Mookie Betts is kind of good

[pewe]

Originally Posted by BBases31

I seriously can't believe I'm arguing with someone who's actually very strongly advocating for one of the most profitable franchises in American sports to not pay luxury tax to keep their best player

Please head over to the Kevin Durant thread in the basketball forum and start telling the Warriors fans it was a bad move to take on Durant because of how much extra they had to pay in tax

Basketball is a much more individual sport, where one star player makes an outsized difference. It is easy to run the calculus as an owner on what the ROI is for your situation, and be willing to pay 2x what another city would.

Baseball is probably the most extreme opposite of basketball, where the best player in the entire sport in any year is only worth about 10% more wins to an average team than replacing them with a bench player / "AAAA" player.

So, yes, if you are an owner, it is very hard to convince yourself to pay 150% of the market value for a player, or ~$40MM, when you can pay the league minimum $0.5MM and get a player who will only make your team at most ~10% worse (and that assumed they were the best... losing Betts for a Minor League replacement player this year? the team would be predicted to lose ~8% fewer games). Yikes!

[pewe]

Originally Posted by MRSPORTSCARD

See if the Red Sox paid Mookie for just 5 years I would be all for it but he wants 10. First 5 will be great but he will slow down the last 5. Name me one contract that was a good deal after 7 to 10 years? Even the Padres and Phillies are regreting their Machado and Harper contracts. Those 10 year contracts are just dumb business.

Those type of contracts have really put the Angels in a tough spot.

I was checking the Red Sox payroll, just to see how bad it is... and found that we are still paying Manny Ramirez! Think $2MM a year for him goes against the cap. Wow!

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/payroll/

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by pewe

Those type of contracts have really put the Angels in a tough spot.

Bad contracts have put the Angels in a tough spot. Pujols was being paid for ages 32-42. And Albert had already started a serious decline when he hit free agency, offensively and defensively. Big, long contracts can absolutely work out for the right players: Arod, Scherzer, Votto, Miguel Carbera's 1st deal.

People who don't know baseball just conflate every big contract together and think guys like Machado, Harper, Mookie are on the same level but they aren't even in the same conversation. Mookie is truly special. He literally doubled Harper's WAR over the last 4 seasons. If you look at the WAR leaderboard over the last 5 seasons it goes like this:

Trout: 44.2
Mookie: 35.4
Bryant: 27.8

A 5 tool player with that pedigree and being 28 to start the contract is exactly the guy you want to throw all your money at.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Bad contracts have put the Angels in a tough spot. Pujols was being paid for ages 32-42. And Albert had already started a serious decline when he hit free agency, offensively and defensively. Big, long contracts can absolutely work out for the right players: Arod, Scherzer, Votto, Miguel Carbera's 1st deal.

People who don't know baseball just conflate every big contract together and think guys like Machado, Harper, Mookie are on the same level but they aren't even in the same conversation. Mookie is truly special. He literally doubled Harper's WAR over the last 4 seasons. If you look at the WAR leaderboard over the last 5 seasons it goes like this:

Trout: 44.2
Mookie: 35.4
Bryant: 27.8

A 5 tool player with that pedigree and being 28 to start the contract is exactly the guy you want to throw all your money at.

Btw additional support for you...

Reasons someone like Betts might be a safer long term bet? He’s more of a finesse, high contact rate, low k% type, solid bb% vs some of those others.

Fangraphs has some nice analysis on size / power and the speed of degradation (and injury) those players generally see.

To be clear here... I totally agree that Betts would be amazing to keep if he’d settle for a Harper 10 years for $260mm type contract.

I’d love to see him for years. If we could get him, Devers, and Xander for the next 5-7 years... that would be an impressive offensive core sign me up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MRSPORTSCARD]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Bad contracts have put the Angels in a tough spot. Pujols was being paid for ages 32-42. And Albert had already started a serious decline when he hit free agency, offensively and defensively. Big, long contracts can absolutely work out for the right players: Arod, Scherzer, Votto, Miguel Carbera's 1st deal.

People who don't know baseball just conflate every big contract together and think guys like Machado, Harper, Mookie are on the same level but they aren't even in the same conversation. Mookie is truly special. He literally doubled Harper's WAR over the last 4 seasons. If you look at the WAR leaderboard over the last 5 seasons it goes like this:

Trout: 44.2
Mookie: 35.4
Bryant: 27.8

A 5 tool player with that pedigree and being 28 to start the contract is exactly the guy you want to throw all your money at.

