Chourio to get 8/80..Os should do the same for Holliday

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Let’s just go through the 7 players I listed above.   

1.  Lindor was worth 31.1 rWAR through his Arb Years.  He was paid $52 mm through then, and as a FA is making $34.1 mm/yr.  But he played about 60% of a season his rookie year, so it took him 7 seasons to become a free agent.  So, that’s $86 mm through 8 years, $120 mm through 9.  Less than the 8/$100 proposal, a little more than the 9/$110 mm proposal.

2.  Turner was worth 29.6 rWAR through his Arb years.  He was a super-2 who earned $46 mm through his 4 Arb years, and took 7 years to become a FA.  He’s earning $27.2 mm/yr as a FA.  So that’s $73 mm through 8 years, $100 mm through 9.   Less that you are guaranteeing Holliday.   

3.  Seager was worth 21.2 rWAR through his Arb years, getting a September call-up that we’ll ignore for these purposes.  He earned $27 mm through 6 full seasons, and is making $32.5 mm/yr now.  So that’s $92 mm through 8 years, $124.5 mm through 9.   Less than you’re guaranteeing Holliday if it’s 8/$100 mm, more if it’s 9/$110 mm.

4.  Baez was worth 23.4 rWAR through his Arb years.  He played two partial seasons before becoming a full time player; let’s treat that as one season where he got called up in June.  So that would have been 7 years to earn $29 mm (it actually took him 8).  He’s earning $23.3 mm/yr as a free agent, so $55 mm though 8 years, $82 mm through 9.  Far less than you’d guarantee Holliday.

5.  Correa was worth 34.1 rWAR through his Arb years.  He was a June debut, so it took him 7 years to get to free agency.  He earned $27 mm to that point.  Since then he’s made $35.1 and $33.3 mm, so $62 mm through 8 years, $95 mm through 9.   Less than the Holliday guarantee.

6.  Bogaerts was worth 22.7 rWAR through his Arb years.   He had a late August debut that we’ll ignore.  He earned $25 mm through his arb years, then $20 mm/yr the next three under an extension he’d signed   So, $65 mm through 8 years, $85 mm through 9.   Less than the Holliday guarantee.

7.  Swanson was worth $14.7 mm through his Arb years.  He also had an August debut we’ll ignore.  He earned $21 mm through his Arb years.   His contact is worth $25.3 mm/yr, so that’s $72 mm through 8 years, $97 mm through 9.   Less than the Holliday guarantee.

So, as I see it, only Lindor and Seager topped 9/$110, which is what you’re guaranteeing Holliday before he’s played a game.   The other five players, all of whom have been very good players who got lucrative FA deals, all made less than that through 9 seasons.

Now, how could you justify it?   Well, all those guys are under contract at high prices for years in which they will be well past their prime.  Holliday would not be.   You are getting what should be his very best seasons without any mid-to-late 30’s baggage.   But that’s still a lot of risk.

And how many of those guys had Boras as an agent, a wealthy family, a 8M signing bonus, picked 1st, #1, super hyped prospect  and signed a pre arb deal where the gave up FA years?

Did any of those guys even have 2 of those things?

Edited December 1, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And how many of those guys had Boras as an agent, a wealthy family, a 8M signing bonus, picked 1st, #1, super hyped prospect  and signed a pre arb deal where the gave up FA years?

Did any of those guys even have 2 of those things?

I don’t see the relevance of Boras, Holliday’s family or his signing bonus to Elias’ evaluation of risk vs. reward.  The fact that this is a pre-arb deal cuts the other way from what you’re suggesting.  This team should be getting a discount to account for the risk that the player has a career-altering injury or just plain isn’t as good as hoped.  These 7 players bore all that risk themselves.  (Bogaerts did sign an extension after he already had 5 years of service and an established performance record.)

Needless to say, Correa and Swanson were both 1:1 picks.  But that’s got nothing to do with what they ultimately earned.  

Your best argument, IMO, is the one I already made: that this contract doesn’t include any late-career overpay years.  

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t see the relevance of Boras, Holliday’s family or his signing bonus to Elias’ evaluation of risk vs. reward.  The fact that this is a pre-arb deal cuts the other way from what you’re suggesting.  This team should be getting a discount to account for the risk that the player has a career-altering injury or just plain isn’t as good as hoped.  These 7 players bore all that risk themselves.  (Bogaerts did sign an extension after he already had 5 years of service and an established performance record.)

