A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[sk7326]

8 years $220 mil is a great starting point for Machado. I thought he’d beat that, but it’s not a “hang up the phone” offer. I wonder if Machado wishes he took that at this point.

 

Here’s the thing Machado should do. He should come back to the Yankees and say yes to 8 years $220 mil. He should ask for the first $100 mil in the first 3 years with an opt out after that. He hits the market again at 29 with a new CBA agreed to. The Yanks get the AAV down, Machado goes to the team he wants with an AAV he won’t beat if he exercises the opt out.

 

The thing we are seeing with NY to this point is flexibility. Stanton is the longest contracted Yankee, but even he could be off the books in 2 years and with the Marlins extended deal and $30 mil kicked in, his lux tax hit is only $22 mil AAV. The bad deal for Ellsbury ends after 2020. Tanaka’s contract ends after 2020. Every other player on the team can be cleared from the payroll within 3 seasons. I am surprised the Yanks haven’t dipped into the Harper or Machado sweeps in a harder way, but flexibility is something they didn’t have for years and is the exact reason why the yanks fell from grace from 13-16.

 

I would not be surprised if the eventual deal ended up something like that.

[moonslav59]

If a 26 year old is hurting your future - that is not much of a future. The latter reasons are unsourced nonsense. He fits in with any team's timeline. And the Yankees can afford any player they want, contrary to what Steinbrenner tells people. Player salaries are decreasing while the industry is drowning in money - the facts here refute any claims of poverty. Fans identify with the owners - I expect that, but it is still remarkable to me.

 

His contract hurts the future, even if Machado does not stink up the place.

[sk7326]

Going by results to date - Sandoval. But those 8 figure contracts that go into a player’s 40s like Pujols and Cabrera looked like bad ideas from day one. I do think Joey Votto, whose deal is similar, will become as burdensome, but to his credit, hasn’t yet...

 

Votto

 

He will be a drag - but I suspect he will retain his ability to get on base for another 2-3 years. It will be suboptimal for his salary - but nothing which anyone will regret too much.

[sk7326]

His contract hurts the future, even if Machado does not stink up the place.

 

They certainly do if you buy the logic of the billionaires - or just want free stuff.

[notin]

Those are all fair points. But 26 years old or not, an 8 year commitment is arguably risky for the injury factor alone. And Machado has already had surgeries on both knees.

 

 

See, so he’s done with no more knees left to operate on.

 

Machado at 26 can play SS or 3b. Eventually he might have to move to 1b or DH, but he has the bat to handle the production associated with those roles....

[jacksonianmarch]

That’s what I’m thinking. I think Machado is telling teams that the first team to reach $300 mil guaranteed will get him and all he is getting is crickets.

 

The Yanks care about the lux tax. They really could care less about what they actually pay. They just don’t want to give money away, especially as you climb higher into the penalties, and they will never, IMO, cross the final line.

 

I think the players and the owners need to create something like the NBA. Shorten the “rookie” control and then create “max deals”. The duration may top out at 5 years, but the AAV’s would be dizzying. Free agency is at 4 years, arb is after 2, but your first contract, you’re only eligible for a 4 yr $80 mil deal after year 4. Player options built in. Escalating Max AAV’s as years pass to keep up with inflation and incomes. It’s just a thought. The problem with MLB contracts has been the dead years at the end of contracts. This way, guys in their prime get their money and the dead years are limited.

[moonslav59]

it is reasonable to expect 4 or 5 peak-ish years from that deal. That alone makes the deal a win in total. Obviously PED assessments are pointless to make - baseball careers typically do not flame out at 27 either way. I mean most old timey careers were solidly peaking in the 28-32 range.

 

Peak is probably closer to 26-29 or 27-30.

[jacksonianmarch]

Peak is back to where it should be sans PEDs. Most players start to fade around age 33.

 

Pre-prime 20-25

Prime 25-32

Productive post prime 33-35

Unproductive post prime 36+

 

This is more relative than absolute, but when throwing out an 8 year deal, you need to consider it. On an 8 year deal, Machado will conclude the deal at age 34. It’s not unreasonable to assume Machado will give 5-6 prime years and finish the deal with 2 reasonably good years

[Kimmi]

But is Machado for 8 years or more a good investment?

 

I am generally on the side of the players in this recent spending stall by the owners, but I do think that the expectations of players for length of contract should be reduced. A 5 or 6 year guaranteed contract should be the maximum.

 

There was a time teams would be willing to eat that many years, but with so many examples like Pujols and Miggy and Ellsbury and so on, I don't blame them for being reluctant to keep doing it.

 

It's almost like I wrote this post myself.

 

The next question is, should Mookie be extended for 10 years (or more) like many people here think he should?

[Kimmi]

If they can "afford anything they want", they'd sign Machado.

 

Of course they can afford it. But expecting owners to make poor business decisions simply because they can afford it is really not fair. The owners did not get to where they are by spending recklessly.

[Kimmi]

I agree that examples of long term contracts that haven't paid off abound. A smart owner wants to avoid a long term commitment which may in the end hamper the club. Even with that said, we have seen our own guys make bad decisions on contracts. There doesn't have to be collusion among owners to stop getting into these contracts, just the realization that they are highly risky. Price was questionable at the time but has given us some value. Time will tell if 7 years made sense.

 

The Price contract was not a wise decision. It has worked out so far, but it was still not wise to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year deal.

[Kimmi]

it is reasonable to expect 4 or 5 peak-ish years from that deal. That alone makes the deal a win in total. Obviously PED assessments are pointless to make - baseball careers typically do not flame out at 27 either way. I mean most old timey careers were solidly peaking in the 28-32 range.

 

The contract would likely be a net win on the whole. But dealing with that kind of dead money for the last 3 years is not easy. Yes, I know the owners can afford it, but realistically, the dead money will keep the owners from fulfilling another need in future years.

[Kimmi]

Peak is back to where it should be sans PEDs. Most players start to fade around age 33.

 

Pre-prime 20-25

Prime 25-32

Productive post prime 33-35

Unproductive post prime 36+

 

This is more relative than absolute, but when throwing out an 8 year deal, you need to consider it. On an 8 year deal, Machado will conclude the deal at age 34. It’s not unreasonable to assume Machado will give 5-6 prime years and finish the deal with 2 reasonably good years

 

Prime is more like 27 or 28. Players are already in decline by the age of 30.

[Bellhorn04]

Going by results to date - Sandoval. But those 8 figure contracts that go into a player’s 40s like Pujols and Cabrera looked like bad ideas from day one. I do think Joey Votto, whose deal is similar, will become as burdensome, but to his credit, hasn’t yet...

 

That isn't what I was asking. You said '8 years for a 26yo player isn’t the worst contract we will see this off season' So which will be the worst we see this off season?

[Bellhorn04]

It's almost like I wrote this post myself.

 

The next question is, should Mookie be extended for 10 years (or more) like many people here think he should?

 

It's a tougher question to answer now, because it seems that there is a serious change occurring in the market.

 

I want them to do what it takes to keep Mookie, without overpaying comparing to what his current market would be.

[Nick]

The Price contract was not a wise decision. It has worked out so far, but it was still not wise to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year deal.

 

I disagree Kimmi.

 

Again, new GM/Operations guy, On the heels of 3 last place finishes out of 4 seasons in a baseball market.

 

Price was the best available starting pitcher that winter.

 

DD had to answer to every nitwit on this site.

 

You can't ignore those last place finishes.

 

No, I would not give anyone 10 year contract. I would go at most 6 years. Ideally, I'd go 4 years with no opt outs.

 

I think Eovaldi's contract is just right.

[Bellhorn04]

Prime is more like 27 or 28. Players are already in decline by the age of 30.

 

Isn't there a distinction between 'peak' and 'prime', though?

[Bellhorn04]

The Price contract was not a wise decision. It has worked out so far, but it was still not wise to sign a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year deal.

