How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

[Sports Guy]

Something I see from many people is that we should extend Burnes. 
 

The argument is, well we have different owners and we think they will spend and the team can afford to do it on occasion, with Burnes being the type of guy you do that for.

Another argument, which I have made in the past, is that when your team has so many cheap/high surplus value players for so many years that you can take advantage of that by signing a larger deal that perhaps you normally wouldn’t sign. This is kind of the same effect as a star QB on a rookie contract. 
 

However, even if you have those things going for you, is that reason to sign a contract that is very likely to blow up in your face over the long haul?

For me, if Burnes was 2-3 years younger, I would really consider the long term deal even though I hate them for a pitcher but if you told me I could get 2-3 CY caliber years and 2-3 good years, I would the take 2-3 mediocre or worse seasons and just treat them as a sunk cost.

But at age 30, I’m not sure you can get those 4-6 really good years out of him.

That combined with the injury risk would cause me to pass on extending Burnes or signing him as a FA.

I don’t think ownership would change how I would look at these things and I’m fairly confident it won’t change Elias either.

Please note that I’m not talking about extensions for pre arb guys in this thread.  This is talking the merits of larger FA (or walk year) contracts.

[Fiver6565]

I begrudgingly agree with you on Burnes. Begrudgingly because I’d love to do it and I really like what Burnes brings to the table, but trusting that contract to not blow up in our faces is just too long a bridge to cross. And even with new ownership, we can’t afford for a huge contract to just give us nothing for even half of it. 
 

I’m also not yet convinced we are going to see a significant increase in spending. New owner yes but it’s early days and there’s been no clear song either way on his penchant for spending. People are assuming way way too much on that front IMO ( as evidenced by the ridiculous uproar over that tweet with the desk at SS a few days ago). 
 

Hopeful, maybe even cautiously optimistic, but with the emphasis on cautiously 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Fiver6565 said:

I begrudgingly agree with you on Burnes. Begrudgingly because I’d love to do it and I really like what Burnes brings to the table, but trusting that contract to not blow up in our faces is just too long a bridge to cross. And even with new ownership, we can’t afford for a huge contract to just give us nothing for even half of it. 
 

I’m also not yet convinced we are going to see a significant increase in spending. New owner yes but it’s early days and there’s been no clear song either way on his penchant for spending. People are assuming way way too much on that front IMO ( as evidenced by the ridiculous uproar over that tweet with the desk at SS a few days ago). 
 

Hopeful, maybe even cautiously optimistic, but with the emphasis on cautiously 

I think the assumption people have is that since this ownership group has more money that they would be “ok” with a contract that goes bad.

I tend to doubt that but maybe they are more willing to take that risk and if it blows up in their face, not allow it to hurt how they do business.

 

[Pickles]

I don't think they'll ever spend BIG on pitching.  It's just too volatile and risky.  I also don't think they'll spend BIG on any FA.

There 100+ million contracts, the few of them they do hand out, will almost exclusively go to homegrown guys.

[Fiver6565]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I think the assumption people have is that since this ownership group has more money that they would be “ok” with a contract that goes bad.

I tend to doubt that but maybe they are more willing to take that risk and if it blows up in their face, not allow it to hurt how they do business.

 

I think the assumption that they’re going to spend differently in the first place is a bit much as of now. I mean you can’t really spend less, so it will be more than the Angelos clan, but will it be significant?  Not safe to assume so if you ask me. Now if they do start spending right and left, I do think they’ll be OK with the risk you’ve outlined. I’m just not there yet on the IF part. 

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

How would you feel about extending Grayson?

Why?

We already have him controlled for the next 5 years.

How long of a commitment do you want to make to him?

[Sanfran327]

The way the blue chip FA contracts are going lately is that they're only 2-3 years at a time to keep up with market value. I'd spend our ownership's money at $50m/yr to keep Burnes for 2-3 more years. Let someone else pay him in 2027 or 2028.

[Sanfran327]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Why?

We already have him controlled for the next 5 years.

How long of a commitment do you want to make to him?

Exactly. I had this same internal dialogue today, actually. He could break over the next 5 years, or he could be worthy of extending. Either way, that's not a today problem. Just let him be for now.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

How would you feel about extending Grayson?

I don’t see the point.

By and large, I think these extensions are very overrated by fans. I think it gives you a nice, warm and fuzzy feeling that your favorite players are locked in but for the team, unless you are getting a big discount, they don’t make a ton of sense.

For a pitcher, who you have for another 4 years after this one, I don’t see it making sense unless he’s signing for real cheap. (Ie, I’m getting 2 FA years for 25M a year or less)

If I’m getting that, I do it.

But I think GRod has TJ surgery sometime in the next 3 years, so I’m really wary about it.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

Exactly. I had this same internal dialogue today, actually. He could break over the next 5 years, or he could be worthy of extending. Either way, that's not a today problem. Just let him be for now.

There's very little upside to a Rodriguez extension for the Orioles, unless Grayson becomes a generational pitcher.

[Sanfran327]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

There's very little upside to a Rodriguez extension for the Orioles, unless Grayson becomes a generational pitcher.

Correct. Or worse, he could be Tim Lincecum, who was a generational pitcher with an incredibly short shelf life. Well, only worse if we extend him early and he breaks.

[Pickles]

Just now, Sanfran327 said:

Correct. Or worse, he could be Tim Lincecum, who was a generational pitcher with an incredibly short shelf life. Well, only worse if we extend him early and he breaks.

Exactly.

We've got him for the entirety of his 20s.  There's no need to guarantee him anything into his 30s, and it would only really work out in favor of the O's if he has a borderline HOF career.

I like him; I don't like him that much.

[Spy Fox]

Sorry, I deleted the Grayson question because I saw it was being discussed in the Extension Priority thread and SG had mentioned he wasn't talking about pre-arb players here. But I wasn't fast enough for you guys.

[interloper]

9 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I don't think they'll ever spend BIG on pitching.  It's just too volatile and risky.  I also don't think they'll spend BIG on any FA.

There 100+ million contracts, the few of them they do hand out, will almost exclusively go to homegrown guys.

Full agree here. 

David Rubenstein =/= spending $2-300 million dollars on a player suddenly. Delusional to think that, IMO. 

[LookinUp]

This is why I was against the Burnes trade. I could turn out to be wrong even only having him for one year, but I would have rather got a guy with a few years of control.

I agree though. You really can't extend him at what he's going to ask for.