Would you...Votto for 7/$160MM?

[Benihana]

It appears a baseline has been established for what it may take to re-sign Joey Votto. MLBTR independently speculated and the Dodgers, who are likely to be a bigtime player for Votto, reportedly offered Prince Fielder a similar deal: 7 years, $160MM.

No one knows exactly where the Reds payroll is headed, but it is reasonable to assume over the next few years it will hover somewhere between $85 and $100MM. Clearly that's a wide range, but it is the best anyone can speculate at this point. Given that, would you commit $23MM per year to Joey Votto for 7 more seasons after next year?

Please explain below.

[Benihana]

For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

I would not extend him for 7 additional years (after 2013) for $160MM. IMO, that will destroy the Reds for the second half of the decade. Unless of course, the payroll were to somehow rise into nine-digit territory.

[reds1869]

For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

Excellent post. You saved me a lot of typing because that is exactly how I would approach the matter.

[Vottomatic]

For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

I would not extend him for 7 additional years (after 2013) for $160MM. IMO, that will destroy the Reds for the second half of the decade. Unless of course, the payroll were to somehow rise into nine-digit territory.

Well said. Me too.

[lollipopcurve]

For me, with Alonso gone, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I'm not worried about payroll or Soto. Castellini/Jocketty will not offer a contract that forces them to strip the team down to a noncompetitive state, IMO. As far as Soto goes, if he starts to look like he can be a starting major league 1st baseman, he's trade bait. I just don't think he's in the same universe as Votto. It's important to show Votto that the organization wants to commit to him -- rumor had it that Pujols didn't like the time frame the Cards used to open negotiations with him. Reds need to err on the side of appearing too eager to get him signed, not on the side of appearing hesitant.

[Benihana]

For me, with Alonso gone, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I'm not worried about payroll or Soto. Castellini/Jocketty will not offer a contract that forces them to strip the team down to a noncompetitive state, IMO. As far as Soto goes, if he starts to look like he can be a starting major league 1st baseman, he's trade bait. I just don't think he's in the same universe as Votto. It's important to show Votto that the organization wants to commit to him -- rumor had it that Pujols didn't like the time frame the Cards used to open negotiations with him. Reds need to err on the side of appearing too eager to get him signed, not on the side of appearing hesitant.

I don't think anyone believes Soto is in the same universe as Votto. But if he can be better than league average (ie OPS > .825) in the majors, it may not be worth committing $160MM for an extra .100-.150 points in OPS (someone can feel free to convert this to WAR).

$160MM is a lot of jack (as Stan Kroenke would say) to commit to for an organization like the Reds. I wouldn't rush into anything when you're talking about that kind of money, no matter what people's "feelings" are. Not to mention, opening the window of negotiations 18 months before FA (in this case) is hardly dragging feet.

[Eric_the_Red]

I would love to see Votto remain a Red for his entire career, but not if the team payrol isn't increased. I remember the Larkin/Griffey years and how giving 25% of the team salary to one player can make it impossible for a small market team to compete.

If the Reds suddenly find themselves drawing 3 million fans a year, and the team is successful on the field, that may convince ownership to increase payroll to the point of being able to field a quality team around that contract. Short of that, I vote no.

[Captain Hook]

Assuming payroll is 90 million then yes. Winning teams have been built with the money that would be left over from the potential Votto deal.

[RedsManRick]

MVPs don't grow on trees. I'm not a fan of the idea of spending 25% of payroll on a guy. But if you're going to do it, Votto is that kind of guy. That said, upon further reflection, I would not go 7 years with a 30 year-old 1B. The odds of him breaking down at some point over that contract are too high and the cost to the Reds if that happened would be too great.

[Benihana]

MVPs don't grow on trees. I'm not a fan of the idea of spending 25% of payroll on a guy. But if you're going to do it, Votto is that kind of guy. That said, upon further reflection, I would not go 7 years with a 30 year-old 1B. The odds of him breaking down at some point over that contract are too high and the cost to the Reds if that happened would be too great.

So does that mean you're in "my camp" of giving him the 7 year deal only if Soto regresses and the contract includes 2013? He turns 30 in September 2013.

The good news is unlike most players that get these kinds of deals, Votto is already a 1B- and a pretty good and fit one at that. In other words, he probably won't become a huge defensive liability at his current position over the course of his contract (unlike KGJ in CF, An.Jones in CF, Werth in CF, Carlos Lee in OF, A-Rod at SS, and possibly Fielder and Pujols at 1B).

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'd love to re-sign him, but I wouldn't want to do such a lengthy contract. I'd go 5 years. 6 tops.

[Mario-Rijo]

I give it to him. Joey is the epitome of an outstanding professional, his game is as good as they come and is based on an intelligent approach & sound fundamentals and not super athleticism. If you are for letting this guy go then clearly you have some faith that we can win without him, I don't. If you let him go then Matt Latos likely follows as well as every single excellent player the Reds are fortunate enough to find thereafter, where does this all end? Are we doomed to mediocrity forever? If we are to ever make a turnaround this is the guy you commit to and make a go of it while he's in Red. The Soto's of the world are nice but aren't likely to ever draw what a consistent winner will. The latter is something the Reds haven't given the fans a chance to back since the 70's.

[dougdirt]

No. I simply wouldn't give out that kind of money to guys on the wrong side of their prime, even elite ones. If he wanted 3 years and $75M, I would do that. But as a team without a giant payroll, I can't commit that kind of years and money to someone who will be 38 at the end of the contract.

[RedsManRick]

So does that mean you're in "my camp" of giving him the 7 year deal only if Soto regresses and the contract includes 2013? He turns 30 in September 2013.

The good news is unlike most players that get these kinds of deals, Votto is already a 1B- and a pretty good and fit one at that. In other words, he probably won't become a huge defensive liability at his current position over the course of his contract (unlike KGJ in CF, An.Jones in CF, Werth in CF, Carlos Lee in OF, A-Rod at SS, and possibly Fielder and Pujols at 1B).

For me, Soto isn't a factor. Awesome power and no patience is a ticket to AAAA land.

It's simply a function of opportunity cost. I'd rather have that $23MM to spend on other things in a more flexible way. If I could give Votto that deal tomorrow, I'd seriously consider it. But after 2013, I'd pass.

[GADawg]

i'd do it even though my practical side(which never wins any internal argument) tells me it's probably not a good idea. I long for the days when star players stayed with their original organization so that's playing a major part in my answer even though Votto isn't even one of my favorite current Reds. Oh and I've followed the Reds since '73 and Votto may very well be the best all around hitter I've seen in a Cincy uni.