Master Index of Archived Threads


Reyes: bigbux longterm contract after 2006 or go with arb.?

What do you say to Jose?

Do you say "Yes, let's talk years and money"?	11 votes
Do you say, "Let's arbitrate a one-year deal"?	13 votes
Do you say "Lo que usted tiene gusto, amigo"?	0 votes

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 11:49 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2005 11:53 AM

This assumes that Reyes has the year that Dickshot cites as his projected numbers in 2006, a .311 OBP, some small growth in other areas, but no great leap forward. His agent says "We'd like a multiple year deal whose terms acknowledge that Jose is going to be the shortstop you're hoping over the next few years." You're Omar Minaya.

metirish Dec 15 2005 11:51 AM

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 11:54 AM

Obviously, I don't know how to do polls.

abogdan Dec 15 2005 12:38 PM

I'm not the Reyes biggest fan, but I stay away from arbitration with him. He'll put up a decent enough batting average and be among the league leaders in SB so his arbitration awards will likely be near or at the peak of players with his service time. You should be able to project with some certainty what Reyes will be making through arbitration by looking at past awards. If you can sign him for less than the average of that I do it.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 01:10 PM

Until someone can fix my screwed up poll, or tell me how to fix (or to have done it right), the discussion will do. So abogdan you opt to avoid arbitration under my scenario and sign him to some kind of long term contract? Is that right?

metirish Dec 15 2005 01:13 PM

I think anytime you can avoid arbitration it's good, I would think most GM's would rather sign a deal than go to arbitration, especially with cornerstone players like Reyes and Wright.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 01:17 PM

Okay, so as I read it (and I don;t get why I have to do so much interpreting--it's pretty much a yes or no question) that's two votes for "Give him some kind of bigbux multiyear contract" and one vote (mine) for "Go to arbitration in 2007." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2005 01:32 PM

It would depend on the specifics of the multi-year deal.

Willets Point Dec 15 2005 01:52 PM

Bret doesn't do nuance.

abogdan Dec 15 2005 02:09 PM

I count 7 votes for long term and 0 for go to arbitration based on the poll above. Yeah, I say try to sign him for a long term deal.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 15 2005 02:21 PM

As I said in the other thread, referring to a multiyear deal as "bigbuxx" assumes that the deal is for gigantic money when in practice, Reyes would prolly make bigger buxx for a year at a time than the team would pay over the course of a LT deal -- that's one reason why they do them. Also, and I suppose this is partially my fault, but given the Met distaste for arbitration, they'd prolly decide instead for a 1-year, non-arbitrated deal over arbitration if for whatever reason they couldn't or wouldn't agree to a multiyear deal. That this whole thing came up is also my fault for daring to fight the fires Sal ran in here starting. My point was that these decisions the Mets have to make are difficult ones for them, never mind us, and easy to look back and laugh at.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 03:17 PM

Thanks to whoever fixed my crummy poll. I did forget "It all depends" as an option. When Frayed Knot runs a poll, all options can be phrased as variants on this enlightening theme. Look, you understand what I'm saying, I hope: if Reyes' performance stays about where it's been for the last three seasons, a lot of promise, a ton of potential, a bunch of excitement, but not all that much on performance, do you want to make a commitment to him as your leadoff guy and starting shortstop or, at the risk of Jose's feelings and future goodwill, do you want to stall that commitment off as long as possible? I don't get your quibbling, Johnny. Yes, of course, a series of one-year arbitrated contracts can, and probably will, cost more than one multiyear contract. That's a given. But what you get for the series of one-years is that you can stop offering them, or offer a cut, if the performance declines during the multiyear period. If they had gone that route with Rey-O, they might have been free to look elsewhere for a shortstop in 2001 or 2002 and improved the team in doing so. It ain't complicated.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 15 2005 03:29 PM

One other thing to consider is that you can commit to him being your shortstop without committing to him being your leadoff hitter.

smg58 Dec 15 2005 08:52 PM

His health is enough of an issue that I'd play it cautiously. Any leg injury that makes him lose a step makes him mediocre, and that's without getting into time spent on the DL. I think the Mets should take the luxury of going one year at a time with him. Wright may be a different story, because I could see him commanding eight figures in 2010. The need to budget for the long-term would outweigh the potential injury risks in his case (barring something unforseen and very much unwanted).

Bret Sabermetric Dec 15 2005 10:44 PM

smg58 wrote: Wright may be a different story, because I could see him commanding eight figures in 2010. True. Wright is a different story. One clear difference is in his Sim Scores also through Age 22 : Ken Keltner (950) Dick Allen (939) Hank Blalock (934) Richie Hebner (925) Vladimir Guerrero (925) Eric Chavez (925) Jim Ray Hart (919) Ben Chapman (915) Scott Rolen (915) Pete Reiser (912) That's a very impressive group of players, nary a bad un among them(well, maybe Ben Chapman) and some of the best slugging 3b men I've ever seen. I looked up the Sim Scores for Clemente, whom MFS62 cited as a late blooming star--you know who the first Sim for Clemente was at age 21? Tris Speaker. OTOH, I thought to look up sim scores for Ozzie Smith, whose early career reminded me of Jose's a bit, mostly in the abysmal OBPs. Ozzie got off to a later start than I'd remembered, so it wasn that similar, but one of Ozzie's sims is Bud Harrelson. Yikes. Ozzie didn't actually show signs of getting on base until he was 27, which is a good sign for Jose's future development.. I'm just not sure how anomolous that was, historically.

Zvon Dec 15 2005 11:38 PM

mmmmmmm, this is a tuff and interesting one. Id need more info about the $$$ involved. If he has that projected year Id have no problem wanting to try and secure him for a number of years, with assurances of playing short. I think the Mets have pulled his chain enough already...(<maybe not a good terminology there) examples: "Here,....run like this" "Hey, I know we've trained you to be a shortstop, and youve excelled at it. Now go play second while we see if Kaz is MLB material"

Zvon Dec 15 2005 11:41 PM

Oh, i see poll now. I picked lets talk yrs and $$$. lets get into how much and how long.......... Id have to check what he was makin, what a SS of similar numbers is making, and Id like to give him 3 years. If he wants more, Ill still talk.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 08:57 AM

Well, you've a got a year to think it over, Zvon, but I am interested in your thinking now. As to separating Jose's batting order slot from his position, that is a crucial subject. Seems to me that if you've decided that he's a good-glove, no-hit # 8 (OR # 7) batter, you're not going to want to pay him like you pay a leadoff guy. The Mets do need to figure out whether Jose can bat at the top of the order pretty soon, because you need to allocate your salary expenses rationally. Spending superstar money on a # 8 hitter leaves you underpaying your heart of the order guys, don't it? Or underpaying somewhere else--relief pitching, starting rotation, somewhere. (If not, then you're saying that superstar money for an # 8 hitter shouldn't constrain your overall budget at all, which means you're committing to a limitless payroll.) The Mets can't just dither around indefinitely--either Jose's the answer to their leadoff (or #2) problems or he's not, and it's not easy to decide based on the current evidence. Still and all, at some point (soon) the answer "We'll have to wait and see" won't suffice.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 16 2005 09:09 AM

