Lou Merloni: Mookie asking price is 12 years, $420 million.

Would you give Mookie a 12 years, $420 million contract?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,360
They’ve already botched 2020, there’s no way to recover it. Ticket sales, ratings, merchandise, etc will be down significantly and who’s to say it will stop in 20?

Rivals are spending to get better - even the Twins are spending money to get better - and the Red Sox are in cost cutting mode in the midst of an incredible opportunity with a home grown core.

The billionaire smart guys want to reinvent the wheel again. They’ll trade Mookie or let him walk then throw a pile of money at the next Carl Crawford - pump him up on NESN (see Panda suit day 1) and we’ll see what happens from there.

The franchise has lost all momentum and it’s going to be really tough - and costly - to get it back.
I would argue that paying one player $35 million a year and incurring luxury tax and draft penalties for the next three-plus years would hamper the opportunity to keep other 'homegrown core' players like Eduardo Rodriguez, Andrew Benintendi and ultimately Rafael Devers, but I guess that's just me.
 

Teachdad46

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Oct 14, 2011
127
Vermont
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12...
That's a long, long time.
Albert accumulated 89.9WAR in St L, averaging 7.9 per year over his eleven years there. That was $1.2M per Win.
He then signed a ten year player contract with the Angels. During the first eight years of that contract he's totaled 13.7WAR, averaging 1.7 per year. That's been $13.2 per Win.
And Albert is not 5'9" (which is apparently a bad thing to be according to some)
Chaim is NOT going to go down as the man who chained Boston (chaimed?) Boston to any one ball player with his first major move. I don't think he is genetically capable of doing it.

Wail all you want; Mookie's gone.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I would argue that paying one player $35 million a year and incurring luxury tax and draft penalties for the next three-plus years would hamper the opportunity to keep other 'homegrown core' players like Eduardo Rodriguez, Andrew Benintendi and ultimately Rafael Devers, but I guess that's just me.
Mookie's much better than all those guys and they should keep him under any circumstances. 10/300 is what Machado got; Mookie's WAR is much much higher and he doesn't have the reputation of a laggard that Machado had. SD is also exponentially poorer than Boston; offering Mookie the same deal as Machado shows that the Sox are not seriously interested in retaining his services.

They have the money. They're one of the richest clubs in baseball. That they're choosing not to spend it to retain a homegrown superstar who should be the face of their organization for years to come speaks volumes about the priorities of this ownership group at the current time.

If he leaves the team will be substantially worse. They will get killed on the field and in the NESN ratings, and the owners will lose money that way. But hey those draft picks make up for all.

If they trade or allow Mookie to walk over money I cannot continue to support the team as long as its under this ownership. This is not letting Johnny Damon leave when they've got options ready and Damon's already past his prime; this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.

At some point you have to decide what's more important, putting a good team on the field or acting like the Pirates. The sudden urge to get under the luxury tax just as their best player is up for a new deal stinks to high heavens.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I'd take the prime years of Devers over the decline years of Mookie.
That's your choice, one I heartily disagree with. Devers looks like he ate El Guapo over the offseason. I would not bet he ages well at all.

In reality I think that's a false choice anyway, because it's Benintendi that I would let loose and I'd keep Mookie and Devers.

I promise not to belabor this point, because I feel extremely strongly on this topic and I know many others disagree. Suffice it to say this issue is perhaps enough to get me to stop following the team if they botch it, which is extreme; others may feel differently.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
27,749
Mookie's much better than all those guys and they should keep him under any circumstances. 10/300 is what Machado got; Mookie's WAR is much much higher and he doesn't have the reputation of a laggard that Machado had. SD is also exponentially poorer than Boston; offering Mookie the same deal as Machado shows that the Sox are not seriously interested in retaining his services.

They have the money. They're one of the richest clubs in baseball. That they're choosing not to spend it to retain a homegrown superstar who should be the face of their organization for years to come speaks volumes about the priorities of this ownership group at the current time.

If he leaves the team will be substantially worse. They will get killed on the field and in the NESN ratings, and the owners will lose money that way. But hey those draft picks make up for all.

If they trade or allow Mookie to walk over money I cannot continue to support the team as long as its under this ownership. This is not letting Johnny Damon leave when they've got options ready and Damon's already past his prime; this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.