 

'Wise decision' can be kind of difficult to define in terms of MLB economics and the chasing of rings.

 

If Price's contract was unwise, I would argue that the one Theo gave Jon Lester was just about the same. But Lester helped the Cubs finally win a ring, so was it a good move? I would say hell yes to that.

[sk7326]

That’s what I’m thinking. I think Machado is telling teams that the first team to reach $300 mil guaranteed will get him and all he is getting is crickets.

 

The Yanks care about the lux tax. They really could care less about what they actually pay. They just don’t want to give money away, especially as you climb higher into the penalties, and they will never, IMO, cross the final line.

 

I think the players and the owners need to create something like the NBA. Shorten the “rookie” control and then create “max deals”. The duration may top out at 5 years, but the AAV’s would be dizzying. Free agency is at 4 years, arb is after 2, but your first contract, you’re only eligible for a 4 yr $80 mil deal after year 4. Player options built in. Escalating Max AAV’s as years pass to keep up with inflation and incomes. It’s just a thought. The problem with MLB contracts has been the dead years at the end of contracts. This way, guys in their prime get their money and the dead years are limited.

 

The short contracts are stupid - protecting GMs and owners from themselves. The NBA has a problem with that where it means teams are turning rosters over constantly and it is hard to keep players period. Now you describe the Yankees to a T - they want to keep the YES money. Good on them. I am glad you are on board with that.

 

There is no real problem with MLB contracts. The horrible ones were known to be problematic at the time - I mean the deal to Pujols was walking into a bear trap. The basic problem is the players union got much dumber after Fehr left and got no guaranteed piece of the pie when the owners were stepping into a massive amount of cash. So this serves them right to a certain degree. The best way to get guys in their prime money is to get rid of salary arbitration in favor of a year of restricted free agency and let em go. Now if that is tied to a salary cap - fine, but I don't think the teams who own their own networks want to share to that degree. Besides, the Marlins are getting nearly $100M before selling a single ticket, so I can see that.

 

Where the league is saving money is on players under arbitration, low entry level salaries and paying minor leaguers below minimum wage. So improve all of those (even though minor leaguers are not union members) and get players into free agency earlier, and the other stuff solves itself. What we have right now is a system where a lot of teams are not trying to win ultimately, which is not good for the fans. This is one of the cases where the players goals align with the fans pretty well.

[sk7326]

The contract would likely be a net win on the whole. But dealing with that kind of dead money for the last 3 years is not easy. Yes, I know the owners can afford it, but realistically, the dead money will keep the owners from fulfilling another need in future years.

 

Figure it out then - you have a chance to win now, go for it. Flags fly forever, and you can never guarantee future chances. I mean, for all the sniffing at Dombrowski's trades and so forth - all you got was a title and 3 playoff berths.

[Behindenemylines]

Can anyone name a 10 year contract that the team received its value.? Machado’s attitude cost him the big $$$$$$$. He has no one to blame,but himself. You pay someone that money you want him to be a leader. A team leader who doesn’t hustle. Harper has had his attitude issues as well. You pay someone that much he is the face and leader of your franchise.

[Bellhorn04]

Can anyone name a 10 year contract that the team received its value.?

 

There haven't been that many of them to evaluate. Jeter's returned the value. A-Rod's first one would have returned the value if he hadn't opted out. Votto's has been pretty good.

[moonslav59]

Can anyone name a 10 year contract that the team received its value.? Machado’s attitude cost him the big $$$$$$$. He has no one to blame,but himself. You pay someone that money you want him to be a leader. A team leader who doesn’t hustle. Harper has had his attitude issues as well. You pay someone that much he is the face and leader of your franchise.

 

Here are all the 10+ year contracts I could find...

 

$325/13 Stanton

$275/10 ARod (2nd one)

$252/10 ARod

$240/10 Pujols

$240M/10 Cano

$225/10 Votto

$189/10 Jeter

$157M/10 Tulo

 

Maybe I missed somebody.

