In the midst of a run of extensions around the game — in particular, yesterday’s $360MM Mike Trout agreement — Red Sox star Mookie Betts faced another round of questions about his future in Boston from reporters including Jason Mastrodonato of the Boston Herald (links to Twitter). While he again expressed that he’s fond of the organization, Betts left little doubt that he’s not moving off of his price point for his post-arbitration years.
Betts acknowledged having received prior offers from the Red Sox. To this point, they simply haven’t met his understandably lofty self-valuation. It was reported yesterday that the team dangled $200MM in advance of the 2018 season. That was a hefty offer under the circumstances, but Betts has little cause to regret turning it down. He went on to turn in a hugely productive season and take home American League MVP honors, setting himself up for a record-setting run through arbitration and untold riches thereafter.
When asked whether he expects to open the present season without a long-term deal, Betts responded:
“That’s exactly what I expect. Didn’t expect anything to happen until I’m a free agent.”
It certainly doesn’t sound as if there’s much cause for optimism for a deal to come together before Betts hits the open market after the 2020 season. While nothing can be ruled out, as the 26-year-old hasn’t indicated that he’s altogether opposed to listening to offers, he’ll evidently demand that the Red Sox put quite a bit more money on the table than they have to this point.
Betts offered another hint about his own views on his value and how he intends to pursue a contract that matches it. While he called some of the recent extensions “great deals” for the players involved, he also noted that “some of them could’ve gotten more.”
Shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up
Well I don’t think he’s said anything outrageous actually. But there is an unappealing air of entitlement similar to what we’ve seen from other players; and in this market that could make the player look silly.
The difference being Mookie is easily the best player in baseball right now not named Trout. He actually deserves Harper/Machado money.
He’s getting more than Harper. He’ll probably easily surpass 350 in my opinion.
Let him walk. He’s obviously at the top of his game right now. He’s not going to hit more homeruns, he’s not going to steal more bases as he gets older, but he probably will keep his average up as he becomes more skilled over the years as a hitter until he’s about 35. For 300 million I would let him walk.
They’re not going to “let him walk”. That’s insane. If he wants to hold out for FA, you trade him for a very nice package guaranteed and can still outbid the field when he hits the market.
Gary, that is correct.
Right, because replacing him is gonna be so easy and cheap…
How the Red Sox are setup they will either have a lot of $$ available with open roster spots to Target other FAs or they will have to trade a few controllable assets to “restock” the roster or both.
In a few years the RedSox will be looking like a different team regardless.
Given a budget of $30M per, he can largely be replaced.
This is the sad truth that most fans don’t want to hear. There’s no room for the Red Sox with so much surrounding talent to commit 10+ years and 350+ million to one player. Doing so would hamstring them horribly.
The inevitable end here is after 2019, the Sox will coup about 2-3 comp picks with free agents, realize they can’t make 1 or 2 moves to keep up with the Yankees in 2020, trade Mookie for an absolute haul prior to or during the 2020 season and complete a fast rebuild. The extension talks the Sox knew going in weren’t going anywhere. It’s just to save face with the fans and say we tried. On the positive side of things, between the draft picks, devers, benintendi, price and maybe a jd martinez or chris sale extension, the Sox should be able to complete a very quick rebuild not unlike their rivals to the South.
Mookie will be the Mike Trout trade that never came to be. 3-4 top prospects + more.
Trade him rather than try to win the World Series with him… genius strategy.
Do you realize how low the Red Sox comp picks will be?
The Red Sox could have 2 30+ million a year players, a good supporting cast, and money left over for mid-season trades. And if the team makes the playoff, still bank 9 figures in profit.
It’s the freakin’ Red Sox, they can all but literally print money. If you think giving Mookie his extension will hamstring them, you’re not living in this decade.
He deserves what Trout got. If Mike Trout never played another game, his output RIGHT NOW would cover everything he’ll make with 130M to spare.
The Red Sox have won the World Series 4 out of the last 15 years. Who else has been that good since 2004? Nobody.
that’s exactly what I would do. I love Mookie, but he wont sign for less than Harper money. He will want/should get slightly less than Trout.
2020 won’t be the last year that the WS is played. All any team can is to try the set up the best team possible for as long as possible. If that means trading Betts after this season, so be it. Too many fans, especially RS fans, can’t see beyond one year.
BA & TO made horrendous mistakes not trading Machado & Donaldson, and probably the rest of the team, prior to 2018. The WS is a crap shoot in the best of circumstances. If, and it is a big IF, we receive a really good offer, and we don’t think we can sign him, I see no problem trading him.
Not anymore
Air of entitlement? The only truly unappealing air of entitlement in baseball comes from owners like Hendry who says the team is out of money and feels more entitled to his bottom line than the fans or the city. Baseball is such a beautifully, ugly microcosm of capitalism. “Do the thing that makes the most money until you’ve pushed too far and then make minor concessions to keep the peace.”
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t adhere to a “spend money just because you have it” philosophy and I enjoy how the game has become more intelligent financially, but there are structures in place that are creating a feast or famine compensation model with a dying middle class and an enormously underpaid minor league system. Doing the “right thing” consistently takes a back seat to profits.
Maybe you see a player attempting to maximize his earnings as entitled, but the reality is he has been paid below his worth for years already. Players careers are being manipulated to ensure they remain underpaid as long as possible. We as fans tend to look at the team side of things and say “great we got a good deal to keep player x around under his market value.” The twisted flip side is that the player is giving up potential earnings in that scenario which can harm negotiations for similar players in the future.
One may say a player does this for the good of the team, but would you do this for a large corporate employer? Would you take less in your job so your employer “could afford to hire more workers” when the reality is they can afford it, they just prefer to underpay you to carry more of the load?
Averagejoe I can appreciate some of what you put forth. However, there is not some set amount that players should ethically be allotted.
I find what’s happening right now via the players to be one of the best elements of capitalism—a market correction. Owners have gone with the wishes and demands of players and their salaries for a long time—and watched them repeatedly underperform. That, thankfully and predictably, is changing—in no small part because of the scientific data now available. Owners will no longer pay for proven underperformance via long contracts.
