PDA

View Full Version : Votto LTC: How much is too much?



kaldaniels
11-25-2010, 12:58 AM
It seems like things are starting to percolate on the long term contract front with Votto. So call your shot.

I'd wager that 100 percent of people on here would be OK with a 6 year, 50 million dollar contract.

I'd also wager that 100 percent of people would not be OK with a 6 year, 150 million dollar contract.

So where is your line in the sand. Not the amount that you would prefer the Reds pay Votto (I would love 6 yr 75 million myself), but the amount at which you would say "that is ridiculous, Walt is an idiot etc....".

I'd have a hard time with anything over 6 yr 90 million myself.

Year
1 10 M
2 13 M
3 16 M

That's my arbitration #'s for him assuming no LTC...so why dish out over 17 Million a year up front??? I'd almost rather ride him thru arbitration and go from there rather than risk the 90 million today.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts before any deal is struck.

Brutus
11-25-2010, 01:00 AM
It seems like things are starting to percolate on the long term contract front with Votto. So call your shot.

I'd wager that 100 percent of people on here would be OK with a 6 year, 50 million dollar contract.

I'd also wager that 100 percent of people would not be OK with a 6 year, 150 million dollar contract.

So where is your line in the sand. Not the amount that you would prefer the Reds pay Votto (I would love 6 yr 75 million myself), but the amount at which you would say "that is ridiculous, Walt is an idiot etc....".

I'd have a hard time with anything over 6 yr 90 million myself.

Year
1 10 M
2 13 M
3 16 M

That's my arbitration #'s for him assuming no LTC...so why dish out over 17 Million a year up front??? I'd almost rather ride him thru arbitration and go from there rather than risk the 90 million today.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts before any deal is struck.

Typically, following past models, I would expect something like:

Year 1: $4.5 million
Year 2: $7.5 million
Year 3: $10.5 million
Year 4: $12.5 million
Year 5: $15 million

So bottom line I'm anticipating a 5-year, $50 million deal.

kaldaniels
11-25-2010, 01:03 AM
Typically, following past models, I would expect something like:

Year 1: $4.5 million
Year 2: $7.5 million
Year 3: $10.5 million
Year 4: $12.5 million
Year 5: $15 million

So bottom line I'm anticipating a 5-year, $50 million deal.

I'd do backflips over that but it just seems too low. I have to think Votto is at least a 30 million dollar man through his 3 arb-years.

Brutus
11-25-2010, 01:07 AM
I'd do backflips over that but it just seems too low. I have to think Votto is at least a 30 million dollar man through his 3 arb-years.

I certainly wouldn't be shocked, but it's not uncommon to pay money similar to arbitration awards during the first few arbitration years and increase it as it goes along.

Though he wasn't coming off an MVP season certainly, and he was a 1-year of service guy, Ryan Braun accepted an 8-year, $45 million deal a few years ago. I expect Votto to get slightly better, and no doubt he's further along and now an MVP. But I think $10 million a year on average is not unreasonable for a first-year arb guy.

dougdirt
11-25-2010, 01:12 AM
I wouldn't offer him more than 5 years, that is for sure. Maybe something like 7-9-12-15-16.

kaldaniels
11-25-2010, 01:14 AM
I certainly wouldn't be shocked, but it's not uncommon to pay money similar to arbitration awards during the first few arbitration years and increase it as it goes along.

Though he wasn't coming off an MVP season certainly, and he was a 1-year of service guy, Ryan Braun accepted an 8-year, $45 million deal a few years ago. I expect Votto to get slightly better, and no doubt he's further along and now an MVP. But I think $10 million a year on average is not unreasonable for a first-year arb guy.

Ryan Braun was less than 1 year into his career when he signed that. Being that he would have made the minimum 2 of those years in the contract, it was essentially 44 million over the final 6 years.

Votto has the advantage of 3 plus years of solid mlb ball under his belt, and that MVP trophy in his cabinet.

Gotta think Votto is more than a 10 million a year earner over the next 5-6 years, but I'd love it if you were right and he is signed LT by the Reds.

kaldaniels
11-25-2010, 01:16 AM
I wouldn't offer him more than 5 years, that is for sure. Maybe something like 7-9-12-15-16.

Thats pretty good right there. I could see that and be fine with it.

Jpup
11-25-2010, 01:25 AM
5/60 would be good for both sides.

corkedbat
11-25-2010, 01:26 AM
Thats pretty good right there. I could see that and be fine with it.

I think I'd go 5 for $75M

dougdirt
11-25-2010, 03:04 AM
I think I'd go 5 for $75M

That seems like a bit much consider he is at most likely to get 8/13/15 over the next 3 years in arbitration even if he does what he did this year. That would leave him getting something like $20M a season for the final two seasons in your scenario. That seems like a bit much to me.

TheNext44
11-25-2010, 03:33 AM
I really don't see how he gets much more than $7M this year in arbitration. Howard did get $10M after he won the MVP, but his HR and RBI numbers were higher, and he also had won the ROY earlier. Salaries on the whole were higher that year, and Howard won that arbitration instead of a negotiated deal. There is no way that the Reds will actually go to arbitration with Votto, they will work out a deal, even just for one year, before going through the process.

Without a long term contract, I see the following salaries for Votto:

11: $7M
12: $10M
13: $13M

I think he would accept the following long term deal:

11: $4.5M
12: $7.5M
13: $10M
14: $15M
15: $20M
16: $25M ($3M option)
5 year - $62M

An agent is going to want a $20M year in there somewhere if he is giving up any free agent years.

dougdirt
11-25-2010, 04:02 AM
The Reds can't afford to be paying guys 20+ million dollars. No matter how good they may or may not be.

TheNext44
11-25-2010, 04:06 AM
The Reds can't afford to be paying guys 20+ million dollars. No matter how good they may or may not be.

Four years from now, who knows what anyone can afford? It's just for one year, plus they will have plenty of time to adjust their payroll to deal with it.

Captain Hook
11-25-2010, 05:09 AM
The Reds can't afford to be paying guys 20+ million dollars. No matter how good they may or may not be.

I would say that the Reds can't afford to pay one player that kind of money if that guy isn't going to put up MVP numbers for them.That said, they did pay Cordero and Harang around 25 million last year and still managed to have a good season.I know that's two guys but one contributed very little and the other could've been replaced with a much cheeper option that the team could've expected similar if not better production from.To me, that money was pretty much wasted last year so, why couldn't the Reds have paid Joey 20 million and still fielded basically just as good of a team and had 5 million to spare.

I'd also like to think that some continued success will allow for some extra revenue to make a large contract for Joey affordable and also to help keep a few of the other guys around as well.

So I think it's pretty simple.They can pay the big bucks to a few guys.They're just going to have to be sure to not loose sight of what they're doing now. The Reds farm system is going to have to keep producing top talent every year so they have a handful of youngsters making small bucks that are contributing.If they do, we'll be able to afford to have a few guys with high price tags.If they don't, then we'll be looking at a team that looks a lot like the Cardinals do right now.

redsfandan
11-25-2010, 06:57 AM
I have to agree with Doug on this one. I doubt the Reds will give any player $20M/yr anytime soon. The biggest difference between the Reds and the teams with the biggest payrolls is the ability to hand out a big contract and not have it kill your budget if something goes wrong with the player. I think everyone would love to see Joey sign a long term contract and be a MVP candidate a few more times while he's at it. But, it's also possible that something could happen where he'd end up as a big contract with little production to show for it.

The Reds have given out big contracts before which later turned out to be bad moves which hurt their ability to construct a competitive team. And the Reds just can't afford to have that happen again as much as other teams. If they want to be a playoff contender for more than a few years they just can't risk it. When MLB has teams with very different payrolls it's much more important for some of those teams to minimize financial risk. Contending is a little more difficult when a key part of your team, and possibly your most expensive player, can't be counted on to produce and you don't have the extra money that the competition has to get a decent replacement.

It's not that they shouldn't spend money or that Joey shouldn't get a big long term contract. It's just that there are limits. Which is how I took the thread title. How much do you think they can afford to pay him. I could see Votto eventually getting around $15M/yr as a Red but that's it.

edit: Alot depends on what Walt is willing to do and whether the Reds ownership would be willing to give their ok. Personally, I'd have a hard time giving a player $20M/yr. The more money involved the more risk. Cheap players aren't as risky financially and when the investment in the cheap player pays off you have value. It's a little harder for a player that's paid $20M/yr to be worth it. And even when they do the excess value is pretty limited. This is why maintaining a strong farm system is so important for the Reds.

hebroncougar
11-25-2010, 08:41 AM
I don't think it really matters, Votto, to me, hasn't sound real interested in signing a LTC. He's already 27, and with what, 3 arbitration years, he's only really got one shot at a big contract, so he's gotta make it count.

Scrap Irony
11-25-2010, 09:19 AM
I'd call $60 million a pretty fair deal, personally. I don't think they'll go over $75 million, nor should they.

steig
11-25-2010, 09:37 AM
I think 5 years at $50 million would be good for the Reds but why the rush to sign Votto to a long term contract. His value is at it's highest right now. Why not wait until next season or after next year to see if he is able to produce numbers similar to 2010. I'd rather sign Bruce to a long term deal before he puts up career highs in numbers.

PuffyPig
11-25-2010, 09:56 AM
Or follow the Pujols model he signed in his first year of arbitration;

$7M
$11M
$14M
$15M
$16M
$16M
$16M
$16M($5M buyout)

7 years, $100M

$3M in each of the last 5 years is deferred without interest reducing the present day value to about $90M.

RedsBaron
11-25-2010, 10:17 AM
Or follow the Pujols model he signed in his first year of arbitration;

$7M
$11M
$14M
$15M
$16M
$16M
$16M
$16M($5M buyout)

7 years, $100M

$3M in each of the last 5 years is deferred without interest reducing the present day value to about $90M.

I would offer Votto the same deal.

Benihana
11-25-2010, 07:10 PM
I think 5 years at $50 million would be good for the Reds but why the rush to sign Votto to a long term contract. His value is at it's highest right now. Why not wait until next season or after next year to see if he is able to produce numbers similar to 2010. I'd rather sign Bruce to a long term deal before he puts up career highs in numbers.

This.

PuffyPig
11-25-2010, 07:23 PM
I think 5 years at $50 million would be good for the Reds but why the rush to sign Votto to a long term contract. His value is at it's highest right now. Why not wait until next season or after next year to see if he is able to produce numbers similar to 2010. I'd rather sign Bruce to a long term deal before he puts up career highs in numbers.

Votto's value may be at his highest it has ever been, but if he has another 1.000 OPS season, his value will shoot much higher. The closer he gets to UFA, the more it's going to cost.

If we wait two more years, as he's entering his FA year, we are more likley talking about trading him to ensure some value than extending him.

If we are going to get Votto for a long term deal, the window is likely now.

