Extension demands for young players

[pastrami.mike]

Hey all,

One thing I would like to see in the future is a slightly better interface for negotiating extensions with first- or second-year players. It would be great if, upon offering an extension to these kinds of players, they either (a) said they wanted to wait until they were eligible for arbitration or (b) took into account how little they were going to be making over the first few years of their contract when evaluating an extension and/or stating their demands. Some low-budget teams (e.g. Oakland, which does this a lot) will lock up their players to four- or five-year deals very early on to avoid having their costs get out of hand later, and some players are willing to do this because it gives them security and lots of money up front. I try to do this as well (and I'm managing Oakland's club), but often players' "demands" are very uninformative about what they will accept. Players almost always seem to demand a one-year contract well above the $400,000 automatic salary, which tells me literally nothing about their willingness to sign a long-term deal. I had two players both ask for about $4M in their third year; one signed a 4-year, $12M contract and the other refused to be locked up for more than one year.

[jcalhoun7]

I agree, I have a similar strategy and would love to see this work more in the game.

[Jeffy25]

I too would love this.

We should be able to lock up someone like our Matt Moore or Evan Longoria and be able to get them onto the type of extension that is basically buying out arb years that way. Right now, they automatically want to be paid well in their first arb years.

We should be able to get the Brett Anderson, Jaime Garcia contracts in baseball if we are willing to give them out.

[Jeffy25]

bump

[Mariners fan 24]

I'd like this as well. I hate that I can't negotiate long term contracts with year 1-2 players since they only ask for 1 year and some huge amount out of my budget.

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by Mariners fan 24

I'd like this as well. I hate that I can't negotiate long term contracts with year 1-2 players since they only ask for 1 year and some huge amount out of my budget.

Can't you counter with a 4-6 year deal?

[SandMan]

Why offer young players a contract for more than the $400K that they would get? I usually wait until the player is in their 2nd year of arbitration then offer a 4-6 year contract at that time. I like to keep the players salary down as long as possible. Doesn't make sense to give them a contract in year 1 or 2 when they can just be paid the automatic $400k.

A young player has no real bargaining power. Automatic renewal for 3 years then arbitration. You can tie up the player for 6 years to low contracts. No need to offer them more than the minimum. Like I said above I will offer arbitration eligible a long term contract if I want the player for a longer term but usually I get them for about what they are asking for in arbitration (maybe a little bit more). example a guy's arbitration number is 4M, I offer 4.5M for 4 years. Usually they go for it. I never offer contracts to automatic renewal players.

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by SandMan

Why offer young players a contract for more than the $400K that they would get?

Same reason MLB teams do. To buy out free agent years and/or arbitration years at a lower rate than they would cost a couple years closer to free agency.

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

Same reason MLB teams do. To buy out free agent years and/or arbitration years at a lower rate than they would cost a couple years closer to free agency.

You are telling me that you would offer $4M to a player for 4 years when he has not even reached arbitration?? I offer player contracts only once they are in the middle of their arbitration years. I keep them as cheap as possible. It is totally dumb to offer them a contract when they are only going for 400k in auto renew..... You should average it out and see if you are really saving money. If you are offering a contract to an auto renew your wasting money at a time when you can keep the player for a very low price. I don't expect you to see my point but a lot of other players have stated the same thing I am stating. It is not a new theory to keep players at a low cost.

[Mariners fan 24]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

Can't you counter with a 4-6 year deal?

Yeah, I've tried but they stick to their 1 year demands until they reach arbitration. I would try negotiating several times during the season until they turn from happy to unhappy with no progress on the contract.

[Mariners fan 24]

Originally Posted by SandMan

You are telling me that you would offer $4M to a player for 4 years when he has not even reached arbitration?? I offer player contracts only once they are in the middle of their arbitration years. I keep them as cheap as possible. It is totally dumb to offer them a contract when they are only going for 400k in auto renew..... You should average it out and see if you are really saving money. If you are offering a contract to an auto renew your wasting money at a time when you can keep the player for a very low price. I don't expect you to see my point but a lot of other players have stated the same thing I am stating. It is not a new theory to keep players at a low cost.

I typically follow your philosophy regarding this, but I've found that this really depends on the player. For relievers, I always just let them go to arbitration since they are cheap compared to position players. If you have a superstar player such as Troy Tulowitzki, then its a good idea to lock him up to a long term contract in those auto renew years If he has a great season that first year.