I think you make good points re the shrinking middle class in the game, as well as an underpaid minor league system. (The Blue Jays have, of their own accord, set out to impact this. I imagine some others will feel some impetus to follow.) I think perhaps the issue that comes out of this is the years that a player has to wait before free agency. It seems as though they are getting underpaid, relatively speaking, for their best years.
So, I’m opposed to mandating owners to pay for the garbage that an endless list of overhyped free agent signings have turned in; but I rather like the idea of compensating those guys, like Betts, who turn in solid seasons before free agency hits. Something more incentive-laden before they hit free agency?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
100% spot on, average joe. You absolutely nailed it. Everyone should read this comment.
dimitrios —
And while “market corrections” can occur, the question remains, is this a big picture collusive effort to dampen free agent worth by singling out some bad signings to excuse/encourage under-market signings? (< — I vote that). Or is this simply that invisible hand (which is God in the land of economics) parting the seas and setting the market straight? Or could it be a little of both?
I think we are being actively programmed (you can take that word as delicately or as nefariously as you wish) to side with the upper-level capitalists into believing that they are the victims and are finally pushing back and that the religion of market forces eventually prevails.
Thanks Comrade averagejoe15 , but there’s nothing ugly about capitalism to non-deadbeats.
You’d be amazed the impact your suggestion would have on improving the free agent market. It’s remarkable. It happened in my simulator OOTP and what year after year had been a relatively frugal free agent market became a players dream system. You couldn’t do this cheaping out pre-arb system teams are doing now because you’d have a 2 year window instead of 3. It forces teams to build depth in free agency rather than the minors.
It’s the only way to fix the system. Spot on.
In my opinion, even as a Yankees fan, Mookie is the best player in the game when you factor in offense, defense, leadership, and marketability
Trout is better.
And it’s not even close
Probably #2, but Trout is a clear #1.
One could argue Lindor and Betts share #2, and, you could argue Frankie plays a more demanding position. Betts is a beast tho
Mookie was far better than Lindor last season.
Right now, maybe—but do we project him to be that consistently, year after year. I certainly don’t.
Betts has had two MVP quality seasons to date. I believe Harper has had just one.
You’re not serious? Trout’s has only one?
he said Harper…not Trout
Yes, I was comparing him to only Harper.
The best????? Stop! Trout is and has been the best and honestly it’s not very close. Betts is the next guy but I can’t help but wonder if Betts isn’t a product of Fenway somewhat. I think he’s a superstar anywhere he plays like Trout but if Betts were on the Royals or a NL team like the Padres is he a stud like he is on Boston? Trout definitely is! Saying that I think Betts, Arenado, Harper are that next level. Judge eventually could be and possibly already is but still needs to prove it this season.
Ever SEEN Fenway’s RF? Among the toughest if not the toughest to play defensively.
This is also why JD Drew and Trot Nixion were so under-appreciated. After each left, it took years to find an adequate defensive replacement.
RF in San Francisco says hello.
What about my “namesake”? Betts has JBJ in center. While Evans had Lynn and other quality CFs, no one to match JBJ. Evans was at least as good as Betts in right. What makes Betts amazing though is he came up as a 2Bman and anyone who saw his rookie season, he could win a gold glove in center if he played there fulltime.
People are not reading that last word which gives Mookie the edge. Trout is not marketable. Full stop. Dude is boring AF. He is an other worldly talent, but the marketability of a wet napkin.
Major fail. See Bounty, “the quicker picker upper.”
Mini Fail: Its “The quilted, quicker, picker, upper”
Wrong. Fail. Google it.
Northern is quilted. Bounty is not. It is just a well marketed wet napkin.
Now we could start discussing Wet Naps? Wonder what Nap is short for?
Or we can have Mr. Whipple talk about squeezable Charmin, or???
All of this is just an ancient chinese secret.
Yes please continue this tangential argument. It’s extremely entertaining.
Sorry but Viva to me us the best and in reality that’s what matters.
Not in Orange County. He’s perfect there.
Boring is subjective. What folks find entertaining varies. Elite level ball playing is always going to be exciting for me…all of the marketing claptrap just noise, in the end. See Ball, Lonzo. Hyped to the stratosphere, and is a good not great facilitator, but can’t shoot.
Marketability is geographically subjective for some players. Trout is more marketable in Philly due to his childhood in southern nj. However marketability as a whole is not subjective. There’s no doubt Betts is a more marketable player then Trout.
Not saying as a fan you’d be happier to have Betts then Trout. I’m just saying he’s a more marketable ballplayer. He doesn’t give the Bill Belichick non response responses Trout does. He will entertain.
Not sure what you mean by marketability, but Trout sells more jerseys and earns more in endorsements than Betts.
mlbplayers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=34000�…
not sure about this. Trouts jerseys are not even top 10 in sales
I agree 100%. Trouts the better ballplayer top to bottom. Can’t argue he has more power and is Betts equal in every other category. But Trout has never been Harper or Betts or the “Judge”. He’s more like Stanton. He’s going to quietly do his job, which makes him tough to market. I think if you put them head to head in free agency there’s a chance there’s a larger demand for Betts then Trout to teams like the Yankees and Dodgers due to his marketability.
WAR takes into account offense and defense and Trout has been a little bit better (27.3 vs 27.0 WAR or 26.4 vs 24.0 if you prefer fWAR) and plays a more important position. Not sure what you mean by marketability, but Trout sells more jerseys and earns more in endorsements than Betts.
If he is looking for Trout money and years, there is zero incentive for Boston to work out a deal before he’s a FA; you control him for two years with zero commitment so what would the point be in doing it now?
Sorry, but totally disagree with you here. If they lock him up with Trout money now, there is no way they get outbid for his services when he’s a FA. I could see some teams throwing stupid money at him.
That’s fine, but if he doesn’t sign an extension next winter, trade his azz!
I think knowing what your expenses are well in advance is a rather important incentive for the club. For the player the incentive is not having to answer questions about it every day, that and the $$$
Trout took a discount. He could easily have justified asking for $50M per. Mookie will be a year younger than Trout when he hits free agency. He’s already making big $ going year to year. Why not hold his cards? Maybe 10/$400M after these last two years?
