Blue Jays reportedly willing to offer Melky Cabrera three-ye

[Back2back2back]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/blue-jays-reportedly-willing-to-offer-melky-cabrera-three-year-deal-060907158.html

3 years isn't going to get it done. He is going to get 5 years from another team easy.

[Santoki]

Unless it's something official, I think it's a good idea to keep things like this in the offseason thread.

[Nolan]

3 years just isn't going to get it done. Goodbye Melky.

[Kurtz]

Honestly, 3 years is a prudent offer. If he doesn't take it, offer 3 years to Markakis.

[dagger]

The market for corner outfielders is really thin this winter, and Melky's agent knows it. So does the agent for every other outfielder.

[Randle McMurphy]

3 years won't be enough, but I don't think offering more than 3 years to Melky is a particularly good idea.

[dagger]

3 years won't be enough, but I don't think offering more than 3 years to Melky is a particularly good idea.

It really depends on what the alternatives look like, and how the contract is structured. He's 30, so it's not like he couldn't DH in the last year of his contract. In five years, Jose is likely to be long-gone, perhaps EE, too. We will be clear of Reyes, Beurhle and Ricky Romero. So unless we've heaped on a slew of bad deals - and this team is very averse to signing high paid FAs not our own - we should be in good shape to weather a five year deal for Melky. And, of course, if we want to rebuild, we could trade him in year 2 or 3 with little or no pain, and possibly some gain (instead of losing him now for a comp pick).

A 5/80 or 5/85 wouldn't bother me, but I'd get a bit wary if the dollars went much higher. I wouldn't offer it to him upfront either, I'd let the market play out, but if it's a deal clincher, I'd not shy away from it.

This year's market for corner outfielders with good offence are limited, so the alternatives won't come cheap. And there is no telling whether any good FA would want to sign here, even if the money is competitive or slightly superior. Sure, ask Nick Markakis what he wants, but with his credentials, including gold glove level D, so you expect him to come much cheaper? I don't, given that it's a player's market.

And if we don't intend to contend, or think we can with losses like Melky and platooning Pillar and Gose in center field, it's the wrong strategy. A rebuild around a young pitching staff then makes more sense, with value in terms of top position player prospects coming back for Jose, EE, etc.

[Schad]

Three years is what we ought to be offering. It may not be enough, but if a team wants to pay Melky close to $20m for his age 33 and 34 seasons, good luck to them.

Do think that people might be underestimating the effect his almost-certain qualifying offer will have, though. Even in a thin market, the prospect of paying an over 30 player with bad defense and inconsistent year-to-year results is one thing, but giving up a pick in the process makes it tough to swallow. It's by no means a guarantee that Melky gets five years, particularly five guaranteed years; MLBTR pegged him at $66.3m over 5, and ultimately his choice may be between length and AAV, between that sort of money long-term and a shorter, $50m over 3 or some such.

[dagger]

Three years is what we ought to be offering. It may not be enough, but if a team wants to pay Melky close to $20m for his age 33 and 34 seasons, good luck to them.

Do think that people might be underestimating the effect his almost-certain qualifying offer will have, though. Even in a thin market, the prospect of paying an over 30 player with bad defense and inconsistent year-to-year results is one thing, but giving up a pick in the process makes it tough to swallow. It's by no means a guarantee that Melky gets five years, particularly five guaranteed years; MLBTR pegged him at $66.3m over 5, and ultimately his choice may be between length and AAV, between that sort of money long-term and a shorter, $50m over 3 or some such.

The question is also team money, even though MLB hasn't signed an NBA type exploding $$$ TV deal, TV revs and hence overall payroll will be rising. so I am less impressed with current value than trying to understand fair value in a scenario of increasing dollars. The Jays, as we see in another thread, are boosting ticket prices across the board. With a declining C$, US dollar TV revenues should rise enough to cover rising payroll, which, as we know, will also decline as we begin peeling the Miami effect away post-2015.

[BigLeagueChew]

If Melky signed a 4 year deal, noone else is signed through 2017 except Jose Reyes.

Give him a 3 year deal with options on 4th and 5th year.

[Schad]

The question is also team money, even though MLB hasn't signed an NBA type exploding $$$ TV deal, TV revs and hence overall payroll will be rising. so I am less impressed with current value than trying to understand fair value in a scenario of increasing dollars. The Jays, as we see in another thread, are boosting ticket prices across the board. With a declining C$, US dollar TV revenues should rise enough to cover rising payroll, which, as we know, will also decline as we begin peeling the Miami effect away post-2015.

Revenues will rise, certainly. However, we're talking about a contract that would, at the very least, comprise one-tenth of our payroll attached to a player who may drift toward replacement level halfway through his deal. It's hard to imagine any scenario where that deal is anything but unpalatable for at least two seasons at the back end.

