Would you sign Hays to the Luis Robert deal?

[Scalious]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s almost impossible to make that in arbitration.   You have to be a Mookie Betts level performer.    

The trade off for the team is suppose to be taking away FA years. That is added value to the team, and harmful the player. As the age you come out in FA really matters for how big of a deal you get..

In this deal, they are only getting 1 though, and he will get 88M for 4 Years of Arb and 1 FA year if he's worth the options. Around 17M per. Agreed it's not really that team friendly.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Scalious said:

The trade off for the team is suppose to be taking away FA years. That is added value to the team, and harmful the player. As the age you come out in FA really matters for how big of a deal you get..

In this deal, they are only getting 1 though, and he will get 88M for 4 Years of Arb and 1 FA year if he's worth the options. Around 17M per. Agreed it's not really that team friendly.

I count two.  It is a six year deal with two options.

[Scalious]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I count two.  It is a six year deal with two options.

Holding him down for 3 weeks gets them a year. So I guess it's technically 1 year and 1 month. This does make it easier for the team to compete this year. So it made sense.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

I think the extra $4 million is worth it in public relations. The fans need a win and someone that the club can point to and say that he will be a part of the future, and you shouldn't hesitate to buy his jersey.

You must be very confident in Hays.   He’s a favorite of mine, but I still wouldn’t guarantee him $24 mm.    Did you read the study I did in the other thread?    Of the top 20 WAR producers who debuted in 2013 (all worth at least 12 WAR in that span), only 6 earned $24 mm+ through their Arb years.   Even out of those 6, only two (Arenado and Rendon) exceeded $24 mm by a lot.     And, if you look at that list, it included a lot of guys who were signed to very reasonable long-term deals, but after they had a year or two of major league experience.    It makes much more sense to wait on Hays and get a better sense of what we’ve got.    

[MurphDogg]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You must be very confident in Hays.   He’s a favorite of mine, but I still wouldn’t guarantee him $24 mm.    Did you read the study I did in the other thread?    Of the top 20 WAR producers who debuted in 2013 (all worth at least 12 WAR in that span), only 6 earned $24 mm+ through their Arb years.   Even out of those 6, only two (Arenado and Rendon) exceeded $24 mm by a lot.     And, if you look at that list, it included a lot of guys who were signed to very reasonable long-term deals, but after they had a year or two of major league experience.    It makes much more sense to wait on Hays and get a better sense of what we’ve got.    

Yeah, not sure why I never replied over there. I think that under the new CBA we are likely to see higher arbitration figures and higher pre-arb salaries. With the amount of money shifting away from the players towards the owners over the last several years, something has to give to bring the players share of the pool up. If owners aren't (correctly) going to give mid-level guys in their 30s stupid amounts of money, then guys in their 20s will need to make a bit more.

I don't think that Hays is likely to earn much more than $24M over the 6 years (maybe $30M tops), but those two option years for $12M a year would make it a pretty good deal for the Orioles and not terrible for Hays.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Yeah, not sure why I never replied over there. I think that under the new CBA we are likely to see higher arbitration figures and higher pre-arb salaries. With the amount of money shifting away from the players towards the owners over the last several years, something has to give to bring the players share of the pool up. If owners aren't (correctly) going to give mid-level guys in their 30s stupid amounts of money, then guys in their 20s will need to make a bit more.

I don't think that Hays is likely to earn much more than $24M over the 6 years (maybe $30M tops), but those two option years for $12M a year would make it a pretty good deal for the Orioles and not terrible for Hays.

I agree but 24 is still a bit too much risk for the reward in my book.

[wildcard]

I think Hays has the talent level to warrant that kind of contract but so far he is injury prone.   The way he dives all over the place, its not hard to see him on the IL playing that way.

So no, I think the risk is high to sign Hays to a contract like that until he proves he can stay healthy.

[rudyrooster]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I think Hays has the talent level to warrant that kind of contract but so far he is injury prone.   The way he dives all over the place, its not hard to see him on the IL playing that way.

So no, I think the risk is high to sign Hays to a contract like that until he proves he can stay healthy.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment.

[HowAboutThat]

No

[wildbillhiccup]

2 hours ago, interloper said:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/01/white-sox-to-extend-luis-robert.html

Luis Robert is 22 and a CF prospect for the White Sox. 

8/$88 max value, $50 guaranteed over 6.

".297/.341/.634 with 16 home runs in 223 plate appearances during his first (and maybe only) taste of Triple-A action."

Younger than Hays and definitely more upside and less injury risk. 

Not at that price point, but I'd consider locking him up if he proves he can stay healthy for a full season. 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, interloper said:

My first thought is I'd definitely be fine to pay Hays 6/$50.  It's only $8/yr. For what you hope to be your starting CF? 

Do I think Elias will? I think they definitely want to see if he can stay healthy, but you don't make these deals after a guy does well in his first full ML season, you make them before then. 

These kinds of deals are the kinds of things I hope Elias eventually does (or, if you prefer to speculate, gets approval to do). Right now it's an unknown. Duquette didn't get any done, so my hopes are low. There are probably other players where it makes more sense than Hays also (Mountcastle, etc). 

Elias has no motivation to spend money over the next few years so I'd be surprised if he gave out these kinds of contracts. I guess you never know, but he gave away one of his best players over a few million dollars so I don't see him taking on that risk while also having to pay more during these early rebuild years.

[wildbillhiccup]

9 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Elias has no motivation to spend money over the next few years so I'd be surprised if he gave out these kinds of contracts. I guess you never know, but he gave away one of his best players over a few million dollars so I don't see him taking on that risk while also having to pay more during these early rebuild years.

Are you talking about Villar? If you are I don't really see the correlation between the two. Hays is 24 and Villar is 29. Hays is still young enough where he part of the team when they get better / contend. To me I think it's more about how much Elias believes in Hayes or any of our young players for that matter. I don't think he'll have any problem with trying to convince ownership to lock up younger players if he thinks they're worth it. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, MurphDogg said:

Yeah, not sure why I never replied over there. I think that under the new CBA we are likely to see higher arbitration figures and higher pre-arb salaries. With the amount of money shifting away from the players towards the owners over the last several years, something has to give to bring the players share of the pool up. If owners aren't (correctly) going to give mid-level guys in their 30s stupid amounts of money, then guys in their 20s will need to make a bit more.

I don't think that Hays is likely to earn much more than $24M over the 6 years (maybe $30M tops), but those two option years for $12M a year would make it a pretty good deal for the Orioles and not terrible for Hays.

Obviously, from the team’s point of view, the options are the big reason to do these extensions.    If the player blossoms into a star you can both save a lot of money and keep control of the player, whereas if the player doesn’t turn into much you can just pay a modest buyout and move on.     So, I don’t mean to suggest that you judge a pre-Arb deal solely on whether you save money in the Arb years or not.    But, for most players it’s a big consideration.    

[SteveA]

23 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Elias has no motivation to spend money over the next few years so I'd be surprised if he gave out these kinds of contracts. I guess you never know, but he gave away one of his best players over a few million dollars so I don't see him taking on that risk while also having to pay more during these early rebuild years.

If he is thinking about long term success, getting rid of a guy with one year left before free agency, and locking up a guy potentially beyond his current free agent date, both make perfect sense, and are in no way similar.   One case is spending money that will only improve the 2020 team and have no impact on the future contending Orioles, while the other is designed to potentally improve the future Orioles.

[markeubanks]

If Austin Hays somehow becomes uber-good and earns more than $50M through arbitration - - I’ll boil my own shoe, eat it, and post the video right here on the Hangout.