Let's Talk Exten$ions...

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346

Trout and Angels close on $430mn, 12 year extension ($35.8mn AAV).

Edit: Maybe a bit lighter on AAV than I would have expected, though I suppose we have to wait to hear what type of opt outs he has to get more money if the market for superstar AAV keeps climbing...
 
Last edited:

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
So that's an extension, meaning the new contract starts in 2021 and goes until 2032 (yikes!).

Steamer projections (again declining .5 WAR for every year after 29) for Trout are 67.8 WAR during that period, which means $430m is $6.34m per WAR. Based on Mookie's 54 WAR over 10 years that would actually suggest a 10 year, $340m equivalent extension for Mookie. Of course since we are now talking about a contract going into the 2030s there are lots of broader economic factors to consider.
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,256
Seacoast NH
So that's an extension, meaning the new contract starts in 2021 and goes until 2032 (yikes!).
At that point Bobby Bonilla will only have three more checks coming from the Mets.

This deal coupled with Machado kind of bookends where Mookie will probably land. Manny 10/300 opt out after 5, Trout 12/430 opt out after ?. An opt out timeline similar to Machado makes sense given the contract length so a Mookie 10/340 or 10/350 with an opt out after 5 seems in the ballpark of where he could land.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,084
10/350 seems like a baseline deal to me. Probably with an opt out of some sort.

He isn't going less than $35mm AAV
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
Looks like the 12/$430 million includes the last two years of his preexisting contract, so Trout’s actual extension could be seen as something more like 10/$364 million.

 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Looks like the 12/$430 million includes the last two years of his preexisting contract, so Trout’s actual extension could be seen as something more like 10/$364 million.

Whoa, ok that's a big change. That takes expected WAR for the life of the contract up to 78.3, which means $ per WAR goes down to $5.5m. That would price Mookie's 54 WAR at 10/$297.

Very good deal for the Angels.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
I wonder to what extent the Sox can sell Mookie on the team always being competitive. Trout arguably was paid a premium to spend his career with a team that's been bad for a while and is at least a year or two (likely more) from contending.

Edit: Of course, if the Dodgers and MFY are the other teams vying for his services, this argument won't work particularly well.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I wonder to what extent the Sox can sell Mookie on the team always being competitive. Trout arguably was paid a premium to spend his career with a team that's been bad for a while and is at least a year or two (likely more) from contending.

Edit: Of course, if the Dodgers and MFY are the other teams vying for his services, this argument won't work particularly well.
This could be an interesting dynamic going forward... maybe... although I'm not sure the players have any sympathy for their teams who are making so much money these days. Will baseball ever be like football where you can get x amount but might want to take less if you want to have a prayer of winning? If there were a hard cap, I'd say it's likely, but there isn't. Also, though the trend is exploding top-end dollars, it might be a coincidence of having Trout, Machado, Harper and (in theory) Betts all doing deals in a short amount of time. Things might calm down a bit until, oh, Ronald Acuna hits the market?
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
does this increase or decrease the odds that the Sox negotiate an extension with Betts? as jim ed suggests, this bookends the market for Mookie and you have to imagine the Sox can find a number in there that works. however, it also means that there's one fewer prime superstar entering the market, meaning that Mookie might command even more if he hits FA as teams looking to lock in a franchise player have fewer options.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
does this increase or decrease the odds that the Sox negotiate an extension with Betts? as jim ed suggests, this bookends the market for Mookie and you have to imagine the Sox can find a number in there that works. however, it also means that there's one fewer prime superstar entering the market, meaning that Mookie might command even more if he hits FA as teams looking to lock in a franchise player have fewer options.
I don't think it changes the odds at all. Sure, it helps both sides zero in a bit more on Mookie's market value, but I think whether he signs an extension or not is ultimately down to whether Mookie wants to hit the market or not. Is he more interested in being a Trout or a Harper? He's going to get paid and paid well either way.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
I think that we are overestimating Mookie's potential deal slightly, in part just because of the recency of his best ever season. He has, over 4 seasons, put up an average of 7 fWAR, which is awesome, but does come on the heels of a 10-win MVP season. Trout is only 1 year older, and has over 7 seasons averaged 9 fWAR, which is almost 30% better than Mookie's average. I love Betts and think he is awesome, but I can't imagine why he would be treated as comparable to a guy who might be the best player ever, versus the other super star deals of his contemporaries. If he *just* has a 5 WAR season this year, then 2018 looks like an outlier and he doesn't get paid based on that.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,418
I think we all can agree that Betts < Trout, but don't we all agree that Betts > Machado/Harper? Maybe we don't?
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
Sure, but those guys were FA and Betts is two years away from that.
... plus Harper is younger, Machado plays another position, the Phillies said they wanted to spend 'stupid money', etc. No perfect comps, I'm just thinking that Trout is so unique in terms of skills and value that it's hard for other players to claim his contract as a ballpark for their own. That said, there is only so much top-tier talent to go around, and five nickels don't get you the value a quarter does in pro sports...
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory

Sherman says Mookie was offered 8 years/$200 million last year which now looks like a joke of an offer. The Red Sox better come to the table seriously with an offer because it sounds like Mookie is going to take this all the way to free agency.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276

Sherman says Mookie was offered 8 years/$200 million last year which now looks like a joke of an offer. The Red Sox better come to the table seriously with an offer because it sounds like Mookie is going to take this all the way to free agency.

It was after the 2017 season, in which is had a “down year” Here is the article for reference. )
https://nypost.com/2019/03/19/mookie-betts-rejecting-red-sox-looks-more-lucrative-by-the-second/

Also. The offer was before the Machado/Harper/Trout deals. And i doubt they have given him an offer since then.
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095

Sherman says Mookie was offered 8 years/$200 million last year which now looks like a joke of an offer. The Red Sox better come to the table seriously with an offer because it sounds like Mookie is going to take this all the way to free agency.
He's two years away from FA and there's nobody left on the horizon that could sign a deal in the next year that will drive his price up even further. There's no reason to do a deal right now unless it is very much to the Sox' liking.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
He's two years away from FA and there's nobody left on the horizon that could sign a deal in the next year that will drive his price up even further. There's no reason to do a deal right now unless it is very much to the Sox' liking.
No reason to do a deal now? How about doing what it takes to lock him up long-term before he gets to free agency? It takes two sides to make a deal and Betts sounds like he's in no rush, but what a disaster it would be if the Red Sox botch this up like they did with Lester.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
No reason to do a deal now? How about doing what it takes to lock him up long-term before he gets to free agency? It takes two sides to make a deal and Betts sounds like he's in no rush, but what a disaster it would be if the Red Sox botch this up like they did with Lester.
The vibe I get is that the Red Sox would be more than willing to sign Mookie to a Trout/Harper/Machado type contract right the hell now. The player doesn't want the deal. To me, the Sox haven't and can't really "botch it up" going forward. They tried to low ball Lester, and that was a mistake. That is not the case here. Either Mookie wants to be here or he doesn't, and the language of Bradford's interview with him this morning suggests to me that he is not at all wedded to the Olde Towne Team. He sounds like Ellsbury pre-FA, to be honest. He will take the biggest deal he can and go where he has to in order to get it.

I love having Mookie Betts on my favorite team. He is a generational player...but you know what? I have faith in Dombrowski to deploy that $35-$40mm per that would otherwise have gone to Betts in such a way that puts the Sox in a position to contend, with far more flexibility going forward. Your call, Marcus Lynn. We love you, but we can go another way if you don't want to be here.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
The vibe I get is that the Red Sox would be more than willing to sign Mookie to a Trout/Harper/Machado type contract right the hell now. The player doesn't want the deal. To me, the Sox haven't and can't really "botch it up" going forward. They tried to low ball Lester, and that was a mistake. That is not the case here. Either Mookie wants to be here or he doesn't, and the language of Bradford's interview with him this morning suggests to me that he is not at all wedded to the Olde Towne Team. He sounds like Ellsbury pre-FA, to be honest. He will take the biggest deal he can and go where he has to in order to get it.
This. If it's going to take 12 years at 38 million (or whatever) to sign him now, why not wait two years when that same deal will still get it done?
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
This. If it's going to take 12 years at 38 million (or whatever) to sign him now, why not wait two years when that same deal will still get it done?
Maybe the same reason the Angels didn’t take this strategy with Trout.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out?
For both sides, frankly. Sorry to go all fanboy Ken Burns bullshit on this, but when you go to Busch there is a giant-ass statue of Musial right at the front gate. Know who would have had one next to him had he stayed? Pujols. I hope the extra $25mm was worth casting aside that legacy.