There’s a limit to what teams will be able to pay. Trout might have been able to make it $400M instead of $360M, but who are the players in that market? Maybe 5-10 teams. The other teams are completely out of the negotiation. If there’s only a couple teams at the table, it’s awfully hard to get a bidding war.
It sure seemed to work for Harper/Machado…
Both players got the money but not their first or second choice in the team. Tying up bro much money impacts a team from signing others. Look at Kimbrel. Yes his original numbers were excessive but he would have had offers if certain teams weren’t maxed out. I still say reward teams re-signing their own. 50% of years 5 and onward counts against the tax threshold. Players get their money, teams get a benefit for developing talent and the fan base gets to continue to root for their own. At the same time, have arb for just one year and allow free agency after 4 years.
Not their first choice in team? I mean it’s likely true, but that’s assuming a lot. No one knows what team these guys wanted to go to and everyone just assumes based on some gossip on twitter or whatnot.
Pretty sure both Machado and Harper are very happy and didn’t really have a preference for a team as much as for a good deal.
dont agree with this. Philly was NOT Harper’s first choice as reported on this site earlier in the winter. not saying that’s fact, but let’s be real. IMO Harper wanted to play closer to his home and would have taken a comparable offer from LAD over PHI if one had come through.
Californian teams have to pay a 20% higher amount due to the high state income tax. It was one of the reason’s Harper’s agent said the Giant’s offer wasn’t really in the running.
Link please to where Scott Boras said that, because I don’t remember seeing anything like that.
Did you just make that up?
No, they don’t. California is not even the state with the highest tax burden. Among states with MLB teams, California ranks 4th. wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-b…
And players pay state and local taxes based on where they play their games, not where they live.
That is because Boras didn’t say that.
I worked on an analysis years ago calculating the effective tax rate based on which team you played for, and California was the highest. Particularly the NL teams.
What you’re failing to consider in Wallet Hub’s ranking is the income level we are talking about. Simply, NY State has a top rate of 8.82% for income greater than $1,077,550. California’s top rate is 12.3% and kicks in at $572,981.. PA has a flat tax rate of 3.07%
And unlike playing in NY where you would only play roughly 85 games in NY, playing for Giants would have you playing at least 101 games in CA (and that’s before accounting for any games vs. Angels.
So for a $35M salary, State income taxes would be (ignoring City income taxes, let alone property taxes):
PA: $537,250
NY: $1,516,478
CA: $2,669,202 (playing for Giants, Dodgers or Padres). Slightly less for Angels given that there are only 2 AL CA teams.
The work has already been done for you and your numbers are wrong.
NY state is the highest tax burden. Both Illinois and Minnesota are higher than California’s tax burden.
Even if you sort just for effective income tax rate California is only the 4th highest. People act like people making $1+++ million per year do not have accountants and many, many tax deductions.
I live in California and am in the same tax bracket as players and my effective tax rate was just 1.75%
You’re right, the work has been done. Kiplinger looked at Harper and Machado contracts, along with all other teams, and determined that from an income tax perspective California is the worse.
The biggest mistake you are making is confusing tax bracket with effective tax rate.
California’s top tax bracket may be 12.3% but no one in that tax bracket pays an effective tax rate of 12.3% or anything close to it because of pre-income adjustments and deductions. As I said in my other post, I paid an effective income tax rate of 1.75% even though my 7 figure income falls in the highest tax bracket. I make less than 5% of Trout’s income, but it’s still enough to put me in the top tax bracket.
In PA everyone pays that flat tax rate. There are no deductions or adjustments. If I lived or played most of my games in PA I would have paid a higher percentage of my income in taxes than I do in California.
Same goes for Illinois with their 4.75% flat tax with no deductions or adjustments. My effective tax rate would have more than doubled there.
In NY the deductions available are limited and the effective tax rate for the 8.82% bracket is 7.55% according to their Secretary of State.
So it’s not just about what tax bracket the players are in, it is what is the effective tax rate they will pay after adjustments and deductions.
California is not the highest.
@tfranco Braack. Wrong answer, but thanks for playing. Good try. The Kiplinger article in January compared the taxes if they paid 100% of the income tax in their tax bracket, not the effective tax rates for people that are in that tax bracket. See my post about tax brackets vs effective tax rates.
When you look at the total tax revenue from the top tax bracket vs the total income from the top tax bracket in California you see that the effective tax rate is less than 3%.
Guys working for minimum wage never understand the difference. But it is good that you can still use Google.
No, I’m well aware of the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. (Rates pulled from Tax Foundation). If a player has a $35M salary, lets just assume they only play 81 games in that state. As I mentioned before if you’re on a NL team in California you will actually play 100-105 games in-state.
California
$0-$8,544 @ 1.0% = $85
$8,544-$20,255 @ 2.0% = .$234
$20,255-$31,969 @ 4.0% = $469
$31,969-$44,377 @ 6.0% = $744
$44,377-$56,085 @ 8.0% = $937
$56,085-$286,492 @ 9.3% = $21,428
$286,492-$343,788 @ 10.3% = $5,901
$343,788-$572,980 @ 11.3% = $25,899
$572,980-$1,000,000 @ 12.3% = $52,523
$1,000,000-$17.5M @ 13.3%= $2,194,500
Total taxes $2,302,721 which equates to 13.16% EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.
NY: $1,497,025 or 8.55%
IL: $866,250 or 4.95%
MN: $1,716,589 or 9.81%
PA: $866,250 or 4.95%
So again, CA represents the worst location. This doesn’t include any deductions. So, please explain where my numbers are off. Yes, yes, I know you earn 7 figures and have an effective rate under 2%.
You are missing the point entirely. When I filed my 2018 taxes, I paid an EFFECTIVE California income tax rate of 1.75% after adjustments and deductions. You can be reasonably well assured that since in 2018 he made almost exactly 20 times what I did, Trout can afford and has a better tax attorney and CPA than I do. He is not and will not be paying 13.3% or 12.3% or even 3%.
