Reyes: bigbux longterm contract after 2006 or go with arb.?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

This assumes that Reyes has the year that Dickshot cites as his projected numbers in 2006, a .311 OBP, some small growth in other areas, but no great leap forward. His agent says "We'd like a multiple year deal whose terms acknowledge that Jose is going to be the shortstop you're hoping over the next few years." You're Omar Minaya.

[metirish]

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Obviously, I don't know how to do polls.

[Guest abogdan]

I'm not the Reyes biggest fan, but I stay away from arbitration with him. He'll put up a decent enough batting average and be among the league leaders in SB so his arbitration awards will likely be near or at the peak of players with his service time.

You should be able to project with some certainty what Reyes will be making through arbitration by looking at past awards. If you can sign him for less than the average of that I do it.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Until someone can fix my screwed up poll, or tell me how to fix (or to have done it right), the discussion will do.

So abogdan you opt to avoid arbitration under my scenario and sign him to some kind of long term contract? Is that right?

[metirish]

I think anytime you can avoid arbitration it's good, I would think most GM's would rather sign a deal than go to arbitration, especially with cornerstone players like Reyes and Wright.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Okay, so as I read it (and I don;t get why I have to do so much interpreting--it's pretty much a yes or no question) that's two votes for "Give him some kind of bigbux multiyear contract" and one vote (mine) for "Go to arbitration in 2007." Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Frayed Knot]

It would depend on the specifics of the multi-year deal.

[Willets Point]

Bret doesn't do nuance.

[Guest abogdan]

I count 7 votes for long term and 0 for go to arbitration based on the poll above.

Yeah, I say try to sign him for a long term deal.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

As I said in the other thread, referring to a multiyear deal as "bigbuxx" assumes that the deal is for gigantic money when in practice, Reyes would prolly make bigger buxx for a year at a time than the team would pay over the course of a LT deal -- that's one reason why they do them.

Also, and I suppose this is partially my fault, but given the Met distaste for arbitration, they'd prolly decide instead for a 1-year, non-arbitrated deal over arbitration if for whatever reason they couldn't or wouldn't agree to a multiyear deal.

That this whole thing came up is also my fault for daring to fight the fires Sal ran in here starting. My point was that these decisions the Mets have to make are difficult ones for them, never mind us, and easy to look back and laugh at.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Thanks to whoever fixed my crummy poll.

I did forget "It all depends" as an option. When Frayed Knot runs a poll, all options can be phrased as variants on this enlightening theme.

Look, you understand what I'm saying, I hope: if Reyes' performance stays about where it's been for the last three seasons, a lot of promise, a ton of potential, a bunch of excitement, but not all that much on performance, do you want to make a commitment to him as your leadoff guy and starting shortstop or, at the risk of Jose's feelings and future goodwill, do you want to stall that commitment off as long as possible?

I don't get your quibbling, Johnny. Yes, of course, a series of one-year arbitrated contracts can, and probably will, cost more than one multiyear contract. That's a given. But what you get for the series of one-years is that you can stop offering them, or offer a cut, if the performance declines during the multiyear period. If they had gone that route with Rey-O, they might have been free to look elsewhere for a shortstop in 2001 or 2002 and improved the team in doing so. It ain't complicated.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

One other thing to consider is that you can commit to him being your shortstop without committing to him being your leadoff hitter.

[smg58]

His health is enough of an issue that I'd play it cautiously. Any leg injury that makes him lose a step makes him mediocre, and that's without getting into time spent on the DL. I think the Mets should take the luxury of going one year at a time with him.

Wright may be a different story, because I could see him commanding eight figures in 2010. The need to budget for the long-term would outweigh the potential injury risks in his case (barring something unforseen and very much unwanted).

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

smg58 wrote: Wright may be a different story, because I could see him commanding eight figures in 2010.

True. Wright is a different story. One clear difference is in his Sim Scores
also through Age 22 :

Ken Keltner (950)
Dick Allen (939)
Hank Blalock (934)
Richie Hebner (925)
Vladimir Guerrero (925)
Eric Chavez (925)
Jim Ray Hart (919)
Ben Chapman (915)
Scott Rolen (915)
Pete Reiser (912)

That's a very impressive group of players, nary a bad un among them(well, maybe Ben Chapman) and some of the best slugging 3b men I've ever seen.

I looked up the Sim Scores for Clemente, whom MFS62 cited as a late blooming star--you know who the first Sim for Clemente was at age 21? Tris Speaker.

OTOH, I thought to look up sim scores for Ozzie Smith, whose early career reminded me of Jose's a bit, mostly in the abysmal OBPs. Ozzie got off to a later start than I'd remembered, so it wasn that similar, but one of Ozzie's sims is Bud Harrelson. Yikes. Ozzie didn't actually show signs of getting on base until he was 27, which is a good sign for Jose's future development.. I'm just not sure how anomolous that was, historically.

[Zvon]

mmmmmmm, this is a tuff and interesting one.

Id need more info about the $$$ involved.

If he has that projected year Id have no problem wanting to try and secure him for a number of years, with assurances of playing short.

I think the Mets have pulled his chain enough already...(
examples:
"Here,....run like this"
"Hey, I know we've trained you to be a shortstop, and youve excelled at it. Now go play second while we see if Kaz is MLB material"

[Zvon]

Oh, i see poll now.
I picked lets talk yrs and $$$.


lets get into how much and how long..........

Id have to check what he was makin, what a SS of similar numbers is making, and Id like to give him 3 years.

If he wants more, Ill still talk.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Well, you've a got a year to think it over, Zvon, but I am interested in your thinking now.

As to separating Jose's batting order slot from his position, that is a crucial subject. Seems to me that if you've decided that he's a good-glove, no-hit # 8 (OR # 7) batter, you're not going to want to pay him like you pay a leadoff guy. The Mets do need to figure out whether Jose can bat at the top of the order pretty soon, because you need to allocate your salary expenses rationally. Spending superstar money on a # 8 hitter leaves you underpaying your heart of the order guys, don't it? Or underpaying somewhere else--relief pitching, starting rotation, somewhere. (If not, then you're saying that superstar money for an # 8 hitter shouldn't constrain your overall budget at all, which means you're committing to a limitless payroll.) The Mets can't just dither around indefinitely--either Jose's the answer to their leadoff (or #2) problems or he's not, and it's not easy to decide based on the current evidence. Still and all, at some point (soon) the answer "We'll have to wait and see" won't suffice.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I don't see him as a "no-hit" number 8 guy. I think he'd be one of the best number 8 guys the Mets have ever had. Even if he doesn't walk, he does hit for extra bases. The 8 slot wouldn't be the easy out that it's often been in the past.

But I do agree that the salary for a good 8 guy and a good leadoff guy should be different, and if you pay leadoff money to an 8 guy, you could be potentially misallocating some salary.

[Frayed Knot]

Y'know, as long as you define the act of buying out the arb years as the equivelent of "superstar money" this whole exercise is going to be slanted from the start.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Of course he'd be a great # 8 hitter. Didn't mean to imply that there'd be no difference between him and Ordonez, nor that his batting ability should be negated and unrewarded if they Mets were to put in the 8-hole. But as you say there are limits on what you want to pay your # 8 batter.

Because Jose's record is so atypical (in some areas like triples and SBs he's a genuine superstar, while in others he's totally inadequate), I can see where his agents will indignantly insist that he's a true star, and the Mets will equally indignantly argue that he's a decent middle infielder but nothing special so far, and they'll each have some reason on their side.

[seawolf17]

Exactly. If he improves even slightly, I'm not averse to seeing them give him a three-year, $12 million kind of package, just to get him through his arbitration years. I think a lot of teams have done that with young players. He has security if he gets hurt, and the team's not breaking the bank if he becomes Al Moran II.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: Y'know, as long as you define the act of buying out the arb years as the equivelent of "superstar money" this whole exercise is going to be slanted from the start.

That's fair, though it's also consistent with what I see as your "you never know nothing and can never discuss anything intelligently because I can always come up with some quibbling niggling irrelevant factoid that you can't demonstrably know, so HA HA HA on you" position.

So let's discuss some numbers. Since this is totally off the top of my head, I'll be willing to take immediate correction. Off Dickshot's .311 OBP year, I'll guess Jose's arbitration value in 2007 would be, oh, 3 mil. And his agents' request for LT contract would be 3 years /18 mil. And the Mets's counteroffer would be 5 years/22 mil.

Who else wants to play the "Specific Numbers Out of Uranus" game?

[seawolf17]

He's not going to sign away his FA years that early; nobody does that for that kind of scratch. If he'd sign for 5/$22, I'd do that. But he won't. That's why I'd say 3/$12-15.

[Guest Rotblatt]

He'll still be young and he'll still have as much upside as any other shortstops in the free agent market. We also have the money to gamble on a guy who, at the very least, will play good defense and be an outstanding #8 hitter.

I'd say we should buy out his aribtration years and maybe a little more. Try and keep the contract reasonable (seawolf's numbers look good to me) with escalators for number of at bats and huge bonuses for All-Star, Silver Slugger & MVP votes.

Like seawolf says, if we can get him for longer without going overboard, I'm all for it.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

seawolf17 wrote: He's not going to sign away his FA years that early; nobody does that for that kind of scratch. If he'd sign for 5/$22, I'd do that. But he won't. That's why I'd say 3/$12-15.

\\


Why would the Mets sign a contract that takes Jose right up to Free Agency? I thought the club's advantage was to buy at least a year of what would have been his FA years.In your scenario, the upside over three consecutive one-year arbitrated deals is very small from the Mets' pov, yet represents great security for Jose in an insecure phase of his career. That's why the mets would ask, IMO, for two FA years at bargain rates. Otherwise, it's off to Mr. Arbitrator.

[Frayed Knot]

though it's also consistent with what I see as your "you never know nothing and can never discuss anything intelligently because I can always come up with some quibbling niggling irrelevant factoid that you can't demonstrably know, so HA HA HA on you" position.

As opposed to your "you agreed back in '05 that you wouldn't be adverse to a LT deal for Reyes so even if they sign him to something ridiculous I'll repeat the "fact" that you personally approved of it for the next 8 years" position.


By the end of '06 Reyes will have 3+ years of ML time served, making him a FA following the '09 season so - as mentioned by SWolf - his agent is likely to want a deal which either runs for 3 years (maybe 4): to take care of the arb years only; or something on the order of 7: which would be for (2nd half anyway) real FA money and still allow him to sell himself again aroung the age of 30. Something in between is generally not in the player's interest.

Now if I'm the Mets I don't do the longer one unless he somehow turns into a superstar this season. Cards wisely did that w/Pujols but it's a rare player where that makes sense and Jose isn't one of those.
So we're looking at what the proper number would be for a 3yr stint. If we start w/your assumption that $3mil will be an '07 target then the club's trick is to decide what '08 & '09 will look like with normal progress: $5mil then $7 maybe? (Soriano at the same point went $5.5, $7.5, and $10? for this year) That's $15 over the 3 seasons that you're going to have to pay anyway assuming he doesn't fall into the toilet. So a deal that offers something in the $11-$14 range over those 3 years wouldn't be out of whack. It would give Reyes the security he's never had and the Mets a set of firm numbers they can plug into their budgeting projections and everyone avoids the year-to-year haggling process.

Naturally this all depends on how this season goes - both for Jose and for the market as a whole - but I could get behind a deal like that and be a whole lot less nervous about a deal like that than I was about the ones for Wagner/Pedro/Glavine for instance.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: As opposed to your "you agreed back in '05 that you wouldn't be adverse to a LT deal for Reyes so even if they sign him to something ridiculous I'll repeat the "fact" that you personally approved of it for the next 8 years" position.

Actually, I'm much happier talking specific numbers. I'm still not getting what the Mets get out of the 11-14 3-year deal, but it's their money I'd insist on at least one of the FA years if he gets the security he wants, but this will still be a close call if he doesn't show a strong uptick in his stats in 2006. You're willing to gamble quite a bit of money (not your money, I understand) on the hope that Jose will become the difference maker he shows occassional signs of becoming. The crucial heap of dung on the road ahead, other than crippling injury (which is larger for Jose than for most) is what to do if he does deteriorate. If you're paying him 14 mil the next few years and instead of getting a modest improvement to a .311 OBP you get a decline down to Ordonez levels, .280 or so, you're totally screwed. You're going to keep on playing him and playing him until you get to the end of the contract. Which is where we started. Don'[t you want to take ANY safeguards against that happening again?

[seawolf17]

What the Mets get out of the 3/$13 deal is that IF Jose comes up with a line like this in 2008:

.280/.350/.420, 18 3B, 120 R, 55 SB

then they're only paying him $4 millionish a year, as opposed to some crazy arbitration figure that springs from Bobby Crosby's 5 year/$170 million deal that he signs with the MFYs that offseason.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Also I'm sure not why you've picked Soriano as your model--he didn't make over a mil per year until 2004, when he was 28, five years older than Jose will be this year, coming off consecutive seasons of 39 and 38 HRs. In other words, he had just given statistical assurance of his bona fides and his durability.

http://baseball-reference.com/s/soriaal01.shtml