I know, it's a business pure and simple. Still.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
No reason to do a deal now? How about doing what it takes to lock him up long-term before he gets to free agency? It takes two sides to make a deal and Betts sounds like he's in no rush, but what a disaster it would be if the Red Sox botch this up like they did with Lester.
I think there's a HUGE difference between being patient with a player that is clearly in no rush to lock into a long term deal and what happened with Lester. For starters, Lester was eager and willing to sign an extension (he'd already done it once). No indication that Betts is of that mindset. He's taken it year to year so far, including going all the way to the arbitration panel last winter (and rightly winning), so I assume he's not interested in taking much of a discount in exchange for long term security.

I'm hardly worried that the Sox might be slow playing discussions or making no attempt to pay him market value two years earlier than they have to if he's not showing any indications of taking a discount in exchange.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
This reminds me a bit of NY and Machado this winter (Harper was never a fit once Judge and Stanton were in place) or Cano a few years back. NY was never going to be the high bidder on Machado or Cano, just like if Mookie gets to free agency, it's likely that BOS will not be the highest bidder, the high bidder will be a team like the 2019 Padres, with a low payroll and young talent to put around him.

Of course, the CBA could be different by then as both sides seem to be willing to make changes before the contract is up, so that could change things too.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
For both sides, frankly. Sorry to go all fanboy Ken Burns bullshit on this, but when you go to Busch there is a giant-ass statue of Musial right at the front gate. Know who would have had one next to him had he stayed? Pujols. I hope the extra $25mm was worth casting aside that legacy.

I know, it's a business pure and simple. Still.
If the Red Sox don't get something done with Betts this offseason, do they have to at least entertain the possibility of trading him rather than risking the chance of losing him for nothing? Boy, next offseason figures to be very interesting if Betts is still unsigned long-term.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,317
If the Red Sox don't get something done with Betts this offseason, do they have to at least entertain the possibility of trading him rather than risking the chance of losing him for nothing? Boy, next offseason figures to be very interesting if Betts is still unsigned long-term.
Hell no. We aren’t the Orioles.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out? Not exactly the gold standard of front office moves.
Pujols’s contract takes him through his (*cough*) age 41 season. Trout’s a far superior athlete and his extension goes through age 38.

A 10-year extension for Mookie would take him through age 37. I think there are viable concerns the game might change away from Mookie’s skill set over that time, but he’s as good a bet as any to adapt.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
If the Red Sox don't get something done with Betts this offseason, do they have to at least entertain the possibility of trading him rather than risking the chance of losing him for nothing? Boy, next offseason figures to be very interesting if Betts is still unsigned long-term.
If you were going to get 3 blue chip prospects for him, I'd say yes. But Machado didn't anywhere near that, and supposedly the Nats shopped Harper and weren't blown away. Betts is better than those guys, but I think the return for one year of Mookie at 28 mil or whatever might be underwhelming.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
If the Red Sox don't get something done with Betts this offseason, do they have to at least entertain the possibility of trading him rather than risking the chance of losing him for nothing? Boy, next offseason figures to be very interesting if Betts is still unsigned long-term.
I don't see them even entertaining the idea. For one, there's no way they'd do it if the team is in contention, and it would take a lot for the 2020 edition of the Sox to be in sell mode. I mean, they're not going to re-sign Sale and/or Bogaerts and then trade off Betts in the same winter or during the following season. And I definitely don't see them going into full firesale mode by letting Sale/Bogaerts walk and then dealing Betts (Bradley too?).

