Would you sign Hays to the Luis Robert deal?

[Tony-OH]

21 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

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. 

This is why I hate the internet sometimes.

I was not making the correlation between the players (We've beaten the Villar thing to death), just that I don't see Elias adding on unneeded expenses when he's giving away assets like Grandma gives away cookies because he's cutting payroll.

When you are cutting salary and are going to stink next year, you don't just give out early, risky deals.

 

[interloper]

35 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.

I don't think he will give out this type of deal to anyone yet either. I think we need to gather more information on whether or not there's an actual core of young players developing. We just don't really know what these young guys are capable of yet but I think we'll have a much stronger idea after this season. 

The first guy good enough to get a deal like this could be Adley, in theory. But if he's that good, his agent might talk him out if it. 

[wildcard]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

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.

Long term contracts for unproven players is risky.    The Red Sox are still paying off Rusney Castillo's  7/72m contract.

[SteveA]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Long term contracts for unproven players is risky.    The Red Sox are still paying off Rusney Castillo's  7/72m contract.

Agree.   But equating the decision not to do one of those, with the decision not to bring back a guy for 8 figures for one year before he is a free agent is what didn't make sense to me.   I don't see any comparison between the two decisions.   It's comparing apples and hockey pucks.

[Frobby]

35 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.

The Astros signed Altuve to a 4-year deal with two options back in July 2013, while they were in the middle of reducing payroll and on their way to a 51-win season.     Altuve was halfway through his second full season and in the midst of a 1.0 WAR campaign, but the Astros obviously saw something in him that made them think he was worth the risk.    Of course, that deal was dirt cheap compared to the numbers being tossed around in this thread: 4/$15.75 mm with two options at $6 mm and $6.5 mm.     Think the Astros did OK there?   Now that’s a deal I’d probably do with Hays (kicking in 2 extra seasons at roughly league minimum, so call it 6/$17 mm plus two options at $6 - 6.5 mm).     

[Tony-OH]

13 minutes ago, SteveA said:

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.

I completely understand that, but do you really think a GM that is shedding salary for shedding salary sake is going to take on added money now?

What makes you think Elias can do anything but shed salary? Elias had an asset and gave it away for nothing over $4-$5 million at most. Any Gm that is forced to make move like that, or even chooses to make moves like this, is not going to just arbitrarily start taking on risky deals that will cause him to pay more now.

I understand why some GMs are doing this, but most are doing this while they are fielding a competitive club, not in the early years of a rebuild. Why do you think Elias and the Orioles want to pay $16 million over the next two years (using a 6yr-$50 million contract suggested earlier) for a CF when they could have been paying him a little more than $1 million?

The next few years is going to be all about shedding salary and hoping the young players coming up through the system develop. If and when the team is good, and an impact player like Rutchsman is a star, I could see them doing so but I don't think Hays is the guy you do that at this stage of his career and definitely not at this point in the Orioles rebuild.

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

Agree.   But equating the decision not to do one of those, with the decision not to bring back a guy for 8 figures for one year before he is a free agent is what didn't make sense to me.   I don't see any comparison between the two decisions.   It's comparing apples and hockey pucks.

i was not comparing the two.

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The Astros signed Altuve to a 4-year deal with two options back in July 2013, while they were in the middle of reducing payroll and on their way to a 51-win season.     Altuve was halfway through his second full season and in the midst of a 1.0 WAR campaign, but the Astros obviously saw something in him that made them think he was worth the risk.    Of course, that deal was dirt cheap compared to the numbers being tossed around in this thread: 4/$15.75 mm with two options at $6 mm and $6.5 mm.     Think the Astros did OK there?   Now that’s a deal I’d probably do with Hays (kicking in 2 extra seasons at roughly league minimum, so call it 6/$17 mm plus two options at $6 - 6.5 mm).     

Sure, if the Orioles can sign Hays to some dirt cheap contract like Altuve got then maybe, but that's not what was being discussed.

[Tony-OH]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Agree.   But equating the decision not to do one of those, with the decision not to bring back a guy for 8 figures for one year before he is a free agent is what didn't make sense to me.   I don't see any comparison between the two decisions.   It's comparing apples and hockey pucks.

Nobody was. Villar was brought up to show that Elias is shedding salary for shedding salary sakes. It wasn't done to open up playing time for a young player or to get a good return, it was done to save money. 

When a GM is in the saving money mode, I don't see him giving out a risky long term deal to a young player that will pay him way more than he would be paid under the current collective bargaining agreement.

 Another thing to consider here is that there will be a new collective bargaining agreement coming up in a couple of years so it doesn't make a ton of sense to sign someone now when the rules could change and potentially favor the club more in the future.
 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Long term contracts for unproven players is risky.    The Red Sox are still paying off Rusney Castillo's  7/72m contract.

