Jump to content

Is Mookie Betts a real option for the Sox with payroll history??


Kpet1010
 Share

Recommended Posts

Depends on a lot of things obviously, but the Sox could sign him for $35 million per year and still have a league-average payroll next year (assuming options are declined on EE, Gonzalez, etc. and arb raises are normal). 
 

If (big if) TWO of Kopech/Cease/Lopez have great years (let’s say 3+ fWAR) and the position players perform as expected, it’s somewhat likely that RF will be the only major need, in which case I absolutely can see them allocating all their resources towards one player.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Depends on a lot of things obviously, but the Sox could sign him for $35 million per year and still have a league-average payroll next year (assuming options are declined on EE, Gonzalez, etc. and arb raises are normal). 
 

If (big if) TWO of Kopech/Cease/Lopez have great years (let’s say 3+ fWAR) and the position players perform as expected, it’s somewhat likely that RF will be the only major need, in which case I absolutely can see them allocating all their resources towards one player.

More likely to go to someone already on the roster who isn't signed long-term (Moncada) than someone outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NCsoxfan said:

Adolfo, Rutherford, and Dunning for Betts. Who says no? Not a big return but decent B prospects for a rental.

I do. Don't give away any assets for a rental player that doesn't put you over the top, especially when all three assets have suppressed value due to injuries or poor performance. Regardless, the Red Sox would laugh at that package. Look at the Machado trade to LA for a rough estimate of where to start, and that was for only 2 months. It isn't worth it for our Sox to go down this road.

Edited by CWSpalehoseCWS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I do. Don't give away any assets for a rental player that doesn't put you over the top, especially when all three assets have suppressed value due to injuries or poor performance. Regardless, the Red Sox would laugh at that package. Look at the Machado trade to LA for a rough estimate of where to start, and that was for only 2 months. It isn't worth it for our Sox to go down this road.

I agree they’d say no but that’s the kind of package I’d entertain- none of the top prospects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fathom said:

Not if he wants 12/420

Tin foil hat theory: Mookie countered with those figures because he's dead set on testing FA. He threw out some Trout figures that if Boston agreed to pay him that, he'd be fine with staying. Asking for Trout money is ambitious, but I'd wager he doesn't quite crack that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Tin foil hat theory: Mookie countered with those figures because he's dead set on testing FA. He threw out some Trout figures that if Boston agreed to pay him that, he'd be fine with staying. Asking for Trout money is ambitious, but I'd wager he doesn't quite crack that. 

He will at least get Machado money so why agree to a contract now? No reason at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NCsoxfan said:

I agree they’d say no but that’s the kind of package I’d entertain- none of the top prospects. 

According to the latest Future Sox article isn't Dunning still regarded as our #2 pitching prospect ? I'd call that a top prospect.

Edited by CaliSoxFanViaSWside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Not that we’re trading for Betts, but any package would partially be offset by a supplemental draft pick if Mookie were to leave.  That would have to be packaged into a potential price.

Which makes sense that the Red Sox would trade him now, right?  He has more value now.  If they wait until the trade deadline to deal him, no supplemental pick is attached to Betts going into free agency?

Edited by Moan4Yoan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12/420 is a no from me. However, that is negotiations - if they are making that number publicly it's just to set the bar high. 

My absolute ceiling would be 11/ 350. And at that I would want there to be creativity. Like I wouldn't mind a year where he gets paid $60mm, and then the following year is like $10mm. Off the top of my head I feel like they do this in football a ton. I understand there's a salary cap there, so its a bit different & don't know if there are union rules against it. But why not get creative to where you're spending a bunch in years with payroll flexibility, and then maybe less during a peak run, and then restructuring it to a bunch when you're likely in a rebuild, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure how it would all look, but someone smarter in the FO should be able to figure out something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

12/420 is a no from me. However, that is negotiations - if they are making that number publicly it's just to set the bar high. 

My absolute ceiling would be 11/ 350. And at that I would want there to be creativity. Like I wouldn't mind a year where he gets paid $60mm, and then the following year is like $10mm. Off the top of my head I feel like they do this in football a ton. I understand there's a salary cap there, so its a bit different & don't know if there are union rules against it. But why not get creative to where you're spending a bunch in years with payroll flexibility, and then maybe less during a peak run, and then restructuring it to a bunch when you're likely in a rebuild, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure how it would all look, but someone smarter in the FO should be able to figure out something. 

The luxury tax CAP goes by AAV anyway so it doesn't matter if he is paid significantly more one year and then significantly little the next.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First things first, the White Sox aren’t trading for Betts.

Second - the Sox will certainly be one of a handful of teams that will be interested in Mookie next winter. I don’t think he’ll get $420M, but could see 10/$350M type deal. I do think the Sox are and will remain a long shot to actually sign him, but we should be in a better position than at least like 75% of clubs. That’s a start. If things go mostly according to plan this season, but Mazara is the dude he’s always been, RF could legitimately be the only hole to hole to fill with an approximately $100M payroll after arb. The money will be there on an AAV basis. It’s the years that obviously will concern Jerry.

I wouldn’t necessarily bet on the Sox signing him, but I think they’ll be a real bidder and a finalist for Betts. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...