Should the Sox extend Mookie?

[grimshaw]

While the Red Sox have about the most diversified roster in baseball, they haven't had an African-American star since Mo Vaughn, and even then things didn't end well.
Aside from him potentially being an all-star it would have to be very attractive from a marketing stand point.  They have a huge untapped fan base out there. 
Also, as Terry Shumpert's nephew, he would contribute to the legacy.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

And to MDL: It's more than a nitpick. It's very relevant. This is a guy who isn't eligible for RoY because he's already played like one. It's absurd to say he wouldn't be in the preseason conversation for the award if he were eligible for it.
 
<snip>
 
None of this guarantees anything, but this "Betts is pretty good but he's not in the Goldschmidt/Longoria class" narrative is....well, whatever the opposite of whistling in the dark is, it's that.

 
He already played like a ROY?  He got 213 PAs.  That wins the ROY in exactly zero years.  I don't think Jose Abreu had anything to worry about.  I don't exactly hear a drumbeat of anticipation for signing Kevin Kiermaier, Ender Inciarte (his parents must've been Orson Scott Card fans) or Danny Santana, unless you think all of them ought to be signed to long-term deals and the only difference between them and Betts is how many millions to pay them.  I don't think we'll see Theo and Jed wrap up Jorge Soler this spring on the basis of 97 PAs last year and a hot spring-training bat - not if Rizzo is any history, since they had him for a year and a half before locking him up.  And plenty of teams that do sign people that early should look at Delmon Young as a cautionary tale - I doubt Minnesota is glad they traded for him, nor Detroit glad that they got on a waiver deal (they didn't want him back in 2013 even for a tiny fraction of his 2012 cost).
 
The Goldschmidt / Longoria class is what I consider to be the standard for wanting to wrap up a long-term deal during the first year (or even 2) of a hitter's career.  There's no shame in not being as sure a thing as that (or in having a strong enough pipeline and ML roster that your fans won't desert you if you don't keep an occasional star or two around - Boston has its advantages over Tampa and Arizona in that regard, and can better afford to avoid unnecessary risk to as-yet-unproven ML players).  And Goldschmidt wasn't signed to his 5-year deal until the start of his 3rd year in the majors.
 
There's no need to rush this.

 

[Rasputin]

While the Red Sox have about the most diversified roster in baseball, they haven't had an African-American star since Mo Vaughn, and even then things didn't end well.
Aside from him potentially being all-star it would have to be very attractive from a marketing stand point.  They have a huge untapped fan base out there. 
Also, as Terry Shumpert's nephew, he would contribute to the legacy.

Do you really think black Americans give a shit that David Ortiz is Dominican?

 

[grimshaw]

Do you really think black Americans give a shit that David Ortiz is Dominican?

David Price hates him.

 

[jasvlm]

Extending Betts makes a ton of sense from both sides.  Betts, while an incredible story of maximizing talent, is still a non first round pick without an elite tool or much projection left.  Now, I love Mookie as much as anyone, but if you are representing him, and the team offers 6/40, you have to take that.  From the Sox perspective, to have cost certainty and to make the commitment to a player who seems to check all the boxes (young, healthy, plays a skill position-or two, athletic, good plate discipline, great work ethic) as a great candidate to represent the next iteration of a Sox franchise player as Pedroia and Ortiz age is a no brainer.
This is the kind of deal that can help both sides achieve what they want, and I'm sure the front office is considering an offer if they haven't already presented one to Betts' ownership.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Extending Betts makes a ton of sense from both sides.  Betts, while an incredible story of maximizing talent, is still a non first round pick without an elite tool or much projection left.  Now, I love Mookie as much as anyone, but if you are representing him, and the team offers 6/40, you have to take that.  From the Sox perspective, to have cost certainty and to make the commitment to a player who seems to check all the boxes (young, healthy, plays a skill position-or two, athletic, good plate discipline, great work ethic) as a great candidate to represent the next iteration of a Sox franchise player as Pedroia and Ortiz age is a no brainer.
This is the kind of deal that can help both sides achieve what they want, and I'm sure the front office is considering an offer if they haven't already presented one to Betts' ownership.

 
You are going to get a lot of disagreement about this, unless you are drawing a firm line between plus and elite. Some would argue he has four plus tools: hit, glove, speed, arm (for an outfielder). At the least, he has three.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

And, uh, "Betts' ownership"?
 
