Bleh sorry, missed that my point already completely made and discussed. Thought i had kept up with all the mookie discussion threads but clearly not.
Lou Merloni: Mookie asking price is 12 years, $420 million.
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Given that Price and Eovaldi have made a combined 96 starts over the past three seasons, that seems a safe assumption.
Even if they keep Price and Betts, if Vegas sets the O/U at 95, I'd put the mortgage and kid on the under.
Fwiw vegas set the over under at 88.5, which still has them right in the thick of the wild card race, though I'm guessing some of that is them hedging against a Betts/Price/JBJ trade. The fangraphs win total is based on the assumption they don't trade anyone, which doesn't seem likely.
I'm torn here, on one hand the last two AL wild card games have featured teams who won 97/96 games (2019) and 100/97 games (2018), but on the other hand, getting into the top 5 of 15 teams when 4-5 are non-contenders (SEA, KC, DET, BAL, and maybe TOR) isn't the highest bar.
But of the teams who made it last year, all of whom won at least 96 games, the A's IMO have improved with all of their internal young pitching, the Astros are still really good despite the chaos, the Yankees we know about, and the Rays should have a healthier pitching staff and always somehow piece things together on offense, so I think it will take 95 wins or so to get into the wild card game.
Angels, Toronto, and the White Sox should all be a decent amount better, which should bring some of the inflated win totals of the top teams down a bit.
They have Sox at 88.5, Oakland 89.5, Tampa 90.5, and Cleveland 87.5, so even if you think that all of those are low the Sox are right in the mix to make the playoffs if they stand pat.
You think it’s more likely mookie will be out of baseball by the time he’s 33 than that he’ll still be a good player? Because that’s absurd
This misses the fact that 7 of the guys ahead of him (in wOBA) lose value from their defense. Some (like Martinez and Nelson Cruz) lose a lot. For mookie to fall below them in value he wouldn’t just have to slip a bit, he’d have to decline dramatically. If mookie were only a slightly above average defender, he’d still be a top 10 position player in baseball
From Baseball Ref:
Similar Batters through 26
- Duke Snider (948.1) *
- David Wright (931.0)
- Matt Kemp (917.5)
- Grady Sizemore (914.4)
- Del Ennis (914.3)
- Greg Luzinski (912.0)
- Dick Allen (905.6)
- Barry Bonds (903.5)
- Jack Clark (902.1)
- Gus Bell (900.9)
Wright was essentially done as a player after his age 31 season.
Matt Kemp hasn't played like a star since he turned 30 aside from his out-of-nowhere age 33 season.
Sizemore was never the same after his age 26 season.
Luzinski was out of baseball after a bad age 33 season.
Allen's last good season was his age 32 season.
Half the guys most statistically comparable to Mookie at his age were either bad or out of baseball by age 33. So Mookie remaining highly productive at age 33 is probably a coin flip. And Mookie's slight and 5'9 (officially), which makes everything tougher.
That's as a hitter only. Several of those guys were immobile in the field and useless once they stopped hitting or started breaking down.
Mookie is/was an MVP caliber player.
Two MVP's since 1960 were out of baseball by age 33, Roger Maris (33), and Zoilo Versailles. Thurman Munson had no say in the matter.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
Plus his contract will likely take him until at least age 36. I kind of doubt he forfeits over a hundred million dollars.
Mookie is/was an MVP caliber player.
Two MVP's since 1960 were out of baseball by age 33, Roger Maris (33), and Zoilo Versailles. Thurman Munson had no say in the matter.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
Plus his contract will likely take him until at least age 36. I kind of doubt he forfeits over a hundred million dollars.
The thing is, by the time he declines to that point, it should be quite a ways into his contract. By then, it may only look like a 4/140 or 3/105 deal or something. Which, by that point in time, may not be quite so bad, depending on how baseball contract inflation goes.
Eh, won't be the first time. He and I got into a huge argument one time over his percentage if I put him up for sale on eBay.
Heh. In my house, trying to get four kids through college, we've had discussions over which one I was gonna have to sell in order to get the other three through. Lots of debate over which one would bring the most value in return. Naturally, they all had different opinions on the matter.
This is true. With a 12 year deal the hope is for only a couple write off years. But the fear is a Cutch situation of like 7 overpaid years.
Yeah I totally get the concern. I wouldn't do 12/420 or whatever insane number it is. Not because I don't love Mookie - I have been fully on his bandwagon the minute I learned of him in the minors. But I just think there's such an enormous risk, putting so many eggs in one basket. And in baseball, I just don't think one superduperstar can impact a team nearly as much as in other sports, except for maybe a dominant starting pitcher. (even though they only go once every five days, they have such a disproportionate impact)
This really is not an easy call for Bloom and the Sox.
