AA's 5-year Contract Limit is Good for the Franchise.

Hamyltowne · Post #1 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:59 am

This board gives too much flak to AA for not handing out contracts that last 7-10 years. For signing some (many?) players, a 5-year limit to contracts is sound policy.

The only reason we're seeing so many huge contracts, each one lasting a decade or so, is because of the RSN money pouring into small-and-middle-market teams, in the amount of billions. That money, however, is for 20 or 30 years worth of television rights. They won't be able to re-up for decades.

In some ways, AA is well ahead of the curve on this one. In due course, there will be very few long-term (7 or more) contracts handed to players on the wrong side of 30. Not just because the RSN money will have dried up, but because they've taken the amphetamines out of baseball--"that's what kept the old guys pumping along in August." (George F. Will) Already we've seen the year totals in pitcher contracts drop steadily since the Barry-Zito-and-Mike-Hampton days. Expect the same for old(er) position players, especially now that they've no amphetamines.

Obviously, with players a few years under 30--Lawrie will be around that age--you can trust a long-term contract and I would encourage AA/Rogers to invest in such players. Still, they don't all reach FA at 27, and the idea of exercising caution for contracts that take big sluggers or hard throwers into their late 30's and into age 40... that should be a welcome change.

'Sides, you'll all be happy when the dynasty is complete and we're winning pennants thanks to AA's brilliant plan, which is timed perfectly with the Yankees plan to curb spending due to new rules around luxury tax.

We're good.

Hamyltowne · Post #2 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:26 am

I didn't expect many rebuttals to a solid argument.

I accept this victory with honour and dignity.

flatjacket1 · Post #3 » by **flatjacket1** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:36 am

FA generally doesn't pan out at all. Even if you signed Fielder to a 5 year deal with the same annual rate it'd still be a failed contract likely.

You still need to do it to sustain success (or lengthen your contention period) but not while your building. I'm sure if Bud Selig said to AA "If you sign Fielder, we will give you a playoff spot guaranteed" we would sign him.

The fact is if the team isn't ready, then why add a crippling contract? Imagine the Angels without the Wells trade? They would have a lot of money to spend.

Hamyltowne · Post #4 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:40 am

flatjacket1 wrote:FA generally doesn't pan out at all. Even if you signed Fielder to a 5 year deal with the same annual rate it'd still be a failed contract likely.

You still need to do it to sustain success (or lengthen your contention period) but not while your building. I'm sure if Bud Selig said to AA "If you sign Fielder, we will give you a playoff spot guaranteed" we would sign him.

The fact is if the team isn't ready, then why add a crippling contract? Imagine the Angels without the Wells trade? They would have a lot of money to spend.

This.

Parataxis · Post #5 » by **Parataxis** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:57 am

Hamyltowne wrote:This board gives too much flak to AA for not handing out contracts that last 7-10 years. For signing some (many?) players, a 5-year limit to contracts is sound policy.

You're absolutely correct in that second sentence - indeed, I'd extend it further, and say 'most' rather than some or many. I don't think many people here would disagree.

But that's the problem - the Jays' policy (at least as it's been explained) isn't 'Most players shouldn't get more than 5 years'. it's 'We will not sign players for more than 5 years'. It's a blanket ban.

That removes the possibility for those few players who deserve it. And that's what makes it unsound policy - there's no flexibility.

Hamyltowne · Post #6 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 3:04 am

Parataxis wrote:But that's the problem - the Jays' policy (at least as it's been explained) isn't 'Most players shouldn't get more than 5 years'. it's 'We will not sign players for more than 5 years'. It's a blanket ban.

That removes the possibility for those few players who deserve it. And that's what makes it unsound policy - there's no flexibility.

Players who deserve it, eh?

Name me three players who will enter FA this November and are deserving of more than 5 years. (I can't)

Do the same for November 2013.

flatjacket1 · Post #7 » by **flatjacket1** » Fri May 25, 2012 3:06 am

Hamyltowne wrote:
Parataxis wrote:But that's the problem - the Jays' policy (at least as it's been explained) isn't 'Most players shouldn't get more than 5 years'. it's 'We will not sign players for more than 5 years'. It's a blanket ban.

That removes the possibility for those few players who deserve it. And that's what makes it unsound policy - there's no flexibility.

Players who deserve it, eh?

Name me three players who will enter FA this November and are deserving of more than 5 years. (I can't)

Do the same for November 2013.

I would say Lind fit the criteria after 2009 to be extended beyond 5 years.

dballislife · Post #8 » by **dballislife** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:12 am

no duhhhhh, no1 is saying its not good, if other teams had the choice they wouldn't go over 5 years either...but say goodbye to legit 1-2 rotation aces and 3-4 power bats

dagger · Post #9 » by **dagger** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:17 am

It's the right policy until the day it costs us a free agent management really wants or causes us to lose one of our own.

With the current payroll we aren't at any risk of missing out on a Tier 1 FA. You have to be willing to spend a lot more money before length of contract becomes the make or break issue.

Post #10 » by **OldNo7** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:38 am

dagger wrote:It's the right policy until the day it costs us a free agent management really wants or causes us to lose one of our own.

Exactly, like one of the best pitchers on the planet who is under 30 (Cole Hamels). He will get a 7 year deal which puts us out of the running before it even begins.

distracted · Post #11 » by **distracted** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am

OldNo7 wrote:
dagger wrote:It's the right policy until the day it costs us a free agent management really wants or causes us to lose one of our own.

Exactly, like one of the best pitchers on the planet who is under 30 (Cole Hamels). He will get a 7 year deal which puts us out of the running before it even begins.

I'm not sure I would even want to sign him for 7+ years. That's an extremely dangerous gamble when talking about a pitcher. The wiretap is suggesting he'll get $150-$175. Assuming $5/win, then the historical list of players who would have earned that contract (30-35 total WAR) is pretty small, and mostly full of hall of famers.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... &players=0

whysoserious · Post #12 » by **whysoserious** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:46 pm

I totally understand the policy from a building perspective, staying flexible and not committing to much to something that there's no guarantee of panning out.

But at the end of the day, these are the conditions you live in and the norm in the industry is to give out the 7-10 year deal for the big fa. At some point you have to jump in and compete.

Its like Brian Burke saying he won't do the same thing or giving himself a self-imposed trade deadline or saying he won't sign an RFA. At the end of the day, the CBA is what it is and I want a GM to take full advantage of every tool available to them to build a winner.

The key for AA will be to target and sign the right guy. If he signs one big deal as a FA and then gives similar contracts to his own players and it produces even one championship then it will be worth it. You may be stuck with a Prince Fielder for 3 or 4 years after that championship but at least you got one.

bigdirty · Post #13 » by **bigdirty** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:47 pm

dagger wrote:It's the right policy until the day it costs us a free agent management really wants or causes us to lose one of our own.

With the current payroll we aren't at any risk of missing out on a Tier 1 FA. You have to be willing to spend a lot more money before length of contract becomes the make or break issue.

Agreed. If other teams are willing to give the 7-10 year contracts to big FAs on the level of Prince Fielder, the Jays are screwed. If the Jays make the decision to finally spend and there's a big name guy they want, they won't get him. He'll take the extra years and go elsewhere.

Putting restraints on how you spend when other teams don't have restraint is failure. I fully understand the Jays don't want to get stuck with a Vernon Wells for 10 years, but at the same time what if you lose out on a career beast?

Avenger · Post #14 » by **Avenger** » Fri May 25, 2012 3:23 pm

dagger · Post #15 » by **dagger** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:03 pm

I don't know if the team's five year limit has a loophole for eating an arb year, but if it doesn't, were this guy ours, we might lose the chance to get a team friendly extension.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-o ... t-extensio

Hamyltowne · Post #16 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:38 pm

whysoserious wrote:But at the end of the day, these are the conditions you live in and the norm in the industry is to give out the 7-10 year deal for the big fa. At some point you have to jump in and compete.

The norm in the industry will soon change. AA is well ahead of the curve on this one. Read my opening post for an explanation.

Hamyltowne · Post #17 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:42 pm

dagger wrote:I don't know if the team's five year limit has a loophole for eating an arb year, but if it doesn't, were this guy ours, we might lose the chance to get a team friendly extension.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-o ... t-extensio

Wow. That is a very team-friendly contract for the type of breakout year Jones is having.

Avenger · Post #18 » by **Avenger** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:56 pm

Signing a previously mediocre player to a 85 million dollar extension because he's had a good month and a half is hardly a team friendly deal.

Jones has done this before, in 2009 Jones had a 1000 OPS through May and he fell down to earth in a hurry.

JMH · Post #19 » by **JMH** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:12 pm

Avenger wrote:Signing a previously mediocre player to a 85 million dollar extension because he's had a good month and a half is hardly a team friendly deal.

Jones has done this before, in 2009 Jones had a 1000 OPS through May and he fell down to earth in a hurry.

+1

thats an awful deal currently.

If he keeps it up all the way till september I'll be singing a different tune but until then thats just bad.

Hamyltowne · Post #20 » by **Hamyltowne** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:17 pm

Avenger wrote:Signing a previously mediocre player to a 85 million dollar extension because he's had a good month and a half is hardly a team friendly deal.

Jones has done this before, in 2009 Jones had a 1000 OPS through May and he fell down to earth in a hurry.

No, it's very team-friendly. Just ask fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/is-adam-jones-pulling-a-matt-kemp/