Long Term Deal for Machado?

[El Gordo]

Machado's freeswinging nature worries me a little bit. With other very young stars, like Al Kaline and Alex Rodriguez (just two names I Googled feel free to provide your own examples), there was an early penchant for walks, or at least walking a bit more than Manny.

Most people probably get better at walking as their careers go on, right? I don't have research for that but it makes sense. But while even Manny with a 4.1 BB% (this year) is a great player, and it should go up at least a little, the degree to which I think he will develop patience is a major influence on what contract I think he should get. There's a lot of mentions in here of deals around 10 years and I am just not that confident yet.

It sounds really harsh to compare him to Jeff Francoeur but Frenchy was worth 3 WAR in 70 games at age 21, 0.9 and 3.4 the next two years in 162 games each. And then... you know. Now, Machado oozes athleticism, seems to have the perfect frame to hold a few more muscles, and let's be honest, his game and persona evokes a little Alex Rodriguez. But I dunno if I'm ready to sink 10 years into the kid. I'd probably do 8 and if his offensive profile maxes out at Adam Jones I'm a very happy camper. If he's Adam Jones playing shortstop we have an MVP candidate. But those 9th and 10 years could be really hairy... like locking up a catcher or something, you just don't want to be one of those teams overpaying a guy who's lost something and playing a corner infield/outfield position at below 2 WAR for 5 WAR money.

Nothing certain in baseball and you are always going to be taking a gamble with a long term contract. But the closest thing you could find to a sure thing might be Manny. I'd be delighted if he would accept a 10 year deal, but he would be crazy to. Manny will be getting 20M + in his FA years. He wants a guarantee for the years he is under control by the Orioles. They want to buy some of his FA years cheap in exchange for that guarantee. So Manny will be 26 as a FA, and he probably would only be willing to trade two of those 20M + years, for a guarantee over the next 5 years. What do you think he'll get in his arb. years? If he doesn't improve at all the next two years, he would still be worth close to 30 M in production per year. I'd say 25-30 M over his 3 arb. years would be conservative. He doesn't want to wait until he's 30 to get his big payday. 7 or 8 years tops IMO. Lets say he plays at his current level for the next 5 years that would be about 145 M in production. And he will cost us about 30 M over that time. so how much of that savings are we willing to trade for a couple of his FA years at 15-20 M? I think 7/85 M or 8/100M is in the ballpark now. But what if he gets better over the next 5 years. It happens sometimes with 21 year olds.....:scratchchinhmm:

[Barnaby Graves]

So who is a bad-case comparable to Machado? I'd guess something like Ruben Sierra with plus defense. Sierra was a huge prospect with bad plate discipline at in his early 20s. He had a few plus years but never really progressed from the mid-700s OPS guy he was at 21. But despite being a poor corner outfielder he was still a 19-win player through age 29. My guess is that, barring a catastropic injury, Machado's floor for his 20s is 25-30 rWAR.

Not a bad guess I think. I think Machado would make better jumps in his ISO than Sierra ever did (and we're still assuming he takes the worst-case scenario path).

I've been in a long-term contract-averse mood for a while, basically because of Markakis, Hamilton, and Pujols, although one of these things is not like the other... Markakis is doing his declining at a young age.

[Barnaby Graves]

Nothing certain in baseball and you are always going to be taking a gamble with a long term contract. But the closest thing you could find to a sure thing might be Manny. I'd be delighted if he would accept a 10 year deal, but he would be crazy to. Manny will be getting 20M + in his FA years. He wants a guarantee for the years he is under control by the Orioles. They want to buy some of his FA years cheap in exchange for that guarantee. So Manny will be 26 as a FA, and he probably would only be willing to trade two of those 20M + years, for a guarantee over the next 5 years. What do you think he'll get in his arb. years? If he doesn't improve at all the next two years, he would still be worth close to 30 M in production per year. I'd say 25-30 M over his 3 arb. years would be conservative. He doesn't want to wait until he's 30 to get his big payday. 7 or 8 years tops IMO. Lets say he plays at his current level for the next 5 years that would be about 145 M in production. And he will cost us about 30 M over that time. so how much of that savings are we willing to trade for a couple of his FA years at 15-20 M? I think 7/85 M or 8/100M is in the ballpark now. But what if he gets better over the next 5 years. It happens sometimes with 21 year olds.....:scratchchinhmm:

I feel like people made some of these same arguments about Markakis, including the "sure thing" line. Young, athletic, Markakis also had an eye, a bunch of doubles, cannon arm.

If 8/100 M is in the ballpark I'd gladly sign him to that, don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with that. But 10 years is stretching it some, which is what I was saying in my first post.

[Can_of_corn]

I feel like people made some of these same arguments about Markakis, including the "sure thing" line. Young, athletic, Markakis also had an eye, a bunch of doubles, cannon arm.

If 8/100 M is in the ballpark I'd gladly sign him to that, don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with that. But 10 years is stretching it some, which is what I was saying in my first post.

Huge difference making your MLB debut in the age 19 season instead of the age 22 season.