I think Mookie has actually made it an easier call than it was. If he would accept say 10/$350, that’s kind of a tough call to me. But 12/$420 is just a bridge too far. At least for me. I get why many others would disagree. I said this via pm to @Smiling Joe Hesketh but to me this decision comes down to your evaluation of the player. If you think he is truly a top 2-3 player I think you pay him. If you think (like me) he is more like the 10th best player.. I let him walk (or trade him whatever).
Can someone explain to me why being smaller than average makes an athlete less durable? I can understand why this would be the case in sports like football, basketball and hockey, where players are constantly banging into each other at speed and the ones with smaller bodies are getting the worst of these encounters. But collisions with other players are a small part of baseball. Banging into outfield walls is a problem, but why is it a worse problem for a 5'9, 175 guy than for a 6'3" 225 guy? I would think if anything the bigger guy would take more of a beating because he's hitting the wall with more momentum. In many ways I would expect the smaller guys to be more durable because they aren't as subject to things like back problems that afflict tall people.
Thing is, we don't know that he wouldn't accept 10/350. If we take the report of his asking for 12/420 as accurate, that's a counter-offer from which he might have to come down from in the negotiation process. Additionally, he's guessing as much as the Red Sox are at what his ultimate market value will be.
All we really know at this point (assuming the reports are correct at all) is that he's not going to take less than 12/420 until/unless the market proves that's too much. And we won't know what the market says for at least another 10 months. In other words, we're in no different a place than we were before Merloni "broke" this story.
… and we’ve circled back to the comp discussion we had in December. I’ll just reiterate that if the player in question needs to play like a no-doubt HOFer for the contract to work out, it’s probably a bad deal.
If his eyesight is so great why is he, apparently, making a lot fewer exceptional plays in right field? Isn't that better explained by either him putting on weight or his eyesight not being quite as good as it was? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention but I didn't think he had put on weight. Although his steal numbers are down, too.
The trajectory he's been on for his career...he's absolutely a no-doubt HOFer. How long will that continue? Well...that's the, ahem, million dollar question, isn't it?
Is it possible he has been playing defense more conservatively, consciously or unconsciously?
No, my point is that if he has to play like a no-doubt HOFer during the term of the contract in order to make it close to a reasonable deal, it’s probably not a good bet. of course the question is will it continue, but Mookie is asking to be paid like he will, and the Sox are probably a bit more skeptical (along with wanting to bake in some protections against injury or other precipitous decline).
No definitely not. But I agree with others that it depends when the decline happens. Top 3 for 8 years followed by top 10-15 for four might be
Man, I read through these posts and it's like we've never gone through this kind of analysis before. Top 3 player for 8 more years? And then maybe 10-15 for the next 4?
I think people should go back and look at the Pujols and Cabrera contracts. Pujols was coming off a 5.3 WAR (b-ref) season in 2011, good for a 5th place finish in the MVP voting, despite that being the lowest WAR he'd put up in his 11 year career. People still gulped when LAAA signed him to that 10 year/$240M deal (with all the extra trimmings), but what do people here think the team was thinking? One of the best RHH of all time, surely he could keep up the MVP-level mashing for another 4-5 years, then move to DH if/when necessary to continue with 3-4 more All-Star caliber seasons. Maybe the last year or two would be a farewell tour, but think of those championship flags that will all be flying by then...
Pujols has not had a single 5 WAR season with the Angels, and only 2 have been worth over 3 WAR. Last season? .4 WAR. There are two years left on the deal.
As for Miggy, most thought his deal was even worse at the signing than Albert's (Detroilet still had the 30 yo signed for two years when they tacked on an 8 yr, $248M extension and 2 option years at $30M each). Coming off back-to-back MVP, 7+ WAR seasons, Miggy's performance also began to fall, if more gradually. Two 5+ WAR seasons, then 4.7, then... the bottom fell out. Aggregate WAR for the past 3 seasons? -.1. Yeah. Good news, though. Only 4 years left on that contract (plus the possible options).
Is Mookie a better athlete than those two? Yes. Also younger. Better overall player? Debatable. Better fielder and baserunner but not as good a hitter.
