Reeling in the Years
The latest wrinkle in the Jose Reyes Sweepstakes is the first concrete offer. Or the closest thing to one so far, anyway. Reports on Tuesday indicated that the Marlins offered Reyes a six-year, $90 million deal. The Marlins, for once, are keeping quiet and will neither confirm nor deny said reports. However, the specificity of this figure indicates it wasn't pulled out of thin air or someone's posterior. And so the natural response to this was to immediately say Reyes was a goner, that the Mets would be unlikely to match Miami's offer.
Money-wise, I could see the Mets giving Reyes more than $90 million, but I can't imagine them handing out a six-year deal. While I don't buy the notion that Reyes is not a "Sandy Alderson type player," a six-year contract for any player is definitely not a Sandy Alderson type contract. And even if this report isn't true (the Miami Herald is now reporting the Reyes offer was "slightly inflated"), it sets a ballpark for the Reyes market. If Reyes absolutely wants a six-year deal, then yes, I would say it's more likely than not that he's gone.
The caveat I would add is this: I can't wrap my head around the idea of the Marlins offering six guaranteed years for Reyes. I don't doubt that they want to make a big splash in free agency, because they've been telling us this since the regular season ended. They want to spend big to open their new stadium in style, and I expect they will. I just have a hard time believing they will hand a contract of that guaranteed length to anyone, let alone Reyes.
Why not? Because it gives them no out if things don't go according to plan. The Marlins are banking on a new stadium and big time players to finally create a fanbase that will stick around for years to come. It could very well work. It could also not work. And if it doesn't, they're on the hook for a lot of money for a long time. Especially if Reyes slows down or gets hurt midway through the contract. The Marlins spending money isn't completely antithetical to their way of doing business (see: 1997), but being on the hook for such a length of time is. That's how they gained the rep as MLB's version of Logan's Run.
If the Marlins are truly offering a "six-year contract," I would guess it would actually be some combination of heavily frontloaded, lacking a no-trade clause, and/or for no more than four actual years with options for years five and six. If that's the case, Reyes can do better, and I'm sure he knows that. Bare minimum, Reyes can get a guaranteed five-year deal from someone. A six-year deal is not completely out of the question, either, though I have to think other teams might be just as wary of such a thing as the Mets.
I also find it odd that this is where the Marlins started, money-wise. They're itching to spend money, and yet they offer Reyes a deal that averages to $15 million a year? This is significantly less than he is expected to get or rumored to want; it's already been rumored that Reyes is looking for a $100 million deal, bare minimum.
Coincidentally, $15 million is how much Hanley Ramirez is making this upcoming season. I don't want to put too much stock into stories of HanRam being not so jazzed at the thought of vacating shortstop for Reyes, because there's been enough conflicting info on that subject to muddy the waters, and in any case, who knows what another person is truly feeling anyway? (Deep.) I do know that though it's been whispered that he'd be okay with it, what he and team officials have actually said publicly on the subject thus far is ambivalent, at best. Add the fact that Ramirez is Marlins owner Jeff Loria's favorite, and you could theorize that the Marlins are worried about offending their current shortstop. Hence, a deal that puts Reyes on more or less equal footing with him.
So the big question is, Does Reyes care more about years than money, or vice versa? Impossible to say at this early stage. However, info like this is leaked for a reason; namely, because someone stands to benefit from it. Who benefits the most from these figures being in everyone's heads? You'd have to conclude it's the Reyes camp. it certainly doesn't benefit the Marlins, as it gives other teams a tangible figure to contemplate and beat, if they wish. It doesn't help the Mets for the same reason (not that they would have had this info to leak anyway), but it does give them an idea of what they have to beat to land him.
it does help Reyes reach whatever contract goal he has in mind. And my gut feeling is it was leaked more to give people of what he wants in years than money. Because the dollar figure is underwhelming; the contract length, anything but.
I say all of this full aware that 1) I may be totally wrong, and 2) it's still very early in this process. A week from now, all of this talk could be a distant memory, as Reyes talks to more teams, or receives a completely different, or is even just rumored to do any of the above. For the moment, however, it's the years mentioned that I find most intriguing--and terrifying, frankly, as a Met fan who wants Reyes to return.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I specifically read somewhere yesterday
and can’t remember where – that Jose is more interested in the $$ amount and not the years. So if someone gives him big bucks for 4 years or even 4 he’ll likely take that over a more spread out 6 year contract.
Couple that with Alderson’s recent comment about having to chock down the years, and not necessarily the money and maybe, just maybe, we could put a package together Reyes will accept.
by MetsFan4Decades on Nov 17, 2011 2:47 PM EST reply actions
Should have read:
‘4 years or even 5’.
by MetsFan4Decades on Nov 17, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't help the Mets cause
The Mets don’t want to give too many years, and they can’t afford to give out too high of an average salary. It’s not like they could just “beat” the Marlins offer by doing 4 years 25 million per.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
As much as I like Reyes
He is NOT the player that he used to be. Back in 05 he stole 60 bases, in 06 he stole 64, in 07 he stole 78 in 08 he stole 56 and in 09 he stole only 11, that number doubled in 2010, the point is he is NOT the same guy. Part of watching him play was the fact that once he got on first he would be standing on third within a few pitches. It was fun to watch him break up the pitchers game, that is not the fact anymore. I dont know if he affraid to hurt himself or is not confident that he can steal anymore. When a guy that is fast losses a step or two that really hurts his game. I am not worried about the money, to me, its the years. $100 million for 5 years or even $105 for 5 years is enough. Anything beyond 5 years has me worried that he will break down. He will get that big contract and sit back and coast.
Uhh stolen bases aren't nearly as important as you're making it
Reyes is coming off a career year.The one thing I agree with is I wouldn’t go beyond 5 years.
by graves9 on Nov 17, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd argue that his career year was 2006
He was a true 5-tool player and was at his best on both sides of the ball. This season is more of a close second.
Still Amazin'.
Jose Reyes is a MET in 2012.
This seasoson was divided in two parts
The MVP pre-DL Reyes and the “good but not great, very un-agressive” second part of the season where it seemed like all focus was on the batting title.
Weather forecast: Greenvalanche
__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
by Russ on Nov 17, 2011 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
He only got caught seven times this year, though.
I do this as a back-envelop calculation: SB – 2(CS)= effective SB. So in 2006, he stole 64, but got caught 17 times. That comes out to 30 eSB. This year it’s 39 – 2(7)= 25 eSB. So it’s less, but not drastically so. (Incidentally, his eSB since 2006 are 36, 26, 7, 10, 25.)
by djletz on Nov 17, 2011 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why would the Mets be willing to give him more than $90 million but not willing to go as high as 6 years?
Surely 6/$90 is a better deal for the team than 5/$90? The years are only a problem insofar as the money is a problem.
by psiogen on Nov 17, 2011 3:57 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Precisely. I was coming here to post the same thing. The team being willing to do 5 for $90 but not 6 for $90 makes no sense at all. Either you’re getting $90 million in value over the life of the deal or you’re not. If Reyes would take 10 years $90 million, you do that. Why wouldn’t you? If you want to cut him after year 5, you cut him.
budgets
each year is it’s own distinct budget.
What I don’t get is that the idea is for the team to be winning, and therefore the revenue streams, and hence the payroll, to be much higher in 2017 (6th year). so if money’s not a problem at the back end (because Alderson never makes a huge mistake and things work out financially, etc etc) you’d rather pay more for Reyes per year and be able to save all $15 on that 6th year if Reyes is old/broken and not be paying money to players that are on the DL. Initial statements from Alderson don’t seem to suggest that giving Reyes that extra 5 in 2012/2013 is going to keep him from making the other moves he feels he needs to make.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
Still makes no sense. If they’re willing to budget $18 million a year for 5 years for Reyes, they can still do that even though they only owe $15 million a year. Put the $3 million a year in the bank. Then pay him with it in year 6.
It’s deferred comp.
Any person that pays for any thing would prefer to pay for that thing as late into the future as possible. Paul DePodesta, with an econ degree from Harvard, understands this without question.
there's a reply button so you can reply directly to the persons comment above you.
makes it easier to follow the conversation
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
by Rey-O on Nov 17, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And there's a subject line.
It would be appreciated if you use it.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Nov 17, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I thought I used the Reply Button
Apparently I didn’t.
Anyway, can anyone tell me why you wouldn’t take extra years of Jose Reyes essentially for free?
Personally, I'm not terrible apposed to 6 years.
It’s just that even for only $9M, having that on the book for the next decade seems daunting. You could be right that if you invest the money you will eventually have to pay in years 6-10, that you may be able to earn that money so it’s essentially free, but it’s riskier then simply going with a 5-year deal.
In the end though it doesn’t really matter because I can’t imagine Reyes would sign for 10/90 when he could earn that much in about half the time and sign a new contract.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
What is daunting about it?
Pretend it’s not on the book for 10 years at $9 million per. Pretend it’s on the book for 5 years at $18 million per. Every year for 5 years, allocate $18 million for Jose Reyes. Pay $9 million to him, put the other $9 million in the bank. After 5 years, you have $45 million in the bank. Use that to pay Reyes for years 6 through 10. That’s without any return on investment. It’s just budgeting the 10 year contract over 5 years.
Of course he won’t take it. But if he’s stupid enough to want 6 years at $90 million instead of 5 years at the same $90 million, of course you do it. But the blog post says you wouldn’t. Why not?
by aindik on Nov 18, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
There are two issues for the Mets: How much can you afford per year, and how many years are you willing to lock money up for?
It’s my belief that the Mets aren’t willing to commit to more than five years, though they might go six or seven if they had opt-outs for themselves (team options) or pretty steep vesting requirements.
It’s likewise my belief that they could commit up to $18 million in 2012 and 2013. That might be low, but not by much, and it might be high, but I hope not. By 2014 you’re so far into the future that ‘predicting’ budget maneuver room turns into ‘guessing’.
The object really isn’t to beat the Marlins’ offer, since that’s a lowball to begin with. (6/90 isn’t going to get the job done, though they might be trying to convince their fans that they made a good faith effort to land him.) The object is to beat (or match, if Jose is serious about giving us some hometown love) whatever offer is on the table the day before he signs. If other teams agree that going over five years of commitment is too risky, then we only have to match their per year present value. If other teams think six or seven years is a worthwhile gamble, then we have to hope we can exceed their average per year, and that Jose’s agents’ present value calculation is in our favor.
‘Free’ years don’t enter into it, since you’re right that if 6/90 turns out to be the offer to match, we’d be smarter to just match it than to counter with 5/90. 6/90 is almost certainly not going to be the number, though.
The issue isn’t how much per year and how many years. The issue is, over the course of the deal, is he worth the total amount of the deal. If, over a 6 year period, his value is projected to be:
$20 million
$20 million
$20 million
$18 million
$16 million
$10 million
That’s $104 million over 6 years. If he’s worth that (and I’m assuming in this post that he is – these are numbers out of thin air to make a point), then you should pay him that. Even (perhaps especially) if it means paying him less than $20 million in year one but more than $10 million in year 6, you still do it. You paid $104 million and you got value of $104 million. It doesn’t matter that the payment and the value didn’t happen at the same time.
pst
why are the comments timestamped PST? boooooo. where’s your east coast bias now?
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
That's weird
I see them as EST.
"And that's why anybody who invested with Lenny Dykstra should really call that number. Lawyers are standing by."
by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 17, 2011 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
That Can Be Matched
“I would guess it would actually be some combination of heavily frontloaded, lacking a no-trade clause, and/or for no more than four actual years with options for years five and six. If that’s the case, Reyes can do better, and I’m sure he knows that.”
He will certainly be worth 20 million for the next three years. Would you accept that deal? That leaves $30 million for the last three years. He will be in decline, but with the Mets he would be adding to Mets records and appealing to fans who watched him for years.
I’d say $20, $20, $20, $15, $10, $10, $5 — beats them in years and $. The idea — you get for the next seven years what you got for the first seven. Four great years. Two OK years, one because he was young (in the future old), and one recovering from injury. And one lost year.
BTW, that’s pretty much what we got from Beltran on a seven year contract, isn’t it?
i think Reyes is singing "My Old School" instead
if i could sing to Endy, it would start, “Hello Thelonius, my old friend.”
"they're still shitty"
Why is 6 years so unreasonable?
He’d only be 34 at the end of it and his 6th season would begin as a 33-year old. That’s really not bad at all.
Guys who had some of their best seasons after age 31 include:
Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith, Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin.
Just because those three had some of their best years after 31 is no reason to give Jose a 6-year deal.
It’s not a matter of “Has any other SS been good in his early 30s?”, but “Will he be good in his early 30s?”
"And that's why anybody who invested with Lenny Dykstra should really call that number. Lawyers are standing by."
by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 18, 2011 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
You picked elite defenders as your examples
and I wouldn’t call Jose’s glove “elite”. Very good, but if his hamstrings act up and his power seeps away, where does that leave us in 5 years, when he’s older and someone like Muno or Phil Evans could be itching to get their shot?
There are a lot of variables to consider when giving a player with spotty injury history a contract going into his mid thirties. I think they should give it to him regardless, but I can see why it gives any baseball exec pause.
Still Amazin'.
Jose Reyes is a MET in 2012.

by 






