At some point you have to decide what's more important, putting a good team on the field or acting like the Pirates. The sudden urge to get under the luxury tax just as their best player is up for a new deal stinks to high heavens.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

You have a homegrown legit 5 elite tool player, in a top 5 market, maybe top 3, in a ballpark that sells out $20 tours. You sign him, or at least not have $ be what drives him away. And certainly money shouldn't be an issue when you sign a no-name replacement level utilityman to $3mil when you have in house minimum salary options that are just as good.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
Question to those who claim they will give up on the Sox if they trade Mookie: what if they end up re-signing him in a year? Will you then be back on board?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Question to those who claim they will give up on the Sox if they trade Mookie: what if they end up re-signing him in a year? Will you then be back on board?
Sure. If they make him a fair market offer and bring him back, I'll be back too.

If they trade him for a bag of magic beans, or he walks in FA and the team uses the usual media sources to paint him as ungrateful that he wouldn't take their non-starter 10/300 offer that's less than what Harper, a far worse player got, then I'm done until JWH sells the team. I cannot in good conscience support an ownership with its priorities that skewed. Again, that's just me though.

Mookie is not a chump, and I resent the fact that the ownership seemingly wants to play him like a chump. Merloni leaking that 10/300 offer is Step 1 in the usual ownership plan of trashing players on their way out of town. Any reasonable analysis of that offer shows it was made in order to be rejected; it's not a serious offer whatsoever, akin to the infamous 5/7hey made to Lester.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
Sure. If they make him a fair market offer and bring him back, I'll be back too.

If they trade him for a bag of magic beans, or he walks in FA and the team uses the usual media sources to paint him as ungrateful that he wouldn't take their non-starter 10/300 offer that's less than what Harper, a far worse player got, then I'm done until JWH sells the team.
Was 10/$300 really unfair if it came prior to the 2019 season? He made $20M in 2019, and will make $27M in 2020. So the deal would have been tacking on 8 years and $253M, or $31.625M per year. That doesn't seem like a non-starter to me. Also I believe the rumor was 10/$320M, which would make the number $273M over the last 8 years, or $34.125M. I don't see how that is some kind of non-starter.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,123
New York City
If they trade him for a bag of magic beans, or he walks in FA and the team uses the usual media sources to paint him as ungrateful that he wouldn't take their non-starter 10/300 offer that's less than what Harper, a far worse player got, then I'm done until JWH sells the team.

I’m for keeping Mookie too, all else being equal, but the above ignores a lot of other possible scenarios. What if they trade Mookie now and then next offseason he signs with a team for 12/400 (a price that the Sox would not be willing to pay under probably any circumstances)? Wouldn’t that indicate trading Mookie was the right move? Or are you saying the Sox should literally just pay Mookie whatever it takes to keep him, regardless of cost/years?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,779
The wrong side of the bridge....
Mookie's much better than all those guys and they should keep him under any circumstances. 10/300 is what Machado got; Mookie's WAR is much much higher and he doesn't have the reputation of a laggard that Machado had. SD is also exponentially poorer than Boston; offering Mookie the same deal as Machado shows that the Sox are not seriously interested in retaining his services.

They have the money. They're one of the richest clubs in baseball. That they're choosing not to spend it to retain a homegrown superstar who should be the face of their organization for years to come speaks volumes about the priorities of this ownership group at the current time.

If he leaves the team will be substantially worse. They will get killed on the field and in the NESN ratings, and the owners will lose money that way. But hey those draft picks make up for all.

If they trade or allow Mookie to walk over money I cannot continue to support the team as long as its under this ownership. This is not letting Johnny Damon leave when they've got options ready and Damon's already past his prime; this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.

At some point you have to decide what's more important, putting a good team on the field or acting like the Pirates. The sudden urge to get under the luxury tax just as their best player is up for a new deal stinks to high heavens.
All of the bolded phrases imply that the Sox ownership is in the driver's seat and Mookie has no control over the situation. Which is, if anything, the opposite of the truth. And that's a good thing, even if it's making Sox fans uncomfortable right now.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Was 10/$300 really unfair if it came prior to the 2019 season? He made $20M in 2019, and will make $27M in 2020. So the deal would have been tacking on 8 years and $253M, or $31.625M per year. That doesn't seem like a non-starter to me. Also I believe the rumor was 10/$320M, which would make the number $273M over the last 8 years, or $34.125M. I don't see how that is some kind of non-starter.
When Machado, a much worse player with the reputation of being a difficult guy, gets 10/300 from San Diego, hardly a rich club, then yes, it's an unfair offer designed to be turned out.

