts could regress.  Yes, Betts could hit a major slump at the major league level.  I think we all (or we all should) get that.  Just because it's not spoken doesn't mean it's not thought about.  But at the same time, not all prospects are created equal. This is the excitement surrounding Betts - his insane skillset.  A skillset superior to every prospect name thrown out there in this thread (except for Trout of course - who is no longer a prospect).  On top of that, the Betts enthusiasts may seem like they are over-estatic, but it works both ways nay-sayers!  Toe Nash said it best: "So sometimes prospects flame out? No way! So do established players."

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Seems like in the real world (SS=5) they do significantly better than 47. Although it's hard to believe that any of these relationships would be a purely linear or Pythagorean relationship.

Team WAR below 1.0 since 2002:

2013 Marlins -0.8 62-100
2003 Tigers -1.0 43-119
2002 Tigers -0.4 55-106
2004 DBacks -0.2 51-111
2004 Royals +0.9 58-104

Average 53.8

 
Not sure where you are getting these numbers.  The 2013 Marlins, for example, had -0.4 batting runs and 19 pitching runs, which would get you about 66 wins.  They won 62.  (I am using baseball-reference).  I broke this down using data from 1965 through 2012 and it was about 47 wins every year.

 

[williams_482]

 
You think someone would pay him $50 million a year?  Really?

That is basically what I said, yes. I don't think he would get that much AAV over a deal longer than a couple years because of injury risk/possible regression, but on a shorter contract, why not?
 

 
If you have say 50 WAR to distribute, I agree that it would be best to distribute it evenly across your team.  But nobody builds a roster that way because there's no guarantee of how many WAR you end up with.  And for front office execs for teams that don't have a hard cap on their finances, getting such a good player makes the rest of their job a lot easier.

There is no guarantee that one superstar will produce the number of wins you expect either. 
 
Plus, if GMs are really putting a premium on players who "make their jobs easier" then they aren't doing their jobs very well. 

 

[djhb20]

Re Trout on a one-year deal.

Remember that Clemens got, essentially, a $28 million deal when he was looking at one year deals at the end of his career. I would definitely take the over on Trout at $45 million for a one-year deal.

 

[Devizier]

While I think we should hold onto Betts, has anyone taken a look at JBJ's minor league numbers?  They're fantastic.

Not really. Good numbers but lots of outfield prospects have put up Bradley's numbers. Betts' numbers are much better.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Re Trout on a one-year deal.

Remember that Celems got, essentially, a $28 million deal when he was looking at one year deals at the end of his career. I would definitely take the over on Trout at $45 million for a one-year deal.

Clemens?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Not really. Good numbers but lots of outfield prospects have put up Bradley's numbers. Betts' numbers are much better.

 
The point, gentlemen, was that Betts could struggle and limit his trade value.  Currently we're all rosy about him.  
 
While JBJ isn't in Betts' class, SOSH waxed red over JBJ just before his call-up.  Remember the dust up over whether or not we'd be starting the clock early on JBJ and passing up a subsequent prime year. (I remember that JBJ was touted as a can't miss gold glover who'd give decent offense - a shake and bake All-star, or at least one who'd be in the discussion.  While JBJ hasn't been a disaster overall, he's been pretty much a one dimensional player.)  
 
Just trying to interject a note of caution.  Even though I'm also rosy.  

 

[epraz]

I would guess that Sox fans tend to underestimate prospects right now, given the recent stumbles of Bogaerts and Bradley.

 

[Devizier]

 
The point, gentlemen, was that Betts could struggle and limit his trade value.  Currently we're all rosy about him.   

Maybe, but you're talking to someone who compared Bradley to Michael Saunders and Ryan Sweeney before last season and was never as high on him as others notably were. There are a lot more reasons to be excited about Betts; he could be Pedroia part deux.

