Maybe I'm just trying to reconcile myself to the fact that the Sox lost Mookie, but I think I agree with Walt. It seems to me that it will be at least another five or six before we can say whether a 14 year contract in 2016 would have been a good idea. And I'd be reluctant to commit to any athlete for such a long period. Especially in baseball where the marginal value of great over very-good might be less impactful than in other sports.
That's an interesting point about other sports. I guess it depends on which sport and which position, right? Would you give a 14 year deal to a goalie in hockey, or a defensive back in football? No, not ever. Would you give it to a 24 year old QB or a 22 year old center? Maybe you would! I think Mookie is more like that.
One of the reasons I like this site is that I appreciate the insights of numbers people even though I'm not very good with numbers myself. As far as the positional debate is concerned, I'd be more inclined to spend top dollar on the QB than the RF, because I know every offensive snap is going to begin with the QB. Meanwhile, my RF can play several games--even good games--and have little direct impact on the final outcome. He only fields when the ball is hit to him, and his at bats can come at inopportune moments in the game. Of course, the likelihood of injury in the respective sports also affects the calculation, but I suppose I was discounting that.
Thanks. I love Mookie too, but I’m not giving 14 years and a full no-trade clause to anyone as long as the CBT is in place. And just because this deal MIGHT make sense for SD, Boston is an entirely different situation.
They are now, yes, but they weren't in 2016. I'd argue they were in an even more advantageous position at the time in terms of the CBT than San Diego. There is going to be risk on a deal of that magnitude and length but that's the cost of doing business. Anyway, reasonable people can disagree on this point. For example, Chris Hatfield thinks I'm way off base here. And I might be!
One thing I always remind myself: the importance of any one player is less in baseball than in other sports. Look at the deals signed by Pujols, Cabrera and Stanton. They were all praised at the time; all are deeply underwater now. But that’s a clinical take; there’s emotion involved with Mookie, I get it.
Pujols and Cabrera were well into their thirties when they signed those deals, Stanton had a history of injuries. Not at all the same situation as Betts
Nonetheless, Stanton was 25 when he signed his deal. And Mookie’s has a long way to go. But my issue with contracts like these has less to do with the players and more to do with the need to maintain payroll and roster flexibility in a luxury tax world
Maybe I'm just trying to reconcile myself to the fact that the Sox lost Mookie, but I think I agree with Walt. It seems to me that it will be at least another five or six before we can say whether a 14 year contract in 2016 would have been a good idea. And I'd be reluctant to commit to any athlete for such a long period. Especially in baseball where the marginal value of great over very-good might be less impactful than in other sports.
That's an interesting point about other sports. I guess it depends on which sport and which position, right? Would you give a 14 year deal to a goalie in hockey, or a defensive back in football? No, not ever. Would you give it to a 24 year old QB or a 22 year old center? Maybe you would! I think Mookie is more like that.
One of the reasons I like this site is that I appreciate the insights of numbers people even though I'm not very good with numbers myself. As far as the positional debate is concerned, I'd be more inclined to spend top dollar on the QB than the RF, because I know every offensive snap is going to begin with the QB. Meanwhile, my RF can play several games--even good games--and have little direct impact on the final outcome. He only fields when the ball is hit to him, and his at bats can come at inopportune moments in the game. Of course, the likelihood of injury in the respective sports also affects the calculation, but I suppose I was discounting that.
Thanks. I love Mookie too, but I’m not giving 14 years and a full no-trade clause to anyone as long as the CBT is in place. And just because this deal MIGHT make sense for SD, Boston is an entirely different situation.
They are now, yes, but they weren't in 2016. I'd argue they were in an even more advantageous position at the time in terms of the CBT than San Diego. There is going to be risk on a deal of that magnitude and length but that's the cost of doing business. Anyway, reasonable people can disagree on this point. For example, Chris Hatfield thinks I'm way off base here. And I might be!
One thing I always remind myself: the importance of any one player is less in baseball than in other sports. Look at the deals signed by Pujols, Cabrera and Stanton. They were all praised at the time; all are deeply underwater now. But that’s a clinical take; there’s emotion involved with Mookie, I get it.
Pujols and Cabrera were well into their thirties when they signed those deals, Stanton had a history of injuries. Not at all the same situation as Betts
Nonetheless, Stanton was 25 when he signed his deal. And Mookie’s has a long way to go. But my issue with contracts like these has less to do with the players and more to do with the need to maintain payroll and roster flexibility in a luxury tax world