[DrungoHazewood]

I feel like people made some of these same arguments about Markakis, including the "sure thing" line. Young, athletic, Markakis also had an eye, a bunch of doubles, cannon arm.

If 8/100 M is in the ballpark I'd gladly sign him to that, don't get me wrong. I'd be fine with that. But 10 years is stretching it some, which is what I was saying in my first post.

Huge difference making your MLB debut in the age 19 season instead of the age 22 season.

That's what I was about to say. Machado is already in the top 10 in MLB value (at least by rWAR) through age 20 in history. Markakis certainly has dozens, if not hundreds, of comps who put up 6.5 wins at 22-23. I believe I wrote something like "Markakis has a 1-in-3 chance of a HOF career" after his 6+ win 2008 at 24. Manny would have to have 2-3 years of decline and/or stagnation to fall to a 33% chance.

[tinamodotti]

I suspect if you called the other 29 MLB teams, the GMs would be more than willing to trade for him?

Every team in baseball would throw 100 million at Manny right this second, if they had the chance. Even the small market teams.

[Barnaby Graves]

Huge difference making your MLB debut in the age 19 season instead of the age 22 season.

In terms of career trajectory, or just dollars made?

[Can_of_corn]

In terms of career trajectory, or just dollars made?

Career trajectory. Nick was in Delmarva his age 20 season.

[DrungoHazewood]

In terms of career trajectory, or just dollars made?

For me it's career trajectory. If you have two rookies with similar stats, one 19 and the other 22, the 19-year-old probably projects to a career value two or three times higher than the 22-year-old.

[DrungoHazewood]

Every team in baseball would throw 100 million at Manny right this second, if they had the chance. Even the small market teams.

Watching this year's soccer transfer window craziness got me thinking about what that would be like in baseball. For the uninitiated, in soccer a team can just come in and offer up an amount of cash (known as a transfer fee) to another team for a player in mid-contract. If the other team and (usually) the player agree, the player moves to the new team who pays the old team for his rights. They are restricted to periods in the summer before the season starts, and a window during the winter.

For example, the Yanks could come to the Orioles and say "we'll give you $150M for the rights to Manny." And the O's and Manny would accept or reject the offer. If they accept, Manny goes to New York, and the O's get $150 million to use as they see fit.

What would that look like? I think the Yanks and Dodgers and Sox really would offer up $hundreds of millions for young stars, and lower-revenue teams would be hard pressed to turn them down. In the EPL Tottenham just got $130M for Gareth Bale - that might be the equivalent of the Rays' entire revenues for a year.

[Can_of_corn]

Watching this year's soccer transfer window craziness got me thinking about what that would be like in baseball. For the uninitiated, in soccer a team can just come in and offer up an amount of cash (known as a transfer fee) to another team for a player in mid-contract. If the other team and (usually) the player agree, the player moves to the new team who pays the old team for his rights. They are restricted to periods in the summer before the season starts, and a window during the winter.

For example, the Yanks could come to the Orioles and say "we'll give you $150M for the rights to Manny." And the O's and Manny would accept or reject the offer. If they accept, Manny goes to New York, and the O's get $150 million to use as they see fit.

What would that look like? I think the Yanks and Dodgers and Sox really would offer up $hundreds of millions for young stars, and lower-revenue teams would be hard pressed to turn them down. In the EPL Tottenham just got $130M for Gareth Bale - that might be the equivalent of the Rays' entire revenues for a year.

Sounds a bit like what is going on with the posting process in Asia.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sounds a bit like what is going on with the posting process in Asia.

Yes, there are a lot of parallels.

[skanar]

Watching this year's soccer transfer window craziness got me thinking about what that would be like in baseball. For the uninitiated, in soccer a team can just come in and offer up an amount of cash (known as a transfer fee) to another team for a player in mid-contract. If the other team and (usually) the player agree, the player moves to the new team who pays the old team for his rights. They are restricted to periods in the summer before the season starts, and a window during the winter.

For example, the Yanks could come to the Orioles and say "we'll give you $150M for the rights to Manny." And the O's and Manny would accept or reject the offer. If they accept, Manny goes to New York, and the O's get $150 million to use as they see fit.

What would that look like? I think the Yanks and Dodgers and Sox really would offer up $hundreds of millions for young stars, and lower-revenue teams would be hard pressed to turn them down. In the EPL Tottenham just got $130M for Gareth Bale - that might be the equivalent of the Rays' entire revenues for a year.

It's happened before!

But I don't know if there are any musicals as promising as "No, No, Nanette" to be financed these days....

[DrungoHazewood]

It's happened before!

But I don't know if there are any musicals as promising as "No, No, Nanette" to be financed these days....

Ah, yes... but for some reason cash-only transactions have always been frowned upon. And Bowie Kuhn was so incensed by Charlie Finley trying to sell off players that he voided several sales, fought off an ensuing lawsuit, and made a rule requiring commissioner approval of straight sales above a certain (now miniscule) amount. I don't think any prominent player has been sold for many years.

Yet another way that (strangely, maybe ironically) European Soccer is more free market oriented than the relatively anti-competitive, top-down methods of North American sports.