Brewers to talk extension with Segura

[HiAndTight]

If he has another great season, pay him the going rate even if that's considerably more than it would be today. My point is that it's premature to lock into a guy for 5-6 years after one season. I've seen too many one year wonders who scouts loved too turn into pumpkins when opponents adjusted.

 

I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28.

 

Even Gomez was worth substantially more than that before ue figured it out.

 

But using your logic, is it fair to say that you thought the 8/45 they gave to Braun was a bad idea?

 

Nick Markasis is sad you don't think of him anymore.

 

 

Really? The guy who was worth about 21.2 WAR(Baseball Reference, 18.0 for fangraphs) from 23 to 28 wasn't worth 5 years and 11 million dollars?

 

Cameron has 1 WAR worth 6.2 million this year. So if Segura was "as bad," as you're suggesting Markasis was, he'd be worth about about 127 million dollars moving forward.

 

That's todays money however. Nonetheless, I still can't see how a player worth 11.7 WAR in just the first two years wouldn't be worth 5 years and 11 million dollars. In fact, Markasis has been worth the 6/66 he signed. Not sure why you'd use a guy with a career line of .292/.360/.801 as your example. He's not even in the ballpark..so to speak.

[SoupTown]

"I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28."

 

Ike Davis

[monty57]

I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28.

 

Are you saying 5 years / $11MM like Lucroy's deal, or $11MM per year?

 

Lucroy's deal would be good if he was never better than an average catcher, so I would sign almost any 23-year-old starter to that deal. However, the Brewers need to be careful paying players $11MM/year, as their budget can only handle a handful of them at one time. As I mentioned earlier, I'd offer Segura a deal similar to Teheran's deal, which ends up around $11MM for the final year. I wouldn't offer him a deal that averaged $11MM per season.

 

FWIW, I just heard DM on WTMJ and he mentioned that he hasn't even talked about this with Segura's agent. He said that he would potentially see if it's something that they may be interested in at some point.

 

Although Melvin is good at "GM speak," meaning the opposite of what he says is often true, I'm not surprised to hear this. If Segura turned down the Brewers last season, the only way they'd be in discussions now is if either:

 

(A) The Brewers substantially raised their offer. Since the Brewers initial offer was given when Segura was on fire in the first half of last year, I can't imagine his second half caused the Brewers to up their offer.

 

or

 

(B) Segura has substantially reduced his demand. If this is the case, then sign him to a Teheran-type deal. But again, unless his confidence was so rattled by his second half that he no longer thinks he's worth a big deal, why would he suddenly change his mind?

 

I hope the latter is the case, but until we see something concrete, I'll assume that he is going to go year-to-year until free agency. While I'd rather see the Brewers lock up their young stars, I support any player that wants to do this - he's taking on risk to maximize his pay - but I think the Brewers' strategy with players like this is to have an exit strategy. Make sure you have a player in your system that will replace him, go year-to-year until he hits year one or two of arby and then start shopping him for trade.

[logan82]

Even with the big influx of money the contracts themselves don't seem to have increase much on a year to year basis. Looks like the duration has gone up a bit and it seems like teams are signing more of those top players.

[pogokat]

To the Mentions of Ike davis and Nick markakis...those comparisons aren't relatable because of the scarcity or quality shortstops...

 

Segura could probably throw out a .670 OPS and still be worth 40 million over the life of that contract. Decent defense and any offense is worth a ton at SS. It's just not an offensive position right now.

[monty57]

Segura could probably throw out a .670 OPS and still be worth 40 million over the life of that contract.

 

This "stat" bugs me. It's based on value "per win" of a free agent, which is widely skewed by several teams with endless pockets and several top players making far more than anyone else even if they don't "provide many more wins." It does not take into account how much higher free agent deals are because teams can save money on pre-arby and arby players, and it is based on WAR, which is a good "ice breaker" stat, but has flaws, most notably the inability to accurately measure defense (which is better than it was, but still very inexact). WAR is also a "counting" stat, so I don't believe the "per win" stat takes injuries into consideration, so someone who only plays a partial season won't accumulate much WAR, but still gets paid the full contract. In other words, I don't put much value into the sites that show how much a player is "worth," especially when used to show what a "steal" a team gets on an extension.