Long term contracts for proven players in their 30's is riskier.  The Orioles are still paying off Chris Davis' 7/161M contract.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Sure, if the Orioles can sign Hays to some dirt cheap contract like Altuve got then maybe, but that's not what was being discussed.

Yes, I know.    But the deal did include a big raise for Altuve for 2014 (he would still have been making near the minimum that year), and even at $15.75 mm guaranteed there was certainly some risk there with a player who hadn’t really blossomed into a star yet.     They must have been clairvoyant because he was worth 6.1 rWAR in the first year of his new deal.    If they’d waited for that to happen, it would probably have cost them an extra $20 mm at least.   

[Scalious]

24 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I completely understand that, but do you really think a GM that is shedding salary for shedding salary sake is going to take on added money now?

What makes you think Elias can do anything but shed salary? Elias had an asset and gave it away for nothing over $4-$5 million at most. Any Gm that is forced to make move like that, or even chooses to make moves like this, is not going to just arbitrarily start taking on risky deals that will cause him to pay more now.

I understand why some GMs are doing this, but most are doing this while they are fielding a competitive club, not in the early years of a rebuild. Why do you think Elias and the Orioles want to pay $16 million over the next two years (using a 6yr-$50 million contract suggested earlier) for a CF when they could have been paying him a little more than $1 million?

The next few years is going to be all about shedding salary and hoping the young players coming up through the system develop. If and when the team is good, and an impact player like Rutchsman is a star, I could see them doing so but I don't think Hays is the guy you do that at this stage of his career and definitely not at this point in the Orioles rebuild.

It can increase trade value if the player works out. The idea is to add options and extend the years of control. Or the nip arb salary inflation in the bud before it happens (like with Altuve) They are calculated risks where the downside isn't going to set you back. These contacts are never that big for that to be an issue.

If Hays does good this year. It can make some sense to lock up an up the middle talent.

Doesn't need to be 50M here and it wouldn't be.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Scalious

[Frobby]

Another guy who was signed quote early while his team was rebuilding was Anthony Rizzo.    He was signed after two partial seasons in which he had accumulated 168 days of service, four days shy of one year.    After finishing 65-97 in 2012, the Cubs signed Rizzo one month into the 2013 campaign in which they went 71-91.    He signed for 7/$41 mm buying out two pre-Arb years, four Arb years (he was sure to be a Super-2), and one FA year, plus the Cubs hold two option seasons at $14.5 mm each.    That was right in the middle of a three year span in which the Cubs cut payroll from $136 mm (2011) to $59 mm (2014).     

So to me, the lesson from Altuve/Rizzo is the fact that a team is rebuilding and cutting payroll does not mean they can’t simultaneously lock up a key young player to a long-term deal.    But obviously you only do this if you have a lot of confidence in the player and the terms will be quite favorable if the player turns out as expected.    And, doing it before the player has logged a full season in the majors isn’t necessarily the best approach.     
 

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Another guy who was signed quote early while his team was rebuilding was Anthony Rizzo.    He was signed after two partial seasons in which he had accumulated 168 days of service, four days shy of one year.    After finishing 65-97 in 2012, the Cubs signed Rizzo one month into the 2013 campaign in which they went 71-91.    He signed for 7/$41 mm buying out two pre-Arb years, four Arb years (he was sure to be a Super-2), and one FA year, plus the Cubs hold two option seasons at $14.5 mm each.    That was right in the middle of a three year span in which the Cubs cut payroll from $136 mm (2011) to $59 mm (2014).     

So to me, the lesson from Altuve/Rizzo is the fact that a team is rebuilding and cutting payroll does not mean they can’t simultaneously lock up a key young player to a long-term deal.    But obviously you only do this if you have a lot of confidence in the player and the terms will be quite favorable if the player turns out as expected.    And, doing it before the player has logged a full season in the majors isn’t necessarily the best approach.     
 

I think Elias is going to be keeping his powder dry and waiting to see what develops in 2020-21.  

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, markeubanks said:

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.

This begs the question, who has actually earned $50 mm through his arbitration years?    Of the top of my head, Nolan Arenado did ($61 mm) as a Super-2 who had 4 Arb-eligible years.   Anthony s Rendon just missed ($49.7 mm), also as a Super-2.    Mookie Betts ($30 mm through Arb-2) certainly will.     Bryce Harper ($48.9 mm), a Super-2, fell short.    Ryan Howard, who broke the record for first-time arbitration as a Super-2, earned $64 mm through his 4 arb years. Mike Trout (not a Super-2) was several million short despite racking up about 25 WAR before he was even eligible for arbitration.    Acuna as a Super-2 will earn about $56 mm through his Arb years.

In other words, I think the White Sox are way out on a limb with Luis Robert.    Pretty far out there with Jimenez ($43 mm guarantee), too.