(I know what you meant )

 

[Montana Fan]

The Sox can afford to wait.  Let him play 3 years at for a little over the league minimum.  If he performs the way the board is expecting, overwhelm him for the last 3 years they control him plus add 3 more.  Say 6 years, $180 million.  You get him for all of his prime and he's a FA at 30 years old.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Extending Betts makes a ton of sense from both sides.  Betts, while an incredible story of maximizing talent, is still a non first round pick...

I bet you're the kind of person who puts high school GPA on their resume.

 

[benhogan]

While the Red Sox have about the most diversified roster in baseball, they haven't had an African-American star since Mo Vaughn, and even then things didn't end well.
Aside from him potentially being an all-star it would have to be very attractive from a marketing stand point.  They have a huge untapped fan base out there. 
Also, as Terry Shumpert's nephew, he would contribute to the legacy.

Nah. I think this is utter nonsense.  Winning is the best marketing.  They offer players long term deals based on future productivity.
 
The ethnicity and color of their skin isn't part of the equation.

 

[MikeM]

The Sox can afford to wait.  Let him play 3 years at for a little over the league minimum.  If he performs the way the board is expecting, overwhelm him for the last 3 years they control him plus add 3 more.  Say 6 years, $180 million.  You get him for all of his prime and he's a FA at 30 years old.

 
I'd put the odds of Betts ending up a $30m/per year player as quite the long shot, but agreed in principle.  
 
Whether it's Xander last winter or Betts this one, i never get the "we might miss the boat" concern some seem to have with that stuff. The Sox are in a luxurious position where they do not need to gamble on such unnecessary and overly cute risks. *IF* they turn out to be the super studs we hope, and *if* they are then (and still years away from FA) open to extension talk, the money will be there. Henry and co playing the conservative hand on a 30 year old with mileage is worlds different then cheaping out on their 25 year old superstar. That latter simply won't happen. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

You mean other than an additional $20M guaranteed?

In exchange for one additional year of service before free agency, yes.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

He already played like a ROY?  He got 213 PAs.  That wins the ROY in exactly zero years.  I don't think Jose Abreu had anything to worry about.  I don't exactly hear a drumbeat of anticipation for signing Kevin Kiermaier, Ender Inciarte (his parents must've been Orson Scott Card fans) or Danny Santana, unless you think all of them ought to be signed to long-term deals and the only difference between them and Betts is how many millions to pay them.

1. Kiermaier was 24 and had a mediocre minor league resume.
2. I have no idea why you're referencing Inciarte, since he was not at all a good hitter last year.
3. Santana was 23, had been a crappy hitter in the minors, and was riding a .405 BABIP.
 
But you get to play our home game!

 

[grimshaw]

Nah. I think this is utter nonsense.  Winning is the best marketing.  They offer players long term deals based on future productivity.
 
The ethnicity and color of their skin isn't part of the equation

I would agree that Ben Cherington and baseball ops people would never factor that in, nor should they, or they wouldn't be doing their jobs effectively.  Locking up JBJ would obviously be stupid.  And to be clear, I am not advocating signing him based on the fact that he is black, just that there could be an added bonus.  It's still an extremely white crowd. 
 
But are you convinced that upper management is completely color blind?

 

[benhogan]

I would agree that Ben Cherington and baseball ops people would never factor that in, nor should they, or they wouldn't be doing their jobs effectively.  Locking up JBJ would obviously be stupid.  And to be clear, I am not advocating signing him based on the fact that he is black, just that there could be an added bonus.  It's still an extremely white crowd. 
 
But are you convinced that upper management is completely color blind?

I hope so. And apologies if I implied that you suggested signing him for marketability reasons, you were just raising the question.
 
Its such a hot button topic and with past Sox ownership issues, its best if they just judge players on their ability.
 
If there ever was a memo or email that came out that the Sox had studied the feasibility of marketing to the African-American community it probably would be misinterpreted/spun by the national media and blow up in our faces.  
 
Warner, Luchinno and Henry are too smart to fall for that trap these days.
 
As a fan I just want players compensated for their talent, not their marketability to a segment of the population.

 

[snowmanny]

 
He already played like a ROY?  He got 213 PAs.  That wins the ROY in exactly zero years. 

Yes. You need at least 219.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mccovwi01.shtml?mobile=false

 

[grimshaw]

I hope so. And apologies if I implied that you suggested signing him for marketability reasons, you were just raising the question.
 
Its such a hot button topic and with past Sox ownership issues, its best if they just judge players on their ability.
 