Second, based on what Machado fetched (and that the Nats couldn't get a satisfactory offer for Harper), they may be better off letting him go to free agency, making a QO, and taking the picks if he signs elsewhere.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Trout's deal, believe it or not is a team friendly deal. It basically is 10 years at 36 MM/year for the best player in MLB by a large margin, who is heading into his prime years. In fact, there is the possibility that Trout is one of the top 3 players of all-time. By every measure Trout >> Betts.

Mookie has always bet on his own upward projection and has given every indication that he would test free agency. I am sure there is a price that he would forego free agency, however, that price may be so close to his free agency value that the RS deem it not worth meeting. After all, buying out free agency comes with substantial team risk of a career altering injury or collapse.

Mookie will earn 20 MM this year
Let's figure a down-tick next year and he earns 26 MM the following year
If Mookie was a free agent today, best guess is a contract of 10/350 MM.
Figure 2 years of ~6% average salary inflation and that would increase 2021 to 10/393 (of course a new CBA could change that substantially)
So a contract today of 12/439, which despite Trout >>Betts in talent would result in Betts with a more lucrative contract. Then again a 12 year contract today provides a lot more security to Betts than waiting it out for 2 years, so the RS would expect a discount for taking the additional risk.

Especially in light of Trout's contract, it seems like a contract at this moment would be fair to both parties in the range of 12/400 - 12/420. If Mookie has 2 years close to last year, he will get more, but it is far more likely that neither of the next two years will be on par with last year. Coming off his best year by a substantial margin, it is not a bad time for Mookie to cash in his chips (if the RS offer is in the range of 12/400-420). The new twist to Mookie's contract is the new CBA coming down the road and its effect, which could be substantial.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
Trout's deal, believe it or not is a team friendly deal. It basically is 10 years at 36 MM/year for the best player in MLB by a large margin, who is heading into his prime years. In fact, there is the possibility that Trout is one of the top 3 players of all-time. By every measure Trout >> Betts.
There's a possibility of Trout's deal being team friendly, but I wouldn't bet on it. He could maintain his production into his early 30s, but it's more likely he'll start to decline after this season or next.

The Angels pulled in $333 million in revenue last year. If they put 55% of that toward payroll, they're tying up 1/5 of that in one player. Any kind of injury makes the contract a pretty big risk. Are revenues going to go up significantly in the next dozen years? That would help. Will the next CBA start paying younger players more and make big money contracts for players in their 30s an even worse value? That would hurt.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,080
This. If it's going to take 12 years at 38 million (or whatever) to sign him now, why not wait two years when that same deal will still get it done?
Because he'll be able to field offers from any team and it may not in fact get it done? He may even prefer another location for the sam or similar money at that point.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,446
Some fancy town in CT
Aren't the Sox really stuck in terms of extending Mookie now due to the tax implications? Say they agree to a 10/350 extension. His total deal becomes 11/370 which pushes the AAV for 2019 from 20M to 33.6MM which would then be taxed at a higher rate among other penalties. Best to wait this out until certain deals (I'm looking at a certain fat useless 3B) come off the books at the end of the season.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
Because he'll be able to field offers from any team and it may not in fact get it done? He may even prefer another location for the sam or similar money at that point.
If 12 years at 38 mil per won't get it done, let someone else sign him. I love Mookie but that's a ridiculously long amount of time, you have to draw the line somewhere. The Cards went to the postseason 4 years in a row after Pujols left.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,853
Mtigawi
Aren't the Sox really stuck in terms of extending Mookie now due to the tax implications? Say they agree to a 10/350 extension. His total deal becomes 11/370 which pushes the AAV for 2019 from 20M to 33.6MM which would then be taxed at a higher rate among other penalties. Best to wait this out until certain deals (I'm looking at a certain fat useless 3B) come off the books at the end of the season.
Let’s be honest - who cares about tax rate? We *should* be over the tax rate with an ownership group both committed to winning and who has the revenue to support going over the penalty. It’s a clear competitive advantage. The only thing that it impacts is Henry’s bottom line which in theory is mitigated by the additional revenue that a winning team brings in.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
Let’s be honest - who cares about tax rate? We *should* be over the tax rate with an ownership group both committed to winning and who has the revenue to support going over the penalty. It’s a clear competitive advantage. The only thing that it impacts is Henry’s bottom line which in theory is mitigated by the additional revenue that a winning team brings in.
A lot of people seem to think this, but it isn't true. The first round pick drops 10 spots if you go over $246M and there are other small non-financial penalties, especially as a repeat offender. I still tend to agree with you as far as the top revenue teams go, but it's worth noting that every team in MLB has treated the top tax level as a hard barrier both last year and this year, with the one exception of the 2018 Red Sox. I don't feel like hunting down the quote, but someone in Dodgers management was quoted this winter about fans not understanding all the ramifications of going over the top barrier, FWIW.
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,254
Just because they're treating it as a hard barrier doesn't mean that we as fans should find it acceptable. I know Cashman can do no wrong in your eyes, but dropping 10 spots in the draft and Hal having a few more bucks isn't more valuable than having Machado/Harper/Corbin in the fold.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I don't see them even entertaining the idea. For one, there's no way they'd do it if the team is in contention, and it would take a lot for the 2020 edition of the Sox to be in sell mode. I mean, they're not going to re-sign Sale and/or Bogaerts and then trade off Betts in the same winter or during the following season. And I definitely don't see them going into full firesale mode by letting Sale/Bogaerts walk and then dealing Betts (Bradley too?).

