Is it too early to call the J.J. Hardy extension a mistake?

[Ripken]

Too early? I called it a bad signing when it happened. I love the guy... but I wanted him to follow Nick out the door.

[jtschrei]

Love JJ. Don't think it was a mistake. You have to factor in his leadership (lots of you don't believe in that... and probably never played team sports) and the effect of him leaving on Jones and Buck.

Letting Nick leave was not a mistake. Cruz was. Miller was. Keeping JJ was smart.

[24fps]

Not unreasonable at all considering his age and previous health concerns. Those things may have been needed to be considered more carefully before giving out a sizable chunk of payroll to an aging vet.

Otoh, the intangibles he brings to the table may be worth it alone. Especially when the team's young superstar notes the influence that Hardy has made on him.

I suspect that influence might benefit Schoop as well.

[33rdst]

In that a lot of people questioned the signing when it happened, it's not too early to question it. JJ's injury history, especially his back, make questioning the signing reasonable. Having said that, one could understand and agree with the decision. JJ provides stability in the middle of the diamond. If he can provide league average production offensively at the position, it's a good move.

[Can_of_corn]

In that a lot of people questioned the signing when it happened, it's not too early to question it. JJ's injury history, especially his back, make questioning the signing reasonable. Having said that, one could understand and agree with the decision. JJ provides stability in the middle of the diamond. If he can provide league average production offensively at the position, it's a good move.

It is fine to question it. It is premature to call it a mistake.

I personally didn't care for it and tried to remind folks of how the Roberts deal turned out.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is fine to question it. It is premature to call it a mistake.

I personally didn't care for it and tried to remind folks of how the Roberts deal turned out.

When I said it was too early, I meant too early to revisit whether one's original opinion was flawed. I wasn't including those who disliked the deal from day one. Nothing has substantively changed since then.

[HokieOs]

It is fine to question it. It is premature to call it a mistake.

I personally didn't care for it and tried to remind folks of how the Roberts deal turned out.

This is the camp I'm in. We're paying a lot of money for Hardy. That said, it's not like Hardy hasn't seen a dip in his stats before. When we picked him up from Minnesota for a bag of baseballs, he was coming off injuries and a subpar year where he showed little power. He hit 77 home runs over the next 3 seasons. Granted with injuries AND age now a factor, the odds are lesser that he will turn it around and it would be a shock if we see another 30 home run season from him. But he is still a good fielder, a good teammate, and if he can at least get back to an approximately .700 OPS with 15-18 home runs, it won't end up being a horrible deal.

But the current returns are not good.

[sportsfan8703]

This is the camp I'm in. We're paying a lot of money for Hardy. That said, it's not like Hardy hasn't seen a dip in his stats before. When we picked him up from Minnesota for a bag of baseballs, he was coming off injuries and a subpar year where he showed little power. He hit 77 home runs over the next 3 seasons. Granted with injuries AND age now a factor, the odds are lesser that he will turn it around and it would be a shock if we see another 30 home run season from him. But he is still a good fielder, a good teammate, and if he can at least get back to an approximately .700 OPS with 15-18 home runs, it won't end up being a horrible deal.

But the current returns are not good.

This is the problem with our franchise. It's really not that much money that we're paying him. He's 5th overall in salary this year for SS's. It just sucks to like a franchise where he's one of our highest paid players. Ownership cries poor and acts poor so I guess we have to believe them. If we would have just kept all of our FA's from last year we wouldn't be in this position this year. And we wouldn't have had to waste money on De Aza, Young, Snider, and W.Wright.

[mdbdotcom]

This is the problem with our franchise. It's really not that much money that we're paying him. He's 5th overall in salary this year for SS's. It just sucks to like a franchise where he's one of our highest paid players. Ownership cries poor and acts poor so I guess we have to believe them. If we would have just kept all of our FA's from last year we wouldn't be in this position this year. And we wouldn't have had to waste money on De Aza, Young, Snider, and W.Wright.

But we would have to pay them a huge percentage of the payroll in their declining years.

[HokieOs]

This is the problem with our franchise. It's really not that much money that we're paying him. He's 5th overall in salary this year for SS's. It just sucks to like a franchise where he's one of our highest paid players. Ownership cries poor and acts poor so I guess we have to believe them. If we would have just kept all of our FA's from last year we wouldn't be in this position this year. And we wouldn't have had to waste money on De Aza, Young, Snider, and W.Wright.

That's great in 2015. But when we're still paying those guys in 2017, 2018, and maybe beyond in some cases, would you still be happy about those deals? Nelson Cruz started this year off on fire. Where is he now? He has only hit 3 home runs since May 28. And only 7 doubles in that time frame. Not to mention he's 35 and the Mariners get to pay him until he's 38. I'll pass.

It's amazing how rarely it happens that teams say "boy, I'm glad we paid $100+ million for player X". Outside of the Yankees, Dodgers, and maybe a couple other high dollar franchises, those contracts end up being albatrosses that hold the franchises back for a while. But if you want to end up like the Phillies, sure, we could just simply re-sign every single upcoming FA, no matter the cost.

[24fps]

But we would have to pay them a huge percentage of the payroll in their declining years.

True, but maybe JJ feels lonely being the only one on the team being overpaid in his declining years. Can't have that, right?

[TheDirtyBird]

Way too early

[Stotle]

It's not too early to call it a mistake if you called it a mistake on day one. It's definitely too early to change your mind if you were on board.

There isn't enough factual evidence to make a strong argument either way, unless there was a cheaper alternative you can argue for convincingly.

[Stotle]

It's amazing how rarely it happens that teams say "boy, I'm glad we paid $100+ million for player X". Outside of the Yankees, Dodgers, and maybe a couple other high dollar franchises, those contracts end up being albatrosses that hold the franchises back for a while. But if you want to end up like the Phillies, sure, we could just simply re-sign every single upcoming FA, no matter the cost.

Cardinals have made some pretty darn good decisions on that front. That's an organization comparable to the Orioles as far as payroll.

[DrungoHazewood]

Cardinals have made some pretty darn good decisions on that front. That's an organization comparable to the Orioles as far as payroll.

Their three really big contracts were all extending players already on the team. Those are usually the best big-dollar contracts. Maybe their best contract decision was the one to not resign Pujols.