Mancini Extension?

[Can_of_corn]

22 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

Given his age I can't imagine Mancini agreeing to any extension. He could very easily be trading his one payday for nothing in overall scheme of things. He is better off playing out the arb years and hitting FA at 30 instead of 33. This doesn't really work when you have a guy who started his career at 24 and has limited PA's even at 26. 

Isn't he due to hit FA at 31?

Frankly that is already old enough to negatively impact his FA contract.

[Rene88]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Did you know that Nolan Reimold led the team in OPS and OBP in his rookie year?

How did that work out?

But in all fairness, you wouldn’t sign most anyone long term so what’s the point?

[TradeAngelos]

1 hour ago, OrioleDog said:

Or guaranteeing himself career earnings of tens of millions.  It's really just risk tolerance, and the marginal value after the first few million really tapers.  He looks like a solid hitter, but it isn't inconceivable Pedro Alvarez's fate could befall him before he finishes his Arb1 year.  

He was an 8th round pick so his bonus wasn't astronomical, and he'll be at the 500K minimum for 2018-2019.  If he's meh, he's probably $3M for his Arb1 year in 2020.  If he's meh again then, he could be a non-tender going into his Age 29 season with "only" $5M in career earnings.  And if he hurts himself anytime this year or next, he could be done around $2M.  I don't think the club needs to be in any huge rush to secure a locked in FA price for his Age 31 and beyond seasons.

Now Gausman at a buy low point, or Bundy before the roof really blows off, those would be dancing in the streets kind of moves.

Yeah every single thing is going to go wrong, he is going to get hurt, fall off and make nothing in arb for 3 years straight. It will be a miracle if he is even in the league in a couple years, might as well take that 20m now and give up any chance at future career earnings that clearly won't be anything close to that. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Rene88 said:

But in all fairness, you wouldn’t sign most anyone long term so what’s the point?

That isn't even close to an accurate assessment of my views on the topic of extensions.

I have been consistently in favor of extending pre-arbitartion players for years.

[Rene88]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That isn't even close to an accurate assessment of my views on the topic of extensions.

I have been consistently in favor of extending pre-arbitartion players for years.

Then why are you against Mancini? Because his value is better suited at 1b and we have a dead weight there? 

Who specifically are you in favor of locking up? 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Rene88 said:

Then why are you against Mancini? Because his value is better suited at 1b and we have a dead weight there? 

Who specifically are you in favor of locking up? 

Where did I say I was against Mancini?

When I used Reimold as an example of why leading the team in an offensive category as a rookie might not be a sure-fire sign of future stardom?  Or was it when I said " I'll listen if the deal is right"?

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

Since you cited WAR, I would think you would be strongly on favor of signing Mancini @$22MM for five years. If you believe Mancini would collect 10 wins above replacement, his excess value would approach $60MM! 

You do realize that Mancini’s not a free agent during those years, and therefore won’t make anything close to his FA value during those years, right?

Take a guy like Jay Bruce, corner OF who was the no. 1 prospect in baseball before his rookie year.   In the 6+ seasons before he was eligible for free agency, during which he was worth 15 WAR, he made $26 mm.    Here, you’re going to gurarantee Mancini $22 mm?     Yeah, you save a few million if Mancini is as good or better than Bruce the next five years.     You could lose a LOT of money if he’s not as good, or if he has injuries that impede or completely derail his career.

[25 Nuggets]

He's a big bat with little defensive value.  Of course the team would try to extend him.

[Frobby]

Mark Trumbo was paid $22 mm in his pre-FA years and was worth 9.7 WAR.

[Beef Supreme]

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

You do realize that Mancini’s not a free agent during those years, and therefore won’t make anything close to his FA value during those years, right?

Take a guy like Jay Bruce, corner OF who was the no. 1 prospect in baseball before his rookie year.   In the 6+ seasons before he was eligible for free agency, during which he was worth 15 WAR, he made $26 mm.    Here, you’re going to gurarantee Mancini $22 mm?     Yeah, you save a few million if Mancini is as good or better than Bruce the next five years.     You could lose a LOT of money if he’s not as good, or if he has injuries that impede or completely derail his career.

We have no idea what he will make via arbitration, especially with changes expected to come to the CBA. With inflation, Mancini could exceed $26MM. Or you could lose @$4MM per year if he suffers a career ending injury.

You based your opinion solely on WAR, which is simplistic in my opinion. But since that was the sole factor on which you argued against signing Mancini to an extension, that's all I could respond to. Using your predictions of future WAR, a Mancini extension would be a tremendous value.

I would never base my opinion about signing a player to an extension solely on projected WAR.

[Beef Supreme]

I would not extend Mancini, despite being one of his fans.

[Tony-OH]

If we didn't already have the world's most expensive AAA player playing first base for us over the next five years I'd be a little more interested, but at some point Mancini will need to play 1B or DH.

[Frobby]

59 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

We have no idea what he will make via arbitration, especially with changes expected to come to the CBA. With inflation, Mancini could exceed $26MM. Or you could lose @$4MM per year if he suffers a career ending injury.

You based your opinion solely on WAR, which is simplistic in my opinion. But since that was the sole factor on which you argued against signing Mancini to an extension, that's all I could respond to. Using your predictions of future WAR, a Mancini extension would be a tremendous value.

I would never base my opinion about signing a player to an extension solely on projected WAR.

I agree we shouldn’t base a decision about an extension solely on WAR.    Obviously, we do look at what comparable players have been paid, using whatever criteria seem reasonable to identify comparable players.    The two players I’ve mentioned in this thread are Bruce (who made $26 mm in his pre-FA years) and Trumbo ($22 mm).    I see those two as pretty good comps, but I’m sure there are others.    

I don’t think your point about changes to the CBA is a good one. The current CBA will be in effect from 2018-21, so only one of Mancini’s pre-FA years will be under a new CBA, and I see no reason to anticipate drastic changes (there could be some, but we really have no idea what they’d be or what impact they’d have).

I guess overall, my view is that long term deals are for players you think are likely to be significantly above average for a considerable length of time, including beyond the years the player is under team control.    I don’t feel that Mancini fits that mold.    His fielding will keep him from being significantly better than average overall even if his offense is above average, and the fact that he’ll be under control through age 30 means he’s not that likely to have more peak years once he’s eligible for free agency.   Obviously, reasonable minds can disagree on their evaluation of a player.     Maybe you’re more optimistic about Mancini than I am.

[Beef Supreme]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I agree we shouldn’t base a decision about an extension solely on WAR.    Obviously, we do look at what comparable players have been paid, using whatever criteria seem reasonable to identify comparable players.    The two players I’ve mentioned in this thread are Bruce (who made $26 mm in his pre-FA years) and Trumbo ($22 mm).    I see those two as pretty good comps, but I’m sure there are others.    

I don’t think your point about changes to the CBA is a good one. The current CBA will be in effect from 2018-21, so only one of Mancini’s pre-FA years will be under a new CBA, and I see no reason to anticipate drastic changes (there could be some, but we really have no idea what they’d be or what impact they’d have).

I guess overall, my view is that long term deals are for players you think are likely to be significantly above average for a considerable length of time, including beyond the years the player is under team control.    I don’t feel that Mancini fits that mold.    His fielding will keep him from being significantly better than average overall even if his offense is above average, and the fact that he’ll be under control through age 30 means he’s not that likely to have more peak years once he’s eligible for free agency.   Obviously, reasonable minds can disagree on their evaluation of a player.     Maybe you’re more optimistic about Mancini than I am.

I can't see myself as being "more optimistic" about Mancini considering that I do not advocate signing him to an extension.

[Beef Supreme]

My criteria for signing free agents to "long-term deals" is different from signing controlled players to extensions, especially to extensions that do not buy free agent years. The only extensions I would offer would buy out some number of years beyond what would be the player's first year to become a free agent. With nearly all players, I would let the arbitration process play out.

I would consider signing middle infielders and the right centerfielder to contracts that extend into what would be free agency years. A guy like Francisco Lindor would be a perfect example. Of course, guys like that frequently enough reject those offers, as he did with the Indians' rumored offer of $100MM for ?10? years or so. Or a can't miss hitter, say Vlad Jr. But not most good-hitting COFs. Not most first basemen nor third basemen. And no pitcher. OK, maybe a pitcher going into his last arb year if I am convinced he will stay productive for three or four years, maybe.

I don't see the benefit of the Astros buying out the fabulous Jose Altuve's arb years. In general, I don't see the benefit of buying any player's arb years without the guarantee extending for some number of years into what would be free agency years. And I wouldn't be gambling on locking up Mancini into his free agent years.