Mookie redux

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
The Price redux thread would be relatively short
The dodgers only have to pay half his salary, he took an unpaid year off, and he STILL probably won't end up being worth what the dodgers are paying him, ouch
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
25,970
Drellich article on the Athletic has some nuggets: https://theathletic.com/2898387/2021/10/21/chaim-bloom-the-red-sox-return-to-contention-and-the-hunt-for-surplus-value/

One move was said to have taken more than 50 phone calls between Bloom and another club: the trade of Betts to the Dodgers, which will remain painful for Red Sox fans for a long, long time, even if the 2021 group wins a title. The lengthy process, in this instance, seemed to help Boston’s position, a source with knowledge of the talks said. The Sox came to believe Dodgers ownership was pressuring its front office to improve, and the Dodgers eventually became willing to take David Price’s contract in the deal.

...

In the bigger picture, the Betts trade leads to a question of what Bloom’s arrival and the hunt for surplus value represents, particularly for a large-market team like the Red Sox.

The last offer the Red Sox made Betts in 2019 was for $290 million, and Betts countered at a clip above $400 million, as other outlets have reported. The Sox, a team source said, knew Betts was unlikely to take $290 million. But the Sox front office firmly believed Betts ultimately would be willing to sign an extension, or to stay as a free agent — if ownership wanted to hit a number that worked.

At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.

Bloom didn’t have an absolute mandate to trade Betts, particularly if there were no good offers available. But in light of ownership’s position, it was clear Bloom would be wise to avoid a situation where the Sox’ only compensation for Betts would be the draft pick they’d receive if he left as a free agent.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,399
At that point, the internal conversation came down to a question for ownership: How do you feel about mega-contracts in general? Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.

Bloom didn’t have an absolute mandate to trade Betts, particularly if there were no good offers available. But in light of ownership’s position, it was clear Bloom would be wise to avoid a situation where the Sox’ only compensation for Betts would be the draft pick they’d receive if he left as a free agent.
We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford,
Albert Pujols, Yoenis Cespedes, Prince Fielder....
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,399
I mean couldn’t you “technically” say that trouts deal wont turn out well unless the ANGELS actually win a WS with him on the team?
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
I mean couldn’t you “technically” say that trouts deal wont turn out well unless the ANGELS actually win a WS with him on the team?
By that logic every deal a team makes that doesn't win didn't turn out well. Trout's deal will likely generate tens of millions in excess value based on his production, if they don't win it isn't because of that deal.

If a big deal comes fairly close to generating equal value and they help you in the postseason it turned out well, if they exceed production and don't win it turned out well, if they don't even come close to equal value and don't help you win then it turned out badly.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,253
around the way
Part of the whole "megadeal" conversation has to involve the length. I don't read into that clip that the Sox have a problem paying top dollar for the right guy. This ownership group has paid FA market rates for guys. Question is whether 10-12 year deals at top dollar are ever a good idea. That's like 2+ CBA long.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
58,038
There were only a handful of 10+ year deals until recently and many of them were signed too recently to judge. Here’s a pretty recent list, missing Lindor:

https://www.mlb.com/amp/news/longest-contracts-in-baseball-history.html

The Pujols one was terrible but the Jeter one and the first A-Rod one were good deals. Not ten years, but Scherzer is wrapping up a 7/210 deal that he more than earned, but I do think the megadeals end up as bad moves for the signing team at least half the time.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
The Sox have been a mixed bag with long term contracts, Pedey and Manny worked out great, Crawford and Castillo were terrible.

I'm not really sure how to judge Agon and Price, Agon was great with the Sox, but quickly traded though not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, Price was mediocre, but they had to pay a bunch of money to unload him on the back end.

I believe those are the only 7+ year deals they've ever agreed to.

edit: They also signed Nomar to what ended up being a 7 year deal including the options, that was also easily a home run, even though they traded him at the end.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
The Sox have been a mixed bag with long term contracts, Pedey and Manny worked out great, Crawford and Castillo were terrible.

I'm not really sure how to judge Agon and Price, Agon was great with the Sox, but quickly traded though not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, Price was mediocre, but they had to pay a bunch of money to unload him on the back end.