 

[harmony]

Can anyone name a 10 year contract that the team received its value.? Machado’s attitude cost him the big $$$$$$$. He has no one to blame,but himself. You pay someone that money you want him to be a leader. A team leader who doesn’t hustle. Harper has had his attitude issues as well. You pay someone that much he is the face and leader of your franchise.

Robinson Cano has posted 20.7 fWAR, valued at $163.7 million, in the first five years of his 10-year, $240 million contract (that was reduced to $228 million with his 80-game suspension last year).

 

Steamer and ZiPS project Cano with 2019 WAR of 3.4 and 2.5, respectively, which last year were valued at about $27 million and $20 million.

 

The 36-year-old Cano would need a precipitous drop in production to fall short of his $228 million paycheck (although the $120 million balance of the contract may be underwater and the Mariners will be paying $20 million of that).

Edited February 10, 2019 by harmony

[notin]

Here are all the 10+ year contracts I could find...

 

$325/13 Stanton

$275/10 ARod (2nd one)

$252/10 ARod

$240/10 Pujols

$240M/10 Cano

$225/10 Votto

$189/10 Jeter

$157M/10 Tulo

 

Maybe I missed somebody.

 

 

Evan Longoria - 10 years $135mill

[moonslav59]

Evan Longoria - 10 years $135mill

 

Thanks.

 

The sample size is 9.

 

Votto & 1st ARod- very good

Cano & Jeter- good or looking good or decent, so far.

Stanton- jury still out

Longoria- kinda bad

2nd ARod & Tulo- bad

Pujols- very bad

 

[cp176]

Isn't there a distinction between 'peak' and 'prime', though?

 

The Price contract or any long term contract for that matter will always be up for debate. it is impossible to say at this point in time whether it was a good sign or not.

[moonslav59]

Peak is back to where it should be sans PEDs. Most players start to fade around age 33.

 

Pre-prime 20-25

Prime 25-32

Productive post prime 33-35

Unproductive post prime 36+

 

This is more relative than absolute, but when throwing out an 8 year deal, you need to consider it. On an 8 year deal, Machado will conclude the deal at age 34. It’s not unreasonable to assume Machado will give 5-6 prime years and finish the deal with 2 reasonably good years

 

So, by your definition, the Sox have nobody in the unproductive post prime years and 3 guys in productive post prime. Of those 3, Pearce is our short end platoon 1Bman and Pedey and Wright are not being counted on for anything in 2019.

 

The Yanks have...

 

Sabathia and Happ are "unproductive" post prime and are in the starting rotation.

 

Gardner, Ellsbury and Tulu are in productive prime, with only Gardner being counted on for anything significant.

 

Ottavino is nearing productive post prime. Price & Moreland turned 33 at the end of last season.

 

 

[Kimmi]

I disagree Kimmi.

 

Again, new GM/Operations guy, On the heels of 3 last place finishes out of 4 seasons in a baseball market.

 

Price was the best available starting pitcher that winter.

 

DD had to answer to every nitwit on this site.

 

You can't ignore those last place finishes.

 

No, I would not give anyone 10 year contract. I would go at most 6 years. Ideally, I'd go 4 years with no opt outs.

 

I think Eovaldi's contract is just right.

 

I know that most people agree with you in terms of Price. Truth be told, while I don't like the contract, I prefer that to trading for a top pitcher and then having to sign him to a large contract on top of that. That said, I am not going to be on board with signing a 30 year old pitcher to a 7 year contract.

 

Dombrowski should not be answering to every nitwit on this site. He should be answering to me. When Kimmi's happy, everyone's happy.

 

I can ignore those last place finishes because in none of those years did I believe that we were a last place time, or even close to it.

 

I think Eovaldi's contract is too long, but I'm happy to have him back.

[Kimmi]

Isn't there a distinction between 'peak' and 'prime', though?

 

Yes, there is. My bad.

 

I still think Jacko's age ranges are too kind in terms of production.

 

I would classify prime as perhaps 25-30, and post prime productive as 30 - 32.