Mookie is infinitely better than Machado. He's better than Harper, who got 12/330. You can't offer 10/300 and expect anything more than being laughed out of the room.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I’m for keeping Mookie too, all else being equal, but the above ignores a lot of other possible scenarios. What if they trade Mookie now and then next offseason he signs with a team for 12/400 (a price that the Sox would not be willing to pay under probably any circumstances)? Wouldn’t that indicate trading Mookie was the right move? Or are you saying the Sox should literally just pay Mookie whatever it takes to keep him, regardless of cost/years?
The bolded. I'd pay him 12/400, which would be very fair value. I'd even pay him the 12/420. Certainly, I'd offer at least 10/350 to start negotiations, which is more than Machado and Harper and less than Trout, which seems reasonable.

JWH is a billionaire and the Sox are the second or third most valuable MLB franchise. Of course they can afford to pay Mookie without any negative impact on the rest of the team. They are swimming in money. They are simply choosing not to pay him his fair value. That's their choice, but it will cost them dearly.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
When Machado, a much worse player with the reputation of being a difficult guy, gets 10/300 from San Diego, hardly a rich club, then yes, it's an unfair offer designed to be turned out.

Mookie is infinitely better than Machado. He's better than Harper, who got 12/330. You can't offer 10/300 and expect anything more than being laughed out of the room.
But those guys were UFAs when they signed. Mookie still had two cost controlled years at the time of the offer. You have to take that into consideration with the offer. They were offering to buy out 2 controlled years that paid him $47M and give him some $60-64M for those years instead.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,360
Mookie's much better than all those guys and they should keep him under any circumstances. 10/300 is what Machado got; Mookie's WAR is much much higher and he doesn't have the reputation of a laggard that Machado had. SD is also exponentially poorer than Boston; offering Mookie the same deal as Machado shows that the Sox are not seriously interested in retaining his services.
You're assuming that the $320m offer was the best and final offer, which none of us knows. They could have offered to counter Team Mookie's $420m offer and been told 'Nope, take it or leave it and we go to free agency'.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
But those guys were UFAs when they signed Mookie still had two cost controlled years. You have to take that into consideration with the offer. They were offering to buy out 2 controlled years that paid him $47M and give him some $60-64M for those years instead.
And then they were going to pay him $100 million or so less over the next 10. That's no deal whatsoever. An extra $20 million to give up $100? That was never going to be accepted.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
You're assuming that the $320m offer was the best and final offer, which none of us knows. They could have offered to counter Team Mookie's $420m offer and been told 'Nope, take it or leave it and we go to free agency'.
That's true, but we're all just going on what's been reported so far. If more information comes out that says they offered 10/420 or made a counter, then I'll take that into consideration. Right now we haven't heard that, so I'm only going by what's been reported.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,982
Boston, MA
Harper and Machado became free agents two years younger than Mookie will. That's a huge difference when you're talking about buying a player's age 26-35 seasons rather than 28-37.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
And then they were going to pay him $100 million or so less over the next 10. That's no deal whatsoever. An extra $20 million to give up $100? That was never going to be accepted.
This was 2 years ago. Mookie took a huge risk by not accepting that kind of deal. He bet big on himself, and it appears he was correct to do it. But turning down $300-$320M was a HUGE risk and takes major stones to do it. It wasn't an insulting offer.

Edit: I don't understand your $100M over the next 10 years comment?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
This was 2 years ago. Mookie took a huge risk by not accepting that kind of deal. He bet big on himself, and it appears he was correct to do it. But turning down $300-$320M was a HUGE risk and takes major stones to do it. It wasn't an insulting offer.

Edit: I don't understand your $100M over the next 10 years comment?
Of course it was.

Position players, unlike pitchers, are far less prone to injuries that could derail their careers. Refusing to allow FA years to be put off almost always makes sens for them, especially because he knew he'd hit the market at 28, not 31.

100 m over the nest 10 years comment is in reference to the offer he's likely to receive this offseason. My guess is that he gets 10/400 somewhere. Taking $300-320 instead would be a huge loss for him.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Harper and Machado became free agents two years younger than Mookie will. That's a huge difference when you're talking about buying a player's age 26-35 seasons rather than 28-37.
Harper and Machado both stink in comparison to Mookie as their WARs were much less; that's also a huge difference.

