Quote from Brian Connelly on October 24, 2020, 1:36 pm

Quote from fenn68 on October 24, 2020, 12:12 pm

I was referring to a longer deal with a lower AAV specifically for the buyout of FA years .... was not including the first four control years.

There has to be an agent / ownership reason that we have seen very few long term / big money deals with players this early in the careers. Longoria? Trout's first "extension" was after 3 full seasons (> 3X the games as Tatis) ... had been a 3X All-Star, finished 2nd, 2nd, 1st in the MVP vote ... and that was $144MM / 6 years (3 control / 3 FA). Then with two years remaining on that deal ... they tore it up and went for the Ultra Mega deal.

Just don't see any precedent of long term / big money extensions for non-FA.

???? What ???  It has become the new normal TO do this in the last 2 years.   That's why it really didn't matter too much that Tatis got a full MLB service year in 2019... as long as he IS extended before arbitration.

Ronald Acuna's 8/100MM is considered the baseline. Others (was it Ozzie Albies?) were criticized for selling themselves way too short for the length of deal they took, but the lure of being set up for life with guaranteed mid to high 8 figures has a lot of appeal when your career earnings are still 1 MM or less.

Quote from fenn68 on October 24, 2020, 2:14 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 24, 2020, 1:36 pm

Quote from fenn68 on October 24, 2020, 12:12 pm

I was referring to a longer deal with a lower AAV specifically for the buyout of FA years .... was not including the first four control years.

There has to be an agent / ownership reason that we have seen very few long term / big money deals with players this early in the careers. Longoria? Trout's first "extension" was after 3 full seasons (> 3X the games as Tatis) ... had been a 3X All-Star, finished 2nd, 2nd, 1st in the MVP vote ... and that was $144MM / 6 years (3 control / 3 FA). Then with two years remaining on that deal ... they tore it up and went for the Ultra Mega deal.

Just don't see any precedent of long term / big money extensions for non-FA.

???? What ???  It has become the new normal TO do this in the last 2 years.   That's why it really didn't matter too much that Tatis got a full MLB service year in 2019... as long as he IS extended before arbitration.

Ronald Acuna's 8/100MM is considered the baseline. Others (was it Ozzie Albies?) were criticized for selling themselves way too short for the length of deal they took, but the lure of the guaranteed 8 figures has a lot of lure when your career earnings are still 1 MM or less.

$100MM isn't big a "big money" deal over 8 years (plus the club got two option years at $17MM). His FA years are only at $17MM. Effectively (if good) Acuna gets $134MM/10 years. Would guess if Tatis would take $17MM/year for the FA years ... the Padres would go 8 years too.

Not a Padre issue of wanting to extend him ... purely an issue of the size of the contract. Not sure what would make Tatis' deal that much more lucrative than Acuna's given the similar points in their careers. So, circling around to (give or take) $110MM/8 years makes it better than Acuna's deal. Tatis has to give some to get guaranteed money and should not be demanding (expecting) FA money at this stage.

Agree that we are to a degree returning to the John Hart approach in Cleveland in the 90s with early extensions but they were not "big money" extensions. (note: the definition of "big money" will vary based on the person commenting).

What is a "fair to both sides" contract for Tatis?

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on October 24, 2020, 4:24 pm

So, circling around to (give or take) $110MM/8 years makes it better than Acuna's deal.

We can keep ping ponging here, but I think you are just fundamentally lower than where "the market" (with Acuna the only "real" comp) is going to end up.   The statement above is obviously correct, but Tatis' camp can make a pretty good argument that Acuna should have gotten more.  Definitely a tough extension to evaluate, because while teams have started extending good young players, Tatis is arguably more valuable than Acuna; not many can make that argument.

I'd be thrilled at 8/120, but agree with Kevin Acee:  it just sounds too low at "only" 15 MM AAV including FOUR FA years.

I believe the way Tatis/agent would look at it is:  how close am I getting/year for the FA years being bought out relative to what I might get for those years as a true FA?  Years 1-4 of an extension will be tied to the sliding scale of arbitration.  Think he HAS to be > /= 20 MM AAV the 4 FA years; he will probably reach that in his 3rd year of arbitration.  4 x20 =80.  First 4 yrs of deal are going to be SOMEthing like =:  2-3 / 8-10 / 15-17 / 20  = 4/45-50?   That would be 8/125-130 with no salary increase from 3rd year of "arb".

In other words, think it's the up to 4 FA years that are "discounted" relative to what he would cost then, not as much the first 4 years.  If you make the first 4 years lower than what he projects to earn anyway AND the next 4 years, and there is likely little or even no signing bonus, what's in it for Fernando?

Quote from fenn68 on October 24, 2020, 6:38 pm

That 8/125-130 would work for me .... at these levels sort of bouncing around $2MM in AAV so not all that critical. I am just a bit lower on the value of the first 4 control years but we are about the same on the buyout cost of the FA years ... $20MM/year +/-. Sort of the Hosmer / Myers level.

My dissertation was more oriented toward the idea that Tatis should get something closer to $200MM ... basically get paid as a FA with a history of success. Still, although your (or my) "offers" probably are in the Padres zone of feasibility .... are they acceptable to Tatis' side (we of course will believe yes).

Have to focus on the FA years because they will contend they will get the same control year dollars via arbitration. (old saying would suggest the Padres would be giving the sleeves out of their vest). So, after 4 years ... can they reasonably expect to get greater than $20MM per year and get that guaranteed for longer  than 4 years.

Risk vs upside ... everyone handles that differently.

Quote from Brian Connelly on January 10, 2021, 10:28 am

Trying to move the Tatis contract posts here...

If the rumored deal is even close, it's kind of amusing to see where we were... a LITTLE low.

Fundamental thing is, what would "could not be MORE marketable if he tried (contrast to aloof, not always max effort issues Manny)" All-pro, all-star Tatis make as a Free agent at age 26 in 2025?   Aren't we starting at 10/400 as just a baseline?  Is 12/500 reachable?  The thing that gets lost is, it's not the AAV/year that's the issue; it's the ABILITY to do the entire contract as a FA AT THE AGE OF 26 that he's giving up.  For him to give that up at all, can see he & his agents saying "Go big or go home".

Ironically, with the "going for it" in 2021, I was going to back down from 8 yr minimum to being OK with 6-7 yrs!  🙂

The big issue now becomes:  When does Tatis obtain opt out(s)?  There will be at least one.  Hopefully as far out as possible:  not until after 6th? 7th? year?   Pads have to lock him up at least that long for a deal this big.  Because he's so early in his career, unlike true FA Manny, Fernando's contract will be much more "back loaded", theoretically making it less likely he opts out than Manny.

 

Quote from fenn68 on January 10, 2021, 11:21 am

Love Tatis and think he will be an excellent major league player for years and extending him is logical BUT having a lot of trouble with that length and money.

Tatis does not yet have a full season of PA in the ML ... actually has not played a full season since 2017 .... the downside of being wrong is significant. Machado / Betts / Harper all had 5-6 years of ML PA under their belts.  Vernon Wells, Alex Rios, Alfonso Soriano should be a cautionary notes. Then again, not my money.

Opt out will be interesting ... guessing after year seven of the deal making him a FA at 29. He would in effect be guarantee 3 FA years to the Padres to secure the opt out. Machado and Hosmer’s opt outs are after 5 years (but they were all FA years) and Machado’s cash flow was flat and Hosmer’s deal dropped after the opt out period ... not sure the team’s logic for that but it may have been a push from Hosmer’s side to front load the deal.

Also, will there be no trade provisions? Machado doesn’t but Hosmer does for the first three ... two years were he can be traded ... then 10/5 rights kick in allowing him to reject any trade in his last three years.

Money - years - opt outs - no trade clauses - special demands .... not an easy deal to be comfortable with.

Quote from Randy Manese on January 10, 2021, 3:16 pm

To make this kind of commitment, a team has to believe in the talent and believe in the person.  Tatis Jr. is already recognized universally by media and fellow ballplayers past and present that his talent is special and should rank among the elite players of his day.  You have to love his character and his work ethic plus he is grounded by his family and the close ties he has with them.  Outside of catastrophic injury, there is nothing negative to gamble on and I'm sure the Padres will take out a huge insurance policy on Tatis Jr.'s ability to play.

What is different from the few other players who can get such a deal is that these 11 years typically coincide with the most productive years of an elite player's career, from 22 to 33, so the Padres are actually paying for current production not past production like the Angels/Dodgers will be when Trout/Betts are 36-39.  I'm sure there will be opt outs and trade clauses but one has to believe that Tatis Jr. will have a fabulous career as a shortstop or whatever position he may have to move to if he slows down in the field.  I want that career to be in San Diego and   looking back at some of the greats - Mays, Mantle, Ted Williams, Aaron, even Tony Gwynn - by the time they were in their early 20's you knew what you had and you wanted them forever on your team.  Those guys didn't have the money available to them but certainly would be getting the kind of money that Tatis Jr. will be because of their talent and what they mean to their team.  I'm totally comfortable with extending Tatis Jr. because I know that every day he's on the field, he will be the player/person I expect him to be.

Quote from fenn68 on January 11, 2021, 8:36 am

TODAY: Reports of an imminent contract extension for Fernando Tatis Jr. may be premature. Per Bob Nightengale of USA Today, Tatis and the Padres have yet to begin contract negotiations. Both sides remain amenable to an extension, and they are likely to begin discussions before spring training in mid-February, writes Nightengale. There is no rush for the two sides, however, and it remains wholly possible that Tatis will begin the 2021 season without a long-term extension in place.

Quote from LynchMob on January 11, 2021, 8:54 am

According @piodeportes the San Diego Padres are negotiating a contract extension with Fernando Tatis Jr. for 11-years, $320 million. The offer is expected to be made public next week.