I believe those are the only 7+ year deals they've ever agreed to.

edit: They also signed Nomar to what ended up being a 7 year deal including the options, that was also easily a home run, even though they traded him at the end.
To be clear, the only reason Pedroia worked out great was because the AAV was so low. I wouldn’t qualify that as a mega contract. The last several (2? 3?) years of that deal were a complete disaster but he had earned the contract over the first 4-5 years, just because the value was so low. If the contract was 6 years and $96M then it still would have been a good deal and I’m not sure we would qualify that as a mega contract. A $96M contract signed after 2010 just doesn’t qualify IMO.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
We say that about all big $$$/year deals for both sox players and for other teams... How many of them actually turned out well? A-rod, Pedroia (sadly due to injury) A-Gon, Price, Crawford,
Albert Pujols, Yoenis Cespedes, Prince Fielder....
The problem is, this is what young talented ballplayers want. It's going to be the going length of deal for a Rafael Devers or a Xander Bogaerts. If you're okay with having Devers or Bogaerts for a short amount of time and then either trading them a year before their current deal is up (and getting 75-50 cents on the dollar) or letting them walk to free agency for nothing, then I think that this is the price (no pun) that we're going to have to pay for not going to long-term contracts.

Because I don't think that most players aren't going to take a home count discount in either dollars or years. Sure, one or two will, but most won't.

I think that these quotes are the money quotes:

Because if you’re ever going to do one, Betts is one of the few players you’d go to that length for. Ownership’s answer, a source said, was that it did not think it should give out these types of deals.
Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,399
The problem is, this is what young talented ballplayers want. It's going to be the going length of deal for a Rafael Devers or a Xander Bogaerts. If you're okay with having Devers or Bogaerts for a short amount of time and then either trading them a year before their current deal is up (and getting 75-50 cents on the dollar) or letting them walk to free agency for nothing, then I think that this is the price (no pun) that we're going to have to pay for not going to long-term contracts.

Because I don't think that most players aren't going to take a home count discount in either dollars or years. Sure, one or two will, but most won't.

I think that these quotes are the money quotes:



Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.
There is getting a hometown and then getting 10+ year deals.
I am not saying that they should only take a home town discount. Iirc the $290 million contract they offered him in 2019 would have made him the 3rd highest paid player at that time. That’s not a “hometown” discount.

again. We don’t know what the next CBA will entail but right now mlb has a quasi salery cap even though mlb does not really call it one. This is not the mlb of yesteryear where the Yankees and Sox both had a payroll the equivalent of a small counters GDP. There are severe penalties for going over the Lux tax.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,284
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Whether you want to call ownership cheap or smart, I think that we're going to have to get used to players not being in Boston for the long haul. And to be honest, I'm not loving that philosophy.
I guess what I don't understand is that while being risk-averse is fine, ownership had no problem giving Sale a $168 million extension despite the overwhelmingly obvious risks attached to it. And in fact they've received almost nothing in return for that deal due to ineffectiveness and injury.

I am not sure I like this philosophy either. There's one thing that worse than overpaying superstars: overpaying for mediocrity.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that no long term deals will be given out to X and Devers and friends going forward. Bloom comes here from Tampa where for financial reasons they simply don't do such things. And to their credit it's worked out for them, the Archer trade essentially reloaded that entire organization. But as I've said before, that approach works in Tampa because they have no fans and they have always been unable or unwilling to extend their superstars. In Boston, that approach will be viewed far more skeptically.

We'll see. The only proper answer to such concerns is winning, winning a lot, and winning multiple World Series titles. If Bloom does that then he'll always have his justifications.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
14,838
The contracts work out for teams if the team makes more money from signing the contract than it would save by not signing it. In other words, let's say Ohtani costs $400 million over an 8-year contract. Does he generate that kind of revenue for the Angels (or whomever signs him to that)? I have no idea how they calculate it but it's part tickets, part postseason exposure, part Ohtani gear sales, etc.

From a fan's point of view it usually comes down to a contract being worth it if the team wins (especially in the postseason). But from ownership's perspective, if they make a profit off the guy, he's worth it.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
I am not saying that they should only take a home town discount. Iirc the $290 million contract they offered him in 2019 would have made him the 3rd highest paid player at that time. That’s not a “hometown” discount.
It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.

Which is fine. That's what I guess you do. But again, if they're not going to sign Mookie Betts to a long-term deal, then they probably won't sign anybody to that type of deal. If you're okay with that, that's cool. No judgement on my part. Like I said, I like a bit of continuity on my teams. I root for the laundry, but I also root for the players. There's no "right" way to root for a team.

