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

[fansince1988]

43 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

They are shedding short term guys that will not be part of the core. Totally different when you are talking about guys you think could be part of the next core. One precedent is Adam Jones' contract even when the club was losing. He did have some MLB experience at that point, but DD didn't sit around waiting for the club to make the playoffs before locking him up. That said, I'm not sure Hays or Mountcastle are the guys to build around.

Good point with AJ, but that was the old regime. I am patiently waiting for the new regime to spend. Until that happens, I'll just assume they are shedding payroll.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I doubt Elias and Sig would have done any of those deals.

Do you think Dan did all three of those deals?

[Aristotelian]

26 minutes ago, fansince1988 said:

Good point with AJ, but that was the old regime. I am patiently waiting for the new regime to spend. Until that happens, I'll just assume they are shedding payroll.

I agree, any moves like that are unlikely in the near future. Maybe in a year or two. Rutschman?

[Number5]

Hays for sure.  8/$48 million, with an out at 6/$24 if things go south sounds real good to me.  The guy can definitely play center field and showed in 21 games last year that he can hit in the majors, albeit over a small sample size.  Worthwhile risk, IMO.

I'd like to see Mountcastle show he can play a position and get at least a few MLB at bats before offering this to him.

[weams]

37 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But then you get to pay more.

Heck you can wait until they are free agents to have as much data as possible like they did with Davis, O'Day, and Trumbo.

Peter/Brady/Buck/Adam. Peter/Brady/Buck. Peter/Brady/Buck.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Hays for sure.  8/$48 million, with an out at 6/$24 if things go south sounds real good to me.  The guy can definitely play center field and showed in 21 games last year that he can hit in the majors, albeit over a small sample size.  Worthwhile risk, IMO.

Hays turns 25 in July of next year.  He's played 41 MLB games.  If you sign him to an 8-year contract he'll be 33 or 34 when it's over.  Even with an out at six years he's going to be 31.  His 21 games in the majors were way above what he'd done in the minors since 2017.  $24M isn't a huge risk, but what's the advantage over going year to year?  Do we really think that for his arb years (age, what... 29, 30, 31?) he's going to be so good that it makes $12M a year a huge bargain?  I guess that could happen, but I also don't think that going year-to-year is a massive risk.

And Mountcastle... as a DH/1B/LF he's really going to have to hit to be more than a 2-3 win player.  Which is complicated by his microscopic walk rate, which will probably mean he's always OBP compromised.

[weams]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Hays for sure.  8/$48 million, with an out at 6/$24 if things go south sounds real good to me.  The guy can definitely play center field and showed in 21 games last year that he can hit in the majors, albeit over a small sample size.  Worthwhile risk, IMO.

I'd like to see Mountcastle show he can play a position and get at least a few MLB at bats before offering this to him.

Hays has a fragile ankle. And plays a high intensity game. I'll be happy to have him for five more years. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

After they prove that, the price of the extension will be a lot higher.

For Hays the extension will be his early-to-mid 30s.  By then won't we want to move on to someone younger and cheaper, and probably better?

I'm certainly for locking up young players.  But it has to be worth it because of a combination of quality and youth.  Hays isn't established yet and he's almost 25.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

For Hays the extension will be his early-to-mid 30s.  By then won't we want to move on to someone younger and cheaper, and probably better?

I'm certainly for locking up young players.  But it has to be worth it because of a combination of quality and youth.  Hays isn't established yet and he's almost 25.

Hays would be about price control.  No reason to think you would want to keep him for eight years.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

The Astros have John Singleton a 10 million deal before he had finished his first season. He’s now out of baseball.

long term deals are unwise under almost any circumstances. Consider even Manny. Offering him 6/180 two years ago. We would still have him now, and… What? Wasted money. No, and I think these two particular players wouldn’t be candidates for an extension anyway.

I'd agree if the player you're signing is a 30-year-old free agent and the rates are $8M per win.  We're talking about guys in their early-to-mid 20s signing for less than a 2016 vintage Yovani Gallardo deal.

If players were free agents at 21 most long-term deals would be awesome.  They only suck because you're paying big dollars for decline years.

[Number5]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Hays turns 25 in July of next year.  He's played 41 MLB games.  If you sign him to an 8-year contract he'll be 33 or 34 when it's over.  Even with an out at six years he's going to be 31.  His 21 games in the majors were way above what he'd done in the minors since 2017.  $24M isn't a huge risk, but what's the advantage over going year to year?  Do we really think that for his arb years (age, what... 29, 30, 31?) he's going to be so good that it makes $12M a year a huge bargain?  I guess that could happen, but I also don't think that going year-to-year is a massive risk.

And Mountcastle... as a DH/1B/LF he's really going to have to hit to be more than a 2-3 win player.  Which is complicated by his microscopic walk rate, which will probably mean he's always OBP compromised.

As I thought was clear from my post, the two years at $12 million each at the end only come into play if he is obviously worth it.  So your question here is irrelevant.  Do I think 6/$24 is worth the risk?  Well, yes, I do.  As I said.  Thanks for your insight, but I'll stick with my vote. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hays would be about price control.  No reason to think you would want to keep him for eight years.

Doing nothing means he makes less than $1M for the next three years, then probably less than $5-8M for the next two.  There's already a lot of cost control there unless he explodes on the league, which I think is fairly unlikely.

Also, if Hays' ankle explodes anytime in the next few years you still owe him many $millions if he signs this deal.

[OsEatAlEast]

3 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

After they prove that, the price of the extension will be a lot higher.

On the other hand if they don't prove it. The O's save quite a bit of cash. I'd at least like to see both have two good seasons under their belt before I'd go throwing money around.

[Number5]

13 minutes ago, weams said:

Hays has a fragile ankle. And plays a high intensity game. I'll be happy to have him for five more years. 

As with all contracts, we would want to heed our doctor's advice.  Assuming the doctors give the go-ahead, we should go ahead.  If not, not.

[weams]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

As with all contracts, we would want to heed our doctor's advice.  Assuming the doctors give the go-ahead, we should go ahead.  If not, not.

I don't think that stuff predicts that well. I'm ok with having him under control on PayGo