@AnthonyDiComo 2m2 minutes ago
Can confirm @Joelsherman1 report that #Mets are talking contract extension with Lucas Duda. He's under team control for three more years.
Opening Day they will pick it up next off season. I like idea of tying up guys
long term. The thing is Duda is 29 and he did it for 1 year. If they don't get it done and Duda has similar numbers this year, his leverage increase. I like
the Mets being proactive with Duda, hooefully its a sign of things to come
I think Duda's year last year was for real, but I'm not positive he's a core guy beyond the 3 years they will already have him under control. Maybe they're only buying a year or two of FA at a reasonable number, that gives Duda some added security? Looking at it objectively, the prospect of cashing in big as a FA at age 32 isn't exactly a slam dunk 3 years from now.
How much of a discount can the mets possibly get vs the risk of guaranteed deal (injury, regression etc)?
Earl 30's 1b don't tend to do well in free agency so I just don't see such a huge risk of letting him play out his arbitration years.
If he was blocking someone I can see the hesitation, but there is no one on the immediate horizon at 1B and Smith needs to show something this year or the long-term horizon looks bleak too.
I'm not so sure about free agent 1B's either, I think someone like Napoli's deal is the best you'll get.
I'm expecting Duda to sign for less and hopefully outperform those numbers in a pitchers park.
Just brought this up last week. Get it done. The one irreplaceable on this team and he will cost a fortune if he has another 30 homerun season. Power is the rarest commodity in baseball.
6 year, 100 million dollar deal right now. Would give him a nice bump in salary now, and it gives us essentially a three year cost effective extension. 18 million per would be real nice.
I like Duda and have wanted him over Ike from the beginning Â
So I don't have a problem if they get him wrapped up for the right price but I believe he isn't going to be a free agent until 2018 so there isn't anything wrong with just letting things play out either.
6/$100m? You like Duda a heck of a lot more than I do Â
Let's assume the Mets have no 1b in the pipeline. How is that important for 1B, the position anyone can get moved to? 1B are rarely groomed, but moved. A Billy Butler, Adam Laroche etc is ALWAYS available.
Second, let's assume Duda 2014 is repeated. Do you expect him to do that for the next six years? Personally I can see one or two, not six.
Third, let's assume the mets have no one in the pipeline, and Duda keeps repeating. Mets have him cost controlled the next three seasons - what did they gain going six? Basically a 3/$60mm contract after his cost control is done. That's some serious coin reserved for the top, top first baseman. The risk - a massive commitment that the Mets have finally figured out to avoid.
Lastly, just an opinion. Best way to ruin Dudas 2015 is the pressure of living up to a massive contract in NYC.
I don't think the Mets have figured out how to avoid those commitments Â
I'd use the Duda money to lock up Legares and DeGrom ASAP.
Then shoot my load and be the first to talk Boras into an early extension while TJS is fresh on everyone's mind.
Last - I'd pull an Astros and sign recent promoted kids to immediate extensions. We've been patient with the kids in the minors and know everything that you need to know about them alreadyy
Duda repeats this year at 29 he would be done at 31or 32? That is ludicrous
Of course he wouldn't be done. Duda doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on him for his age. His game doesn't rely on speed either so there is no reason to believe that he would be done at such an early age.
If they can sign him for the right price they should, but there is no reason to have to rush this either and IMO it will sort itself out one way or another. They have plenty of time with Duda.
To what it really is. Not is Duda good or not. Whether he will repeat. How easy it is to find a 1B, etc.
The question is do you want to sign Duda to three one year non obligated contracts at the tail of his prime to 3/$30? Or do you lock in now at 6 $100 today, if you can? To me personally, it is a no brainer. To others it is a no brainer for the opposite decision.
6 year, 100 million dollar deal right now. Would give him a nice bump in salary now, and it gives us essentially a three year cost effective extension. 18 million per would be real nice.
$18 mil per year for a 29 year old first baseman thats had one quality year? You are out of your mind.
"The only concern we have is the sinker's not there right now," Collins said. "The velocity's good, the sinker's not working and I think it's a mechanical thing. We've got to go back to what works and not try to get too fancy."
"The only concern we have is the sinker's not there right now," Collins said. "The velocity's good, the sinker's not working and I think it's a mechanical thing. We've got to go back to what works and not try to get too fancy."
6 year, 100 million dollar deal right now. Would give him a nice bump in salary now, and it gives us essentially a three year cost effective extension. 18 million per would be real nice.
$18 mil per year for a 29 year old first baseman thats had one quality year? You are out of your mind.
It's not an extra 18 per. He's going to be getting 7, 11, and 13 in arbitration in the next 3 years anyway so it's a bump up in the next three years yes and a bargain the last three years. Maybe 100 is a little high, 85 for 6, but there has to be motive for Duda to do the deal. Your talking about extending him through his only big money payday.
I mentioned the Napoli contract as one I'd be comfortable with, I think Duda is a 12 - 13M player TODAY. Of course if he explodes this year into a .900+ OPS guy he can be a 20M player, but the same risk is that he has a worse year and becomes a lesser player.
Which is why I think it's fair for him to sign say a 5 year 60 - 65M deal.
I'd use the Duda money to lock up Legares and DeGrom ASAP.
Then shoot my load and be the first to talk Boras into an early extension while TJS is fresh on everyone's mind.
Last - I'd pull an Astros and sign recent promoted kids to immediate extensions. We've been patient with the kids in the minors and know everything that you need to know about them alreadyy
And I'm sorry but DeGrom and Lagares aren't even close to as valuable to extending as Duda at this time. Lagares's game is built on speed. He is controlled on the Mets until he is in his 30s. Is he really going to be a gold glover then? Will his defense erode like Reyes? DeGrom? We control deGrom until 2021. He will be Way in his 30s. With the way pitchers erode over time, do we really think deGrom is going to be throwing 95 mph 6 years from now?? I doubt it. I'd have no problem extending them, but Duda is far more crucial with only three years left.
RE: RE: Collins isn't on the same page as anyone... Â
"The only concern we have is the sinker's not there right now," Collins said. "The velocity's good, the sinker's not working and I think it's a mechanical thing. We've got to go back to what works and not try to get too fancy."
Who is he talking about?
Familia.
Listen, I'm all for extending Duda but 6 for 100 Â
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
I mentioned the Napoli contract as one I'd be comfortable with, I think Duda is a 12 - 13M player TODAY. Of course if he explodes this year into a .900+ OPS guy he can be a 20M player, but the same risk is that he has a worse year and becomes a lesser player.
Which is why I think it's fair for him to sign say a 5 year 60 - 65M deal.
Yup, that is much more in the range of a fair deal. Duda gets the 30M he will presumably make the next 3 years guaranteed, plus another 30M or so on top of that. Passes up the chance the be a 32 year old FA, but considering it would take 3 great seasons to get there and be worth a massive contract I think it's a good deal for both sides. If I were him I'd rather have the guaranteed 60M than 30M tied to performance + the chance at more later. I'd probably want to some incentive clauses in there also (MVP voting, all star games, WS, etc.) but obviously that's all part of the CBA and i'm not an agent so not even going to speculate on that.
If Duda is willing to sacrifice some AAV for security... Â
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Duda has always had a better eye, better on base percentage, and a much purer swing. If you think Duda was a fluke last year, that's fine. I do not. And you can't let one weird case influence all future financial decisions.
Obviously for Sandy to be discussing extension, he shares my sentiment.