[dagger]

The question is also team money, even though MLB hasn't signed an NBA type exploding $$$ TV deal, TV revs and hence overall payroll will be rising. so I am less impressed with current value than trying to understand fair value in a scenario of increasing dollars. The Jays, as we see in another thread, are boosting ticket prices across the board. With a declining C$, US dollar TV revenues should rise enough to cover rising payroll, which, as we know, will also decline as we begin peeling the Miami effect away post-2015.

Revenues will rise, certainly. However, we're talking about a contract that would, at the very least, comprise one-tenth of our payroll attached to a player who drift toward replacement level halfway through his deal. It's hard to imagine any scenario where that deal is anything but unpalatable for at least two seasons at the back end.

You mean as opposed to sucking on the front end of his new deal - with whomever - while trying to contend for a playoff spot with a worse positional roster than we had in 2014?

[Schad]

You mean as opposed to sucking on the front end of his new deal - with whomever - while trying to contend for a playoff spot with a worse positional roster than we had in 2014?

'With whomever' is a pretty big part of the equation. Assuming that we have the same budget with or without Melky, ~$17m a year ought to buy production somewhere on the roster, whether it's a Markakis or attempting to upgrade a couple different spots at ~$7-8m apiece. Options that, presumably, are less likely to turn into pumpkins by 2017.

[Wo1verine]

If we sign him and make the post-season just once it would be worth his potential decline later on.

I am just worried if we don't ink Melky, Rogers wont invest that type of money elsewhere.

[JN]

The Jays may or may not have interest.

But this rumour making its way to "sources" reeks of the Jays throwing something out there to say "we tried" when they had no real intention of trying or spending money.

[MikeM]

I used to want Melky back but that's when I thought it would cost less.

I really think we could take that 13-15M and construct some type of platoon that could double Melky's WAR.

His defense and base running is just such a negative.

[C Court]

The Jays may or may not have interest.

But this rumour making its way to "sources" reeks of the Jays throwing something out there to say "we tried" when they had no real intention of trying or spending money.

This is becoming an all too familiar theme with the Jays.

[Michael Bradley]

I actually agree with the Jays in this case, if they feel Melky is not worth it. He is simply too big of a negative on defense and base running to be worth the type of contract he would be looking for. If he stopped hitting for average he'd be replacement level, and Melky's career is too inconsistent to count on him to succeed over a 4-5 year period.

Of course, if Pillar is the replacement, then it would look terrible.

[dagger]

The Jays may or may not have interest.

But this rumour making its way to "sources" reeks of the Jays throwing something out there to say "we tried" when they had no real intention of trying or spending money.

This is becoming an all too familiar theme with the Jays.

I wouldn't mind if I thought they knew what they wanted to do, but with Seitzer leaving, possibly Melky - no guarantee any desirable FA will sign here to play for an owner that doesn't appear serious about winning - I don't see how this team is competitive next season. We can bet the farm the Sox and Yanks will be right in there at the start of free agency, improving their prospects. With good health alone, the Yankees are a reasonable bet to contend for a playoff spot.

If I thought "we tried" was a pretext to launching into a rebuild, moving our best hitters for top prospects (and I mean top 20-30 guys at AA or AAA), I'd respect the plan but not the deceitful, cowardly way of launching into that. Right now, I can't even guess at this team's direction.

All I know is, the Jays like the draft, and like the Latin signing process. Pretty much all else they are shy to do. They are positively turned off by shelling out big bucks for other team's free agents. They will nibble around the edges. They will not pursue any top prospect in the Asian or Cuban defector markets. The whole Yu Darvish chase was shown, in the end, to be a fraud. Either the Jays encouraged that deceit, or didn't do anything to dampen the speculation. Trades? I suspect that unless the team decides to be a seller, they won't be involved in major trades. So how, exactly do they hope to build a winner? Entirely organically, through the draft and development?

If so, payroll will trend DOWN before it goes back UP. So why bend over the fans with higher ticket prices for next season?

My gut tells me management knows what it doesn't want to do more than it does what it wants to do. As such, they are making some of this up as they go along.

If not for the Rays, the Jays would be a good Vegas bet for a fifth place finish next season.

[Michael Bradley]

I think Alex will try to build organically due to a combination of payroll restrictions and fear of trading prospects after the big trades two years ago. This past season has been the most aggressive he has ever been in promoting prospects, and it was likely done on purpose. They need players to fill big league holes.

The last time things looked this grim was just before the Marlins trade when Farrell left and the Jays signed Izturis. Then Rogers unexpectedly increased payroll out of nowhere. So maybe there is a glimmer of hope. However, after the way they acted last off-season and trade deadline, I'm not expecting much except some bullpen signings and a Lind trade.