I really feel like we are looking at more like a 6 year deal here. I just don’t see the royals going 14 years….and honestly, I’m not sure I see Witt going 14 years. Why would you lock yourself into a long term deal like that on a bad team? Six years….your 29/30…you’ve got an out if the organization never really competes. But I do think the Royals try REALLY hard this offseason to at least get a couple more years. If they can’t, the timing just isn’t right to trade him this offseason. You’re trying to get a new ballpark, and you trade the guy you said was going to be a star? Don’t think so….optics would be terrible and it wouldn’t be helping your cause at all for your project as owner.
I think if he's signing any long-term deal, his belief is that the team isn't bad forever, which is also likely to be true that they won't be bad forever. The other side of it is that you sign that deal because it's more than a third of a billion dollars guaranteed, no matter what happens. And it's not like trades still can't happen if he finds he's unhappy at some point or whatever. What do you think $35 million is in 2032 money?
So here’s a question and one I can see very likely to happen. A 14 year deal with opt out clauses after year 7 or something like that right? Is it really a 14 year deal then? Seems like opt out clauses are all the rage. But, if you look at the optics of it….all about optics today for some reason. You sell the crap out of it as a 14 year deal, long term investment in the franchise the team to the fans. But in reality it’s longer term deal that buys out a few years of FA. Still both good on both ends in my opinion. I can just see an opt out clause half way through or something along those lines if you go into a longer deal like that. I don’t really know if Julio has that or not.
Oh absolutely. That's in line with the creativity that I think they can do, but I can't even begin to guess how that would work, so I wanted to show the overall value. I think there will likely be opt-outs.
I don’t think Witt signs a 12-14 year deal without opt outs that would be problematic for the Royals (when have the Royals been competitive over that long of a time frame anyway?). So I’d vote for 6 years at 150 million or so, with 35 million in the first year, 30 million in the second year, and then 20 something million for the remaining 4 years. This gives Witt way more than he’d otherwise make in that time frame, let’s him test free agency at age 30, gives the Royals payroll flexibility in their (hopefully) contending years, shows free agents the Royals are serious about winning and paying stars, and gives the Royals the possible option of trading Witt in a few years if everything goes south.
There's no need to overpay by that much. If he's going to sign for six years, they don't need to go 25-30% above market. We've discussed frontloading a deal, but the reality is it isn't going to happen like that even if it should. I do think he signs the long deal if he believes in the vision and it's enough money, though, based on what I've heard from some sources. The J-Rod deal is probably the road map with both team and player options if they do that, which mitigates a little risk for the team.
Speaking of outs, early termination by the player were popular for a minute. It's bad for teams, but maybe Witt has the leverage to make it happen. That could change the contract lengths were talking about here.
I’m not 100% sure because I can’t find it anywhere, but I thought I read those aren’t allowed anymore. It’s not really terribly different than the opt-out though.
I think it's just the cost of swimming with the sharks... there is no scrimping here. The franchise is worth little without him... he is the engine that makes the whole thing work....
Sure, they need to get him signed. And I think they will. I was more making an off-hand comment about finding all the comps, getting down to the dollar and then your throw $500 million at him comment. Just made me laugh a little.
The critical element is not signing Bobby...thats a no Brainerd regardless of the market cost...the critical thing is creating a minor league system that creates a conveyer belt of prospects...like the Dodgers have...thats the true recipe for the success of this franchise in my opinion.
Because I think every decision the Royals make this off-season is being made through the prism of the stadium campaign, I unfortunately (?) think it's much more likely they end up on the 6 year extension. That's because I think for purposes of impressing voters, what matters is extending him, not the details.
I'd rather see him locked up as long as possible, but it may work to our favor if they land on the shorter option: that would potentially make it easier for Sherman to stomach making multiple big free agent signings. My belief is that there must be at least 1 splashy FA if they expect voters to approve the stadium, but wouldn't it be nice if they signed 2 impact players, plus whatever they can get for MJ and Pratto and whoever else they deal?
While I'm spending Sherman's money, hopefully they also sign Vinnie to an extension instead of waiting for him to finish in the top 10 of OPS next season and then deciding he's too expensive.
I agree that a lot of what they do is about getting a yes vote in a few months (if it's even on that ballot, who knows at this point?). But I also think the longer deal sends a stronger message in terms of the value of the development. I kind of agree that the six-year deal is more likely, but if they sign that longer deal and the biggest money is on the back end of it, that's a huge opportunity to say something like, "We are so confident in our increased revenue stream from the new stadium district that we *know* a $35-$40 million salary in 2032 isn't going to be a problem to fit into our budget."
And yes, there are other extensions to be handed out this winter. Vinnie is absolutely one of them. I'd consider getting Cole Ragans under some cost control because his arbitration numbers could get crazy if he keeps pitching like he did after he was acquired.
I'm just happy that the vibes seem to be figuring out WHAT the extension should be and not IF there will be one. As someone who lives in Texas and became a much more serious Royals fan because of them drafting Bobby, this is really exciting to me. His combination of elite makeup/work ethic and talent seems to make him as safe a "face of the franchise" as they could ever hope for, and I'm glad they seem willing to make him that...fingers crossed!
Well, I’m not sure I’m past the IF part yet to be honest. I think with the stadium development in the background the Royals have every intention of trying. I’m curious what Lesky would put the odds at. I’m in the 50/50 range but he’s got all the connections.
My dream is if they don’t sign Bobby…… they way overpay for Nola. Just let me have that dream of Nola, Ragans, Singer, Lyles, and X with an average offense and find some bullpen help along the way. Now, it is certainly not deep but it’s a start. Let’s not talk about the bad team tax or why Nola would even come here. Just let me dream on it for a bit.
I'd say 70/30 it gets done right now, but that's before any real figures are exchanged since they didn't do much during the season. The fact that they're discussing it so much publicly is a good sign to me. I talked to a couple of people I know who aren't associated with the Royals who get the feeling that they're more likely to get it done than not. Of course, 70/30 is no guarantee. A team that wins 70 percent of its games loses 48 games. That's a lot of losses.
I would love to see Nola, but if he has a great postseason, man, I don't know how that happens. I'm just happy they're publicly going after pitching because that puts a target on them if they don't get it done. Similar to talking about the Witt extension, the confidence to put it out there publicly has me encouraged.
I really feel like we are looking at more like a 6 year deal here. I just don’t see the royals going 14 years….and honestly, I’m not sure I see Witt going 14 years. Why would you lock yourself into a long term deal like that on a bad team? Six years….your 29/30…you’ve got an out if the organization never really competes. But I do think the Royals try REALLY hard this offseason to at least get a couple more years. If they can’t, the timing just isn’t right to trade him this offseason. You’re trying to get a new ballpark, and you trade the guy you said was going to be a star? Don’t think so….optics would be terrible and it wouldn’t be helping your cause at all for your project as owner.
I think if he's signing any long-term deal, his belief is that the team isn't bad forever, which is also likely to be true that they won't be bad forever. The other side of it is that you sign that deal because it's more than a third of a billion dollars guaranteed, no matter what happens. And it's not like trades still can't happen if he finds he's unhappy at some point or whatever. What do you think $35 million is in 2032 money?
So here’s a question and one I can see very likely to happen. A 14 year deal with opt out clauses after year 7 or something like that right? Is it really a 14 year deal then? Seems like opt out clauses are all the rage. But, if you look at the optics of it….all about optics today for some reason. You sell the crap out of it as a 14 year deal, long term investment in the franchise the team to the fans. But in reality it’s longer term deal that buys out a few years of FA. Still both good on both ends in my opinion. I can just see an opt out clause half way through or something along those lines if you go into a longer deal like that. I don’t really know if Julio has that or not.
Oh absolutely. That's in line with the creativity that I think they can do, but I can't even begin to guess how that would work, so I wanted to show the overall value. I think there will likely be opt-outs.
I don’t think Witt signs a 12-14 year deal without opt outs that would be problematic for the Royals (when have the Royals been competitive over that long of a time frame anyway?). So I’d vote for 6 years at 150 million or so, with 35 million in the first year, 30 million in the second year, and then 20 something million for the remaining 4 years. This gives Witt way more than he’d otherwise make in that time frame, let’s him test free agency at age 30, gives the Royals payroll flexibility in their (hopefully) contending years, shows free agents the Royals are serious about winning and paying stars, and gives the Royals the possible option of trading Witt in a few years if everything goes south.
There's no need to overpay by that much. If he's going to sign for six years, they don't need to go 25-30% above market. We've discussed frontloading a deal, but the reality is it isn't going to happen like that even if it should. I do think he signs the long deal if he believes in the vision and it's enough money, though, based on what I've heard from some sources. The J-Rod deal is probably the road map with both team and player options if they do that, which mitigates a little risk for the team.