If there ever was a memo or email that came out that the Sox had studied the feasibility of marketing to the African-American community it probably would be misinterpreted/spun by the national media and blow up in our faces.  
 
Warner, Luchinno and Henry are too smart to fall for that trap these days.
 
As a fan I just want players compensated for their talent, not their marketability to a segment of the population.

I don't really see it as anything necessarily notorious at work. Hank Aaron has long been an advocate of promoting more African-Americans in baseball to management positions, and that can't really be done without a higher percentage of blacks in MLB starting as athletes.  The numbers have declined from 18-20-ish% to less than half of that since the 70's.  It certainly couldn't hurt to attract more local interest in the African-American community.
 
Anyhow.  Mookie good.  Much want extension.  Then happy.

 

[ALiveH]

Anyone remember Gregg Jefferies?  He was a way better prospect than Mookie who absolutely mashed in his first two partial MLB seasons between the ages of 19-21.  He ended up being about exactly a league-average player.
 
In any case, race should be an irrelevant consideration.... But, Carl Everett made an all-star team in 2000, post Mo Vaughn.  And, except for the strictest possible definition, David Ortiz (who is a US citizen of mostly sub-Saharan African ancestry) is an African American. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American
"African Americans, also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans, is an ethnic group of citizens or residents of the United States with total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. The term may also be used to include only those individuals who are descended from African slaves."

 

[mauf]

Gregg Jefferies was a 2-time All Star who posted an OPS+ north of 100 for his first 6-7 full seasons.
 
A prospect like him wouldn't get the same degree of hype today, because people would understand that his AAA numbers were a red flag (717 OPS -- nice showing for a 20-year old, but not the next Mickey Mantle).

 

[grimshaw]

Anyone remember Gregg Jefferies?  He was a way better prospect than Mookie who absolutely mashed in his first two partial MLB seasons between the ages of 19-21.  He ended up being about exactly a league-average player.

League average players (2 WAR or so) make about 10 million dollars per year now though.  And if Mookie were lights out his first few years and then reverted to that, the Red Sox would still profit pretty easily.  They are paying Castillo to be at or slightly below league average right now, and I don't think it would take a lot more than that in AAV to hypothetically lock him up.
 
Even if Betts turns into Darren Lewis circa 98-99 at the plate .310/.309/.630, he's got speed and defense which still earned Lewis about 1.5 WAR per year.

 

[twothousandone]

 

I want Mookie to be the next Evan Longoria as much as the rest of you do, but right now we don't know whether he'll be Cameron Maybin, Travis Snider, Delmon Young, or Anthony Rizzo, much less Longoria.  The error bars are really wide.  They will narrow considerably in the next 7 months, while Betts' asking price will not vary by nearly as much.

Perhaps they will narrow, but. . . If Xander Bogaerts decided he was interested in a 7-year $50 million contract, should the Sox do that deal? A year ago, I think they (or perhaps I should say WE) would have taken it. Now? I think they'd only buy out a single year of free-agency, so it's still not a glove match with Yelich. But Bogaerts hasn't been as good as Yelich, who was also a late season addition in 2013.
 
Are fans any higher on Betts than they were a year ago on Bogaerts? Are the Red Sox? They are basically the same age, now, so Bogaerts a year ago had more wiggle room, no?

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

1. Kiermaier was 24 and had a mediocre minor league resume.
2. I have no idea why you're referencing Inciarte, since he was not at all a good hitter last year.
3. Santana was 23, had been a crappy hitter in the minors, and was riding a .405 BABIP.
 
But you get to play our home game!

 
I have no idea why you're getting snarky with me.
 
Look, instead of me spilling digital ink here and continue getting nitpicked, why don't you either:

1. Try to appreciate my broader point that rookies at this stage, no matter how heralded, still have a too high a flameout rate to sign to long expensive deals, and that the only one that's panned out has been Longoria
2. Affirmatively state your own case for why we need to lock Mookie up today rather than a year from now and why the Sox should accept that risk and Mookie accept the corresponding discount,
3. Go back to my response to Maufman where I explain the myriad reasons why such a deal would be unlikely to find a middle ground, and further that line of conversation, or
4. Bugger off

I eagerly await seeing any one of those.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If they have Bogaerts 7,$50 now they would be buying out 2 years of free agency, not one. Scott boras would laugh at such an offer.

