Would you offer Austin Hays the Scott Kingery deal?

[hoosiers]

5 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

It's a 4 million dollar a year gamble, if you're gonna give him the Kingery deal.  It wouldn't prohibit the Orioles from doing anything else.  That's the thing, it's a buy low situation....if he has a fantastic year and costs more after the end of this year, hopefully it's not more than 5 million a year.  

This is a pretty simple way to look at it.  Why not offer Diaz, Mountcastle and others the same when they get to the majors?  Would you have felt comfortable giving that deal to Cisco last year?  Why doesn't every team offer their top prospects such a deal?

$4M does not sound like a lot in terms of unproductive player salary, but it needs to be taken in context.  After all, the first three years are at the league minimum near $500k.  After that, you are buying out the player at an average closer to $6-7M per year (not $4M) in the arb years - not $4M.  IIRC, the Kingery deal makes assumptions of the arb years and buys out a free agency year and offers options after that.  The analysis is where does Hays project compared to the Kingery assumptions - particularly in the arb and FA years.  For me, and as some others have said, Hays has an injury history and I would prefer to see how productive he is this year and then update the assessment of Hays' projections.  Then the new analysis is - what has been the cost (or gain) of waiting that additional year before making a LT offer to Hays.   If the incremental cost is $3M-$5M, I would prefer to wait the additional year and pay a little more after seeing Hays be productive against major league pitchers - as opposed to how the Phillies paid Kingery without that benefit.

[Ohfan67]

3 hours ago, LookinUp said:

Analytics or not, the O's have the the benefits of low expectations and time. Practically, that means they can identify parts of a player's game that need to be further developed and keep them in the minors to focus on that development. In that sense, I'd wager that the org's perspective on Hays isn't that he's not ready, but that he's not as ready as they want him to be. 

In terms of what this means for the 2019 Orioles, I now think they'll be even worse than I had previously expected. I think there's a cavalry of sorts that we can defensibly say are "ready," but that will be held longer than I had expected. That includes hitters and pitchers, so expect more Mike Wright and Joey Rickard and less Hays and Kremer/Akin types. 

 

They have time. And there’s no need to blow the high draft pick by winning a few meaningless games. Some posters get cranky when I say this, but the Orioles need to “earn” a top three pick in the 2020 draft. The current team looks like they will race to the bottom pretty effectively. 

[theocean]

Eloy Jimenez apparently is about to sign a 6 year, $42.5MM deal - with two options to take it to $75MM.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/white-sox-nearing-extension-with-eloy-jimenez.html

[LookinUp]

2 hours ago, Tx Oriole said:

That's not point. If the man is ready and I think he is. He should play. Not Rickard. 

This opinion is biased to production as soon as it's able. I think Elias is biased toward production 2-5 years out. The more we spend on promoting guys now, the more it will cost in our realistic window. 

There's perfectly reasonable debate on this board about what is best, but I have to admire Elias on this. He's essentially planning this organizational development with cold mathematics. It won't make for 2019 being quite as quality as it could be, but I do believe he will put us in a better position to compete in 2020 and especially beyond that. 

[LookinUp]

7 minutes ago, theocean said:

Eloy Jimenez apparently is about to sign a 6 year, $42.5MM deal - with two options to take it to $75MM.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/white-sox-nearing-extension-with-eloy-jimenez.html

From your link...

Quote

Jimenez is widely regarded as one of the game’s five best prospects, but he has yet to take a single MLB plate appearance. The club recently optioned the 22-year-old back to Triple-A. While his showing in Spring Training wasn’t exactly stirring, it’s hard to say that Jimenez has anything to prove in the upper minors after a monster 2018 showing. In 456 total plate appearances at the Double-A and Triple-A levels, Jimenez turned in a .337/.384/.577 slash with 22 home runs and 32 walks to go with 69 strikeouts.

 

[jtschrei]

Great question! This is why the FO gets paid the big bucks. Theoretically, the GM and other talent evaluators have seen "stars" when they were only prospects. Is Hays a "can't miss" guy? 

I would say, "No." Seems too risky for me. Don't sign him to that deal. Let him play in AAA until June, start his service clock. Signing Austin to a long-term deal could be done this November. 

[Tx Oriole]

4 hours ago, LookinUp said:

This opinion is biased to production as soon as it's able. I think Elias is biased toward production 2-5 years out. The more we spend on promoting guys now, the more it will cost in our realistic window. 

There's perfectly reasonable debate on this board about what is best, but I have to admire Elias on this. He's essentially planning this organizational development with cold mathematics. It won't make for 2019 being quite as quality as it could be, but I do believe he will put us in a better position to compete in 2020 and especially beyond that. 

You could be right.

[Moose Milligan]

5 hours ago, hoosiers said:

This is a pretty simple way to look at it.  Why not offer Diaz, Mountcastle and others the same when they get to the majors?  Would you have felt comfortable giving that deal to Cisco last year?  Why doesn't every team offer their top prospects such a deal?