You cannot tell what his pre-income adjustments or his deductions are so you cannot say what his EFFECTIVE tax rate is. All you can talk about is the marginal tax rate in his tax bracket is.
In Illinois he will pay 4.75% PERIOD. It’s a flat tax.
In Pennsylvania he will pay 3.07% PERIOD. It’s a flat tax.
In New York he will pay around 7.5% because there are very few deductions and no pre-income adjustments.
In California he will pay anywhere from ZERO to 12.3% plus 1% for everything over $1 million. The AVERAGE in that tax bracket is less than 3%. I paid 1.75%. The only way Trout pays more is if he has a bad tax attorney and CPA. Interestingly enough, the higher the income, the lower the EFFECTIVE tax rate in California. Why? They have better people working for them to minimize taxes.
So please pull your head out. It’s obvious that you have the skill to search on Google but have no concept of what actually goes on when you have a decent income. If you ever get in my tax bracket, come back and we’ll talk about it.
How the Red Sox are setup they will either have a lot of $$ available with open roster spots to Target other FAs or they will have to trade a few controllable assets to “restock” the roster or both.
In a few years the RedSox will be looking like a different team regardless.
Trout is going into his age 27 season in 2019. Mookie will be going into his age 28 season when he is a FA.
Trout may have made a little more in AAV if he waited until he was a free agent ($37-38mm AAV instead of $36mm?), but now he is guaranteed $430 million over the next 12 years. That is $100 million more than the next biggest deal. More than 20% more than anyone else in baseball will make.
$200M though! The epitome of betting on one self to replicate season after season. One hit-by-pitch, one missed bag, one diving catch and one torn ligament and it’s all gone. I’m nervous just thinking about it…
He can always become a bowler if it doesn’t workout bc they are so popular and make so much money
*LeVeon Mode*
Then trade him
Trout likes it where he is.
Betts has a right to do what he thinks is best for himself.
Hendry does not want to pay that higher luxury tax penalty.
RedSox are already up there with the tax & it will be interesting to see what the RedSox will do in a year or two.
Let him go.
There’s no “I” in “team” as the say. I wish him well while he’s here, and I hope his greed (VERY similar to another ex-sox OF named ellsbury) is met with similar professional fortunes.
I’ll take a bogey, benny, and Jackie for the same money as a mookie any day of the week
Bogey and Benny are going to want their money, too
Agreed, but not 40-45 per which is what mookie’s hinted at.
With benny, you need to act fast to get affordable on an aav. Renewals plus arb years you project out. I don’t know this year, what’s he at, 800k? 1mm? I know last year was 620k.
So say benny pictures himself a 25m/yr talent in FA (aim high kid). Let’s buy 4 of those years at 25 (100), add maybe 18-arb3, 12-arb2, and 6-arb1 (36m). If you could’ve inked a 7yr, 136m deal with an aav of about 19.5, instead of a aav of 25m, is it worth it? Throw in a hometown discount, make it 126 including a signing bonus for some up front cash and you’re down to 18aav… but not an unreasonable contract for the youngster either.
Because they’re not the consensus second best player in baseball.
Honestly, those other players you mention are probably cheering him on. The more he gets, the more they can ask for when it’s their turn.
Things a lot of fans define as ‘selfish’ are viewed very differently in the actual club house.
But think about the purpose of that clubhouse – what they think or feel doesn’t matter.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE FANS.
These guys don’t build cars or make anything. They have one and only one purpose. To entertain the fans. Without the fans, there is no baseball, no jobs, and no paychecks.
So yes, they would do well to care more about what fans think or how fans receive things instead of only and exclusively what they want.
You’ll watch the games regardless of what the players are making, so long as it’s entertaining.
So really that makes what you feel about it irrelavent. If you like baseball, you’ll watch the best players because they give you the best product.
There is no “I” in “Team” but there is a “ME”
Where are the Phillies fans at? I expect a full report on Mookie being the next Philly addition! Lmao
They’re probably still salty Boston wouldn’t give Mookie up for Cole Hamels, lol.
Possibility, but their offense should be set with what is at the current mlb level and in the farm system. I’ll take Sale off your hands though! That is what the Phillies need, Improving their SR. Betts is very nice, but the Phillies already have Harper, McCuthen and Herrera3 Allstars and 2 MVPs. with Quinn,Haselely, Moniak, and Cozens on the way. Plus Bohm may get moved to the OF.
Investing 35mil+ into Mookie sounds like a bad betts… it would depend on the years, but even still, he’s not Trout level money or consistency. pass at his asking rate.
The Braves fans are standing in front of them obstructing their view
Mookie is loving the opportunity to talk about this subject. He’s calling out the Red Sox and getting a chance to let everyone know he thinks he should be the highest paid player in baseball without having to bring it up on his own.
I hope they let him walk. If you could keep Martinez, Sale and Bogey at the cost it will take to extend Mookie than I’d rather invest in three players than invest a lot in one player who has at times disappeared during the post season, faded at the end of the season, as well as the associated risk of injury and decline.
“If you could keep Martinez, Sale and Bogey at the cost it will take to extend Mookie”
Let me stop you right there. You can’t.
Well, maybe a 2nd extension in their late 30s….
If Betts thinks he can get $400 million right now as they are asserting, then you probably can get Martinez, Sale, and Boegarts for that kind of money.
Martinez probably doesn’t opt out at 31 years old, but if he does he won’t get more than 5/120-125 because he is mainly a DH at this point.
Boegarts gets something like 6/90-96. He is earning $12 million this season, so a $3-4 million AAV raise is a typical percentage for FA contracts.
Sale won’t get more than 6 years at age 31. Even if he gets $32 million AAV that’s $192 million.
That adds up to right around $400 million.
If Betts got $400M it would be over 12 or more seasons. So $400 may equal 400 but youre saying for 3 guys for 4-6 years. Mookies AAV wouldnt equal those 3 per season and youd have to spend the next 6-8 years to replace them. Just an apples to oranges comparison.
They are currently talking 7/245 with sale that’s 35m per year. So you see JD opting out and taking 2.5 per year and bogey taking the other 2.5. Good luck with that.