 

[nighthob]

You're confusing these people with Homo Economicus, the mythical, fully rational cost-benefit optimizer of textbook lore.  As if Ben Cherington could sit down and say "here's a probability distribution of your likely outcomes during your cost-controlled years and a weighted expectation; if you accept that our discount rate for performance is 12% for proven major-leaguers and we add an 8% risk premium for your higher variance, then a fair offer to you right now on an NPV basis would be blah blah blah", and Mookie would analyze it and say "yes, this makes perfect sense, where do I sign?".

I am open to the suggestion that Mookie Betts hired a moron to be his agent, and that somehow despite being stupid and unqualified he got certified, but as a general rule I assume that agents not named Eagleson are working for their clients and are perfectly capable of understanding econ 101.

He already played like a ROY?  He got 213 PAs.  That wins the ROY in exactly zero years.

 

As someone else noted Willie McCovey won one with 219 plate appearances (off topic, he was one of my favourite players as a kid and the day he went back to the Giants was one of celebration for me), and more recently both Bob Horner and Dave Righetti received the award for what amounted to very good half seasons.

You're getting way too invested in a debate that's really extraneous since the referenced article is basically about the Red Sox trying to decide how much an extension is worth. For luxury tax reasons I think we can all agree that they're likely not interested in an extension that would kick in this year, but that they're going to attempt to extend Mookie is a moot point. And for the record, the reason for doing it during the minimum salary years is that you're buying out the minimum wage years from the player in exchange for a year or two of their free agency. If you wait past the minimum salary years to extend a player it costs a lot more money since arbitration awards are pretty hefty for players in the 4-6 WAR range. So while a Yelich type deal is attractive to a player looking at a minimum wage year or two, it looks less attractive to the guy about to be given healthy raises running into free agency.
 

The Goldschmidt / Longoria class is what I consider to be the standard for wanting to wrap up a long-term deal during the first year (or even 2) of a hitter's career.  There's no shame in not being as sure a thing as that (or in having a strong enough pipeline and ML roster that your fans won't desert you if you don't keep an occasional star or two around - Boston has its advantages over Tampa and Arizona in that regard, and can better afford to avoid unnecessary risk to as-yet-unproven ML players).  And Goldschmidt wasn't signed to his 5-year deal until the start of his 3rd year in the majors.

He is indeed not in Goldschmidt's class. At the age of 21 Goldschmidt was lighting up the lowest level of minor league baseball, while at the same age Betts was tearing up Portland and Pawtucket while finishing the year with a 128 OPS+ against American League pitching. Betts might not be a power hitter like Goldschmidt, and he's probably not going to be an OPS+ 150+ guy. But he does look like an elite leadoff hitter and those guys do get paid as Ellsbury demonstrated to us.

 

[DJnVa]

 
This is a bit of a tangent, but man does reading the rule frustrate me.
 
 
 
 
Mookie had two days in June, 13 in July and 31 in August. Unless his gaps between July 2nd and the 5th and then the 5th and the 8th involved DL shenanigans, he's at 46 days before September... one over the limit. Not a huge deal, as awards like RoY don't have a ton of meaning, but it would have been great to see him have a spectacular season and earn some hardware for it.

 
You're reading the rule wrong.
 
Even without the 45 day thing, part a reads:  (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues
 
He had 189 ABs. He's not one day over.
 
 
 
 

He already played like a ROY?  He got 213 PAs.  That wins the ROY in exactly zero years.

 
Well, McCovey in the late 50s.
 
And Gregg Jeffries came in 6th in 1988 with 109 ABs. Then came in 3rd the following year when he played a full season.
 
Anyway, I think the poster meant more that Betts has already played as a rookie and passed the thresholds, therefore of course he's not eligible this year.
 

A prospect like him wouldn't get the same degree of hype today, because people would understand that his AAA numbers were a red flag (717 OPS -- nice showing for a 20-year old, but not the next Mickey Mantle).

 
I disagree a bit. His 20 year old AAA season wasn't great, but he was 5.5 years younger than average for league, struck out and walked essentially the same amount, and was coming off a 19 year old AA season that had an OPS over 1.000

 

[Rasputin]

 
 

Perhaps they will narrow, but. . . If Xander Bogaerts decided he was interested in a 7-year $50 million contract, should the Sox do that deal? A year ago, I think they (or perhaps I should say WE) would have taken it. Now? I think they'd only buy out a single year of free-agency, so it's still not a glove match with Yelich. But Bogaerts hasn't been as good as Yelich, who was also a late season addition in 2013.
 
