Would you offer Austin Hays the Scott Kingery deal?

[BohKnowsBmore]

12 hours ago, Frobby said:

Back to the subject matter of this thread, the question was posed back before Hays had a year of service time under his belt.   At this point, he’ll have two years of service by the end of the year, so the exact deal Kingery got doesn’t really fit here anymore.   

As much as I like Hays (my favorite player on the team despite Mullins’ feats), I doubt I would be guaranteeing Hays anything unless he came quite cheap.   I still believe in his playing ability but his proneness to injury to this point in his career would make me very reluctant to have to pay him regardless of whether he was on the field.   Of course, if he has a fully healthy second half and ends up playing 130ish games I might be singing a different tune.  
 

The "moving target component" of this is that Hays may be willing to accept a more favorable number on a guaranteed deal due to the injury history.

[Frobby]

On 3/19/2019 at 8:31 AM, Frobby said:

Last year, before the season began and before he had played in the majors, the Phillies signed Scott Kingery to a deal that guaranteed him 6 years, $24 mm, with three club options at $13, $14 and $15 mm.    Kingery at the time was considered a top 35 prospect by BA, BP and MLB.com, and he was coming off a season where he posted a .987 OPS in AA and then .786 after being promoted to AAA.

As a result of his deal, the Phillies did not have to worry about service time, so Kingery spent all of 2018 on the major league roster.    He had a rough rookie season, posting a .605 OPS and being valued at -1.5 rWAR.

My question is, would you offer Hays that same deal and start him in the majors this year?

I’ve been thinking about this thread from before the 2019 season, in hindsight.   When I wrote it, I didn’t know that Hays would be injured for much of that year, or that 2020 would be shortened by both injury and Covid.  So let’s look.

2019: Hays would have been paid $1 mm, but he only got into 21 September games.   In comparison with going year by year, he would have been overpaid by about $940 k.

2020: Hays would have been scheduled for $1.50 mm, but due to the shortened season, instead would have made $555 k.   Going year by year he would have made $210 k.   That’s a $345 k deficit for 2020 compared to year by year, $1.285 mm cumulative deficit.

2021: Hays would have earned $1.75 mm, compared to about $600 k year by year.   Net deficit $1.15 mm, cumulative deficit $2.435 mm.

2022: Hays wouid have earned $4.25 mm, compared to the $713 k he’s earning this year.  Net deficit $3.512 mm, cumulative deficit $5.947 mm.

2023: Now we have to speculate on Hays’ future Arb value.  Under the Kingery deal he’d be getting $6.25 mm.  My very rough guess is that Hays will make $4 mm in Arb 1.   So, projected net deficit $2.25 mm, cumulative deficit $8.2 mm.

2024: What Hays will earn in Arb 2 in 2024 is anyone’s guess.   If he stays healthy and productive, it could be anywhere between $7-10 mm probably.  Call it $8.5 mm.   Meanwhile, he’d be earning $8.25 mm under the Kingery deal, pretty much a wash.  Net surplus of $250 k but really could be anywhere from a $1.25 mm deficit to a $1.75 mm surplus.   Cumulatively, anywhere from a $6.45 mm deficit to an $9.95 mm deficit.   Definitely still a loser at this point, but now here come the Kingery options.   

2025: Arb 3 could fluctuate even more wildly than Arb 2, depending on how Hays has done.  Anything between $8 - 15 mm is plausible.   Meanwhile, if Hays had done the Kingery deal, the team would have a decision to make: decline the the options for a $1 mm buyout fee, and go to Arb 3 with Hays working off an $8.25 mm base from the previous year, or accept the option at $13 mm.   Tough choice, but if Hays is playing well I think you accept the option so you can lock in the next two years at $14/$15 mm.   You might lose $1-2 mm compared to going to Arb 3, but you should come out on top the next two years.   So, I’m going to guess the team is at a cumulative $8.5 - 12 mm deficit at this stage.  

2026: Here is where the team makes money back if Hays is a good player.   As a free agent, he’s probably commanding a 4-5 year deal at $18-20 mm per year, if the O’s can sign him at all.   A couple of those years are likely decline years.  But instead, the O’s are getting his age 31 season at $14 mm.  Net surplus $4-6 mm.

2027: the final Kingery option is $15 mm, still a $3-5 mm bargain.  

So what’s my ultimate conclusion?   We still don’t know if giving Hays the Kingery deal would have worked out well for the O’s, and we probably won’t know until Hays is done with his Arb years at least.   But it probably wouldn’t have been a big winner for the O’s, and could still be a significant loser.   

Let’s just bring this forward to now: would you guarantee Hays $14.5 mm total for 2023-24, with the O’s holding options for 2025-27 at $13/$14/$15 mm?   I think you certainly would.   Those first two years are probably mild losers compared to Arb 1-2, but the last 3 could all be winners and the options wouid give the O’s a lot of flexibility.  

Sorry for the long post, but this illustrates the complexities involved in deciding whether to lock up a young player really early in his career.   

[Aristotelian]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

Sorry for the long post, but this illustrates the complexities involved in deciding whether to lock up a young player really early in his career.   

Kingery himself also illustrates the risk of such deals.

[Frobby]

24 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Kingery himself also illustrates the risk of such deals.

Big time!  But he still only cost 15% of what Chris Davis did…