Heyman: Miggy is on the block.

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
usually these arb-year deals are beneficial to both the player and the team, they are pretty common. of course the sox would make sure and talk to miggy first to ensure he'd make a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The deals you're referring to are usually made before the player ever hits arbitration. At this point, simply buying out his arbitration years is pretty much -EV for Miggy because there's almost no risk. Locking up Sizemore after 1.5 years, on the other hand, is one of those "good for both sides" deals because he could fall off a cliff the next day and only pocket $750K in his career.

[dkgojackets]

Top ten VORP for three straight years.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he is getting fat and is increasingly unable to play third base effectively would mean that he could very well accept an arbitration-year buyout plus an extension through his FA years. I expect a five-year deal to be the norm (2+3), but I doubt he would sign anything over that without substantial risk to the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assume that a 2+3 deal would be the last thing he'd ever want to do. Why would he accept what is essentially a three year deal that puts him back on the market heading into his 30th birthday? If he's worried about getting fat and moving to first base, he's going to want a 2+7 type deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 2+3 deal puts him on the market at age 30 which is around the peak of most ballplayer's careers. You would argue that he is entering his decline phase, and you'd be right. However, unlike you, Ned Colletti and Brian Sabean seem to have never heard of the term "decline phase," so why wouldn't he get a seven-year deal at age 30? A-Rod seems to be garnering plenty of interest, and he's 32.

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he is getting fat and is increasingly unable to play third base effectively would mean that he could very well accept an arbitration-year buyout plus an extension through his FA years. I expect a five-year deal to be the norm (2+3), but I doubt he would sign anything over that without substantial risk to the team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assume that a 2+3 deal would be the last thing he'd ever want to do. Why would he accept what is essentially a three year deal that puts him back on the market heading into his 30th birthday? If he's worried about getting fat and moving to first base, he's going to want a 2+7 type deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 2+3 deal puts him on the market at age 30 which is around the peak of most ballplayer's careers. You would argue that he is entering his decline phase, and you'd be right. However, unlike you, Ned Colletti and Brian Sabean seem to have never heard of the term "decline phase," so why wouldn't he get a seven-year deal at age 30? A-Rod seems to be garnering plenty of interest, and he's 32.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all that does is take the money he's going to make during his age 31-34 seasons and put it on the next Colletti/Bavasi/Bowden contract. Instead, signing a 2+7 deal gives him roughly the same yearly salary, but it locks him up immediately and guarantees the money. He'd be crazy to pass up a 2+7 offer from his new team because he wants to hit the market at age 30...his yearly salaries are going to be about the same no matter when he signs the contract.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]


A 2+3 deal puts him on the market at age 30 which is around the peak of most ballplayer's careers. You would argue that he is entering his decline phase, and you'd be right. However, unlike you, Ned Colletti and Brian Sabean seem to have never heard of the term "decline phase," so why wouldn't he get a seven-year deal at age 30? A-Rod seems to be garnering plenty of interest, and he's 32.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, it's very common for people to have their 'last big FA deal' around 29-31 and they all get paid plenty.

if cabrera wants to sign for the next nine years, though, i really don't have a problem with that. he is one of the best RH hitters in baseball and he will probably be playing 1B anyway, so the defense isn't such a big deal.

[kyleb]

Clearly if anyone is going to ship him a 2+7 deal then you'd get it done. However, the Giants have no one to trade, leaving only the Dodgers to do something that stupid. I don't underestimate Ned Colletti since he's an embarrassment to baseball front offices everywhere, but I think it's a lot more likely he gets a deal to the top of his prime years or an opt-out clause to allow him to do that.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

He'd be crazy to pass up a 2+7 offer from his new team because he wants to hit the market at age 30...his yearly salaries are going to be about the same no matter when he signs the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring the fact that the market is probably going to be a lot different in 5 years, if revenue keeps growing he could end up signing for 30 million a year. Same reason A-Rod has his opt-out clause.

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


A 2+3 deal puts him on the market at age 30 which is around the peak of most ballplayer's careers. You would argue that he is entering his decline phase, and you'd be right. However, unlike you, Ned Colletti and Brian Sabean seem to have never heard of the term "decline phase," so why wouldn't he get a seven-year deal at age 30? A-Rod seems to be garnering plenty of interest, and he's 32.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, it's very common for people to have their 'last big FA deal' around 29-31 and they all get paid plenty.

if cabrera wants to sign for the next nine years, though, i really don't have a problem with that. he is one of the best RH hitters in baseball and he will probably be playing 1B anyway, so the defense isn't such a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I just don't think the 2+3 makes any sense for him. Instead, why wouldn't he take a 2+1 and hit the market before his age 28 season?

I think either a 2+0/2+1 deal or a 2+long-term deal make the most sense...a 2+3 sort of puts him in the middle because he's not guaranteed a ton of money, but he's also not hitting the market at his (expected) peak.

[Kos13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He'd be crazy to pass up a 2+7 offer from his new team because he wants to hit the market at age 30...his yearly salaries are going to be about the same no matter when he signs the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring the fact that the market is probably going to be a lot different in 5 years, if revenue keeps growing he could end up signing for 30 million a year. Same reason A-Rod has his opt-out clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this still argues for a 2+1 over a 2+7. Frankly, I think a 2+0/2+1 is the best option for him, though I don't think anyone would blame him for taking a 2+7 and knowing he'll make $200 million no matter what happens.

[kyleb]

A 2+1 deal is effectively lol-worthy. If he wants to do that, then there's no reason to accept an extension, period. That would piss off the Marlins front office, but who cares about them.