Corbin Carroll 8/111….

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, geschinger said:

Boras has been vocal about his distaste for extensions buying out arb and free agent years that 'snuff out' the market.  I can't recall any that he's done but maybe I forgetting someone.  Did you have any of the 7-8 year ones in mind that would give some hope that there is potential to do that with one of the Orioles pre-arb players or prospects?

https://twinsdaily.com/news-rumors/minnesota-twins/alex-kirilloff-and-the-truth-about-scott-boras-and-contract-extensions-r10429/
 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/how-stephen-strasburgs-175-million-extension-disproves-a-long-held-belief-about-scott-boras

[Sports Guy]

If this is correct (and I’m always skeptical of spotrac), the Diamondbacks didn’t really “save money” on this deal.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/arizona-diamondbacks/corbin-carroll-30414/
 

Carroll broke Harris’ record of a deal for someone with less than 100 days of service time.  Michael Harris signed a deal for 70M last year.

So, when you see the above breakdown, you see that he is making 9M the first 3 years. If he didn’t sign this contract, he would be making about 2.25M the next 3 years.

The 3 years after that, which are his arbitration years, he is making 36M. That’s a total of 45M in his 6 years.  While it’s possible that his arb years could have eclipsed 36M, the overall deal isn’t far off.

He wouldn’t make 9M the first 3 years and he wouldn’t get 10M in year 1 of arb. The numbers would likely be no more than 10M total for those 4 years. So, they “overpaid” by 9M in the first 4 years.

End of the day, for the next 6 years, he is making about what you would expect IF everything goes according to plan. Maybe he gets a little more in a best case scenario but not by a lot.

And, he’s getting 28M a year for the 2 FA years. Now, if he has exploded by that time, he would have gotten more than that.  There are 17 players in 2023 making more than 28M, so while it could happen, it’s not exactly a long list of players who do it.

Of course, we would expect the salaries to grow down the line and that could look like a bargain at that point but this contract essentially represents a pretty close to best case scenario situation for Carroll.  That is a lot of security and a nice insurance policy while not giving up  that much, if any, money.

The Dbacks really saved money if Carroll becomes one of the top 5-10 best players in the sport and if he would be in line to break arb records.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Sports Guy

[ThisIsBirdland]

53 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

If this is correct (and I’m always skeptical of spotrac), the Diamondbacks didn’t really “save money” on this deal.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/arizona-diamondbacks/corbin-carroll-30414/
 

Carroll broke Harris’ record of a deal for someone with less than 100 days of service time.  Michael Harris signed a deal for 70M last year.

So, when you see the above breakdown, you see that he is making 9M the first 3 years. If he didn’t sign this contract, he would be making about 2.25M the next 3 years.

The 3 years after that, which are his arbitration years, he is making 36M. That’s a total of 45M in his 6 years.  While it’s possible that his arb years could have eclipsed 36M, the overall deal isn’t far off.

He wouldn’t make 9M the first 3 years and he wouldn’t get 10M in year 1 of arb. The numbers would likely be no more than 10M total for those 4 years. So, they “overpaid” by 9M in the first 4 years.

End of the day, for the next 6 years, he is making about what you would expect IF everything goes according to plan. Maybe he gets a little more in a best case scenario but not by a lot.

And, he’s getting 28M a year for the 2 FA years. Now, if he has exploded by that time, he would have gotten more than that.  There are 17 players in 2023 making more than 28M, so while it could happen, it’s not exactly a long list of players who do it.

Of course, we would expect the salaries to grow down the line and that could look like a bargain at that point but this contract essentially represents a pretty close to best case scenario situation for Carroll.  That is a lot of security and a nice insurance policy while not giving up  that much, if any, money.

The Dbacks really saved money if Carroll becomes one of the top 5-10 best players in the sport and if he would be in line to break arb records.

And I'm sure if the O's do reach any early extensions with their top guys, it'll need to be similarly structured. It's not worth it for these young superstars otherwise. But for us as fans to see the extra 3-5 years of security is huge to buy in on the direction of the team. And for owners, they're only commiting an additional 2-3 years, not the 10+ year contracts these guys can now make on the open market. Seems like a win for all parties involved all the way around.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

And I'm sure if the O's do reach any early extensions with their top guys, it'll need to be similarly structured. It's not worth it for these young superstars otherwise. But for us as fans to see the extra 3-5 years of security is huge to buy in on the direction of the team. And for owners, they're only commiting an additional 2-3 years, not the 10+ year contracts these guys can now make on the open market. Seems like a win for all parties involved all the way around.

I agree with you but I do think we need to understand that if you aren’t saving much, if any, money that these deals are big risks for the team.

You are putting out a lot of money for just 2 years(yes I know it may make you keep him longer because you don’t trade him pre FA but it’s not like you have to trade him pre FA) and you are doing it for “all the money”.

I would guess for Gunnar to do this deal, it would need to be 115-120M for 8 years and like I said,  we aren’t getting the 9th year team option either.

[MarCakes21]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I agree with you but I do think we need to understand that if you aren’t saving much, if any, money that these deals are big risks for the team.

You are putting out a lot of money for just 2 years(yes I know it may make you keep him longer because you don’t trade him pre FA but it’s not like you have to trade him pre FA) and you are doing it for “all the money”.

I would guess for Gunnar to do this deal, it would need to be 115-120M for 8 years and like I said,  we aren’t getting the 9th year team option either.

I understand what you're saying.  The alternative to one of these deals would be offering an extension a year before FA if they've hit it big.  There's positive and negatives there. 

1. You didn't pay all the upfront, ~25% extra in pre-arb and arb years

2. You will pay fair/fairer market value to offer them say 6-8 years, 2 years before FA than you would have to gain an extra 3 years at a pre-arb time.

