« What's Next For The Royals? |
Main
| Giants Aiming For Position Player In Draft »
By Tim Dierkes [May 18, 2008 at 10:22pm CST]
Bill Shaikin of the L.A. Times takes a look at the spate of recent long-term deals for young stars. Talking to different players and agents, Shaikin found no consensus on whether such contracts are a good idea.
- Some folks (including Shaikin and Pat Gillick, apparently) believe it's wise for richer clubs to go year-to-year to avoid getting stuck with a bad contract. I'm sure teams have done comprehensive studies on these types of contracts, but my guess is that flops are few are far between. I can only think of a handful (Angel Berroa, Eric Hinske come to mind). As Scott Boras says, teams usually choose players who will succeed.
- Boras advises his clients to go year to year and maximize their total earnings. He suggests young players signing long-term are getting "30 cents on the dollar." Paul Cohen, author of the Troy Tulowitzki and Evan Longoria contracts, preaches security over maximum earnings.
- Ned Colletti revealed that he has twice approached catcher Russell Martin about an extension, and has been denied. Martin will be arbitration-eligible after this season and should add an extra zero to his $500,000 salary, at least.
- Angels second baseman Howie Kendrick would consider a long-term offer, and GM Tony Reagins isn't opposed to long-term deals for young players.
- First baseman Casey Kotchman is a year-to-year guy. He astutely notes that in most professions employees aren't even guaranteed one year.
- Jumping over to the Boston Herald - the Red Sox have twice approached Dustin Pedroia about a deal. Pedroia is amenable to the idea.
- It's not known if the Marlins are planning to buy out Dan Uggla's arbitration years, but he seems open to it.
why would you risk injury and no more career just to get say, 100 mil? when you can lock up for life years earlier, for 70 million (Hanley Ramirez)
Posted by: JD | May 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
exactly JD. Its probably an ego thing. But really, think about it, Hanley Ramirez is set for life on this contract. Does it really make more sense to hold out for an extra 100 million that you wont ever need and risk ending up with nothing? He may sign a 200 million dollar contract after this one, but odds are he never even touches that money and never probably never even touches 40 of the 70 million he just signed for? What can you do with 170 mil that you cant do with 70 mil? 70 million is plenty to have multiple nice houses, a nice car for each day of the month, and pretty much anything else you could ever want. Unless you are a chronic gambler like Sir Charles, most guys that sign big contracts never even spend half of that money. Hell, I could live incredibly comfortably on a 6 year contract worth 1 million over the life of the deal. I could only imagine what I would do with 70 million.
Posted by: nrmax88 | May 19, 2008 at 01:09 AM
Who was the last position player that had 1500 PA with a .900 OPS by 24 years old that didn't have a 10+ year career?
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | May 19, 2008 at 01:36 AM
Seriously I need to know this.
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | May 19, 2008 at 01:37 AM
The Dodgers should consider just throwing out a can't refuse deal at Martin to make him the franchise. He is beloved in L.A. and has the body type to play catcher for a long time without wearing down and getting hurt and can also play the infield. Something like 8/100.
Posted by: AA | May 19, 2008 at 01:42 AM
I'd be wary of giving a catcher, even a young one, an eight-year contract. Actually, I'd be wary of giving anyone eight years.
Granted, Martin's built more like Campanella than say, Joe Mauer, but 8/100 is a lot to commit to someone who is one knee injury away from DHing in a league without the DH.
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | May 19, 2008 at 05:23 AM
An 8 year deal on a catcher would be scary; not pitcher scary, but still scary. If I'm a team committing that long, it has to either be a long term up-the-middle guy or an athletic corner.
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | May 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I agree with regard to Martin, solely because of his position. Still, does it have to be eight years; couldn't they agree on, perhaps, a bit more money over a shorter period. Y'know...a compromise?! Crazy thought, I know, but giving Martin, say, 5 years at a better rate still keeps him under wraps, gives Martin security (and shows him Dodger love), while hedging the commitment a bit.