 

Segura would be an extension, not a free agent deal, so the risk transferred from the player to the team has to be taken into account, as well as the lower cost arby/pre-arby deals. Transferring risk is huge, so paying a free agent deal to a pre-arby player is a pretty bad idea. If they sign him now, the deal should not average $11MM / year unless it's something like a 10-15 year deal, which of course would be crazy. You're probably looking more like 6 years/$30MM, which could look like a "steal," or could be looked at as a horrendous deal, depending on how Segura's future plays out.

 

Segura could tear up his ankle the day after he signs the deal and lose his ability to play SS, or he could gain 50 pounds once he knows he'll be paid. Even if he stays healthy, lots of players get moved off of SS as they age, so there's no guarantee he'll stay there for the duration of an extension (although he's young enough that he should). The Brewers have to be willing to assume the risk that Segura could not live up to the deal, and Segura has to decide whether he's willing to accept less pay in order to assure himself and his family that they will make a lot of guaranteed money. More and more players have seen the value of signing early extensions, but with the new, monster deals out there, we'll have to see if that trend continues.

[HiAndTight]

I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28.

 

Are you saying 5 years / $11MM like Lucroy's deal, or $11MM per year?

 

 

Yes...Lucroy's deal. Since Briggs said he wouldn't even give Segura a Lucroy type deal for another year, and I've quoted that a couple of times.

 

I wouldn't give the kid 11 million a year right now, but I really would pay him more than 6/32. I would be great with 6 years 45 million with two option years at 14 million a year.

 

But that's just me. I think he's proven himself.

[RobDeer 45]

I think I'm in the camp of waiting another year but I really see both sides to this. None of us know the future, so some people's opinions will end up right and some will end up wrong. Either way, I like this kid and hope he's around for several years as a good to great SS.

[HiAndTight]

"I don't think I can recall seeing a player who was a top prospect and had such a good year as Segura did, become so terrible that he wasn't worth 11 million from ages 23 to 28."

 

Ike Davis

 

 

I'm gonna wait until Davis has actually played through those ages before I make that declaration.

 

And you really don't have to do much to be worth 11 million dollars over 5 years.

[SoupTown]

Why would you offer a guy more than he will get in arby. Segura should take LESS to ensure his lifetime income

 

I projected what he would get in arbitration if he was a very, very good player. And his pre arby and arby does not average out to 8 mill or even 6 mill a year. Unless there is a team discount for risk then you go year by year

[HiAndTight]

Why would you offer a guy more than he will get in arby. Segura should take LESS to ensure his lifetime income

 

I projected what he would get in arbitration if he was a very, very good player. And his pre arby and arby does not average out to 8 mill or even 6 mill a year. Unless there is a team discount for risk then you go year by year

 

 

To buy out the FA years...if you project his cost in free agency if hes a very good player, it's going to be a lot more than a 2 year 28 million dollar deal.

[TheCrew07]

Why would you offer a guy more than he will get in arby. Segura should take LESS to ensure his lifetime income

 

You give him more money upfront to save significantly on the backend of the deal... you aren't looking to save relative pennies on the front side of the contract. It allows players to make more money right away, sometimes double what they'd make in those first 3-4 seasons but saves the organization millions through last couple years of arbitration and first couple of FA (if done properly).

 

The idea shouldn't be to come in at say $400k less than a player would make in that arbitration year, especially that first arby year, it's not an across the board deduction. The idea should be to save 20-40% off each expensive year on the backside of the contract so the total contract is a win for the organization and for the player. The organization saves a ton of $ through the player's prime and the player gets more money upfront for producing as an inexperienced player. Not that league minimum isn't a hell of a salary relative to most of our standards, but I hope you get what I mean.