RE: RE: RE: Listen, I'm all for extending Duda but 6 for 100 Â
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Again, your not giving him an "extra" 100 million. You are tearing up his contract and giving that to him in liu of his current arbitration years. So it's only an extra 60-70 million. After thinking about it 100 million is a little high I agree, but you have to make it worth his while. If he proves he is legit, he's getting 30 per in three years on the open market hands down.
Duda has always had a better eye, better on base percentage, and a much purer swing. If you think Duda was a fluke last year, that's fine. I do not. And you can't let one weird case influence all future financial decisions.
Obviously for Sandy to be discussing extension, he shares my sentiment.
I don't think he was a fluke, but I really don't know. He wouldn't be the first guy to have a career year and not duplicate that success.
And I'm definitely not going to pay him like he's a sure thing for 30 HR's/100 RBI every year based on one season.
by starting out as hot as a house of fire the next season until he collided with DW and came down with Vallley fever and was never the same. Does that mean you don't invest and lock guys up until they do it multiple times? If yes, then don't go composing they could of signed him cheaper if they did it one year earlier. You got to trust your staff to evaluate the player's career path or why have a staff in the first place?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Listen, I'm all for extending Duda but 6 for 100 Â
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Again, your not giving him an "extra" 100 million. You are tearing up his contract and giving that to him in liu of his current arbitration years. So it's only an extra 60-70 million. After thinking about it 100 million is a little high I agree, but you have to make it worth his while. If he proves he is legit, he's getting 30 per in three years on the open market hands down.
Oh stop it...Duda is getting nowhere near 30 mil per year "hands down" if he proves to be legit. And legit meaning he's hitting 30+ HRs/100+ RBIs/.900+ OPS. There are currently TWO players making 30 Mil next year (Kershaw and Lester). Everyone else in the 20mil to 30mil range is either MUCH better than Duda could ever be or in the twilight years of a contract of a player that WAS much better than Duda will ever be.
Come on now, Duda will never be in that tier of players and certainly will not command 30 mil "hands down." Plus, that's kind of a hypercritical statement since you are always killing Dan for using his "100%"...just saying.
a replica of his 2014 season in 2015 I'd guess he'd be looking at 5-6 for 18-20 per. Docked for depth at 1b and zero defensive value, boosted by a rare tool (power), docked years wise for his age (he'd be 30 in year one). I'd guess 5 for 95 or so if I had to guess.
by starting out as hot as a house of fire the next season until he collided with DW and came down with Vallley fever and was never the same. Does that mean you don't invest and lock guys up until they do it multiple times? If yes, then don't go composing they could of signed him cheaper if they did it one year earlier. You got to trust your staff to evaluate the player's career path or why have a staff in the first place?
You have that backwards...Ike started off HOT in 2011 (although only for 36 games) and then followed that up with the 32 HR season. Also, I don't know if Ike Davis is the example you want to use. Ike Davis hit 32 HRs in 2012 but the rest of his stats were garbage. Plus he wasn't exactly burning down the house before that year.
Sure, you can blame the whole valley fever thing but the reality is that Ike didn't have a great swing (the hitch) as mentioned by MANY people and was a malcontent. He didn't have a history of being open to change and thought he was better than he actually was. Not surprisingly, he hasn't done much since that glimpse earlier in his career.
This is EXACTLY why you don't hand out 100 mil contracts to every player that "flashes" ability just to lock them up. Of course, there are times when you should and will...but Ike wasn't a great example to prove your point.
a replica of his 2014 season in 2015 I'd guess he'd be looking at 5-6 for 18-20 per. Docked for depth at 1b and zero defensive value, boosted by a rare tool (power), docked years wise for his age (he'd be 30 in year one). I'd guess 5 for 95 or so if I had to guess.
IF he replicated his 2014 #s, I'd still think that 20 mil per is high. I just don't see him in the same conversation as those upper tier 20+ mil per year type of first baseman. He doesn't have a long history of success like a lot of those players do and it took him until 29 to get there (or close to there)?
In the end, I think we want the same thing (extending) but we're just quibbling over the worth of the contract.
His 2014 three more times or God forbid improved even a little, he IS one of the best players in the game. Period.
You couldn't be any more wrong and it hurts. When has he ever been even close to .900 OPS? Four years ago with a half a season's worth of at bats? Come on dude, I like Duda but, as usual, you waaaay overboard with this.
More importantly is his first two were opposite field.
Reynolds again with nothing but GREAT ABs and hard hit balls
Gee with a horrendous start has settled down nicely.
Grandy again looking locked in at the plate.
Subs came in this inning.
Mayberry jogging to first I stead of at second if he runs on LF misjudging a liner. Reynolds next AB grounds into dp to 2b. Instead of runner at 3rd with one out. It's none on two out.
Mayberry jogging to first I stead of at second if he runs on LF misjudging a liner. Reynolds next AB grounds into dp to 2b. Instead of runner at 3rd with one out. It's none on two out.
You know, it's really not necessary to be a condescending prick...especially since nobody (me) said that fundamentals were meaningless. But, continue, this place is full of people that completely make shit up just to prove a point...why would you be any different.
Fu dame taps are vital for this team to have any chance.
But Colkins was probably fine with Tejada NOT covering 2b in time with Holliday on the back end of a double steal. No offense, I'm not calling you out for lack of fundamentals. It's directed at Collins...
We specifically had a conversation about fundamentals Â
by time you reach the big leagues, what where you taught in the minors?It is not the job a big league manager to teach fundamentals. This is not Little League
You teach them their whole life. But it's enforced in the big leagues. At least on winning teams. If you don't feel it should that's fine. Agree to disagree.
Phi. I know the conversation, but assure you it was t a dig at you. If it was, I would have said so.
Your coaching staff is there for a reason. To lay it at the feet of Collins is nitpicking. Blame it on Alderson if Wright doesn't look a runner back, makes as much sense as blaming Collins. I am not a Collins fan, but come on
my coaches to coach and my players to play. If someone makes a mental error, someone will discuss it when the guy gets to the dugout. If the player does it over and over, then the player is baseball stupid or the coaches can't coach. But to faint like sa teenage girl over a spring training game is silly.
Not sure why this is still going and you can't move on. You obviously want your manager to only got to the bullpen and bunt. I want mine to lead and not accept mediocrity. So what, we differ in opinion - move on.
I feel like I've heard barely a peep about him this spring. Is he the closer or is he just holding Parnell's spot?
He's the closer for now. Collins initially called it Parnell's job when he comes back but more recently he said something like "the best man for the job" etc I can't imagine they remove Mejia from the role if he's doing a good job. Would be very silly in fact.
Seemed like outside of a crappy outing a few days ago, he had been really solid this spring. I'd like to see him actually keep the job.
Also, is Gee officially the 5th starter or does Montero still have a shot?
Collins and Sandy both previously said Gee is the #5 but again more recently Collins has walked that back and implied while it's still likely Gee that Montero's performance against the Yankees has made them keep an open mind.
Both Reynolds and Muno who are vying for a spot if Murphy heads to the DL are batting the same .381 in 42 AB this spring. Reynolds does have a slight edge in HR's and RBI's.
Both Reynolds and Muno who are vying for a spot if Murphy heads to the DL are batting the same .381 in 42 AB this spring. Reynolds does have a slight edge in HR's and RBI's.
Reynolds makes more sense if Murphy is going to miss time, Muno makes more sense if this strictly a bench role.
RE: Montero can force himself into the conversation Â
about the Cubs waiting 12 games to bring up Bryant. To me it is a no brainer that will mean maybe $30 million dollar year being put off. But as someone pointed out that if the Cubs miss making the Playoffs by 1 game, was it the right thing to do to Cub fans ?
What if he's a complete bust (unlikely)? The what if game can go on forever.
But simple math says if he has a historic rookie season he will be worth 6 wins? A win a month. Half a win every two weeks. Odds are if the Cubs miss the playoffs by a game it wouldn't only be due to waiting two weeks for Bryant. That's just agent spun and agenda to get the fans mad at the club.
about the Cubs waiting 12 games to bring up Bryant. To me it is a no brainer that will mean maybe $30 million dollar year being put off. But as someone pointed out that if the Cubs miss making the Playoffs by 1 game, was it the right thing to do to Cub fans ?
Each season there is probably only a dozen or so close games that could have been won but aren't that really make the difference of whether or not a team makes the playoffs.
Sean Gilmartin, a Rule 5 pick from the #Twins, likely has earned a spot on #Mets' Opening Day roster. Details: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/99791/rule-5-pick-sean-gilmartin-likely-to-make-opening-day-roster …
hope the Mets don't give Duda more than 2 years extra (max). Anything more I think is playing with fire and with their payroll could be a disaster.
Agreed. I think it's going to end up being a base 5 year deal around 50M, with a big option year and some good bonuses built in. Maybe it eeks up to 60M, but they have a lot of leverage since he's 3 seasons away and already 29. Even guaranteeing his 30M or so for the next 3 years is a win for Duda.
hope the Mets don't give Duda more than 2 years extra (max). Anything more I think is playing with fire and with their payroll could be a disaster.
Agreed. I think it's going to end up being a base 5 year deal around 50M, with a big option year and some good bonuses built in. Maybe it eeks up to 60M, but they have a lot of leverage since he's 3 seasons away and already 29. Even guaranteeing his 30M or so for the next 3 years is a win for Duda.
I predicted 5 for 50 overall with incentives on NYFS (which would be a 2 year extension). Really would hate to see locking up Duda beyond that. Pretty unlikely it's a good deal years 5 and 6 so you hope for "only" 1 "bad" year in your worst case scenario. 6 years seems excessive. As noted above.. Ike Davis did in fact happen and 1 good year has happened before.
Guys who hit their stride as late of Duda did usually have a very short window of high level productivity. I'll worry about 2018-2020 when we get closer to those years. Of course, if it can be done on the cheap I wouldnt be dead set against it.
It's extremely debatable whether or not he could even get that on the open market, and it's obviously insane while he has 3 years of team control remaining. Adam Laroche just got 2 years 25M. If this contract exceeds that AAV given the leverage the Mets have I would be very surprised.
hope the Mets don't give Duda more than 2 years extra (max). Anything more I think is playing with fire and with their payroll could be a disaster.
Dan, duck and cover. A couple of people were advocating 6/$100 for Duda. And thought that was team friendly. Be prepared to be bombarded.
If Duda were a FA coming off 2 straight "2014's" then I could see that. Duda controlled for 3 years, coming off 1 good season, 29 this season 100 million would be insanity. 5 years (tearing up the 3 he has) 50-60 with maybe a huge team option for a 6th year (18-20 million). Seems more likely if this happens at all. As it is gambling even 50 million is a major gamble for a guy who wasn't even a league a
It's extremely debatable whether or not he could even get that on the open market, and it's obviously insane while he has 3 years of team control remaining. Adam Laroche just got 2 years 25M. If this contract exceeds that AAV given the leverage the Mets have I would be very surprised.
There is a 0% chance Lucas Duda off 1 really good (but not incredible) season scores 100 million. Coming off ANOTHER such season he likely gets his 80-100+. With 3 years of control left he's not sniffing anywhere near 100 million from the Mets.
There is a 0% chance Lucas Duda off 1 really good (but not incredible) season scores 100 million. Coming off ANOTHER such season he likely gets his 80-100+. With 3 years of control left he's not sniffing anywhere near 100 million from the Mets.
This.
The Mets already have Duda through 2017 at what will cost them, at worst, 30 million dollars (which would be something like 4/10/16 - I think 4/8/13 is a lot more likely for his actual arb year costs, which would be 25 million total). A $100 million deal essentially says that those three FA years are worth $70 million.
Giving big money to a 1B in his 30's - even his early 30's - is almost always a bad decision. Especially when it's a 1B carrying a lot of weight, which Duda is. I
If I was the Mets I would offer Duda 6/$70, which prices his age 32-34 seasons at ~$15M each assuming his arbitration years are worth $25M. If anything, 6/$70 is still above market rate for this type of extension - Christian Yelich just got 7/$50 with a team option to give up three years of FA, and Yelich (a) will be in his 20's for the entire duration of that contract, (b) has a body type that is much more likely to age well, and (c) just had a 4.6 WAR season - the odds that Duda ever has a single season worth 4.6 WAR are fairly low considering that Duda is a minus defensive first baseman. And that Yelich deal was notable because he got significantly more money than Marte got the year before, when Marte was in virtually the same situation. Yelich and Marte are both farther from FA than Duda is, but even if you removed the pre-arb years from those contracts, it's highly unlikely Yelich or Marte get meaningfully more than 6/$70 despite having both higher floors and higher ceilings than Duda.
of Duda, but considering his age, the fact that we have him under control for 3 seasons, and that he's only had one "good" MLB season, I'm not sure giving him a huge contract really makes sense. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, it's just that I'm really curious to see what the terms of the deal would be.
The "worst" case if we do nothing and he continues to produce like last year is that we have him for three more years and (i) we resign him for market value, or (ii) he leaves and we get a 1st round pick.
I'd rather be working to sign Lagares to something.
There is a 0% chance Lucas Duda off 1 really good (but not incredible) season scores 100 million. Coming off ANOTHER such season he likely gets his 80-100+. With 3 years of control left he's not sniffing anywhere near 100 million from the Mets.
This.
The Mets already have Duda through 2017 at what will cost them, at worst, 30 million dollars (which would be something like 4/10/16 - I think 4/8/13 is a lot more likely for his actual arb year costs, which would be 25 million total). A $100 million deal essentially says that those three FA years are worth $70 million.
Giving big money to a 1B in his 30's - even his early 30's - is almost always a bad decision. Especially when it's a 1B carrying a lot of weight, which Duda is. I
If I was the Mets I would offer Duda 6/$70, which prices his age 32-34 seasons at ~$15M each assuming his arbitration years are worth $25M. If anything, 6/$70 is still above market rate for this type of extension - Christian Yelich just got 7/$50 with a team option to give up three years of FA, and Yelich (a) will be in his 20's for the entire duration of that contract, (b) has a body type that is much more likely to age well, and (c) just had a 4.6 WAR season - the odds that Duda ever has a single season worth 4.6 WAR are fairly low considering that Duda is a minus defensive first baseman. And that Yelich deal was notable because he got significantly more money than Marte got the year before, when Marte was in virtually the same situation. Yelich and Marte are both farther from FA than Duda is, but even if you removed the pre-arb years from those contracts, it's highly unlikely Yelich or Marte get meaningfully more than 6/$70 despite having both higher floors and higher ceilings than Duda.
I doubt the Mets on many/most decisions but I have to believe their thinking is FAR closer to this than some megadeal 100+ million. It would be truly bonkers in my opinion. Even if he had a Jose Abreu INSANE season... he's still controlled for the next 3 meaning they still would have the leverage. He had a very good season, I'm not hating on Duda at all but as Eric pointed out... LaRoche got 2 for 25 for an .817 OPS and proven track record. 1b just isn't a position you need to pay an insane amount for good production. If this gets done I'm expecting roughly 12-13 AAV
in a long breakdown of the most arcane offensive and defensive statistics on Lucas Duda value him at $16.6 million a year
His value isn't really that relevant to the Mets. They hold the leverage. So even if Duda were "worth" based on 2014 output 5 for 83 or 6 for 100... he's not getting his "value" from the Mets right now hold all of the cards. Duda can choose to play it out and very possibly make 25-40 over the next 3 seasons (running the risk of being non-tendered with a bad season mixed in there) and then (assuming he's 2014 good) for 3 more years THEN score his "big" deal (remember he will turning 33 so even then his deal would be limited somewhat). Or he can guarantee himself 60-70 million.
I'd be fairly surprised if it was the Mets approaching Duda, or their idea for an extension. Just a wild guess, but I would imagine it was Dudas agent approaching the Mets about an extension.
Most certainly wouldn't pay a guy what he was worth for 1 standout season 5-6 years of that when I have no pressure to do so. The worst case is a 70 million dollar turd on a cheap team. Absolute worst case not only giving him a team friendly offer is Duda becoming a superstar and having to give him a monster deal in 3 years. The Mets are the ones taking on the majority of the risk as it is.
Exactly - his actual "value" is discounted by cost control Â
Even if the Mets take the leap that there's no regression or injury risk, agreeing to not only guarantee his next 3 years and but also tack on 2 additional years at his open market value per season, that would be like 75M. The Mets hold all the leverage here and the downside for Duda is likely not worth risking when the Mets offer him less than his best case scenario over the next 5 years (which will probably be somewhere between 50-60M).
Lucas Duda would have been non-tendered any other year of his career before 2014. To be clear, I actually like Duda a lot and liked him WAY more than Ike when this debate was raging but the whole point of these deals is to keep costs down. 100 million for Duda off of 1 season where again (VERY GOOD) but not amazing. He was the 64th most valuable position player in baseball. Obviously him having a rare tool (power) likely makes him more valuable than that BUT even strictly on offense he was still "only" the 6th best 1b in baseball in 2014. Duda either takes a nice raise and security or the Mets let this playout. No chance he's getting 100+ million today.
I do think that last year being a mostly full time player will translate into a better season without Ike Davis splitting time. This will be his first year of being the full time first baseman and I'm expecting better power numbers that last year with the RF fence moved in at Citi Field
I do think that last year being a mostly full time player will translate into a better season without Ike Davis splitting time. This will be his first year of being the full time first baseman and I'm expecting better power numbers that last year with the RF fence moved in at Citi Field
HH,
Not being snarky but you sort of "have to" care what they pay him if you care about the success of the Mets because until/unless the payroll goes up, every "penny" counts. There is nothing that stops the Mets from talking to Duda again at mid-season if he's having a monster half and they have "seen enough". But 70 million would still be about DOUBLE what he's due.
Torres has a strong lower half that helps him produce lively stuff. His low-90s fastball has outstanding movement, and his changeup is just as effective. . . .Scouts laud his competitiveness.
From the FG review of the moves last offseason between TB and SD:
Quote:
There is definitely something there with Torres though, who was fantastic last season for Tampa Bay — serviceable against right-handed hitters, and phenomenal against left-handed hitters. He only faced 88 of them, so the sample is pretty small, but the results were overwhelmingly encouraging nonetheless. Only 21 of them reached, and his resultant 1.24 FIP against lefties was bettered only by Koji Uehara and Trevor Rosenthal. Torres should fit into the back of San Diego’s bullpen with Huston Street and Joaquin Benoit, and if Bud Black uses him the way Joe Maddon used him, he will be much more than a LOOGY. Last year, Torres was used as a LOOGY — only one batter faced — in two of his 39 appearances, and he worked at least one inning in 34 of the 39.
and made $25 million last year according to Forbes, I'm supposed to worry where the Mets come up with dollars to sign players? I don't think so
Do you feel the Mets operate in a way that suggests this valuation? Do you feel the Mets spend in a way that 25 million in profit is put back into the team?
that the Mets are not operating like the Dodgers or Red Sox. When there is a guy they target and need to sign and can't, then I'll worry about their ability or lack thereof.
I doubt the Mets on many/most decisions but I have to believe their thinking is FAR closer to this than some megadeal 100+ million. It would be truly bonkers in my opinion. Even if he had a Jose Abreu INSANE season... he's still controlled for the next 3 meaning they still would have the leverage. He had a very good season, I'm not hating on Duda at all but as Eric pointed out... LaRoche got 2 for 25 for an .817 OPS and proven track record. 1b just isn't a position you need to pay an insane amount for good production. If this gets done I'm expecting roughly 12-13 AAV
Right. If he gets 6/$70 I can at least see it from both sides - Duda gets his security, and if Duda's breakout is real and he's worth 15 wins over the next six years (which is not a conservative projection but is reachable if things break right), then the Mets come out ahead. But even at $6/70 there's a very real chance the Mets end up regretting that deal.
After thinking about it more, if I'm the Mets I would start lower than that and either try to set up some of those FA years as team options. 5/$45 with a $15M team option would be a win for the Mets and still puts Duda in a situation where he's set for life. There's just not a substantial likelihood that the Mets end up regretting not paying for Duda's age-33 and age-34 seasons.
that the Mets are not operating like the Dodgers or Red Sox. When there is a guy they target and need to sign and can't, then I'll worry about their ability or lack thereof.
But they are bottom 10 in payroll so the Sox and Dodgers aren't really fair comps. How about being in the 10-15 range like their market and "ready to compete" suggests?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: 100M for Duda would be insane Â
I doubt the Mets on many/most decisions but I have to believe their thinking is FAR closer to this than some megadeal 100+ million. It would be truly bonkers in my opinion. Even if he had a Jose Abreu INSANE season... he's still controlled for the next 3 meaning they still would have the leverage. He had a very good season, I'm not hating on Duda at all but as Eric pointed out... LaRoche got 2 for 25 for an .817 OPS and proven track record. 1b just isn't a position you need to pay an insane amount for good production. If this gets done I'm expecting roughly 12-13 AAV
Right. If he gets 6/$70 I can at least see it from both sides - Duda gets his security, and if Duda's breakout is real and he's worth 15 wins over the next six years (which is not a conservative projection but is reachable if things break right), then the Mets come out ahead. But even at $6/70 there's a very real chance the Mets end up regretting that deal.
After thinking about it more, if I'm the Mets I would start lower than that and either try to set up some of those FA years as team options. 5/$45 with a $15M team option would be a win for the Mets and still puts Duda in a situation where he's set for life. There's just not a substantial likelihood that the Mets end up regretting not paying for Duda's age-33 and age-34 seasons.
I actually expect the final numbers to be lower than the 6/70 we are talking about. I just don't see Sandy Alderson viewing locking up Duda as some great need unless the price is strongly in the Mets favor.
RE: RE: Yeah a team valued at 1.3 billion dollars Â
and made $25 million last year according to Forbes, I'm supposed to worry where the Mets come up with dollars to sign players? I don't think so
Do you feel the Mets operate in a way that suggests this valuation? Do you feel the Mets spend in a way that 25 million in profit is put back into the team?
