Jays extend McGowan for 2 years

Santoki · Post #1 » by **Santoki** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:07 pm

3rd year is a team option.
http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2012/03/2 ... extension/

WpgPage · Post #2 » by **WpgPage** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:45 pm

What? Really? was that really necessary?

Avenger · Post #3 » by **Avenger** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:46 pm

McGowan will make $1.5M in 2013, $1.5M in 2014, and the Jays have a $4M option for 2015 - per Shi Davidi.

satyr9 · Post #4 » by **satyr9** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:56 pm

WpgPage wrote:What? Really? was that really necessary?

That was my first thought, but the money is almost inconsequential, although I doubt they were able to insure it, so they're paying it no matter what. Say a 2WAR (meaning not very good) starter gets 8-10M short term, they're saying there's like a 15-20% chance he'll be healthy. Sounds like a reasonable risk to me.

Hamyltowne · Post #5 » by **Hamyltowne** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:26 pm

It's for so little money, it's almost negligible.

But it's not. He injured his foot the other day. Plus he's twice had surgery on his shoulder. Everyone knows convalescence from shoulder problems is much more difficult than elbow issues.

Money down the drain.

BigLeagueChew · Post #6 » by **BigLeagueChew** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:28 pm

Article yesterday on McGowan's injury

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/bluejays/article/1151675--blue-jay-dustin-mcgowan-exits-with-foot-injury

Doesn't seem to be serious. We have McGowan on a bargain deal for this year and next year even if he's not healthy.Obviously if things don't work out his option year won't be picked up. Good signing IMO.

WpgPage · Post #7 » by **WpgPage** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:36 pm

I guess but it just seams like a move that you don't really need to make, certainly not right now. Why not wait until June or July at least see him face some MLB completion first.

Hamyltowne · Post #8 » by **Hamyltowne** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:40 pm

WpgPage wrote:I guess but it just seams like a move that you don't really need to make, certainly not right now. Why not wait until June or July at least see him face some MLB completion first.

Exactly!

This loyalty crap is frustrating.

duppyy · Post #9 » by **duppyy** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:49 pm

I like it.

Kid has potential and its not his arm thats hurt.

AA is thinking long term with this. If the kid becomes good we have him at a bargain.

Avenger · Post #10 » by **Avenger** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:00 pm

Hamyltowne wrote:
WpgPage wrote:I guess but it just seams like a move that you don't really need to make, certainly not right now. Why not wait until June or July at least see him face some MLB completion first.

Exactly!

This loyalty crap is frustrating.

yeah, not quite sure if the risk vs rewards balance matches up to make this deal worth it but its such an inconsequential move that i'll save my outrage for other things, like the fact that Jeff Mathis and Adam Lind(who are more alike than you think) are actually on our MLB roster.

hyper316 · Post #11 » by **hyper316** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:26 pm

this is like a vet min. contract for 2 years. even though mcgowan is not much of a vet.

baulderdash77 · Post #12 » by **baulderdash77** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:54 pm

It's a way of making sure that if McGowan has a good year, the Jays get him for cheap in reward of holding him for so many years when every other team would have cast him aside. On the other hand it's an inconsequential number for the team so if he gets hurt again, it doesn't matter.

Another way for AA to limit any downside and get upside for cheap.

Santoki · Post #13 » by **Santoki** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:15 pm

baulderdash77 wrote:It's a way of making sure that if McGowan has a good year, the Jays get him for cheap in reward of holding him for so many years when every other team would have cast him aside. On the other hand it's an inconsequential number for the team so if he gets hurt again, it doesn't matter.

Another way for AA to limit any downside and get upside for cheap.

Wouldn't this type of contract be available later in the year? Surely, if McGowan has a decent year, he'd feel loyal to the Jays and sign something similar. Just seems like an odd time to do it.

