Mookie and Andrew Mcutchen .....

[Swiharts Ghost]

No question at this stage Mookie is the better player slightly more power more RBI slightly better fielder .Andrew was one hell of a player he was an outstanding CF who hit for power and had speed on bases .Andrew was a perennial MVP candidate for a 5 year period .I don’t have many comps of players like Mookie he’s a Unicorn .With this said I am not willing to go 10 years on Mookie for 300 plus .I just have to look at the odds that an injury or just a decline will make the contract horrible in about 4 years .if we can have opt outs for the team after year 3 ? I’m all in .

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

Here are cumulative bWAR scores for their entire Boston tenures (with ages in parenthesis): Betts 42.0 (21-26), Nomar 41.2 (24-29), Lynn 32.1 (22-28). So Mookie has already been at least as valuable, before two or three years of his prime have even kicked in.

I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter.

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

Why not us?

[Bellhorn04]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

Why not us?

You left out the Hall of Famers, Rice and Boggs.

And I don't think Mookie's going to surpass Trout's deal.

[Bellhorn04]

No question at this stage Mookie is the better player slightly more power more RBI slightly better fielder .Andrew was one hell of a player he was an outstanding CF who hit for power and had speed on bases .Andrew was a perennial MVP candidate for a 5 year period .I don’t have many comps of players like Mookie he’s a Unicorn .With this said I am not willing to go 10 years on Mookie for 300 plus .I just have to look at the odds that an injury or just a decline will make the contract horrible in about 4 years .if we can have opt outs for the team after year 3 ? I’m all in .

Team options? Forget it. Player options would be much more likely.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

You left out the Hall of Famers, Rice and Boggs.

And I don't think Mookie's going to surpass Trout's deal.

Betts is a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs, and on a path to Cooperstown, as well. Mookie might not get the total that Trout signed for -- 12 years for $430 -- but I think he'll get a higher AAV (my launchpad calculator tells me Trout's is $35.83 per year).

If Mookie produces another 7 WAR in his salary-drive 2020, someone is bound to give him at least another $4.17 mil...

[moonslav59]

Here are some numbers for ages 23-26:

Betts
.305 116 375 in 2762 PAs (.382 OBP/.535 SLG/ .917 OPS) Great defense
Yaz
.299 65 287 in 2565 PAs (.389/.471/.860) Great defense
Boggs
.344 16 173 in 1792 PAs (.421/.448/.869) Called up at 24.
Lynn
.301 71 328 in 2362 PAs (.370/.494/.864) Great defense
Rice
.311 149 468 in 2768 PAs (.362/.570/.932) Had a better yr at 22 than 23
Nomar
.337 113 420 in 2580 PAs (.386/.577/.963) Over rated on D

Now, look at their next 10 years:
OPS/ PAs
.883/ 6609 Boggs
.874/ 6459 Yaz
.852/ 4881 Lynn
.825/ 3443 Nomar
.819/ 5602 Rice

[Swiharts Ghost]

I don’t know what to think .I don’t think Mookie excepts anything under 300 and really why would he ? I just want to win Rings .

[moonslav59]

Betts is a better all-around player than Rice and Boggs, and on a path to Cooperstown, as well. Mookie might not get the total that Trout signed for -- 12 years for $430 -- but I think he'll get a higher AAV (my launchpad calculator tells me Trout's is $35.83 per year).

If Mookie produces another 7 WAR in his salary-drive 2020, someone is bound to give him at least another $4.17 mil...

Yess, but leaving out Boggs, leaves out one of the best examples of a Sox player who put up great numbers for 10 years after age 26. I think that was the point.

Using Nomar and Rice, two guys that faded quickly as they aged is just one side of the debate. (Although Rice had a great OPS after 26, he did not play as long as the others and faded quickly towards the end.)

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

Yess, but leaving out Boggs, leaves out one of the best examples of a Sox player who put up great numbers for 10 years after age 26. I think that was the point.

Using Nomar and Rice, two guys that faded quickly as they aged is just one side of the debate. (Although Rice had a great OPS after 26, he did not play as long as the others and faded quickly towards the end.)

Boggs was my favorite player to watch during his days with Boston, with his unwavering, methodical approach to hitting, fouling off borderline pitches then literally placing line drives all over the place. He played in an era when everyone touted Rickey Henderson as the greatest leadoff batter of all time, but I'd argue Boggs was better -- at least at the leadoff man's first job: getting on base. Rickey could steal and hit jump-start HRs, but the percentages all favor the Chicken Man...

1982-92, Boggs' 11-years as a Red Sox: .338 batting average, with a slash of .428/.462/.890... Wade's 18 year career (retired at 41): .328, .415/.443/.858
1982-92 RHenderson, in Oakland & NY: .288 batting average, with a slash of .406/.452/.858... Rickey's 25 year career (retired at 44): .279, .401/.419/.820

Boggs was 6-2, 190 -- a lot bigger than Betts, who skeptics predict will break down because of his size and reliance on speed (and therefore never earn a longterm contract).
But Henderson was 5-10 -- a whopping inch taller than Betts -- with both listed at 180 pounds. And Rickey ran right into his 40s, with 25 SBs at age 42...

[Sox75]

Good idea for a thread. Most fans, writers and GMs agree that ten years is too risky to pay for anyone. MLB may be trending to less years/higher AAV...

A column in the Boston Globe says we fans overrate Mookie, and mentions Cutch, but also uses Nomar and Fred Lynn as comps. I agree that Betts, Nomar and Lynn represent the three best all-around homegrown Red Sox since Yaz... but disagree that Mookie hasn't already outproduced Nomie and Fred through their Beantown stints.

Here are cumulative bWAR scores for their entire Boston tenures (with ages in parenthesis): Betts 42.0 (21-26), Nomar 41.2 (24-29), Lynn 32.1 (22-28). So Mookie has already been at least as valuable, before two or three years of his prime have even kicked in.

I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter.

Someone soon is going to give Betts the most money in MLB history, which I really believe he will earn -- at least through the next half dozen seasons. By the end of his prime, as the market adjusts and other AAVs surpass him, Mookie will look like a bargain.

Why not us?

"I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter."

Yes!

[moonslav59]

"I strongly suggest making Mookie a Godfather offer for six years, instead of ten. He could be the top-paid player of all-time, while the Red Sox lock him up for his entire prime – ages 28-33. If Betts is still betting on himself, he can then be free for a second longterm deal that can take him to a warmer clime through retirement, and combined with the first, could ultimately make him more money than any proposed 10-year contract will next winter."

Yes!

So, is giving him $40M x 6 better than $30M x 10?

The difference is $60M/4. Are you saying you wouldn't want Betts at $15M a year for 4 years from ages 33-36? (Looking at inflation and rising player costs, my guess is the $300M/10 will turn out better.

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie isn't going to take a 6 year deal. If you want to give him more flexibility you have to give him an opt-out.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

So, is giving him $40M x 6 better than $30M x 10?

The difference is $60M/4. Are you saying you wouldn't want Betts at $15M a year for 4 years from ages 33-36? (Looking at inflation and rising player costs, my guess is the $300M/10 will turn out better.

I'm looking at it a couple of ways. From the Sox (and Sox fans) standpoint, having Mookie through his prime (28-33) is more important, and maybe more preferable, than committing to 10 years.

From Betts' viewpoint, he could then become a free agent again, land another huge contract, and maybe retire somewhere warmer and closer to his roots. Of course I'd want Boston to re-sign him again, since I expect him to thrive and produce throughout his career... but another 30 for 4 or 5 more years (34-37 or 38) would be in play.

With two big future paydays instead of one, Mookie stands to make over $400 million...

[moonslav59]

I'm looking at it a couple of ways. From the Sox (and Sox fans) standpoint, having Mookie through his prime (28-33) is more important, and maybe more preferable, than committing to 10 years.

From Betts' viewpoint, he could then become a free agent again, land another huge contract, and maybe retire somewhere warmer and closer to his roots. Of course I'd want Boston to re-sign him again, since I expect him to thrive and produce throughout his career... but another 30 for 4 or 5 more years (34-37 or 38) would be in play.

With two big future paydays instead of one, Mookie stands to make over $400 million...

I get why Mookie would like it, but if he wants $300M/10 or even $320M/10, and I was prepared to give $240M/6, I'd do it.

[5GoldGloves:OF,75]

I get why Mookie would like it, but if he wants $300M/10 or even $320M/10, and I was prepared to give $240M/6, I'd do it.

Of course I would, too. But since Mookie has always bet on himself -- from the time he wouldn't budge as a draft pick and the Sox caved to his demands at the signing deadline -- the shorter years at bigger AAV could maybe take the place of Bell's suggested opt-out (which technically would be when his next contract runs out).

Although if the Betts camp insists on an opt-out, which is understandable with union labor negotiations looming, it would still be worth it to get another three or four Mookie years guaranteed (especially at prime ages 29,30,31). However, no more annual player option deals like JD's, please...