3. You'll also be able to better manage your risk without the early contracts

4. You'll be able to manage your team salary numbers with the early contracts

[geschinger]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

https://twinsdaily.com/news-rumors/minnesota-twins/alex-kirilloff-and-the-truth-about-scott-boras-and-contract-extensions-r10429/
 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/how-stephen-strasburgs-175-million-extension-disproves-a-long-held-belief-about-scott-boras

 

Looks like other than Carlos Gomez were within a year of FA but at least that does give some hope if one of his clients falls in love with Baltimore.

The Orioles should not even entertain the kind of contract Strassburg got.  What good is an extension if you are on the hook if the player underperforms but if they over-perform they've got a rolling opt-out?  I don't see how that makes sense for a team to offer - there is no upside.

 

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, geschinger said:

 

Looks like other than Carlos Gomez were within a year of FA but at least that does give some hope if one of his clients falls in love with Baltimore.

The Orioles should not even entertain the kind of contract Strassburg got.  What good is an extension if you are on the hook if the player underperforms but if they over-perform they've got a rolling opt-out?  I don't see how that makes sense for a team to offer - there is no upside.

 

I don’t disagree but I would argue there isn’t much upside for any of these deals.  They aren’t the super important things people make them out to be.

Arizona just committed 111M dollars for 2 seasons. That’s really what it boils down to. 

I understand the appeal and I would rather take the chance on this deal than wait until they are closer to FA and give them some 10+ year 300+M deal but still, this isn’t some slam dunk proposition that is absolutely required.

For me, I almost want to see it just because it means JA is spending.

[geschinger]

18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t disagree but I would argue there isn’t much upside for any of these deals.  They aren’t the super important things people make them out to be.

Arizona just committed 111M dollars for 2 seasons. That’s really what it boils down to. 

What I see as the benefit is that if he is as good as expected, they are getting his peak without any commitment to the typical decline.  That lack of commitment is the upside of the deal.  To get the age 26-30 years with no commitment after that typically requires a 10/300 type of contract for guys good enough to be up at 21.  If his pattern of aging is not atypical they'll get his prime and then they can let him walk and let some other team give him the typical mega deal for his decline years.

Edited March 12, 2023 by geschinger

[Just Regular]

The great meta-negotiation with the Big Four, the one thing I have no real guess is does Elias already have two strong preferences.

I have no expectation the Orioles will succeed at purchasing free agent seasons in more than two of these cases.

I could conceive even if Boras came to Elias with this yardstick about Gunnar, Elias knowing the long-term constraints might be like, Nah.      And then see if he can get back to the Wander Franco yardstick with Adley's people.

 

[MarCakes21]

2 hours ago, Just Regular said:

The great meta-negotiation with the Big Four, the one thing I have no real guess is does Elias already have two strong preferences.

I have no expectation the Orioles will succeed at purchasing free agent seasons in more than two of these cases.

I could conceive even if Boras came to Elias with this yardstick about Gunnar, Elias knowing the long-term constraints might be like, Nah.      And then see if he can get back to the Wander Franco yardstick with Adley's people.

 

I"m with @Sports Guy perspective here.  Why pay for 2 extra years at no bargain?  Wouldn't you rather buy down your risk, wait 5 years and then lock them up for a 6-8 year mega deal before they hit FA?  And if not, just trade them while they have value left?

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, MarCakes21 said:

I"m with @Sports Guy perspective here.  Why pay for 2 extra years at no bargain?  Wouldn't you rather buy down your risk, wait 5 years and then lock them up for a 6-8 year mega deal before they hit FA?  And if not, just trade them while they have value left?

I want to be clear. I would do these deals for Gunnar and Adley and likely Holliday as well. 
 

My point is that so many Os fans act like if we don’t do one of them, that it is some franchise changing problem. It’s not the crucial. It would be nice to get it done. It would make me happy to know they are locked in for 8 years but it’s a risk that is mostly all on the club unless you are saving real money.  Arizona is not.

[CaptDbog]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I want to be clear. I would do these deals for Gunnar and Adley and likely Holliday as well. 
 

My point is that so many Os fans act like if we don’t do one of them, that it is some franchise changing problem. It’s not the crucial. It would be nice to get it done. It would make me happy to know they are locked in for 8 years but it’s a risk that is mostly all on the club unless you are saving real money.  Arizona is not.

I have a slightly different view of the Carroll extension. The $28 million for his free agency years are risky but in 6 years what does $28M get you?  Probably much less production when comparing to the current value of $28M in Free agency.  If he is the real deal, free agency could value him above $35M.  The deal has a lot of risk for the Dbacks but it's that kind of risk, I would like the O's to take.  

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, CaptDbog said:

I have a slightly different view of the Carroll extension. The $28 million for his free agency years are risky but in 6 years what does $28M get you?  Probably much less production when comparing to the current value of $28M in Free agency.  If he is the real deal, free agency could value him above $35M.  The deal has a lot of risk for the Dbacks but it's that kind of risk, I would like the O's to take.  

Right..if he hits his best case scenario, they save some money.

They don’t save a lot of money and he needs to hit his best case.

That is and was my point.

[OriolesMagic83]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Right..if he hits his best case scenario, they save some money.

They don’t save a lot of money and he needs to hit his best case.

That is and was my point.

 Best case for Carroll if he doesn't sign this contract is that he goes into his free agent year looking for a 10 year/$350-400 mill deal that maybe the DBacks can't afford.  The DBacks likely just got him for the peak of his career w/o signing him to a much more costly extension.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

 Best case for Carroll if he doesn't sign this contract is that he goes into his free agent year looking for a 10 year/$350-400 mill deal that maybe the DBacks can't afford.  The DBacks likely just got him for the peak of his career w/o signing him to a much more costly extension.

He can still get that contract