[brewcrewdue80]

We have 5 years left to free agency. I still look at Austin Jackson going year to year posting 5WAR(400k) 5WAR(440k) 5.5WAR(500k) 3.4WAR(3.5mil) and now what does he get? 6mil Year 5. I mean based on that kind of progression 5WAR likely nets him 9mil under 4WAR 8.5mil year 6.

 

All told with 9mil in mind that is 19.44mil for his last 5 years before Free Agency. And that is with the risk being on the player not on the team.

He's why I don't believe in jumping to a quick buyout of control years. The Brewers if they worked out a deal to buy out these 5 years I'd only expect it to total 20mil maximum with the FA years being in the 8-10mil range but the final year it's an option. I just feel the next two years are 550k ish a piece roughly so 1.1mil., it is just best to sit and wait those two years and make the extension for the arb years/ 2FA years with a 3rd option. You would clearly know what you have and how to price him. Your two years closer to FA so buying 2 years FA then makes only a 5year risk with a known commodity then and the 3rd FA year as an option.

I just see no reason to sign Segura to a true deal unless it's included 2 FA years. So if you did that today that is 7years guaranteed money. Making the 2nd FA year an option? Still you've guaranteed 6years to Segura only gained 1 year of added team control all that based on 1+year of playing time? The only way I consider that deal is if it's 6years 25-27mil. and 7th year option at 8mil.

It'd probably be structured like:

14: 800k

15: 1.5mil

16: 3mil

17: 4.5mil

18: 6.5mil

19: 8.5-9mil

20: 8.5-9mil option

 

Or my idea wait 2years 1.1mil Segura is the .750OPS SS 12-14HRs 40SB guy

16:3.5mil

17:5.5mil

18:8mil

19:10mil

20:11mil

21:11mil option

That's then 5/39 with chance of 6/50 Help me out here if you think the guess in money is wrong or about on. I'd rather save 1mil these two years and knowing what you have only to spend roughly 6mil more over a 4year frame plus then gain 1 more year of locking Segura in contract.

See I'm saying Good Segura not under contract until he reaches Arb will only cost 6mil more for the same contract we would give him today. Only, we aren't risking 8-9mil in a FA year that bad Segura .640OPS the next two years would be guaranteed should we give him one today.

[RobDeer 45]

How much less likely is a guy to sign when he's only 2 years from FA and playing well and starting to get paid real money? Isn't part of the team's bargaining power that a pre arby player is making minimum salary and therefore more likely to strike a deal to start getting real money? I also think that small market teams need to be a bit more aggressive with this strategy because they know they can't compete in the open market for their studs. If they guess right on a few players that are worth the gamble (less risky) they can extend a window of winning baseball.

[Roderick]

How much less likely is a guy to sign when he's only 2 years from FA and playing well and starting to get paid real money? Isn't part of the team's bargaining power that a pre arby player is making minimum salary and therefore more likely to strike a deal to start getting real money? I also think that small market teams need to be a bit more aggressive with this strategy because they know they can't compete in the open market for their studs. If they guess right on a few players that are worth the gamble (less risky) they can extend a window of winning baseball.

 

And others might say that a small market club is least able to afford to gamble because they can't buy their way out of a mistake.

 

I agree that they can't really go to Segura in 2017 and look to get a decent discount to buy out any FA years as he will have some decent cash in his pocket after the first arby year. The ideal time would be if they approach him after this season, he still has only made basically $1M lifetime and he would get quite a bit more in 2015 with a new contract than as a pre-arby player and that gives the Brewers another year to see Segura perform against MLB pitchers.

[monty57]

We have 5 years left to free agency. I still look at Austin Jackson going year to year posting 5WAR(400k) 5WAR(440k) 5.5WAR(500k) 3.4WAR(3.5mil) and now what does he get? 6mil Year 5. I mean based on that kind of progression 5WAR likely nets him 9mil under 4WAR 8.5mil year 6.