I think people should go back and look at the Pujols and Cabrera contracts. Pujols was coming off a 5.3 WAR (b-ref) season in 2011, good for a 5th place finish in the MVP voting, despite that being the lowest WAR he'd put up in his 11 year career. People still gulped when LAAA signed him to that 10 year/$240M deal (with all the extra trimmings), but what do people here think the team was thinking? One of the best RHH of all time, surely he could keep up the MVP-level mashing for another 4-5 years, then move to DH if/when necessary to continue with 3-4 more All-Star caliber seasons. Maybe the last year or two would be a farewell tour, but think of those championship flags that will all be flying by then...
Pujols has not had a single 5 WAR season with the Angels, and only 2 have been worth over 3 WAR. Last season? .4 WAR. There are two years left on the deal.
As for Miggy, most thought his deal was even worse at the signing than Albert's (Detroilet still had the 30 yo signed for two years when they tacked on an 8 yr, $248M extension and 2 option years at $30M each). Coming off back-to-back MVP, 7+ WAR seasons, Miggy's performance also began to fall, if more gradually. Two 5+ WAR seasons, then 4.7, then... the bottom fell out. Aggregate WAR for the past 3 seasons? -.1. Yeah. Good news, though. Only 4 years left on that contract (plus the possible options).
Is Mookie a better athlete than those two? Yes. Also younger. Better overall player? Debatable. Better fielder and baserunner but not as good a hitter.
Sizemore was a plus defender in center field with an average arm and was described as a generational talent, though obviously some of that was likely homer bias by local press. But he only played one way, all out all the time, and injuries derailed him after 5 great years. He struggled with injuries and tried to come back multiple times but could never recapture it. Any parallels to Mookie?
And as an Indians fan watching this whole saga and thread play out is kind of interesting, I've been through it before. More than once.
I hate to admit this, but I think that I'm finally coming around to accepting that the Red Sox should trade Mookie Betts. I think that it sucks, I think that the team could afford him, but the reported 12-year, $420M price tag is a bit too steep for my tastes.
I love watching Betts play baseball and I think that the Sox may have gotten the majority of the best years, but that's just too much of an investment (mostly year-wise, IDGaF what they pay him) for one guy. We saw what happened to Pedroia and like MM said, the Cabrera and Pujols deals might be the best comps.
I love watching Betts play baseball and I think that the Sox may have gotten the majority of the best years, but that's just too much of an investment (mostly year-wise, IDGaF what they pay him) for one guy. We saw what happened to Pedroia and like MM said, the Cabrera and Pujols deals might be the best comps.
Neither of those guys is a great defender or fast runner like Mookie.
What if the Red Sox counter with 8 or 9 year deal, with a slightly higher AAV, that allows him to get another contract on the back end?
Andrew McCutchen was those things, and if he had signed a 12 year deal when he was 27 it would look like an unmitigated disaster.
He almost certainly rejects it; he already looked at 10 years and came back asking for 12. The bottom line is that Sox have tried to negotiate with Mookie and his stance is to negotiate as if he’s committed to hitting FA. The only thing the Sox have to decide is can they afford to let him go for a 4th round compensation pick given their current talent and budget limitations.
Right but like tim4wins said, a good comp is McCutchen and he hasn't been half the player he's been since starring for the Pirates five plus years ago. Also, don't forget, the legs are usually the first things to go; so a slow Mookie isn't the same Mookie that we see today.
I'm pretty sure that he's gone and I'm going to miss the dude. But it makes sense, team wise (like I said before, I don't care whether this makes sense for John Henry's wallet).
Nomar Garciaparra is a good comp for Mookie through age 28 as well, and he had a 700 OPS as a 33 year old. His career was hampered by a hit by pitch in his wrist and a freak offseason injury to his heel.
Like Nomar, and Pedroia, and Blake Swihart, and Thurman Munson, Mookie is not immune to freak injury risk. All players have multiple sources of injury risk, of course. But not all players want a $400 million insurance policy against those risks.
I tend to agree with this. The size thing seems to be about pitchers, since smaller joints and tendons, at least in theory, can't handle as many innings.
My expertise is in hoops where clearly the way the game has changed, players train, and medical science have changed some of the conventional knowledge. At one time leapers, and overly muscular heavy guys were considered likley short career guys. While shooters like Sam Perkins, Ainge, Kerr were the best bets to last. But now the greatest leaper ever is still playing at age 43, and a leaper that weighed 240 in high school is still dominating at 35.
I have a theory about this.
Small position players are often middle infielders. Before they changed the rules — and even after, as Pedroia's sad example amply demonstrates — those positions were particularly dangerous. Guys take knocks, and those add up.
