Long-term extension candidates?

[monty57]

As long as the team gets an extra year or two of control and gets a substantial perceived value (paying a lot less than they assume the player would get if he went year-to-year), then I'm all for these deals. In these deals, the team takes on a lot of extra risk (injury, bad play), so the player has to "buy out" that risk by accepting far less than he thinks he's worth if he retains the risk by going year-to-year (much like buying insurance). Even a smaller market team like the Brewers can afford a bunch of these deals at any given time, and they actually add some cost certainty in predicting future payroll obligations. Think of it this way, the Brewers could have an entire roster of John Lucroy contracts and still afford a couple of $20M+ players. Not everyone will sign one of these deals, but they're nice to have on the docket for the players that sign them.

 

In my opinion, once the players get too far into arbitration, the team has probably lost its chance of getting a substantial enough bargain to make the deals worthwhile, so they probably should be done in the first 3-4 years of a players career. If they haven't proven themselves in the first four years, then there is probably reason to believe that they are not worth a bigger money extension after their fourth or fifth season. Also, if makes little sense to extend someone who is already under team control through his prime years, so no extensions to rookies who are already 26 or older. That's a knock against extending Broxton, who is 26 (birthday Sept 21). Shaw is also 26, and with his age and question marks I'd probably pass on looking to extend him.

 

The only pitcher worth even mentioning right now is Davies (24), and I'd have no problem if they signed him to a Lucroy-like extension. We have plenty of minor league pitchers who may be worth extending once they're up, but let's wait until they're up. As to position players, Arcia (22), Villar (25) and Santana (24) could all be looked into. Brinson looks like the type of player that could get a Braun-type extension (the first one), but again let's let him get to the big leagues first.

 

The important point is that the Brewers have to draw a hard line that if the player wants the security of an extension, they are going to sign for a discount. Anyone who doesn't do this can still be a valuable player for a few years, but they're the ones who need to start getting shopped once they're into their arby years.

 

Note that this is also why I like pushing guys a bit in the minors, moving them up quickly until their play forces you to hold them at a level. Guys like Arcia and Brinson could get extended and we'd get them for eight years in their 20's, losing them just as they're heading out of their prime, allowing someone else to overpay for their decline years.

[Boomer5]

Davies is the only guy Id even consider, though Arcia might become one after 2017.

 

With WAR becoming such a key stat when it comes to value, none of our current MLB guys are the types that will be big WAR types, so there is no point in spending big money on an extension to buy out the arby years.

[adambr2]

 

I don't see the issue. As you hinted at in your last sentence, young good players are only worth more when under cheap controllable contracts.

 

If a guy performs greatly but isn't your first choice at a position, find a new position for him or trade him for a haul. Can't ever have too much of a good thing.

 

That's assuming they play up to their potential. If they don't, they now have a guaranteed contract that's harder to send down, cut or trade. If the only benefit is a couple cheap years at the risk of having wasted money (and I'm not thinking the 5 year 15 million contract we would give someone like Susac but more the 5 year 40 million contract Segura was rumored to have been offered), that's a big risk at year 1.

 

Using segura for example, if we gave him the 5 year 40 million contract, we wouldn't have been able to trade him the way we did. However if segura was awesome for two more years, we could have got him on something like 5 year 60 million buying out two years of FA. I'm much more open to doing extensions after two good years once the risk of "flash in the pan" has been lowered (unless you have Braun's minor league/1st year pedigree).

 

Yeah, but a 6/15 'take a chance on you, set you up for life ' offer is way different than 5/40 later on. I don't see any 5/40 extension candidates on this roster.

[mrn1ceguy]

 

Yeah, but a 6/15 'take a chance on you, set you up for life ' offer is way different than 5/40 later on. I don't see any 5/40 extension candidates on this roster.

 

I agree. I guess I don't see anyone taking a 5/15 or similar "low" contract unless they are expected to be a role player (part time catcher like susac, non-closer relief pitcher, super sub like perez). If we can get some people like Broxton, Santana, Villar, Arcia to take the 5/15, 4/15 then I would be all for it. I just think the only "early" contracts that would be accepted by anyone who looks to be at a talent that will stick will require the 5/40 type contracts.

[monty57]

 

Yeah, but a 6/15 'take a chance on you, set you up for life ' offer is way different than 5/40 later on. I don't see any 5/40 extension candidates on this roster.

 

I agree. I guess I don't see anyone taking a 5/15 or similar "low" contract unless they are expected to be a role player (part time catcher like susac, non-closer relief pitcher, super sub like perez). If we can get some people like Broxton, Santana, Villar, Arcia to take the 5/15, 4/15 then I would be all for it. I just think the only "early" contracts that would be accepted by anyone who looks to be at a talent that will stick will require the 5/40 type contracts.