Math is not your strong point. 400-245 = 165 or $33 million AAV over the next 5 years or $16.5 million AAV if you split it evenly, not 2.5.
Sale is rumored to be asking for 7/215. How many 31 year old free agents got what they were asking for in either years or AAV this offseason? How about the year before? None you say? Ok then.
Nearly everyone is saying a deal between Strasburg’s 6/$175 million and Scherzer’s 7/$210 million is what he is going to get.
If you think this year is the new normal for free agency, you’re in for a rude awakening. If baseball wants to avoid a strike, they need to increase the luxury tax threshold by 25 percent minimum.
NO way Martinez isn’t going to opt out and it will cost lots of years and BIG money to re-sign him….and Bogey is going to push them to the limit also and probably going free agent.
And as far as Sale is going to give the Sox a hometown discount….singing Sweet Caroline in the 7th isn’t going to get him to take a penny less than what he thinks he’s worth….well its always about the money with athletes so I doubt that’s going to happen…..he has no ties got Beantown except in Sox fans minds!
If John Henry thinks his payroll is big now….he better get ready to dig a lot deeper unless he lets a couple of guys walk.
Martinez is a DH now. He is not getting “big money” unless you think 5/125 or $25 million per season is big money. That would make him the highest paid DH in MLB history by $5 million per season.
He will also be going into his age 32 season in 2020. Because of his age, he is not getting lots of years. Most likely he will get a 2 year extension for $50 million on top of his current deal before he opts out.
See above for Sale. He is asking for 7/215 and 31 year old players are not getting what they are asking for today.
Players today are getting what the market will pay them….and there will be club players for Martinez at more than what Martinez is currently being paid. (see the market for Trout, Harper Machado which will pull up the value of everybody). He will OPT out for sure to re-set his value.
Sale will not sign for anything less than ACE money at the top of the ACE list. No Hometown discounts for this guy!
Mookie gonna move out west to roam the Angels outfield with Trout and Adell. Imagine that outfield.
(Yes that’s a lot of money for 2 players and highly unlikely. Simply imagine.)
If you think I’m not going to call Mookie Betts every day, you’re crazy
I don’t have any problem with Betts trying to get the absolute most he can. He doesn’t owe anybody anything at this point. His comments aren’t going to be very popular the way they’re worded, though.
I also think Betts is a bit naive when he talks about other players leaving money on the table. I don’t think there is any team in baseball who will add a long term $40M+ to their payroll for a single player. Harper and Machado clearly pushed the market for all it was worth and there wasn’t any more out there. Trout is far and above them right now, but that doesn’t mean teams have unlimited payroll or that any team with Trout is guaranteed a playoff position.
He wasn’t referring to Harper/Machado. He was talking about all the recent extensions.
Has anyone perhaps considered that Mookie Betts would like to explore the market because he sees himself playing outside of Boston in the next few years?
Wonder what kind of return the Red Sox could get for Mookie after the 2019 season? Think of the players you could sign for $40M a year to replace him with. Don’t be the Nationals and get nothing.
Hes smart. Cant believe some of these players are signing discount extensions giving up valuable FA years.
Betts said “great deal” was reffereing to bregman, shocked he got that much…”couldve got more” was refferring to arenado and trout.
Ask Felix Hernandez what he got for his team discount signing his extension!! He got 45+ losses in starts where he gave up just 1 R or less but I digress….. nobody cares about Seattle haha
I’d be hesitant to lock Mookie up for 10 years at Trout money. While he is clearly the 2nd best player in MLB now, he’s a rather small guy and judging by history, smaller guys do not retain their power stroke into their mid 30’s (see Andrew McCutchen as a recent example). While I’m sure he’ll still be able to hit 40+ doubles as a 33 or 34 year old, he won’t be stealing 30+ bases then and will have slowed down some in the outfield too. HRs may max out at 15-20 as well. Do you really want to have $100M+ remaining on a contract for a guy like this? As a Sox fan, I adore Mookie, but the wise thing to do here would be to either sign him to a 5 year, $200M deal or let him walk if he wants 10+ years at Trout money.
He is 100% entitled to ask for as much as he feels he is worth, whether that comes from Boston or elsewhere.
The Red Sox (and all the other teams) are 100% entitled to make their own valuation of him and pay him (or not pay him) accordingly.
Life’s full of choices.
Boras isn’t going to let him sign anywhere until he parades him around the country to start up a bidding war.
Remember when players played for the love of the game?
Remember when you could get into the ball park for a nickel?
Righto, those were the days.
Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!
And you knew where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn’t need no welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!
RUHH OH (Scooby-Doo voice)
I think an extension happens In the end,,… unless he is s boras client
Boras isn’t his agent.
That’s good for Sox fans
Could have gotten more bothers me. Why state it even if it were true? Sox should ignore him until he puts a formal demand out there and try to make a decision on Sale, Porcello and Boegarts, try to tie up Benny and perhaps even Devers and see what JDM and JBJ’s positions are. Then try to map out a plan and pick off the low lying fruit where you can. The Yankees and now Houston have done great jobs. Even if a player doesn’t pan out because of injuries or performance, with so many players involved, they just hopefully have a plan. It might be to let certain players go and take whatever compensation there is.
As a RedSox fan I have absolutely loved watching Mookie, and look forward to watching him for a couple more years. But as long as there is a de facto cap on mlb spending, then it would be a huge mistake to pay him Trout like money. You end up not being able to pay enough other good players around him. Let him walk! I’m ok with having had his best years, and someone else can pay for his declining years!
Seems to be a lot of hate-ing for a guy who, refreshingly, wants to bet on himself rather than hiding in the corner, and taking “security” money. In days past, we used to admire that quality.
Inflation is coming, maybe even Carter-like; no one doubts it. Why settle for 2019 dollars when 2021 dollars figure to be much larger?
Will the Sox miss Mookie? Less than you might think. They get a guy who obviously has high financial motivation to perform, and you get 2 years of it. When he leaves? Gonna hurt.
But somehow I think they’ll survive.
