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

[Can_of_corn]

26 minutes 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.

Didn't you hear?  He's going to be a DH/1B/LF/RF/3B/2B. 

[DrungoHazewood]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Didn't you hear?  He's going to be a DH/1B/LF/RF/3B/2B. 

Oh, right.  He's basically Melvin Mora, if Melvin had tried to play with a 1900s fielding glove.

[OsEatAlEast]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Didn't you hear?  He's going to be a DH/1B/LF/RF/3B/2B. 

Color me impressed!

[Legend_Of_Joey]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Didn't you hear?  He's going to be a DH/1B/LF/RF/3B/2B. 

All at once.

[MurphDogg]

Looking forward to this thread getting bumped five years from now, one way or another.

[Can_of_corn]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Oh, right.  He's basically Melvin Mora, if Melvin had tried to play with a 1900s fielding glove.

And was playing when they tested for steroids.

[MurphDogg]

59 minutes 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.

$7.4M a year. (7.4*3 = 22.2, with his 3 pre-arb salaries averaging $600K = $24M). And with club options to extend at $12M per year going year-by-year, yeah it could be a huge bargain.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

$7.4M a year. (7.4*3 = 22.2 with his 3 pre-arb salaries averaging $600K = $24M). And with club options to extend at $12M per year going year-by-year, yeah it could be a huge bargain.

I expect those numbers to go up after the next CBA.

[MurphDogg]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I expect those numbers to go up after the next CBA.

I agree that arb and pre-arb numbers will likely go up in the next CBA (they certainly won't go down), which is why they should sign these players to these deals.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

That type of deal would be a lot more expensive.

The Eloy Jimenez contact I summarized above might be a model.    He was the no. 3 prospect when he signed it.   Of course, he “only” had a $2.8 mm signing bonus banked, compared to the $8.1 mm Rutschman has stashed away, so perhaps Jimenez would have been a little more motivated to sign a long term deal than Rutschman would be.

I remember someone proposed signing Wieters to a 10/$100 mm deal right out of the gate.   To date, Wieters has earned just shy of $60 mm in 11 years.   

[tntoriole]

I am not convinced that signing either of these guys to a long term deal given the many unknowns as to their value makes any sense at all.    

[makoman]

1 hour ago, MurphDogg said:

Looking forward to this thread getting bumped five years from now, one way or another.

I’m ready for it this year, with middle names and colorful and increasingly larger fonts, hopefully a few times per week. 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

I agree that arb and pre-arb numbers will likely go up in the next CBA (they certainly won't go down), which is why they should sign these players to these deals.

That's a good possibility.

[Philip]

7 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

Jon Singleton. John Singleton directed Boyz n the Hood.

And Jon Singleton is the only player who has signed a contract like that that has failed. And it only cost $10 million because both sides knew of Singleton's particular risk. For every Singleton, there are a half-dozen Albies, Longoria, Jimenez types where the contracts have been a boon to the team.

Compare that to the dozens of free-agent contracts that have resulted in $10+ million "losses". The Orioles had four multi-year free contracts on the books last year, and three of them were bigger failures than the Singleton contract.

Look at this list and get outta here with claiming that "long term deals are unwise under almost any circumstances".

 No, I stand by what I said, play them, when they have two years before free agency trade them, keep the pipeline moving. I would not have extended trout either. And even under the best circumstances why in the world would you extend Mountcastle? He still doesn’t have a defensive home. We are hoping he will succeed in left field, but he hasn’t yet.

Edit: Well, let me temper my comment a little bit. Once a player proves himself, and extension might be a good idea. Jones and Hardy were worth theirs, Plus there was no one at the time ready to step in and replace them. But they were both proven successes with significant track records, and Hardy did hit pretty well, though his value was his glove. 

So there are exceptions to every rule, but neither Hays nor MC has any kind of a track record to warrant any kind of an extension at this time, and they each have serious red flags. Maybe reconsider the question in three years.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Philip

[Scalious]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

The Eloy Jimenez contact I summarized above might be a model.    He was the no. 3 prospect when he signed it.   Of course, he “only” had a $2.8 mm signing bonus banked, compared to the $8.1 mm Rutschman has stashed away, so perhaps Jimenez would have been a little more motivated to sign a long term deal than Rutschman would be.

I remember someone proposed signing Wieters to a 10/$100 mm deal right out of the gate.   To date, Wieters has earned just shy of $60 mm in 11 years.   

3rd world prospects are way more likely to agree to these deals id bet. Unless they have a Boras agent. Regardless what the initial bonus was. Though, yes. Big bonus help. So does having a 1st world education that maybe gives you at least some idea of fiscal responsibility and living a comfortable childhood. Agents are their teacher/pseudo guardian

Edited December 21, 2019 by Scalious