I had the Baseball Show on last night for a bit and Tony Massarotti brought up a great point in that if the Sox aren't going to pay or give out long-term deals to superstars (like Betts) and are going to bring in good, but flawed, players, the Sox are going to be hard-pressed to win. He talked about guys like Renfroe who has mostly played well but has done some dumb things in the playoffs (ninth inning of Game 4, lack of production at the plate in the ALCS), Schwarber who is not the slickest first baseman and Adam Ottavino (Mazz was saying that Ottavino is not brought into the late innings because people run on him so much, something like 22 steals in 68 IP). Anyway, these flawed players put pressure on the stars that they always have to produce. For example, Whitlock going two innings in Game 4 and then Eovaldi coming into the ninth.

He posited that that's why teams like the Rays or the A's or the Twins don't win the World Series. They have these players that are really good, and during the year the flaws sort of even out. But during a short series their flaws are exposed and there's really not a chance for them to even things out.

I don't know if I would buy all of that, but I buy a lot of it. And I'd hate for the Sox to let go over stars because of contract length and bring in players that 85-90% of the player that they let go.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,906
deep inside Guido territory
It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.

Which is fine. That's what I guess you do. But again, if they're not going to sign Mookie Betts to a long-term deal, then they probably won't sign anybody to that type of deal. If you're okay with that, that's cool. No judgement on my part. Like I said, I like a bit of continuity on my teams. I root for the laundry, but I also root for the players. There's no "right" way to root for a team.

I had the Baseball Show on last night for a bit and Tony Massarotti brought up a great point in that if the Sox aren't going to pay or give out long-term deals to superstars (like Betts) and are going to bring in good, but flawed, players, the Sox are going to be hard-pressed to win. He talked about guys like Renfroe who has mostly played well but has done some dumb things in the playoffs (ninth inning of Game 4, lack of production at the plate in the ALCS), Schwarber who is not the slickest first baseman and Adam Ottavino (Mazz was saying that Ottavino is not brought into the late innings because people run on him so much, something like 22 steals in 68 IP). Anyway, these flawed players put pressure on the stars that they always have to produce. For example, Whitlock going two innings in Game 4 and then Eovaldi coming into the ninth.

He posited that that's why teams like the Rays or the A's or the Twins don't win the World Series. They have these players that are really good, and during the year the flaws sort of even out. But during a short series their flaws are exposed and there's really not a chance for them to even things out.

I don't know if I would buy all of that, but I buy a lot of it. And I'd hate for the Sox to let go over stars because of contract length and bring in players that 85-90% of the player that they let go.
I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
40,399
It sort of is though. The Sox started at $290, Betts countered at ~$400. We've all negotiated, whether it's a car price or salary, so we know that you don't go in with your best offer--or at least your maximum offer--unless you're there to get a steal. The Sox should have countered with, I don't know, pick a number: $310? $315, maybe Betts brings it down to $380, $375. The Sox go up to $320 or $325. Maybe Betts brings it down further or meets the Sox, I don't know. But to start at a number and not go any further indicates to me that the Sox only wanted to sign Betts if they get a "deal", they didn't get what they wanted and they spun it as Betts is greedy.

Which is fine. That's what I guess you do. But again, if they're not going to sign Mookie Betts to a long-term deal, then they probably won't sign anybody to that type of deal. If you're okay with that, that's cool. No judgement on my part. Like I said, I like a bit of continuity on my teams. I root for the laundry, but I also root for the players. There's no "right" way to root for a team.

I had the Baseball Show on last night for a bit and Tony Massarotti brought up a great point in that if the Sox aren't going to pay or give out long-term deals to superstars (like Betts) and are going to bring in good, but flawed, players, the Sox are going to be hard-pressed to win. He talked about guys like Renfroe who has mostly played well but has done some dumb things in the playoffs (ninth inning of Game 4, lack of production at the plate in the ALCS), Schwarber who is not the slickest first baseman and Adam Ottavino (Mazz was saying that Ottavino is not brought into the late innings because people run on him so much, something like 22 steals in 68 IP). Anyway, these flawed players put pressure on the stars that they always have to produce. For example, Whitlock going two innings in Game 4 and then Eovaldi coming into the ninth.

He posited that that's why teams like the Rays or the A's or the Twins don't win the World Series. They have these players that are really good, and during the year the flaws sort of even out. But during a short series their flaws are exposed and there's really not a chance for them to even things out.