Speaking of outs, early termination by the player were popular for a minute. It's bad for teams, but maybe Witt has the leverage to make it happen. That could change the contract lengths were talking about here.
I’m not 100% sure because I can’t find it anywhere, but I thought I read those aren’t allowed anymore. It’s not really terribly different than the opt-out though.
Oh, opt-out was what I meant.
Gotcha. Yeah, I could absolutely see opt-outs in there.
Just sign him to as long as you can with multiple opt outs... $500 million should cover it.
That is certainly the other way to look at it.
I think it's just the cost of swimming with the sharks... there is no scrimping here. The franchise is worth little without him... he is the engine that makes the whole thing work....
Sure, they need to get him signed. And I think they will. I was more making an off-hand comment about finding all the comps, getting down to the dollar and then your throw $500 million at him comment. Just made me laugh a little.
The critical element is not signing Bobby...thats a no Brainerd regardless of the market cost...the critical thing is creating a minor league system that creates a conveyer belt of prospects...like the Dodgers have...thats the true recipe for the success of this franchise in my opinion.
Of course. They can't rely on one wave of talent and then 10 years between them. But when they get a talent like Witt, they do need to keep him too.
Because I think every decision the Royals make this off-season is being made through the prism of the stadium campaign, I unfortunately (?) think it's much more likely they end up on the 6 year extension. That's because I think for purposes of impressing voters, what matters is extending him, not the details.
I'd rather see him locked up as long as possible, but it may work to our favor if they land on the shorter option: that would potentially make it easier for Sherman to stomach making multiple big free agent signings. My belief is that there must be at least 1 splashy FA if they expect voters to approve the stadium, but wouldn't it be nice if they signed 2 impact players, plus whatever they can get for MJ and Pratto and whoever else they deal?
While I'm spending Sherman's money, hopefully they also sign Vinnie to an extension instead of waiting for him to finish in the top 10 of OPS next season and then deciding he's too expensive.
I agree that a lot of what they do is about getting a yes vote in a few months (if it's even on that ballot, who knows at this point?). But I also think the longer deal sends a stronger message in terms of the value of the development. I kind of agree that the six-year deal is more likely, but if they sign that longer deal and the biggest money is on the back end of it, that's a huge opportunity to say something like, "We are so confident in our increased revenue stream from the new stadium district that we *know* a $35-$40 million salary in 2032 isn't going to be a problem to fit into our budget."
And yes, there are other extensions to be handed out this winter. Vinnie is absolutely one of them. I'd consider getting Cole Ragans under some cost control because his arbitration numbers could get crazy if he keeps pitching like he did after he was acquired.
I'm just happy that the vibes seem to be figuring out WHAT the extension should be and not IF there will be one. As someone who lives in Texas and became a much more serious Royals fan because of them drafting Bobby, this is really exciting to me. His combination of elite makeup/work ethic and talent seems to make him as safe a "face of the franchise" as they could ever hope for, and I'm glad they seem willing to make him that...fingers crossed!
Well, I’m not sure I’m past the IF part yet to be honest. I think with the stadium development in the background the Royals have every intention of trying. I’m curious what Lesky would put the odds at. I’m in the 50/50 range but he’s got all the connections.
My dream is if they don’t sign Bobby…… they way overpay for Nola. Just let me have that dream of Nola, Ragans, Singer, Lyles, and X with an average offense and find some bullpen help along the way. Now, it is certainly not deep but it’s a start. Let’s not talk about the bad team tax or why Nola would even come here. Just let me dream on it for a bit.
I'd say 70/30 it gets done right now, but that's before any real figures are exchanged since they didn't do much during the season. The fact that they're discussing it so much publicly is a good sign to me. I talked to a couple of people I know who aren't associated with the Royals who get the feeling that they're more likely to get it done than not. Of course, 70/30 is no guarantee. A team that wins 70 percent of its games loses 48 games. That's a lot of losses.
I would love to see Nola, but if he has a great postseason, man, I don't know how that happens. I'm just happy they're publicly going after pitching because that puts a target on them if they don't get it done. Similar to talking about the Witt extension, the confidence to put it out there publicly has me encouraged.
All impressions I get are that the Royals are going to do whatever they can to make it work. We'll see how things go, but the signs are at least good.
I'm glad you like to sit down and figure these out. :)
I do, Darin. I have a very real problem!