Reds nearing extension with Votto

[TruffleShuffle]

But they are going to have him till he is 40, right?

 

yes, but he's a good athlete and plays the least defensively challenging position on the diamond. obviously there's some risk, but take a look around mlb. elite position players generally aren't getting 5 to 7 year deals when they hit free agency in their late 20s. obviously you're giving that contract with the assumption that he'll be worth more than $22m/year in the first few years, and not worth that money by the time the contract is about up.

 

the alternative that would still have gotten a deal done is probably something like 6/170m. hoping that he would do 5-7 years at an AAV of $22.5m is an unrealistic pipe dream.

 

Then you let him go, especially if you're a mid-market club.

 

And really when did it become SOP to hand out decade long deals to players, regardless of whether or not they are elite? How many have we seen?

 

pujols, teixeira, adrian gonzalez, fielder, a-rod (twice), jeter, manny ramirez, kemp, tulo, helton, soriano, mauer... not sure if any pitchers other than mike hampton have gotten an 8 year deal.

[dew1679666265]

 

Like I said earlier, I have little doubt Votto could have hit FA and commanded a deal much closer to 10/300 than this was. Reasonable is relative to market value and that's what makes this reasonable, I think.

 

Votto will be in his 30/31 season when this kicks in, and he's no Albert Pujols, in terms of performance or stature. I don't think he'd get anywhere near 10/300 on the open market.

 

I think he'd get less than Pujols ultimately got, but Prince got 9/214 after being a massively lesser player and much more likely to decline quickly. Somewhere between $25-27 million AAV over 10 years wouldn't be outside reasonable expectations at all, I wouldn't think. And that's without a team getting desperate and putting too much stock into 4 elite years.

[XZero771679666304]

it doesn't begin until 2014.

 

Then it's a bad deal outright, imo. That's 10 years at 20MM+ tacked on to the tail end of his prime. Votto's great, but not that great.

 

Over the past two seasons, Votto has averaged a 7.1 fWAR. Pujols was right around an 8 WAR player. If Votto continues what he's done the past couple years, then he's one of the top 2-3 players in the game today and up there with some of the greatest players ever. If Votto and Pujols aren't worth this type of contract, then I really have no idea who is. And if nobody is ever worth this type of contract, then you're simply not going to have elite players.

 

Votto is not Pujols.

 

Even if Votto replicates his best season in each of the next two (which is quite optimistic, and taking him up to when his extension kicks in), his performance record will still pale in comparison to Albert's when he signed his 10-year deal. And that's not even taking into account Albert is far more of a fan draw.

 

Votto would not have gotten what Albert got, much less anything north of that.

[dew1679666265]

Then you let him go, especially if you're a mid-market club.

 

And really when did it become SOP to hand out decade long deals to players, regardless of whether or not they are elite? How many have we seen?

 

Who got decade long deals other than Pujols, Prince, Braun, and Votto? Two of those players are clearly elite (Pujols and Braun), another has posted two elite seasons and has 2-4 years left of his prime (Votto), and Prince is not elite but he does have an elite skill (offensive production).

 

I could be forgetting one or two, but with 4 decade long contracts given out and 3 of them having a really good case for being elite, I don't see the problem.

[Guest]

A mid-market team like the Reds probably have little chance of competing if Votto is an unproductive 1B at any point in his contract. As such, it's probably a real bad idea to give him 10 years starting at age 30/31. The AAV was low enough that they should have been able to give more dollars to avoid paying 39 and 40 year old Votto the GDP of an island nation.

[dew1679666265]

Votto is not Pujols.

 

Even if Votto replicates his best season in each of the next two (which is quite optimistic, and taking him up to when his extension kicks in), his performance record will still pale in comparison to Albert's when he signed his 10-year deal. And that's not even taking into account Albert is far more of a fan draw.

 

Votto would not have gotten what Albert got, much less anything north of that.

 

You're right, he's not Pujols but if he continues being a 7+ WAR player for the next couple of years, he exceeds Prince's 9/214 deal (23 AAV) and probably by a lot. My guess is bidding pushes him into the 25-27 range at 10 years and definitely on the northern end of that if a team gets desperate.

 

Also, if he continues this 7 WAR pace, he becomes a much more marketable player as well. He'll never be Pujols, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't get overpaid - and very possibly significantly - on the open market.

[SouthSideRyan]

Shouldn't somebody point out that Votto got just 15M less than Pujols (1.5M AAV) despite the fact that he's already signed for the next 2 years?

[XZero771679666304]

Then you let him go, especially if you're a mid-market club.

 

And really when did it become SOP to hand out decade long deals to players, regardless of whether or not they are elite? How many have we seen?

 

Who got decade long deals other than Pujols, Prince, Braun, and Votto? Two of those players are clearly elite (Pujols and Braun), another has posted two elite seasons and has 2-4 years left of his prime (Votto), and Prince is not elite but he does have an elite skill (offensive production).

 

I could be forgetting one or two, but with 4 decade long contracts given out and 3 of them having a really good case for being elite, I don't see the problem.

 

Truffle insinuated that if you wanted elite players that weren't old, these kinds of contracts were what you had to give out. If that were the case, we'd have seen more.

 

And A-Rod has gotten two decade long deals, the second of which would be a killer to anyone other than the Yankees. Prince doesn't get that deal if VMart doesn't get hurt.

 

Being that Votto was two years from free agency and Cincy isn't a big market team, this deal was excessive, even by current market standards.

[XZero771679666304]

A mid-market team like the Reds probably have little chance of competing if Votto is an unproductive 1B at any point in his contract. As such, it's probably a real bad idea to give him 10 years starting at age 30/31. The AAV was low enough that they should have been able to give more dollars to avoid paying 39 and 40 year old Votto the GDP of an island nation.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[dew1679666265]

A mid-market team like the Reds probably have little chance of competing if Votto is an unproductive 1B at any point in his contract. As such, it's probably a real bad idea to give him 10 years starting at age 30/31. The AAV was low enough that they should have been able to give more dollars to avoid paying 39 and 40 year old Votto the GDP of an island nation.

 

The Reds are in a tough spot here. If they retained Votto on a fairly reasonable contract relative to market value, it likely cripples them in the second half of his deal. If they let him walk, it becomes that much harder to contend at a high level in the short term.

 

I think this was a pretty reasonable deal considering Votto's talent level and production, but I can certainly see the argument that the Reds were the wrong team to give out that contract. They better win over the next 5-8 years, that's for sure.

[XZero771679666304]

The Reds would have been better served to have traded Votto and installed Alonso at 1B, imo.

 

When people look back and the contracts handed out this offseason and pick the one that really shifted the market, it'll be this one.

Edited April 3, 2012 by XZero77

[TruffleShuffle]

it doesn't begin until 2014.

 

Then it's a bad deal outright, imo. That's 10 years at 20MM+ tacked on to the tail end of his prime. Votto's great, but not that great.

 

Over the past two seasons, Votto has averaged a 7.1 fWAR. Pujols was right around an 8 WAR player. If Votto continues what he's done the past couple years, then he's one of the top 2-3 players in the game today and up there with some of the greatest players ever. If Votto and Pujols aren't worth this type of contract, then I really have no idea who is. And if nobody is ever worth this type of contract, then you're simply not going to have elite players.

 

Votto is not Pujols.

 

Even if Votto replicates his best season in each of the next two (which is quite optimistic, and taking him up to when his extension kicks in), his performance record will still pale in comparison to Albert's when he signed his 10-year deal. And that's not even taking into account Albert is far more of a fan draw.

 

Votto would not have gotten what Albert got, much less anything north of that.

 

well pujols had just posted his two worst years in 2010 and 2011 going into his contract. votto has actually been better than pujols (cumulatively) the past two years, based on fangraphs' WAR. it is quite reasonable to think that pujols' best years are very much behind him and votto is at his peak and likely to stay there for a couple more years. votto's last three years were .318/.418/.565/.983. pujols' last three were .313/.409/.598/1.007. there's really not much difference.

 

i mean, i can see the argument from the reds' perspective that by the end of 2013 they likely will have gotten votto's best years, he's unlikely to be worth $225m over 10 years, so you just let him walk and decline for another team. realistically, you're not getting a player of votto's caliber without giving him really big money for something like 6 years ($25-30m) or giving him a deal near 10 years at $20-25m. if you're not willing to do that then you aren't going to be signing top free agents, and your only real chance of getting superstar production is developing it in-house.

[bukie]

The Reds would have been better served to have traded Votto and installed Alonso at 1B, imo.

Well, the Reds would also be better served to use Chapman as a starter instead of a LOOGY, but the franchise isn't exactly running on all cylinders at this time.

[TruffleShuffle]

The Reds would have been better served to have traded Votto and installed Alonso at 1B, imo.

 

i'm not high on alonso. but that's a reasonable position given the prospects they could have fetched for votto.

 

When people look back and the contracts handed out this offseason and pick the one that really shifted the market, it'll be this one.

 

i dunno, the fielder one is pretty crazy. he's already heavy, plays lousy defense and is a lousy baserunner. in a few years he's going to be a really damn expensive DH.

[dew1679666265]

Truffle insinuated that if you wanted elite players that weren't old, these kinds of contracts were what you had to give out. If that were the case, we'd have seen more.

 

And A-Rod has gotten two decade long deals, the second of which would be a killer to anyone other than the Yankees. Prince doesn't get that deal if VMart doesn't get hurt.

 

ARod did get two decade long deals, and he's unquestionably elite. Jeter and Tulowitzki have also received 10 year deals. Helton and Griffey Jr. have gotten 9 year deals. Mauer, Teixeira, Manny, Kemp, Cabrera, Soriano, Hampton, and Rolen have signed 8 year deals.

 

It's certainly not a rarity to see an elite player get 8+ years and it's becoming more common (3 guys have signed a 9-10 year deal this offseason) recently.

 

Being that Votto was two years from free agency and Cincy isn't a big market team, this deal was excessive, even by current market standards.

 

Pujols signed for 10/254 and Prince signed for 9/214. Votto got 6 million more than Prince and one extra year while getting $29 million less than Pujols, who he'll be 2 years younger than when the contract begins. Whether Prince should have gotten that deal or not (he shouldn't have), the fact is he got it and it still sets the bar for future compensation. Votto got a better deal than Prince and less than Pujols and ARod. It may be more than the Reds could afford, but it's not excessive by market rates.

[XZero771679666304]

The Reds would have been better served to have traded Votto and installed Alonso at 1B, imo.

 

i'm not high on alonso. but that's a reasonable position given the prospects they could have fetched for votto.

 

When people look back and the contracts handed out this offseason and pick the one that really shifted the market, it'll be this one.

 

i dunno, the fielder one is pretty crazy. he's already heavy, plays lousy defense and is a lousy baserunner. in a few years he's going to be a really damn expensive DH.

 

The Fielder contract will likely be a poorer value, but he was given that one on the open market, by a desperate, large market club.

 

Votto had two years left on his current deal and he got the very high end of open market value. The Reds just handed all pre-FA players a lot of leverage when negotiating extensions.

[SouthSideRyan]

What exactly was the rush? What do they lose by waiting a year to extend him?

[dew1679666265]

What exactly was the rush? What do they lose by waiting a year to extend him?

 

Leverage if he posts another 7+ WAR season. I think they could have waited, though.

[shnsajax]

It's not like they can spend money on pitching with Baker there.

[CubColtPacer]

This is sort of a compilation of previous posts, but this deal is bad on several levels.

 

1) There was no need to do this now. The Reds just took on more risk for maybe 25 million savings? That doesn't make much sense. There aren't many seasons Votto would put up that would significantly increase his price, and there are things that could happen that would make the Reds regret the contract quickly.

 

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

The big positive in this deal is PR. If the Reds can build their fanbase by showing how they're committed to keeping their elite players, then revenues go up and his contract isn't that big of a deal. But I'm not sure how much of a realistic possibility that is.

[jersey cubs fan]

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

What do you mean it averages 27.5% of the 2012 payroll? It only accounts for a percentage of the 2012 payroll once. It's pretty clear with all the money that most non-Cubs teams are willing to spend on players that money is expected to be there to afford all these players. Cincy's current payroll is roughly double what it was 7 years ago. If it doubles again that percentage will plummet.

 

The obsession with payroll flexibility really confuses me. I would much rather have really good players than the flexibility to sign mediocrity.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's like some people are expecting another team to inexplicably fire the next David Ortiz for the Cubs to swoop in on, but no way in hell should they also go out and spend money on a Manny Ramirez.

[Careless]

Shouldn't somebody point out that Votto got just 15M less than Pujols (1.5M AAV) despite the fact that he's already signed for the next 2 years?

That is the really crazy thing here. The only reason to do that is a hedge against him continuing to play like he has the last couple of years, combined with a fear that if he did so, someone would offer him significantly more than Pujols is getting. There are all sorts of downside risks they're taking here that they didn't need to.

 

He'll be what, 30 to 40-41 during this contract and they're not even going to look at the two years of performance leading up to free agency before giving him this deal?

[KingCubsFan]

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

What do you mean it averages 27.5% of the 2012 payroll? It only accounts for a percentage of the 2012 payroll once. It's pretty clear with all the money that most non-Cubs teams are willing to spend on players that money is expected to be there to afford all these players. Cincy's current payroll is roughly double what it was 7 years ago. If it doubles again that percentage will plummet.

 

The obsession with payroll flexibility really confuses me. I would much rather have really good players than the flexibility to sign mediocrity.

Devoting that much of your payroll to one player is not very smart in baseball. It's more acceptable in basketball or a QB in football.

[Guest]

It's like some people are expecting another team to inexplicably fire the next David Ortiz for the Cubs to swoop in on, but no way in hell should they also go out and spend money on a Manny Ramirez.

 

There's plenty of room to be willing for the Cubs to spend big on a free agent, and also be critical of the mid-market Reds for signing Votto to market value through age 40 when he's still 2 years from free agency.