 

[rodderick]

I don't understand the point being made here. Prospects are different, with different skill sets and risks associated with them. The circumstances that lead to JBJ failing with the bat in his first MLB stint are specific to him, they don't necessarily offer a cautionary tale or indicate problems that could arise with other players, no matter how similar. If the reason he is being brought up is to say "hey guys, prospects can sometimes struggle even after being really good in the minors", well, yeah, but I think everybody in here is aware of the risks instrinsically associated with prospects. There's reason to believe that Betts, based on his profile as a hitter and the season he had last year, will be less prone to those struggles. If you are afraid of him struggling and limiting his trade value, then the logical conclusion should be trading every prospect before they hit the majors. The team needs young, cost controlled players in order to succeed, so trading the guy who, by all indications, has the biggest chance of being at least an above average MLB regular, seems short sighted to me.

 

[twothousandone]

Yes, someone like Lawrie had an amazing 2011, with some of that at the major league level. It was the type of season that can compare to what Betts has been doing. But it was also the only year hes had those types of numbers, and it was done with a higher than average BABIP and a K rate double to his walks.

I get the need to stay calm in regards to Mookie, but damn its hard not to be excited about this kid.

Agreed. But would you be in favor of a Longoria contract? That was:
2008 - $500,000
2009 - $550,000
2010 - $950,000
2011 - $2-million
2012 - $4.5-million
2013 - $6-million
2014 - $7.5-million or $3-million buyout 
2015 - $11-million or $1-million buyout of two-year option.
2016 - $11.5-million 
 
That's roughly $3 million/year for the first six years (MLB average in 2014 was just over $4 million/year). It's going to turn into a killer deal for the Rays, even after extended Longoria. If his down-side is Lawrie, and his upside isn't quite Longoria (but inflation has and will raise salaries), should the Sox lock him up?

 

[djhb20]

Clemens?

Yes. Of course. Stupid mobile phone.

 

[chrisfont9]

Agreed. But would you be in favor of a Longoria contract? That was:
2008 - $500,000
2009 - $550,000
2010 - $950,000
2011 - $2-million
2012 - $4.5-million
2013 - $6-million
2014 - $7.5-million or $3-million buyout 
2015 - $11-million or $1-million buyout of two-year option.
2016 - $11.5-million 
 
That's roughly $3 million/year for the first six years (MLB average in 2014 was just over $4 million/year). It's going to turn into a killer deal for the Rays, even after extended Longoria. If his down-side is Lawrie, and his upside isn't quite Longoria (but inflation has and will raise salaries), should the Sox lock him up?

I was thinking the same thing. If I'm the Sox, why not throw out 9/$60? Or maybe a bit more. Who says no? Mookie, who will be on ML minimum for a few more years and obviously is subject to the usual variables of performance and injury? Or the Sox, who would be committing to something like a Longoria scale, inflated for 2015+, but projecting to be the kind of deal that makes signing free agents possible?

 

[MakMan44]

Mookie, almost certainly. I think approaching him for a long term at some point next season is smart, but no one that young is going to agree to a 9 year deal and any agent who doesn't talk him off ledge from that one should be fired. 

 

[SoxFanForsyth]

Mookie, almost certainly. I think approaching him for a long term at some point next season is smart, but no one that young is going to agree to a 9 year deal and any agent who doesn't talk him off ledge from that one should be fired. 

This is tha exception to the rule, but go check out Sal Perez's deal

 

[twothousandone]

George Springer supposedly turned down $23 million over 7 years.

 

[MakMan44]

This is tha exception to the rule, but go check out Sal Perez's deal

Yeah, and Evan Longoria too. It happens, but I don't think we'll be so lucky. 

 

[sackamano]

How about 12 years and $325 million for Betts?

 

[chrisfont9]

George Springer supposedly turned down $23 million over 7 years.

$23m is a clown offer.

 

[chrisfont9]

Mookie, almost certainly. I think approaching him for a long term at some point next season is smart, but no one that young is going to agree to a 9 year deal and any agent who doesn't talk him off ledge from that one should be fired. 

I dunno, there has to be a number at which the 9yr early deal is a go. At some point the agent has to calculate how many hot rookie players ended up flaming out improbably and making next to nothing. Or he should be fired.

 

[MakMan44]

I dunno, there has to be a number at which the 9yr early deal is a go. At some point the agent has to calculate how many hot rookie players ended up flaming out improbably and making next to nothing. Or he should be fired.

Of course, but at that number it wouldn't make sense for the club. Going something like 5 years is smart for both sides which is why those medium term extension happen most often.