I don't know if I would buy all of that, but I buy a lot of it. And I'd hate for the Sox to let go over stars because of contract length and bring in players that 85-90% of the player that they let go.
wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,419
Boston, MA
The A-Rod #1 and Manny contracts were both worth it. The lesson there is to stay under 10 years, sign guys in their 20s, and have a large supply of steroids available. These 12 and 13 year deals are just a way of spreading dead money as far on the back end as possible. If you're paying top of the market salary for those years, it's a guaranteed loser.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,284
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I am not sure I'd buy Mazz' argument there. Even the teams that win the World Series have flaws. The 2018 Red Sox won 108 games and went 11-3 in the postseason, but they were thin at the end of the bullpen and had to use starters out of the pen on their throw days. Their catchers had OPS+ of 37 and 46.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
32,284
Deep inside Muppet Labs
wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....
That $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,303
Seems like a rather simplistic view. The 2019 Red Sox had more highly paid players than this years team (like Mookie Betts, David Price, and Craig Kimbrel) and didn’t even make the playoffs. The Sox may not win the WS but is it really because of Renfroe or Ottavino? Even the best players can struggle in a short series. I think the Sox problems this year are a lack of depth- the bottom of the roster isn’t very good. If they had anither good lefty reliever, another guy like Houck, and a LH batt off the bench they’d be much better.

That depth problem would be exacerbated if they had a few more stars, IMO. You’ve only got a certain amount of payroll and don’t want to be too top heavy.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,303
That $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.
by AAV, sure. But at the time of the Sox $290M offer, the only deals bigger were Trout and Stanton. Since then, topped by Lindor, Tatis, Betts.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,942
I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
You might be right. But that's the direction that the Front Office has right now. I mean, they said as much in that article.

wait, let me get this straight, you think that making Betts the 3rd highest paid player in MLB (at that time) is asking him to take a home town discount? Again, the dynamics of baseball have changed, The Sox and other teams used to be able to spend a crap load of money on players during the draft, MLB fixed that, and now you cannot do that without facing penalties. Same with FA.... unless you are fine with the sox going so over the lux tax that they miss out on a guy like Marcelo Mayer... I mean there is a reason even the damn yankees dont spend like the drunken sailors like they used to....
I am not a prospect humper at all, so you're coming at me with the wrong ammunition here. Marcelo Mayer may be the next Cal Ripken or he could be the next Mark Appel. You don't know how good he's going to be and neither do I. In fact, there have been three players taken as the overall number one pick in the draft that have made the Hall of Fame since the draft was started more than 50 years ago (Baines, Griffey and Chipper). So the draft isn't exactly a science here. You could miss out on a can't miss star in the first round and find a perpetual All-Star in the sixth, talent comes from everywhere in the draft. Especially in baseball. And if the team is penalized one year, guess what, there's another draft the next year. There's always another draft. A lot of people don't seem to mind that the Sox whiffed on high second-round pick Jud Fabian this year, mostly because there's a draft next year and maybe the Sox can get someone better.

And I've also been pretty consistent on the Red Sox going over the luxury tax. I don't give a fuck. At all. It's not my money and John Henry and FSG can afford it.

The point is this, I'm not the owner. I'm not the General Manager or the Director of Baseball Ops. "Worrying" about the future of the Red Sox is silly for me because I'm a fan. I'm lucky, the Red Sox are good, they're always good. But I would like them to be great now. I like watching stars play for my team. If I could, I'd love for their to be an All-Star at every position, five number ones in the rotation and a stacked bullpen. Why wouldn't I want that? Why wouldn't YOU want that? Is that realistic, no but it would be nice if the team can get as close as they can to that.

You don't get a medal for being a selfless or smart fan. Maybe you get to smugly walk around Fenway and complain about pink hats, but who cares? It's sports. It's supposed to be fun. A diversion from real life.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,624
Do we really think that the Red Sox are going to automatically eschew long term contracts to every player that is eligible?

Seems like what got Dombrowski in trouble is that he signed an injured Sale to a long term extension without really getting buy in from ownership. Worse, he didn't have a plan for managing the luxury tax threshold, which has real and potentially significant non-monetary impact on the franchise's ability to restock the farm system. We may not agree that the impact of draft slot penalties is significant; however, given that every single major league team (including the Yankees and Dodgers) have periodically reset the tax means that the league's GMs feel that those impacts are significant. That is the reality of baseball going forward; the owners will never give back what they obtained.

