So let's say the royals are offering 4 years 38 mil and mondesi's camp is countering with 4 years 62 mil....would you take the middle and ask 4 years, 50 mil (i know it's over your bottom line)? Or no thanks, we're good?
Yeah, I personally wouldn't do it. The key with a Mondesi deal for him is incentives. The absolute most he's likely to make in the next two years is around that $20 million. I'm not giving him $15 million a year for free agent years right now. I'd roll the dice.
So almost exactly two decades ago the Royals drafted another highly regarded prospect, rushed him to the majors and he struggled mightily with the mental drain of the bigs (mostly losing in the bigs) and then he spiraled and they essentially paid to get him counseling for a year while he took a sabbatical.
In my opinion, I think the Royals recognized they had some responsibility in the issues for the young man and did the conscionable thing and granted him the trade he wanted. The rest has been history for all parties.
For me, the Mondesi situation is similar to Grienke. We rushed him up as well, the difference is we rushed him so we could win now and we didn't win squat when we rushed up Zach except for a few of the games he pitched. Mondesi's issue are due, in part, to us rushing him to the bigs and I think the Royals should acknowledge that and do the right thing by the kid, just not via trade.
If I'm the Royals I go all-in on Mondesi. 4 years is good, but 5 years or even possibly 6 is better. I'd sit him down, tell him that you have all the faith in the world in him and, seeing as how we're from the Show-Me state, show him by offering a looonnnggg term deal.
IMO this would allow him to relax, know he is our guy no matter what and become the best version of him and as a Royal.
A Royals future anchored by the young guns, BWJ, Mondesi and at some point an Eric Pena and a few other surprise/developed stars along the way IMO all but guarantees us years of being competitive.
So let's say the royals are offering 4 years 38 mil and mondesi's camp is countering with 4 years 62 mil....would you take the middle and ask 4 years, 50 mil (i know it's over your bottom line)? Or no thanks, we're good?
Yeah, I personally wouldn't do it. The key with a Mondesi deal for him is incentives. The absolute most he's likely to make in the next two years is around that $20 million. I'm not giving him $15 million a year for free agent years right now. I'd roll the dice.
So almost exactly two decades ago the Royals drafted another highly regarded prospect, rushed him to the majors and he struggled mightily with the mental drain of the bigs (mostly losing in the bigs) and then he spiraled and they essentially paid to get him counseling for a year while he took a sabbatical.
In my opinion, I think the Royals recognized they had some responsibility in the issues for the young man and did the conscionable thing and granted him the trade he wanted. The rest has been history for all parties.
For me, the Mondesi situation is similar to Grienke. We rushed him up as well, the difference is we rushed him so we could win now and we didn't win squat when we rushed up Zach except for a few of the games he pitched. Mondesi's issue are due, in part, to us rushing him to the bigs and I think the Royals should acknowledge that and do the right thing by the kid, just not via trade.
If I'm the Royals I go all-in on Mondesi. 4 years is good, but 5 years or even possibly 6 is better. I'd sit him down, tell him that you have all the faith in the world in him and, seeing as how we're from the Show-Me state, show him by offering a looonnnggg term deal.
IMO this would allow him to relax, know he is our guy no matter what and become the best version of him and as a Royal.
A Royals future anchored by the young guns, BWJ, Mondesi and at some point an Eric Pena and a few other surprise/developed stars along the way IMO all but guarantees us years of being competitive.