And on the pitching side, there are so many examples of slight pitchers (a Pedro Martinez, say, or a Tim Lincecum) who are unable to maintain their velocity as deep into their careers as a guy built like Jon Lester might be able to. (Pedro obviously was better able to transition from dependence on velocity than Lincecum was.)
I haven't posted much in Mookie threads. I've sort of been trying to read what I could and figure out what I could and keep an open mind. Your posts on the whole thing have been some of the ones that have resonated most deeply as I've tried to figure out what I think about all this.
I think in the end it's just bad luck for the Sox. Mookie made a decision that most players in his position would usually be very reluctant to make. A year to year player facing the possibility of regression or injury is almost always not going to turn down life changing forever money for the prospect of an extra $100 million. It just turned out that the best homegrown player the Sox have produced in a long long time made the choice that most wouldn't make. I wish it had been otherwise, but it wasn't.
I know there's a lot of anger over how they backed up the truck for Sale and Eovaldi and now want to get under the cap. I think it's a bit easy to forget that the Sox won 108 games in 2018 and so there was every reason to believe that keeping the band together could make them a 100 win team again in 2019. I know that doesn't fully explain Sale. But if I'm honest while I was worried about those contracts I didn't despise them at the time. It's a little hard to really remember how shocking last year was. I just did not see it coming. Even apart from the injuries it was the same damned team and there was no way to expect that it would be so much less than the sum of its parts.
Anyway, this really really sucks. But if the Sox really offered him $300 million, then it just wasn't to be and they have to do what's best for the team now.
My respect for Mookie just went down a few notches, if this reflects things he's actually saying. How does the difference between, say, 10/$300M and 12/$420M make a difference "from a labor standpoint" to a union full of players most of whom will never come anywhere near that money? If anything, big contracts like that constrict the market for lower-middle-class FAs, which is what most MLBPA members will be if they're even lucky enough to get that far.
Mookie's 100% entitled to get the best deal he can; he doesn't have to sugar-coat it with ersatz altruism.
like BMHH said, it might just be spin from this guy.
Mookie wasn't thinking about the MLBPA when sticking to his 750k asking point out of high school, right?
Mookie wasn't thinking about the MLBPA when sticking to his 750k asking point out of high school, right?
It's like Nomar back in the day saying that he was in favor of a labor stoppage "for the kids playing little league"
It seems that talking point is thrown around a lot by the union; it’s significant if you’re a player and you can compare yourself as 50% or 80% of Mookie, it’s noteworthy if you’re looking at a percentage of $300M or $420M. This is how we get inflation in player salaries, but it’s not like the owners are going increase spending in labor if they don’t have to.
If spending on top tier FA suppresses monies paid out to lower tier (non-elite) FA the players have only one themselves to blame (well, and Tony Clark) for letting the owners use a competitive balance argument to hoodwink them into accepting a de facto hard salary cap.
If spending on top tier FA suppresses monies paid out to lower tier (non-elite) FA the players have only one themselves to blame (well, and Tony Clark) for letting the owners use a competitive balance argument to hoodwink them into accepting a de facto hard salary cap.
If a Union were concerned with both the freedom of players to choose their own city, and with the quality of life for the rank and file, they’d negotiate what the NBA Players Association did—A hard cap on the value of individual player contracts along with a guaranteed percentage of total revenues. That way superstars are capped but can still play anywhere they want while total salaries have to stay commensurate with revenue. And so backup centers start getting multi year multimillion contracts.
I'm not much of an NBA fan, but it is interesting that Kawhi Leonard chose to sign a 3 year, $103 million contract instead of going for maximum dollars (and I have a general understanding that NBA contracts are limited to 4 or sometimes 5 years). He's roughly a year older than Betts and comparable in his status within the league but he chose flexibility/leverage over top dollar. Tom Brady has for years accepted below market contracts to play for, and help create, a winning team (again, I understand the NFL market is very different for players due to the salary cap). After this year, Betts will have made about $60 million. It would be really interesting to see whether Betts could exceed, for example, Bryce Harper's total contract if he opted for 3 year deals (and he could certainly afford a massive insurance policy to cover injury). With the current MLB payroll structure, what would a three year deal for Betts look like? Trout is at $35 million a year for 12 years... Three years $150 million?
I think the potential for decline is just greater in baseball. Qbs and elite NBA players are also much more valuable to their team than even an MVP player can be for a baseball team. I guess we will see how that kind of thing plays out if Trevor Bauer was sincere about his "only 1 year deals" promise