Bump...
I'm not sure 10/300 gets it done? What are we thinking here?
IMO Mookie at 24 is the rare player that I'd have zero problem locking up for a decade. Incredible skill, arguably perfect demeanor/mindset, young, etc... While no long term MLB contract is "low risk", IMO this is about a sure thing as you can find in the game.
Big question is, is this top of market for MLB salaries? I know the average salary declined a touch this past year. Is this the peak of big FA dollars? Or will $30MM a year be "Cheap" come the mid 2020's as this contract winds down?
Not to pick nits, but Mookie turned 26 on October 7th, which changes the calculus in a meaningful way, I think. A 10-year contract through age 35 has a lot more downside than one through age 33, IMO.
I think the question for this group is: How do we think Mookie will perform for the next ~10 seasons? How much is that performance worth in today's dollars? I'm wading far outside my depth here, but let me give that a shot.
The first task is to estimate how much WAR Mookie will generate in each of the next 10 seasons. According to Fangraphs, a good rule of thumb is to estimate that a player loses 0.5 WAR per season starting with his age 30 season. Mookie's 3-year WAR average is ~8.0 WAR; therefore, let's assume he averages that from 26-29 and then drops 0.5 WAR each year after that. This projects Mookie as a 5.0 WAR player at age 35, which is still excellent, and he would total an astounding 69.5 total WAR over a theoretical 10-year contract. (We can certainly debate whether Mookie will still be a 5.0 WAR player at age 35, but this is where I'm starting my analysis).
The second task is to estimate how much that WAR is worth over 10 years and then convert that into a present-day value. Assuming $8 per WAR, and assuming a discount factor of 8.5% (I'm assuming that the value per win is increasing much faster than standard inflation), Mookie would earn an absolute value $556M over that 10-year period, which is equal to a present-day value of $377M in today's baseball dollars. For reference, a $300M contract paid out in ten $30M installments would have a present-day value of $197M. In short, based on my math, the Sox would realize a net present-day profit of ~$180M.
You can check my math here (please let me know of any mistakes):
Assumptions | Value |
3-Year Avg WAR | 8 |
NPV Factor | 8.50% |
$/WAR | $8.00 |
Total WAR | 69.50 |
Total Value | $556.00 |
Total Present Value | $377.04 |
Total Contract | $300.00 |
Total Contract NPV | $196.84 |
Season | Age | WAR | Player Value | Inflation Factor | NPV Player | Contract Value | NPV Contract |
2014 | 21 | 1.80 | $13.70 | - | $- | $- | $- |
2015 | 22 | 4.80 | $38.10 | - | $- | $- | $- |
2016 | 23 | 8.20 | $65.80 | - | $- | $- | $- |
2017 | 24 | 5.30 | $42.80 | - | $- | $- | $- |
2018 | 25 | 10.40 | $83.10 | 1.00 | $83.10 | $- | $- |
2019 | 26 | 8.00 | $64.00 | 0.92 | $58.99 | $30.00 | $27.65 |
2020 | 27 | 8.00 | $64.00 | 0.85 | $54.37 | $30.00 | $25.48 |
2021 | 28 | 8.00 | $64.00 | 0.78 | $50.11 | $30.00 | $23.49 |
2022 | 29 | 8.00 | $64.00 | 0.72 | $46.18 | $30.00 | $21.65 |
2023 | 30 | 7.50 | $60.00 | 0.67 | $39.90 | $30.00 | $19.95 |
2024 | 31 | 7.00 | $56.00 | 0.61 | $34.32 | $30.00 | $18.39 |
2025 | 32 | 6.50 | $52.00 | 0.56 | $29.38 | $30.00 | $16.95 |
2026 | 33 | 6.00 | $48.00 | 0.52 | $24.99 | $30.00 | $15.62 |
2027 | 34 | 5.50 | $44.00 | 0.48 | $21.11 | $30.00 | $14.40 |
2028 | 35 | 5.00 | $40.00 | 0.44 | $17.69 | $30.00 | $13.27 |
Does Mookie accept that deal? I don't know, he's theoretically leaving a ton of value on the table. Would the Sox be justified in doing something as crazy sounding as 12/$400M? If you expect him to still be a 4-5 WAR player in his 36-37 age seasons, almost certainly yes. Is my basic assumption about Mookie's aging curve reasonable, or is he a risk of declining much faster than the average player? Or slower?
Btw, some interesting Fangraphs articles I looked at when trying to do my own calcs:
Edit: typos
Addendum:
I added a few articles that I thought were relevant to this conversation. A few additional observations:
- Fangraphs tried to do a similar analysis for Albert Pujols in 2012 to determine whether or not he would be worth his contract. To no one's surprise, he hasn't been. What I find interesting, though, is that Pujols decline was much faster than what aging curves would suggest, which is a cautionary tale for any optimistic projections of Betts future. But...
- The article Henry Druschel from Beyond The Box Score compares the aging curves of phenoms vs non-phenoms. While Betts would narrowly miss being named a phenom (his first 8+ WAR season was at age 23, not 22), I think it's fair to include him in that group. The key quote from the article: "Their WAR/600 doesn't begin to decline until their age-29 season, as opposed to age-27 for the non-phenoms, and their wRC+ stays almost at peak from age-25 through age-31, compared to the single-year peak at age-26 for the non-phenoms."
- The 2011 article from Ryan Campbell shows that the aging curve declines much faster for heavy players relative to average players, which is another point in Mookie's favor.
- The Fangraphs article by Eno Sarris about aging curves by player types is confusing to say the least. Historically, players with Mookie's profile - fast guys with good plate discipline - had much better aging curves, though data in the post-PED era (2005 onwards) shows less of an advantage. I tried to find other data to analyze how players like Mookie age and haven't been able to find anything yet.