I don't see him as a "no-hit" number 8 guy. I think he'd be one of the best number 8 guys the Mets have ever had. Even if he doesn't walk, he does hit for extra bases. The 8 slot wouldn't be the easy out that it's often been in the past. But I do agree that the salary for a good 8 guy and a good leadoff guy should be different, and if you pay leadoff money to an 8 guy, you could be potentially misallocating some salary.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 09:32 AM

Y'know, as long as you define the act of buying out the arb years as the equivelent of "superstar money" this whole exercise is going to be slanted from the start.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 09:34 AM

Of course he'd be a great # 8 hitter. Didn't mean to imply that there'd be no difference between him and Ordonez, nor that his batting ability should be negated and unrewarded if they Mets were to put in the 8-hole. But as you say there are limits on what you want to pay your # 8 batter. Because Jose's record is so atypical (in some areas like triples and SBs he's a genuine superstar, while in others he's totally inadequate), I can see where his agents will indignantly insist that he's a true star, and the Mets will equally indignantly argue that he's a decent middle infielder but nothing special so far, and they'll each have some reason on their side.

seawolf17 Dec 16 2005 09:35 AM

Exactly. If he improves even slightly, I'm not averse to seeing them give him a three-year, $12 million kind of package, just to get him through his arbitration years. I think a lot of teams have done that with young players. He has security if he gets hurt, and the team's not breaking the bank if he becomes Al Moran II.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 09:44 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Y'know, as long as you define the act of buying out the arb years as the equivelent of "superstar money" this whole exercise is going to be slanted from the start. That's fair, though it's also consistent with what I see as your "you never know nothing and can never discuss anything intelligently because I can always come up with some quibbling niggling irrelevant factoid that you can't demonstrably know, so HA HA HA on you" position. So let's discuss some numbers. Since this is totally off the top of my head, I'll be willing to take immediate correction. Off Dickshot's .311 OBP year, I'll guess Jose's arbitration value in 2007 would be, oh, 3 mil. And his agents' request for LT contract would be 3 years /18 mil. And the Mets's counteroffer would be 5 years/22 mil. Who else wants to play the "Specific Numbers Out of Uranus" game?

seawolf17 Dec 16 2005 09:45 AM

He's not going to sign away his FA years that early; nobody does that for that kind of scratch. If he'd sign for 5/$22, I'd do that. But he won't. That's why I'd say 3/$12-15.

Rotblatt Dec 16 2005 09:52 AM

He'll still be young and he'll still have as much upside as any other shortstops in the free agent market. We also have the money to gamble on a guy who, at the very least, will play good defense and be an outstanding #8 hitter. I'd say we should buy out his aribtration years and maybe a little more. Try and keep the contract reasonable (seawolf's numbers look good to me) with escalators for number of at bats and huge bonuses for All-Star, Silver Slugger & MVP votes. Like seawolf says, if we can get him for longer without going overboard, I'm all for it.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 09:55 AM

seawolf17 wrote: He's not going to sign away his FA years that early; nobody does that for that kind of scratch. If he'd sign for 5/$22, I'd do that. But he won't. That's why I'd say 3/$12-15. \\ Why would the Mets sign a contract that takes Jose right up to Free Agency? I thought the club's advantage was to buy at least a year of what would have been his FA years.In your scenario, the upside over three consecutive one-year arbitrated deals is very small from the Mets' pov, yet represents great security for Jose in an insecure phase of his career. That's why the mets would ask, IMO, for two FA years at bargain rates. Otherwise, it's off to Mr. Arbitrator.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 10:16 AM

though it's also consistent with what I see as your "you never know nothing and can never discuss anything intelligently because I can always come up with some quibbling niggling irrelevant factoid that you can't demonstrably know, so HA HA HA on you" position. As opposed to your "you agreed back in '05 that you wouldn't be adverse to a LT deal for Reyes so even if they sign him to something ridiculous I'll repeat the "fact" that you personally approved of it for the next 8 years" position. By the end of '06 Reyes will have 3+ years of ML time served, making him a FA following the '09 season so - as mentioned by SWolf - his agent is likely to want a deal which either runs for 3 years (maybe 4): to take care of the arb years only; or something on the order of 7: which would be for (2nd half anyway) real FA money and still allow him to sell himself again aroung the age of 30. Something in between is generally not in the player's interest. Now if I'm the Mets I don't do the longer one unless he somehow turns into a superstar this season. Cards wisely did that w/Pujols but it's a rare player where that makes sense and Jose isn't one of those. So we're looking at what the proper number would be for a 3yr stint. If we start w/your assumption that $3mil will be an '07 target then the club's trick is to decide what '08 & '09 will look like with normal progress: $5mil then $7 maybe? (Soriano at the same point went $5.5, $7.5, and $10? for this year) That's $15 over the 3 seasons that you're going to have to pay anyway assuming he doesn't fall into the toilet. So a deal that offers something in the $11-$14 range over those 3 years wouldn't be out of whack. It would give Reyes the security he's never had and the Mets a set of firm numbers they can plug into their budgeting projections and everyone avoids the year-to-year haggling process. Naturally this all depends on how this season goes - both for Jose and for the market as a whole - but I could get behind a deal like that and be a whole lot less nervous about a deal like that than I was about the ones for Wagner/Pedro/Glavine for instance.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 10:31 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: As opposed to your "you agreed back in '05 that you wouldn't be adverse to a LT deal for Reyes so even if they sign him to something ridiculous I'll repeat the "fact" that you personally approved of it for the next 8 years" position. Actually, I'm much happier talking specific numbers. I'm still not getting what the Mets get out of the 11-14 3-year deal, but it's their money I'd insist on at least one of the FA years if he gets the security he wants, but this will still be a close call if he doesn't show a strong uptick in his stats in 2006. You're willing to gamble quite a bit of money (not your money, I understand) on the hope that Jose will become the difference maker he shows occassional signs of becoming. The crucial heap of dung on the road ahead, other than crippling injury (which is larger for Jose than for most) is what to do if he does deteriorate. If you're paying him 14 mil the next few years and instead of getting a modest improvement to a .311 OBP you get a decline down to Ordonez levels, .280 or so, you're totally screwed. You're going to keep on playing him and playing him until you get to the end of the contract. Which is where we started. Don'[t you want to take ANY safeguards against that happening again?

seawolf17 Dec 16 2005 10:37 AM

What the Mets get out of the 3/$13 deal is that IF Jose comes up with a line like this in 2008: .280/.350/.420, 18 3B, 120 R, 55 SB then they're only paying him $4 millionish a year, as opposed to some crazy arbitration figure that springs from Bobby Crosby's 5 year/$170 million deal that he signs with the MFYs that offseason.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 10:39 AM

Also I'm sure not why you've picked Soriano as your model--he didn't make over a mil per year until 2004, when he was 28, five years older than Jose will be this year, coming off consecutive seasons of 39 and 38 HRs. In other words, he had just given statistical assurance of his bona fides and his durability. http://baseball-reference.com/s/soriaal01.shtml

Vic Sage Dec 16 2005 10:53 AM

If i'm Omar Minaya, and im working for Fred Wilpon, I know Freddie won't want to eat any part of a bad deal (and if i make him do so, my job hangs by a thread), so if Jose goes in the crapper, i'm stuck with him. Therefore, until he shows me more than speed and an arm, i'll go one year at a time, thank you very much. Of course, if i'm freddie, i would take the chance on Jose's upside and, if he goes south, i eat it and move on. But i'm not freddie, apparently. AS for David Wright, he's as close to a Pujols as this organization has ever gotten. A 5-tool 3bman with 5-tool production, plus an unquestioned work ethic, a good guy in the clubhouse, no real health issues, and YOUNG. If there is EVER money that would be well spent by Mr. Wilpon, it would be locking him up to a bigbux 7-year deal.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 10:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2005 11:02 AM

"I'd insist on at least one of the FA years if he gets the security he wants" Well, there you take a big jump in both money and risk. Making an offer at the end of '06 in anticipation for what you'll pay him anyway while he remains under your control is a lot different from anticipating what it'll take to buy him on the free market 4 years hence. Since you're worried about making a committment in case he's not the real deal, you should be even more leery about doing so further out rather than insisting upon it. I am. "If you're paying him 14 mil the next few years and instead of getting a modest improvement to a .311 OBP you get a decline down to Ordonez levels, .280 or so, you're totally screwed." Hey, longer deals are a gamble and there's always the chance of things backfiring. But, assuming progress in '06 - remember, we're assuming he showns progress this coming year (I wouldn't give him a deal now) - I think it's a reasonable risk as opposed to the scenario where he becomes a bench or non-tender player in that same time and the team is eating money like that Japanese guy at Coney Island every summer. "Also I'm sure not why you've picked Soriano as your model" Just the first guy that sprung to mind as someone who's currently getting paid piecemeal for his 4th, 5th, and 6th seasons. Different age/different skills: similar OBP, more power, worse defense; but useful as an example of how salaries progress.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 10:59 AM

Thank you for summarizing my position so pithily. Yeth, I wrote that.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 11:12 AM

I agree with Bret's sentiments that it only makes sense for the Mets to do a long term deal if they can buy out a year or two of free agency. It's not like the Mets can't afford arbitration if it gets to that point. The long term advantage is that they can get Reyes at a cheaper rate 3-5 years from now than he will get in his last year of arb or on the open market and get cost certainty at the position for the next five years. Why would Reyes agree to buy out two years of free agency at let's say 5 years, $30 million? First, the inherrent risk that not having a guaranteed contract poses. He signs a deal he's guaranteed to make $30 million. He doesn't he's guaranteed to make nothing if he slips and falls tomorrow and busts up his ACL. Second, Reyes will still become a free agent during what should be the prime of his career. If the contract run to 2010 he'll be a 27 year old free agent, still much younger than most players are when they first enter the market. Yes, there's a huge risk for the Mets that Reyes will become less productive than he is now. I hate having a .311 OBP in the lead off spot as much as the next guy, but Reyes does more with that .311 OBP than anyone else in the league would. He scored over 50% of the time he reached base, despite having Miguel Cairo hitting behind him most of the year. I believe that Reyes scored on the highest percentage of times on base, but I can't find where I read that. (Quick tangent: it looks like baseball1.com isn't updating their database anymore. Anyone know a free downloadable database of baseball stats updated through 2005?) If he ever got up to even .340, he'd be a ridiculous threat at the top of the lineup. Of course that raise the question of whether there's any reason to expect him to ever get to .340. Baseballreference's most similar players is filled mainly from players who were around during the deadball era. Baseball Prospectus' Pecota most similar players before last season inluded a number of contemporary players who did see OBP spikes in their early 20's after a few years of low OBP: Cesar Izturis, Felipe Lopez, Luis Castillo. I think it's worth the risk. Even if Reyes doesn't improve his OBP, as long as his baserunning ability remains, someone would be willing to trade for him.

seawolf17 Dec 16 2005 11:21 AM

="abogdan"]I believe that Reyes scored on the highest percentage of times on base, but I can't find where I read that. abog, this isn't terribly precise, but... Of the top 40 players in runs scored in 2005, here are the lowest OBPs: Renteria .335 (23rd in runs - 100) Crawford .331 (22nd in runs - 101) Pierre .326 (32nd in runs - 96) Biggio .325 (35th in runs - 94) Soriano .309 (21st in runs - 102) Reyes .300 (26th in runs - 99) Only Soriano was even close to Reyes' OBP. In fact, you have to go down to Pudge Rodriguez, who tied for 97th in the majors in runs (71) until you find someone with a lower OBP (.290) than Reyes. Your statement might be correct.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 11:45 AM

abogdan wrote: Reyes does more with that .311 OBP than anyone else in the league would. You do realize, don't you, that the .311 OBP is a projection for 2006 that hasn't actulaly occured yet? His lifetime OBP as of now is .303. Jose scored 99 runs in 696 at-bats in front of the middle of the order. Floyd and Jacobs, neither of them speed merchants, scored 104 in 650 at-bats,coming up before the end of the order. Why? Because they had. halfway decent OBPs. Don't get fooled by glitz.

Rotblatt Dec 16 2005 11:47 AM

The Twins bought out 2 of Santana's FA years at well below what he probably would have commanded ($12.65M/year on average). The 2 arb-eligible years they also bought out ($5.5M in 05 and $9M in 06) were probably at around what he would have received in arbitration, so there is some precident there . . . So I guess if arguably the best pitcher in the majors was willing to take less than he's worth to get guaranteed years, then Jose should be more than willing to do the same thing. Of course, the Twins went to arbitration with him in 2004 before signing him to his current deal, which, it strikes me, isn't a bad model. It would give us one more year to try and assess Reye's value. If Reyes sucks, then we go to arb with him; if he's good, we try to buy out a couple FA eligible years.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 11:51 AM

OK now define "Sux" and "good"--my concern, of course, is that Metsaholics will repeat The Ordonez Error (sounds like a Ludlum thriller, don't it?) and scream "SIGN HIM!" when there's no compelling to, other than in their private fantasies. Just because you want him to be a star, and because he's shown some glimmers of star ability, doesn't mean you want to pay him like an established star gets paid, does it? I've been focussing this discussion on OBP, but you can frame it however you want: I'd actually suggest Win Shares myself. But there should be in your mind at this point some clear level Jose must reach in 2006 before you'll throw money and years at him.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 01:12 PM

]Why? Because they had. halfway decent OBPs. Don't get fooled by glitz. Right, if Reyes gets on base more, he'll score more runs. No argument there. My point was that Reyes' ability on the base paths makes him more valuable than your typical .300 OBP hitter. To use the example put forth as comparison, Floyd scored 39% of the time he was on base compared to Reyes' 50%. Yes, Reyes hit before the heart of the lineup, but he also hit directly in front of one of the worst hitters in all of major league baseball in 2005 - Miguel Cairo. If Reyes gets up to a .320-330 OBP this season, combined by a spike in his walk rate, and continues to show his superb base running skills, I would sign him long term.

Valadius Dec 16 2005 03:16 PM

We need to begin to make a commitment to keeping our young core intact. Going through arbitration would only cause tension between Reyes (or Wright, Heilman, Seo, Diaz, etc.) and management. Sign them to multiyear deals that increase in salary every year, such as a gradual increase from $2 million to $6 million in Reyes' case.

Elster88 Dec 16 2005 03:23 PM

If the only reason you're signing a guy is to "ease tension" among the other players....then you really need another reason. See the earlier posts in this thread for more compelling arguments one way or the other.

Zvon Dec 16 2005 05:55 PM

This is a most interesting thread. So your projecting Reyes has a .311 OBP in 2006. mmmmmm. Id want to see a higher OBP in 2006, a real improvment, not so much in his number of walks, but in his discipline at the plate. The walks will come as a result of that. I dont want to deminish his agressiveness, but I want to see it tempered with patience. I do believe we have to think of him in terms of the top end of the line up. Anything else would fall short of his potential. Grabbing afew of his FA years could be wise, but I dont think any agent would advise that he does this if he shows a marked improvment in 2006. But, given your projection, the Mets would be foolish to go there. I rarely say "this i have to think about", but "this, i have to think about." Great thread Bret.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 06:20 PM

Zvon wrote: Great thread Bret. Why, thank you, sir. The truly scary part under discussion, it seems to me, is that Valadius's view is one of the things (one of the non-baseball-related ways of looking at baseball) that screw the Mets up time after time. Once that sort of stuff is validated, even in part, we end up with multi-year commitments to not-very-good ballplayers and then, after a few years pass, we wonder how ended up in such a fix. Obviously, in the "most hated shortstops" thread, I maintain that is how the Mets ended up playing millions to a player who, upon reflection, probab ly didn't deserve to be in the majors and certainly didn't deserve to start on a team that wanted to contend. Valadius, if I may burlesque his position, wants to sign Jose to an LT contract for serious money regardless of what his OBP and other critical stats and signs are at the time of signing. Why? Because he's Jose Reyes. He's our young star. He's our future. But wishing isn't what makes that so. Performance has got to rule your emotions.

Nymr83 Dec 16 2005 07:10 PM

Reyes has 3 more potential trips to the arbitrator, right? why not let the first one occur and then see another year (2007) before making any kind of long term plans

Zvon Dec 16 2005 10:13 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Zvon"] Great thread Bret. Why, thank you, sir. The truly scary part under discussion, it seems to me, is that Valadius's view is one of the things (one of the non-baseball-related ways of looking at baseball) that screw the Mets up time after time. Once that sort of stuff is validated, even in part, we end up with multi-year commitments to not-very-good ballplayers and then, after a few years pass, we wonder how ended up in such a fix. Obviously, in the "most hated shortstops" thread, I maintain that is how the Mets ended up playing millions to a player who, upon reflection, probab ly didn't deserve to be in the majors and certainly didn't deserve to start on a team that wanted to contend. Valadius, if I may burlesque his position, wants to sign Jose to an LT contract for serious money regardless of what his OBP and other critical stats and signs are at the time of signing. Why? Because he's Jose Reyes. He's our young star. He's our future. But wishing isn't what makes that so. Performance has got to rule your emotions. The fan in me knows where Val is coming from. The GM in me hears ya.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 18 2005 08:09 AM

A little stat for you: Reyes's OPS+ last year was 80. That means, roughly, that his offensive contribution, adjusted for park influences, was about 4/5ths of the average ballplayer's. Only Cairo among the starters had a lower OPS+ than Reyes (64)--of the six bench players with 100 or more ABs, only Kaz matsui's OPS+ was lower (72). I understand you love the guy. But you cannot be even thinking about a LT contract for this guy, unless he shows major signs of improvement. Though they have to say otherwise in public, I can't believe the Mets' front office aren't very concerned about his 2007 contract when, without the major breakthrough, 1) they'll need to offer him arbitration, and risk alienating Jose and worse have fans screaming "How can you not offer Jose Reyes a LT BB contract? He's a STAHHHH!" or 2) offer him a LT BB contract and risk the fans around 2009 screaming "Get rid of the bum--whose stupid idea was it to sign this stiff, anyway?"

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2005 12:34 PM

Keep in mind that simply because Reyes will be eligible for arbitration next year doesn't mean that route will be used. The two sides could always agree to terms on their own and not have to result to outside help; which is the way the Mets have usually solved their contracts. Prior to that they'll often offer arb to various player (this'll happen in the next few weeks for whoever is eligible now) but that's just a procedural step neccesary to keep the paperwork in line. There will still several months after that for the sides to come to an agreement which they could do for anywhere from 1 year to a lifetime services contract. Arbitration is simply there as a fall-back if the player thinks the team is being unfair in it's negotiations and, in general, the mere threat of the process is usually enough to prevent that. That's as opposed to the first 2-3 years of a player's ML life where a team can dictate that a player take whatever they offer. Theoretically, for instance, the Mets thank Wright for the great year he had and then offer him a 35 cent raise ...and he'd have no recourse but to accept it or take some job that involves the phrase: "Want fries with that?". This whole Reyes debate keeps slipping into a 'acrimoniously decided small salary' vs 'set-for-life contract' dichotomy as if there's no middle ground. There's plenty.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 18 2005 01:20 PM

There seems to be a wide disparity between those who value Jose's virtues highly ("60 Steals! 17 triples! Fabulously fielding shortstop! Only 22 years old! Buy Now!") and those who don't ("He's an okay middle infielder, with a lot of potential. So? I should go nuts over that?") If you were Jose's agent and getting a 35 cent raise offer, and you had arbitritation available, why would n't you see if maybe you got an arbitrator in the first category? If you're Omar, and you think Jose's worth a 35 cent raise, doesn't it kinda wreck your salary structure to give him a bigbux deal while other players must, by definition, then get underpaid?

metsmarathon Dec 18 2005 04:16 PM

i'd have no problem with buying out some of jose's early FA years with a salary commensurate with his past performance and a well-reasoned expectation of his future performance for the duration of the contract.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 18 2005 04:25 PM

metsmarathon wrote: i'd have no problem with buying out some of jose's early FA years with a salary commensurate with his past performance and a well-reasoned expectation of his future performance for the duration of the contract. What's commensurate?