More importantly, for an O's fan like myself...WHEN THE F*$K ARE THE O'S GOING TO EXTEND MARKAKIS!!! The kid is 24, one of the top all around talents in the game, and the face of a rebuilding franchise. LOCK HIM UP!!! If TB can give Evan friggin' Longoria a buyout longterm deal, Baltimore can show Nick some love. I will KILL PETER ANGELOS if Markakis leaves town. When...for the love of all things holy, are we going to be rid of this monster?! The day he sells the team to Cal will be...I've got chills down my spine just thinking about it. This town will go ape poo. Ticker tape parade and all that. This city loves their O's and that sonofabitch hijacked 'em to line his motherF*(^# pockets!!! Now, Camden Yards is a ghost town, we're a laughing-stock of a franchise and the rest of baseball thinks we're an organization without a strong fan-base.
But what do you do when a tyrant steals your team? Keep headin' out to the ballpark; shelling out hard earned money to watch a crap team pieced together with absolutely no chance of competing, year after year while that d-bag gets rich?!!! F@#* that!!!
This was once one of the proudest and strongest franchises in the game and continues to be a team with an incredible base of fans who live and breath orange and black. People forget the days before Angelos and in his early years, before we knew what a tool he is. You couldn't get a seat in Camden Yards to save your life; it was sold out almost every night for the first few years. Hell, we used to sell out Memorial Stadium (a monstrosity to tell the truth) back in the '80s. Angelos destroyed EVERYTHING. For all my hope and optimism pertaining to this year's success and the rebuilding plan under McPhail, I just don't trust the b@st@rd in the warehouse. I pray I'm wrong...but mostly I pray he just sells the damn team!!! The Ironman would lead us back to our former glory. I'd almost guarantee it. And you know what he'd do first..?
HE'D SIGN NICK MARKAKIS TO A LONG TERM EXTENSION!!!
Posted by: milehigh78 | May 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
"Granted, Martin's built more like Campanella than say, Joe Mauer, but 8/100 is a lot to commit to someone who is one knee injury away from DHing in a league without the DH."
If Martin could just catch, I would agree with you. Given that Martin can play third at an above-average level and has the athleticism to fit in at any infield position, he becomes more valuable than just another catcher. Further, if you look at his build, he looks a lot like a younger, faster, stronger version of Pudge, who has stayed healthy and played at a high level for 18 years.
The reason I mention an 8 year deal or something of the sort is because Martin is not one of these guys who is just off his rookie year (or, like Longoria, just into it). He is a Super 2/3 and will be getting a very nice payday in arbitration, particularly if he keeps his OBP above .400 all year. His value is already proven and he seems to only be getting better. Given the rate of contract inflation, locking him up for that term means he will still be in the first half of his 30s when the deal is up and the Dodgers will have likely saved 20-40 million dollars over the length of the contract, not to mention the pain of another Piazza-esque debacle.
Posted by: AA | May 19, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Martin for 8/100 seems like an awful big risk. The highest contract for a C ever was Piazza for 6/90 and the highest annual salary now is Posada at 13M. 8/100 is the kind of deal teams end up eating.
You bring up a decent point about his ability to move positions, but even if he continues to improve on his numbers they aren't premier numbers for a corner IF. To date, his numbers are very average for a corner and 12.5/year would make him the 5th highest paid 3b in the game. If he has to move away from C he loses a lot of his value.
I'm not really sure how a deal like that saves the Dodgers any money. Even if he sets arbitration records every year for the next 4 it would be 4 years at less than 50M. To save 20-40M he would have to sign a FA contract at 4yrs for 70-90M, and that would make him one of the top 10 highest paid guys in MLB.
I'm not saying he isn't a great player, but even big market teams needs to be a little smart about money.
Posted by: benjoua | May 19, 2008 at 07:13 PM
"Martin for 8/100 seems like an awful big risk. The highest contract for a C ever was Piazza for 6/90 and the highest annual salary now is Posada at 13M. 8/100 is the kind of deal teams end up eating."
Piazza was also a year older, significantly inferior defensively and signed his deal a decade ago. Posada too is inferior defensively and, outside last year, hasn't shown the same durability or all-around offensive talent. Neither one is as flexible defensively and you have to look at the contract from the prospective of ever rising salaries, especially considering that Martin would play in the remodeled Dodger Stadium, which is lining up to be a cash cow. $12.5 million now is like paying a guy $18 million 5 years (or less) from now. It is a huge saving.
As for Arbitration, Martin would only arbitrate for 3 years, not 4. His Super 2 status is virtually guaranteed (as is Andre Ethier's if anyone is paying attention), which means he starts arbitrating after this season. This isn't Braun or Tulowitzki, who each only have 1 year (and Braun may not even technically have 1 for those counting). Martin is a multi-millionaire starting next year, so locking him up means even more.
Posted by: AA | May 19, 2008 at 07:28 PM
This is the first time since 1999 that Posada won't play atleast 137 games. His durability is hardly up for question.
Posted by: Not Joe Morgan | May 19, 2008 at 07:32 PM
AA,
No matter how inferior Piazza's defense is compared to Martin's, it nowhere nearly as inferior as Martin's bat was to Piazza's. It's not even close, it would be ridiculous to even try to explain. Seriously, not even close, it's like comparing the two most uncomparable things that ever existed.
I'm not arguing he's not a good player, but your financial math has me praying your not an accountant.
Posted by: benjoua | May 19, 2008 at 08:04 PM
"No matter how inferior Piazza's defense is compared to Martin's, it nowhere nearly as inferior as Martin's bat was to Piazza's. It's not even close, it would be ridiculous to even try to explain. Seriously, not even close, it's like comparing the two most uncomparable things that ever existed."
Martin may not have Piazza's home run power, but he has a hell of a lot more speed, a lower K rate and a higher walk rate. Further, Piazza had only 7 more extra base hits in his age 24 season than Martin because of Martin's ability to stretch singles into doubles.
Piazza isn't really the catcher to compare Martin to anyway. The right guy to look at is Pudge, and Martin compares favorably with him.
"I'm not arguing he's not a good player, but your financial math has me praying your not an accountant."
Again, you need to take numbers from both past and future to evaluate this. Piazza got his contract 10 years ago, when the best player in baseball (Bonds) was pulling down $9 million a year. Now, the Dodgers' number 4 starter is making almost $12 million a year. Now look at the math.
Posted by: AA | May 19, 2008 at 08:20 PM
152,140,172,166,185,152,134,155,147,137,126.....Those are Piazza's OPS+ from ages 24 to 34. Remember that 126 at age 34. 101,113, and 127. That's Martin. Piazza was as good at 34 as Martin is at 25.
Your saying that LA should give the biggest contract ever granted to a player with that kind of service time to a C. The idea that you can somehow rationalize that it would save a team money is absurd. Comparing Martin to a SP makes no sense. When a team gives contracts they compare them to similar players. You keep bringing up inflation and that Piazza's contract was signed 10 years ago. If the highest paid C of all time averaged 15M/yr, 10 years ago, and the highest paid C now makes 13M/yr, what kind of inflation is that. If you want to compare to Pudge that's fine, 4/40. Your comparing Martin to 3 of the greatest Cs of all-time. That's alot of projecting for a guy with 1100 ABs.
The REAL comparable is Brian McCann. He signed for 6 years and 29M. that leaves the last 2 years of your contract at 35M/yr.
So please, could you explain this 20-40M savings to me again.
Posted by: benjoua | May 19, 2008 at 08:42 PM
"Piazza was as good at 34 as Martin is at 25."
Piazza hit more home runs. Meanwhile, he played fewer games, walked less, ran FAR slower and allowed more than 100 SB in 8 different seasons along with double digit PB in 4 seasons. Don't get me wrong, I love Piazza and hated the day he was traded by greedy Dodger management, but when you combine overall salary inflation with Martin's talents, there is substantial weight behind a big contract.
