How should we look at FA contracts going forward?

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

The Verlander trade requires taking on a lot of money and then doing an extension for an older pitcher. And then that older pitcher missed a season with that team (and making a big salary) due to TJ.

Are you comfortable with taking those kinds of risks?

Oh, the OP was about extensions. No?

I guess you are against all long term deals? If so, that is fine. I just have a difference of opinion. 

Why do you have to extend him?  Verlander was signed for a few years when they got him. The extension isn’t part of the deal.

It was a separate outcome and that’s a big difference.

Im against making poor moves that are likely to fail.

Edited April 19 by Sports Guy

[Sydnor]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think he will be absolutely for that…but I also don’t think he has to for reasons I have stated in the past.

I know this isn’t the question that you asked, but my recollection is that you worked on the business side for the Orioles at some point, so I think you might be able to weigh in on this idea: do you think there are business reasons to extend a Gunnar or an Adley?

I know you’re view is generally that extensions are overrated by the fanbase, but that largely seems related to the idea that you are paying for past-peak years (if I’m off base here, it wasn’t intentional—just my recollection). I tend to think that from a business standpoint, an extension for a young player would not make a material difference concerning the amount of tickets sold, revenue generated, etc. and would really just make some people on X happy, but I don’t really have anything to support that opinion.

[Billy F-Face3]

14 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

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

And what is the data on Cy Young award winning pitchers in their age 30 and up seasons?

Side Note: Last season's best Orioles starting pitcher, Kyle Bradish, is only 2 years younger than Burnes. I don't think you can assume Grayson will remain healthy either based on how violent his velocity is and the injury history that he has from the minor leagues.

With all that said, I agree that it is crucial to ask these questions and think hard about these things and try to make a healthy rational decision. Pros and Cons. Cost benefit analysis. We're lucky to see a Cy Young award winner playing for the Orioles even once in a generation, and considering how rare that is, we should consider the value in it and balance the upside with the downside.

Some pitchers are built sturdier than others. Look at former Orioles pitcher Jamie Moyer (he was almost 50 years old before he retired). Look at Nolan Ryan. Could Burnes be one of those enduring pitchers? He's had a very good career track record of health.

[Billy F-Face3]

1 hour ago, Sydnor said:

I know you’re view is generally that extensions are overrated by the fanbase, but that largely seems related to the idea that you are paying for past-peak years (if I’m off base here, it wasn’t intentional—just my recollection). I tend to think that from a business standpoint, an extension for a young player would not make a material difference concerning the amount of tickets sold, revenue generated, etc. and would really just make some people on X happy, but I don’t really have anything to support that opinion.

All I can give you is an anecdote about my nephew. He's not a baseball fan per se, but he likes sports (mostly NFL) and he likes Baltimore teams. He hadn't been to an Orioles game since he was a little boy during the JJ Hardy years (Hardy was his favorite Oriole). Then last season I took him to his first game as an adult on Sunday Night Baseball against the Yankees, and one of the things he said to me he liked about the Orioles was "that the players are all home grown".

Considering he was a casual fan at the point, I think extending those home grown players could have a positive impact on the business side of things. But that's only if the Orioles continue to be successful and competitive as a team. Since that game, he's been to several more games on his own and took his girlfriend a few times.

[OnlyOneOriole]

You try to sign long term Gunnar and GR.  Wait and see on the others.

As for Adley?   I would not sign him to a long term contract.  I hate to say it because I love the guy but he just does not seem worth what he is going to ask for imo.

[Sports Guy]

6 hours ago, Sydnor said:

I know this isn’t the question that you asked, but my recollection is that you worked on the business side for the Orioles at some point, so I think you might be able to weigh in on this idea: do you think there are business reasons to extend a Gunnar or an Adley?

I know you’re view is generally that extensions are overrated by the fanbase, but that largely seems related to the idea that you are paying for past-peak years (if I’m off base here, it wasn’t intentional—just my recollection). I tend to think that from a business standpoint, an extension for a young player would not make a material difference concerning the amount of tickets sold, revenue generated, etc. and would really just make some people on X happy, but I don’t really have anything to support that opinion.

Well I was just a peon when I worked there, so it’s not like that experience mattered in my decision.

And my view on extensions isn’t you are paying for past years. Hell, I would sign Holliday today and Gunnar is only a year into things.

The issue with the extensions is that you are already have the player(s) locked up for most of the years anyway. So, when you sign them to an extension, you are guaranteeing 7-9 years but really all you are gaining is 2-3 years.  It’s a lot of money and guarantees for only a few years.

Now, the one thing that I have talked about that is important here is if you don’t extend them, do you look to trade them 1-2 years away from free agency because you don’t want to lose a talent like Gunnar, for example, for nothing.  So, maybe the extension buys you a few additional years on top of what are already getting.  OTOH, you may just decide to go for it with the player and lose them for nothing.

I guess you always have the option of going the Tatis route and go 14-15 years but I’m not sure of anyone who is advocating for that or would be ok with that. 

As for your business decision point here..I think that’s probably the biggest reason you do it…because players like the commitment and the fans like the commitment and there is value to that.

[Roll Tide]

19 hours 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.

I don’t think they need to be only for homegrown guys. Just the right guys! I think Burnes is a right guy. Now if we can’t extend him before he hits free agency and he gets 10 year 30 million per from someone you have to walk away. Id try an extension that has a higher AAV but a shorter term. Say you expect him to get $30 per for 10 in free agency. Then give him 7 years and perhaps an opt out after 4. 

[Sydnor]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Well I was just a peon when I worked there, so it’s not like that experience mattered in my decision.

And my view on extensions isn’t you are paying for past years. Hell, I would sign Holliday today and Gunnar is only a year into things.

The issue with the extensions is that you are already have the player(s) locked up for most of the years anyway. So, when you sign them to an extension, you are guaranteeing 7-9 years but really all you are gaining is 2-3 years.  It’s a lot of money and guarantees for only a few years.

Now, the one thing that I have talked about that is important here is if you don’t extend them, do you look to trade them 1-2 years away from free agency because you don’t want to lose a talent like Gunnar, for example, for nothing.  So, maybe the extension buys you a few additional years on top of what are already getting.  OTOH, you may just decide to go for it with the player and lose them for nothing.

I guess you always have the option of going the Tatis route and go 14-15 years but I’m not sure of anyone who is advocating for that or would be ok with that. 

As for your business decision point here..I think that’s probably the biggest reason you do it…because players like the commitment and the fans like the commitment and there is value to that.

I do think it would send a positive message to the clubhouse to extend a player or 2 if the FO thinks it makes sense (and I’m sure they probably do for a Henderson and Holliday). Given that Houston has done so historically, I think they would like to do that here. I do think it shows commitment for whatever that’s worth.

I remember last year that Adam Frazier did an interview on (I believe) the Foul Territory pod (might have been a different one) where he mentioned that the players were very aware of JA saying that the organization couldn’t afford to sign players to 9 figure extensions. I am sure they would prefer not to just feel like mercenaries.

Regardless, I wasn’t trying to get this thread off track and appreciate the response.