Frayed Knot Dec 18 2005 09:56 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 21 2005 08:58 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: There seems to be a wide disparity between those who value Jose's virtues highly ("60 Steals! 17 triples! Fabulously fielding shortstop! Only 22 years old! Buy Now!") and those who don't ("He's an okay middle infielder, with a lot of potential. So? I should go nuts over that?") And plenty who are in between those disparate extremes. ]If you were Jose's agent and getting a 35 cent raise offer, and you had arbitritation available, why would n't you see if maybe you got an arbitrator in the first category? If he had arbitration available he wouldn't be getting offerred a 35 cent raise. That example was to show what could theoretically happen when arbitration is NOT available. ]If you're Omar, and you think Jose's worth a 35 cent raise, doesn't it kinda wreck your salary structure to give him a bigbux deal while other players must, by definition, then get underpaid? If you think he's worth a 35 cent raise well then you wouldn't be offering a LT deal now would you?

metsmarathon Dec 18 2005 10:13 PM

i dunno... where can i find good data on the contractual obligations for the remainder of the major league shortstops out there? i mean, a cursory glance at this years' crop of qualified ML SS's tells me that $3M looks to be about mean, with a reasonable ceiling, excepting furcal, tejada and jeter, of $6M, but i have no idea how that all changes with time- it was, afterall a cursory glance. so, given those assumptions, and a 2006 full of offensive progress - ie raising his OBP to at least 350ish with promise of more discipline in the future, no injuries, and, dare i say, a modest increase in power at no expense of speed, i'd be cool with something on the order of 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, (7 opt) to secure our shortstop for the next 5-6 years. i hope this adequately convys neither the impression that i think him to be deserving of a superstar salary, nor the impression that i consider him a fluke-waiting-to-happen. provided he remains healthy, reyes offers FAR MORE to an offense than REY-0 ever has, and therefore is deserving of a max salary remarkably similar to what 000rdonez got. sure, its a risk, betting that he continues to develop at a meager pace, but i think it is a safer bet that he develop into a somewhate above average OPSman with well-above average speed figures, than it is to think that he will regress into rey-0 incompetence. and therefore, the financial stability proposed in my above contractual offer strikes me both fair to the player and smart to the team.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2005 11:04 PM

]so, given those assumptions, and a 2006 full of offensive progress - ie raising his OBP to at least 350ish .350 would be a HUGE step and if he did t hat i'd sign him long term on the spot, but its also awfully optimistic, i'd put the chances at about 2% or equal to the chances of him slipping down to about .250

Zvon Dec 20 2005 11:30 PM

Ive given this some thought. At the top though, let me say strapping him to a .311 OBP and saying he shows small growth in other areas is a tuff projection to work with. It limits where the small growth can occur and ultimately will effect his worth. i was going to type this long break down as to why, but i hate typing. And Im the GM. I shouldnt have to explain in any more detail that this. using the projection, as Mets general manager, Id offer: 3 years at 10.5 on the low and I might go up to 12m. There would be bonuses for things like stolen bases, triples and the usual stuff. As well as his numbers, i would factor in certain intangables, like what he does to make the team go and when the team goes people buy tickets. I would also factor in that in 2005 i paid him only $332,000 and his performance that yr was a steal for the team, even given the room for improvment. If he had the projected year, and then showed even more improvment in 2008, especially in areas like walks, OBP, batting average, and runs scored, i would consider renegotiating an extension (mid season '08 or '09-depends on how much improvment and where as to when I would do this) that would include buying out some of his free agent years. For the consideration of a mid season extension, in 2008 or 2009, I would REALLY like to see: An OBP of .340 or better. (above .355 id throw alot of money at him) A batting average of .290 or better. 50 walks or better. 100 runs scored, or better. Dont forget, this is thinking as a GM. And this all assumes he stays healthy, continues to flourish, and plays complete seasons (150 games or better) As a fan I want to take the ride with Reyes wherever it leads for however long. (by ride, I am refering to as him being the leadoff batter/shortstop for the Mets. If he doesnt live up to that potential, i wont hate the guy, but id sure be disappointed. As a fan I think giving Reyes a nice payday is a risk id be more than willing to take.I want him to grow as a Met)

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2005 11:44 PM

"There would be bonuses for things like stolen bases, triples and the usual stuff. " Not legal. Incentives are not allowed for specific outcome-based statistical goals, only appearence-type ones such as ABs, games played, etc., or post-season awards like MVP & CY. "I would also factor in that in 2005 i paid him only $332,000 and his performance that yr was a steal for the team, even given the room for improvment." Every player plays his 1st year or two at near minimum wage. There's nothing unique about this w/Reyes to where the club should look to "make up" the difference later on.

Zvon Dec 21 2005 12:02 AM

="Frayed Knot"]"There would be bonuses for things like stolen bases, triples and the usual stuff. " Not legal. Incentives are not allowed for specific outcome-based statistical goals, only appearence-type ones such as ABs, games played, etc., or post-season awards like MVP & CY. This is probly why Im not a GM. lol. then the usual bonuses. ] "I would also factor in that in 2005 i paid him only $332,000 and his performance that yr was a steal for the team, even given the room for improvment." Every player plays his 1st year or two at near minimum wage. There's nothing unique about this w/Reyes to where the club should look to "make up" the difference later on. If I was GM, I would. Not every player sparks a team like Reyes did his 1st full season. Wouldnt make it up to him. I would consider it. Wouldnt have to, but I would. Again, I probly would not make a good G.M. in real life.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 21 2005 07:26 AM

Zvon wrote: Ive given this some thought. At the top though, let me say strapping him to a .311 OBP and saying he shows small growth in other areas is a tuff projection to work with. It limits where the small growth can occur and ultimately will effect his worth. i was going to type this long break down as to why, but i hate typing. And Im the GM. I shouldnt have to explain in any more detail that this. using the projection, as Mets general manager, Id offer: 3 years at 10.5 on the low and I might go up to 12m. For a GM, you make a pretty good fan. Up to 4 Million per year for a leadoff man whose peak OBP is .311 at the time of signing? Don't you think an arbitrated one-year deal would be a lot less than 4 mil? I do. Your plan gives nothing beyond the Jose's arb. years. It's true that at this point, with Jose's track record, as FK notes, I don't really want to be buying out his FA years, but that's ordinarily a huge advantage in signing a LT contract with a three-year player, a la Pujols. Further, if he gets hurt or backslides in the three years of your contract, you go on paying him.. That's true with any LT contract, of course, but this is one you don't need to sign at the risk of losing the player: The Mets have Jose locked up through 2009 either way. It's just a question of how much they pay him. You're paying him as a fan. It's not your money. It's not your salary structure. The base you should want to be working off is: What would an arbitrator award him off a projected .311 OBP season in 2006 such as we've projected? 4 Mil is crazy high. 3 mil is crazy high. I think 2 mil is high. Look at Jimmy Rollins for comparison: bbref has him getting paid 2001 Philadelphia Phillies $200,000 2002 Philadelphia Phillies $355,000 2003 Philadelphia Phillies $450,000 2004 Philadelphia Phillies $2,425,000 2005 Philadelphia Phillies $3,850,000 Obviously he made the jump to hyperspace after 2003, at which point he had a lifetime OBP of about .320 (in our projections Jose's will be about .306 after a .311 season in 2006), and a rock-solid durability record. Same position, same a lot of stuff. I'm not sure whether the Phillies signed Rollins to a LT contract or if that's a series of arbitrator's rulings, but that's about his value on the open market. And I think Rollins is comparable to (or better than) Jose based on stats as of now. I might not trade them even up, but that's because I like Jose's future. A Phillies fan would prolly feel very differently. Look at his bbref page and show me where Jose is demonstrably better such that he would reasonably demand and get a higher salary: http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rolliji01.shtml

metsmarathon Dec 21 2005 08:41 AM

i keep forgetting that we're projecting jose to have a .311 obp in '06...

Zvon Dec 21 2005 05:47 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Zvon"]Ive given this some thought. At the top though, let me say strapping him to a .311 OBP and saying he shows small growth in other areas is a tuff projection to work with. It limits where the small growth can occur and ultimately will effect his worth. i was going to type this long break down as to why, but i hate typing. And Im the GM. I shouldnt have to explain in any more detail that this. using the projection, as Mets general manager, Id offer: 3 years at 10.5 on the low and I might go up to 12m. For a GM, you make a pretty good fan. Up to 4 Million per year for a leadoff man whose peak OBP is .311 at the time of signing? Don't you think an arbitrated one-year deal would be a lot less than 4 mil? I do. Your plan gives nothing beyond the Jose's arb. years. It's true that at this point, with Jose's track record, as FK notes, I don't really want to be buying out his FA years, but that's ordinarily a huge advantage in signing a LT contract with a three-year player, a la Pujols. Further, if he gets hurt or backslides in the three years of your contract, you go on paying him.. That's true with any LT contract, of course, but this is one you don't need to sign at the risk of losing the player: The Mets have Jose locked up through 2009 either way. It's just a question of how much they pay him. You're paying him as a fan. It's not your money. It's not your salary structure. The base you should want to be working off is: What would an arbitrator award him off a projected .311 OBP season in 2006 such as we've projected? 4 Mil is crazy high. 3 mil is crazy high. I think 2 mil is high. Look at Jimmy Rollins for comparison: bbref has him getting paid 2001 Philadelphia Phillies $200,000 2002 Philadelphia Phillies $355,000 2003 Philadelphia Phillies $450,000 2004 Philadelphia Phillies $2,425,000 2005 Philadelphia Phillies $3,850,000 Obviously he made the jump to hyperspace after 2003, at which point he had a lifetime OBP of about .320 (in our projections Jose's will be about .306 after a .311 season in 2006), and a rock-solid durability record. Same position, same a lot of stuff. I'm not sure whether the Phillies signed Rollins to a LT contract or if that's a series of arbitrator's rulings, but that's about his value on the open market. And I think Rollins is comparable to (or better than) Jose based on stats as of now. I might not trade them even up, but that's because I like Jose's future. A Phillies fan would prolly feel very differently. Look at his bbref page and show me where Jose is demonstrably better such that he would reasonably demand and get a higher salary: http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rolliji01.shtml Jimmy Rollins signed a deal for 2005 season worth 3.85M (plus award bonuses) on 1/18/05. In June of 2005 he signed 5year extention worth 40million thru 2010 season. He receives a 5M signing bonus that is payable in installments of 1million in July of each year of the deal. He receives salaries of 4million in 2006, 7million in both 2007 and 2008, and then 7.5million in both 2009 and 2010. The deal includes a Team Option for the 2011 season worth 8.5million or a 2million buyout. Using Rollins as a yardstick to measure by, I do believe Reyes should get 3 million in 2007. The additional 2 years are a risk Id be willing to take to assure he remains a Met during these years that should distinguish him as a bonifide all star calibre player. Which I believe he will be. I could lose my GM job over this, but id take that risk. And yes, its hard keeping my fan sentiments out of the equation.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 21 2005 06:21 PM

Zvon wrote: The additional 2 years are a risk Id be willing to take to assure he remains a Met during these years that should distinguish him as a bonifide all star calibre player. The only way he's not a Met during those years is if they no longer want him. It's not about feelings. Thanks for the info about JR's contract.

Nymr83 Dec 21 2005 06:46 PM

there is no logical reason to sign this guy long term given what he has shown so far. the mets control him for the next few years anyway and would be wise to remember that when offering him contracts. giving a player extra money just to buy out their 1st year of free agency only makes sense if the overall deal is a bargain or if the player is so good that you'll overpay to make sure he is around that extra year (like a Pujols.)

Zvon Dec 21 2005 07:10 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The only way he's not a Met during those years is if they no longer want him.It's not about feelings. Im sure this is true from a business standpoint. But if they no longer want him (for whatever reason), then isnt that the way that they feel? Two more questions: Is it a bad thing for a GM to have feelings of loyalty and fairness in regards to his players? Why wont the players union and players agents/representatives be more flexible? I personally believe we have more than balanced out the scales in regards to how players were paid and treated pre-free agency. But in todays market, the way things stand, 3 million for a healthy annually improving Reyes is not all that much. Its fair and it should keep him happy. Respecting (compared to what other similar players make $$$ wise) and keeping a player happy should be a consideration. (though I have to admit that in my simulated baseball vid game its 2011 and Im only paying him 1.70 million. And he has posted great all star numbers for a shortstop/leadoff hitter. Why? Because I haggled with the artificial intelligence until it accepted the lowest terms possible. I was prepared to pay alot more because I wanted him to stay on. IRL do you think Reyes would settle for so little, if his career did continue to flourish?)

Nymr83 Dec 21 2005 07:43 PM

the players and their agents take the owners for a ride full of $$$$$$$ signs once they hit free agency, they also take them for a ride after the drafr, at apoint when they arent even likely to ever be good players, it is only "fair" that a team get away with paying a guy "poorly" during the years before free agency. if MY GM gave a pre-arbitration guy more money than he had to just to be nice i'd fire him on the spot.

Zvon Dec 21 2005 08:01 PM

Nymr83 wrote: if MY GM gave a pre-arbitration guy more money than he had to just to be nice i'd fire him on the spot. lol. You have a point. But when will it end?

Nymr83 Dec 21 2005 08:10 PM

when will what end?

Frayed Knot Dec 21 2005 08:54 PM

So using Rollins as a guideline, those 2004 & 2005 years are equivelent to where Reyes is going to be in 2007 & 2008 (time served-wise) 2004 Philadelphia Phillies $2,425,000 2005 Philadelphia Phillies $3,850,000 ... and it appears that the Phils then bought out the final year of his arb-eligible tenure and made that part of his first "FA" contract. Prior to that they took it on a year-by-year basis. So that's approx $6.5 for years 4 & 5 combined, then figure on an additional [$5mil? at least] for year 6 ... bringing the total to $11.5 minimum for the 3 -- a number right in the neighborhood of the $10-$14 that was suggested would be a target for dealing w/Reyes after assuming for decent progress this coming year. Adjust things for inflation and there's a good chance that he'd get more than that taking it a year at a time, so an arbi-buyout strategy of about that 10-14 amount would likely give both sides what they want; Reyes gets the security he couldn't otherwise, and the Mets get their "cost certainty" w/o the trials & tribs of arbitration and probably at a lesser total cost. Of course there always remains the serious injury or massive sucking risk, but I'm betting that's a call they'll feel better about a year from now if things go well. If not, then you stick with a 1-year deal for '07 and re-evaluate things after that.

Zvon Dec 21 2005 10:11 PM

="Nymr83"]when will what end? These rides that players/agents take the owners on. Many think that A-Rods contract has fueled this. Short range, it did. But I personally think that A-Rods contract was the beginning of the end of it. DING! Why doesnt Boston want Manny? Its not because he cant hit, thats for sure.

Zvon Dec 21 2005 11:17 PM

I tried to work out afew scenarios where Reyes comes in with a .311 OBP. In conclusion Id like to go on recoerd saying I predict,...okay....I hope and pray, that he will have a OBP more like .325 in '06, and thats just by matching Rollins in walks alone. Heres Rollins 2005 numbers with Reyes '05 numbers and '06 projected numbers in parethesis along side. Rollins played 158 games (161>projected>158) had 677 at bats, (696>projected>680) 196 hits, (190>projected>191) 115 runs scored, (99>projected>103) doubles, (24>projected>28) 11 triples, (17>projected>15 ) 12 homers, (7>projected>7) 54 RBI, (58>projected>58) 47 walks (27>projected>30) .338 OBP, (.300>projected>.311) .290 AVG, (.276>projected>.280 )

Bret Sabermetric Dec 24 2005 09:27 AM

In Patchy's thread, FK wrote: "And - contrary to what you keep repeating - there IS a middle ground between a 1-year deal and a deal commensurate with being "a big star". " Okay, what's that middle ground? I maintain that most of the time, there is a clear market value for a player's services, either LT or on a one-year basis. The middle ground you're describing is nebulous. Can you name me three current Mets, for example, who've got multi-year deals at under a million per year? Or are you saying that a million a year is just-regular money? To my mind, "big star" money means money that the club is unwilling to eat no matter how far south a player goes. If the Mets owe Chris Woodward 500,000 dollars and he's batting .140 in 200 ABs, they might decide to cut him. If they owe him 5,000,000 dollars, he's not going nowhere. They've boxed themselves in with too many LT deals designed to lock up mediocre talents over long periods of time at serious money. In a sense, I'm more concerned about their poor judgment in signing these players rather than the money itself, but I'm suggesting that they need simply to allocate a certain proportion of the budget to non-productive salaries paid to players whom the team needs to simply release or, better, to trade at less than their nominal value. The difference between the Mets and the Yankees chiefly, to my mind, is that the Yankees just sit their big-ticket players down, or swap them out, when they're playing horribly and the Mets insist that these players are slowly coming around. I don't think the Mets are finer human beings for having this policy, I just think they have a hard time accepting the idea that they made a terrible mistake, and this persistent state of denial costs them games and post-season appearances.

Nymr83 Dec 24 2005 01:23 PM

the difference is that the Mets have a budget (even if it is a high one) as of where the yankees don't care if their payroll reaches 250 million

Frayed Knot Dec 26 2005 07:43 PM

"Can you name me three current Mets, for example, who've got multi-year deals at under a million per year?" Of course not. With the minimum salary of approx 1/3 of a mil/per, a starting player will approach that $1mil mark before he ever reaches the arb years so there's no point in him signing such a deal; and if said player is that young and NOT a regular then he isn't about to get offered one. "Or are you saying that a million a year is just-regular money?" In today's game, essentially yes. See above. "To my mind, "big star" money means money that the club is unwilling to eat no matter how far south a player goes. If the Mets owe Chris Woodward 500,000 dollars and he's batting .140 in 200 ABs, they might decide to cut him. If they owe him 5,000,000 dollars, he's not going nowhere." To my mind. "big star" money is what's given to big stars -- so maybe we're just arguing semantics here. No one's proposing paying him Pujols money. The arb-years proposals made here for Reyes average around $4mil/per ("Stars" are getting twice that at least) and could very well be less than he'll make if taken on a yr-by-yr basis (see the Rollins & Soriano examples). "If the Mets owe Chris Woodward 500,000 dollars and he's batting .140 in 200 ABs, they might decide to cut him. If they owe him 5,000,000 dollars, he's not going nowhere." Except that Bonilla was sent packing while owed around $6 (they bought him out via a long-term payout, but regardless, he didn't play or keep a roster spot). Cedeno was also paid to go away with the team paying about $9 of the $10mil they still owed over 2 years. And Rey himself - the example of what Jose could become while we're busy celebrating his stolen bases - was almost all of his final year's near-$6mil to go screw up in Tampa. So, they're not only apparently willing to eat that kind of money, they already have ... several times. "The difference between the Mets and the Yankees chiefly, to my mind, is that the Yankees just sit their big-ticket players down, or swap them out, when they're playing horribly and the Mets insist that these players are slowly coming around. " Except of course when the creature in question is Giambi or Brown who were owed too much for even THAT team to fire their asses when those guys screwed up both on and off the field. So - just as in the joke about whether the lady will sleep with you for a million dollars (we've already established what we think of her morals we're now just negotiating the price) - Giambi & Brown show that ALL teams take money factors into consideration when making those kind of decisions. The difference - as noted - is at what point that kicks in. But seeing as how X million means different things to different clubs for the same reason that X thousand means different things to Bill from Long Island than it does to Bill from Redmond, Washington, I'll let them make their own decisions as to how much is too much to simply write off. Saying; 'oh they got the money - that amount means nothing to them', is kinda dumb IMO until such point that they make one of us their accountant. What we're discussing here is how much seems to us fans at this point to be too much to commit to Reyes for the years 2007-2009, or indeed if ANY amount is too much if it's for more than the upcoming year only. At this point, I've specified (even though I don't particularly care if they go long-term or yr-by-yr); - what I think will be a worthwhile amount to risk in both money & years - under what circumstances I'd offer it - why I think that amount may represent a long-term savings - and how other somewhat similar players have fared in their comparable years So, unless you want me to get specific about the type and color of the pen to be used during the signing, or whether they should do this in private or make it a catered affair, I think you're grasping at straws by throwing around the "quibbling" label.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 27 2005 08:54 AM

I think 4 mil per year is star money, and big money, and money that Reyes has not begun to show he warrants yet. It's also the range that Soriano and Rollins make, and I suspect what Reyes' agents will be looking for at the end of the projected 2006 season. In my view, there are simply NO circumstances I would even consider paying Reyes 4 mil a year (or 20 mil for five years, or anything on that order) before showing Rollin- or Soriano-type numbers. If the short-term risk is that some crazy arbitrator decides that Reyes is worth 4 mil for a one-year deal, then you tough it out and pay him. If the long-term risk is that the Mets lose him, then they lose him (after 2009): .311 OBP shortstops grow on banana trees. What I have trouble believing is that Mets fans (not necessarily you, FK), having gone through the whole Rey-Rey extravaganza, are reading this post and not saying, "Very wise, Bret, very prudent" and instead are saying "But he's Jose Reyes! He's the star of our dreams! He's the Mets future! B-b-b-b-b-but we gotta sign him!" This is the sickness of being a Mets fan.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 27 2005 09:01 AM

]This is the sickness of being a Mets fan. This also applies to fans of the 29 other teams, in equal measure. And while Jose Reyes has not shown that he's as good as Jimmy Rollins, he's certainly shown that he's better than Rey Ordonez.

Frayed Knot Dec 27 2005 09:35 AM

"I think 4 mil per year is star money, and big money, and money that Reyes has not begun to show he warrants yet. It's also the range that Soriano and Rollins make, and I suspect what Reyes' agents will be looking for at the end of the projected 2006 season." I don't think he'll be worth $4mil at the end of this upcoming year either -- Rollins didn't make that until his 4th year (2008 for Reyes) while Soriano (MUCH more accomplished at that stage) made $5.5 in his first arb year -- the $4mil is just a projected avg of what he might make over the following 3 years ('07-'09), figuring that if he doesn't fall into the toilet he'll; a) get that amount anyway with normal progress; (maybe in a $2.5, $4, $5.5 progression?) OR b) get a lot more if his career takes off in the manner that one of the more highly regarded prospects constantly playing above his age level could If you prefer to opt for the $2-$3 that Reyes will likely make in '07 and risk paying him even more for the 2 years after that rather than committing to $10-$12 all at once that's fine too. You guard against the downside that he plateaus at nothing better than a package easily replaceable at low salary by the time of his 5th/6th seasons like Ordonez did. But Reyes has a lot more going for him than Ordonez: he's 4 years younger than they thought Ordonez was and 6 years younger than he actually was, has better power, MUCH better speed, and apparently a considerably better attitude and aptitude. Much closer to Rollins than Ordonez and therefore much less chance of eventually regretting the outlay.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 27 2005 11:48 AM

But Reyes has a lot more going for him than Ordonez: he's 4 years younger than they thought Ordonez was and 6 years younger than he actually was, has better power, MUCH better speed, and apparently a considerably better attitude and aptitude. Much closer to Rollins than Ordonez and therefore much less chance of eventually regretting the outlay. And Ordonez had some things going for him that Reyes lacks, primarily in the way of Gold Gloves. As far as aptitude and attitude, some people were claiming that for Rey, right up to the end--in any event, what we're not seeing (I'm not, anyway) is tangible signs of improvement, which you'd think would be the first indication of aptitude and attitude. I admit he projects "cheerful" rather than "surly" and "team guy" rather than "self-centered egomaniac." I'm just not sure how many millions either of those two traits are actually worth.

Zvon Dec 27 2005 04:10 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: This is the sickness of being a Mets fan. Then Ive been ill for 35 years. ;) Looking at Rollins contract I do believe Reyes merits 3 million, and at least 10.5 for 3 years. Reyes: 2007: $3,000,000 2008: $3.500,000 2009: $4,000,000 Sure, Im taking a chance. A GM cant be afraid to roll the dice.

Nymr83 Dec 30 2005 08:23 PM

i know this has nothing to do with real life but its just a thought... i simulated 2005-2008 with the Mets several dozen times in Baseball Mogul 2006, in those seasons in which i started Reyes in 2005 his 2007 and 2008 numbers essentially resembled the numbers he put up this past year, that is he never got any better. however, in 4 simulations i left him in AA for 2005 and AAA for 2006 before starting him in 2007 and 2008...his average OBP in those seasons was about .355... yes i know its just a game... but it led me to ask a serious question, assuming that getting on base is a learnable skill, is it better learned at a younger age in the minors or in the majors?

metsmarathon Dec 30 2005 10:13 PM

the answer is.. there's really no way to tell.

Rockin' Doc Jan 01 2006 04:11 PM

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic seeing all of Bret's posts diplaying the "Jay Satan" avatar (for reaching 666 posts) after his long run with his previously chosen avatar?

Vic Sage Jan 02 2006 01:58 PM

]assuming that getting on base is a learnable skill, is it better learned at a younger age in the minors or in the majors? I question your assumption. I do not think getting on base IS a learnable skill. I think it is, like hitting itself, an innate talent that can be IMPROVED with proper training. The "skill" is actually related to the cognitive ability of pitch recognition, the intellectual ability to read the pitcher and the situation, and the emotional ability to show patience. While situations can be studied and patience developed, and even cognitive recognition improved, all of those abilities have physical dimensions and limitations for each person. This is why Billy Beane drafts the way he does, and others are starting to follow suit.