Rosenthal: Mookie and LAD in agreement: 12/$365

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,512
Washington
The pandemic may have shifted his thinking on that a bit. And 10/$350 is better than the 10/$300ish that Boston supposedly offered earlier.

Seems like a reasonable decision from Mookie, given the circumstances.
 

Sausage in Section 17

Poker Champ
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,146
"Not my money" department, but I would have been totally fine with that. I'm depressed.

Go Dodgers!
Not my money either, but this would not be compatible with a competitive team in years 7-10. See Pujols, Albert.

What happens if a significant economic downturn resets the luxury tax structure downward?

Go Verdugo and Downs!
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,593
Saskatchestan
I'm happy for the guy, but sad he won't be coming back to Boston
At least he's not signing with the Yankees. Not sure I could see him 19 times a year in that uni
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,406
Not my money either, but this would not be compatible with a competitive team in years 7-10. See Pujols, Albert.

What happens if a significant economic downturn resets the luxury tax structure downward?

Go Verdugo and Downs!
to play devil's advocate, Mookie should age better than Pujols. but I'm not really confident in that statement either.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,512
Reasonable people can and will disagree about whether Betts will be worth that much over the course of the contract (I suppose we should wait until the final numbers come out), and it's fair to wonder how much COVID has changed the calculus for both sides in a deal like this, but I think it's important to remember how much the Sox front office fucked up by putting themselves in a position where they *had* to trade Betts to reset the luxury tax this year, which is why Betts is reevaluating his future in this new world while wearing Dodger blue rather than Red Sox navy & red.

Mookie is still one of my favorite players and good on him for getting a big payday. He'll still be a lot of fun to watch and follow.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,668
to play devil's advocate, Mookie should age better than Pujols. but I'm not really confident in that statement either.
I believe he is 4 years younger when hitting FA, 28 to 32, and that's without the widespread rumors that Pujols is actually older than his listed age.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,439
Thank goodness they locked up a declining Chris Sale for stupid money and years and then handed out an almost-as-bad deal to keep Eovaldi here.

Can they re-hire Dombrowski and then fire him? I'd say again but I know he resigned.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,631
CT
to play devil's advocate, Mookie should age better than Pujols. but I'm not really confident in that statement either.
Should he though? Mookie’s biggest asset is his quickness. If he starts to lose the speed in those hands, he doesn’t have the size or strength to fall back on to hit for power.

He won’t be a monolith that they roll out there to first base, but I can see him not living up to that contract.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
11,416
NJ
He's not worth 10/350 so whatever.
This is kind of where I am on this. He has had 1 great season. He has done little to nothing in any of the postseason series he has played in. I mean, I did not want to see him go, but he is not a 350M+ player.
 

bluefenderstrat

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
2,607
Tralfamadore
We'll just get him back in a salary dump in 2028. Really, though, Verdugo and Jeter plus whatever they do with the money they would have spent on Mookie will likely be fair value.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,512
Should he though? Mookie’s biggest asset is his quickness. If he starts to lose the speed in those hands, he doesn’t have the size or strength to fall back on to hit for power.

He won’t be a monolith that they roll out there to first base, but I can see him not living up to that contract.
We talked about this a lot last year in this thread about aging curves and how they're different for defense/speed guys like Mookie vs big sluggers like Pujols. I don't know if there was any satisfying conclusion. Either you think Mookie's value will decline quickly as he loses speed (which all players very clearly lose in their late 20s into early 30s) and therefore defensive value, or you think that his well-rounded skillset has a higher floor even as he experiences age-related decline.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,631
CT
This is kind of where I am on this. He has had 1 great season. He has done little to nothing in any of the postseason series he has played in. I mean, I did not want to see him go, but he is not a 350M+ player.
Ehhh. Let’s not besmirch Mookie’s legacy now.

He had one season where he won the MVP and was worth 10.6 WAR, another where he finished 2nd in MVP voting and was worth 9.5 WAR, and 3 other seasons where he had 6+ WAR and received MVP votes.

The dude was amazing while he was in Boston.
 

Alcohol&Overcalls

Member
SoSH Member
He's not worth 10/350 so whatever.
Well, the best data we have indicates otherwise - and even if you want to take out the 10-WAR MVP season and put him at his usual 6, you'd need to assume $/WAR of $6 million to make him "not worth" the money ... and $/WAR has been above that level since 2011.

You can argue about the possibility of team-building or cap problems with that kind of money, but today's version of Mookie Betts is almost assuredly worth 10/350 outside that context.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,534
Maine
Not too long from now the dodgers will have to pay Bellinger a lot more than this, and then Bueller.
This is a great point and a great perspective that shouldn't get lost in this. The Red Sox and Dodgers are at different places right now. In 3-4 years, the Dodgers may well be in a similar position to the 2019-2020 Red Sox in that they are forced to let one of their homegrown stars walk (or trade him before he walks) because a combination of free agent signings and re-signing some of their own to extensions leaves them unable to meet his price.

We can bemoan the Sale extension or Eovaldi re-signing or the Price deal or whatever, but maybe giving Mookie what it would have taken for him to stay means no Bogaerts extension and/or an inability to extend E-Rod or Devers or Benintendi down the road. Every move has consequences.