"The REAL comparable is Brian McCann. He signed for 6 years and 29M. that leaves the last 2 years of your contract at 35M/yr."
Martin is better than McCann in pretty much every way you can find. The only comparable is home runs. Martin also plays 10 more games a year behind the plate, and will probably play 10-20 games at third. All that, and Martin is arb-eligible. McCann had only 1 year of service time when he signed his contract, which means he would most definately take a discount, as Atlanta could have chosen to simply renew McCann twice. Martin is playing 3 years at $500K or less.
"Your comparing Martin to 3 of the greatest Cs of all-time."
Posada is nowhere near one of the greatest catchers of all time. Piazza is the greatest hitting catcher of all time, but a below average defender. Martin and Pudge do compare.
Posted by: AA | May 19, 2008 at 08:59 PM
A working definition of insanity is the repeating of the same action and expecting different results. I am going to try once again to use trivial things like fact, logic and reason and test the limits of my sanity.
"Martin is better than McCann in pretty much every way you can find."
There is this little website called baseball-reference.com. And on this little site they have placed these things called statistics. In baseball arguments, and arbitration hearing for that matter, some people might refer to these "statistics" as facts. Try going to this site and bringing up 2 tabs, search for your lovechild's father in one tab and McCann in another. Then look at those statistic thingys and compare them. What exactly is Martin better than McCann in? Yeah, he steals bases better, gets some more triples and had a better OBP in once. Maybe that's "pretty much every way YOU can find" but for the rest of the world it doesn't quite qualify.
And because your argument has been sooooooo informed and well thought out so far, I might need a little more than your say so to start doubting that Posada's name doesn't belong on a list of all-time great Cs. And before you say something stupid and add one of my lines to your post, I didn't say the GREATEST of all-time.
Name 15 Cs better than Posada. I'll even spot you Berra, Cochrane, Piazza, Bench, Fisk, Pudge, Carter. I left at least one obvious one off just for you. I probably could have made up 5 more names and you wouldn't have noticed but hey, good luck.
Posted by: benjoua | May 19, 2008 at 09:29 PM
And for your comparisons of Piazza to Martin, you should try checking that out too. Piazza k's every 6.2 abs and martin every 6.4. I'd definitely take that .2 in favor of your boy over a guy who hit more HRs in 9 different seasons than Martin has in 1100 ABs.
Posted by: benjoua | May 19, 2008 at 09:51 PM
benjoua - Goodness, you act like a petulant little child who just has to get his own way, and then resorts to calling people names.
Lets see. In 2 full seasons, Martin already has more Gold Gloves than Piazza, Posada and McCann combined. Last season, Martin had more steals than Piazza has had his whole career. His numbers have come without Eric Karros and Raul Mondesi surrounding him in the lineup. And like I said, I already agree that Piazza is the best pure hitting catcher of all time, with the only exception being perhaps Josh Gibson.
As for your list, I find it funny that you mention Pudge without also calling Fisk Pudge, given that the nickname originated with him. Lets try this one. Piazza, Berra, Torre, Carter, Pudge, Little Pudge, Munson, Cochrane, Campy, Javy Lopez, Santiago, Gibson, Simmons, Pena, Parrish. There is 15, and there are still more. Actually, even Bengie Molina compares with Posada, if you factor in defense.
Posted by: AA | May 20, 2008 at 04:24 AM
Gold Gloves? That's your argument? Gold Gloves?
I think you're ignoring the crucial fact that Martin did NOT win the Silver Slugger OR the Rookie of the Year in his rookie year! He also didn't go to the All-Star game! He is clearly TERRIBLE.
Posted by: asm | May 21, 2008 at 01:58 PM
And Bengie Molina in this discussion is a f***ing joke. 8 seasons playing 96 games or more with a career OPS+ of 87. Yeah, that's a top catcher.
Posted by: asm | May 21, 2008 at 02:00 PM