Are fans any higher on Betts than they were a year ago on Bogaerts? Are the Red Sox? They are basically the same age, now, so Bogaerts a year ago had more wiggle room, no?

 

 
I think the Red Sox would sign Bogaerts to 7/50 right now in a heartbeat. They'd have to get something like .71 wins per year to make that worth it and even last year when he was so much worse than we had imagined he could be, he was worth 0.4. He could turn out to be more or less a complete bust and still be worth 7/50.
 
And yes, I think fans are higher on Betts now than they were a year ago on Bogaerts. I don't think that necessarily reflects what the Red Sox are thinking, but I think the fans are attracted to flashier things like speed and defense and a varied skill set. Betts looks like he is going to be pretty good at everything while Bogaerts last year looked like he was going to be very good at two things and folks are just hoping his defense is good enough, and pretty much writing off speed because he doesn't steal bases.
 
Personally, if they get through the year healthy, I'm probably going to be willing to offer them both hundred million dollar contracts that will buy out some free agency so they can form a big part of the core.
 
And when Swihart and Owens or Rodriguez come up and do well in 2016, I'm going to be willing to do the same with them.
 
And then we're off to the races and trying to win the division fifteen times in a row or whatever the heck it is that is one more than the Braves.

 

[Darnell's Son]

If they have Bogaerts 7,$50 now they would be buying out 2 years of free agency, not one. Scott boras would laugh at such an offer.

I can't read.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The Red Sox still have control for 6 years, so it would be 1 year of free agency. His time last year didn't reach the threshold of 172 days to count for a full year.

 
I don't see how you're getting that.  B-Ref has his service time at 1.042 years and a FA after 2019.

 

[Rasputin]

The Red Sox still have control for 6 years, so it would be 1 year of free agency. His time last year didn't reach the threshold of 172 days to count for a full year.
 
This is why I would not do a 7 year deal. I might do an eight year deal. If you do a seven year deal you're going to be throwing away the benefit of a having cost-controlled player for those first three years.
 
Edited to add my opinion, which I know you were all waiting for.

 
I think you read Betts when he wrote Bogaerts.
 
Or there's a wormhole or something.

 

[Darnell's Son]

 
I don't see how you're getting that.  B-Ref has his service time at 1.042 years and a FA after 2019.

Thought he was talking about Betts, I'm dumb.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Perhaps they will narrow, but. . . If Xander Bogaerts decided he was interested in a 7-year $50 million contract, should the Sox do that deal? A year ago, I think they (or perhaps I should say WE) would have taken it. Now? I think they'd only buy out a single year of free-agency, so it's still not a glove match with Yelich. But Bogaerts hasn't been as good as Yelich, who was also a late season addition in 2013.

 
Are fans any higher on Betts than they were a year ago on Bogaerts? Are the Red Sox? They are basically the same age, now, so Bogaerts a year ago had more wiggle room, no?

 
I agree, Bogarts is a great cautionary tale that's right in front of us.  Different toolkit, but his first ~200 PAs in the majors he looked much like Mookie.  Then his next 300 PAs came.  I still hold out hope that he can fulfill the promise he showed in the minors and in late 2013, but I think it should be clear to people here that he could very much go either way.  I wouldn't sign that 7-year deal with Bogie, but I might be happy to sign a 6/60 one if he has a great 2015.  But there wasn't a drumbeat (at least, not around here) to sign X to a big deal before his first full major league season got underway.
 
 

And for the record, the reason for doing it during the minimum salary years is that you're buying out the minimum wage years from the player in exchange for a year or two of their free agency. If you wait past the minimum salary years to extend a player it costs a lot more money since arbitration awards are pretty hefty for players in the 4-6 WAR range. So while a Yelich type deal is attractive to a player looking at a minimum wage year or two, it looks less attractive to the guy about to be given healthy raises running into free agency.

 
Yes, I appreciate that.  Luckily, we get 3 more years of pre-arb for Mookie (he'll probably be a super-2 if he plays all of 2015 and 2016, no?).  I'm happy to get him paid early, pre-arb even, just not so early that we don't yet know much about what kind of major-league player we're getting.
 
Yelich plays for a team that probably couldn't afford to wait - their payroll constraints dictate that they have to take more risks in order to save more money.  He plays better defense than Mookie but probably has less power.  And still, the Marlins waited for a full year's results (plus the 1/3 year in 2013) before making that commitment to him.  I'd say if Mookie shows a Yelich-like progress this year, I'm happy to have Yelich-like conversations with him at this time next year.
 

