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

[IPlayGM]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

Not necessarily... sure teams have what 6 years of control and 3 of those are Pre arb years. 1 year shouldn’t be that big of a deal. The player will be grossly under paid in years 1-4 if they are any good. So after year one you throw 6/24 at them with 8 million or so being upfront money. Plus 2 /12 per year options.
 

That’s a lot of money for a guy that hasn’t cashed in yet. I think most guys still take it

I guess it just depends on how good of a year they have next year.

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

  But at this point we can’t say for certain we’d even want these guys for the next 6 years.    Therefore, we’re definitely not at the sweet spot yet.  

Yes exactly. With these two specific examples I feel they each have red flags that suggest there will never be a “sweet spot” although it will play out for another couple years at least.

In general, however, extensions must be carefully considered, and when in doubt don’t.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes exactly. With these two specific examples I feel they each have red flags that suggest there will never be a “sweet spot” although it will play out for another couple years at least.

In general, however, extensions must be carefully considered, and when in doubt don’t.

What flag did Trout have that you wouldn't have signed him?

[OsEatAlEast]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What flag did Trout have that you wouldn't have signed him?

Probably the one that has him not being a ML GM. JK

Edited December 21, 2019 by OsEatAlEast

[Ruzious]

On 12/21/2019 at 4:28 PM, Philip said:

Yes exactly. With these two specific examples I feel they each have red flags that suggest there will never be a “sweet spot” although it will play out for another couple years at least.

In general, however, extensions must be carefully considered, and when in doubt don’t.

When it came to Trout, fire your GM if he was in doubt.  

Mountcastle and Hays should get paid by the walk.  I'm still confused why people don't mention Hays' issue with walks.  

 

[LookinUp]

I don't like the idea of hand-picking 1-2 players to do this with unless they're uber prospects, which Hays and Mountcastle are not. However, they may fit just fine into how I'd do things (even though I voted no).

If I were Elias and Sig, I'd model player types for this kind of strategy in hopes of locking up several solid players - even if they don't "earn" their contract - and gaining significant value for the 1-3 that hopefully really over perform. You can only do this with so many guys, so you'd need a really thoughtful approach to this. I wouldn't really focus on just 1 or 2 guys unless they're your uber prospects like AR, and maybe Rodriguez or Hall when they're on the cusp.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, LookinUp said:

I don't like the idea of hand-picking 1-2 players to do this with unless they're uber prospects, which Hays and Mountcastle are not. However, they may fit just fine into how I'd do things (even though I voted no).

If I were Elias and Sig, I'd model player types for this kind of strategy in hopes of locking up several solid players - even if they don't "earn" their contract - and gaining significant value for the 1-3 that hopefully really over perform. You can only do this with so many guys, so you'd need a really thoughtful approach to this. I wouldn't really focus on just 1 or 2 guys unless they're your uber prospects like AR, and maybe Rodriguez or Hall when they're on the cusp.

 

I inquired about those two because they’re essentially major league ready and still rookie-eligible.     But I don’t know of any team that has frequently offered such players long term deals.     I do think Tampa and Cleveland have done a lot of deals with players when they were still short of arbitration, and I think that’s a good strategy.    

[LookinUp]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I inquired about those two because they’re essentially major league ready and still rookie-eligible.     But I don’t know of any team that has frequently offered such players long term deals.     I do think Tampa and Cleveland have done a lot of deals with players when they were still short of arbitration, and I think that’s a good strategy.    

Yeah, I could be swayed either way. It seems like Mountcastle has a pretty high floor, whereas Hays could boom or bust (IMO). So they're kind of ranked similarly, but not really a similar profile. If I had to pick one to offer a deal to now, it would be Mountcastle. I'd be betting the bat plays. I think Hays has a fairly high risk of not being worth close to that type of contract. 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yeah, I could be swayed either way. It seems like Mountcastle has a pretty high floor, whereas Hays could boom or bust (IMO). So they're kind of ranked similarly, but not really a similar profile. If I had to pick one to offer a deal to now, it would be Mountcastle. I'd be betting the bat plays. I think Hays has a fairly high risk of not being worth close to that type of contract. 

I raised the topic just to gauge responses.    I ended up voting no myself, after doing some research on what other players have gotten.    But I’d be keeping an eye on both of them for further consideration in a year or two.     

[LookinUp]

Yeah, they're really not up to the level of profile that I'd want to sign early, but I could see us revisiting the topic in a few years for sure and being wrong.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Yeah, they're really not up to the level of profile that I'd want to sign early, but I could see us revisiting the topic in a few years for sure and being wrong.

I think this year will answer a lot of questions.     In Hays’ case, I want to know how he does in CF defensively over a full season.    He was surprisingly good in his games there last year, but I want to see more.     If he’s a legit average or better defensive CF, that takes a ton of pressure off his bat and I might be inclined to try to sign him up next offseason.    

It’s sort of the same with Mountcastle.     If he’s Mancini or worse with the glove, that puts a lot of pressure on his bat.    But if he looks as though he’s turning into a decent 1B/LF, there’s more impetus to see him as a long term building block.    

In any event, these two will probably be the most interesting O’s position players to follow in the majors this year, once Mountcastle gets there.   

 

 

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think this year will answer a lot of questions.     In Hays’ case, I want to know how he does in CF defensively over a full season.    He was surprisingly good in his games there last year, but I want to see more.     If he’s a legit average or better defensive CF, that takes a ton of pressure off his bat and I might be inclined to try to sign him up next offseason.    

It’s sort of the same with Mountcastle.     If he’s Mancini or worse with the glove, that puts a lot of pressure on his bat.    But if he looks as though he’s turning into a decent 1B/LF, there’s more impetus to see him as a long term building block.    

In any event, these two will probably be the most interesting O’s position players to follow in the majors this year, once Mountcastle gets there.   

 

 

I just want to see Hays stay healthy.   But him diving all over that place increases the risk that he will not.

I think Mountcastle may end up at 1B.   Mancini in a corner OF spot because he is better defensively than Mountcastle in the outfield.   That will last a year until Diaz is ready.

Davis get his chance in April until Mountcastle is called up.   But I doubt Davis proves anything. He is a bench player IMO.

[weams]

16 minutes ago, wildcard said:

  Mancini in a corner OF spot because he is better defensively than Mountcastle in the outfield.  

 

Who confirms this? Jim Hunter?

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I just want to see Hays stay healthy.   But him diving all over that place increases the risk that he will not.

I think Mountcastle may end up at 1B.   Mancini in a corner OF spot because he is better defensively than Mountcastle in the outfield.   That will last a year until Diaz is ready.

Davis get his chance in April until Mountcastle is called up.   But I doubt Davis proves anything. He is a bench player IMO.

I am definitely hoping Mountcastle turns out to be a better outfielder than Mancini.    He’s the more athletic of the two and his experience playing much more difficult defensive positions should allow him to become an adequate OF.     Put it this way, I don’t want Mancini in the OF and I certainly don’t want someone worse than him out there.    We’ll just need to see how Mountcastle develops defensively.    

[Frobby]

Just now, weams said:

Who confirms this? Jim Hunter?

I took it as a prediction, not a statement of fact.