Players may have left money on the table, but perhaps that was done so teams would build around them as well. Even the richest teams have their limits and personally I rather leave some on the table instead of maxing out if it meant that I got to play on a winner instead of being the big contract on a team that would be lucky to win 70 games
Mookie’s a great player and deserves to get paid. But I always cringe when I see guys willing to wait it out to the very end in order to get a deal done and grab every last dollar. Professional sports are a fickle thing and it only takes one freak injury to really derail a career.
It wasn’t too long ago that I (and basically everyone for that matter) thought Mark Prior would end up with the richest contract in baseball history and well, look how that turned out.
That’s why I love what Trout did. Did he potentially leave a few bucks on the table? Maybe. But did he set himself for life? Certainly.
Just two years ago, Bautista was almost bragging that he wasn’t giving TO a home team discount, and now he virtually out of BB.
Yea yes yes yes yes yes yes
Yes, other players could have gotten more money. But with the luxury tax making a soft salary cap in baseball, every dollar of extra money that goes to one player is a one fewer dollar available to keep or add someone else.
Boston might have to let someone like Bogaerts leave to afford a maxed-out Betts deal. Is the extra money going to be worth it for Betts if the team is worse in the process?
He should keep in mind that David Ortiz never pushed to max out his dollars (later in his career he sought extra years for security, because he wanted to stay in Boston, but he didn’t push his salary), and I doubt Ortiz wishes he had additional millions. Meanwhile, Dustin Pedroia willingly did not push for money that he likely would have gotten, noting something along the lines that he was already filthy rich and had all the money he would need.
Once you hit $200M+, how much more is going to make an impact? But drawing an extra $100M+ from the team would definitely, 100% guaranteed make an impact on the quality of the team around you, and by extension your enjoyment of your everyday job.
Most of us would take every dollar we can get because we don’t have financial security, AND because getting paid more by our jobs won’t materially impact the quality of life we experience when on the job. That isn’t the case for high-level professional athletes. I don’t negatively judge Betts for this, but I’m curious as to his personal motivations for this. Maybe he has his eyes on playing for a particular, different team once FA comes, and he is just trying to be polite by not indicating that he is looking to move on? I can respect that.
Trout !! … I mean mookie to Phillies !!!
Mookie’s size is a partial reason to be concerned about long-term health / productivity. Look at this way. The following is the list of hitters with $200M+ contracts. Name is excluded but height & weight listed.
$432M – 6’2″ 235lbs
$330M – 6’3″ 220lbs
$325M – 6’6″ 245lbs
$300M – 6’3″ 215lbs
$275M – 6’3″ 230lbs
$260M – 6’2″ 215lbs
$248M – 6’4″ 249lbs
$240M – 6’3″ 235lbs
$240M – 6″0″ 210lbs
$225M – 6’2″ 220lbs
Betts – 5’9″ 180lbs
There are very few historical precedents for the success Betts has had at his size. McCutchen is one. Same exact size. From 25-27, he won 1 MVP, finished 3rd the other two times, and had 7.5+WAR each season. By 29 he was borderline replacement player. I know, Willie Mays was 5’10” 170-190lbs. Just some food for thought.
How about pedroia? ROY, MVP winner, 5-9 175#. Came up a 2b just like Mookie.
Ignore the recent issues caused by the dirty slide/knee issue but they both play hard/sacrifice the body, and play through minor scrapes
The point being, is even at his Pedroia never produced close to Betts level. And failed to sustain the production he did have.
Pedroia and altuve dice for so many balls because they are small in size. That tears up their knees over time
So do machado’s spikes.
His knees were worn down before machado even spiked him
Fascinating information thx!
So I guess Judge will make $500m?
You’re missing the point. How long can you reasonably expect a smaller player to sustain this level of production?
If he’s healthy? A long time.
180 is not small by normal human standards, so there’s no scientific justification to your theory
‘big’ guys can just as easily turn from ‘big’ to fat and see their production fall off a cliff.
tfranco, you are guilty of “size-ism”
The White Sox are already crafting their strategy on how they can finish second in the bidding for Mookie.
The Phillies have also expressed interest. “Moronic Money,” as they put it.
It certainly appears that Betts is going to rest the free agent market. Betts is a great player but I have serious concerns how he will age. If someone wants to sign the guy for 400 million he walks. I think Betts is going to try to wring every dollar he can out free agency and there is nothing wrong with that, but if Betts is trying to wring every dollar then John Henry and Co. have to look at it from a purely business side and know there is dollar amount they won’t go over. I hope Mookie stays a Red Sox but it appears more likely then not he won’t.
Exactly 1 year of great production in a stacked lineup and expects to be paid as much as trout, crazy…hes already shown that he is all about the money as oppossed to winning rings. Idk about you but id rather be underpaid my whole career and be viewed as a great value player than and albert pujols type player on an albatross
Check out 2016 stats. He dropped in 2017 but was still all star level, just not MVP. He has 4 full seasons and his per season averages over those 4 seasons are about a .300 average, 190 hits including 40+ doubles, 5 triples, 25 HRs, steals 20+ bases, scores 100+ runs, and drives in around 90. Add great base running and elite defense. No one year wonder.
Meh and what if he answered yes to that to question? It’s kind of a no win question so just saying no he doesn’t expect one makes more sense.
Commenters would be saying he seems entitled if he answered yes or something to that effect so meh.
Doesn’t seem like it’s gonna happen. With their window the way it is, it could very well make sense to trade him after this season (or even at the upcoming trade deadline if they’re somehow out of it) for a HAUL that can restock the system and then bid like everyone else in FA.