Second, based on what Machado fetched (and that the Nats couldn't get a satisfactory offer for Harper), they may be better off letting him go to free agency, making a QO, and taking the picks if he signs elsewhere.
They'd only get a 4th-round pick if they let him walk, and there's no way they can't beat that in a trade. Still, you're right that the July market was underwhelming for other stars. That's why they'd need to trade him the winter before, not at the deadline. The other reason they need to decide after this season is that the decision about Mookie can't be separated from the decisions about Sale and Bogaerts (and Bradley). If you're going to let one of those two guys walk in order to leave room for a massive Betts extension, you'd better be damn sure you're going to sign him to that extension.

Let’s be honest - who cares about tax rate? We *should* be over the tax rate with an ownership group both committed to winning and who has the revenue to support going over the penalty. It’s a clear competitive advantage. The only thing that it impacts is Henry’s bottom line which in theory is mitigated by the additional revenue that a winning team brings in.
I can't argue against the idea that Henry should spend an infinite amount of money to ensure that the Red Sox win, but there's no evidence to suggest that he sees it that way, and plenty to suggest that -- right or wrong -- the luxury tax line represents a salary cap for the Sox. And they're not alone. So it doesn't really make a lot of sense for us to expect that they'll behave differently going forward.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,446
Some fancy town in CT
Let’s be honest - who cares about tax rate? We *should* be over the tax rate with an ownership group both committed to winning and who has the revenue to support going over the penalty. It’s a clear competitive advantage. The only thing that it impacts is Henry’s bottom line which in theory is mitigated by the additional revenue that a winning team brings in.
To be clear my point is not that Mookie shouldn't get a healthy extension, but rather that it's in the Sox interests to not announce it until we are at the point where the increased AAV would apply in 2020 rather than 2019.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
Just because they're treating it as a hard barrier doesn't mean that we as fans should find it acceptable. I know Cashman can do no wrong in your eyes, but dropping 10 spots in the draft and Hal having a few more bucks isn't more valuable than having Machado/Harper/Corbin in the fold.
There are about three discussions in there, but I am happy not having any of the three contracts they signed given the rest of the roster. Happ at 2/34 (AL East tested) over Corbin at 6/140 (NL guy) is an easy choice for me, Harper was a terrible fit, and Machado is a bit problematic to lock into long-term.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
Why would anyone assume the Sox aren't willing to go over the highest luxury tax line again when they just did it last season, I could see why they might try to avoid going over this season or in a particular future season, but with a new CBA coming in a few years, we don't know whether there's still going to be similar luxury tax lines and/or penalties even in the near future.
 
Last edited: