Castro and Theo to meet Friday

[Guest]

Too soon to extend Castro. Take advantage of his cheap years.

 

How much more do you think he'd get with such an extension? He's not going to get 9 million next year for signing a deal buying out those years.

 

Right now he's under a five-year deal, and just as a completely WAG I'd say he's in line for maybe $25 million over those five years. So if you want to buy out some years, you are looking at $5 million AAV, probably at least a bit backloaded.

 

Yes, most every one of the pre-arbitration deals are backloaded to mirror the renewal/arbitration process. CarGo's extension goes 1/5/7.5/10.5/16/17/20 for an 11.5M AAV. Longoria's is .5/.55/.95/2/4.5/6/7.5*/11*/11.5*, with the * years being team options. We'd be adding minimally to the immediate payroll by locking down Castro.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just doesn't seem to be much upside to me. You are taking on all the risk immediately, when you could just as easily give him a similar contract two years from now.

[davell]

Kinzer said they'd probably talk about an extension, but said they're in no hurry, because Castro will be paid "very well" soon enough. Unfortunately, he's very correct with that statement.

[seanimal]

he's vladimir guerrero, of course you pay him now and get his prime for cheap and let some stupid artie moreno-like owner make him his 'big splash' 6-8 years from now

[SouthSideRyan]

he's vladimir guerrero, of course you pay him now and get his prime for cheap and let some stupid artie moreno-like owner make him his 'big splash' 6-8 years from now

 

When he's 28?? That Vlad contract was a very good deal for Anaheim.

[davell]

I want to lock him up lonnger than that. 6 to 8 years from now, he's still just going to be 27 to 29. Hell, if he winds up as good as it appears he can be, I'll be fine if he's a lifetime Cub.

[SouthSideRyan]

I want to lock him up lonnger than that. 6 to 8 years from now, he's still just going to be 27 to 29. Hell, if he winds up as good as it appears he can be, I'll be fine if he's a lifetime Cub.

 

I wasn't exaggerating when I suggested signing him to an 11 year deal.

[seanimal]

he's vladimir guerrero, of course you pay him now and get his prime for cheap and let some stupid artie moreno-like owner make him his 'big splash' 6-8 years from now

 

When he's 28?? That Vlad contract was a very good deal for Anaheim.

 

not as good as what montreal was getting for its dollar

[seanimal]

a vlad doesn't go for that cheap in today's free agency anyway. i should correct myself regardless, as i didn't mean to say arte moreno is stupid and the signing was bad. i was trying to suggest that the hypothetical big splash castro signing at the end of my hypothetical dream castro contract would be dumb. not because he wouldn't produce, but because the person would likely overpay for his production based on his peak physical years. vlad was a landmark signing for arte as a young owner, so that was a parallel that fit given the vlad comparison.

[SouthSideRyan]

But as has been mentioned numerous times in the Pujols/Fielder thread(s) you have to pay a premium for a premium talent. And Castro will be a premium talent.

 

ETA: Obviously he's a ways away from free agency so who knows what we'll have on the team at the time, but it doesn't hurt to have a superstar in his prime locked up.

[seanimal]

my 'we don't resign castro after this hypothetical 6-8 yr contract' situation relies upon the assumption that the return on investment of 29 y/o+ castro at the going price/years would be less than the another, younger, preferably homegrown option.

[davell]

I think that finding another SS with even remotely the talent Castro has will be much, much harder than paying him bigtime money will be. We'll have an easier time developing young cheap guys at positions other than SS, if you ask me.

[seanimal]

umm, i didn't

 

but isn't it just as likely as the other 7 positions?

[davell]

Well umm, no I don't think it is. Not even close. It's quite a bit harder to develop what looks like a perennial .300 hitting, 20 plus homer having SS than it is to produce corner outfielders or infielders giving you the same production.

[Guest]

he's vladimir guerrero, of course you pay him now and get his prime for cheap and let some stupid artie moreno-like owner make him his 'big splash' 6-8 years from now

 

Ha...has nothing to do with what you posted, but since you said that I just looked at Castro's comps for fun and Mike Caruso's name came up. Blast from the past. Dude actually did have a very similar first season to Castro at age 21...but fell off the map after.

[seanimal]

Well umm, no I don't think it is. Not even close. It's quite a bit harder to develop what looks like a perennial .300 hitting, 20 plus homer having SS than it is to produce corner outfielders or infielders giving you the same production.

 

oh [expletive] really? shocking that it is more likely to see production at that level when you have five positions to do it with versus one. or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the most offensively productive shortstops often get moved to other positions as they get older and more powerful with the bat. all things being equal, you're no more likely to develop a shortstop with that production than you are any other position, save maybe 1st base. the main reason why ss tends to be a less offensively productive position is selection bias by traditional baseball guys that continue to perpetrate the myth that ss is a position whose value is derived from defense more than offense. i'm willing to be wrong here, mostly because it ultimately doesn't matter. it's beside the point.

 

regardless of the semantics debate, you don't necessarily need to replace castro's hypothetical age 29 production using one player at one position. if we're a healthy franchise, the loss of offensive production at the ss position is partially replaced by his replacement, partially replaced by improvements of existing players yet to reach their peak, as well as whatever holes can be filled with the money saved by not signing him and paying for past production.

[davell]

This is my issue with what you're saying: you're talking about replacing him in the middle of his prime. Not after it. If he was 32ish in your scenario, I wouldn't question it at all. Personally, I'd probably still keep a homegrown superstar if he's a well liked player, partially to keep the fanbase happy. But, I'd admit that it may not be the absolute best way to run things. But, I'm not going to let a guy walk away in the middle of his prime. Definitely just an issue with the 6 to 8 year thing. If we somehow got him to sign an 11 year extension, as SSR mentioned, then letting him walk afterwards would be more acceptable to me. But, as a major market franchise, I don't worry about overpaying superstars anyway. There will be plenty of resources available to find young cheap guys and I don't particularly like the idea of spreading the perceived savings around either. I'd rather replace a superstar with another one, especially if the current team model has been a success.

[Guest]

Just doesn't seem to be much upside to me. You are taking on all the risk immediately, when you could just as easily give him a similar contract two years from now.

 

The upside is buying out FA years when he could command 20+ million dollars. You wait, and he hits 25 HR or something next year and you lose millions of dollars of payroll flexibility. You don't give that type of deal to every Darwin Barney that puts up a 2 WAR season before arbitration. But for cases like Castro where the obvious stardom is staring you in the face, it makes a ton of financial sense to make such a deal.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If it's so obviously good for the team, why would Castro be interested in signing such a deal?

[Guest]

Why does any player sign a deal if it would be good for the team? Is that a serious question? Lifetime financial security.

[C.C.]

Right. Why wouldn't he want sign a deal that will give him a lifetime of stability at such a young age. It's a win-win for both parties.

[Guest]

If it's so obviously good for the team, why would Castro be interested in signing such a deal?

 

Long term security and capitalizing on the fact that he's a really young guy anxious to make closer to what the big boys make.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why does any player sign a deal if it would be good for the team? Is that a serious question? Lifetime financial security.

 

Teams and players generally find a point where it's mutually beneficial. When you are talking about this deal in terms of how many millions and millions it will likely save the club, then I start to ask what's in it for Castro.

 

The Cubs would be buying out Castro's 2017 FA season and possibly more. In exchange for that, they would be taking all the risk of injury, ineffectiveness, etc.

 

Five years away is just too far for me to be buying that risk when there's no need to. For the moment, I'd rather have Castro at 5/$25 or whatever his arbitration years work out to than 7/$55.

[SouthSideRyan]

Teams and players generally find a point where it's mutually beneficial. When you are talking about this deal in terms of how many millions and millions it will likely save the club, then I start to ask what's in it for Castro.

 

The Cubs would be buying out Castro's 2017 FA season and possibly more. In exchange for that, they would be taking all the risk of injury, ineffectiveness, etc.

 

Why did you ask a question and then immediately answer it?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why did you ask a question and then immediately answer it?

 

Because I wanted to see other peoples' answers.