The Bar

[Edgy MD]

The bar is set for David Wright's potential value as his buddy and rival and close comp Ryan Zimmerman inks a six-year, $100-million extension going through 2019. The contract includes a full no-trade clause and a $24 million option for 2020 (2020!).

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: The bar is set for David Wright's potential value as his buddy and rival and close comp Ryan Zimmerman inks a six-year, $100-million extension going through 2019. The contract includes a full no-trade clause and a $24 million option for 2020 (2020!).

I wonder though, as Wright could not sign a new contract until before the 2014 season. Things may be very different (specifically the global, and Wilpon, economic climate)

[Edgy MD]

Why wouldn't Wright be able to sign a new contract until then?

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Why wouldn't Wright be able to sign a new contract until then?

I meant he _could_ not sign until then.

Especially since it doesn't seem like the Mets can afford 6/100 right now.

[Edgy MD]

Still going over my head, but OK.

[Fman99]

I'll meet you at the bar.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Still going over my head, but OK.

it's the bar were he to negotiate an extension today.

what 'market value' might be, and also what the Mets will be willing to pay, could be VASTLY different when Wright actually signs, based on his performance, the Picard case, and many other things that I'm not sure how much this really sets a bar.

Hell, it's even possible it's not the Wilpons negotiating that contract.

[Edgy MD]

Yes, I thought it was pretty obvious that in suggest this contract is "the bar," I mean that it's the bar today.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course this six-year deal (plus a 7th year option) doesn't even start until two seasons from now --- it's an extension on top of the two seasons he still has to go on his deal -- so perhaps it is a good comp for Wright's situation once you take into account that Zimmerman is not quite two years younger.

[Edgy MD]

That also, I thought, seemed quite obvious, but I guess not.

[metirish]

It's debatable of course but who is the better player/3 baseman?

Zimmerman is a better hitter no?, better all around player?


meanwhile neither one can find a sponsor over at B-R.

[TransMonk]

They both have pros and cons. Mostly pros for both, though.

Zim is younger, but has battled more injuries the past few years. There isn't anything about him that makes me pine for him over what we currently have in Wright.

[Edgy MD]

It's certainly debatable who's better. But that's the point of contracts becoming bars. If players are comparable enough that who is more valuable is in the realm of debate, the previous contract becomes a bar for for following contracts to be set against, whether they be higher or lower.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: It's certainly debatable who's better. But that's the point of contracts becoming bars. If players are comparable enough that who is more valuable is in the realm of debate, the previous contract becomes a bar for for following contracts to be set against, whether they be higher or lower.

Yep, agree with Monk too, I'd not have him over Wright .......FWIW I saw a blurb with Wright saying this this didn't set the bar for him.

[Edgy MD]

I imagine he would. It's more than a little reckless (and distasteful) to be negotiating in public at this juncture.

[Vic Sage]

Zim is younger, and a better defensive 3bman. As a hitter, the Shea-era Wright was better than Zim, the Citi-era Wright is not. As for injury history, Wright is coming off a broken back; i don't see have Zim's history makes him "worse" or riskier particularly.

This is a big year for David. If he can show he's (1) fully recovered and healthy, and (2) returned his approach at the plate to restore the higher contact rate that made him an MVP candidate, then he'll be in line for either a Zimmermanian-type extension (if the Wilpon's will spend the money) or a trade after the season (if they can't).

[Edgy MD]

Speaking of extensions, the Cards are supposedly set to close on five years and $75 million for Yadier Molina. That's a lot of spinach. Spinach that could have fed Albert Pujols for a few years.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Speaking of extensions, the Cards are supposedly set to close on five years and $75 million for Yadier Molina. That's a lot of spinach. Spinach that could have fed Albert Pujols for a few years.

There are so few decent catchers that I guess it makes sense to lock up the ones you have. Especially when they're as well rounded as Yadier..but yeah, that's a lot. And there's the aches and pains and injury risks that catchers come with that seems to be not fun for long contracts.

[Edgy MD]

I think there are plenty of decent catchers around. The Mets have one in Thole, who costs nothing.

The paucity is in good ones. But wear and tear and sudden traumatic injuries have a way of reducing the good ones to merely decent (or seriously unavailable).

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I think there are plenty of decent catchers around. The Mets have one in Thole, who costs nothing. The paucity is in good ones. But wear and tear and sudden traumatic injuries have a way of reducing the good ones to merely decent (or seriously unavailable).

Well, I guess I meant a tick better than decent. I like Thole but he's not exactly someone you'd necessarily worry about losing either.

It's a balancing act between locking up one of the top catchers and overcommitting to perhaps the second most injured position in baseball.

I guess they felt a little flush with cash with a fresh title, and no Pujols?

[Frayed Knot]

5 years of Yadier at the cost of 3 years of Albert is a pretty good trade-off, especially since those 3 Albert years come with 7 more years attached to them.
Molina is also 2-1/2 years younger [30 in July vs already 32], actually has less of an injury history, is at the tougher to replace position and is no longer the defense-only/weak bat catcher that he came up as [.305/.349/.465 last season].

Combine that with his top-level 'D' and, no, there aren't a lot of catchers like him out there.

[Edgy MD]

And my position is that, in two years, there is likely to be one fewer.

He may not have the injury history, but the position sure does.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Catchers tend to fade rapidly by age 32-33. Most catchers are toast by then, even those that were effective two years before.

[Frayed Knot]

Molina gets his [5/$75] deal, one which turns out to be five years in addition to the one he already has covering the 2012 season (essentially making it a 6/$82 deal) plus a mutual option for one more at the end.

That puts it into a bit more dicey territory age-wise.
Now 70% of the deal covers him past birthday #32, as opposed to just 50% had the new deal started with this season.