There is some uncertainty to what the next CBA will look like, and that also probably played into the team's decision making process.

We've heard the same thing before when the Sox offered Lester a 4/70 contract. They later went out and signed David Price.

The owners hired Bloom because they felt he possesses a heavy analytical approach to roster building that the team wanted to go back to after drifting away from it with the Dombrowski hire. It does not automatically mean that the Sox want to become the Rays; it's been noted that the Dodgers, who also had a good farm system, would be another model.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,976
It is nearly impossible to maintain a payroll near the top of the league, as the Sox have done, without giving out long term contracts.

If we assume Xander will opt out after next year, the Sox have about $31 million committed to 2023 (Sale and Barnes).

We will find out if ownership truly is taking a new direction by next offseason at the latest.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,419
Boston, MA
The only quarrel I have with the Betts trade is that Bloom's people may have misled him on Brusdar Graterol's "medicals." He is pretty impressive at the moment.
Graterol is like a beefy Joe Kelly. He gives up way more contact than you'd think someone throwing that hard would. But he certainly seems to be a better piece than Jeter Downs right now. I knew Bloom should have stayed away from someone with that name.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,823
The Sox have been a mixed bag with long term contracts, Pedey and Manny worked out great, Crawford and Castillo were terrible.

I'm not really sure how to judge Agon and Price, Agon was great with the Sox, but quickly traded though not necessarily because of anything he did wrong, Price was mediocre, but they had to pay a bunch of money to unload him on the back end.

I believe those are the only 7+ year deals they've ever agreed to.

edit: They also signed Nomar to what ended up being a 7 year deal including the options, that was also easily a home run, even though they traded him at the end.
Pedro worked out well but that was 6.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
I find it hard to believe that John Henry will stay consistent on this long-term contract stance. Whether it's Devers or someone else, they will sign someone to a 9 figure deal in the near future.
There's a difference though between a 9 figure deal that begins with a 1, and one that begins with a 3 or a 4. I doubt the ownership group would have a problem giving Devers (for example) a 6 year, $200M contract. The problem is when it gets to the 10-12 year, $300-$400M range.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,906
deep inside Guido territory
There's a difference though between a 9 figure deal that begins with a 1, and one that begins with a 3 or a 4. I doubt the ownership group would have a problem giving Devers (for example) a 6 year, $200M contract. The problem is when it gets to the 10-12 year, $300-$400M range.
I realize that. The issue as you said is with the mega long-term money and years which is what Betts wanted. If Devers is cool with a manageable deal like you said, they'd sign up for it in a second most likely.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,976
If I say the over/under on the number of contracts with AAV > 20 mil the Sox sign/acquire in the next 18 months is 1.5, would anyone here take the under?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,303
Giving out big deals also has to take into account the makeup of the entire team and what $$ people are making. Would have been easier to give Betts $300m+ If they didn’t have Sale, Price, JD, Bogaerts, etc all locked up long term at big money. The Dodgers seem likely to lose Seagar this year, at least in part because of contracts they’ve given out to Betts and others. The Sox would probably like to resign X and Devers, but they probably won’t be in a position to resign both without a massive influx of inexpensive contributors.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
That $290 million deal would have made him about the 10th-15th highest paid player in less than two years. In 2021 there are at least 10 players already making more than $29 million a year. It was absolutely an offer on the low end of what was to be expected.
Because he had 2 arb years left that were being bought out and you're comparing his contract to guys that didn't
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
8,874
The only quarrel I have with the Betts trade is that Bloom's people may have misled him on Brusdar Graterol's "medicals." He is pretty impressive at the moment.
He had a 4.59 era and a 1.41 whip pitching in the NL this year with a horrible strikeout to walk ratio, that would make him near the back end of the current Sox pen.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,842
Hingham, MA
Rough NLCS for Mookie: .174 avg / .217 slg. 1 XBH (2b) and 1 RBI.

Brings his career in the CS to 16-72, 4 2B, 0 HR, 4 RBI. .222 avg / .278 slg.

Overall playoff career at .272 / .350 / .408. Beginning to approach his overall career of .296 / .373 / .518. Scores runs at a great rate (37 in 51 games). Drives ‘em in less so (17 /51). Major drop in isolated power (.224 vs .136) is where the loss of production is driven from. Isolated discipline is nearly identical (.078 vs .077).
 