10 y 320 i think is his max contract and 8 year 240 atleast he will get
There seriously needs to be a cap on baseball contracts. I love them, but when does it become too much money? Someone is going to sign a billion dollar contract soon the way it’s going. Fans will pay $30 a beer and $1,000 each per game. Or families won’t go and baseball will only be a corporate outing sport or lottery/bleacher/standing room only market. Small markets won’t buy these contracts. Large markets will be handcuffed by luxury taxes/draft penalties. The players want to “set the bar” for other players then complain about Kimbrel and Keuchel not getting paid when they can’t afford them because of the contracts they still have. The players are actually hurting the mid level to good (but not great players). Well there is only so much room. Think the Red Sox don’t want Kimbrel? They can’t afford him without sacrificing the future. They spent awful money on Sandoval, Hanley & Castillo. They are terrified at the thought of Mookie (400M), Sale (250M), Bogaerts (200+M), & JD (100M) costing a billion for 4 players. When will the fans turn on the sport? How happy will they be when their billion dollar player turns into Dustin Pedroia/Pujols/Cabrera/Sandoval the last 6 years of the contract?
Small markets can, actually, afford these contracts. 3 of the 5 most expensive ones in history were given out by ‘small markets’.
And they’re not nearly as limiting as people think. After signing Albert Pujols the Angels still managed to drop big contracts on Hamilton and Wilson before they felt constrained.
The problem baseball has right now is too few teams willing to spend, not too much spending.
*gasp*
So let’s just pay each ballplayer $90k a year, no matter how good or bad they are. Every player will enter the MLB and allowed to play 12 years at 90k per year. Is that fair?
The rest of the trillions in revenue will be sent in cash to… Doug?
A splendid idear!!!
Slight difference between 90k/year and 35M. Half a billion dollars?? That’s insane. I can’t even wrap my brain around that much money. If you want to argue revenue, then add some value to the conversation. Raise the luxury tax, reduce service time, increase player minimums, pay higher wages in the minors. I can see an adult conversation there. What do you think is too much to play baseball per year? 50M? 40M? 30M? 100M? Maybe they can take their money and buy a team? Then they can pay billions out to players and it will be fair?
…but yes, please send any extra trillions to me Mr. Downvote.
I hear you Josh, n I’m so sick of the players wanting to each other. JD made Mookie better. Mookie was bad the yr before by Mookie standards. I give you he was lights out the beginning of the yr, the end, not so much. I think it’s horrible Mookie is mouthing off 2 yrs ahead.
Great player but doesn’t agree goes on block next winter. Get a few upper level minors to beef up staff and other teams to OF prospect. Say thank you and call it a day.
Because all that matters is making the rich players richer…
He doesn’t have the body type to hold up and produce at the current level that he is over the long haul. He reminds me of Andrew McCutchen.
That’s not to say that he’s not a superstar now and that he won’t produce in the future. But, if he signs a $400 million contract, whatever team signs him will not get their return on the field.
He’s had more than 600 PAs each year since 2014 and is smaller and athletic. Not sure what you’re talking about.
I disagree with your body type argument. I think it is plain silly. Mookie is not playing Left Tackle. Look at players like Ichiro and Rickey Henderson – they had pretty long and productive careers.
Whenever a team signs a player for 10 years, I am sure they assume the last few years are a throw-in.
Time to trade Mookie? The Red Sox have options in the OF and Mookie would fill some holes that are about to appear at the end of this season when 9 players hit free agency including Sale, Porcello, Boegarts, and Moreland.
What would a 10.9 WAR, reigning MVP bring in trade? Could the Red Sox fill 4 positions with the return they would get for him?
Bellinger, Verdugo, Ruiz, and Lux from the Dodgers?
Turner, Robles, Kieboom, Grace, and Rainey from the Nationals?
What do you think it would take to get Betts?
No way a trade like that happens without a contract extension in place and it sounds like Betts is pretty well set on hitting the market.
There have been many trades of players with 2 years of team control left. Instead of claiming it can’t be done when we know it can, post what you think a trade would look like. What could the Red Sox get in return for 2 years of Betts?
Offer him 10% less than what Trout got and get er done!!
What’s the rush?
Just wait and see if he really is as good as he’s been and if so, pay him.
In my opinion, as a RS fanatic, and a Betts fan, it that I would let him test the waters, at this point. He hasn’t broken a .900 OPS prior to last year. Had an an average 6.1 WAR in the three previous years.
He is certainly an AS who deserves to get paid.
But imo, he isn’t Trout, and shouldn’t get paid like him. If he is a 9-WAR player in two years, he probably still won’t get more than the $360M Trout got extended for. And if he reverts to a ‘mere’ 6-7 WAR player, we’ll get him at the Harper rate.
Meanwhile, after Arenado, Trout, Machado, and Harper buy the teams they are playing for, is the players’ union still going to whine about being underpaid?
In 2 years Betts will be going into his age 28 season and will be looking at 7-8 year deals as the max length if this offseason is any indication of the direction teams are going with long term deals. If he maintains his 2016-2018 levels of production in 2019 and 2020, he is looking at a 7-8 year deal north of Arenado’s AAV.
He could get a 10+ year extension now, but the AAV would have to be closer to Machado’s $30MM than to Trout’s $36MM.
10/300 guaranteed now or take the risk to earn $20 million in 2019, $26-28 million in 2020 and then something like 8/275-280 in 2021 if he continues to perform.
Interesting decision to have to make.
That’s why I am not sweating it. In two years, assuming he keeps this up, what is the maximum someone is going to offer him? I doubt it will be much more than whatever we have to offer today. I’d rather have to ante up another $20M two years from now, and have him assume the risk of injury and/or under-performance.
I still wonder about what would’ve happened had Ellsbury had his near-MVP year. He had an 8.5 bWAR that year, and 16.5 WAR in the ensuing 7 seasons. Reversals like that aren’t infrequent.
Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, chi Sox, Phillies, Mets (darkhorse team) among teams could be in a big bidding war if he hits the market. Especially since trout is off the board
Havn’t the NYY had enough former RS CFs in Damon & Ellsbury?
Damon was pretty darn good and helped us win a World Series (man him and jester at the top of the lineup were death on pitchers, especially that year). Pillsbury on the other hand ….
Ells was the big buzz kill.
But the Yanks did well with Boggs, Clemens, Damon, and… RUTH.
Trade him and Boegarts and get a slew of prospects
Trade Betts and extend Boegarts.
Boggy has Boris, no way.
He gone
Phillies center fielder as of 2021
One of Mookie’s biggest problems, if not THE biggest, is he doesn’t know what it’s like to play on a perennial loser of a team.