I hate that Betts is gone as much as anyone, but frankly if he didn't want to stay without a massive contract, I'm impressed with what they were able to get in return for him. I had little to no hope they'd get anything other than a lottery ticket draft pick for his departure. Verdugo, Downs, Wong and some financial flexibility was pretty good. That they may not get a second chance at offering him a deal as a free agent is disappointing, it also shouldn't be considered a surprise. Especially with the way the landscape has changed since the trade happened.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,631
CT
At least we had 2018?!? They won the WS. That's the whole point of this exercise. It trumps everything, and Sale and Price were a huge part of that.
But where is the sustainability? Mookie is someone you build your franchise around, not cast off because you YOLO’d for a ring.

Look at the Tigers. They haven’t been the same since DD gutted that franchise. I have more confidence the Sox will bounce back from this, but there is no guarantee it will be quick. The farm system is not amazing, and they’re about 4 starters away from being competitive.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,891
Hingham, MA
Not too long from now the dodgers will have to pay Bellinger a lot more than this, and then Bueller.
This is a great point and a great perspective that shouldn't get lost in this. The Red Sox and Dodgers are at different places right now. In 3-4 years, the Dodgers may well be in a similar position to the 2019-2020 Red Sox in that they are forced to let one of their homegrown stars walk (or trade him before he walks) because a combination of free agent signings and re-signing some of their own to extensions leaves them unable to meet his price.

We can bemoan the Sale extension or Eovaldi re-signing or the Price deal or whatever, but maybe giving Mookie what it would have taken for him to stay means no Bogaerts extension and/or an inability to extend E-Rod or Devers or Benintendi down the road. Every move has consequences.

I hate that Betts is gone as much as anyone, but frankly if he didn't want to stay without a massive contract, I'm impressed with what they were able to get in return for him. I had little to no hope they'd get anything other than a lottery ticket draft pick for his departure. Verdugo, Downs, Wong and some financial flexibility was pretty good. That they may not get a second chance at offering him a deal as a free agent is disappointing, it also shouldn't be considered a surprise. Especially with the way the landscape has changed since the trade happened.
Right, how mad will Dodgers fans be in 3-4 years if Mookie is merely 2017-level Mookie and they can't afford to sign some of those guys as a result of his albatross contract? I could easily see that happening.

Of course if they win 1-2 WS between now and then it likely doesn't matter.
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
7,170
Displaced
Honestly, is anyone really surprised by this? I’m not.
Good for Mookie. Grab bank while you can. I thank him for the years here in Boston and wish him well--just not against the Red Sox.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,406
To keep Mookie we would have had zero pitching right now. ERod and absolutely nothing else with nothing in the pipeline and nothing really elite in FA either. Rough.

Honestly, is anyone really surprised by this? I’m not.
Good for Mookie. Grab bank while you can. I thank him for the years here in Boston and wish him well--just not against the Red Sox.
no, but the Dodgers are fairly bold doing this right now.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,881
Honestly, is anyone really surprised by this? I’m not.
Good for Mookie. Grab bank while you can. I thank him for the years here in Boston and wish him well--just not against the Red Sox.
Yeah, I assumed he was gone the moment we traded him. Good for Mookie but I don’t want that contract on our books.
 

GoJeff!

Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2007
2,106
Los Angeles
That sucks. I was hoping the "clear the salary cap and then sign" fantasy would pay off. I'll miss him, although I'll probably see him more with him in LA.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
11,416
NJ
Ehhh. Let’s not besmirch Mookie’s legacy now.

He had one season where he won the MVP and was worth 10.6 WAR, another where he finished 2nd in MVP voting and was worth 9.5 WAR, and 3 other seasons where he had 6+ WAR and received MVP votes.

The dude was amazing while he was in Boston.
Yes, he was great - but like I said, to me, not what I consider that caliber of player that warrants a 400M contract.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,038
NH
To keep Mookie we would have had zero pitching right now. ERod and absolutely nothing else with nothing in the pipeline and nothing really elite in FA either. Rough.
They have zero pitching right now - what's the difference?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,239
where I was last at
At least we had 2018?!? They won the WS. That's the whole point of this exercise. It trumps everything, and Sale and Price were a huge part of that.
I understand, BUT, the Sale extension was signed after the '18 WS when the risks and concerns about him were building.
My point was a lot of risk was taken that have some long-term negative consequences, but at least we had 2018..
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
40,207
Harrisburg, Pa.
Not unexpected. The worst part is he will play so many games we wont be able to watch him play due to the late start times. Two of the best players in baseball playing out west so the east mostly can’t watch them live is really a shame.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,631
CT
Yes, he was great - but like I said, to me, not what I consider that caliber of player that warrants a 400M contract.
I mean no one is “worth” their contract in almost any sport. You’re worth whatever someone is willing to pay you. I would rather have Mookie at 350-400 than anyone besides Mike Trout that has signed for 300+. In fact when you look at who has signed for 300+ million it’s hard to make the argument that Mookie isn’t worth that much money.

Trout 426.5 million
Harper 330 million
Stanton 325 million
Cole 324 million
Machado 300 million

Mookie was always likely to sign somewhere between Harper and Trout, as he should.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
We talked about this a lot last year in this thread about aging curves and how they're different for defense/speed guys like Mookie vs big sluggers like Pujols. I don't know if there was any satisfying conclusion. Either you think Mookie's value will decline quickly as he loses speed (which all players very clearly lose in their late 20s into early 30s) and therefore defensive value, or you think that his well-rounded skillset has a higher floor even as he experiences age-related decline.
Mookie's already lost around half his defensive value. Back circa 2016, his defense was otherworldly, according to every system. Last year it was better than average but only 2nd or third among right fielders in the AL.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
11,416
NJ
I mean no one is “worth” their contract in almost any sport. You’re worth whatever someone is willing to pay you. I would rather have Mookie at 350-400 than anyone besides Mike Trout that has signed for 300+. In fact when you look at who has signed for 300+ million it’s hard to make the argument that Mookie isn’t worth that much money.

Trout 426.5 million
Harper 330 million
Stanton 325 million
Cole 324 million
Machado 300 million

Mookie was always likely to sign somewhere between Harper and Trout, as he should.
Yes, I would agree that I would rather have Betts than anyone on that list not named Trout, but that being said I do not think any of those players are worth the money they are receiving either - and 3 of them are already proving that they are definitely not. Machado, Harper and Stanton are not remotely worth those contracts. I sincerely doubt Cole will be either. In fact, I would say nearly every single long term, large contract has proven to not be worth the money.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,593
Saskatchestan
But where is the sustainability? Mookie is someone you build your franchise around, not cast off because you YOLO’d for a ring.
But what is the end goal for the team? To keep all your popular players, or to win the World Series?

4 Championships in 15 years changes that perspective and obviously you'd like to have both, but also remember 86 years between championships makes a fan base realize what the ultimate goal is

We won't know the true impact of this trade and possible deal for 10 more years
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
10,510
Kernersville, NC
I'm sad, but relieved at the same time. I don't like 10 year deals for almost anyone. Guys Mookie's size (5'9") don't typically age very gracefully once they're on the other side of 32. Time to lock up Devers long term.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
What's the realistic market for Mookie in FA if the Red Sox are unable to reset the luxury tax and participate in the bidding?

I'm sure the Dodgers budgeted for pushing hard to sign Mookie long-term when they traded for him. The Dodgers weren't thinking rental.

Is Vegas giving odds for MLB successfully getting to 9/1 and the LT reset?

Not finishing this "season" amplifies the economic cost of COVID-19 for all teams and prevents the Sox from reseting and being a viable player in FA.

Even if Mookie was already set to make LA his long-term home (I never expected him to return as a FA to Boston) he needs other teams to create a market for him next winter. If the Sox aren't reset they won't be in the mix and how many bidders looking to invest $350-400 for the next decade in one player are left to play?
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,596
This is a great point and a great perspective that shouldn't get lost in this. The Red Sox and Dodgers are at different places right now. In 3-4 years, the Dodgers may well be in a similar position to the 2019-2020 Red Sox in that they are forced to let one of their homegrown stars walk (or trade him before he walks) because a combination of free agent signings and re-signing some of their own to extensions leaves them unable to meet his price.
Maybe. We don’t know what the new CBA will look like, but also in the next three years, they lose Turner, then Jansen and Kershaw, then Price, all of whom seem likely to be replaced by cheaper players. Mookie’s deal would be the only one on their books in 2023 as of this moment. It’ll still be tough to keep all three, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

At the same time, they generally do well with player development and scrap-heap finds, so I’m sure they’ll be fine no matter what.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,608
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm sad, but relieved at the same time. I don't like 10 year deals for almost anyone. Guys Mookie's size (5'9") don't typically age very gracefully once they're on the other side of 32. Time to lock up Devers long term.
What are you basing that on?

Joe Morgan (5'7") was still great in his 30's, so he's probably the best anecdote. Willie Mays (5'10") isn't chopped liver either.

Edit: Also worth pointing out that Mookie is the shortest player since integration to put up 40 WAR by the time he's 26 - an inch shorter than Mays & Henderson. Most great players are taller than Mookie, that doesn't mean a great player of his height should be expected to fall off more than a taller great player.

Edit 2: He's actually the shortest player to accumulate more than 32 WAR by age 26 - the next best players his height or shorter were Ivan Rodriguez and Tim Raines, who both had what looks like, to me, pretty good/average aging curves into their 30s.

Edit3: Next best (and we're really starting to talk about people who aren't comparable to Betts's quality):
  1. Chuck Knoblauch - aged well (perhaps improved) before the yips
  2. Curt Flood - aged well (perhaps improved) before sacrificing his career for free agency
  3. Joe Morgan - pretty pretty pretty good
Also Jose Ramirez & Altuve, who obviously haven't aged long enough to see. BTW, Mookie put up double Altuve's WAR by age 26.

Edit4: Next best (each is between 15 & 20 WAR compared to Mookie's 42) are Pedroia (bad), Aparicio (very good), Rollins (less good), Berra (good), Furcal (bad)..
 
Last edited: