Witt Extension; Adley Comparison

[Sanity Check]

46 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He won’t sign for 10 years..at least not guaranteed years.  He may do something like this Witt deal though.  An ability to opt out or have player options.

You Are basically saying, give him a 5/200 extension.  That’s all risk for the Os. That’s paying him what the elite guys are getting now and doing it after one season.  It may be ok to do that but when signing these deals, you should get some level of a discount. my suggestion isn’t much of one but it’s a little bit more. I don’t think we can expect much more than that.

 

The real risk is that Gunnar prices himself to a much higher requirement than what Witt got.  I think if Gunnar extends, it will be for more than Witt's deal.....I actually think the Witt deal is now the floor for a Henderson deal if we wanted to go that route.  There's always risk in extending players.....and there's equal risk in not extending them, as in they end up pricing themselves out of our market or our comfort level.  By the time Witt gets to those $35M years, that could look like a bargain price for his talents, and an easy opt-out scenario.

[geschinger]

27 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

This Witt structure may very well be the only way to get Boras clients to agree to the long-term deals.

Buy 3 additional years of control (7 total) by offering an additional 4 years of player opt outs at the current market rate as security for the player.

Not sure it's the right long-term strategy for the team or not. As a fan I'd like to see it (hey, it's not my money) but I can't say I'd blame the team if they didn't think that trade-off was necessarily worth it. It might just be better to negotiate a more conventional extension once these guys hit FA.

I know it's necessary, but I really dislike that many options. It makes practical roster construction difficult for a team w/o unlimited payroll.  You only have to account for that extra 150m if he's a disappointment and not worthy of having on the roster.

[geschinger]

20 minutes ago, TopGunnar said:

It’s a great deal if he becomes a star face of the franchise. $30 mill a year in 7 years is going to be a steal

Escalation is a lot less sure than it was a few years ago with the implosion of regional sports networks revenues.   Teams could be in for a rude awakening as existing contracts expire.

[ThisIsBirdland]

13 minutes ago, TheWall said:

A conventional extension would be dramatically more expensive if Witt continues on his current trajectory. 

 

I think the 3 team options helps them hedge the risk a little bit and there is no downside. Witt is only extending the deal to 11/$281M if he's not playing up to expectations. If rebounds during those last 4 years the team might want to lock him down for additional years at these $ amounts negotiated in '24 when the average contract amount will likely be dramatically higher 11 years from now. 

I think the key is you'll know if the player is continuing on the trajectory or not by that point, even if it becomes more expensive in a competitive market. That certainty versus guaranteeing $140m is significant; whether or not it's worth the premium the team would pay in competitive FA, I can't say.

My preference has always been the Julio Rodriguez model. I thought it was one of the most unique arrangements I've seen in how it offered both the player and the team protection and upside. It had multiple team options (8 or 10 years) that can be elected after the base 7/$120m deal, and there was a sliding scale on their monetary amount based on his performance. If the team didn't elect the option, control passed to Rodriguez as a 5/$90m option, which also had healthy escalators in it too.

This Witt deal appears to put significantly more risk on the team.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/seattle-mariners/julio-rodriguez-23850/

 

[Sanity Check]

2 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I know it's necessary, but I really dislike that many options. It makes practical roster construction difficult for a team w/o unlimited payroll.  You only have to account for that extra 150m if he's a disappointment and not worthy of having on the roster.

I'm sure Witt wanted those options for the potential that one of those years prices his future way above what's left on his contract.  The Royals needed to do it (probably) in order to get the deal done.

[Sports Guy]

39 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're absolutely correct that they don't work for Boras. 

But, Boras is in their ear telling them that they can get more in free agency.  And he's telling them how many times he's gotten players more in free agency.  

So you're right, the player has to say no.  But Boras is in their ear all the time saying they'll deserve more, he can get them more, etc.  

But the players know that anyway. What you aren’t getting is a bargain deal like what Atlanta may end up with in the FA years for Acuna.  All you really will gain is knowing the player is there and maybe the player loses some a little bit of a money in those few FA years they gave up..but they get guaranteed generational wealth and can still get 2-3 times that when they become a FA. 
 

I find it hard to believe that the deals I laid out would get rejected. I’m not saying it can’t happen, I just don’t believe it.

And btw, if they want the team to attach some of the opt out player options Witt got, that’s fine.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, geschinger said:

Escalation is a lot less sure than it was a few years ago with the implosion of regional sports networks revenues.   Teams could be in for a rude awakening as existing contracts expire.

Netflix just paid 5 billion for the rights to air RAW for 10 years.

[Moose Milligan]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But the players know that anyway. What you aren’t getting is a bargain deal like what Atlanta may end up with in the FA years for Acuna.  All you really will gain is knowing the player is there and maybe the player loses some a little bit of a money in those few FA years they gave up..but they get guaranteed generational wealth and can still get 2-3 times that when they become a FA. 
 

I find it hard to believe that the deals I laid out would get rejected. I’m not saying it can’t happen, I just don’t believe it.

And btw, if they want the team to attach some of the opt out player options Witt got, that’s fine.

We agree.  However, I think it was @Malike that pointed out that no Boras client has ever inked a deal like this.  Or the Atlanta bargain type deals.

If it were you or me, hey, yeah, gimme the extension right now that sets me up for life so I don't have to worry about anything.  I totally get the appeal of it.  Put all the opt-outs in that you want, that's fine, too.

But if what he said is true about Boras clients never having signed one, well, there's a reason for that.  I'm not a Boras basher, BTW.  

[MarCakes21]

The key is what does $35mil look like in 5 years.  So in my mind, yes I'd lock these guys up, but maybe not for the total length.  I don't think Witt is in these guys category yet, but if he progresses he likely will, as will Gunnar:

1. Corey Seager, Texas, $35,500,000

2. Carlos Correa, Minnesota, $33,333,333

3. Francisco Lindor, N.Y. Mets, $32,477,277 

4. Trea Turner, Philadelphia, $27,272,727

5. Xander Bogaerts, San Diego, $25,454,545 

Would you rather have Bogarts at age 31 or the potential of Witt/Gunnar at age 28.  The valuation is likely similar.

[geschinger]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Netflix just paid 5 billion for the rights to air RAW for 10 years.

Somehow, I don't see them or any of the streaming services getting into the bidding for a team like the Seattle Mariners' non-nationally broadcast schedule.

[Billy F-Face3]

The thing that makes opt outs so necessary is because unlike the NFL, MLB contracts are guaranteed. Opt outs allow more flexibility for both the player and the team.

[Just Regular]

Ignoring the options, it looks like Witt has chosen to sell FA seasons for 3/100.

The Royals have the risk he'll exercise all those 1/35 options if he is bad.     If he is good he'll optout, and Kansas City has assured itself 3 more seasons for a large guarantee.

2022-2027 - 6 years after Opening Day roster spot earned

2028-2030 - 3/100

After - economic analysts playing their games.     Witt assured essentially a second set of ~$150M even if he doesn't thrive.

 

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

The real risk is that Gunnar prices himself to a much higher requirement than what Witt got.  I think if Gunnar extends, it will be for more than Witt's deal.....I actually think the Witt deal is now the floor for a Henderson deal if we wanted to go that route.  There's always risk in extending players.....and there's equal risk in not extending them, as in they end up pricing themselves out of our market or our comfort level.  By the time Witt gets to those $35M years, that could look like a bargain price for his talents, and an easy opt-out scenario.

Let’s just talk about the first 7 years…how much more can Gunnar realistically ask for..remember, one of those years for Gunnar is a pre arb year and one of them for Witt is a FA year.  If we gave Gunnar 7/120 vs Witt getting 7/141, it’s actually in favor of Gunnar because of that simple fact. That’s like a 35ishM difference, not 20. Gunnar could make more than 120M the next 7 years but it’s not likely he will. To do better than that, everything has to go right..health, performance, etc…

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

We agree.  However, I think it was @Malike that pointed out that no Boras client has ever inked a deal like this.  Or the Atlanta bargain type deals.

If it were you or me, hey, yeah, gimme the extension right now that sets me up for life so I don't have to worry about anything.  I totally get the appeal of it.  Put all the opt-outs in that you want, that's fine, too.

But if what he said is true about Boras clients never having signed one, well, there's a reason for that.  I'm not a Boras basher, BTW.  

Well the question is, has anyone offered a Boras client a deal like the 2 I suggested?

By that I mean, all the team is really gaining is the fact that you get the player for a few extra years.

Keep in mind that these types of deals are rarely strict market value deals. They are usually bargains for the team, as they should be. I mean, these guys don’t have big track records, you never know how they will develop, how much effort they put in, it money changes them, etc…so instead of 45-50M for those first 6 years, maybe you are getting them for 35-40M and instead of 35M a year in FA, maybe you are getting them for 20-28M.  
 

But maybe for Boras you don’t do that. Maybe you just be satisfied with having the player there for longer…which is really what KC did here.

And maybe teams are worried about setting that type of precedent too.  Maybe that could effect a deal the Os would give for Mayo or Basallo or whoever. All of that is possible and could be why you don’t do it.

So it may be less about Boras and more about the teams.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Malike said:

I'd like to see Gunnar get an extension but I keep reminding myself that Boras has never had a client sign an extension with less than 2 years of service time. Not once.

There’s a first time for everything…