… and to follow up on P91’s point, those teams “leaving Coors” include the Rockies. The disparity in home/ road splits for Rockies players’ stats also includes this suppression of their offense every time they go on a road trip.
At that point Bobby Bonilla will only have three more checks coming from the Mets.So that's an extension, meaning the new contract starts in 2021 and goes until 2032 (yikes!).
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
Sure, but those guys were FA and Betts is two years away from that.I think we all can agree that Betts < Trout, but don't we all agree that Betts > Machado/Harper? Maybe we don't?
... 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...Sure, but those guys were FA and Betts is two years away from that.
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.
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.
Right, which means it was offered to him last year.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
Maybe the same reason the Angels didn’t take this strategy with Trout.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?
How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out? Not exactly the gold standard of front office moves.Maybe the same reason the Angels didn’t take this strategy with Trout.
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.How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out?
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.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.
It's a complete no-brainer to sign Trout to the deal the Angels did. In fact, they may have gotten a discount.How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out? Not exactly the gold standard of front office moves.
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.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.
Hell no. We aren’t the Orioles.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.
Pujols’s contract takes him through his (*cough*) age 41 season. Trout’s a far superior athlete and his extension goes through age 38.How did the last 10 year deal the Angels signed work out? Not exactly the gold standard of front office moves.
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.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?).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.
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.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.
We have to see how it goes with JD's opt out and Xander/Sale's free agency. What if they all leave? They have a depleted farm system.Hell no. We aren’t the Orioles.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.
They must have been reading this very page of this very same thread.So according to MLB network right now apparently Mookie turned down 8/$200 after 2017.