I watch the Red Sox every day and JD, Rafael , and Xander are way more exciting.
This WAR is great though. There will be a bidding war(no pun intended) for him.
Red Sox should get a great haul.
See we will have Dodgers, Braves, Mets, Cubs and many more bidding for Mookie.

[MRSPORTSCARD]

I repeat the Red Sox traded Nomar and Manny.
These owners don't sit and that`s why no one in baseball has got 4 WS since they were owners.
I am guessing they trade Mookie before Christmas.

[MRSPORTSCARD]

Originally Posted by pewe

Basketball is a much more individual sport, where one star player makes an outsized difference. It is easy to run the calculus as an owner on what the ROI is for your situation, and be willing to pay 2x what another city would.

Baseball is probably the most extreme opposite of basketball, where the best player in the entire sport in any year is only worth about 10% more wins to an average team than replacing them with a bench player / "AAAA" player.

So, yes, if you are an owner, it is very hard to convince yourself to pay 150% of the market value for a player, or ~$40MM, when you can pay the league minimum $0.5MM and get a player who will only make your team at most ~10% worse (and that assumed they were the best... losing Betts for a Minor League replacement player this year? the team would be predicted to lose ~8% fewer games). Yikes!

Once again a great post. I think you and I are going to be great friends going forward.
Are you a Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics fan like me?

[MRSPORTSCARD]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

i pick Mantle

I pick Jackie Robinson.

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by pewe

Btw additional support for you...

Reasons someone like Betts might be a safer long term bet? He’s more of a finesse, high contact rate, low k% type, solid bb% vs some of those others.

Fangraphs has some nice analysis on size / power and the speed of degradation (and injury) those players generally see.

Yes exactly. I know all about the aging curves that especially favor his type of profile, but that level of analysis goes way over the head of most on here

To be clear here... I totally agree that Betts would be amazing to keep if he’d settle for a Harper 10 years for $260mm type contract.

Mookie is likely to be worth 260 in the first five years. It's ok to pay a guy $40 million for the older seasons on the back end when they were giving you so much surplus value on the front end. He is literally the safest guy besides Mike Trout to give a long term deal to. Zero injury history, zero attitude issues.

Mookie with an extra 1.5 war/year the last 5 seasons is literally Trout. And in actuality the gap is smaller because Mookie should be a CF like Trout for the positional adjustment

Don't let your ownership off the hook. They can afford it. What is the point of having the Red Sox checkbook if you won't spend for Mookie f'in Betts. They also have only $126 million committed in 2021

[vwnut13]

Originally Posted by MRSPORTSCARD

I think the name Mookie might add to his popularity. If he was called Steve Betts or Ron Betts he might not be as popular.

What about Markus Betts?

[MRSPORTSCARD]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Yes exactly. I know all about the aging curves that especially favor his type of profile, but that level of analysis goes way over the head of most on here



Mookie is likely to be worth 260 in the first five years. It's ok to pay a guy $40 million for the older seasons on the back end when they were giving you so much surplus value on the front end. He is literally the safest guy besides Mike Trout to give a long term deal to. Zero injury history, zero attitude issues.

Mookie with an extra 1.5 war/year the last 5 seasons is literally Trout. And in actuality the gap is smaller because Mookie should be a CF like Trout for the positional adjustment

Don't let your ownership off the hook. They can afford it. What is the point of having the Red Sox checkbook if you won't spend for Mookie f'in Betts. They also have only $126 million committed in 2021

They won 84 games this season with the great WAR Mookie Betts. Time to go.

[baseballguy350]

Originally Posted by MRSPORTSCARD

I am a diehard Red Sox fan. I saw all their 4 championships this century. Mookie is good but you are really overrating him. He is not a game changer.
Give me
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Pedro Martinez

This is a moot point. In 2020 give me Mookie Betts in Right Field.

🗣HOW DOES TRADING MOOKIE BETTS HELP THE RED SOX WIN IN 2020?

[baseballguy350]

Originally Posted by pewe

Those type of contracts have really put the Angels in a tough spot.

I was checking the Red Sox payroll, just to see how bad it is... and found that we are still paying Manny Ramirez! Think $2MM a year for him goes against the cap. Wow!

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/boston-red-sox/payroll/

The Sox are still paying manny, but just like the most famous case (Bonilla and the Mets, and soon Scherzer and the Nationals - 7 @ 15 per), deferred payments do not count against the teams luxury tax calculations.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by baseballguy350

The Sox are still paying manny, but just like the most famous case (Bonilla and the Mets, and soon Scherzer and the Nationals - 7 @ 15 per), deferred payments do not count against the teams luxury tax calculations.

