Not so fast - Jones extension not guaranteed this off-season
by duck on Apr 13, 2010 3:24 PM EDT
in News & Rumors
Email
PrintAmong the concerns Orioles’ fans may now have about the beginning of the 2010 season – closer issues, an ineffective offense, and a manager whose job is in the balance – the contract status of Adam Jones didn’t figure to be one of them. But after comments Sunday by Orioles President of Baseball Operations Andy MacPhail, there’s no guarantee Adam Jones will be signed to a long-term extension this winter.
Despite an All-Star appearance last year and a Gold Glove award on Jones’ resume, MacPhail made it plain he wants more from the young outfielder before he commits to a deal with Jones this off-season. While explaining his philosophy on locking up players, he mentioned Jones’ situation, Jones' struggles at the end of last year, and his desire to see more results. (Andy MacPhail presser mp3 file)
"I think when you commit is somewhat a function of how much revenue, how much resources, your franchise has. To me, the time to commit is 3-plus, like we did with Nick, if that’s the time you want to go. The deals don’t look as good because you’re dealing with arbitration-eligible numbers, the other (Tampa Bay-type) deals always look better, because they include a couple of years where the guy can’t make any dough, so, gee, that looks like a better deal.
"But to me, unless you’re really convinced you have a… what it is you really have..for instance, in Adam’s case, you know we saw him play great for the first half last year, tail off then get hurt. So, uh, I personally am not 100% sure. I want to watch him play as long as I can. For this franchise…the Yankees can wait until the end because they can out-bid anybody. Other clubs, like when I was with the Cubs, we could wait ‘til 5-plus, the players always wanted to come back. I think here, we’re like a 3-plus franchise. You know, we…we look at it, you get to 3-plus, it’s time to make, you know, if you’re going to do it, that’s the serious time to consider it. "
MacPhail did the deal for RF Nick Markakis in the parameters of that policy – Markakis was offered the 6-year, $66 million extension at the end of his third year before he would have gone to arbitration. In Markakis’ case, he won’t be a free agent until after his Age 30 season as a result of the deal signed in January of 2009. In Jones’ case, a similar length deal would lock him up until his age 31 season.
MacPhail is under no pressure to sign Jones to an extension. By barely missing Super-2 status, which would have earn him arbitration a year early, Jones will be on the normal three-year clock for the league minimum. Jones remains under team control until the completion of his sixth year of service time, meaning he’s an Oriole through 2013 unless the team trades him or designates him for assignment.
But suddenly, there’s a little less certainty he will be an Oriole after 2013, also.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Having heard that audio
…I don’t see what the fuss is all about. Jones – as we all already knew – needs to continue to trend upwards, especially offensively, otherwise he’s probably not worth the big contract.
What is interesting – and a really smart thing – is how McPhail has this whole sort of policy lined out to stabilize the risk/reward of long-term deals (which is great, since that’s his job in six words or less). After a ho-hum offseason, hearing something like that definitely just got me re-enregized on the MacPhail train.
But I don’t see this as an Adam Jones story. Sorry.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
I think it's an issue
simply because many of us, me included, simply assumed Adam was getting an extension after this season. Any indication by MacPhail that that may not be the case, well, I think it’s worth a story and a discussion.
I’m not saying I disagree with MacPhail, I just thought the comments deserved to be noted and discussed.
"How's that s---house of an Eastern Shore?" - William Donald Schaefer
Well of course
but I think all that Andy is saying is that Jones still has to go out and earn it. I didn’t hear anything that indicated that he thinks he will or won’t, just that he still needs to play well. Which is kind of obvious.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
This is really interesting
But i’m not too concerned about it. Jones hasn’t given any proof that he is irriplacable so I agree with AM’s analysis. However, if AM wants to give Wieters a 8 or 9 year deal right this moment I would be all about that. You have to keep your cornerstone type players and it remains to be seen if Jones will reach that level. Right player, right price has to be the approach we take.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
Which would be following the approach the twins took
Goodbye hunter, re-sign mauer
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Apr 13, 2010 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
This is all very interesting...
…what I want to do is to do a study of when players are signed to extensions both in terms of service time and player age, the variance in the cost of the extension, and the risk/reward ratios.
On first glance, the obvious conclusion seems to me to be that you get players at a greater discount the earlier in terms of service time that you sign them to a long-term deal – like Longoria, Sabathia (with Cleveland), and Braun. At four to five years of service time, there is a large increase in the cost of extensions, and therefore the reward factor decreases (I haven’t tried to compile risk factor yet). So while there are some notable busts in extensions handed out to players early in their service time like Fausto Carmona, those deals have a lot lower downside – the Indians shouldn’t be crying that they have wasted $15 million over four years on Carmona the way that the Rays were handicapped by giving Kazmir $28.5 over three.
This glimpse into MacPhail’s thinking is fascinating, not least because it hasn’t been reported before. The question I think we should try to answer next is whether or not he’s right.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
Solid point
and I’m totally down for trying to figure out if he’s right, any idea of where to find an easy list of players who signed pre-free agency? I know I can go through Cot’s by hand, but that’ll take some time that I don’t necessarily have.
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
MLBTR recently did a list of largest contracts by service time
Which is here. That only has the very largest though, and of course doesn’t look at the deals and compare them to the WAR earned by players during the extension.
I suspect it will have to be done by hand, mostly. I too am pretty busy the next couple weeks, but I’m more than happy to help assemble it for you or to collaborate in any other way you can think of.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
to the "my eyes are tired of going through old contracts!" cave!
Outs in baseball are like lives in Mario.
Three levels of teams was my favorite point from MacPhail
You have the teams with no money like the Rays. It’s a bigger risk to sign Longoria the day he gets brought up to the big leagues because he hasn’t proven himself at that level yet. But it’s a risk they have to take because if they waited until Longoria was arbitration eligible, they couldn’t afford the extension.
Teams like the Orioles who are middle of the road have some luxury to wait and see. They’ll end up paying more money over the long run, but the risk is lower because you have a better track record of the player’s performance.
The last level are teams like the Yankees. They don’t need to take much risk at all because if a player gets to free agency and is good, they can afford to pay him the most money. They don’t need to try and lock a guy up early so if he fails they can just get rid of him.
This just in: adorableness on the rise, family copes with child getting schooled. Film at 11. -daveh873
I haven't been able to listen to the audio yet
But as far as I’m concerned, there is just so much good stuff here. This kind of thing doesn’t get reported on. And the questions it raises aren’t ones that I’ve seen answers to other places.
To be understood is to be a prostitute. ~ Fernando Pessoa
You can thank Brotz13 for asking the question
It was a good one.
This just in: adorableness on the rise, family copes with child getting schooled. Film at 11. -daveh873
by Stacey on Apr 13, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the obvious conclusion seems to me to be that you get players at a greater discount the earlier in terms of service time that you sign them to a long-term deal – like Longoria, Sabathia (with Cleveland), and Braun.
It’s not just the obvious conclusion. It’s the Truth! It’s because the team is buying out pre-arb years and taking on greater risk.
So while there are some notable busts in extensions handed out to players early in their service time like Fausto Carmona, those deals have a lot lower downside
I believe these deal tend to work out well for the team. Hinske was a bust. I think Rocco Baldelli signed an extension early and he turned out to be bust. But there are a lot of good examples.
This is the bestest picture of all the internets! http://bit.ly/aHdCBQ
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