He is indeed not in Goldschmidt's class. At the age of 21 Goldschmidt was lighting up the lowest level of minor league baseball, while at the same age Betts was tearing up Portland and Pawtucket while finishing the year with a 128 OPS+ against American League pitching. Betts might not be a power hitter like Goldschmidt, and he's probably not going to be an OPS+ 150+ guy. But he does look like an elite leadoff hitter and those guys do get paid as Ellsbury demonstrated to us.

 
If Betts ends up an elite leadoff hitter, he will get paid, I completely agree - and the only questions are when does he get signed and for how much.
 
I'm less concerned with their ages than I am about demonstrated, sustained productivity in the majors.  Goldschmidt was initially cited as one of the players locked up very early in his career.  Whether you would rather have had a rookie Goldschmidt on your team, or Betts this year, the key question - how early to sign him - was answered by Kevin Towers: in his 3rd year, with a 5-year contract that bought out 2 FA years.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I have no idea why you're getting snarky with me.
 
Look, instead of me spilling digital ink here and continue getting nitpicked, why don't you either:

1. Try to appreciate my broader point that rookies at this stage, no matter how heralded, still have a too high a flameout rate to sign to long expensive deals, and that the only one that's panned out has been Longoria
2. Affirmatively state your own case for why we need to lock Mookie up today rather than a year from now and why the Sox should accept that risk and Mookie accept the corresponding discount,
3. Go back to my response to Maufman where I explain the myriad reasons why such a deal would be unlikely to find a middle ground, and further that line of conversation, or
4. Bugger off

I eagerly await seeing any one of those.

 
I'm getting snarky with you because I thought I made at least a response-meriting case in my previous post that your distinction between Betts and the Goldschmidt/Longoria "class" wasn't as clear as you were suggesting, and your response was to reiterate (without any further effort at supporting) that distinction while comparing Betts to a bunch of guys that he clearly and obviously does not very much resemble.
 
I'm actually agnostic on locking up Betts now. Obviously, the sooner we do it, the bigger the discount if Betts does indeed turn out to be an All-Star caliber player, but also the bigger risk if he doesn't. I don't think there's ever a cut-and-dried answer to that kind of quandary. There's a price at which locking him up now would be a no-brainer (8/$30M?), and a price at which it would be stupid (8/$70M?), and in between a grey area that for me boils down to In Ben We Trust.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I agree, Bogarts is a great cautionary tale that's right in front of us.  Different toolkit, but his first ~200 PAs in the majors he looked much like Mookie. 

 
Not really, and the reasons why are relevant. Mookie had higher slash numbers than Xander over their first 213/214 PA -- .291/.368/.444 to .259/.355/.373 -- despite having a lower BABIP (.327 to .343) and walk rate (9.9% to 11.2%). And the main reason was the major advantage in K rate (14.6% to 23.8%). 
 
The list of 21-year-old rookies who've had a K rate below 15% and an OPS+ over 120 in 200+ PA is a really short one, and while not everyone on it was a superstar, they all had long and successful careers. That doesn't guarantee anything, of course. But it makes Betts a different kind of talent, and quite possibly a safer long-term bet at this early stage of their careers, than Xander.

 

[theapportioner]

$30 million is Allen Craig, and most of us feel that may already be a sunk cost but not that big a deal. Extending Mookie will cost more than that, but if the Sox think the expected value of Mookie's abilities over the 6-8 years is well north of that, extending him is a no-brainer. The question is, what's his expected value?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
You're reading the rule wrong.
 
Even without the 45 day thing, part a reads:  (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues
 
He had 189 ABs. He's not one day over.

 
I think the operative word in the rule is "or" which indicates that if either is true, he is ineligible. Otherwise wouldn't it read "and?"
 

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

 
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/about_mlb/rules_regulations.jsp

 

[grimshaw]

$30 million is Allen Craig, and most of us feel that may already be a sunk cost but not that big a deal. Extending Mookie will cost more than that, but if the Sox think the expected value of Mookie's abilities over the 6-8 years is well north of that, extending him is a no-brainer. The question is, what's his expected value?

Exactly - his contract would be relative peanuts and probably about 5% of the payroll per year.  And Allen Craig is neither fast, nor able to play multiple positions terribly well.  Those are the sorts of things that will not slump nor something the league can adjust to.  That's why there seems to be a consensus that Betts floor is so high.
 
