You have to be realistic on some level - we're asking Betts to never put himself on the open market ever - which is wildly unrealistic. It would run counter to anybody's wish in any part of their career. If he's going to give up his free agency, then he has to be paid up front for it. Now how much of a raise should be get on his arb figures - because any such contract would require one. So let's say 3/75 for the arb years ... and then 3/100 for the free agency years - and that gets you to $185M (I did not do the math seriously in the 200). It's a deal which can manage risk for both parties. I don't worry about Betts' last 4 years as much either - but I don't see why he'd ever want to give them up, especially given he'll probably be able to get a ton from somebody by then.
As I have noted - I have zero interest in the luxury tax hit. There are ways to control for that - and if that is going to drive Judge Smails, er, ownership's thinking ... after monetizing every square inch of the Nation - he is in the wrong business. It's a budgetary choice (he is eating well either way).
As i responded to other poster, we are already paying Price $31M per year for additional 5 years. There has to be a limit to how many 'big splash' we can afford. There's a difference between Henry's money and Red Sox money. Henry is willing to spend Sox money (generated from baseball revenue) but Henry is unwilling to spend Henry's money. Sox has a budget. Not sure if they have 'surplus' but one thing Henry won't do is to make additional cash infusion to Sox.
This is largely true - except for one problem here. USUALLY, when you make the decision to "go all out to sign superstars" - you are talking about FAs, which usually means 30 year olds and the like. The decision is almost always enough early value to justify a contract with decline in it.
If you develop well - like the Sox have - and you have a 24 year old MVP-level performer - things are different ... a 10-year deal is not super smart - but there is no reason not to go all out to try to sign a kid who is young enough that you will be getting almost all prime years in the contract.
The Red Sox are a mint - 3rd in the league in revenue - all of this is a choice. There is no cap - and given this team's resources we should not be okay with the team acting like there is one. This is not a justification for management being stupid - but letting prime players walk - actual good investments - out of some sense of a cap which doesn't exist.
The Sox do have a budget, no matter how much people want to say or think otherwise. Sure, Henry could spend more if he wanted to, but he is not going to. Many of the same people who want to sign big name free agents to large contracts are the same people who then expect Henry to DFA the player and eat millions of dollars the minute the contract goes bad, and they almost always do. That is a lot easier said than done. It is not a realistic way to run a baseball team.
We are fortunate that Henry is willing to do that to a certain extent. Eating Pablo's contract was huge. As a businessman, he cannot afford to this on a regular basis.
I understand all of that. As I posted earlier, signing Mookie now to a 10 year deal would be far preferable to waiting until he's a free agent to sign him to a 10 year deal. Also, it there were a player that I would give a year deal to, it would be Mookie.
All that said, I'm don't think it's worth the risk. JMO.