Needless to say, Correa and Swanson were both 1:1 picks.  But that’s got nothing to do with what they ultimately earned.  

Your best argument, IMO, is the one I already made: that this contract doesn’t include any late-career overpay years.  

Those things matter because it means you likely have to pay more to get the deal done And at the end of the day, getting the deal done is more important than squabbling over 20 million dollars over the course of 9 years.

As I already stated, it’s not the best deal for the Os..except you get to keep the player. The reality is, without an extension, you may be trying to trade him with 1 or 2 years left of service time.  So now, you may not look to trade him at all or if you do, you have gotten 7 or 8 years, not 4 or 5.  That’s why you do the deal. 

Thats really the only advantage to any of these deals. It’s not saving money, which is largely a fallacy in these cases. It’s the idea of feeling you don’t have to trade them because you don’t want to end up with just a singular draft pick for an MVp level guy.

So yea, it’s risky and it’s not much, if any, savings but keeping the player, in their prime years that go along with other guys in their prime years, is what is important.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Those things matter because it means you likely have to pay more to get the deal done And at the end of the day, getting the deal done is more important than squabbling over 20 million dollars over the course of 9 years.

As I already stated, it’s not the best deal for the Os..except you get to keep the player. The reality is, without an extension, you may be trying to trade him with 1 or 2 years left of service time.  So now, you may not look to trade him at all or if you do, you have gotten 7 or 8 years, not 4 or 5.  That’s why you do the deal. 

Thats really the only advantage to any of these deals. It’s not saving money, which is largely a fallacy in these cases. It’s the idea of feeling you don’t have to trade them because you don’t want to end up with just a singular draft pick for an MVp level guy.

So yea, it’s risky and it’s not much, if any, savings but keeping the player, in their prime years that go along with other guys in their prime years, is what is important.

Thats all great if he stays healthy and is a MVP level guy.   I’m guessing Elias is more cold-blooded than you in assessing the risk that this won’t turn out to be the case, notwithstanding all the hype.   

This is all sounding like I’m against this idea.  But I’m not going that far.  If Elias strongly believes that Holliday will be a major league talent equivalent to Rutschman and Henderson, without needing to see more, then I’d be fine with it.   Because I’d offer either of those guys that deal (minus the 1-2 years at league minimum already served) in a heartbeat.
 

[Sports Guy]

32 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Thats all great if he stays healthy and is a MVP level guy.   I’m guessing Elias is more cold-blooded than you in assessing the risk that this won’t turn out to be the case, notwithstanding all the hype.   

This is all sounding like I’m against this idea.  But I’m not going that far.  If Elias strongly believes that Holliday will be a major league talent equivalent to Rutschman and Henderson, without needing to see more, then I’d be fine with it.   Because I’d offer either of those guys that deal (minus the 1-2 years at league minimum already served) in a heartbeat.
 

No, I know what you are arguing.  Elias is probably a little more risk adverse than I would be but I just think there are exceptions and this would be one of them.

But what you are arguing is why these deals are overrated to begin with. I don’t really like them all that much but I see merit in doing it in some cases.

[Billy F-Face3]

14 hours ago, Frobby said:

I just think the risk/reward ratio of the deal you proposed wouldn’t be to Elias’ liking at the moment.   It really only works if Holliday is a Seager-level star.  And that’s a big bet to make, with a ton of downside risk.

 I'm inclined to think similar to how you perceive Elias's mindset to be. I think Mike Elias likes to have flexibility.  No one can predict the future. And handing out long guaranteed contracts restricts flexibility a great amount. Which is probably why we've only seen him do 1 year deals, and the 2 year deals he's done have been with options (that usually aren't picked up). By sticking to team control, the team is able to go year to year on their player's contracts. There's no restrictions. They can make an offer for the upcoming season, or not. And the money can be allocated where needed.

Plus Elias is just starting to get over the hindrance of the Chris Davis contract, and I bet you that situation put a sour taste in his mouth as a GM who has inherited it.

[interloper]

I think this is kind of a dumb signing. Guy had a .803 OPS in AA last year in 559 PA. I'm sure he will be a decent MLer, but $82 mil seems a little unnecessarily aggressive at this point for a guy who you have no idea how he would perform in AAA outside of 24 PA let alone the bigs. 

Good luck though! And good for the player securing the bag. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by interloper

[baltfan]

Well, hopefully this will end the idea that the Orioles aren’t trying to extend their young guys.