If max $$$ is all he’s going to care about, and it sounds like it mostly will be, then he is likely headed to a team with lots of youngsters and prospect depth. Not a team of veterans.
That probably means a team looking to build around him, not a contender he puts over the top. Two years from now that’s maybe the White Sox or Marlins. Giants won’t be far enough along, Os and Jays won’t want to spend.
I think the $/yr take contenders like redsox, yankees, nationals, dodgers, mets, and braves out of it, unless the CBT is altered beforehand.
Will he be happy being the only high talent piece surrounded by prospects, some who will stick, many who wont, over a course of years?
Who knows, but he’ll have his money to console him every night
haha … mookie business !!
no 1 player is worth locking the club up for years when there is high risk of much less production. . u win Champs with 280 clutch hitters who play good defense … it takes a team not blow the budget on 1 player …
play him to the end and get a draft pick
mookie betting on himself is-not a typo – 500M is very possible
He’s not getting more than Trout so the 500m is a complete joke & would have been better 4 u 2 say it was a typo.
He might, considering the luxury tax threshold is likely going way up in the next CBA and he’ll be a free agent.
500 million is probably pushing it, but there are a few factors that make it very possible he can get more than Trout.
Betts might get more than Trout overall, IF he signs an extension now and IF he signs for 13-14 years. Otherwise, there is no possible way he gets more than $430 million.
Betts will be going into his age 28 season when he is a free agent and won’t get a 10+ year deal then. 8 is max, just like Arenado entering his age 28 season.
If he continues to put up 10 WAR seasons, he may get $36 million AAV then, which is $288 million. If he tops Trout and gets $37 million its $295 million. $40 million per season is $320 million. $500 million is out of the question.
He could also regress from the 10.9 WAR he produced in 2018 to the 6.4 WAR he had in 2017 and earn “only” in the area that Arenado signed for or God forbid only get the $30 million AAV like Machado got.
Yeah, in a perfect world, he is still unlikely to get close to $500M. Prices still go up, no matter what the union says, but $50M per for 10 years is about impossible.
If they offered him 10 years 350 million he would take it! 5 years 200 million would make him highest AAV but that’s not what is happening now. New CBA will attempt to cap years of contract so he would be wise to get the 10-12 year contract done now.
Uhhh… In what universe would the players union agree to cap contract length?
Wouldn’t it be great if Betts signed an IDENTICAL deal to Trout’s, and they can battle for the next 10 years on who is the best in the game? I know Trout’s numbers give him an edge now, unless you talk about rings. I’ll also say it’s tougher to play in Boston due to the weather if nothing else. Obviously a Sox fan here, and I understand the economics related to other player signings, but I think you keep this guy. His attitude exceeds his numbers. I still think that means something.
Agree with the SHUTUP poster. I am a Mookie Fan but after listening to him I am sick to death with conducting negotiating in the press. If Mookie thinks he’s better than Trout, maybe he should shudder lihe Trout n conduct business privately like Trout AND the Angels did. I blame DD too. Just keep it quiet!!!!!!! This could possibly ruin the yr with this nonsense.
Trade him now while his value is at its peak! Could EASILY get a few top 10 prospects in return and save us cap space
I’d like to keep Betts but it sounds like paying for players like Betts, Trout, Harper and Machado is getting way too expensive. When someone like Trout can get $100,000 per day (every day) for the next 12 years then Tulip Mania has started in the MLB.
I would keep Betts and let him go to free agency.
They have him for 2 more years.
And now he “has to produce” with that decision.
And he “has to stay healthy”.
And then after all that he “has to see where the FA market will be in 2021?
I personally think he’s a greedy imbalanced fool to not take into consideration $200M in the hand is worth more than $400M in the bush.
And to risk getting hurt between now and 2021.
Not to mention he could start investing that now.
It’s his choice and I’d like to ask him “if the Red Sox can’t pay him who can”?
I don’t blame him for trying.
I think his stance takes balls.
But I just don’t think he is considering the risk.
Perhaps a more logical position would be a longer term deal with opt outs and incentives with minimum guarantees?
That way he could reduce his risk and reduce the teams risk as well.
Doesn’t that seem fair?
I mean if he gets hurt someone has to swallow that cost, right?
Prince Fielder, Josh Hamilton, Jacoby Ellsbury, Carl Crawford, Pablo Sandoval Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols just to name a few recent contracts that have given owners nightmares.
IMO, there is no reason to chase him now. Let him produce for two years, or not, and then we can make our decision. The only reason to sign him now is if he gave us a discount to offset our risk. By not signing, Betts assumes the risk, and presumably a bigger payday, which is fine by me.
IRT the names you mentioned, the contracts were DOA. Hamilton was a junkie, so hopefully LAA insured the contract. Ellsbury and Crawford should’ve performed better, but Ellsbury being injury-prone is not exactly a surprise.
Fielder, Sandoval, Miggy (the second extension), and Pujols were jokes. Fielder was 275 pounds and signed to age 36. Sandoval was just as fat, and declining for 3 straight years. Miggy was signed to age 40, even thought his elite hitting stopped at age 33. Pujols was even worse. He was in decline for two years, even from an elite level. LAA should’ve had every expectation of 1-2 good years, and then 8 straight years of decline.
Why some owners think they can out-smart aging curves is beyond me.
You’re making my point from the Red Sox perspective and you are spot on.
I was making it from Betts’s perspective.
I think Betts is a fool to take on the risk.
You are agreeing and showing how the Red Sox are not taking the risk.
The Red Sox are really smart to pass that risk of injury, under-performance and the FA market in 2021 on to Mookie.
He seems kind of slow to me not to see that.
The Red Sox seem very savy putting him in the spot he’s at.
Betts should be engaging The Red Sox in a dialogue with an intent to up the ante and do a deal like Sale just did.
RISK is the key word that he seems to be missing.
Spot on correct. Two years is a lot of risk. If Betts wants to undertake that risk, I am fine with that. If Betts want the RS to undertake the risk, I am fine with that. But then Betts has to take less to offset that risk.