Would you offer Hays or Mountcastle a long term deal now?

[jabba72]

I would probably do the Kingery deal for both, if that has team options attached. 

[jabba72]

Im surprised at the poll results. I think both should easily come close to $24M in value over 6 years with two option years in FA included. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Im surprised at the poll results. I think both should easily come close to $24M in value over 6 years with two option years in FA included. 

If it was 20M or under I would have said yes.  Or if I had inside knowledge that the next CBA would be drastically different.

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Im surprised at the poll results. I think both should easily come close to $24M in value over 6 years with two option years in FA included. 

 

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If it was 20M or under I would have said yes.  Or if I had inside knowledge that the next CBA would be drastically different.

See my post in the middle of the thread that evaluated all the players who debuted in 2013 who had generated 10+ WAR, and how much they received through their arbitration years.    Only two significantly exceeded $24 mm (Arenado and Rendon), and many made significantly less.    And probably the biggest takeaway was that several signed long term deals after a year or two in the majors that weren’t significantly more expensive than the 6/$24 mm with two options that I proposed.   For example, Christian Yelich who debuted in 2013, won a Gold Glove in 2014, and then signed a deal that paid him another $21 mm through his Arb years, then another 2/$26.5 mm for two FA years plus a $15 mm option for a third.   

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

IIRC one of the analyses of the deal at the time it was struck highlighted the Mariners AA situation as one of the pitcher-friendliest in the entire minors, so some of the same stuff where Diaz's 2019 was closer to Mountcastle's than some might guess could be at play there.  I think both sides are valuing around full Overbay cromulence here.

Yes, Arkansas does look like a pitcher's environment.  But nevertheless, when Mancini was 23 in AA he OPS'd almost 1.000.  When Joe Mahoney (remember him?) was in AA at 23 he OPS'd .922.  Christian Walker, who just OPS+'d 111 as a 28-year-old rookie, had an .884 in AA at 23.  Nolan Reimold, age 23, AA, .929. 

Lyle Overbay would be a big stretch goal with those peers and comps.  Oh, and Overbay hit .352/.420/.533 as a 23-year-old in AA on an El Paso team that OPS'd .764.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, Arkansas does look like a pitcher's environment.  But nevertheless, when Mancini was 23 in AA he OPS'd almost 1.000.  When Joe Mahoney (remember him?) was in AA at 23 he OPS'd .922.  Christian Walker, who just OPS+'d 111 as a 28-year-old rookie, had an .884 in AA at 23.  Nolan Reimold, age 23, AA, .929. 

Lyle Overbay would be a big stretch goal with those peers and comps.  Oh, and Overbay hit .352/.420/.533 as a 23-year-old in AA on an El Paso team that OPS'd .764.

Obviously they see something they like in the kid, and presumably there’s a reason he’s ranked in the top 50-60 by various scouting sites.    The guys you mentioned above never were.    I still think it’s very aggressive though.   

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Obviously they see something they like in the kid, and presumably there’s a reason he’s ranked in the top 50-60 by various scouting sites.    The guys you mentioned above never were.    I still think it’s very aggressive though.   

I guess.  But you have to wonder what exactly that is.  He's almost 24 and he's barely played AAA.

[HowAboutThat]

Gotta keep the system stocked. We don’t talk about Manny anymore.

when the guys reach max value, trade them and 1) let the new guys come up and replace them and 2) let the new team waste money on FAs and extensions.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

Gotta keep the system stocked. We don’t talk about Manny anymore.

when the guys reach max value, trade them and 1) let the new guys come up and replace them and 2) let the new team waste money on FAs and extensions.

You aren't going to offer the guys no trade protection.  If you sign a player to this type of extension and they pan out it increases their trade value.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, Philip said:

Gotta keep the system stocked. We don’t talk about Manny anymore.

when the guys reach max value, trade them and 1) let the new guys come up and replace them and 2) let the new team waste money on FAs and extensions.

If you trade all your young players at max value you won't ever have a player playing for you when he's at his best.  You're throwing away wins so that you can have the best farm system.  At some point in the rebuild you have to prioritize winning over building.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If you trade all your young players at max value you won't ever have a player playing for you when he's at his best.  You're throwing away wins so that you can have the best farm system.  At some point in the rebuild you have to prioritize winning over building.

Yes that is correct. You won’t always have capable guys waiting to take over, and it will often be wiser to keep a guy longer than expected.

But that should be the general philosophy. Remember that peak value isn’t a year but 3-4 years. Trading a guy in the middle of that time would maximize return in a trade while getting most value before the trade.

keeping a valuable player all the way to FA is unwise.

[DrungoHazewood]

58 minutes ago, Philip said:

keeping a valuable player all the way to FA is unwise.

I think it's case-by-case.  The closer you get to free agency the less the player is worth on the trade market.  If you have a superstar he may be the difference between 85 wins and 92.  The revenues and other long-term benefits from making a run in the playoffs may be more valuable than the prospects you'd get back from trading him. 

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it's case-by-case.  The closer you get to free agency the less the player is worth on the trade market.  If you have a superstar he may be the difference between 85 wins and 92.  The revenues and other long-term benefits from making a run in the playoffs may be more valuable than the prospects you'd get back from trading him. 

Yes, of course it’s a case-by-case basis, and there are certainly exceptions to every rule. I would not have extended Manny for lots of reasons( And everyone agrees we should have traded him a year or so earlier) and I don’t remember the extensions for Jones or Hardy well enough to comment firmly, But I think each of those contracts wore out their welcome in the last year or two.

You have to balance out the return you get from losing the player with what you get with keeping him. Generally I think it’s better to let a guy go when he gets really expensive, but that only works once you have an established pipeline, so you always have capable players waiting to come in and fill the gap.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Philip

[hoosiers]

Both Hays and Mountcastle have at least minor questions about their offensive game to answer at the major league level.  I would prefer to wait until after this year to make a longer term commitment to each.  I don't like the risk/reward if they don't pan out and we are paying out $10M in five or six years to a non-producer when we are trying to be competitive.  

Hays is older and might be quicker to sign a deal that involves some decent security.  

I am a fan of both players, just wouldn't sign them to a Kingery deal right now.

[DrungoHazewood]

43 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes, of course it’s a case-by-case basis, and there are certainly exceptions to every rule. I would not have extended Manny for lots of reasons( And everyone agrees we should have traded him a year or so earlier) and I don’t remember the extensions for Jones or Hardy well enough to comment firmly, But I think each of those contracts wore out their welcome in the last year or two.

You have to balance out the return you get from losing the player with what you get with keeping him. Generally I think it’s better to let a guy go when he gets really expensive, but that only works once you have an established pipeline, so you always have capable players waiting to come in and fill the gap.

You also have to be willing to be a jerk, and have ownership willing to let you do unpopular things.  You have to go to the team and the fanbase and the media and tell them that you know that Fred Smith was a key part of a lot of good and memorable teams, and everyone loves having him here, but we're cutting him loose for prospects when he still has something left in the tank.  And if it doesn't work out very well not only does everyone hate you, but your head may be on the block, too.