They have discussed it at least twice with him - at least from what was reported. I'm not sure how interested he is, but no idea what they have offered.
There were reports he turned down something around 5 years, 100 million last season.
If he is going to sign prematurely there’s no way it’s under 30 million a year. Crazy number 10 years ago. But if I’m the Sox I do whatever it takes to lock him and Sale up. Mookie is the MVP if the season ended today with all due respect to Mike Trout.
This is just one of a few pieces of evidence that Mookie is headed for free agency and there's not much the Red Sox can do about it short of massively overpaying him. That doesn't mean he'll leave, but he clearly intends to hit the market and maximize his earnings. He's more Ellsbury or Papelbon than Pedroia or Lester as far as signing an early extension that buys out years of free agency.
What do you consider a massive overpay? Is 10/280 an overpay? Underpay? I'm pretty sure I'd be comfortable with Mookie being a $30mil cap hit for the next 10 years. However that might be too low.
I don't necessarily have a number in mind (30m per is probably in the ballpark) but generally speaking when people talk extensions for pre-free agency players, the implication is the team is going to get a discount relative to what he'd get on the open market. I don't see that happening with Mookie.
A good way to troll people into calling your radio show is to tell the audience that their favorite sport sucks?
What is going on? Over the past 18 years the city of Boston has had as good a sports run as any city ever and local sports radio has spent most of the time bitching and moaning and floating conspiracies and rumors and attacking the players, coaches, and GMs as being greedy or duplicitous or nasty or misspeaking or probably cheating or, when they can't find one of those angles, boring. What is going on is that Boston sports radio is truly one of the worst things on earth and has been for awhile.
Manny only had two of those, 2000 (.450) and 2002 (.457) though he led the league in 2002, 2003, 2006 and put up a .489 unqualifying OBP in 2008 in LA en route to his top 5 NL MVP finish.
Agree with this. In a FA market of two years ago I think JDM gets more money and has a larger market for his services.
Why, what kind of value/seasons do you expect him to be putting up in years 5-10 of this contract? He is at his absolute peak right now, and putting up an incredible season not in line with his previous performance. Far more often than not, careers fall off precipitously seasons like this than stay at similar levels of production. I love Mookie and am enjoying every minute of this, but I'm totally fine with not offering a massive ten-year contract.
My crystal ball gets hazy much beyond a year out. But as Betts is just 25, there's no reason to believe he can't perform at this level +/- until his early 30s, in line with other stars performing at peak levels until their early-mid-30s.
Like who? Who are all these other stars who are performing into their mid-30s as they did in their breakout season at 25-26 when they put up an OPS+ 66% higher than their previous career marks? Especially the ones that are 5'9" and slugging nearly .700. If you think Mookie is going to be anywhere near this level of production in his mid 30s, you really are drowning in the Kool-Aid.
I'm as happy as anybody with what Mookie put up in the first half, but we should probably at least wait to see how the second half concludes before making any definite class claims there.
I mean he's out slugging Harper by .230 points right now. I don't think he's going to narrow that gap in 67 games while becoming a dynamic outfielder and base runner.
26-28 is a more accurate range for historical player peaks, and there is evidence that the post-steroid era has pushed peak ages into earlier seasons.
Here's one.
I think they matter a lot in that we don’t really have a lot of data points for what young, elite talents get paid on the open market. Harper’s contract likely sets the floor for Mookie’s next contract unless you think Harper will be overpaid based on name value and pedigree (because I absolutely agree on pure production that Mookie has been substantially better). I’m not sure I follow the positional piece with Machado? I think the market both Mookie and teams will be considering when valuing him is “elite position players in their mid-20s,” not “all-star right fielders.”
First of all, I asked for "all these" players, not one. Of course it's possible that Mookie sustains this level of production. The question is not possibility, but probability. I promise you that for every Willie Mays, I can find you many more Nomars, Evan Longorias, and Grady Sizemores. Second, 5'10" in 1956 was about two inches above average height, where 5'9" now is about an inch below. For the typical U.S. male. For an MLB player, he's even relatively smaller.
True. Although I think Manny and Betts get more, or should than Harper. He’s been a dog for a while now. Out of 12 weeks, 2 have been good and 10 have been garbage. Nationals should deal him ASAP. He’s not a winning player. Betts has a winning attitude.
For the next few years, maybe. And for the next two years the Sox can pay him a combined $35 million for those anticipated 14-16 wins. The question is whether it's a good bet to add $265 million for the 8 years after that.
The best non-Babe Ruth season by WAR (position players anyway) is Yaz in ‘67, so if Mookie can beat that it would be fair to say it is the greatest Red Sox season ever.
If Mookie has a 120 OPS+ the rest of 2018--his career average going into this year--he'll wind up with an OPS+ around 170. Only 15 players in MLB history who are 35 or older as of this year had an age-25 season between 165 and 175. Here's a list showing their age-35 OPS+ . DNP = did not play (retired or injured).
How many of those guys had their 165+ season at 25 and it was on the order of 25% better than their best previous season? The answer is almost none. Maybe Jack Fournier (only 18.6% better than his previous best) back in the early 1900s, and Willie Horton, who's one of the guys who was mediocre afterward. And above-average should not be the standard we're using when we're talking about paying the guy best-player-in-baseball money.
Written another way, more than two thirds were below 120.
I think it's more of a fixation on recency when evaluating our own guys. This thread is the same thing just the other side of the coin. People were anointing Devers while kicking Xander, Moreland, and JBJ to the curb at the end of last season. Benintendi was a young, high-floor player we should trade at a loss for someone who fits better in Fenway. Today, Devers should be in AAA and keeping Xander is more important than JDM. And it goes the same way every year. Right now we're ready to re-work JDM's contract and pay Mookie $400M. When someone else is hot or cold, we'll be doing the same with him.
Right--that's why I say "all around" greatest season, even though he's likely to come up short in total WAR vs Yaz. I don't believe any Red Sox player has put together a total season as good in every category as Mookie has to date. I do think it's likely to be a career year (albeit followed by plenty of MVP quality seasons in the years ahead), just because this would be a nearly impossible standard to beat.
What I was getting at with the positional argument is that Machado is one of several elite shortstops (and from a scouting perspective has struggled a bit in the field). It's not like he is A-Rod like in being head and shoulders above everyone else at the position.
It happens. Just learn to scroll through and ignore the bullshit in threads and you will be fine.
