why are people so eager to overpay manny machado?

[cacavolante]

manny had a terrific season in 2013. however, most of his value came from amazing defense. he is an adequate offensive player at the moment but nothing spectacular. arbitration raises have historically been driven by offense and i don't see anything that indicates an immediate improvement that is going to lead to huge paydays. he is very young i know and has plenty of room to grow but when i see people mention him in the same breath as mike trout and throw around numbers like 8yrs $80 million and 10yrs $100 million like they represent some kind of discount i just don't understand it. to me andrelton simmons 7yr $58 million deal seems to be a much better starting point for extension talks. they have similar service time and while manny is younger, (through no fault of his own) he lacks the advantage of playing a position that demands less of an offensive output. at 24 simmons is probably closer to his offensive ceiling, but for now at least steamer and zips don't project much of a difference between the two. and while simmons will be with the braves through is age 32 season, a similar contract would allow many to re-enter the market at 29. im not saying that i wouldn't go higher than 7 yrs $58 million or even that manny should take such a deal. im just not sure that some people aren't overestimating what it would take to keep him.

[AlbionHero]

I don't think theres any reason to worry about signing him to a long term deal until arbitration. All it would do is handicap us for future moves if we've got a lot of money invested in him when he'd only be making the minimum otherwise.

[El Gordo]

I remember Brooks when he was a rookie. Terrific glove,, couldn't hit a lick. He developed him self into a dangerous hitter. Manny is a much better hitter than Brooks was when he first came up and IMO as good if not better than Brooks with the glove. Manny is sure to improve with the bat, and at 21, probably with the glove. If he stays healthy by the time he gets to arb. he won't get Trout money, 30M per, but he will be worth more than we can afford to pay him.

[AlbionHero]

I remember Brooks when he was a rookie. Terrific glove,, couldn't hit a lick. He developed him self into a dangerous hitter. Manny is a much better hitter than Brooks was when he first came up and IMO as good if not better than Brooks with the glove. Manny is sure to improve with the bat, and at 21, probably with the glove. If he stays healthy by the time he gets to arb. he won't get Trout money, 30M per, but he will be worth more than we can afford to pay him.

Theres also the chance he doesn't develop into the kind of hitter we expect him to and that he can never replicate the kind of defense he had last year. I'm not saying that'll happen, but at this point its far too big of a risk to give him a long guaranteed deal. I want to see more before committing that kind of contract to him.

[El Gordo]

Theres also the chance he doesn't develop into the kind of hitter we expect him to and that he can never replicate the kind of defense he had last year. I'm not saying that'll happen, but at this point its far too big of a risk to give him a long guaranteed deal. I want to see more before committing that kind of contract to him.

There's always risk. If you only want to bet on sure things baseball the wrong game. Manny is as good a bet as I've seen in some time. If we wait too long the odds are we won't be able to afford him. Manny is much less of s risk than Jimenez e.g. and we were willing to spend 50M on him for 4 years. 8/80 for Manny is a joke.

[cacavolante]

There's always risk. If you only want to bet on sure things baseball the wrong game. Manny is as good a bet as I've seen in some time. If we wait too long the odds are we won't be able to afford him. Manny is much less of s risk than Jimenez e.g. and we were willing to spend 50M on him for 4 years. 8/80 for Manny is a joke.

im curious to see how that contract would break down. what's he looking at over the next 5 years? $25 million best case? maybe im off on that somewhat but assuming its close that leaves 3 free agent years at $55 in an 8 $80 deal. that seems like a lot of risk to assume when we really don't have to.

[UpstateNYfan]

I remember Brooks when he was a rookie. Terrific glove,, couldn't hit a lick. He developed him self into a dangerous hitter. Manny is a much better hitter than Brooks was when he first came up and IMO as good if not better than Brooks with the glove. Manny is sure to improve with the bat, and at 21, probably with the glove. If he stays healthy by the time he gets to arb. he won't get Trout money, 30M per, but he will be worth more than we can afford to pay him.

I loved Brooks, but dangerous is a bit overstated. Solid, consistent are much more accurate IMO. Manny certainly appears to have the tools to eclipse Brooks both defensively and offensively.

[Redskins Rick]

I loved Brooks, but dangerous is a bit overstated. Solid, consistent are much more accurate IMO. Manny certainly appears to have the tools to eclipse Brooks both defensively and offensively.

Brooks could be very dangerous with the bat, in the clutch and in key moments, but wasn't a dangerous threat consistency.

Manny has a decent bat and the potential to turn into a super stud, but he is still learning and adjusting, but he does bring a set of wheels with his bat and that will help his offensive game.

Defensively, he is already considered by most to be the best defensive player on the field at any position in either league, that is pretty special.

I don't believe in over paying most players, but there are rare exceptions like Manny, you bite the bullet and break out the checkbook. At least off, good market value and don't insult him with asking for home town discount.

[Frobby]

when i see people mention him in the same breath as mike trout and throw around numbers like 8yrs $80 million and 10yrs $100 million like they represent some kind of discount i just don't understand it. to me andrelton simmons 7yr $58 million deal seems to be a much better starting point for extension talks. they have similar service time and while manny is younger, (through no fault of his own) he lacks the advantage of playing a position that demands less of an offensive output. at 24 simmons is probably closer to his offensive ceiling, but for now at least steamer and zips don't project much of a difference between the two. and while simmons will be with the braves through is age 32 season, a similar contract would allow many to re-enter the market at 29. im not saying that i wouldn't go higher than 7 yrs $58 million or even that manny should take such a deal. im just not sure that some people aren't overestimating what it would take to keep him.

I'd argue that 10/$100 mm is not out of line with the 7/$58 mm that Simmons is getting. Let's break down Simmons' deal:

Pre-arb 2: $1 mm

Pre-arb 3: $3 mm (has a better than 50% shot at being a Super-2)

Arb 1: $6 mm

Arb 2: $8 mm

Arb 3: $11 mm

FA1: $13 mm

FA2: $15 mm

His two FA years are being paid at an average of $14 mm/yr. Tack on three extra FA years for Manny at that price, and there's your 10/$100 mm. When you consider that Manny is three years younger than Simmons, tacking on the three extra FA years gets him tied up through the same age as Simmons will be when his contract ends. So, I don't see a 10/$100 mm deal for Manny as being more expensive than Simmons' deal, just somewhat riskier because of the extra years involved (but also a higher chance that it ends up being a bargain if Manny stays healthy). I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[pdiddy]

I need to see him back on the field healthy for a month. Then pay him.

Pay that man his money.

Barring injury, the worst case scenario is Mark Belanger. Best case is Ripken, and I think he's a hell of a lot closer to that. Either way it's worth the money.

[Redskins Rick]

I need to see him back on the field healthy for a month. Then pay him.

Pay that man his money.

Barring injury, the worst case scenario is Mark Belanger. Best case is Ripken, and I think he's a hell of a lot closer to that. Either way it's worth the money.

Makes sense to me.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I need to see him back on the field healthy for a month. Then pay him.

Pay that man his money.

Barring injury, the worst case scenario is Mark Belanger. Best case is Ripken, and I think he's a hell of a lot closer to that. Either way it's worth the money.

Perfect with your avatar! Also, I think the sentiment the op refers to runs counter to the thread title. I think most are eager to lock manny in at a discount now and avoid exorbitant prices down the line if we can.

[Can_of_corn]

I think the main reason is that folks don't understand how salaries in MLB work.

Some don't want Manny "mad" at the team.

Some just want the owner to spend money.

[Stotle]

I'd argue that 10/$100 mm is not out of line with the 7/$58 mm that Simmons is getting. Let's break down Simmons' deal:

Pre-arb 2: $1 mm

Pre-arb 3: $3 mm (has a better than 50% shot at being a Super-2)

Arb 1: $6 mm

Arb 2: $8 mm

Arb 3: $11 mm

FA1: $13 mm

FA2: $15 mm

His two FA years are being paid at an average of $14 mm/yr. Tack on three extra FA years for Manny at that price, and there's your 10/$100 mm. When you consider that Manny is three years younger than Simmons, tacking on the three extra FA years gets him tied up through the same age as Simmons will be when his contract ends. So, I don't see a 10/$100 mm deal for Manny as being more expensive than Simmons' deal, just somewhat riskier because of the extra years involved (but also a higher chance that it ends up being a bargain if Manny stays healthy). I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I think in order for that type of deal to work you'd need to give Machado an opt out after two FA years. Guarantee him the money with the thought being you'd like to re-negotiate another long term deal in three years or so providing all is going according to plan. Even then, the injury risks aren't insignificant considering what we've seen over the past few years.

[gpolee]

Theres also the chance he doesn't develop into the kind of hitter we expect him to and that he can never replicate the kind of defense he had last year. I'm not saying that'll happen, but at this point its far too big of a risk to give him a long guaranteed deal. I want to see more before committing that kind of contract to him.

No good reason to think his defense would decline any time in the next 10 years. The strides he took in his year-20 season show improvement, so whether he lives up to expectations is dependent on what you expect. I expect .290 with 25 HRs in the future and see him solidly on that trajectory