Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

[Bemorewins]

49 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You would give him a Tatis deal?

Yes. That’s less than 25 million a season on average. Even though the years are a bit long. That’s the going rate for these type of superstar players. 

Maybe you can go more AAV in exchange for say a 12 year deal?

But at age 22, even at 14 years he’s here until he’s what 37/38? In 10 years 25 mill per won’t be the valued at nearly the same dollar amount in terms of “paying an older possibly declining player”.

That contract length also ensures that he is an Oriole for life basically.

If Rubenstien’s goal is to restore the franchise’s glory instead of simply making it a competitive franchise. You cannot minimize the value of having these type of franchise cornerstone players/homegrown superstars. We basically haven’t had one (and retained) since Ripken. (Yes I know Machado was one but we let him walk and basically the same with Mussina.)

[Don_Aase_Fan]

I picked Adley simply because he was here first, he seems like the most realistic shot at an extension, and he’s the heart and soul of the team.

Gunnar is the more elite talent, for sure, but are they going to top BWJ’s deal? Of course there is no real frame of reference for how the new ownership group will spend, but I’d be floored if they topped 11/288. Burnes has made it pretty clear that he wants to hit FA and it ultimately feels like he’ll end up back on the west coast. 

Edited April 25 by Don_Aase_Fan

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Don_Aase_Fan said:

I picked Adley simply because he was here first, he seems like the most realistic shot at an extension, and he’s the heart and soul of the team.

Gunnar is the more elite talent, for sure, but are they going to top BWJ’s deal? Of course there is no real frame of reference for how the new ownership group will spend, but I’d be floored if they topped 11/288. Burnes has made it pretty clear that he wants to hit FA and it ultimately feels like he’ll end up back on the west coast. 

If that number is the barometer then the answer is yes. Absolutely yes! 

If the goal is to one build a longer term multiple World Series winning team, then you don’t let elite/irreplaceable talent walk. Look around the game, nobody is really doing that anymore. At least not without retaining at least one franchise player to market/build around. If the other goal is to grow the franchise’s viability/relevance/fanbase/revenues within this market, you have to have superstar m/face of the franchise players that people want to see and corporations want to invest as dollars in.

[sportsfan8703]

What option is most valuable?

1 - Mullins' value to us in 2025 + Comp Pick

2 - A trade package of what Mullins would bring back if traded next offseason?

3 - Extend for 2025 and beyond?  I guess that probably looks like 4/70ish for 2025-2028.  Which would be Mullins' age 30-33 years.  Buxton got 7/100.   This was the closest comp I could find with skill/age taken into account.  

[Sports Guy]

28 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Yes. That’s less than 25 million a season on average. Even though the years are a bit long. That’s the going rate for these type of superstar players. 

Maybe you can go more AAV in exchange for say a 12 year deal?

But at age 22, even at 14 years he’s here until he’s what 37/38? In 10 years 25 mill per won’t be the valued at nearly the same dollar amount in terms of “paying an older possibly declining player”.

That contract length also ensures that he is an Oriole for life basically.

If Rubenstien’s goal is to restore the franchise’s glory instead of simply making it a competitive franchise. You cannot minimize the value of having these type of franchise cornerstone players/homegrown superstars. We basically haven’t had one (and retained) since Ripken. (Yes I know Machado was one but we let him walk and basically the same with Mussina.)

That’s not really the right way to look at the Tatis deal.

The first 5 years of the deal, the Padres had team control anyway. He got 44M for those years.

So, the deal was really a 9/296 extension.  That’s about 33M a year.  Well over 200M of that is paid after age 30.

Im personally not interested in that deal for Gunnar and it would be for more money now too.

Edited April 25 by Sports Guy

[Moose Milligan]

I said Gunnar earlier.

Before this season, I could have seen a case for Adley.  And I love Adley, great hitter (I don't think he's ever going to be a big power guy, but plate approach, contact, key hits, he's great) leader, heart and soul, etc.  

But it's clearly Gunnar.  I didn't expect him to be this good, this fast.  He's separating himself from the rest of the pack, not only on this team but throughout the league.

Whether or not an extension can happen is a different story altogether.  But Gunnar's the guy I'd go with first.

[Sports Guy]

Gunnar is our Kyle Tucker but at a more premium position.

 

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That’s not really the right way to look at the Tatis deal.

The first 5 years of the deal, the Padres had team control anyway. He got 44M for those years.

So, the deal was really a 9/296 extension.  That’s about 33M a year.

Understood. But even from that perspective, I would still say that Gunnar is worth investing in at that amount. The value to franchise of a true superstar player is worth more than 33 for a decade. 

IMO the money to be made and the value that is added to the franchise from the winning, increased attendance/merch sales, added revenue from businesses investing in your suits, playoff revenue, etc; is worth the investment.

Obviously you have to be careful with giving out these kinds of contracts. But the is literally NOTHING that I can see about Gunnar Henderson that says that he is not worth it. Given I don’t know him personally and do know about any potential things off the field that may be possible red flags.

But assuming none of those exists, this is the kind of guy that you lock up! If the O’s/Rubenstein simply want to have a competitive team, you can cycle guys through, trade them at peak value, and continue the cycle of an ongoing rebuild of sorts. However, IMO that does not add value to your franchise in a significant way because history has shown that this kind of approach does not lead to a buzzing/blooming/expanding fanbase (i.e. the Rays, Guardians, etc). 

But if Rubenstien wants to maximize the value /growth of his investment, you have to have and retain elite talent/superstar players WHILE you win. 

My contention is that you are dealing with a more informed consumer than ever before in history (due to the internet) AND that same consumer has more entertainment options than ever. You HAVE to give that consumer a compelling reason to engage your product. Yes it requires when but people (especially the non-die hard and specifically younger fans connect by following other people). Institution loyalty is no longer binding enough that it can be relied upon to hold/retain the attention/interest of the average consumer. The movie industry found that out during the pandemic. When people in large part stopped going to theaters.

Baseball at the end of the day is an entertainment business. And part of putting on the show is having people that the paying customer wants to see perform.

[Bemorewins]

22 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

What option is most valuable?

1 - Mullins' value to us in 2025 + Comp Pick

2 - A trade package of what Mullins would bring back if traded next offseason?

3 - Extend for 2025 and beyond?  I guess that probably looks like 4/70ish for 2025-2028.  Which would be Mullins' age 30-33 years.  Buxton got 7/100.   This was the closest comp I could find with skill/age taken into account.  

Unless we cannot sign Gunnar/Adley/Holliday whatsoever (because they are simply uninterested at any dollar amount), I don’t want to tie any significant dollar amount that could be going to them in future years on a player like Mullins (good not great).

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Understood. But even from that perspective, I would still say that Gunnar is worth investing in at that amount. The value to franchise of a true superstar player is worth more than 33 for a decade. 

IMO the money to be made and the value that is added to the franchise from the winning, increased attendance/merch sales, added revenue from businesses investing in your suits, playoff revenue, etc; is worth the investment.

Obviously you have to be careful with giving out these kinds of contracts. But the is literally NOTHING that I can see about Gunnar Henderson that says that he is not worth it. Given I don’t know him personally and do know about any potential things off the field that may be possible red flags.

But assuming none of those exists, this is the kind of guy that you lock up! If the O’s/Rubenstein simply want to have a competitive team, you can cycle guys through, trade them at peak value, and continue the cycle of an ongoing rebuild of sorts. However, IMO that does not add value to your franchise in a significant way because history has shown that this kind of approach does not lead to a buzzing/blooming/expanding fanbase (i.e. the Rays, Guardians, etc). 

But if Rubenstien wants to maximize the value /growth of his investment, you have to have and retain elite talent/superstar players WHILE you win. 

My contention is that you are dealing with a more informed consumer than ever before in history (due to the internet) AND that same consumer has more entertainment options than ever. You HAVE to give that consumer a compelling reason to engage your product. Yes it requires when but people (especially the non-die hard and specifically younger fans connect by following other people). Institution loyalty is no longer binding enough that it can be relied upon to hold/retain the attention/interest of the average consumer. The movie industry found that out during the pandemic. When people in large part stopped going to theaters.

Baseball at the end of the day is an entertainment business. And part of putting on the show is having people that the paying customer wants to see perform.

You can’t see injury or decline until it happens.

And he will decline in his 30s.  Whether or not he has injury issues is to be seen.

[Bemorewins]

21 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You can’t see injury or decline until it happens.

And he will decline in his 30s.  Whether or not he has injury issues is to be seen.

I agree completely. It is a risk. But IMO the potential reward is worth the risk. You can’t make the shots that you are unwilling to take.

[sportsfan8703]

39 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Unless we cannot sign Gunnar/Adley/Holliday whatsoever (because they are simply uninterested at any dollar amount), I don’t want to tie any significant dollar amount that could be going to them in future years on a player like Mullins (good not great).

I'm sure the Yankees would love Mullins at 4/80.  He's the type of player that a WS contender would be looking to acquire and not trade away.  GG CF defense.  CF being so thin in the MLB.  Mullins is a top 5-7 CF in the game overall.  Other guys can stand out in CF and not hurt you.  Mullins actually gains us advantage.  

It's a dilemma that Elias will have to tackle.  Keep an eye on EBJ's milb season.  

[Bemorewins]

19 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I'm sure the Yankees would love Mullins at 4/80.  He's the type of player that a WS contender would be looking to acquire and not trade away.  GG CF defense.  CF being so thin in the MLB.  Mullins is a top 5-7 CF in the game overall.  Other guys can stand out in CF and not hurt you.  Mullins actually gains us advantage.  

It's a dilemma that Elias will have to tackle.  Keep an eye on EBJ's milb season.  

I see no dilemma. He’s under team control right now during his best season’s. When he becomes a FA he will be out of his prime.

I mean I love Mullins as a player and what he brings. But when we are talking about priorities for extensions, he is nowhere near the top considering you have an MVP caliber 22 year old, an ultra talented top prospect who is 20, and your team leader is 25. Those 3 are the engine that will drive this bus toward postseason glory most probably, not Cedric Mullins.

If the Yanks want to give him that kind of contract while we retain 2 out of the 3 if Henderson, Rutschman, and Holliday; then so be it! 

What I shudder to think about is a prime Henderson or Holliday crushing it for one of our competitors so that we can have a declining CF.

Didn’t we just do that the last go around? Where we choose to resign the (predictably) declining player while we let the younger/more talented player leave?

Yes, I agree that Bradfield Jr’s development is important. But since Elias/Sig have been here they haven’t struck out on any first round picks. Also, if Bradfield proves to be a bust, they can always draft and/or develop another CF type.

[jabba72]

32 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I'm sure the Yankees would love Mullins at 4/80.  He's the type of player that a WS contender would be looking to acquire and not trade away.  GG CF defense.  CF being so thin in the MLB.  Mullins is a top 5-7 CF in the game overall.  Other guys can stand out in CF and not hurt you.  Mullins actually gains us advantage.  

It's a dilemma that Elias will have to tackle.  Keep an eye on EBJ's milb season.  

O's have Fabian behind Bradfield and Mullins will likely decline after '25 when he becomes a FA. I think one of those two should be able to hold down CF. Beavers could be in the mix as well.

[Just Regular]

Even if EBJ busts, maybe Colton Cowser or Dylan Beavers can defend CF as well as Aaron Judge?

I wonder if Mullins can beat the Nimmo contract where that would peg him among best contracts earned by late round draft picks, but that's still two years away.