This past week, Mike Trout’s agent, Craig Landis, struck controversy when he stated that his client, an L.A. Angels outfielder, deserved a significant raise. Landis essentially suggested that the current major league free agency system, in which a player has to wait six years to obtain true market value, is unfair considering that younger players are some of the top producers on their respective teams. The Angels’ lack of accommodations to Landis’ complaints will probably cause them some difficulty when it comes to re-signing Trout down the road.
This is an issue the Mets should consider. The Mets are now a young team, and with younger players comes a lot of control over those players, yet it also involves those players hitting free agency either entering or in their prime. We can expect to see Zack Wheeler, Travis d’Arnaud, and Matt Harvey each to play a full season within the next year or two. This starts the clock on their road to free agency eligibility, and if any three of these players live up to any of their expected potential, they’ll be expensive when it comes to their payday.
Of course it would be wonderful to see all three players follow the example of David Wright and Evan Longoria, and give the Mets a hometown discount. In baseball, for every player like Wright, there’s a player like Josh Hamilton or Alex Rodriguez who will hold out for more money. Therefore, it is important for the Mets to establish their investments in this young group of talent. The Mets should consider offering each of these players a significant raise prior to free agency.
Following the model of what the Mets did with Wright and what the Rays did with Longoria — offering the trio a lucrative contract earlier in their career and then getting a discount when they hit free agency — could prove effective. The early raise could potentially achieve two things: One, the Mets will acknowledge an investment in their talent, thus creating incentive for those players to perform; and two create a working relationship between the player and the team that may result in saving a few extra bucks in the long run. Although some may say that giving a player a lucrative contract in the beginning of their career will act as a disincentive, we can point to cases like Niese or Wright, both of whom received a significant contract early in their career, and they rose to the occasion and performed well in order to prove that they were worth the money.
There does remain significant danger in following this model. For starters, there isn’t a whole lot of evidence that indicates that giving a player a significant raise early in their career that they’ll necessarily take that into account when they hit free agency. Wright and Longoria are just two examples. The other danger is that the core of the Mets’ future remains in two pitchers and a catcher. It’s great to have good pitching, but it’s also worth noting how often pitchers get hurt. A hurt pitcher on a lucrative contact is obviously inefficient. As far as catchers go, teams are considered lucky if they get 130 games out of their catchers. The attrition rate for the positions of these players is high, and is something the Mets should consider when it comes time to offer these players a contract.
Offering a contract early in a career is risky, because it involves a lot of unknown quantities, however it could really pay off for the Mets if they can establish a working relationship with young talent that could lead to a big payoff. Given the current state of business in baseball, in which baseball players will try to hold out for as much money as possible, it’s a thought worth contemplating for the Mets.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. A player like Trout only comes around once every 10 years, The Mets do not have the financial capabilities to do what you ask. I think it would be foolish to give players contracts just to appease their agent. Pick and choose carefully who you think can not only help the team but will remain healthy and continue to grow(Niese).Finally those players in the M
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. A player like Trout only comes around once every 10 years, The Angels have other contractual issues to deal with(Vernon Wells). When they are finished with his contract,I’m sure they will have more flexibilty with their payroll and give him a significant raise. The Mets do not have the financial capabilities to do what you ask(nor do I think they should) I think it would be foolish to give players contracts just to appease their agents. Pick and choose carefully who you think can not only help the team but will remain healthy and continue to grow(Niese).
He’s not comparing apples to oranges. He’s describing the system as a whole.
Whether you agree with it or not, the current system has young players being vastly underpaid, but it balances out because older players are much too overpaid. That is the reason why the Angels should (and don’t have) to give Trout a raise next season, not because of financial reasons.
I agree that long term contracts are the way to go. Even if they turn out to be busts, the burden won’t be as much as compared to free agents busts because contracts in the earlier years are cheaper(because of the system). Not to mention the fact that you lock up the players in the prime years(24-30) rather than in the waning years (31+).
Timing is also important. Obviously you don’t want to sign someone too early because they don’t have a great track record and relatively unproven. But if you wait too long, the player may be willing to risk not signing and long term deal and instead go to arbitration/free agency. It usually seems like the sweet spot for signing someone long term is .5-1.5 years before they hit their first year of arbitration.
On a side note, i don’t think that money is the primary concern for young players. I would think that they are still mostly motivated proving to themselves (and the fans) that they truly are major leaguers and can stick in baseball for a long time rather than being unhappy that they are getting paid $500k when a comparable talent who is older is getting paid 10-50 times more.
A very good post , Name. I agree with the sweet spot being just before arbitration. If the player is part of the core then sign him to a contract that extends 1-2 or 3 years into free agency. It is a risk for management but so is every long term contract and management benefits by paying less in the long run. The player benefits because he is insuring himself a guaranteed payday even if injured. These young players are not “rich” or financially set for life at this point so the money is appealing and they will also see free agency in their early thirties. A win win for both. Itself is also an indicator for management that if a player doesn’t want to do this then trade him before his sixth year and get players back instead of a draft choice.
The real test for the franchise will come when these extended contracts begin to expire and the player is on the verge of being a free agent in his waning years. Management should consider trading these players one year before expiration and reinvigorate the farm system with prospcts. That will be the mark of a good franchise.
Finally, as a side note, as a GM I would avoid qualified free agents, they are just too costly in draft money lost.
I agree completely with Metsense and I agree with Name. Each year we see this gets to be a younger and younger mans game. Locking up someone until 30 is excellent practice, even if some turn out to be (comparatively) low cost busts (say compared with Bay, Santana…). I would also point out that while young and hungry to succeed is a major force for a young 20 something, so is landing a 30M$ deal, which makes them and families set for life, something the league min cannot do. Occasionally a Wright or Longoria comes along and you pull the trigger on the 30s guy, but that should be a real exception to the model. Breeding a positive successful and clear path to the majors that tells a minor leaguer that you matter and this is a winning franchise because of your talent and work sends the positive vibes all the way down, increasing the likelihood of booking young talent for long times.
As the Mets organization continues to prune aging veterans such as Santana & Bay, or non-productive ones such as Frank Francisco, the club’s ability to extend sensible contracts to worthy players prior to their FA years will improve.
I support the approach for a number of reasons. First, rewarding a player prior for good service rather than pursuant to a CBA will engender a sense of loyalty by the player to the organization. While not every player will return the kindness as they approach free agency, the good ones, the ones you really want, will stick around.
Second, there’s a lot to be said to securing your own FAs. If they have performed well in a Met uniform, then both parties can soundly reason, “If it works, don’t fix it”, and generate a contract in their mutual respective interests. The player and the organization don’t have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to assessing how the player will perform at Citi Field in a Met uniform.
Third, when you sign your own ball player to substantial contracts, you reduce the likelihood of losing top draft selections and possibly weakening your organization at the lower levels (are you listening, Omar?). Its a subtle benefit, but very important when you assess an organization’s strength top-to-bottom.
Knowing this, of course, begs the question why the Mets didn’t act more aggressively to retain Jose Reyes. I don’t understand the logic whatsoever. A future draft pick is scant compensation for a speedy lead-off switch-hitter with gold-glove defense at a premium position.
Had we retained Reyes & Pagan (whose departure I hold TC responsible), our line-up could very easily have been: Reyes, Pagan, Murphy, Wright, Davis, d’Arnaud, Duda, Byrd – but what the heck do I know?
Sorry for the digression, but I agree with the philosophy to spend money wisely up front to players prior to their entrance into the FA markets for the reasons cited above.
Tommy2cat,
On the question of Reyes, you should be asking why they did not trade him rather than why they did not act aggressively to retain him. It was pretty clear that Reyes wanted to go to the highest bidder and he Mets couldn’t/wouldn’t spend the money. We’re not privy to the thinking of Wilpon/Alderson, but it seems that by letting Reyes walk they dropped the ball.
I believe it was the Mets prerogative to determine if they wanted to commit that much money long term to Reyes. They did lose 70M that year and with Reyes they had only made the playoffs once. The mistake the Mets made was not believing that the market for Reyes wasn’t a 100M contract. Reyes said that was what he wanted and that summer the Mets should have realized they weren’t going to pay him that and trade him then. If the Mets thought the 100M was reasonable they should have offered it then and if Reyes refused they should have traded him then. There is no way that when Reyes reached free agency, he wasn’t going to get 100M. Werth got it in 2010, and the Angels, Tigers and Marlins spent in 2011. Even St Louis or Milw may have gotten in the mix. Some team was going to give him 100M and the Mets were foolish by not realizing that.
Actually I believe that if the Marlins didn’t make that ridiculous offer, then he would still be a Met now. I really don’t remember any other team interested in his services for near what he wanted