The reported profit # is really meaningless. How much profit from operations went to related entities? For example, SNY reportedly pays the Mets 60-70 million per season. The Dodgers' deal averaged out to $350+ million per season, so even assuming that year 1 only pays 50% of the average, that's an extra 100 million in value over what the Mets make. That difference (or some number close to it) is excess profit that flows to Mets ownership thru their majority stake in SNY. And obviously SNY has a profit margin on top of that, which could be attributed to team profits.
Not factoring non-stadium debt, I cant see how the Mets (team + SNY stake + stadium) would be worth less than the Clippers, who sold for $200 million.
that the Mets are not operating like the Dodgers or Red Sox. When there is a guy they target and need to sign and can't, then I'll worry about their ability or lack thereof.
But they're not just operating on a different level than the Dodgers and Red Sox - they're operating on a different level than the Mariners and the Orioles and the White Sox and even the Royals, who are spending more than $115M in a tiny market with a terrible TV deal. And that's after the Royals let James Shields walk.
What constitutes "they target a guy they need and can't sign him?" The more likely scenario is that the FO sees the budget constraints they have to operate within and decides not to target high-level FA in the first place because they know they're out of the running before negotiations even start. There are a lot of ways that payroll constraints can hamper the Mets that won't manifest as "oh, we really want player X, he's a key target for us" followed by the Mets not getting that player. Kansas City Royals payroll (Spotrac) - ( New Window )
But they are bottom 10 in payroll so the Sox and Dodgers aren't really fair comps. How about being in the 10-15 range like their market and "ready to compete" suggests?
By market size Mets would be #3-5, which is consistent with past spending patterns for the Mets.
New York market is #1 at 23.5 million people in the metro area. If you assign just 1/3 of the market to the Mets (which may be a hair low), Mets market is 7.8 million. As a stand alone area that would be the #6 market, after NY-Yankees, LA, Chicago, DC, SF/O, and Boston, but bigger than Philly. Except of those markets, only Boston completely dominates its region. LA, Chicago, and SF each have two teams, and DC probably bleeds a ton of support to Baltimore (not sure how much). Link - ( New Window )
to spend on FAs, Johnny Peralta would've been our SS. Sources everywhere said that the Mets loved Peralta and were going to aggressively go after him and they immediately backed off once they saw what the asking price was.
He played great for the Cardinals last year, as they went to the playoffs yet again, and the Mets started Reuben Tejada.
RE: RE: Montero can force himself into the conversation Â
I actually expect the final numbers to be lower than the 6/70 we are talking about. I just don't see Sandy Alderson viewing locking up Duda as some great need unless the price is strongly in the Mets favor.
I like Metnut's suggestion of trying to lock up Lagares - that extension is likely to be a lot cheaper, especially because Lagares wasn't a big bonus IFA and is still pre-arb, and he's likely to age well.
Interesting comment from Rubin on twitter re: Duda Â
Says he's writing up a blog now with some info on the #'s being discussed for Duda, and this was a hint he sent out:
Quote:
Adam Rubin @AdamRubinESPN · 34m 34 minutes ago
Yeah, you'd be way off. RT @keahpa: I’m gonna say 5 years 72 million because I’m a person on Twitter
More
I'd be pretty shocked if that guys is "way off" on the low side.
The option would be a team option around 12M. Would be an excellent deal if true. Lucas Duda deal could be worth roughly 4 years, $31M - ( New Window )
That is a great sign if those numbers are accurate.
RE: And here it is from Rubin - 4 years 31M, with an option year Â
The option would be a team option around 12M. Would be an excellent deal if true. Lucas Duda deal could be worth roughly 4 years, $31M - ( New Window )
No brainer. I thought 5 for 50 would have gotten it done so 4 for 31 with a max of 4 for 43 is a no-brainer.
That is an excellent deal. Checks all the boxes - below market rate, team option, avoids a 6th year, and yet isn't unfair to Duda (if it was he always had the option to not sign it).
I wonder if there's a buyout on the team option - probably $1M or $2M, something like that.
So the average value of the equivalent four years for the other players' contracts is roughly $31 million, with an option year at nearly $13 million. Any Duda deal would supersede, or at least incorporate, the $4.2 million Duda already is owed this season.
The Mets would be unlikely to commit to any deal that did not extend at least four years, which would mean covering at least one year of free agency.
That is an excellent deal. Checks all the boxes - below market rate, team option, avoids a 6th year, and yet isn't unfair to Duda (if it was he always had the option to not sign it).
I wonder if there's a buyout on the team option - probably $1M or $2M, something like that.
Gotta believe there is some sort of buyout. What's in it for Duda to accept an option with ZERO insurance.
Adam Rubin
Exclusive: Talks between #Mets and Lucas Duda's reps on long-term contract end. Full details Link - ( New Window )
Finally, some good news (ducks)
Not sure why his agent wants to play hardball when all he has to do is work out a fair deal. You approach the team, then give them a nonsense dealine - lol. I don't think the Mets are overly afraid of going arbitration year to year with Duda. Even if they 'lose' each year.
long term. The thing is Duda is 29 and he did it for 1 year. If they don't get it done and Duda has similar numbers this year, his leverage increase. I like
the Mets being proactive with Duda, hooefully its a sign of things to come
Depends on the numbers, if it's team friendly (like our discussion last week) I like it.
.. - ( New Window )
This should give us a little peace of mind regarding that Long feels he can help Duda adjust and hit lefties better.
This will be fun to watch over the season
Earl 30's 1b don't tend to do well in free agency so I just don't see such a huge risk of letting him play out his arbitration years.
Lagares is the guy they need to be doing this with first if they're interested in doing it, though.
Earl 30's 1b don't tend to do well in free agency so I just don't see such a huge risk of letting him play out his arbitration years.
If he was blocking someone I can see the hesitation, but there is no one on the immediate horizon at 1B and Smith needs to show something this year or the long-term horizon looks bleak too.
I'm not so sure about free agent 1B's either, I think someone like Napoli's deal is the best you'll get.
I'm expecting Duda to sign for less and hopefully outperform those numbers in a pitchers park.
Second, let's assume Duda 2014 is repeated. Do you expect him to do that for the next six years? Personally I can see one or two, not six.
Third, let's assume the mets have no one in the pipeline, and Duda keeps repeating. Mets have him cost controlled the next three seasons - what did they gain going six? Basically a 3/$60mm contract after his cost control is done. That's some serious coin reserved for the top, top first baseman. The risk - a massive commitment that the Mets have finally figured out to avoid.
Lastly, just an opinion. Best way to ruin Dudas 2015 is the pressure of living up to a massive contract in NYC.
Then shoot my load and be the first to talk Boras into an early extension while TJS is fresh on everyone's mind.
Last - I'd pull an Astros and sign recent promoted kids to immediate extensions. We've been patient with the kids in the minors and know everything that you need to know about them alreadyy
Of course he wouldn't be done. Duda doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on him for his age. His game doesn't rely on speed either so there is no reason to believe that he would be done at such an early age.
If they can sign him for the right price they should, but there is no reason to have to rush this either and IMO it will sort itself out one way or another. They have plenty of time with Duda.
So if Duda doesn't repeat 2014 that means he is "done? Lol
The question is do you want to sign Duda to three one year non obligated contracts at the tail of his prime to 3/$30? Or do you lock in now at 6 $100 today, if you can? To me personally, it is a no brainer. To others it is a no brainer for the opposite decision.
$18 mil per year for a 29 year old first baseman thats had one quality year? You are out of your mind.
Who is he talking about?
Quote:
6 year, 100 million dollar deal right now. Would give him a nice bump in salary now, and it gives us essentially a three year cost effective extension. 18 million per would be real nice.
$18 mil per year for a 29 year old first baseman thats had one quality year? You are out of your mind.
It's not an extra 18 per. He's going to be getting 7, 11, and 13 in arbitration in the next 3 years anyway so it's a bump up in the next three years yes and a bargain the last three years. Maybe 100 is a little high, 85 for 6, but there has to be motive for Duda to do the deal. Your talking about extending him through his only big money payday.
I mentioned the Napoli contract as one I'd be comfortable with, I think Duda is a 12 - 13M player TODAY. Of course if he explodes this year into a .900+ OPS guy he can be a 20M player, but the same risk is that he has a worse year and becomes a lesser player.
Which is why I think it's fair for him to sign say a 5 year 60 - 65M deal.
Then shoot my load and be the first to talk Boras into an early extension while TJS is fresh on everyone's mind.
Last - I'd pull an Astros and sign recent promoted kids to immediate extensions. We've been patient with the kids in the minors and know everything that you need to know about them alreadyy
And I'm sorry but DeGrom and Lagares aren't even close to as valuable to extending as Duda at this time. Lagares's game is built on speed. He is controlled on the Mets until he is in his 30s. Is he really going to be a gold glover then? Will his defense erode like Reyes? DeGrom? We control deGrom until 2021. He will be Way in his 30s. With the way pitchers erode over time, do we really think deGrom is going to be throwing 95 mph 6 years from now?? I doubt it. I'd have no problem extending them, but Duda is far more crucial with only three years left.
Quote:
"The only concern we have is the sinker's not there right now," Collins said. "The velocity's good, the sinker's not working and I think it's a mechanical thing. We've got to go back to what works and not try to get too fancy."
Who is he talking about?
Familia.
I mentioned the Napoli contract as one I'd be comfortable with, I think Duda is a 12 - 13M player TODAY. Of course if he explodes this year into a .900+ OPS guy he can be a 20M player, but the same risk is that he has a worse year and becomes a lesser player.
Which is why I think it's fair for him to sign say a 5 year 60 - 65M deal.
Yup, that is much more in the range of a fair deal. Duda gets the 30M he will presumably make the next 3 years guaranteed, plus another 30M or so on top of that. Passes up the chance the be a 32 year old FA, but considering it would take 3 great seasons to get there and be worth a massive contract I think it's a good deal for both sides. If I were him I'd rather have the guaranteed 60M than 30M tied to performance + the chance at more later. I'd probably want to some incentive clauses in there also (MVP voting, all star games, WS, etc.) but obviously that's all part of the CBA and i'm not an agent so not even going to speculate on that.
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Quote:
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Obviously for Sandy to be discussing extension, he shares my sentiment.
Quote:
In comment 12209001 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Again, your not giving him an "extra" 100 million. You are tearing up his contract and giving that to him in liu of his current arbitration years. So it's only an extra 60-70 million. After thinking about it 100 million is a little high I agree, but you have to make it worth his while. If he proves he is legit, he's getting 30 per in three years on the open market hands down.
Obviously for Sandy to be discussing extension, he shares my sentiment.
I don't think he was a fluke, but I really don't know. He wouldn't be the first guy to have a career year and not duplicate that success.
And I'm definitely not going to pay him like he's a sure thing for 30 HR's/100 RBI every year based on one season.
Quote:
In comment 12209033 ZGiants98 said:
Quote:
In comment 12209001 PhiPsi125 said:
Quote:
is insanity. His good year last year can be just as much a fluke as it was a precursor of things to come. And the fact that he just "found it" at 29 years old doesn't exactly invoke the confidence that he will be a stud moving forward. Especially coming off of his spectacularly craptastic spring training (I know he had the injury, but still).
2 homeruns in two weeks after an injury isn't exactly "crappy". Nevertheless, if he hits 25-30 HR this year, and I believe he will, the negotiations are over. He'll have no reason to extend in a year when he'll be worth a boatload on the open market in two years.
Yes, 6 for 35 with 17 Ks is pretty crappy. Small sample size? Of course, but still crappy.
If you want to extend him for a more reasonable contract, then fine. Otherwise, you want to go into the 100 mil territory then prove that it wasn't fluke.
Again, your not giving him an "extra" 100 million. You are tearing up his contract and giving that to him in liu of his current arbitration years. So it's only an extra 60-70 million. After thinking about it 100 million is a little high I agree, but you have to make it worth his while. If he proves he is legit, he's getting 30 per in three years on the open market hands down.
Oh stop it...Duda is getting nowhere near 30 mil per year "hands down" if he proves to be legit. And legit meaning he's hitting 30+ HRs/100+ RBIs/.900+ OPS. There are currently TWO players making 30 Mil next year (Kershaw and Lester). Everyone else in the 20mil to 30mil range is either MUCH better than Duda could ever be or in the twilight years of a contract of a player that WAS much better than Duda will ever be.
Come on now, Duda will never be in that tier of players and certainly will not command 30 mil "hands down." Plus, that's kind of a hypercritical statement since you are always killing Dan for using his "100%"...just saying.
You have that backwards...Ike started off HOT in 2011 (although only for 36 games) and then followed that up with the 32 HR season. Also, I don't know if Ike Davis is the example you want to use. Ike Davis hit 32 HRs in 2012 but the rest of his stats were garbage. Plus he wasn't exactly burning down the house before that year.
Sure, you can blame the whole valley fever thing but the reality is that Ike didn't have a great swing (the hitch) as mentioned by MANY people and was a malcontent. He didn't have a history of being open to change and thought he was better than he actually was. Not surprisingly, he hasn't done much since that glimpse earlier in his career.
This is EXACTLY why you don't hand out 100 mil contracts to every player that "flashes" ability just to lock them up. Of course, there are times when you should and will...but Ike wasn't a great example to prove your point.
IF he replicated his 2014 #s, I'd still think that 20 mil per is high. I just don't see him in the same conversation as those upper tier 20+ mil per year type of first baseman. He doesn't have a long history of success like a lot of those players do and it took him until 29 to get there (or close to there)?
In the end, I think we want the same thing (extending) but we're just quibbling over the worth of the contract.
2014 was a career year for him by far and he was 64th in MLB hitters in WAR.
Maybe if you jut mean HR's in which he was 11th, but being 64th in WAR is not one of the best players in the game unless that's your bar.
I like Duda, but I think you overestimate his 2014.
You couldn't be any more wrong and it hurts. When has he ever been even close to .900 OPS? Four years ago with a half a season's worth of at bats? Come on dude, I like Duda but, as usual, you waaaay overboard with this.
More importantly is his first two were opposite field.
Reynolds again with nothing but GREAT ABs and hard hit balls
Gee with a horrendous start has settled down nicely.
Grandy again looking locked in at the plate.
Subs came in this inning.
You know, it's really not necessary to be a condescending prick...especially since nobody (me) said that fundamentals were meaningless. But, continue, this place is full of people that completely make shit up just to prove a point...why would you be any different.
But Colkins was probably fine with Tejada NOT covering 2b in time with Holliday on the back end of a double steal. No offense, I'm not calling you out for lack of fundamentals. It's directed at Collins...
My apologies if that is not the case.
Phi. I know the conversation, but assure you it was t a dig at you. If it was, I would have said so.
What's your point?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
He's the closer for now. Collins initially called it Parnell's job when he comes back but more recently he said something like "the best man for the job" etc I can't imagine they remove Mejia from the role if he's doing a good job. Would be very silly in fact.
Also, is Gee officially the 5th starter or does Montero still have a shot?
Also, is Gee officially the 5th starter or does Montero still have a shot?
Collins and Sandy both previously said Gee is the #5 but again more recently Collins has walked that back and implied while it's still likely Gee that Montero's performance against the Yankees has made them keep an open mind.
Reynolds makes more sense if Murphy is going to miss time, Muno makes more sense if this strictly a bench role.
I'm fairly certain he can throw a no hitter today and still open in the pen.
But simple math says if he has a historic rookie season he will be worth 6 wins? A win a month. Half a win every two weeks. Odds are if the Cubs miss the playoffs by a game it wouldn't only be due to waiting two weeks for Bryant. That's just agent spun and agenda to get the fans mad at the club.
Sean Gilmartin, a Rule 5 pick from the #Twins, likely has earned a spot on #Mets' Opening Day roster. Details: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/99791/rule-5-pick-sean-gilmartin-likely-to-make-opening-day-roster …
Agreed. I think it's going to end up being a base 5 year deal around 50M, with a big option year and some good bonuses built in. Maybe it eeks up to 60M, but they have a lot of leverage since he's 3 seasons away and already 29. Even guaranteeing his 30M or so for the next 3 years is a win for Duda.
Quote:
hope the Mets don't give Duda more than 2 years extra (max). Anything more I think is playing with fire and with their payroll could be a disaster.
Agreed. I think it's going to end up being a base 5 year deal around 50M, with a big option year and some good bonuses built in. Maybe it eeks up to 60M, but they have a lot of leverage since he's 3 seasons away and already 29. Even guaranteeing his 30M or so for the next 3 years is a win for Duda.
I predicted 5 for 50 overall with incentives on NYFS (which would be a 2 year extension). Really would hate to see locking up Duda beyond that. Pretty unlikely it's a good deal years 5 and 6 so you hope for "only" 1 "bad" year in your worst case scenario. 6 years seems excessive. As noted above.. Ike Davis did in fact happen and 1 good year has happened before.
Mejia
Familia
Torres
Monty
Carlyle
Gilmartin
Is the pen
Dan, duck and cover. A couple of people were advocating 6/$100 for Duda. And thought that was team friendly. Be prepared to be bombarded.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
hope the Mets don't give Duda more than 2 years extra (max). Anything more I think is playing with fire and with their payroll could be a disaster.
Dan, duck and cover. A couple of people were advocating 6/$100 for Duda. And thought that was team friendly. Be prepared to be bombarded.
If Duda were a FA coming off 2 straight "2014's" then I could see that. Duda controlled for 3 years, coming off 1 good season, 29 this season 100 million would be insanity. 5 years (tearing up the 3 he has) 50-60 with maybe a huge team option for a 6th year (18-20 million). Seems more likely if this happens at all. As it is gambling even 50 million is a major gamble for a guy who wasn't even a league a
There is a 0% chance Lucas Duda off 1 really good (but not incredible) season scores 100 million. Coming off ANOTHER such season he likely gets his 80-100+. With 3 years of control left he's not sniffing anywhere near 100 million from the Mets.
This.
The Mets already have Duda through 2017 at what will cost them, at worst, 30 million dollars (which would be something like 4/10/16 - I think 4/8/13 is a lot more likely for his actual arb year costs, which would be 25 million total). A $100 million deal essentially says that those three FA years are worth $70 million.
Giving big money to a 1B in his 30's - even his early 30's - is almost always a bad decision. Especially when it's a 1B carrying a lot of weight, which Duda is. I
If I was the Mets I would offer Duda 6/$70, which prices his age 32-34 seasons at ~$15M each assuming his arbitration years are worth $25M. If anything, 6/$70 is still above market rate for this type of extension - Christian Yelich just got 7/$50 with a team option to give up three years of FA, and Yelich (a) will be in his 20's for the entire duration of that contract, (b) has a body type that is much more likely to age well, and (c) just had a 4.6 WAR season - the odds that Duda ever has a single season worth 4.6 WAR are fairly low considering that Duda is a minus defensive first baseman. And that Yelich deal was notable because he got significantly more money than Marte got the year before, when Marte was in virtually the same situation. Yelich and Marte are both farther from FA than Duda is, but even if you removed the pre-arb years from those contracts, it's highly unlikely Yelich or Marte get meaningfully more than 6/$70 despite having both higher floors and higher ceilings than Duda.
The "worst" case if we do nothing and he continues to produce like last year is that we have him for three more years and (i) we resign him for market value, or (ii) he leaves and we get a 1st round pick.
I'd rather be working to sign Lagares to something.
Good call Dan. Let's just hope Murphy isn't out a while by reggravating the hammy.
Quote:
There is a 0% chance Lucas Duda off 1 really good (but not incredible) season scores 100 million. Coming off ANOTHER such season he likely gets his 80-100+. With 3 years of control left he's not sniffing anywhere near 100 million from the Mets.
This.
The Mets already have Duda through 2017 at what will cost them, at worst, 30 million dollars (which would be something like 4/10/16 - I think 4/8/13 is a lot more likely for his actual arb year costs, which would be 25 million total). A $100 million deal essentially says that those three FA years are worth $70 million.
Giving big money to a 1B in his 30's - even his early 30's - is almost always a bad decision. Especially when it's a 1B carrying a lot of weight, which Duda is. I
If I was the Mets I would offer Duda 6/$70, which prices his age 32-34 seasons at ~$15M each assuming his arbitration years are worth $25M. If anything, 6/$70 is still above market rate for this type of extension - Christian Yelich just got 7/$50 with a team option to give up three years of FA, and Yelich (a) will be in his 20's for the entire duration of that contract, (b) has a body type that is much more likely to age well, and (c) just had a 4.6 WAR season - the odds that Duda ever has a single season worth 4.6 WAR are fairly low considering that Duda is a minus defensive first baseman. And that Yelich deal was notable because he got significantly more money than Marte got the year before, when Marte was in virtually the same situation. Yelich and Marte are both farther from FA than Duda is, but even if you removed the pre-arb years from those contracts, it's highly unlikely Yelich or Marte get meaningfully more than 6/$70 despite having both higher floors and higher ceilings than Duda.
I doubt the Mets on many/most decisions but I have to believe their thinking is FAR closer to this than some megadeal 100+ million. It would be truly bonkers in my opinion. Even if he had a Jose Abreu INSANE season... he's still controlled for the next 3 meaning they still would have the leverage. He had a very good season, I'm not hating on Duda at all but as Eric pointed out... LaRoche got 2 for 25 for an .817 OPS and proven track record. 1b just isn't a position you need to pay an insane amount for good production. If this gets done I'm expecting roughly 12-13 AAV
Link - ( New Window )
His value isn't really that relevant to the Mets. They hold the leverage. So even if Duda were "worth" based on 2014 output 5 for 83 or 6 for 100... he's not getting his "value" from the Mets right now hold all of the cards. Duda can choose to play it out and very possibly make 25-40 over the next 3 seasons (running the risk of being non-tendered with a bad season mixed in there) and then (assuming he's 2014 good) for 3 more years THEN score his "big" deal (remember he will turning 33 so even then his deal would be limited somewhat). Or he can guarantee himself 60-70 million.
HH,
If I'm looking at the same 16.6 million... that's what Duda has been worth for the entirety of his career, not his "value" going forward.
Most certainly wouldn't pay a guy what he was worth for 1 standout season 5-6 years of that when I have no pressure to do so. The worst case is a 70 million dollar turd on a cheap team. Absolute worst case not only giving him a team friendly offer is Duda becoming a superstar and having to give him a monster deal in 3 years. The Mets are the ones taking on the majority of the risk as it is.
DiComo reports
interesting addition
HH,
Not being snarky but you sort of "have to" care what they pay him if you care about the success of the Mets because until/unless the payroll goes up, every "penny" counts. There is nothing that stops the Mets from talking to Duda again at mid-season if he's having a monster half and they have "seen enough". But 70 million would still be about DOUBLE what he's due.
interesting addition
Really dig this move assuming the PTNL isn't significant.
Okay whatever floats your boat. Salary to each player matters.
Do you feel the Mets operate in a way that suggests this valuation? Do you feel the Mets spend in a way that 25 million in profit is put back into the team?
Given the bottom 10 MLB payroll multi-years running, I'm certainly worried where the Mets will come up with dollars to sign players.
Right. If he gets 6/$70 I can at least see it from both sides - Duda gets his security, and if Duda's breakout is real and he's worth 15 wins over the next six years (which is not a conservative projection but is reachable if things break right), then the Mets come out ahead. But even at $6/70 there's a very real chance the Mets end up regretting that deal.
After thinking about it more, if I'm the Mets I would start lower than that and either try to set up some of those FA years as team options. 5/$45 with a $15M team option would be a win for the Mets and still puts Duda in a situation where he's set for life. There's just not a substantial likelihood that the Mets end up regretting not paying for Duda's age-33 and age-34 seasons.
But they are bottom 10 in payroll so the Sox and Dodgers aren't really fair comps. How about being in the 10-15 range like their market and "ready to compete" suggests?
Quote:
I doubt the Mets on many/most decisions but I have to believe their thinking is FAR closer to this than some megadeal 100+ million. It would be truly bonkers in my opinion. Even if he had a Jose Abreu INSANE season... he's still controlled for the next 3 meaning they still would have the leverage. He had a very good season, I'm not hating on Duda at all but as Eric pointed out... LaRoche got 2 for 25 for an .817 OPS and proven track record. 1b just isn't a position you need to pay an insane amount for good production. If this gets done I'm expecting roughly 12-13 AAV
Right. If he gets 6/$70 I can at least see it from both sides - Duda gets his security, and if Duda's breakout is real and he's worth 15 wins over the next six years (which is not a conservative projection but is reachable if things break right), then the Mets come out ahead. But even at $6/70 there's a very real chance the Mets end up regretting that deal.
After thinking about it more, if I'm the Mets I would start lower than that and either try to set up some of those FA years as team options. 5/$45 with a $15M team option would be a win for the Mets and still puts Duda in a situation where he's set for life. There's just not a substantial likelihood that the Mets end up regretting not paying for Duda's age-33 and age-34 seasons.
I actually expect the final numbers to be lower than the 6/70 we are talking about. I just don't see Sandy Alderson viewing locking up Duda as some great need unless the price is strongly in the Mets favor.
Quote:
and made $25 million last year according to Forbes, I'm supposed to worry where the Mets come up with dollars to sign players? I don't think so
Do you feel the Mets operate in a way that suggests this valuation? Do you feel the Mets spend in a way that 25 million in profit is put back into the team?
The reported profit # is really meaningless. How much profit from operations went to related entities? For example, SNY reportedly pays the Mets 60-70 million per season. The Dodgers' deal averaged out to $350+ million per season, so even assuming that year 1 only pays 50% of the average, that's an extra 100 million in value over what the Mets make. That difference (or some number close to it) is excess profit that flows to Mets ownership thru their majority stake in SNY. And obviously SNY has a profit margin on top of that, which could be attributed to team profits.
Not factoring non-stadium debt, I cant see how the Mets (team + SNY stake + stadium) would be worth less than the Clippers, who sold for $200 million.
But they're not just operating on a different level than the Dodgers and Red Sox - they're operating on a different level than the Mariners and the Orioles and the White Sox and even the Royals, who are spending more than $115M in a tiny market with a terrible TV deal. And that's after the Royals let James Shields walk.
What constitutes "they target a guy they need and can't sign him?" The more likely scenario is that the FO sees the budget constraints they have to operate within and decides not to target high-level FA in the first place because they know they're out of the running before negotiations even start. There are a lot of ways that payroll constraints can hamper the Mets that won't manifest as "oh, we really want player X, he's a key target for us" followed by the Mets not getting that player.
Kansas City Royals payroll (Spotrac) - ( New Window )
But they are bottom 10 in payroll so the Sox and Dodgers aren't really fair comps. How about being in the 10-15 range like their market and "ready to compete" suggests?
By market size Mets would be #3-5, which is consistent with past spending patterns for the Mets.
New York market is #1 at 23.5 million people in the metro area. If you assign just 1/3 of the market to the Mets (which may be a hair low), Mets market is 7.8 million. As a stand alone area that would be the #6 market, after NY-Yankees, LA, Chicago, DC, SF/O, and Boston, but bigger than Philly. Except of those markets, only Boston completely dominates its region. LA, Chicago, and SF each have two teams, and DC probably bleeds a ton of support to Baltimore (not sure how much).
Link - ( New Window )
He played great for the Cardinals last year, as they went to the playoffs yet again, and the Mets started Reuben Tejada.
Quote:
with an outstanding outing today. If he is just OK, he goes to the bullpen
I'm fairly certain he can throw a no hitter today and still open in the pen.
1/3 there lol
I like Metnut's suggestion of trying to lock up Lagares - that extension is likely to be a lot cheaper, especially because Lagares wasn't a big bonus IFA and is still pre-arb, and he's likely to age well.
Yeah, you'd be way off. RT @keahpa: I’m gonna say 5 years 72 million because I’m a person on Twitter
More
I'd be pretty shocked if that guys is "way off" on the low side.
Link - ( New Window )
Lucas Duda deal could be worth roughly 4 years, $31M - ( New Window )
That is a great sign if those numbers are accurate.
No brainer. I thought 5 for 50 would have gotten it done so 4 for 31 with a max of 4 for 43 is a no-brainer.
As many of us said, 100 million was never ever realistic.
I wonder if there's a buyout on the team option - probably $1M or $2M, something like that.
The Mets would be unlikely to commit to any deal that did not extend at least four years, which would mean covering at least one year of free agency.
I wonder if there's a buyout on the team option - probably $1M or $2M, something like that.
Gotta believe there is some sort of buyout. What's in it for Duda to accept an option with ZERO insurance.
Congrats to Duda for securing himself a fortune most of us could only dream about and congrats to the Mets for locking down a player we all like.
"There will be resolution by Monday, one way or the other," Alderson said.
Link - ( New Window )
Exclusive: Talks between #Mets and Lucas Duda's reps on long-term contract end. Full details
Link - ( New Window )
Exclusive: Talks between #Mets and Lucas Duda's reps on long-term contract end. Full details Link - ( New Window )
Finally, some good news (ducks)
Not sure why his agent wants to play hardball when all he has to do is work out a fair deal. You approach the team, then give them a nonsense dealine - lol. I don't think the Mets are overly afraid of going arbitration year to year with Duda. Even if they 'lose' each year.