EDIT: Machado's career WAR was 33.8 heading into FA; Haper's was 27.4. Mookie is at 42.0 with one more year to go. He's a VASTLY better player than those guys. Plus both Harper and Machado have been at times viewed as being difficult personalities; Mookie has no such concerns. Harper and Machado have been wildly inconsistent at times during their careers, Mookie has been more consistent.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
Of course it was.

Position players, unlike pitchers, are far less prone to injuries that could derail their careers. Refusing to allow FA years to be put off almost always makes sens for them, especially because he knew he'd hit the market at 28, not 31.

100 m over the nest 10 years comment is in reference to the offer he's likely to receive this offseason. My guess is that he gets 10/400 somewhere. Taking $300-320 instead would be a huge loss for him.
Well again this would have been 2 years ago, so a 10 year deal would have taken him to age 35, when he could have signed another contract, whereas a 10 year deal next year will take him to 38, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. You have to account for the money he would have been able to make in those outer years.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,633
NY
Harper and Machado both stink in comparison to Mookie as their WARs were much less; that's also a huge difference.

EDIT: Machado's career WAR was 33.8 heading into FA; Haper's was 27.4. Mookie is at 42.0 with one more year to go. He's a VASTLY better player than those guys.
Yes, Mookie is better than Machado and Harper. But considering that he'll be two years older, and Harper got 330/13 and Machado got 300/10, it's not reasonable to say that Boston should offer him 400/10 before he's even a FA. That's a huge increase whether you're looking at total cash or AAV for a guy who's two years older and can't field competing offers.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Well again this would have been 2 years ago, so a 10 year deal would have taken him to age 35, when he could have signed another contract, whereas a 10 year deal next year will take him to 38, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. You have to account for the money he would have been able to make in those outer years.
And like any smart player, Mookie would rather hit the market in his prime than at age 35 when he would get nowhere near as much.

There was zero chance that 10/300 deal would ever be accepted and I believe all parties knew it.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
And like any smart player, Mookie would rather hit the market in his prime than at age 35 when he would get nowhere near as much.

There was zero chance that 10/300 deal would ever be accepted and I believe all parties knew it.
Salaries could also be double as high in 10 years than they are today. Things have been skyrocketing. Maybe at 35 Mookie would have been able to sign a 3 year, $100M deal, and it would be cheap because the best players are getting $50M by then. Maybe he actually gave up potential earnings by turning down 10/$320M two years ago.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Yes, Mookie is better than Machado and Harper. But considering that he'll be two years older, and Harper got 330/13 and Machado got 300/10, it's not reasonable to say that Boston should offer him 400/10 before he's even a FA. That's a huge increase whether you're looking at total cash or AAV for a guy who's two years older and can't field competing offers.
He's 28, not 31 or 33 or 35 like so many other FAs.

I'm saying they should offer 10/400 now. Today, right now. Call him up and make that offer. That's a fair deal, and Mookie might actually accept it. It's more than either of those two got, it's less than Trout, and it's reasonable.

They'll never do it, of course. They're going to let him walk or trade him and then cry poor about it later, like they've done with so many other players. I'm resigned to this. These are the same guys who offered Lester 5/70. They've learned nothing.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
689
Maryland
I think $35M AAV is a fair estimate of Mookie's market value - there's probably a decent chance he could get more than that next year.. So the question to me is the years. When did Mookie's side offer 12/420? Last year? If so, then maybe we're only talking 11 years now. I think that's maybe a year too long. I wouldn't blink at 10/350, and would easily add an option year to that, but push come to shove I'd probably agree to 11/385 to get a deal done today if that would do it.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Salaries could also be double as high in 10 years than they are today. Things have been skyrocketing. Maybe at 35 Mookie would have been able to sign a 3 year, $100M deal, and it would be cheap because the best players are getting $50M by then. Maybe he actually gave up potential earnings by turning down 10/$320M two years ago.
And maybe the sun will finally expand and roast this humble planet of ours by then. Who knows?

Frankly I don't see either scenario happening. Mookie is no fool; he's rather shoot his shot at 28 than 35 and who can blame him?
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,633
NY
And like any smart player, Mookie would rather hit the market in his prime than at age 35 when he would get nowhere near as much.

There was zero chance that 10/300 deal would ever be accepted and I believe all parties knew it.
I don't agree with that. If Mookie's primary goal was to stay in Boston like, say, Pedroia, he could accept 10/300 and it would be totally reasonable. He wants to get every last dollar. That's his choice. It doesn't mean offering him 300m was unreasonable. That's kind of nuts.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,633
NY
He's 28, not 31 or 33 or 35 like so many other FAs.

I'm saying they should offer 10/400 now. Today, right now. Call him up and make that offer. That's a fair deal, and Mookie might actually accept it. It's more than either of those two got, it's less than Trout, and it's reasonable.

They'll never do it, of course. They're going to let him walk or trade him and then cry poor about it later, like they've done with so many other players. I'm resigned to this. These are the same guys who offered Lester 5/70. They've learned nothing.
Trout's AAV is 35.5. Mookie is worth 4.5m per year more?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I don't agree with that. If Mookie's primary goal was to stay in Boston like, say, Pedroia, he could accept 10/300 and it would be totally reasonable. He wants to get every last dollar. That's his choice. It doesn't mean offering him 300m was unreasonable. That's kind of nuts.
I don't believe that staying in Boston should cost him $100 million. That's what's nuts. He apparenly loves it here; he shouldn't take 75% of his fair market value just because he loves it here.

Given the FA market, I believe offering 10/300 was extremely unreasonable.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
You know what's going to happen, the Sox are going to allow him to leave, they'll get under the luxury tax and try to resign him in free agency. Only it won't happen and in a knee-jerk reaction, the Sox will sign two guys who are worse, but will cost them just as much (if not more) to "prove" that they're "serious about winning". These guys may be okay, but will probably suck, and we'll end up grousing about "why didn't we just sign Mookie in the first fucking place instead of having to watch Sandoval v2.0 and Hanley v2.0 for the next five years?"

Time is a flat circle.
 

glennhoffmania

but still failing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,399,633
NY
I don't believe that staying in Boston should cost him $100 million. That's what's nuts. He apparenly loves it here; he shouldn't take 75% of his fair market value just because he loves it here.

Given the FA market, I believe offering 10/300 was extremely unreasonable.
Well I think that's where the disagreement is. I don't believe his value is 400m. I understand the argument but I just disagree. If he wants ten years the AAV needs to be lower. He's not Trout, and he certainly isn't worth more than Trout.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
You know what's going to happen, the Sox are going to allow him to leave, they'll get under the luxury tax and try to resign him in free agency. Only it won't happen and in a knee-jerk reaction, the Sox will sign two guys who are worse, but will cost them just as much (if not more) to "prove" that they're "serious about winning". These guys may be okay, but will probably suck, and we'll end up grousing about "why didn't we just sign Mookie in the first fucking place instead of having to watch Sandoval v2.0 and Hanley v2.0 for the next five years?"

Time is a flat circle.
Or the first bit will happen, the Sox won't sign anyone, and they'll talk about their farm system and send out Bob Hohler to write a hit piece on Mookie painting him as greedy and a bad driver.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
And maybe the sun will finally expand and roast this humble planet of ours by then. Who knows?

Frankly I don't see either scenario happening. Mookie is no fool; he's rather shoot his shot at 28 than 35 and who can blame him?
The point he is could have taken a huge contract two years ago and then gotten another shot at 35. You're acting as if signing two years ago for 10/$320 wasn't similar to hitting free agency.

If he had signed a 10/$320 deal two years ago, he would have made $320M from 2019-2028.

If he signs a 12/$420 deal after 2020, he will make $327M from 2019-2028. If the deal is "only" 12/$400, he will make $313.7M from 2019-2028, which is less than the sign early scenario.

It's not as black and white as you are making it out to be.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
[QUOTE="Smiling Joe Hesketh, post: 3743861this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.
[/QUOTE]

See, this is the disconnect. Mookie is not a top 5 player in baseball. He was the second best player in 2018 (the year the Red Sox were feeding him the upcoming pitches from 2nd base). Every other year of his career he has been an all-star, but not close to top 5. His defense is already declining.

The time to break the bank for him was 2 years ago. But, he wasn’t interested. I hope he gets his $400 million from somewhere else and is happy. By the middle of that contract, his new team will be looking to dump him.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
I don't believe that staying in Boston should cost him $100 million. That's what's nuts. He apparenly loves it here; he shouldn't take 75% of his fair market value just because he loves it here.

Given the FA market, I believe offering 10/300 was extremely unreasonable.
If the 10/$300M offer came after the 2020 season, EVERYONE WOULD AGREE that it was extremely unreasonable.

But it came before the 2019 season, when they were offering to buy out controlled years.

You don't seem to grasp this point.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
[QUOTE="Smiling Joe Hesketh, post: 3743861this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.
See, this is the disconnect. Mookie is not a top 5 player in baseball. He was the second best player in 2018 (the year the Red Sox were feeding him the upcoming pitches from 2nd base). Every other year of his career he has been an all-star, but not close to top 5. His defense is already declining.

The time to break the bank for him was 2 years ago. But, he wasn’t interested. I hope he gets his $400 million from somewhere else and is happy. By the middle of that contract, his new team will be looking to dump him.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure where you're getting that. His WAR ranks among position players are 8th, 2nd 6th, 1st and 4th over the past 5 years. Overall they are 10th, 2nd, 7th, 1st, and 7th. Of course that makes him a top 5 player, or as near to it as makes no difference.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
If the 10/$300M offer came after the 2020 season, EVERYONE WOULD AGREE that it was extremely unreasonable.

But it came before the 2019 season, when they were offering to buy out controlled years.

You don't seem to grasp this point.
I grasp the point perfectly. It's still laughably low, especially considering that his salary this year without being bought out is $27 million, after 20 million last year.

It wasn't enough. It wasn't near enough. And all parties knew it. That offer was not made in good faith because the ownership knew he'd never accept it.

We could have avoided all of this had the Sox not lost their minds and extended Sale and Eovaldi and in exchange received nothing. Sigh.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
See, this is the disconnect. Mookie is not a top 5 player in baseball. He was the second best player in 2018 (the year the Red Sox were feeding him the upcoming pitches from 2nd base). Every other year of his career he has been an all-star, but not close to top 5. His defense is already declining.

The time to break the bank for him was 2 years ago. But, he wasn’t interested. I hope he gets his $400 million from somewhere else and is happy. By the middle of that contract, his new team will be looking to dump him.


I am not sure where you're getting that. His WAR ranks among position players are 8th, 2nd 6th, 1st and 4th over the past 5 years. Overall they are 10th, 2nd, 7th, 1st, and 7th. Of course that makes him a top 5 player, or as near to it as makes no difference.
WAR is based a lot on defense, which is in decline.

His wOBA and OPS+ fro 2016-2019 ranks in the 13-15 range.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
12,098
Mookie's much better than all those guys and they should keep him under any circumstances. 10/300 is what Machado got; Mookie's WAR is much much higher and he doesn't have the reputation of a laggard that Machado had. SD is also exponentially poorer than Boston; offering Mookie the same deal as Machado shows that the Sox are not seriously interested in retaining his services.

They have the money. They're one of the richest clubs in baseball. That they're choosing not to spend it to retain a homegrown superstar who should be the face of their organization for years to come speaks volumes about the priorities of this ownership group at the current time.

If he leaves the team will be substantially worse. They will get killed on the field and in the NESN ratings, and the owners will lose money that way. But hey those draft picks make up for all.

If they trade or allow Mookie to walk over money I cannot continue to support the team as long as its under this ownership. This is not letting Johnny Damon leave when they've got options ready and Damon's already past his prime; this is letting a top 5 player in the game leave at the peak of his powers.

At some point you have to decide what's more important, putting a good team on the field or acting like the Pirates. The sudden urge to get under the luxury tax just as their best player is up for a new deal stinks to high heavens.
I'm right here with you pal. I'm all in on giving Mookie whatever the max market deal he could get is. At some point, the Red Sox are going to have to step-up to the big boy table and offer one of these massive new deals to a player, and there is unlikely to ever be a better option than a player like Mookie. Your point about acting like the Pirates is true, the Red Sox are either a rich club willing to spend money the way the Angles, Philly or the Yankees have so far, or they are not. Luxury tax be damned.

I don't have a problem at all giving Mookie a deal for 10+ years; if you want to get MVP-level production from a player in their prime, that is the cost of doing business. If Mookie is 36 years old, making $35 million and a 1.0 WAR player, I'm totally okay with that, provided that for 5-8 years before that he, was a 7-10 WAR player. I want the Red Sox to pay for one of the best players in baseball, and the reality is that if you want that, you need to pay for a little bit of insurance on the back end.

The idea that the Red Sox might trade him and then re-sign him next off-season...I mean get that weak shit out of here. That reeks of doomsday prepping for the inevitable backlash fans would give the Sox if they trade him right now. We already went down this road with Lester, another guy who they lowballed and told everyone that they didn't want to hand out big money to a pitcher after he turned 30, and in Chicago Lester has been worth every penny.

I'm not going to say I'm going to stop rooting for the team if they trade Mookie, but if they expect me to continue to pay escalating ticket prices, $12 for a beer and $7 for a hot dog, and not be annoyed when the second I step into Fenway some teenager with a camera is trying to sell me a $25 photo of my "experience at Fenway Park", that is going to be a tough, tough sell.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,038
Hingham, MA
I grasp the point perfectly. It's still laughably low, especially considering that his salary this year without being bought out is $27 million, after 20 million last year.

It wasn't enough. It wasn't near enough. And all parties knew it. That offer was not made in good faith because the ownership knew he'd never accept it.

We could have avoided all of this had the Sox not lost their minds and extended Sale and Eovaldi and in exchange received nothing. Sigh.
If they let this year play out and offer him 8 years and $275M, you would consider that to be a laughably low offer?

Edit: @Smiling Joe Hesketh and I have taken it to PM
 
Last edited:

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
4,921
Jackson Heights, NYC
I'm on team SJH. I think it comes down to whether you think Mookie is a generational franchise impact player, and I happen to think so. When you look at all the dumb overpays that the Red Sox have made in the last decade, this one doesn't smell like an overpay to me, and the stats don't suggest it would be either. It seems the Red Sox ownership swings drastically in both directions, and a year from now when Mookie is long gone, they'll swing in the other direction and overspend on talent that will not equal Mookie's numbers. Call it the 2021 mystery Mookie replacement, and in a decade we can compare the stats of future HoF Mookie vs mystery replacement.

Pay the man.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,417
All the negativity toward the front office is spot on. If we've learned anything about the way the Sox have operated under John Henry's ownership, it's that they are not committed to winning the World Series. If you ignore the four times they've won the World Series (with significantly different rosters each time), they've never won the World Series. And other than Chris Sale, David Price, Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez, Daiske Matsuzaka, Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Carl Crawford, JD Drew, John Lackey, and Craig Kimbrel, they've made no effort to spend money and bring in top talent. It's simply always been about lining John Henry's pocket.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,931
Deep inside Muppet Labs
All the negativity toward the front office is spot on. If we've learned anything about the way the Sox have operated under John Henry's ownership, it's that they are not committed to winning the World Series. If you ignore the four times they've won the World Series (with significantly different rosters each time), they've never won the World Series. And other than Chris Sale, David Price, Curt Schilling, Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez, Daiske Matsuzaka, Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, Carl Crawford, JD Drew, John Lackey, and Craig Kimbrel, they've made no effort to spend money and bring in top talent. It's simply always been about lining John Henry's pocket.
This is the first time the ownership ground has suddenly become aware of the luxury tax threshold and sought to massively trim payroll. Their sudden change in priorities is extremely concerning, and it's reasonable to assume their position in regards to the on-field product may have changed.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
But those guys were UFAs when they signed. Mookie still had two cost controlled years at the time of the offer. You have to take that into consideration with the offer. They were offering to buy out 2 controlled years that paid him $47M and give him some $60-64M for those years instead.
And over those two years Mookie could have run into a wall and had a high ankle sprain that took 18 months to heal, gotten beaned in the face and effectively ended his career, or had an infielder fall on him and dislocate his right shoulder while chasing a popup or stealing a base. In any of those situations he watches $250 million go up in smoke.

TheRed Sox offers we’re more than fair. Anyone who doesn’t think so needs to read the book “Superforecasting.” After having read that I understand a lot more about these types of negotiations, and lowered my blood pressure over losing top of the market talent or A-ball “can’t miss” studs (yes they can, almost 50/50 that they will). And I got a lot out of it even though I’d previously spent years studying and applying probability theory and shouldn’t have needed it explained to me like a layman. Great book.