The don’t count?!? Sounds like a nice loophole

Red Sox: we found a way!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by MRSPORTSCARD

Once again a great post. I think you and I are going to be great friends going forward.

Are you a Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics fan like me?

Haha! My wife would divorce me if I didn’t answer “YES!!!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlzinck]

All this bickering over someone, who in 1 year, will not be with the team.
Mookie wants top dollar, good for him.

He will not be a member in 2020 of the Boston Red Sox.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

All this bickering over someone, who in 1 year, will not be with the team.

Mookie wants top dollar, good for him.



He will not be a member in 2020 of the Boston Red Sox.

What’s your call on destination? Contract size???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by pewe

What’s your call on destination? Contract size???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atlanta. 7 or 8 @35-37 a year

[pewe]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Atlanta. 7 or 8 @35-37 a year

Not the 10-12 years others are doing? At lower per year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[baseballguy350]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

Atlanta. 7 or 8 @35-37 a year

I think the Red Sox are going to sign Acuna this offseason for 10 years at 40. It's just as plausible as Mookie signing with Atlanta right now.

[baseballguy350]

Can we please put a sticky on this thread somewhere that reads:

Mookie Betts is not on the open market in the 2019-2020 offseason.
Mookie Betts is not currently a free agent.
Mookie Betts can not sign a massive contract with anyone except the Red Sox currently.
Mookie Betts is a free agent on approximately November 1, 2020.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by baseballguy350

I think the Red Sox are going to sign Acuna this offseason for 10 years at 40. It's just as plausible as Mookie signing with Atlanta right now.

Straight up trade?!? I like your thought process!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by baseballguy350

Can we please put a sticky on this thread somewhere that reads:



Mookie Betts is not on the open market in the 2019-2020 offseason.

Mookie Betts is not currently a free agent.

Mookie Betts can not sign a massive contract with anyone except the Red Sox currently.

Mookie Betts is a free agent on approximately November 1, 2020.

Shhhh! Don’t let facts get in the way of the day dream


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[baseballguy350]

I think there is a serious over-valuing of what Mookie would bring back in a trade NOW vs. June 2020.

If I'm Chaim Bloom I am seeking permission from the ownership group that made $80 mil on profit to keep the payroll up as high as it is currently for the beginning of 2020. If at the trade deadline you find yourself out of a race, you can ship out Mookie for whatever package you can get.


I can't see how any reasonable baseball fan couldn't asses the value difference in a trade package for Mookie. The risk management of carrying Betts on the roster to see if the team is a legit playoff contender for 3 months and trading at the deadline if it is not likely to make a playoff run is worth way more to the Red Sox than shipping him out this offseason for a pure financial reason.

I'll ask it quietly this time: Is the 2020 alliteration of the Red Sox better without Mookie Betts?

Is the package you could get for Mookie now worth more than what you could get up against the trade deadline? Yes. Is that value worth 3 months of not having Betts and going for it again? No.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by baseballguy350

I think there is a serious over-valuing of what Mookie would bring back in a trade NOW vs. June 2020.

If I'm Chaim Bloom I am seeking permission from the ownership group that made $80 mil on profit to keep the payroll up as high as it is currently for the beginning of 2020. If at the trade deadline you find yourself out of a race, you can ship out Mookie for whatever package you can get.


I can't see how any reasonable baseball fan couldn't asses the value difference in a trade package for Mookie. The risk management of carrying Betts on the roster to see if the team is a legit playoff contender for 3 months and trading at the deadline if it is not likely to make a playoff run is worth way more to the Red Sox than shipping him out this offseason for a pure financial reason.

I'll ask it quietly this time: Is the 2020 alliteration of the Red Sox better without Mookie Betts?

Is the package you could get for Mookie now worth more than what you could get up against the trade deadline? Yes. Is that value worth 3 months of not having Betts and going for it again? No.

If they are serious about getting under the cap, they’d need to do more than just Betts, anyway. Some writers talking about even more extreme moves / packages.

No one likely to give Betts trade any value UNLESS, the Red Sox actually get a credible offer on the table that other teams believe Betts would take. Then they would need to fight to be an alternative.

I predict, at minimum, the Red Sox will get a real offer worked this off-season. Even if it is just because they plan to move him.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk