2019-20 Offseason Discussion

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,040
CT
If Betts were to be traded at the deadline, he'd be a rental - but one of the best deadline rentals of all time.

What is the customary acquisition for a quality rental over the last few years. We'd obviously top it.
Machado might be a relevant comparison

"........Until some of these players start bearing fruit at the MLB level, it’s going to be hard not to wonder what else could have happened. There’s little doubt in retrospect that Machado ought to have been traded in July 2017 instead, when his value to other teams was greater due to his having more time before becoming a free agent. "
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
If Betts were to be traded at the deadline, he'd be a rental - but one of the best deadline rentals of all time.

What is the customary acquisition for a quality rental over the last few years. We'd obviously top it.
Closest recent comp would be the Machado trade in 2018. Machado's not as good as Mookie but he's in that ballpark. The O's got one top-100 prospect (Yusniel Diaz), three second- or third-tier guys, and a fungible utility guy.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,201
As far as I'm concerned about a Mookie trade to the Dodgers. If they aren't willing to give up Dustin May or Gavin Lux then they aren't getting Mookie. I mean Verdugo is a solid prospect but you can't let him be the headliner in a deal. An elite game-changer like Mookie cannot go for 70 cents on the dollar. He's a more complete player than Machado or Harper and is close to Trout in value. Even for a year, someone like May should be included in a package. Lux might be more of a pipedream for one year but it depends how bad the Dodgers want to finally get over the hump.

I like what the Braves can offer as well. Pache/Waters, Anderson and another piece or two would be enticing.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,868
Is there a scenario under which the Red Sox pare so much salary that they can afford to add Rusney's contract to the payroll
Apropos of nothing, I've felt pretty bad for Rusney the past few years -- he was kind of like that guy who got stuck in the airport for years because no country would allow him to immigrate. But he made his own bed this year by opting in.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,941
Maine
Apropos of nothing, I've felt pretty bad for Rusney the past few years -- he was kind of like that guy who got stuck in the airport for years because no country would allow him to immigrate. But he made his own bed this year by opting in.
While it sucks to be "stuck" like he is, I think I'd trade places with him in a heartbeat considering how well compensated he's been for the experience. I can't blame him in the least for opting-in on his final year. There isn't a chance in the world he'd be able to make $13.5M anywhere else next year.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
12,933
My hope for this season is that when the owners made their declaration of trying to get under the 208 million payroll, that it was an attempt to get the fanbase ready for JD opting out. The unspoken message being, if he opts out, we are not signing a big name bat to replace him. And if he opts in, we will be filling the rest of the roster as cheaply as possible. And if the team is realistically not in the wild card hunt at the deadline, we will dump as much salary as we can, including Mookie, and we might then end up under the $208 million payroll for the season.

That would be reasonable, and is far a different scenario than the idea that it is our goal to get under $208 million before the season starts, and we will be doing as much as possible to try to get there this offseason.

It just doesn't make sense to me to suddenly try to get under that line this offseason, just months after the big contracts handed out to Sale, X, and Eovaldi. It would be much easier to get under that line next year, and to start planning for it now.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
5,161
I know adding his salary increases the luxury tax payout, but if the decision is made to blow it up this year would it make sense to pencil Rusney in as one of the outfielders and trade off both JBJ and Mookie to start restocking the farm system? For a one-year deal, would it really be that much worse than signing a free agent OF? If he shows anything, he could be a trade chip at the halfway point. I know his salary has been prohibitive to adding him to the roster, but if they are choosing this to be their fallow season is that the only way it would make any sense or is he basically guaranteed to never play another inning in a Boston uniform after such a poor debut and such an albatross contract?

Please note, I'm not advocating to trade Mookie or even to have Rusney be on the team, just wondering if that is the only scenario where he could be of any value or use to the big club? Or is there no such scenario?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
Apropos of nothing, I've felt pretty bad for Rusney the past few years -- he was kind of like that guy who got stuck in the airport for years because no country would allow him to immigrate. But he made his own bed this year by opting in.
He is one of the few luckiest players in baseball, pulling down eight figure salaries while having borderline major league talent at best.

Edit: Didn’t see RedHawks post until after this, but yeah.
 

simplicio

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
Apr 11, 2012
1,340
I can see no reason whatsoever to have Rusney back. Dude put up a 93 WRC+ in AAA last year, just pick someone off the scrapheap or take literally anyone else from the pipeline if it comes down to it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,941
Maine
Castillo is being paid $13.5M and would count as a $10.3M hit on the CBT. I know that they're paying him anyway, but if we're talking about trading Betts and JBJ which saves roughly $40M on the CBT, why make that a $30M savings by calling up Castillo instead of calling up a younger guy (Sturgeon? Wilson?) or signing a cheaper free agent.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
When NY was looking to add infielders last winter, I brought up the aforementioned Schoop as one possibility. Also I brought up Scooter Gennett, who put up 4.2 bWAR in 2018 before a season of injury and suckiness last year but he is still 30 and now a FA and probably even cheaper than Schoop.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
Also I brought up Scooter Gennett, who put up 4.2 bWAR in 2018 before a season of injury and suckiness last year but he is still 30 and now a FA and probably even cheaper than Schoop.
Gennett didn't even make the "Honorable Mention" column in MLBTR's top 50 FAs despite that All-Star season just two years ago. He was that bad. He'd be an interesting bounceback candidate. He's a horrific hacker: he had a 40% O-Swing even in 2018, over 45% last year, and it's just under 40 for his career. OTOH, he's a respectable defensive 2B, so if he could be had cheap enough it would be an interesting way to plug that hole for a year.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
I brought up Scooter just because my impression is that while it's unclear just what kind of salary mandate Bloom has, my guess is that he won't be adding any new salary commitments if at all possible, and Scooter could be really cheap (as might Rich Hill, who someone else mentioned earlier).
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,201
I brought up Scooter just because my impression is that while it's unclear just what kind of salary mandate Bloom has, my guess is that he won't be adding any new salary commitments if at all possible, and Scooter could be really cheap (as might Rich Hill, who someone else mentioned earlier).
Problem with Hill is that even in this market he's going to get 1/10 from a team. Boston is going to by all accounts operate like a small market franchise this offseason so I can't see them making even a 1 year committment for that number. Besides Hill cannot stay healthy. Great pitcher when he can but it probably wouldn't work out.

Scooter probably could be had on the cheap and should be a target to at the very least replace Brock.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,619
Brian dozier just had a pillow style beltre deal with the nats and was bad. He will be 33 next year. If you can get him for nothing maybe but anything over three mil or so pass
 

rymflaherty

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2010
2,618
Norfolk
^
agreed on Dozier. I don’t see what he offers, outside of the long shot prayer that comes from the nostalgia of a name you recognize, to justify a roster spot.
iirc Beltre was coming off a bad year, Dozier’s had a few in a row now.
If it’s essentially a free dart throw and there aren’t better options, I wouldn’t complain. But I would hope he’s not a priority.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,065
^
agreed on Dozier. I don’t see what he offers, outside of the long shot prayer that comes from the nostalgia of a name you recognize, to justify a roster spot.
iirc Beltre was coming off a bad year, Dozier’s had a few in a row now.
If it’s essentially a free dart throw and there aren’t better options, I wouldn’t complain. But I would hope he’s not a priority.
Is a 95 OPS+ really that bad for a second baseman? Dozier was fine, Cabrera just played out of his mind for 2 months and took the job. I image the perception that he lost the job will result in a low valuation in this market, and the opportunity to win the job in Boston may appeal to him. That said, they may feel Marco H has a 95 OPS+ upside and not bother given the payroll constraints.
 

chawson

Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,622
Is a 95 OPS+ really that bad for a second baseman? Dozier was fine, Cabrera just played out of his mind for 2 months and took the job. I image the perception that he lost the job will result in a low valuation in this market, and the opportunity to win the job in Boston may appeal to him. That said, they may feel Marco H has a 95 OPS+ upside and not bother given the payroll constraints.
On almost any other team I’d be less interested, but Dozier still posts consistently high launch angles that seem perfect for Fenway. He’s no longer murdering fastballs and has surely lost a bit of bat speed, but he hasn’t lost his plate discipline, contact rate or defensive skills.

Between him and Gennett, another smallish second baseman who’ll probably sign a one-year deal, I’d take the guy with a better aim at the Monster.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
On almost any other team I’d be less interested, but Dozier still posts consistently high launch angles that seem perfect for Fenway. He’s no longer murdering fastballs and has surely lost a bit of bat speed, but he hasn’t lost his plate discipline, contact rate or defensive skills.
It's certainly true that Dozier pulls a lot of fly balls. He was 23rd out of 207 hitters with 400+ PA in FB%, and out of 180 players with at least 100 FB hit, he was 12th in pull %. This would help him in Fenway, but not in most of the other AL East parks.

OTOH, he has crappy career Fenway numbers: .228/.275/.361 in 110 PA.

There's really not a lot wrong with him, nor a lot to get excited about at this stage in his career. He's not an All-Star anymore, but he's competent lineup filler. He earned his modest contract this past year, and I would think he could find somebody to repeat it, with perhaps a slight age discount (1/$7.5M? 2/$12M?). If the Sox aren't trying to shave every possible short-term dollar, he'd be a logical choice.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,201
Forget Dozier. I'd like to see Chavis play more 2B and have the club give Dalbec a chance somewhere. Whether its in the OF and moving Benny or Mookie to CF or give him a 1B mit. You could also start the season with Travis at 1B in a platoon. Again if you're trying to save money you're going to need to get players at the minimum from somewhere.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,868
Forget Dozier. I'd like to see Chavis play more 2B and have the club give Dalbec a chance somewhere. Whether its in the OF and moving Benny or Mookie to CF or give him a 1B mit. You could also start the season with Travis at 1B in a platoon. Again if you're trying to save money you're going to need to get players at the minimum from somewhere.
It's hard for me to imagine any situation where they don't have Chavis at 2d, Travis at 1b and some journeymen at AAA or backing them up, ready to step in if they slump. Unless they trade Mookie AND JDM, what little cap space they have has to be spent on the pen and the fourth and fifth starters. They won't even be able to afford to bring back Holt, much less a guy like Dozier.
 

chawson

Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,622
It's hard for me to imagine any situation where they don't have Chavis at 2d, Travis at 1b and some journeymen at AAA or backing them up, ready to step in if they slump. Unless they trade Mookie AND JDM, what little cap space they have has to be spent on the pen and the fourth and fifth starters. They won't even be able to afford to bring back Holt, much less a guy like Dozier.
Chavis, maybe, but if Chaim Bloom can’t come up with an Opening Day first baseman better than Sam Travis, he should be fired on April 1.

This mindset that says we should accept that the team has set an austerity mandate has got to go, in my opinion. I recognize that there are legitimate baseball reasons to get under the threshold — for the express purpose of avoiding draft and international FA restrictions going forward — but we’re not the Marlins here.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,065
One of the current clips from MLB Tv on the Red Sox home page is an analysis of the current payroll from a stars standpoint.

it shows them at a current commitment of 154 million without Bradley, Betts, or Martínez. They didn’t provide any details of how they came up to $154 so I don’t know what they assumed for Edro for instance. But, Sale, Price, Eocaldi, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Vazquez is $116 million off the top. There is no way to field a competitive teamby staying below $208 million and keep Betts and Martínez.
 
Aug 11, 2019
148
It's hard for me to imagine any situation where they don't have Chavis at 2d, Travis at 1b...
How could you have a 643 double play of Boegarts to Chavis to Travis? They'd need to swap Boegarts out and pick up someone like Fernando Tatis from the Padres. Wouldn't Remy or Dobbie have fun with Tatis to Chavis to Travis?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
I recognize that there are legitimate baseball reasons to get under the threshold — for the express purpose of avoiding draft and international FA restrictions going forward — but we’re not the Marlins here.
If there are "legitimate baseball reasons" for getting under the threshold, then how does getting under the threshold make us the Marlins?

I agree with nattysez that a right side of either Chavis/Travis or Hernandez/Chavis (or conceivably a platoon combination of the two, with the former vs. LHP and the latter vs. RHP, and Chavis moving back and forth) will be our fate unless perhaps the Sox trade more than one $10M+ contract (say, JDM + JBJ), which might leave room for acquiring a pitcher and a 2B or 1B.

How could you have a 643 double play of Boegarts to Chavis to Travis? They'd need to swap Boegarts out and pick up someone like Fernando Tatis from the Padres. Wouldn't Remy or Dobbie have fun with Tatis to Chavis to Travis?
Or we could sign Freddy Galvis.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
139
This mindset that says we should accept that the team has set an austerity mandate has got to go, in my opinion. I recognize that there are legitimate baseball reasons to get under the threshold — for the express purpose of avoiding draft and international FA restrictions going forward — but we’re not the Marlins here.
I agree. There are legitimate health reasons for me to lose 20 pounds but I'm not cutting off my arm to do it. Let Bloom do his job: establish a multi-year plan to get the threshold reset while fielding the most competitive team possible. To me, that includes making a major push to resign Mookie.

And, the fact that Henry bought the Sox for $380 million and the team is now worth $3.2 billion makes me hope that he can ride out the readjustment.
 

chawson

Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,622
If there are "legitimate baseball reasons" for getting under the threshold, then how does getting under the threshold make us the Marlins?
Entering the season with a guy like Sam Travis atop the depth chart would make us the Marlins. It’s a cost-cutting move without even a gesture toward competitiveness. Same with giving Marco the strong side of a platoon. These are the Cesar Crespos of today.

I agree with nattysez that a right side of either Chavis/Travis or Hernandez/Chavis (or conceivably a platoon combination of the two, with the former vs. LHP and the latter vs. RHP, and Chavis moving back and forth) will be our fate unless perhaps the Sox trade more than one $10M+ contract (say, JDM + JBJ), which might leave room for acquiring a pitcher and a 2B or 1B.
The problem with this — in addition to Chavis’s overall dubiousness as a major league hitter — is that he has reverse splits and hasn’t hit lefties at all. Marco can’t really hit anybody.

Enough second basemen are on the wire that someone will fall to us. From what I can tell, only the O’s, Cubs, Nats, Tigers and maybe A’s are also looking to acquire a second baseman this offseason. The free agent options are Kendrick, Dozier, Moustakas, Cabrera, Sogard, Holt, Castro, Schoop, Brad Miller, Zobrist, Kipnis, and Gennett (and maybe Neil Walker and Wilmer Flores depending how you look at them).
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,277
Entering the season with a guy like Sam Travis atop the depth chart would make us the Marlins. It’s a cost-cutting move without even a gesture toward competitiveness. Same with giving Marco the strong side of a platoon. These are the Cesar Crespos of today.
I don't think that we're necessarily the Marlins, Bogaerts, Devers, Benintendi, Martinez, Sale, Price on the roster precludes us from being called that.

BUT, what sucks is that we're being run like the Boston Red Sox isn't a top four MLB franchise. No matter who just played in the World Series, the Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs and Red Sox are the top four clubs in Major League Baseball. Their value is estimated to be $3 billion. If you want to get under the $248 million "cap", that's fine. I get that. But there's no real reason to bring payroll back to $208 million and whine that you somehow "lost" money last season.

I can't recall exactly what thread it was in, but I'm pretty sure that someone quoted Henry making that claim. And I can guarantee you that is 100% pure-grade bullshit. There's no way that the 2019 Red Sox, coming off a World Series championship the prior year, lost money. And if they did and it's a money-loser, sell the team. That's all he needs to do, sell the team. He can still own Liverpool, his racing team, his sports marketing business, the Boston Globe, but if the Red Sox are hemorrhaging money and he doesn't want to lose his money, just sell the fucking team.

I don't tune into NESN to worry about John Henry's money. I don't care about it. I care about the Boston Red Sox and if he's going to lie poor and worry about his investment, get out. Just get the fuck out. Thanks for the championships, but it might be time to go.

The Boston Red Sox should not spend like a poet on pay day one minute and then pivot six months later and whine about losing money. There shouldn't even be a thought about which player the Sox should keep, Martinez or Betts. That's an Oakland Athletics problem, that's a Pittsburgh Pirates problem, this should not be a Boston Red Sox problem. Losing Martinez would suck, however getting rid of Mookie Betts for another team's B+ or C prospects because you don't want to pay him like he should be paid would be a travesty the likes of which two generations of Red Sox fans have never seen. And quite honestly, that will be the legacy of this ownership. It's cool that we got the championships but there's a lot of shit that these guys are forcing us to eat in between.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,364
The wrong side of the bridge....
Entering the season with a guy like Sam Travis atop the depth chart would make us the Marlins. It’s a cost-cutting move without even a gesture toward competitiveness. Same with giving Marco the strong side of a platoon. These are the Cesar Crespos of today.
There's a difference between cutting costs temporarily with a long-term strategic purpose in mind, and just being chronic cheapasses. Also, there's a difference between cutting costs when you're over the LT threshold and when you're not even close to it.

The problem with this — in addition to Chavis’s overall dubiousness as a major league hitter — is that he has reverse splits and hasn’t hit lefties at all. Marco can’t really hit anybody.
First of all, "hasn't hit lefties at all" is a weird thing to say about a guy who hit for a .774 OPS vs. RHP and a .742 vs. LHP, with nearly half his HR coming vs. LHP even though he faced RHP more than twice as often.

Anyway, I thought it was well established around here that reverse splits aren't really a thing. Looking at Chavis's MLB and milb records, I'd say the most you can claim is that he doesn't have a pronounced, consistent platoon split of any kind. Which is why I was proposing an arrangement in which he plays every day, and Hernandez and Travis platoon.

As for Chavis's "overall dubiousness", that's relative to expectation, innit? As a 23-year-old rookie, he fit pretty well into the middle of the pack of your veteran FA list:

Player/2019 wRC+
Kendrick 146
Miller 126
Sogard 115
Moustakas 113
Holt 103
Schoop 100
Dozier 99
Chavis 98
Cabrera 98
Castro 91
Zobrist 85
Kipnis 82
Gennett 44

It's Chavis' 2B defense that worries me, though he seemed to do OK there this past year. Offensively, he's already basically a Schoop clone, and could get better than that.
 

chawson

Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,622
There's a difference between cutting costs temporarily with a long-term strategic purpose in mind, and just being chronic cheapasses. Also, there's a difference between cutting costs when you're over the LT threshold and when you're not even close to it.
We may be talking past each other on this. All I’m saying is that Travis should absolutely not be the starting first baseman next year, even in a platoon. A full season of Travis is probably -3 wins.

The literal only reason to cut payroll is because the team’s ability to acquire players is hampered under the new CBA. That’s a drag, because the decision to increase payroll was made under the previous one. So I somewhat buy that getting under $208m is good long-term. But cutting payroll for any other reason seems like austerity for austerity’s sake, and fans should be bullshit about that, in my opinion.

First of all, "hasn't hit lefties at all" is a weird thing to say about a guy who hit for a .774 OPS vs. RHP and a .742 vs. LHP, with nearly half his HR coming vs. LHP even though he faced RHP more than twice as often.

Anyway, I thought it was well established around here that reverse splits aren't really a thing. Looking at Chavis's MLB and milb records, I'd say the most you can claim is that he doesn't have a pronounced, consistent platoon split of any kind. Which is why I was proposing an arrangement in which he plays every day, and Hernandez and Travis platoon.

As for Chavis's "overall dubiousness", that's relative to expectation, innit? As a 23-year-old rookie, he fit pretty well into the middle of the pack of your veteran FA list:

Player/2019 wRC+
Kendrick 146
Miller 126
Sogard 115
Moustakas 113
Holt 103
Schoop 100
Dozier 99
Chavis 98
Cabrera 98
Castro 91
Zobrist 85
Kipnis 82
Gennett 44

It's Chavis' 2B defense that worries me, though he seemed to do OK there this past year. Offensively, he's already basically a Schoop clone, and could get better than that.
Yeah, I’m admittedly a little more bearish on Chavis than most around here. He had a 75 wRC+ after his first 14 games, which I think matters because those late April Tigers and White Sox pitchers didn’t really know his weaknesses. It’s certainly possible he’s a 100 wRC+ second baseman with average defense — which is not worthless — but I still think he’s trade bait. Imagine if we had shipped him at the deadline for Nick Anderson, who went for (slightly higher-rated prospect) Jesus Sanchez.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,201
Reading Shanks article this morning I'm 100% convinced that Mookie is gone. Ownership has been using him as a mouthpiece last few months it seems. Seems like they're trying to downplay how good he's been so the fan base doesn't go into a full scale riot when he's traded.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
Reading Shanks article this morning I'm 100% convinced that Mookie is gone. Ownership has been using him as a mouthpiece last few months it seems. Seems like they're trying to downplay how good he's been so the fan base doesn't go into a full scale riot when he's traded.
That is a stunningly stupid piece, not that I'd expect anything else from that guy. He'd give $350M to Soto despite the fact that he is already a shitty defensive left fielder. He is a remarkable hitter and still super young, but I'd like to revisit that thought down the road and see how it plays out as compared to Mookie (not even getting into Soto not hitting FA for another 4-5 years so it's apples and oranges).
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,663
Boston, MA
Reading Shanks article this morning I'm 100% convinced that Mookie is gone. Ownership has been using him as a mouthpiece last few months it seems. Seems like they're trying to downplay how good he's been so the fan base doesn't go into a full scale riot when he's traded.
He's right, though. Betts is basically Fred Lynn to this point in his career. That's a great player, and probably a Hall of Famer if he stays healthy. But most players don't stay healthy into their 30s.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
He's right, though. Betts is basically Fred Lynn to this point in his career. That's a great player, and probably a Hall of Famer if he stays healthy. But most players don't stay healthy into their 30s.
Betts has put up 42 bWAR through his age 26 season, Lynn had 18.5 through his age 26 season. Also even with Lynn's injuries, he still had 31 WAR in the 10 seasons after that, dumb comparison that would never be made if the two weren't both Red Sox.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,868
Betts has put up 42 bWAR through his age 26 season, Lynn had 18.5 through his age 26 season. Also even with Lynn's injuries, he still had 31 WAR in the 10 seasons after that, dumb comparison that would never be made if the two weren't both Red Sox.
Mookie's "comparable batters by age" chart on BRef shows just how wide a range of outcomes there could be for him going forward:
  1. Duke Snider (948.1) *
  2. David Wright (931.0)
  3. Matt Kemp (917.5)
  4. Grady Sizemore (914.4)
  5. Del Ennis (914.3)
  6. Greg Luzinski (912.0)
  7. Dick Allen (905.6)
  8. Barry Bonds (903.5)
  9. Jack Clark (902.1)
  10. Gus Bell (900.9)

So he could become an all-timer (Bonds, Snider), get hurt and be a shell of his former self (Sizemore, Wright, Kemp), or be an excellent player until he starts to tail off (Dick Allen, Jack Clark).
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,923
To me that list shows that there really isn't a great comparison for Mookie in baseball history, 948 as the closest shows that also. Also keep in mind that similarity scores are solely about hitting, and obviously Mookie is a superlative defender.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,663
Boston, MA
Betts has put up 42 bWAR through his age 26 season, Lynn had 18.5 through his age 26 season. Also even with Lynn's injuries, he still had 31 WAR in the 10 seasons after that, dumb comparison that would never be made if the two weren't both Red Sox.
Yes, Betts got to the big leagues a year earlier than Lynn, so his counting stats are better through a similar age. Mookie also had his career year at 25 while Lynn had his at 27, so we'll have to see how they compare after next year.

But you really can't use a straight WAR comparison across eras like that. The defensive component for current players has huge error bars. For players 40 years ago, it's basically useless. oWAR is 30 to 18.5 with a one season head start and Lynn's best season still to come.
 

Dewey'sCannon

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
639
Maryland
Reading Shanks article this morning I'm 100% convinced that Mookie is gone. Ownership has been using him as a mouthpiece last few months it seems. Seems like they're trying to downplay how good he's been so the fan base doesn't go into a full scale riot when he's traded.
Why would any read CHB, except if you're looking for an excuse to be as cantankerous as he is?

And from what I read of Bloom's interview with Bradfo, it didn't seem like that was an effort to downplay Mookie at all.
 

sean1562

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,619
a lot of the difficulty with Mookie is figuring out which hitter he really is. A .875-.925 OPS with great defense is really valuable but is it $35 mil over ten years valuable? Obviously if he replicates 2018 over the next 4 seasons then he is probably worth that but 2017 and 2019 Mookie probably isnt valuable enough to justify 35 mil of age 34-37 at the back end of the deal. I think we should keep him and try to have one last run with the roster we have. If he looks like 2018 Mookie next year, get into a bidding war over him. If he replicates 2019 I wouldnt be as disappointed if he leaves if it means we would have to give him a mammoth contract to get him to stay

edit: i didnt read the Shaughnessy article until right after posting this and kind of agree with him. Few players are worth those deals long term. While Betts is better than Nomar and Lynn, he isnt close to being a Mike Trout player that you lock up at 35 mil for the next 12 seasons. I hope the talk about getting under 208 is just talk, I would rather just ride this team out with some minor changes and see how we do next season. Best case scenario this team is a playoff caliber team and all you need to do is get hot at the right time.
 
Last edited:

Dewey'sCannon

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
639
Maryland
a lot of the difficulty with Mookie is figuring out which hitter he really is. A .875-.925 OPS with great defense is really valuable but is it $35 mil over ten years valuable? Obviously if he replicates 2018 over the next 4 seasons then he is probably worth that but 2017 and 2019 Mookie probably isnt valuable enough to justify 35 mil of age 34-37 at the back end of the deal. I think we should keep him and try to have one last run with the roster we have. If he looks like 2018 Mookie next year, get into a bidding war over him. If he replicates 2019 I wouldnt be as disappointed if he leaves if it means we would have to give him a mammoth contract to get him to stay
I think this is a good strategy, and one that they SHOULD have followed with Sale. If Mookie's willing to wait and see, I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing for the Red Sox - another year of data could help to make a more accurate valuation. If he's willing to sign an extension now, then great, but if he doesn't and wants to wait another year until he's a free agent, then that's ok too. It's not like the Red Sox cannot make a competitive bid for his services at this time next year - we're not some small market team that knows it has no chance once he becomes a FA. I don't understand why everyone is all in a tizzy about this now. The sky is not falling.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,973
Twin Cities
I think this is a good strategy, and one that they SHOULD have followed with Sale. If Mookie's willing to wait and see, I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing for the Red Sox - another year of data could help to make a more accurate valuation. If he's willing to sign an extension now, then great, but if he doesn't and wants to wait another year until he's a free agent, then that's ok too. It's not like the Red Sox cannot make a competitive bid for his services at this time next year - we're not some small market team that knows it has no chance once he becomes a FA. I don't understand why everyone is all in a tizzy about this now. The sky is not falling.
I agree re Mookie. It seems like he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production. That's fine, but given that 2017 and 19 were "lesser" years, there's no real benefit to the Sox to extend him now. Seeing how 2020 goes makes sense.

Sale's situation was a little trickier. I'm assuming they thought his health was fine and that his subsequent problems were just one of the downsides to any long term deal. If so, I think they decided that the CBT savings of extending him ($3.4M/year difference between the contract's AAV and the AAV for CBT purposes, if my math is right) outweighed any value in seeing how 2019 turned out. I don't want to fault them in hindsight for making that choice.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,868
I agree re Mookie. It seems like he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production. That's fine, but given that 2017 and 19 were "lesser" years, there's no real benefit to the Sox to extend him now. Seeing how 2020 goes makes sense.
At the risk of stating the obvious, there are two issues with the wait-and-see strategy:

(1) if ownership is really determined to get under $208m this year, there is almost no way to do that and field a competitive team if Mookie gets what you'd expect in arbitration. They'd need to trade at least JDM and more likely both JDM and one of the expensive starters to keep Mookie and field a team that doesn't have to rely on a bunch of guys overperforming expectations to be competitive.

(2) if you wait and see, Mookie can leave for nothing in FA. What's more likely to benefit the team, assuming he won't re-sign before the end of next season -- moving Mookie for assets now or getting a draft pick for him after getting another year of production from him this year? Edit: Although I guess you are technically "waiting and seeing" by trading him this year and seeing how he does on his new team before making a big FA offer to bring him back.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,941
Maine
I agree re Mookie. It seems like he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production. That's fine, but given that 2017 and 19 were "lesser" years, there's no real benefit to the Sox to extend him now. Seeing how 2020 goes makes sense.
Just one thing...we don't know what Mookie is looking for. All we know is he wants to be a free agent and test the market. As far as I can tell, none of the Red Sox extension overtures have been countered with anything but "no". There have been no counter offers, no demands, no anything that suggests at all what Mookie is going to seek as a free agent. So we can't simply assume that he's looking for a deal commensurate with his 2018 production any more than we can assume that he's willing to take a deal commensurate with his 2019 production. To date, he's given no indications whatsoever as to what it will take to sign him beyond 2020.

The only choice the Sox have at this point is whether or not to trade him. There's no choice involved as far as whether or not to extend him beyond 2020 or what they should be paying him if they do.