TapeAndPosts

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2006
415
Mookie looked overmatched against Matzek last night, striking out on three straight pitches. But there's a parallel universe where his swing on that third pitch drives the ball and ties the game, or even goes over the fence for the lead, and he's the hero of the Dodgers comeback. I don't think Mookie is lacking any inherent skill for postseason hitting, this is just the way it's shaken out.

And same for the Red Sox; we could have lost to the Yankees or Rays but didn't, we could have beaten the Astros, but didn't. So this is the way the wavefunction collapses, with Mookie losing 4-2 in the Championship Series, and the Red Sox losing 4-2 in the Championship Series. We can almost pretend we all did it together.
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,417
Graterol is like a beefy Joe Kelly. He gives up way more contact than you'd think someone throwing that hard would. But he certainly seems to be a better piece than Jeter Downs right now. I knew Bloom should have stayed away from someone with that name.
It’s an interesting question. If you woke up to news that the Sox had dealt Downs for Graterol, would you be happy? I don’t think I would be (and slightly worse if we had to throw in Wong).
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,303
I’d be happy with that. The likelihood of a guy who can throw 100 mph and had some success in the bigs improving his ability to get strikeouts seems more likely than a guy who hit .190 in AAA becoming useful. Graterol is a month younger than Downs too.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
6,253
around the way
I am not a prospect humper at all, so you're coming at me with the wrong ammunition here. Marcelo Mayer may be the next Cal Ripken or he could be the next Mark Appel. You don't know how good he's going to be and neither do I. In fact, there have been three players taken as the overall number one pick in the draft that have made the Hall of Fame since the draft was started more than 50 years ago (Baines, Griffey and Chipper). So the draft isn't exactly a science here. You could miss out on a can't miss star in the first round and find a perpetual All-Star in the sixth, talent comes from everywhere in the draft. Especially in baseball. And if the team is penalized one year, guess what, there's another draft the next year. There's always another draft. A lot of people don't seem to mind that the Sox whiffed on high second-round pick Jud Fabian this year, mostly because there's a draft next year and maybe the Sox can get someone better.
First rounders have significantly better chances to reach the majors and contribute. Folks have posted the numbers here before, but here's a chart from the first article that I found while googling "MLB draft position and WAR correlation". Sure you can find guys everywhere, but first round picks are like having a bunch of extra picks. There's a reason why they changed the forfeiture of first round picks for signing top tier FAs. It actively discouraged signings.

A lot of people don't seem to mind that the Sox didn't sign Jud Fabian because we didn't lose the pick. It got pushed off a year, which is unfortunate, but we just get an extra pick at the same draft slot next year. If they simply lost that pick, people would actually care because it matters.
 

Attachments

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
8,683
Panama
Maybe what needs to happen is more money given to players during the 6 year exclusivity window.

Something like what Tatis signed.

This is something that I'm pretty sure will be negotiated in the next CBA. I know teams would like to recoup their investment and pay low salaries to players as they come up, but paying a future superstar his money at ages 24-29 instead of later is a win win for both the team and the player. The main reason so many contracts are not worth it is they are signed to include the less productive years of a player. This will be the case for Mookie Betts (to bring this back on topic). If the Sox sign him in 2016 to an 8 year mega deal and then he declines or goes somewhere else for a 5 year things are different.

The biggest example I can think of is Pedro signing a 4 year deal with the Mets. At the time so many people were angry, and the he started pitching well for the Mets (while the Sox rotation had its struggles) and I remember telling fellow Sox fans here "they were not cheap, it was a matter of not paying Pedro at years 3 and 4". Turned out to be right.

Arod's deal (the first one) was worth it precisely because he got his start in Seattle at a very young age. After the 6 year window he was young enough to be productive in a 10 year deal (and we know, by his own admission, that he was on steroids).
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,785
Bangkok
That all makes sense and is what I think the game should be adjusting towards but small-market teams can't afford it so it all starts with how much revenue sharing can be agreed. The rest will work itself out. I think a decent model would be something like universal free agency after age 28 season plus five years of arb plus a higher minimum. This would all combined to tilt the money flow to younger players, maintain years of control for teams, reduce the probability of fiddling with service time, and also allow players to become free agents in their primes. But, without revenue sharing, teams like the Rays and KC won't be able to survive so it all starts from there.