$4M does not sound like a lot in terms of unproductive player salary, but it needs to be taken in context.  After all, the first three years are at the league minimum near $500k.  After that, you are buying out the player at an average closer to $6-7M per year (not $4M) in the arb years - not $4M.  IIRC, the Kingery deal makes assumptions of the arb years and buys out a free agency year and offers options after that.  The analysis is where does Hays project compared to the Kingery assumptions - particularly in the arb and FA years.  For me, and as some others have said, Hays has an injury history and I would prefer to see how productive he is this year and then update the assessment of Hays' projections.  Then the new analysis is - what has been the cost (or gain) of waiting that additional year before making a LT offer to Hays.   If the incremental cost is $3M-$5M, I would prefer to wait the additional year and pay a little more after seeing Hays be productive against major league pitchers - as opposed to how the Phillies paid Kingery without that benefit.

Yeah, actually I would.  And I might have bid on Cisco while he was low last year if I had access to advanced metrics and analytics to see if he was really that bad or if there was room for improvement.   I'd rather do that then spend money on a Davis type (not that we're in a position to do that anytime soon, thankfully).  

I understand being cautious with Hays, waiting to see if he can stay healthy.  IIRC, his injuries last year were a little off base and I don't think there should be any concern for the long term with him.  But as the Phillies showed with the Harper contract, the Kingery deal didn't get in the way of anything.  

Hays - if extended now or after this year - shouldn't prohibit the Orioles from doing anything they'd want to do from a key FA acquisition perspective, which, to me, is the whole point of it all.  I understand where you're coming from, I don't necessarily disagree about seeing him play this year to know if you want to make that deal.  

I am hoping that the Orioles and the new regime take to this approach, like the Other Sox are doing with Jimenez.  Of course Hays isn't in that caliber but I think we're going to see a run on of teams doing what the Other Sox just did.

 

[jgjbanker]

I honestly think, before today, we could have gotten Hays to sign for less. He pretty much missed all of last year and hasn't put up the numbers at AAA yet. The Eloy deal probably killed that chance though.

[OFFNY]

11 hours ago, foxfield said:

 

Excellent discussion. I am surprised that I didn't see any of the old-timers mention the Cleveland Indians, who locked up a core group of young-un's about 30 years ago, and it led to quite a turn around for them.

I didn't answer the poll question, because as a yes or no for Hays today, I'd have to say no. But I agree with Can of Corn that I like the idea. And I appreciate the excellent posts that correctly peg the risk/$ measurement to the arb years while giving the full term of the contract to spread the AAV. In essence overpaying for the cheap controllable years and if gambling correctly saving significantly into the Arb years.  

For teams to consider this ahead of the next agreement CBA, Gm's must calculate the tipping point or inflection points of value going forward. In short the idea is simply to lock up talent to help control costs and extend a window of competitiveness for teams. Is Hays good enough to do that? Maybe, I think he is certainly a candidate for this and I hope Elias is looking at this as he and his staff identify pieces they think will be part of the next run.

But my answer would be to wait on this and give some of these young guys the chance to show they are worth long term commitment. There are several potential candidates, but that list could look different by late summer. To me this would be a good time for Elias to allow things to (I am sorry) percolate.

 

o

 

Nice reference/citation.

 

(APRIL of 2016)

 

o

On 4/28/2016 at 9:47 AM, OFFNY said:

o

 

This reminds me somewhat of what the Cleveland Indians did in the early-to-mid 90's, which helped them to win 2 American League Pennants for the first time since 1954, 5 consecutive postseason appearances, 6 postseason appearances in 8 years, and 8 consecutive winning seasons.

They locked up numerous of their potential young stars before they were eligible for arbitration by giving them much more than the minimum salary. So they spent a lot more money than they had to in the short run, and simultaneously made a financial commitment to these players in the long run.

They took a calculated risk, and it worked out well for them. 

 

o

 

[Moose Milligan]

The Jimenez deal is interesting because I think the Other Sox were getting a lot of flak for starting him in the minors this year.  

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The Jimenez deal is interesting because I think the Other Sox were getting a lot of flak for starting him in the minors this year.  

It is going to suck for these year to year teams if all of a sudden a half dozen of their young players are free agents.

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, jgjbanker said:

I honestly think, before today, we could have gotten Hays to sign for less. He pretty much missed all of last year and hasn't put up the numbers at AAA yet. The Eloy deal probably killed that chance though.

I don’t think Eloy’s deal affects Hays at all.    He’s the no. 3/4 prospect in baseball, coming off a monster year.     Hays is not in that position.  

If the Blue Jays were hoping to lock up Vlad Jr. or the Padres were hoping to lock up Tatis Jr., they are affected.   

[jtschrei]

23 hours ago, jtschrei said:

Great question! This is why the FO gets paid the big bucks. Theoretically, the GM and other talent evaluators have seen "stars" when they were only prospects. Is Hays a "can't miss" guy? 

I would say, "No." Seems too risky for me. Don't sign him to that deal. Let him play in AAA until June, start his service clock. Signing Austin to a long-term deal could be done this November. 

So, did you guys see the Snell deal? This is the kind of deal I like. Snell proved it in the majors first. You pay a little more, but it seems like you have less risk. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26323236/sources-rays-bank-snell-50m-deal

I would like to see Austin Hays prove he belongs in the majors before dropping tens of millions on him. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, jtschrei said:

So, did you guys see the Snell deal? This is the kind of deal I like. Snell proved it in the majors first. You pay a little more, but it seems like you have less risk. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26323236/sources-rays-bank-snell-50m-deal

I would like to see Austin Hays prove he belongs in the majors before dropping tens of millions on him. 

5/50 is a lot more than 6/24.