Michael Bradley · Post #14 » by **Michael Bradley** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:23 pm

This contract is basically a "just in case he pulls a Chris Carpenter" deal. McGowan has over five years of service time, so he would have been a free agent after this season. If he pans out, as unlikely as that appears to be, then the Jays now do not have to worry about paying him free agent market value after this season. If he doesn't pan out, then the Jays blow $3M in 2013 and 2014. That looks like a risk AA was willing to take.

I'm not going to fault AA for this even if McGowan flames out. The Jays have to take risks like this, especially if they plan on bowing out on the free agent pitching crop every year. I'd rather give this contract to McGowan than pay the same amount for Jeff Mathis. At least there is still upside here.

hyper316 · Post #15 » by **hyper316** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:24 pm

think about it, mcgowan is guaranteed 3 million right now. that's plenty of money to feed his family if his shoulder or his leg now blows up. if i was him, i'd be more than happy to sign this contract. it's a win-win situation really.

vaff87 · Post #16 » by **vaff87** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:44 pm

I don't understand how anyone can get mad at a move that at worst is a $3 mil waste, and at best is a complete bargain.

flatjacket1 · Post #17 » by **flatjacket1** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:54 pm

vaff87 wrote:I don't understand how anyone can get mad at a move that at worst is a $3 mil waste, and at best is a complete bargain.

He has to be worth around .7 WAR/season to be worth that. If you don't think McGowan is capable of 0.7 WAR, you don't know baseball.

SharoneWright · Post #18 » by **SharoneWright** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:04 am

hyper316 wrote:think about it, mcgowan is guaranteed 3 million right now.

3.6 over the next 3 years. Plus a club option for the 4th...

Post #19 » by **Schad** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:01 am

flatjacket1 wrote:=
He has to be worth around .7 WAR/season to be worth that.

Yes and no, because you're also weighing it against what he would have otherwise received in arbitration; he can certainly provide surplus value above and beyond that number, but the financial risk/reward there isn't quite the same as merely clearing the .7 WAR mark. Not particularly high still though, which is why I have no qualms about this deal...worst case is $3.5m (not including this year and the previously agreed-upon $600k salary) burned over three years for a pitcher who gets re-injured and produces little, when the buyout is included.

However, I think that people are really expecting too much from McGowan. While people have talked about his renewed velocity, McGowan's go-to was always his slider; the fastball set them up, the slider knocked them down. Unfortunately, sliders are elbow-and-shoulder mangling machines, especially at the velocity and arm angle McGowan utilized, and reports out of Spring Training suggest that he's not breaking it off the way he once did, which is totally understandable but makes his odds of long-term success somewhat low. He has a pretty solid change-up, but it'll have to get plus in a hurry (and become a far larger part of his arsenal) or his fastball will get pounded, whether it's at 98 or 93.

SharoneWright · Post #20 » by **SharoneWright** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:06 am

Schadenfreude wrote:
flatjacket1 wrote:=
He has to be worth around .7 WAR/season to be worth that.

Yes and no, because you're also weighing it against what he would have otherwise received in arbitration; he can certainly provide surplus value above and beyond that number, but the financial risk/reward there isn't quite the same as merely clearing the .7 WAR mark. Not particularly high still though, which is why I have no qualms about this deal...worst case is $3.5m (not including this year and the previously agreed-upon $600k salary) burned over three years for a pitcher who gets re-injured and produces little, when the buyout is included.

However, I think that people are really expecting too much from McGowan. While people have talked about his renewed velocity, McGowan's go-to was always his slider; the fastball set them up, the slider knocked them down. Unfortunately, sliders are elbow-and-shoulder mangling machines, especially at the velocity and arm angle McGowan utilized, and reports out of Spring Training suggest that he's not breaking it off the way he once did, which is totally understandable but makes his odds of long-term success somewhat low. He has a pretty solid change-up, but it'll have to get plus in a hurry (and become a far larger part of his arsenal) or his fastball will get pounded, whether it's at 98 or 93.

I agree with the potential slider issues... tell me,, does a change-up place essentially the same stess on the arm as a fastball -- I only ever played fastball at a high level and am not too familiar.

Also in regards to the bolded,, is there a 500k buyout in the new deal?

thx