RedsBaron
11-25-2010, 07:48 PM
Votto's value may be at his highest it has ever been, but if he has another 1.000 OPS season, his value will shoot much higher. The closer he gets to UFA, the more it's going to cost.

If we wait two more years, as he's entering his FA year, we are more likley talking about trading him to ensure some value than extending him.

If we are going to get Votto for a long term deal, the window is likely now.
This.

dougdirt
11-25-2010, 09:16 PM
I would offer Votto the same deal.

I wouldn't. Pujols was 24 his first year of arbitration. Votto is 27. Big, big difference.

Johnny Footstool
11-25-2010, 09:24 PM
5 years, $70 million. That's an average of $14 million per year. I think he'll earn that easily.

PuffyPig
11-25-2010, 09:28 PM
I wouldn't. Pujols was 24 his first year of arbitration. Votto is 27. Big, big difference.

Pujols was likely closer to 34 than 24..........

JaxRed
11-25-2010, 09:44 PM
Even with hitters, the higher the salary, the higher the risk. I wouldn't go over 10 million.

RedsBaron
11-25-2010, 09:46 PM
I wouldn't. Pujols was 24 his first year of arbitration. Votto is 27. Big, big difference.

Pujols signed that deal six years ago. That may be a bib, big difference too. I don not believe that average MLB salaries are what they were in 2004.

PuffyPig
11-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Even with hitters, the higher the salary, the higher the risk. I wouldn't go over 10 million.

Then you may as well trade him now, because he will get over $10M in arbitration in 2012.

I(heart)Freel
11-26-2010, 10:11 AM
I know this sounds far-fetched... but the club should probably package Alonso in a trade BEFORE signing Votto to any LTC.

If other clubs know the Reds have Votto signed for a long time, it seems to me that Yonder's value to the Reds is minimal in a trade. He becomes more like a throw-in... "since you can't use him, toss in Alonso while you're at it."

Dunno. If the Reds wrap up Votto for a bunch of years, maybe Yonder's value is the least of our concerns.

PuffyPig
11-26-2010, 11:50 AM
I know this sounds far-fetched... but the club should probably package Alonso in a trade BEFORE signing Votto to any LTC.

If other clubs know the Reds have Votto signed for a long time, it seems to me that Yonder's value to the Reds is minimal in a trade. He becomes more like a throw-in... "since you can't use him, toss in Alonso while you're at it."

Dunno. If the Reds wrap up Votto for a bunch of years, maybe Yonder's value is the least of our concerns.


Vott's contract has little affect on Alonso's value.

Most teams trade from a strength. If team wants to beleive he has no value to us, then they won't get him.

fearofpopvol1
11-26-2010, 03:46 PM
I know this sounds far-fetched... but the club should probably package Alonso in a trade BEFORE signing Votto to any LTC.

If other clubs know the Reds have Votto signed for a long time, it seems to me that Yonder's value to the Reds is minimal in a trade. He becomes more like a throw-in... "since you can't use him, toss in Alonso while you're at it."

Dunno. If the Reds wrap up Votto for a bunch of years, maybe Yonder's value is the least of our concerns.

Actually, I think the reverse is true. If Votto is signed long-term, the Reds will have no leverage because every team will know Alonso is not part of the Reds' future.

klw
11-26-2010, 04:01 PM
With Alonso the issue is not his value to the Reds but rather his value to the teams biddding on him. He does not put a drag on the Reds to keep and it is up to the other teams to decide how much they are willing to give up. It is not a situation like with Jr where he has stated he wants out but will only go one place.

I(heart)Freel
11-26-2010, 05:22 PM
Actually, I think the reverse is true. If Votto is signed long-term, the Reds will have no leverage because every team will know Alonso is not part of the Reds' future.

That was my original point.

But the overarching caveat to all of this: Alonso has to make himself attractive to other clubs through a strong, complete season at AAA. Only then will he matter in a trade at all.

I'm thinking if he tears it up this season in Louisville, Alonso will be a key piece the Reds use to go get what they need at the trading deadline. Not sure what that will be right now. Depends on health. But I'm guessing Yonder stays in the organization at least til then.

Johnny Footstool
11-26-2010, 05:59 PM
It's much safer to sign Votto prior to trading Alonso. Who cares if it slightly reduces Alonso's market value? If Votto doesn't sign, Alonso is the Reds 1B of the future.

mth123
11-26-2010, 06:12 PM
It's much safer to sign Votto prior to trading Alonso. Who cares if it slightly reduces Alonso's market value? If Votto doesn't sign, Alonso is the Reds 1B of the future.

I get the point, but 1B are usually available. There are lots of elite ones (Votto, Pujols, Howard, Fielder, Gonzalez, Texiera, etc.) but several very good bats in the next tier down and there are usually a few available each off-season. This year Pena, Dunn, Konerko, Huff, Laroche, Overbay, Lee and Berkman are a few of the guys out there and I don't see any breaking the bank (and if a couple do, there will still be a few decent options in the budget range). Unless the Reds really believe that Alonso will rise above that group (and that is a hard assumption to make) they shouldn't really worry about how to succeed Votto. Votto's money will be available to get a decent replacement.

They should try to sign Votto, but he's here for three more years for sure and that is the Reds window of opportunity IMO. If a deal for Alonso comes along that strengthens the big league club and aids them in a pursuit of winnng it all, they should make the deal and worry about how to succeed Votto later IMO.

TheNext44
11-26-2010, 06:22 PM
I know this sounds far-fetched... but the club should probably package Alonso in a trade BEFORE signing Votto to any LTC.

If other clubs know the Reds have Votto signed for a long time, it seems to me that Yonder's value to the Reds is minimal in a trade. He becomes more like a throw-in... "since you can't use him, toss in Alonso while you're at it."

Dunno. If the Reds wrap up Votto for a bunch of years, maybe Yonder's value is the least of our concerns.

Votto's the Reds starting first baseman for the next three years, long term contract or not. Everyone knows that. They can decide to trade Votto at anytime if they want Alonso as the starting first baseman. Signing Votto to a long term contract only makes him more enticing to a potential trade partner, and does next to nothing to Alonso's value.

Caveat Emperor
11-27-2010, 11:17 AM
I don't think it really matters, Votto, to me, hasn't sound real interested in signing a LTC. He's already 27, and with what, 3 arbitration years, he's only really got one shot at a big contract, so he's gotta make it count.

Every player is interested in signing a LTC if the dollars make sense. Even if there is a promise of lots more money in the future, it's hard to turn down $10M-$15M per year, guaranteed, for the next five years. Arbitration is year to year, and any player is one freak accident or bad injury away from getting nothing.

Having said that, it's probably important to realize that going big-money with Votto will probably limit the team's ability to keep Jay Bruce considerably. Small-market teams can pay for one star, they rarely can pay for two.

TheNext44
11-27-2010, 12:44 PM
Every player is interested in signing a LTC if the dollars make sense. Even if there is a promise of lots more money in the future, it's hard to turn down $10M-$15M per year, guaranteed, for the next five years. Arbitration is year to year, and any player is one freak accident or bad injury away from getting nothing.

Having said that, it's probably important to realize that going big-money with Votto will probably limit the team's ability to keep Jay Bruce considerably. Small-market teams can pay for one star, they rarely can pay for two.

As I and others have pointed out many times, mid market teams can contend with big contract, just not bad contracts.

Last season the Reds won the division while getting next to nothing from Cordero and Harang, whonwere paid a combined $25M. If they can contend with that weight on their payroll, they can contend with $30M going to a productive combo of Votto and Bruce.

The risk is of either get injured or stop producing, which is a real possibility, and should be factored in to the price. But it's not the size the contract alone that hurts the club.

JaxRed
11-27-2010, 01:44 PM
Then you may as well trade him now, because he will get over $10M in arbitration in 2012.

I actually have no problem paying more than 10 million on a year-to-year basis. It's paying that for a multi-year deal that increases the risk.

So if Votto doesn't want to sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal, go year-to-year with him, and if you get an awesome trade offer take it.

PuffyPig
11-28-2010, 12:33 AM
I actually have no problem paying more than 10 million on a year-to-year basis. It's paying that for a multi-year deal that increases the risk.

So if Votto doesn't want to sign a 5 year 50 million dollar deal, go year-to-year with him, and if you get an awesome trade offer take it.

And if you don't get an awesome trade offer?

We'll have to trade him anyway or we will lose him as a FA with little return.

JaxRed
11-28-2010, 02:56 PM
If you didn't get an awesome trade offer, it's because he's under-performing his contract, in which case be glad you didn't sign him long term.

Ron Madden
11-28-2010, 07:21 PM
I can see the Reds offering a 4 year deal at somewhere between $35MM and $40MM.

thatcoolguy_22
11-28-2010, 07:39 PM
If the Reds could lock up both Bruce and Votto for the next 5 years and spend 90 million or less, I would be ecstatic.

mth123
11-28-2010, 08:24 PM
I can see the Reds offering a 4 year deal at somewhere between $35MM and $40MM.

Can't see that getting it done. He'll be at $7 or $8 Million in 2011 in arb, probably $11 to $13 in 2012 and then in the $15 per year range after that. 4 for $50 minimum to get it done IMO. I'd go 5/65 backloaded a bit to make some room in 2011.

6, 11, 14. 15, 16 with an option at 17 and a $3 Million buy-out.

kaldaniels
11-28-2010, 08:34 PM
It sounds like if up to many of you, a LTC for Votto isn't what you want. I'm suprised at the low dollar numbers being presented by many. He's not signing any deal for extended years at less than 10 million per.

And if you want to ride out Votto for 3 more years and reload with fresh blood, thats a debatable point, but 4-5 years at 40-50 million isn't realistic.

Johnny Footstool
11-28-2010, 10:32 PM
It sounds like if up to many of you, a LTC for Votto isn't what you want. I'm suprised at the low dollar numbers being presented by many. He's not signing any deal for extended years at less than 10 million per.

And if you want to ride out Votto for 3 more years and reload with fresh blood, thats a debatable point, but 4-5 years at 40-50 million isn't realistic.

Exactly. Those figures are about 50% too low. Add another $20 million or so, and you might get Votto to sign. Offering $40 million isn't going to get the deal done.

Homer Bailey
12-04-2010, 03:36 PM
I can't link it from my phone, but just read the seldom article about the potential long term deal. My reaction? We have joey for three years .

traderumor
12-04-2010, 04:11 PM
I can't link it from my phone, but just read the seldom article about the potential long term deal. My reaction? We have joey for three years .My reaction? He is a very grounded young man who is trying to digest things one thing at a time.

TheNext44
12-04-2010, 04:15 PM
I can't link it from my phone, but just read the seldom article about the potential long term deal. My reaction? We have joey for three years .

My reaction was that Joey hates talking about contracts.

kaldaniels
12-04-2010, 05:00 PM
Fay tweeted something in the last few days about Castellini saying Votto would be the face of the franchise for years to come. To me that counters the above opinion.

Of course anything now is simply speculation.

MattyHo4Life
12-04-2010, 05:24 PM
If you didn't get an awesome trade offer, it's because he's under-performing his contract, in which case be glad you didn't sign him long term.

Do you consider the prospects that the Padres got for their star hitter an Awesome return?

He hasn't been under performing.

Ron Madden
12-04-2010, 11:49 PM
Joey Votto doesn't seem to be all that interested in a long term deal.

From what I've read per John Fay and Mark Sheldon.

RedsManRick
12-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Votto seems like a young man who's still dealing with his personal issues and, frankly, simply not ready to commit to ANYTHING for 5, 6, 7 years. The money is great, but to me it seems like he simply want to rush in to anything.

OnBaseMachine
12-06-2010, 02:41 PM
From John Fay:

Votto's agent is here, will meet with #Reds. Not sure when.

http://twitter.com/johnfayman

lollipopcurve
12-06-2010, 03:00 PM
Votto seems like a young man who's still dealing with his personal issues and, frankly, simply not ready to commit to ANYTHING for 5, 6, 7 years. The money is great, but to me it seems like he simply want to rush in to anything.

I think that's true. At the same time, the Reds can advance the process by making specific proposals for Votto and his agent to respond to. Hopefully Votto's "indecision" is really just a refusal to tip his hand before anything concrete is on the table. He is the most important player on the roster, and he's a smart guy, so he has to realize that some clarity from his side will help Jocketty solidify the team as best he can for this competitive window.

Two things seem clear:

1. He doesn't want lots of years.

2. He wants to be treated fairly.

Fay suggested today a 4-year deal might be something they can work on. It may not be as long as fans want, but it does give the team a year of free agency (same as happened with Dunn).

Caveat Emperor
12-06-2010, 03:04 PM
Joey Votto doesn't seem to be all that interested in a long term deal.

From what I've read per John Fay and Mark Sheldon.

I think the issue is more "Joey Votto doesn't seem to be all that interested in talking about a long term deal with the media."

Kid seems to be a bit of a clam when it comes to the Fourth Estate. I have to imagine that talking dollars and years publicly isn't his idea of a fun time.

Ghosts of 1990
12-06-2010, 03:15 PM
This is just hypothetical wondering, but what if it is truly that he knows he will want more money than Cincinnati is physically going to be able to offer? Should we prepare ourselves for the fact that it could be a part of reality? It seems like no one wants to believe that.

kaldaniels
12-06-2010, 03:17 PM
This is just hypothetical wondering, but what if it is truly that he knows he will want more money than Cincinnati is physically going to be able to offer? Should we prepare ourselves for the fact that it could be a part of reality? It seems like no one wants to believe that.

To not do so is naive.

redsmetz
12-06-2010, 03:19 PM
This is just hypothetical wondering, but what if it is truly that he knows he will want more money than Cincinnati is physically going to be able to offer? Should we prepare ourselves for the fact that it could be a part of reality? It seems like no one wants to believe that.

There's no question that can be possible and maybe even likely. Since we're usually dealing with hypotheticals anyway, it doesn't hurt to prepare for that.

I'm in the camp that believes he's not particularly interested in doing this all publicly. Likewise, he seems to have gone out of his way to say that his statements don't mean he's not interested in long-term (or that he is). His reaction to Colorado's contract to Tulo struck me as a fairly mature one, acknowledging that ten years is a long way to look down the road.

OnBaseMachine
12-06-2010, 03:24 PM
Dusty Baker: "I talked to Votto at the airport. He wants to stay here." #reds #MLB #wintermeetings

http://twitter.com/GaryArmidaFCP

Ghosts of 1990
12-06-2010, 03:43 PM
m_sheldon Mark Sheldon
Dusty on Votto: "He doesn't want to go anywhere. He just doesnt want to say he'll stay for the rest of his life either." #reds

Strikes Out Looking
12-06-2010, 04:00 PM
You need the contract to be longer than 3 years -- you control him (and Jay) for that many years, so you can afford to go year by year if that is the plan. I would try for a 5 year deal based on Tulo's numbers.

And while the Reds are a "small" market, building your market back to BRM size involves having recognizable faces people want to see. I also think Votto is fair, and won't try to extort Yankee money from the Reds.

I don't have any reason to believe this, but I won't be surprised if a deal actually gets done soon.

camisadelgolf
12-08-2010, 05:59 PM
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/12/08/9705/

The Reds met with Joey Votto’s agent.

“We did but thety weren’t ready to talk about it,” Jocketty said.

Jocketty reiterated that the Reds will offer Votto a multiyear deal.

klw
12-09-2010, 09:37 AM
One thing going in the Reds favor is that when Votto would hit free agency many of the big markets will have money tied up in their firstbasemen already. Red Sox will have Agon, Yankees have Textiera, Pujols, Fielder will be set. Might not be alot of places he could get to use to jack up the bidding.

1990REDS
12-09-2010, 05:18 PM
Now that the Sox and Nationals have established that 1 WAR is equal to about 5 million, Joey is going to be even more expensive than we may have thought he was going to be.

Caveat Emperor
12-09-2010, 05:22 PM
Now that the Sox and Nationals have established that 1 WAR is equal to about 5 million, Joey is going to be even more expensive than we may have thought he was going to be.

1 WAR may equal $5 million in an open bid, but Votto is 3 years away from that process.

RedsManRick
12-09-2010, 05:25 PM
1 WAR may equal $5 million in an open bid, but Votto is 3 years away from that process.

I think the average arb breakdown is something like :

1st year: 40% of FA
2nd year: 60% of FA
3rd year: 80% of FA

So if you just use $2M, $3M, and $4M/WAR respectively, the math is pretty easy. Say he's a 5 win player on average over 6 years. A fair value market deal would be in the range of 6/120 (10,15,20,25,25,25).

I think when it's all said and done, Werth's deal is going to be substantially higher than average. These early market deals tend to be all over the map.

Unassisted
12-09-2010, 05:30 PM
Now that the Sox and Nationals have established that 1 WAR is equal to about 5 million, Joey is going to be even more expensive than we may have thought he was going to be.I was inspired to go look that up. Vottos' WAR is 7.4. Your post and the reply below it are saying he'd be worth $37m/year if he were an FA?

MattyHo4Life
12-09-2010, 05:56 PM
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/06/texpensives/

I found this article, and thought it was an interesting take on some of the long term contracts that have been signed in the past and even recent ones like Werth's is discussed. It talks about Tex and compares him to other first baseman....of course...Votto is mentioned. :)

RedsManRick
12-09-2010, 06:38 PM
I was inspired to go look that up. Vottos' WAR is 7.4. Your post and the reply below it are saying he'd be worth $37m/year if he were an FA?

We have to remember that you get paid for expected performance, not past performance and very few players, if anybody (maybe Pujols) can be expected to produce 7+ wins. That is to say, they are not 7 win "true talents" -- those seasons usually come from guys who had a career year. Zack Greinke is a perfect example. His ridiculous 2009 was worth more than $40M (if you wanted to buy that much production, that's what you'd have to spend), but there's no way in heck you'd expect that from him again.

If a team really felt it could count on a guy for 7.4 wins every year (on average), $37M would be the FA price. But because so few players are better than 4 or 5 wins from an expected average performance perspective, you just don't see contracts like that. This is particularly true because that level of performance is very difficult to sustain and guys who can do that generally demand long contracts which will include their decline phase. This brings down the average value of their deal. That guy who produces $35M in year 1 ends up producing just $5M in year 6 or 7 -- but he gets paid $20 each year.

What's upsetting about the Jayson Werth contract is that it ignores this and pretends like he's either a 4 win true talent who somehow won't decline in his mid and late 30's or that he's a 5-6 win player right now -- neither of which are (likely) true.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 11:30 AM
From rotoworld


Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com reports that the Reds are interested in doing a multi-year deal with first baseman Joey Votto.

And why wouldn't they be? Votto won the National League MVP in 2010 with a .324/.424/.600 batting line, 37 home runs and 113 RBI over 547 at-bats. He's eligible for arbitration for the first time this winter and will start becoming a very expensive player soon. The Reds may as well buy out his first year or two of free agency and lock him up for as long as possible.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2010, 11:46 AM
Didn't see this posted anywhere 12/4/10.

The rest of the piece...
Hardball Talk Link (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/04/joey-votto-in-no-rush-for-a-long-term-contract/related/)


“I don’t know as far as beyond three years. I think it’s a real unfair question to ask,” Votto said. “This is not me saying I don’t want to be here. But last year was a difficult year for me. This year was a better year for me. It’s really hard for me to think three years ahead, five years ahead, seven years ahead or 10 years ahead. When [Troy] Tulowitzki signed that 10-year contract [with the Rockies], I was blown away. I can’t imagine seeing myself 10 years from now saying I want to be here. It’s an overwhelming thing to ask a young person like myself and say ‘here’s a lot of money. Be happy with this over 10 years, deal with it.’”

No hometown Discount?


“I’m not going to disrespect the people ahead of me that paved the way for those types of earnings and the people behind me that expect a certain amount or fair value,” he said. “I don’t want to hurt the people behind me. That’s not fair.”

fearofpopvol1
12-10-2010, 03:57 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere 12/4/10.

The rest of the piece...
Hardball Talk Link (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/04/joey-votto-in-no-rush-for-a-long-term-contract/related/)



No hometown Discount?

It's definitely honest of him and I certainly don't think he's giving spin.

I think the best we could probably hope for is maybe a 2-3 year extension beyond the arb years, max.

RedsBaron
12-10-2010, 04:26 PM
It's definitely honest of him and I certainly don't think he's giving spin.

I think the best we could probably hope for is maybe a 2-3 year extension beyond the arb years, max.

I would be thrilled to get Votto for that long. He turned age 27 last September. If the Reds could keep him for two years beyond his arb years this would mean he would be in a Cincinnait uniform at ages 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, which will probably be the prime years of his career.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2010, 05:37 PM
From John Fay's blog - Castellini: Joey will be with us for a long time


Castellini is confident a Joey Votto deal will get done.

“Joey’s going to be with us for a long time,” he said.



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/12/10/9736/

medford
12-10-2010, 06:06 PM
From John Fay's blog - Castellini: Joey will be with us for a long time



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/12/10/9736/

I hope Castellini is correct.

However, lets play some Devil's advocate and say Joey isn't signed up for anything beyond an arbitration settlement or mutually agreed upon 1 year contract for next season. Obviously you hold on to him for next season, but lets fast forward 1 year from now, and another set of Winter Meetings. Do you give Joey an ultimatium "sign an extension now, or we're going to have to explore trading you"? I would think Joey would have more value on the trade market if he had 2 years ahead of him, rather than 1 year Worst case you could keep him for the next 3 seasons and get the draft picks, or perhaps at some point he agrees to a LTD, even if its after the next 3 seasons.

But at what point does his Trade Value start to decline based upon the amount of seasons a team could control him? I'm thinking its after next season, which is about as long as you could keep Alonso down in AAA. If a LTD isn't worked out by next offseason, it may be in the best interests of the Reds to get as much value out of trading Votto and making Alonso the full time 1b on the ML club.

Sad to think that I may only have 1 more year of truely enjoying watching the man bat. I love watching every at bat, the way he focuses in, and rarely gets cheated. However, I know I won't enjoy it nearly as much if he's at bat wearing a Cubs (yuck), Dogers, Red Sox, etc.. Uniform.

Caveat Emperor
12-10-2010, 07:01 PM
I hope Castellini is correct.

Really, though, if Bob wants Joey to be a Red for life, he can make that happen with a single phone call to Walt.

The issue to be concerned with is how Bob wants that to be accomplished. If it's "Sign Votto to whatever he wants, we'll increase the budget accordingly" then I'm completely OK with that call. If it's "Sign Votto to whatever he wants, we'll cut elsewhere to make it work" than I'm completely NOT OK with that call.

mth123
12-10-2010, 10:13 PM
I hope Castellini is correct.

However, lets play some Devil's advocate and say Joey isn't signed up for anything beyond an arbitration settlement or mutually agreed upon 1 year contract for next season. Obviously you hold on to him for next season, but lets fast forward 1 year from now, and another set of Winter Meetings. Do you give Joey an ultimatium "sign an extension now, or we're going to have to explore trading you"? I would think Joey would have more value on the trade market if he had 2 years ahead of him, rather than 1 year Worst case you could keep him for the next 3 seasons and get the draft picks, or perhaps at some point he agrees to a LTD, even if its after the next 3 seasons.

But at what point does his Trade Value start to decline based upon the amount of seasons a team could control him? I'm thinking its after next season, which is about as long as you could keep Alonso down in AAA. If a LTD isn't worked out by next offseason, it may be in the best interests of the Reds to get as much value out of trading Votto and making Alonso the full time 1b on the ML club.

Sad to think that I may only have 1 more year of truely enjoying watching the man bat. I love watching every at bat, the way he focuses in, and rarely gets cheated. However, I know I won't enjoy it nearly as much if he's at bat wearing a Cubs (yuck), Dogers, Red Sox, etc.. Uniform.

The Reds are contending. Keep him in place as long as possible. If he won't sign, go year to year until he's a free agent and then offer him arb. If he walks, so be it. The team will have an MVP caliber player in the line-up while contending. If the team were suddenly a 70ish win team again, then I'd deal him ASAP for the biggest return of younger players possible, but that is not the situation.

corkedbat
12-10-2010, 11:09 PM
I loved the Griffey deal when it went down, but then I was making two assumptions that were later proven wrong. 1) KGJ was young, in his prime, healthy and not injury-prone and 2) Lindner, Bowden and company would be prepared to build on the azquisiton and field a top team around him.

I love Joey Votto and hope he is a cornerstone of this franchise for years to come. Sign him to an LTC contractby all means, but be prepared to make the moves and spend the money to get it done.

Making the 2010 playoff is fine and dandy, but if this team is to remain relevant it will need to find a way to grow the payroll to at least near the $100M markin the next 3-5 years They need to have a plan, to growmaximize existing revenue streams and develop new ones.

As has been stated elsewhere, I believe this franchise can support a salary of that magnitue and that level will allow them to put a respectable product on the field. If not, wecan look up the Ohio to Pittsburgh for a glimpse into the future.

kaldaniels
12-13-2010, 01:17 PM
Fay had a blurb in a column over the past few days saying he'd guess 4 years of Votto would cost 53 million. Any additional year would cost at least 18 million per.

I'll be honest, reading that sunk my stomach a bit.

I could stomach the 4 years 53 million. But the 18 million just doesn't jive with me vis a vis the Reds projected budget.

To me it seems the end game for Votto in Cincy will be to be traded to a high payroll team down the line. If that is the case I'd do the 4 year 53 million, and depending on circumstances, be willing to deal him at the drop of a hat.

Not shop him, but try to get the most bang for your buck out of him. If the Reds are struggling in 2012 and they get their socks knocked off by a trade proposal...go for it.

I just can't see 18 million per ever being a sustainable salary for a member of the Reds.

Benihana
12-13-2010, 01:56 PM
The Reds are contending. Keep him in place as long as possible. If he won't sign, go year to year until he's a free agent and then offer him arb. If he walks, so be it. The team will have an MVP caliber player in the line-up while contending. If the team were suddenly a 70ish win team again, then I'd deal him ASAP for the biggest return of younger players possible, but that is not the situation.

This.

If the Reds are not contending in his walk year, I might consider trading him at the deadline then, but only if the return is significantly better than Type A compensation (whatever that is at the time given the new CBA.)

No way do I deal Votto after next year unless the Reds revert to a 70 win team in 2011.

And by the way, I'm not sure Cast can make Joey a Red for life with one phone call. With some players, it comes down to more than money (ie geography, flexibility, etc.), and I get the feeling Joey is one of those guys.

Our own Scotty Rolen was one of those guys back in his days with Philly.

TRF
12-13-2010, 02:22 PM
2) Lindner, Bowden and company would be prepared to build on the azquisiton and field a top team around him.


Just to be clear, Bowden seemed prepared to add players to complement KGJ. Lindner and Allen however, were not.

Benihana
12-17-2010, 06:34 PM
I wouldn't sign JV to more than a 4-year deal. The money gets way too expensive at that point (with more than one FA year in the deal), and even still one could argue for a 3-year deal only.

4 years, $45MM with a $1MM bonus for every All-Star appearance and $3MM MVP bonus. Joey's set for life financially, the Reds have a 4-year window to compete, and Joey still gets to get his big contract on the open market. Let's get 'er done and move on.

4 years from now, a lot can change. Arroyo, BP, Rolen, and Hanigan will all be gone. Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Stubbs will either be expensive or gone. Wood, Leake, and Chapman will likely need to be extended if they're still around. Who knows if or how it will make sense to be paying a 32-year-old 1B $20MM per year at that point.

RedsManRick
12-17-2010, 07:01 PM
Fay had a blurb in a column over the past few days saying he'd guess 4 years of Votto would cost 53 million. Any additional year would cost at least 18 million per.

I'll be honest, reading that sunk my stomach a bit.

I could stomach the 4 years 53 million. But the 18 million just doesn't jive with me vis a vis the Reds projected budget.

To me it seems the end game for Votto in Cincy will be to be traded to a high payroll team down the line. If that is the case I'd do the 4 year 53 million, and depending on circumstances, be willing to deal him at the drop of a hat.

Not shop him, but try to get the most bang for your buck out of him. If the Reds are struggling in 2012 and they get their socks knocked off by a trade proposal...go for it.

I just can't see 18 million per ever being a sustainable salary for a member of the Reds.

This feels right to me. Something like $8M, $12M, $16M, $17M I imagine.

One of the advantages of a 3-4 year deal is that it gives us the window to take the organization to the next level -- a Cardinals of the 00's type with 90ish wins and a sustainable $100M payroll -- without committing us to a contract that could cripple us if either Votto regresses/gets hurt or if we simply fail to take the next step. If we do succeed, Cincinnati will likely be an attractive place to stick around at. If not, we can go the Adam Dunn route. But we can cross that bridge when we get there.

Unassisted
12-28-2010, 05:42 PM
Apparently, however much is being held in reserve for the LTC offers is too much for some of us, since it kept the Reds from re-signing Rhodes or picking up Webb and Greinke. ;)

To me, these dollars are the big unknown. They must be setting something aside.

mth123
01-01-2011, 08:53 AM
Rumor out of Venezuela is that Carlos Gonzalez is closing in on a 7 year, $80 Million deal. That seems reasonable for an MVP caliber guy. Gonzalez has one less year of service time but plays a position that is more difficult to fill. That averages about $11.5 Million and might be a good comp for a Votto deal.

icehole3
01-03-2011, 03:20 PM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/HeadLines.aspx?sport=MLB&hl=310873

Rox moving toward long-term deal with CarGo?

And the Denver Post's Troy Renck was told Monday to "stay on top of this." It's going to take quite a commitment to lock CarGo up, but he appears headed for stardom and Colorado may save themselves money in the long run. Renck believes that the Rockies have offered something in the range of a seven-year, $80 million contract.

westofyou
01-03-2011, 03:21 PM
It will take more than 11.2 million a year

Slyder
01-03-2011, 03:23 PM
This is based just on what I have read and heard but I would be somewhat shocked if Votto ever signs for more than 5 years. He just doesn't sound like the kind of cat to take that really really long deal.

RedsBaron
01-03-2011, 03:33 PM
It will take more than 11.2 million a year

Yep.

PuffyPig
01-03-2011, 03:43 PM
Votto has one more year of service time than Gonzalez. So, add about $15M to Gonzalez' deal to make it comparable.

It would take about a 7 year $100M deal to get Votto signed IMO.

TRF
01-03-2011, 03:47 PM
I think he'd sign a 3 year $50M deal.

kaldaniels
01-03-2011, 03:49 PM
Can we merge this with the Votto LTC How Much is too Much thread....kinda the same thing. :dunno:

Ghosts of 1990
01-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Votto has one more year of service time than Gonzalez. So, add about $15M to Gonzalez' deal to make it comparable.

It would take about a 7 year $100M deal to get Votto signed IMO.

It's going to take over $100 million, I agree. I quoted you because you took the words from me.

schroomytunes
01-03-2011, 04:45 PM
There is no way his agent will let him sign more than a 5yr deal!! I think a fair deal for both sides would be 4yrs-50 million, with a player option for a 5th! That's 12.5 million per season and Votto has the out clause if he prefers!

Caveat Emperor
01-03-2011, 05:04 PM
It would take about a 7 year $100M deal to get Votto signed IMO.

It'd take a lot more than $100M to get Votto to agree to a 7 year deal. A 7 year deal buys out his entire career prime. It'll probably take a lot more than market value for him to give up a chance to be in the FA pool as a 31-32 year old superstar ballplayer.

PuffyPig
01-03-2011, 05:14 PM
It'd take a lot more than $100M to get Votto to agree to a 7 year deal. A 7 year deal buys out his entire career prime. It'll probably take a lot more than market value for him to give up a chance to be in the FA pool as a 31-32 year old superstar ballplayer.

It's what Pujols got.

Remember, if Votto goes year to year, he may end up with little if he has a career ending inury.

Not many turn down $100M when they are 3 years from FA.

No one gets "more than market value" when they are so far from FA.

There's no reason for a team to give more than market value when they have him tied up for a while anyway.

kaldaniels
01-03-2011, 05:22 PM
If it's about the money I can't see Votto turning down 9 figures for 7 years.

Ron Madden
01-03-2011, 08:47 PM
JFay talks to Walt.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/

.