Dave Discusses a Pineda Extension
Read the article.
I really like the idea of locking up Pineda early. His ceiling is high enough to counter the chance of him getting injured. Don't know how PIneda would feel, though the thought of being teamed with Felix should be enticing to him.
6 months ago
JLProck
26 comments
0 recs |
Comments
My first instinct was "increased trade value"
That’s a bingo! Is that the way you say it?
by Kermit. on Dec 11, 2011 5:40 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I think they should do shit like this all the time and I'm surprised they don't.
I understand the risks involved, but every time they do something like this they allow for the opportunity of a low cost franchise player, especially because of the team options which ensure that a great player doesn’t get to try to run away from the M’s to get bigger money and more years of free agency. Really, even if this stuff screws a team over, it seems like a great PR move also.
...and now I'm here
These sorts of risks are mitigated by team options and insurance, though.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
That would only work for so long before the Union got involved. While they likely couldn’t get anything done for one time, if it was a pattern of blackmail, they likely could.
Secondly, how is that at all a good way of convincing a young player to sign a team-friendly contract? They have agents who know what teams are doing, y’know.
It may not seem like it, but these players do walk away winners in this scenario.
By signing these contracts they’re guaranteed set for life at a point in their careers when there are no guarantees. Pineda seems like a great pitcher, but he makes pennies until his 4th year of team control – only making 400,000 for his first 3 years. If he gets injured, his career is over, and he walks away with some money, but not hugely wealthy.
Instead, he can take a contract that guarantees him, say, $25,000,000. He becomes a rich man tomorrow. If he stays healthy and pitches extremely well, he’s shorted quite a bit of money, but he’s still set for life. If you had the option of making 25,000,000 right now guaranteed or given 800,000 with a 10% chance of 50,000,000, you take the 25,000,000 now. The agents probably feel this way too.
...and now I'm here
There's leverage there too, since they work on a percentage
We should contact someone on the teams and hook them up with this scheme. Consulting fees!
Oh, I’m not disagreeing with the idea that it’s generally good for the player. Moore’s arm could fall off tomorrow and he’s still set for life if he handles his money right.
And there are plenty of players (and agents) who have avoid this route, despite the ability to be set for life. Though my guess is a lot of those players may the ones who got a good bonus.
But my point is just that punishing them if they don’t do it could easily be counter-productive.
Keep in mind though that the players usually don't become rich RIGHT NOW
Longoria and Moore’s contracts both pay them very little through their pre-arb years – it’s just that the money during the arb years is guaranteed and pushes the injury risk for those seasons to the club. The players see a very marginal increase for their first three years in the majors
by seattlebruin on Dec 12, 2011 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
Right, but the guarantee makes them rich in essence. Unless they die, they get the money.
Without the contract there is no guarantee, and they’re not set for life unless they reach the last of those arbitration years healthy and successfully.
...and now I'm here
I'd love to quantify the "set for life" notion
I don’t know if everyone values this money the same. You’d think Albert Pujols was set for life too, but he held out for a stupid huge contract. Perhaps some people keep their same standard of living when they get that much money; others might take care of extended family; still others start living up to a certain lifestyle.
Minor league players make next to nothing.
Major league players make a great salary, at 400,000, but if there careers end after one year, most of them have no marketable skills and all they walk away with is 400,000. If they sign a contract that guarantees them 25,000,000, it’s safe to say that they’ll be financially well off if there career ends.
I highly, highly doubt that most minor leaguers has started “living up a certain lifestyle” with a minor league salary that’s close to what I make.
...and now I'm here
I'm confused if you're disagreeing with me.
But yes, most players should want to guarantee their income at this stage in their careers. We talk about how good this is to the team, but it would also be foolish for most young players – especially pitchers – to not take advantage of at least some type of guaranteed contract when they have only played such a short while. This is a win/win for both the players and the team, and it only looks like a loss in the end if the player ends up staying healthy and reaches free agency, which is never anywhere close to a guarantee.
...and now I'm here
Well reasoned all around.
I didn’t know whether I was agreeing with you or not, actually. To me it was a variable what the kid (and most of them are just that, kids) would do with that amount of money all at once. But yeah, this makes sense.
It's probably less beneficial for top draft picks though.
Strasburg already has 15 million dollars, so having that guaranteed money is worth less, since he’s already set for life and can make much, much more by going to free agency as soon as possible.
Totally agree, although I'm sure there are ways around that by offering a bit more for the contract or what have you.
That’s why I didn’t mention it for Ackley. I would offer it, at least, but who knows if he would take it.
...and now I'm here
Right, but doesn't it make a huge difference if you get the money right away?
Especially for a young player who doesn’t necessarily have much in the bank yet? Like I would way rather have $13M guaranteed over five years and get $2M the first year than have $14M guaranteed and get $450k the first year
by seattlebruin on Dec 12, 2011 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
Sure. That could probably be a good selling point for trying to get them on contract too.
“Hey Pineda, how would you like 3 million tomorrow? The only thing is, you need to sign this very long and lucrative but team friendly contract right now.”
...and now I'm here
Sounds pretty good to me, kind of a stick and carrot
He’s had a taste of the good life in the pros, he does have a limited pitching repertoire so it’s not completely unreasonable. The team is basically paying him a premium to lock him up through his arbitration years and he gets a guarantee to be on the 25 man. The way I see it, the premium is just front loading the contract with some of what he’s likely to make when he hits arbitration. Money that he might not see if he gets injured. There’s risk for everyone.
I would love this!
I would much rather invest 12-16 million dollars (or more) on a long-term Pineda lockup then say 2 years of Willingham.
Investing in quality pitching is a nice counter to Pujols
I’d like to think that if Hultzen, Walker and/or Paxton settle in well, that some of them plus Felix and Pineda can lead to several years of “Albert who?”.
Reducing hundreds of millions of dollars to a series of strikeouts and groundouts, with the occasional unfortunate dinger, would be rather enjoyable.
It doesn’t have to be an arms race with the Los Angeles Pujols of Anaheim or the Texas Team That Doesn’t Suck. We can see the M’s counter with premium starting pitching and (one hopes, eventually) some league-average offense.


