 

Kirk N. signed for $900,000 in what would be his first year of arby. Torres signed for $2.175M in his second year of arby. Part-timers and non-closing relievers are not worth nearly 6/15 when the first three years are at league minimum. They're probably closer to half of that, and many of them won't even get through the full six years of "team control."

 

Meanwhile Gennett, who has been a starter his whole career, signed for $2.525M in his first year of arby, and Peralta's at $4.275 in his second year. That would mean that a "non-star" full time player should get around $15-16M in their first six seasons if they go year-to-year. Throw in a year of free agency, and knock off their first pre-arby year, as they probably wouldn't get offered the deal until after they've played a season, and you're looking at the low-$20M's. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the team needs to get a substantial discount from this number in order to take on the risk of the player getting injured or regressing, so something in the 6/$15-18M is probably not a bad guess for locking up a guy you think should be starting caliber, but not a star.

 

The key is to make the offer early on, when players are not set for life. They know that one injury or down year could mean they will be flipping burgers for minimum wage. The security of a long term, eight figure guaranteed deal is very appealing to these guys. Not all of them will take it, but a good number of them will, and that can be a way to lock in some key guys for a long time at what you hope to be a below-market-rate price. The longer a team waits, the closer to market value they will have to pay for the player.

[adambr2]

The key is to make the offer early on, when players are not set for life. They know that one injury or down year could mean they will be flipping burgers for minimum wage. The security of a long term, eight figure guaranteed deal is very appealing to these guys. Not all of them will take it, but a good number of them will, and that can be a way to lock in some key guys for a long time at what you hope to be a below-market-rate price. The longer a team waits, the closer to market value they will have to pay for the player.

 

Bingo. A player with nearly 3 years of service time of mostly productive play who is on the verge of making $5M on their first arbitration go-around, probably isn't going to be interested in a discounted long-term deal.

 

Guys like Broxton or even maybe Arcia, who are 2-3 years away from seeing millions, and knowing that they might never see it if they get hurt or turn out to be a flash in the pan, are the guys worth targeting.

[rickh150]

Offer Lucroy like deals to Arcia, Broxton, Santana..... no real downside there. The cash we'd be out is relatively low.

[mrn1ceguy]

 

Kirk N. signed for $900,000 in what would be his first year of arby. Torres signed for $2.175M in his second year of arby. Part-timers and non-closing relievers are not worth nearly 6/15 when the first three years are at league minimum. They're probably closer to half of that, and many of them won't even get through the full six years of "team control."

 

Meanwhile Gennett, who has been a starter his whole career, signed for $2.525M in his first year of arby, and Peralta's at $4.275 in his second year. That would mean that a "non-star" full time player should get around $15-16M in their first six seasons if they go year-to-year. Throw in a year of free agency, and knock off their first pre-arby year, as they probably wouldn't get offered the deal until after they've played a season, and you're looking at the low-$20M's. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the team needs to get a substantial discount from this number in order to take on the risk of the player getting injured or regressing, so something in the 6/$15-18M is probably not a bad guess for locking up a guy you think should be starting caliber, but not a star.

 

The key is to make the offer early on, when players are not set for life. They know that one injury or down year could mean they will be flipping burgers for minimum wage. The security of a long term, eight figure guaranteed deal is very appealing to these guys. Not all of them will take it, but a good number of them will, and that can be a way to lock in some key guys for a long time at what you hope to be a below-market-rate price. The longer a team waits, the closer to market value they will have to pay for the player.

 

My main concern is the people who would accept those 5/15, 6/18 contracts are your scooters and peraltas. People who project to be your 7th or 8th best positional player or your 4th or 5th starter. Those players you should be churning through and use them for 2-3 years at nominal salaries (500k - 1.5m) and then move on by cut or trade. Anyone with real potential for being someone you want as a cornerstone/8 year player would command a much higher contract (like seguras 5/40 with 1.5 years experience) or would need to be signed with large uncertainty (like Arcia now).

 

Using Arica as an example, to buyout FA years, you are looking at a 6-7 year contract. Assuming he took a 6 year, 20 million contract (which I doubt), you could potentially hit the lottery or be stuck with an expensive untradeable/uncutable defensive replacement. And I think arcia is the most sure bet extension candidate on the roster. I would personally rather see him perform for 1-1.5 years with at least an above average/top 15 level of play and then give him a slightly larger contract instead of paying a smaller but still sizeable long term guaranteed contract now and then be wishing we could replace him for Dubon, Diaz or someone else in two years.

 

Basically, I value roster flexibility for non cornerstone players (not your top four positon players, top three starting pitchers and maybe your closer) more than getting a true lucroy style contract knowing the risk of being stuck with non-starting quality players on 5-7 year guaranteed contracts.

[monty57]

That's a very valid point mrn1ceguy. When I used Gennett and Peralta, I thought the exact thing you're saying, but they're the only comps on the Brewers right now. I did a quick look into other teams, and it looked like most average-ish guys were being paid about the same as Gennett and Peralta. Arby valuation is odd, and being a starting player is far more important than being good. Most players fit in one tranche, and star players are in a higher tranche.

 

But that doesn't rebuke your point. Even though the contracts aren't team killing, the Brewers will still need to be careful in offering them. As I mentioned in post #26, the only players projected to be on the MLB roster on Opening Day who I would consider for extensions are Davies, Villar, Arcia, and Santana. All of these guys are young, still in pre-arby, and have talent. The potential for injury or "bust" just has to be priced into the contract in order for it to be worth it. If they won't sign a discounted deal, which is certainly their right, then we'll just get a couple less years of their service. Unfortunately, those will be their prime years because of their age.

 

If you have reasons not to sign a player after a year, those reasons seldom go away after another year. A Brewer example is Rickie Weeks. We rode the roller coaster through his pre-arby years into his arby years, never considering an extension because of injuries and flaws. Then he started playing really good baseball, we extended him to a market-price deal late in his arby years, and the reasons we never extended him once again showed through. If we had extended him early, he probably would have played the same, but we would have paid a lot less. If we hadn't extended him close to free agency, he could have sucked while someone else was paying him free agent dollars.

 

Basically, if they're worth signing, sign them early. If you don't sign them early, trade them when they're entering their 2nd or 3rd year of arbitration rather than extending them then.

[dacbrewers]

Davies agent isn't going to have him sign some low ball extension offer, if it was offered.

[monty57]

Davies agent isn't going to have him sign some low ball extension offer, if it was offered.

 

Davies' agent will do what Davies says. But, you are probably correct that most players don't hire Boras as an agent if they do not want to go for the most possible money, which is normally going year-to-year through the "cheap" years.

[FVBrewerFan]

The other danger is signing a player to a very team-friendly deal, then have a disgruntled player on your hands if he explodes. Say they would sign Villar to 5/15 deal. Then 2 years from now he's a perennial All-Star, a real stud. There's no way they can keep that deal for another 3 years, not without Villar demanding a trade and things getting real ugly.

 

I think the time to offer a 5 or 6 yr deal is when a player has one or two arby years left and is more of a known factor. That way you get a discount for paying him more in his remaining arby years, plus insurance against future injury/performance risk. You won't get a huge discount, but you should be able to keep a few guys away from FA at reasonable contracts.

[adambr2]

The other danger is signing a player to a very team-friendly deal, then have a disgruntled player on your hands if he explodes. Say they would sign Villar to 5/15 deal. Then 2 years from now he's a perennial All-Star, a real stud. There's no way they can keep that deal for another 3 years, not without Villar demanding a trade and things getting real ugly.

 

MLB isn't like the NFL. In that scenario it would do Villar absolutely no good to complain or demand a trade. How often do you hear about a player doing that in MLB or holding out of spring training? Never, because there is nothing they can do other than work hard and be a good teammate to try to get more money on their next deal. MLB contracts are binding for both sides and the player can't just get it torn up and reworked by the team or a new team if he outplays it.

 

Take Lucroy for instance. It was very obvious by the end of 2013 that he was going to easily outplay his 5 year/$11M contract, but he didn't once become disgruntled about it nor did it affect his play. Both sides and agents understand the risks and rewards. Assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff in 2017 he'll be rewarded much more this time around.

 

Villar isn't likely signing a 5/15 deal anyway but players becoming disgruntled or demanding trades over their contract isn't something that typically happens in MLB.

[monty57]

The other danger is signing a player to a very team-friendly deal, then have a disgruntled player on your hands if he explodes. Say they would sign Villar to 5/15 deal. Then 2 years from now he's a perennial All-Star, a real stud. There's no way they can keep that deal for another 3 years, not without Villar demanding a trade and things getting real ugly.

 

I think the time to offer a 5 or 6 yr deal is when a player has one or two arby years left and is more of a known factor. That way you get a discount for paying him more in his remaining arby years, plus insurance against future injury/performance risk. You won't get a huge discount, but you should be able to keep a few guys away from FA at reasonable contracts.

 

I'll worry about a player fretting over being underpaid once overpaid players start giving money back to the team. If your example played out, then Villar would have no grounds for demanding a trade. The media likes to run stories about underpaid guys, but you rarely hear any players complaining. They (and their agent) understand the decision they made when they signed the contract.

 

As to your second paragraph, the Brewers can afford a lot of undervalue contracts, but they can only afford a few market value contracts. They need to get undervalued players wherever and whenever they can. If you lock up players at market rate (which will occur if you wait until year 2 or 3 of arby to sign the extension), then you end up in a situation like we just got out of, with most of our money going to a few aging guys and no money left over to fill in the holes. Then you become completely reliant on your farm pumping our starting quality MLB players every year or you end up playing guys like Yuni B and Overbay (the second time around).

 

Signing a player at that stage is effectively the same as signing a free agent, and smaller-market teams can't build a roster that is too reliant on free agency.

[FVBrewerFan]

The other danger is signing a player to a very team-friendly deal, then have a disgruntled player on your hands if he explodes. Say they would sign Villar to 5/15 deal. Then 2 years from now he's a perennial All-Star, a real stud. There's no way they can keep that deal for another 3 years, not without Villar demanding a trade and things getting real ugly.

 

I think the time to offer a 5 or 6 yr deal is when a player has one or two arby years left and is more of a known factor. That way you get a discount for paying him more in his remaining arby years, plus insurance against future injury/performance risk. You won't get a huge discount, but you should be able to keep a few guys away from FA at reasonable contracts.

 

 

As to your second paragraph, the Brewers can afford a lot of undervalue contracts, but they can only afford a few market value contracts. They need to get undervalued players wherever and whenever they can. If you lock up players at market rate (which will occur if you wait until year 2 or 3 of arby to sign the extension), then you end up in a situation like we just got out of, with most of our money going to a few aging guys and no money left over to fill in the holes. Then you become completely reliant on your farm pumping our starting quality MLB players every year or you end up playing guys like Yuni B and Overbay (the second time around).

 

Signing a player at that stage is effectively the same as signing a free agent, and smaller-market teams can't build a roster that is too reliant on free agency.

 

But if you don't lock up good young talent, you better have the best farm system in MLB for many years running. Because you would need to rely almost 100% on the system producing 2-4 MLB ready players every year. And even at that, it would be very difficult, at best, to be a winning team consistently with a roster filled 100% with players that have 5 or less years of MLB experience.

 

It's a little different that just signing FA off the street because those players are going to be a little older. If you like the projection of guys like Villar, Broxton, Arcia, etc. I think signing them to 5/6 year contract after 2-3 years of service time isn't a bad way to go. You'll never get it right 100% of the time, but a team like the Brewers need to roll the dice a little on a few manageable contracts.

 

I'm not even saying the guys I mentioned necessarily, they're just examples. But what if a Hader, Ortiz, Woodruff etc. looks really good after 2-3 years? Top end starters cost a fortune, so to me it's worth signing them to an extension if you can. Devil is in the details, of course, in terms of dollars involved.

[monty57]

FV, I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I am all for locking up young talent. We absolutely need to do that to compete. Our main difference seems to be that if someone looks like they should be extended, I'd prefer to do it in their pre-arby years.

 

I'm not a big fan of extending players once they are in year 2 or 3 or arby. By that time, you don't get much of a discount and the player must have had some "warts" that caused you to not want to lock him up in the previous four or five years you've had him. I don't believe waiting an extra year will cause those "warts" to disappear. Once they get to that point, I would rather just trade those players away for more prospects, as they aren't part of the long-term plans. If they happen to have just had a phenomenal season great, that means you'll get a lot more in trade and someone else can over pay when the player regresses to his norms.

 

Build around the guys you lock up early, always strive to have a strong farm, and fill in the rest of the holes (hopefully role players, bullpen arms, and "fill out the rotation" starters) through free agency.

[brewcrewdue80]

I feel like extensions should be considered when the idea is more realistic that you'll have a player who 80% and better is helping the team 4years or more from now. Because, if 2 out of 5 of these extensions dont work, what are you really saving? Lets say 5/30mil contracts handed out 5 times. 150mil total. If 2 of them fail, your average from 6mil per year turns in to 10mil per year. Theres gotta be stronger confidence than what i feel is on the ML roster currently. Arcia is the closest who fits my 80% and more likely to help the team 4+ years from now. But 4years from now is arb 2. Then final arb. Think about Lucroy. With his option this year, what was his final tally of team control? 8years? So, 1 more year of team control? If we had waited 1 more year, signed him then got a 2nd year of FA buyout. That to me should be the goal of an extension. 2year beyond your original team control or more. In the end, that very early signing cost us added years to have Lucroy. Lets say hes part of this team still with 2018 as the option. How would you be feeling on the teams win projection for this season, and maybe 2018, if youre not trading Lucroy in season?

Just at this moment, no one has reached the service time where an extension is worthwhile. I said Hader is the most qualified, Arcia, then my feelings are on Diaz/Santana/Broxton/Villar. Youre a year away to feel theres that 80%+ confidence.