Would you offer Austin Hays the Scott Kingery deal?

[Just Regular]

FWIW the Astros did get the bad outcome on Jonathan Singleton, didn't extend Altuve until approximately the time we did Adam Jones, and have Correa and Bregman going year to year.

Corn - I gather you expect the new CBA to feature a LOT more salary going to the 0-6 class, right?

I did hear the Padres honcho quoted on a local radio show saying something like by WAR about three quarters of the production and one quarter of the salary goes to 0-6, that with PED rules 32 is the new 36 and the market is sorting itself out.

[esmd]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm assuming that proving oneself means playing at a certain level.  Schoop was still a below average player in 2015, does that count as having proven himself?  I certainly don't think post 2016 Schoop signs that deal.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schoojo01.shtml

Schoop put up 1.4 WAR in 2015 and 2.4 in 2016.  My point being I'd have been fine to offer him a market level extension after either of those seasons.  Whether it compares to the deal proposed to in this poll is really irrelevant.  I would pay for established production at a market level - but not unnecessarily for projected production.  Prospects are suspects.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, OrioleDog said:

FWIW the Astros did get the bad outcome on Jonathan Singleton, didn't extend Altuve until approximately the time we did Adam Jones, and have Correa and Bregman going year to year.

Corn - I gather you expect the new CBA to feature a LOT more salary going to the 0-6 class, right?

I did hear the Padres honcho quoted on a local radio show saying something like by WAR about three quarters of the production and one quarter of the salary goes to 0-6, that with PED rules 32 is the new 36 and the market is sorting itself out.

I wouldn't say a lot but I do think it will be significant.  

[esmd]

4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

You wouldn't have paid Wieters a Longoria-like contract? The O's should have, in hindsight, right?

If we pick Rutschman, I'm paying him the day he reaches the majors even knowing that he just got a fat signing bonus.

No, I wouldn't have, not within weeks of his MLB debut.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Either way, you're operating with players who have a sense of what changes are coming too. That goes into the equation. Right now Hays would take that deal. A year from now he may not. You're saying the risk is worth it. I'm saying I'd rather wait the year. 

Yep.  It is a very civil disagreement we are having.

[jerios55]

So I don't know the injury history of Kingery (or really the full info on the Hays injuries), but I think it would be a factor.  If the injuries are typically unlikely to re-occur it would change it.  The poster that mentioned a contract that would 'hamstring' us should take away the scary injury verbiage.  Haha

Ultimately, as others have mentioned, I would certainly consider it.  I do wonder if that means he would be sent down to strengthen the teams negotiating power.

[LookinUp]

26 minutes ago, esmd said:

No, I wouldn't have, not within weeks of his MLB debut.

In hindsight, I think you'd have been wrong. With that said, I'm talking about a Wieters-type of player. Hays has never reached that lofty prospect status.

[mdbdotcom]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Exactly.  I'd do the Kingery deal for Diaz, too.  

Diaz could be a tougher sign. With all that bonus money from the Dodgers, he's probably pretty well set no matter what happens. 

[Frobby]

55 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

In hindsight, I think you'd have been wrong. With that said, I'm talking about a Wieters-type of player. Hays has never reached that lofty prospect status.

I’m pretty sure I remember JTrea81 proposing that we lock up Wieters for 10/$100 mm before he ever stepped on a major league field.   He’s now been playing 10 years and has earned just south of $60 mm.

[Aristotelian]

Last time we saw Hays, he had a miserable year hitting .235 across levels and struggling with injury. I would not be locking him up to anything long term. We have him for 6+ years. Seems like the Phillies deal is all downside with no upside.

[interloper]

My answer to these types of questions is basically always "yes". Yes, please sign the good young player to the inexpensive/not-that-risky deal early in his career so we can maybe keep a good player for once.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Almost more than the international thing, I would love to see this type of thinking installed in the Warehouse with Elias and co. I don't know that we've ever extended a young player in his first or second year with the team. Just like we never make a 3-team trade. It's on the list of Things That Are Just Not Done By The Orioles. We've scratched analytics off that board. I hope we eventually scratch off "big players in the international market" and "locking up good young players" as well. 

[Ohfan67]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I’m pretty sure I remember JTrea81 proposing that we lock up Wieters for 10/$100 mm before he ever stepped on a major league field.   He’s now been playing 10 years and has earned just south of $60 mm.

JTrea spent a lot of imaginary money on payrolls. Ahh, fun times. 

[makoman]

5 minutes ago, interloper said:

My answer to these types of questions is basically always "yes". Yes, please sign the good young player to the inexpensive/not-that-risky deal early in his career so we can maybe keep a good player for once.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Almost more than the international thing, I would love to see this type of thinking installed in the Warehouse with Elias and co. I don't know that we've ever extended a young player in his first or second year with the team. Just like we never make a 3-team trade. It's on the list of Things That Are Just Not Done By The Orioles. We've scratched analytics off that board. I hope we eventually scratch off "big players in the international market" and "locking up good young players" as well. 

Markakis must be the closest. After his 3rd year.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, makoman said:

Markakis must be the closest. After his 3rd year.

Yeah, I would think so. Roberts and Jones were both approaching FA, I believe. 

Then again, we've had very limited good young players worth locking up early over the years... lol. 

[Ohfan67]

This is a great question. For me it's a slam dunk on players like Wieters or Manny after his debut. The money makes it a relatively low risk, I guess, but I really don't have a good idea of what Hays is going to do. The Orioles were really dumb for promoting him so early and the injury and near admission that he was too heavy last year add a little extra iffiness. Very interesting...I'm not sure if I would or not. 

 

I just spent some time cruising through stats and it is very hard for me to name best case comp and say 80th percentile case comp for Hays. Without that it is impossible to really analyze the potential savings to a deal like this.