Not that we need to compare Bogaerts since I trust Red Sox evaluation, but his potential risks are more exposed because of his questionable long term value at the premium position in the field, and waiting for him to lay off sliders more consistently and with that the power to develop.  For those reasons his floor is lower but the upside is higher.  And I also think the Red Sox would do a long term extension with him yesterday, despite those potential flaws.
 
I can't think of any more players that young who are less of a long term risk than Betts.

 

[nighthob]

I'm less concerned with their ages than I am about demonstrated, sustained productivity in the majors.  Goldschmidt was initially cited as one of the players locked up very early in his career.  Whether you would rather have had a rookie Goldschmidt on your team, or Betts this year, the key question - how early to sign him - was answered by Kevin Towers: in his 3rd year, with a 5-year contract that bought out 2 FA years.

Except that this question has been answered multiple times in multiple ways. You don't want them to sign an extension with Betts until after his third season. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but Boston apparently disagrees with you since they're trying to set a price now.

I'm actually agnostic on locking up Betts now. Obviously, the sooner we do it, the bigger the discount if Betts does indeed turn out to be an All-Star caliber player, but also the bigger risk if he doesn't. I don't think there's ever a cut-and-dried answer to that kind of quandary. There's a price at which locking him up now would be a no-brainer (8/$30M?), and a price at which it would be stupid (8/$70M?), and in between a grey area that for me boils down to In Ben We Trust.

This is where I'm at with it. I'm sort of baffled by the antipathy towards the idea and the vitriol towards those that like it. The story is basically about the Red Sox trying to come to an internal decision on what Mookie's worth on an extension. I trust them to handle it since Ben's done a pretty good job so far.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Not really, and the reasons why are relevant. Mookie had higher slash numbers than Xander over their first 213/214 PA -- .291/.368/.444 to .259/.355/.373 -- despite having a lower BABIP (.327 to .343) and walk rate (9.9% to 11.2%). And the main reason was the major advantage in K rate (14.6% to 23.8%). 
 
The list of 21-year-old rookies who've had a K rate below 15% and an OPS+ over 120 in 200+ PA is a really short one, and while not everyone on it was a superstar, they all had long and successful careers. That doesn't guarantee anything, of course. But it makes Betts a different kind of talent, and quite possibly a safer long-term bet at this early stage of their careers, than Xander.

 
That's a very interesting point.  Do you happen to have that list?

 

[HillysLastWalk]

Savin Hillbilly's point about the K rates/etc. is a point I've been wanting to make, and have made in the past.  This is why I think you need to evaluate the player, not just blindly say "well most rookies struggle!".
 
I'd like Savin to post a link (to see if he read something I didn't), but I was reading these links previously from last year:
 
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mookie-betts-boston-red-sox-trade-092414
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-might-mookie-betts-be/

 

[Plympton91]

 
Not really, and the reasons why are relevant. Mookie had higher slash numbers than Xander over their first 213/214 PA -- .291/.368/.444 to .259/.355/.373 -- despite having a lower BABIP (.327 to .343) and walk rate (9.9% to 11.2%). And the main reason was the major advantage in K rate (14.6% to 23.8%). 
 
The list of 21-year-old rookies who've had a K rate below 15% and an OPS+ over 120 in 200+ PA is a really short one, and while not everyone on it was a superstar, they all had long and successful careers. That doesn't guarantee anything, of course. But it makes Betts a different kind of talent, and quite possibly a safer long-term bet at this early stage of their careers, than Xander.

Just wanted to jump in and support this. MDL, the reason you're getting snark is because you're not really ticking off good comps for Betts that failed. In an earlier post, you listed Jeff Francour. Really? The guy who never met a pitch he wouldn't swing at? Not a comp for Betts at all.

I realize some people are scarred by Bogaerts' 3 months of struggles (he had a very good September, FWiW) and Bradley's historic flop. But, don't let that rob you of enthusiasm this spring. Xander is actually a reasonably good comp for Betts, but even then, as Savin showed, he wasn't as good as Mookie in the majors, and you can also extend that to say he wasn't as good as Mookie in Pawtucket either (920 OPS for Mookie to 822 OPS for Xander).

I'd sign both of them to the numbers being thrown around right now, but I don't think they'd take those numbers and I also agree there's no rush.

 

[twothousandone]

But wasn't Bogaerts a year younger, both at AAA and then as a late season addition in the majors? 

 

[grimshaw]

 
That's a very interesting point.  Do you happen to have that list?

The answer is 11, though I used a minimum of 200PA to start their careers up to age 21, and wRC+ over 130.  There were 27 with over wRC+120.  Fangraphs doesn't use OPS+.  I also started in 1930, since K% isn't available before then.  I'm sure Cobb and many others would be on there who didn't have to deal with splitters or sliders.
 
Musial
Arky Vaughan
Mel Ott
Hal Trosky
Ted Williams
Joe Medwick
Bob Horner
Griffey Jr
Pujols
Frank Robinson
Mookie Betts
 
Horner is a non HoF but still had a nice career.  Trosky was all star caliber in at least one season.  

 

[nighthob]

And Trosky really isn't a no name so much as a guy whose career came to a premature end due to injury.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

The answer is 11.
Musial
Arky Vaughan
Mel Ott
Hal Trosky
Ted Williams
Joe Medwick
Bob Horner
Griffey Jr
Pujols
Frank Robinson
Mookie Betts

 
Interesting--that's not the list I came up with, but there's some overlap. Here's what I get in Play Index when I punch in these parameters; age 21, rookie status, PA > 200, OPS+ > 120, K/PA < .15. They're ranked by OPS+:
 
Albert Pujols
Stan Musial
Hal Trosky
Del Ennis
Curt Blefary
Tim Raines
Heinie Manush
Joe Morgan
Joe Medwick
Mookie Betts
Joe DiMaggio
Ross Youngs
Richie Hebner
Richie Ashburn
Greg Gross
 
That's six HoFers, two likely HoFers, four other guys (Trosky, Ennis, Youngs, and Hebner) with > 30 career rWAR, and two other guys (Blefary and Gross) who were more or less average players. If Greg Gross is your floor, that's pretty good.
 
EDIT: And yes, I know this list isn't really sufficient grounds for declaring that Gross is Mookie's floor.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

But wasn't Bogaerts a year younger, both at AAA and then as a late season addition in the majors? 

 
Yes, that's true. The two of them are almost exactly the same age, and Bogaerts has been a year ahead of Betts in advancement, which is really pretty mind-boggling.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Interesting--that's not the list I came up with, but there's some overlap. Here's what I get in Play Index when I punch in these parameters; age 21, rookie status, PA > 200, OPS+ > 120, K/PA < .15. They're ranked by OPS+:

 
I tried to PM you but got an error saying you can't receive them. Where do you see K/PA in the play index? I don't have it as an option. I only get AB/SO, which is less useful.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I tried to PM you but got an error saying you can't receive them. Where do you see K/PA in the play index? I don't have it as an option. I only get AB/SO, which is less useful.

 
I use the function where you can multiply one stat by another: SO < .15 * PA

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Ah, thank you.

 

[JimBoSox9]

 
6/30 now would make Mookie a free agent at the end of his age-27 season. 7/49 for Yelich, with that full year under his belt, will make him a free agent at the end of his age-29 season.
 
Perhaps the young player should take the guaranteed money, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an agent who wouldn't prefer the former. (Of course, no one was lining up to guarantee Yelich $30mm a year ago -- he didn't have the eye-popping MiLB numbers Mookie did.)

 
This is the trick right here.  The FA system is still based on a mode of thinking that has fifty years of greenies baked into it.  An All-Star caliber player who clocks six years could, as a neutral-luck overgeneralization, expect two big market-level paydays, one around age 27-29 and one around 33-34.  Today, the prospect of getting two major paydays post-arbitration is a lot slimmer.   This leads to the migration of the non-prime payday to before 28 instead of after (and a lot of seemingly-crazy player opt-out options).  Folks can talk all they want about the invincibility of youth, but ya know what makes me feel invincible?  Setting my great-grandkids up for life before I've played two seasons in the bigs.  So far, it appears teams are able to spend their money smarter extending young players, there don't seem to be as many flameouts.  Of course, that's likely because the practice is new enough that it's only seriously thought about (sorry, Ras) for the real blue-chippers.  It's reasonable to ague whether Betts belongs in that Club Longoria.  Everything with him over the past 18 months, from the underlying numbers on out, has felt halfway like a too-good-to-be-true mirage.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Anyone think he'd take Adam Eaton's deal?? 5/23.5 + 2 team options at 9.5 and 10m.

I'd do that in a heartbeat for Betts.