 

All told with 9mil in mind that is 19.44mil for his last 5 years before Free Agency. And that is with the risk being on the player not on the team.

He's why I don't believe in jumping to a quick buyout of control years. The Brewers if they worked out a deal to buy out these 5 years I'd only expect it to total 20mil maximum with the FA years being in the 8-10mil range but the final year it's an option. I just feel the next two years are 550k ish a piece roughly so 1.1mil., it is just best to sit and wait those two years and make the extension for the arb years/ 2FA years with a 3rd option. You would clearly know what you have and how to price him. Your two years closer to FA so buying 2 years FA then makes only a 5year risk with a known commodity then and the 3rd FA year as an option.

I just see no reason to sign Segura to a true deal unless it's included 2 FA years. So if you did that today that is 7years guaranteed money. Making the 2nd FA year an option? Still you've guaranteed 6years to Segura only gained 1 year of added team control all that based on 1+year of playing time? The only way I consider that deal is if it's 6years 25-27mil. and 7th year option at 8mil.

It'd probably be structured like:

14: 800k

15: 1.5mil

16: 3mil

17: 4.5mil

18: 6.5mil

19: 8.5-9mil

20: 8.5-9mil option

 

Or my idea wait 2years 1.1mil Segura is the .750OPS SS 12-14HRs 40SB guy

16:3.5mil

17:5.5mil

18:8mil

19:10mil

20:11mil

21:11mil option

That's then 5/39 with chance of 6/50 Help me out here if you think the guess in money is wrong or about on. I'd rather save 1mil these two years and knowing what you have only to spend roughly 6mil more over a 4year frame plus then gain 1 more year of locking Segura in contract.

See I'm saying Good Segura not under contract until he reaches Arb will only cost 6mil more for the same contract we would give him today. Only, we aren't risking 8-9mil in a FA year that bad Segura .640OPS the next two years would be guaranteed should we give him one today.

 

Good players already in arby are the ones signing $100MM deals like Freeman, and apparently Homer Bailey. The difference in cost between signing a good player in his pre-arby years vs his arby years has become very significant. That cost is the cost of transferring the risk. Now the team has the risk of whether or not the player will still be considered "good" a few years down the road.

 

I agree with what it would cost to extend him now: 6 years / $28-30MM

Julio Teheran with 1 year: 3 years / $32.4MM

Freddie Freeman with 3 years: 8 years / $135MM

 

Guaranteeing a pre-arby player that he will get paid a lot of money over the next six years bears some risk for a team, but can save them a lot. Some would say there's more risk in the Teheran deal, because he's less proven. I'd argue that smaller market teams can afford the downside risk in the Teheran deal moreso than they can afford the downside risk in the Freeman deal, so smaller market teams need to take "unproven" risk over the extra money involved to pay for "proven."

 

They obviously can't offer these deals to everyone, only those who they really think will be good players. It's just too bad that the Brewers have such a horrid farm, so they don't have more guys in this category. I'd much rather have a team of talented young players signed to 6 year / $30-40MM deals than a team with a few veteran free agents signed at $10-20MM/year and a bunch of also-rans filling out the roster.

[fondybrewfan]

It is a two way street. Maybe Segura simply doesn't want to sign an extension unless it is for an outrageous sum. It could just be another Fielder situation. I am sure Melvin will offer something that will buy out a year or two but the player ultimately has to want to do it. He apparently didn't want to do that last year; I don't know that things have changed now unless DM increased the offer from last time. I am all for locking up young players but not at any cost.

[chadomac]

So... I'm kinda glad the Brewers didn't extend Segura at this point. I love him as a shortstop, but thus far this season he has swung at way too many balls and therefore doesn't walk much - and the bit of power he showed early last year is non-existent thus far.

 

Some would say "small sample" but as most of us know, he hasn't been very good since mid-year last year. He's not catching much flack because he's a great shortstop, most shortstops don't hit at all, and mostly because the team is still winning.

 

Currently at an OPS of .603. Offensively, he isn't showing that he's worthy of a big long-term deal.

[RobDeer 45]

Maybe this is the perfect time to sign him to one and get it for cheap! (mostly in blue)

[Funketown]

Segura is now in the bottom 10 of qualified MLB players in wRC+ at 63. His approach is just painful to watch right now.

[SoupTown]

I had a theory one time that a team should NEVER offer contracts EVER to any players. You just have each player for six years and you let them go. This is because arbitration pays each player based on what he did LAST YEAR. So you never overpay. If a player plays wonderfully - he gets paid. If he does not play well - he is paid not well.

[HiAndTight]

I had a theory one time that a team should NEVER offer contracts EVER to any players. You just have each player for six years and you let them go. This is because arbitration pays each player based on what he did LAST YEAR. So you never overpay. If a player plays wonderfully - he gets paid. If he does not play well - he is paid not well.

 

 

I have just the opposite theory. If you take enough calculated risks and buy out a couple years or Free Agency, or at least get team options with buyouts for multiple players, you don't have to hit on all of them to make it well worth your while.

 

I point to Braun, Lucroy, Gallardo, even Gomez(though he wasn't pre-arby). I think the value of the initial contracts more than made up for the poor contracts handed out to Bill Hall...and I can't even really remember any other poor deals that we made. I still believe in Segura. He is inexplicably putting up an OPS of just .455 against LHP this year as opposed to a .865 OPS last year. His BABIP is down 45 points from last year which I think is just bad luck.

 

 

He's struggling vs fastballs right now. That's the big difference to me. I think he's pressing. He's jumping at Fastball's just like Weeks does when he struggles, just like Hardy, Hart did when they struggled. He needs to stay back on them and he'll be fine.

 

My opinion of him hasn't changed. I think he's a first division SS. Having just turned 24 years he's a young player who's got to make adjustments. I'd still like to see a contract worked out where we can buy out the rest of his service time and add on a couple of team options for ~13 million or so with a 2-4 million dollar buyout. But this is on spec as much as anything. From watching him play, his speed, power(not that he's Tulo, but I still think he's a 12-18 HR a year guy) his D and I think he'll hit around .300.

 

Not saying he's going to be Lucroy by the way, but Lucroy through his first 211 games and through age 25 put up a line of

.260/.307/.366 .674 OPS.

Segura through 253 games at age 24 has put up an OPS of .278/.315/.383 .698 OPS.

 

Again, two different players and scenarios, but both were kinda rushed up due to a need on the big league team and didn't play much at AAA.

 

But again, I like what I see from him based on what I think he'll be, his athletic ability, his tools. It's hard to sign players to pre arby deals if you put more emphasis on certain metrics as opposed to projection.

[Invader3K]

I had a theory one time that a team should NEVER offer contracts EVER to any players. You just have each player for six years and you let them go. This is because arbitration pays each player based on what he did LAST YEAR. So you never overpay. If a player plays wonderfully - he gets paid. If he does not play well - he is paid not well.

The union would throw a fit and scream "collusion" and probably win in court.

[adambr2]

I had a theory one time that a team should NEVER offer contracts EVER to any players. You just have each player for six years and you let them go. This is because arbitration pays each player based on what he did LAST YEAR. So you never overpay. If a player plays wonderfully - he gets paid. If he does not play well - he is paid not well.

The union would throw a fit and scream "collusion" and probably win in court.

 

How would it be collusion if it's just a franchise policy? Doesn't collusion have to involve two or more parties in a mutual "agreement"?

 

The CBA allows for 6 years of club control, I don't know how the union could force a franchise to offer long-term contracts to some of its players. I'm not that well-versed in the CBA language though so I could very well be wrong.

[jerichoholicninja]

The union would prefer clubs don't buy out players' free agent years. Players make more in free agency than if they resign before.