How high and long would you go for Ryu?

[John Bonnes]

So you want Ryu? Is there a financial point where you say it's just silly and won't be unhappy if the Twins don't sign him? This guy's agent is Scott Boras, after all. He has specialized this offseason in silly contracts. 

 

Ryu is said to be seeking the security of a three or four-year pact. While he comes with a dodgy health history, the 32-year-old was healthy in 2019. And Ryu has always been effective when healthy — never more than of late. He owns a ridiculous 2.21 ERA over 265 innings in his past 44 starts, with 8.6 K/9 to go with a meager 1.3 BB/9.

 

(from https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/cardinals-reportedly-interested-in-hyun-jin-ryu.html )

 

I would go as high as four years and $100M. Would you? Or even five years at $110M or $120M?

 

[beckmt]

 

So you want Ryu? Is there a financial point where you say it's just silly and won't be unhappy if the Twins don't sign him? This guy's agent is Scott Boras, after all. He has specialized this offseason in silly contracts. 

 

(from https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/cardinals-reportedly-interested-in-hyun-jin-ryu.html )

 

I would go as high as four years and $100M. Would you? Or even five years at $110M or $120M?

4/100 is about as high as I would go.  He is a little to old for 5 for me.  Tough call.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't agree at all that the contracts are silly. Go look at the numbers on fangraphs, and the probable outcomes achieved. 

 

I'd go 4/100, but man I'd be nervous about his health. I just don't see a lot of realistic trade options out there as alternatives. I wouldn't like the length, but this team hasn't got many pitchers under control past this year that have MLB experience......

 

That number is low enough that they can eat it near the end as he tails off, and as revenues rise over time.....and Cruz and Rosario come off the books. 

[drivlikejehu]

Presumably, the main issue for Boras is total dollars, since Ryu would be unlikely to gain another significant contract 3-5 years from now. So I think Boras might prefer, say 5/110 to 4/100, just as an example (though there is a time value of money factor - maybe a signing bonus would make sense).

 

I guess my concern would be, if the Twins give him 5/125, how will that impact their ability to extend their current players? Berrios and Buxton in particular. Looking at the payroll, it really doesn't seem like it would be an issue. And next year's crop of FA pitchers is very limited.

 

My biggest concern with Ryu, aside from injury, is the infield that would be playing behind him. They wouldn't be maximizing his value with their current configuration. In any case, I'd definitely go to 100 and maybe a bit beyond, but I'd be pretty nervous about it.

[Dman]

3/85 is about as high as I would go.  Maybe 3/90 if needed. I would do my best to keep the years down even if I have to go with a higher AAV.  Sell him hard on the Manager of the year and good clubhouse.  The beautiful Minnesota stadium and all the things our city and state has to offer.

 

If you just had to go four years then 4/110 is the limit and I guess we likely eat one or two years on the end of that contract.  We just have to have someone good this year.  We really need him.

 

I would not go five years though.  With that injury history it could be Phil Hughes II.

[USAFChief]

3/80 is about as high as I would go. Maybe 3/85 if needed. I would do my best to keep the years down even if I have to go with a higher AAV. Sell him hard on the Manager of the year and good clubhouse. The beautiful Minnesota stadium and all the things our city and state has to offer.

 

If you just had to go four years then 4/105 is the limit and I guess we likely eat one or two years on the end of that contract. We just have to have someone good this year. We really need him.

3/$80 is what I came up with as well. Dont care about higher AAV, but dont want to go past 3 years. He's not getting $26.66M/yr on a 4 or 5 yr deal, so maybe he takes it.

[Dman]

 

3/$80 is what I came up with as well. Dont care about higher AAV, but dont want to go past 3 years. He's not getting $26.66M/yr on a 4 or 5 yr deal, so maybe he takes it.

 

Yeah I even upped my estimate on the 3 year.  We can handle three years even if it all goes south.  We have space this year for sure and likely next year as well.  So just year three for a possible pinch and other contracts come off as well so they can still maneuver.  They could probably handle a 4th year with likely little to no production from him but it would kind of suck as that would be the time we would need to consider paying some of our younger guys unless they get extended.  3 years is the sweet spot for me.  Maybe they do an option year to make the dollar amount sound better?

[amjgt]

3/$80 is what I came up with as well. Dont care about higher AAV, but dont want to go past 3 years. He's not getting $26.66M/yr on a 4 or 5 yr deal, so maybe he takes it.

+1

 

Vote. Not year

[Mike Sixel]

Good stuff, I like the 3 year 85 better than the 4 year 100.....

[amjgt]

If you can get 400 total inning over 3 years, which is close to what he’s totaled the last 3, and he’s anything resembling the production during the last 3 years, then 27M AAV is completely fine

[Dantes929]

He had an elbow and a shoulder surgery.   Obviously went well since he was runner up in Cy Young this year.    Last injury was a groin injury which I assume won't recur.     I get concerned with a guy like Buxton who has a thin frame, plays at a ridiculous speed and has had at least one concussion but even with him, if he is healthy now I expect him to be healthy.    Much like Bumgarner, Wheeler or Cole there are any number of guys that you could say, "He's been durablle"   but it only takes sliding the wrong way, planting the wrong way or for a tendon to stretch the wrong way for that to all change in a minute.    Monreau, Mauer, Nathan and J Santana were all healthy until they were't.    All sorts of guys have been injured and then have recovered and have had no problem until retirement.   In other words, I am not any more concerned about Ryu's health than any one else's since he is healthy now and coming off a great year.   I am a little concerned about his age.    IMO He is a much better option than Price, who will be paid 32 mil for the next three years.     The shorter the contract the higher the price so if you all are talking about 4 years of 100 mil I would offer 65 mil on a two year contract with a club 30 mil option for the third year.  Something along those lines anyway.

[Twins33]

4/100 max, but I’m hoping for 3/60 or 4/80 instead.

[howeda7]

 

3/85 is about as high as I would go.  Maybe 3/90 if needed. I would do my best to keep the years down even if I have to go with a higher AAV.  Sell him hard on the Manager of the year and good clubhouse.  The beautiful Minnesota stadium and all the things our city and state has to offer.

 

If you just had to go four years then 4/110 is the limit and I guess we likely eat one or two years on the end of that contract.  We just have to have someone good this year.  We really need him.

 

I would not go five years though.  With that injury history it could be Phil Hughes II.

Going 3/$90 over 4/$100 in a league without a salary cap doesn't make sense, but I see this logic a lot more lately. Even if I were a hand-off owner I would ream out a GM who used this logic.

[nicksaviking]

He's definitely the guy I like the best of the next tier. I'd really like the team to explore trades first though, because my willingness to pay Ryu would really hinge on the quality of pitcher the Twins are (or aren't) able to trade for.

 

I mean, sure, I do 4/100M if desperate. Let's go see if desperation is actually required though.

 

I’d hate to find out later that the price of getting a #1 starter was either giving Ryu an extra year or giving up Royce Lewis only it’s now too late to give Ryu that extra year.

[Dman]

 

Going 3/$90 over 4/$100 in a league without a salary cap doesn't make sense, but I see this logic a lot more lately. Even if I were a hand-off owner I would ream out a GM who used this logic.

 

 

I see your point if the higher dollar amount is all that matters sure 4/100 isn't that much different from 3/90. Players don't worry if they can produce in year 4 or not because the money is guaranteed. That is why players\agents always shoot for more years.  Odds are there is no contract after this one so get what you can while you can.  The AAV is less for the team so they have a few more million to spend per year as well.  That is all fine until you get to year 4 when you are still on the hook for 20 some Million instead of zero dollars.

 

For the team having that dead weight in salary year four is a hindrance to signing other FA or extending your own good players (i.e. see the Red Sox dilemma this year)  While you say there is not salary cap there is a budget cap that every team has.  Staying as agile as possible financially should allow you to have money to spend in FA on a yearly basis.  Short term deals help achieve that.  The further out in years you go with more players you take on more financial risk.

 

So three years versus four is simply risk management to me.  You are hoping to get more efficient production per year from the player and remain financially agile in case that player regresses.  It makes sense to me and if I was owner and my front office got me the player for 3/90 instead of 4/100 I would be thanking them for saving me 10M especially if I get to put it back in my pocket.

[dex8425]

I absolutely don't want more than three years. I don't even want three, but he's going to get three from some team. 3/80 is the highest I would go, if the FO decides they can't get Madbum for whatever reason or don't want to go 5 years on Madbum. 

 

I'm very worried about how many innings Ryu would actually pitch in those three years. 

[DocBauer]

I am going to echo keeping it at 3yrs and paying extra for $80M.

 

If things continue to get silly and there's a 4th year, try to front load the deal.

[tony&rodney]

Once Cole signed, the madness should ease. Ryu is a great pitcher, no doubt, but he has high risk written all over him. A 3/$67M is my top offer. I'm holding firm on Bumgarner at 4/$90M. MB doesn't seem interested in the Twins and is not in the same class as Cole. The numbers for Cole blew us out of any rational chance of signing him apparently and it didn't seem as if the Twins were ever in on Cole.

Turn to Teheran and Wood if Ryu and Bumgarner are holding out for bigger numbers. 

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

Once Cole signed, the madness should ease. Ryu is a great pitcher, no doubt, but he has high risk written all over him. A 3/$67M is my top offer. I'm holding firm on Bumgarner at 4/$90M. MB doesn't seem interested in the Twins and is not in the same class as Cole. The numbers for Cole blew us out of any rational chance of signing him apparently and it didn't seem as if the Twins were ever in on Cole.

Turn to Teheran and Wood if Ryu and Bumgarner are holding out for bigger numbers. 

I'm with you, I'd go as high as 3/70, I've been saying 3/66 but I'll up it slightly. No more years for me. With his injury history no way over 3.

[howeda7]

 

I see your point if the higher dollar amount is all that matters sure 4/100 isn't that much different from 3/90. Players don't worry if they can produce in year 4 or not because the money is guaranteed. That is why players\agents always shoot for more years.  Odds are there is no contract after this one so get what you can while you can.  The AAV is less for the team so they have a few more million to spend per year as well.  That is all fine until you get to year 4 when you are still on the hook for 20 some Million instead of zero dollars.

 

For the team having that dead weight in salary year four is a hindrance to signing other FA or extending your own good players (i.e. see the Red Sox dilemma this year)  While you say there is not salary cap there is a budget cap that every team has.  Staying as agile as possible financially should allow you to have money to spend in FA on a yearly basis.  Short term deals help achieve that.  The further out in years you go with more players you take on more financial risk.

 

So three years versus four is simply risk management to me.  You are hoping to get more efficient production per year from the player and remain financially agile in case that player regresses.  It makes sense to me and if I was owner and my front office got me the player for 3/90 instead of 4/100 I would be thanking them for saving me 10M especially if I get to put it back in my pocket.

Even if that's a real issue, how does the "not caring" not just shift to year 3 under your contract? If there was a salary cap, caring about the AAV makes sense. But there isn't. All that matters is the total $ amount you are risking.

 

There are people who will to go so far as to say "I'll pay 3/$90, but not 4/$90!" What? It's a totally free year at that point and you still say, "no thanks!" It makes zero sense. And Time Value of Money is a real thing when you're talking $90 million contracts. And since there's no cap, teams have flexibility to spend extra if they have a year with larger dead contracts. If I'm the Pohlad's, I'd certainly rather spend an extra $20 million on the 2023 payroll than give a pitcher a higher salary for reason in 2020 and 2021.

[SwainZag]

 

Even if that's a real issue, how does the "not caring" not just shift to year 3 under your contract? If there was a salary cap, caring about the AAV makes sense. But there isn't. All that matters is the total $ amount you are risking.

 

There are people who  will to go so far as to say "I'll pay 3/$90, but not 4/$90!" What? It's a totally free year at that point and you still say, "no thanks!" It makes zero sense. And Time Value of Money is a real thing when you're talking $90 million contracts.

 

There are only so many roster spots.  If you are giving a guy 30-30-30 or 22.5-22.5-22.5-22.5 in your scenario of 3/90 or 4/90, you are simply thinking in that 4th year you can get someone else to put up better production than a 1 year 22.5M deal.  You are paying more in the short run because most of the time people say this about players who are A)on the wrong side of 30 or have had injury concerns.  Pay more for production in fewer years and give yourself options in that 4th year instead of being tied down. 

 

An extra year of control isn't always the best thing when you are talking about that size of money.

[cmoss84]

I say try to entice him for a "win now" contract. 2 years/ $60 mil. 

 

Normally, I would say this is a crazy amount and no way. But I would rather do this and roll the dice on him pitching like last year than going 4 or 5 years (and staying healthy-ish for 2 years). 

 

*if he is being offered 30/year for 3-5 years...that is just way too risky. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

There are only so many roster spots.  If you are giving a guy 30-30-30 or 22.5-22.5-22.5-22.5 in your scenario of 3/90 or 4/90, you are simply thinking in that 4th year you can get someone else to put up better production than a 1 year 22.5M deal.  You are paying more in the short run because most of the time people say this about players who are A)on the wrong side of 30 or have had injury concerns.  Pay more for production in fewer years and give yourself options in that 4th year instead of being tied down. 

 

An extra year of control isn't always the best thing when you are talking about that size of money.

 

Just cut him in year 4. You've spent less money in the first three years. It's much better for the team that way, much. Unless it bumps them up against a budget in year 4 for some reason.

[howeda7]

 

There are only so many roster spots.  If you are giving a guy 30-30-30 or 22.5-22.5-22.5-22.5 in your scenario of 3/90 or 4/90, you are simply thinking in that 4th year you can get someone else to put up better production than a 1 year 22.5M deal.  You are paying more in the short run because most of the time people say this about players who are A)on the wrong side of 30 or have had injury concerns.  Pay more for production in fewer years and give yourself options in that 4th year instead of being tied down. 

 

An extra year of control isn't always the best thing when you are talking about that size of money.

You have to pay the player the $22.5 million in year 4. If he's injured or cooked, you don't have to give him a roster spot. Turning down a free year (or nearly free year) makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, the hope is, he will still be an effective pitcher in year 4. If he's not, you release him, and take the $22.50 you saved the 3 previous years and find a replacement.

[SwainZag]

 

You have to pay the player the $22.5 million in year 4. If he's injured or cooked, you don't have to give him a roster spot. Turning down a free year (or nearly free year) makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, the hope is, he will still be an effective pitcher in year 4. If he's not, you release him, and take the $22.50 you saved the 3 previous years and find a replacement.

 

I would assume like most businesses that teams go year by year for accounting, budget, etc.  No team is going...well we saved 7M on this guy 2 years ago so we are OK with eating 22.5M this year.  It's not a "free" year when you go year by year, which I assume almost teams do. The Twins might decide they have a 135M available this year for payroll.   If things go extremely south in 3 years, they might decide they only have 100M left for that year in payroll, and you already have 22.5M on the books for this guy.  At least that's the way I am use to doing business.   

[DocBauer]

But if he had to have that 4th year, you can front load the contract. Just saying.

[Dman]

 

Even if that's a real issue, how does the "not caring" not just shift to year 3 under your contract? If there was a salary cap, caring about the AAV makes sense. But there isn't. All that matters is the total $ amount you are risking.

 

There are people who will to go so far as to say "I'll pay 3/$90, but not 4/$90!" What? It's a totally free year at that point and you still say, "no thanks!" It makes zero sense. And Time Value of Money is a real thing when you're talking $90 million contracts. And since there's no cap, teams have flexibility to spend extra if they have a year with larger dead contracts. If I'm the Pohlad's, I'd certainly rather spend an extra $20 million on the 2023 payroll than give a pitcher a higher salary for reason in 2020 and 2021.

 

If owners besides the top revenue producing teams operated that way then I see no issue with what you are saying.  But dead money matters, think Phil Hughes.  The Twins sold their 2nd round draft choice just to get rid of him and likely felt lucky.  The "flexibility" to spend has its limits.

 

Sure with no cap you can spend what you want but most teams don't.  Take the Red Sox for instance.  They gave long term deals to several players and now they want to get under the cap so that they don't have penalties.  If they can't get creative they might not be able to sign their best player. As you say there is no cap so why don't they keep on spending?  Probably because there is a limit.

 

You can work the numbers anyway you want to budget for your team.  You don't have to do all three years deals but with older players given they can become liabilities at any time it seems to me you mitigate the risk of not having money to spend by limiting the years of the contract.  With too many long term deals your team can be bad and you still have to pay a lot of money think the Tigers not that long ago.

 

Ryu is an older player who likely, hopefully is able to give us two decent years.  Maybe he gives us three or four hard to say but the odds are not in the teams favor the older he gets therefor it makes sense to play the odds and get out the contract as soon as you can and apply that money to next the guy who can help IMO.  It very possible you could tie up  25M for no production in the fourth year and if the budget is essentially 150M that is gonna hurt.  If your budget is 300M then maybe not so much.  I still think dead money is an issue.  If I felt the Twins would spend more then I can agree with you that the total dollars is all that matters but I don't see them doing that.

[howeda7]

 

I would assume like most businesses that teams go year by year for accounting, budget, etc.  No team is going...well we saved 7M on this guy 2 years ago so we are OK with eating 22.5M this year.  It's not a "free" year when you go year by year, which I assume almost teams do. The Twins might decide they have a 135M available this year for payroll.   If things go extremely south in 3 years, they might decide they only have 100M left for that year in payroll, and you already have 22.5M on the books for this guy.  At least that's the way I am use to doing business.   

Of course they have a budget, but it's not fixed the way a salary cap is. If in 2023 they have to over-spend the budget because Ryu has been released due to injury, and they need to replace him, but they were under budget the last 3 years because they weren't paying him $30 million, it should be fairly easy to get ownership to approve going over budget for that one season. A good business doesn't have a strict budget that ignores prior year shortfalls and surpluses. And an MLB team is going to be more flexible than a "normal" company.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Of course they have a budget, but it's not fixed the way a salary cap is. If in 2023 they have to over-spend the budget because Ryu has been released due to injury, and they need to replace him, but they were under budget the last 3 years because they weren't paying him $30 million, it should be fairly easy to get ownership to approve going over budget for that one season. A good business doesn't have a strict budget that ignores prior year shortfalls and surpluses. And an MLB team is going to be more flexible than a "normal" company.

that’s not how the company I work for works, and with player salaries something more than 40% of cost of goods sold, I can’t imagine any owner being ok with going over budget, just this once.

 

I would guess there are scenarios built in around acquiring levels of contracts, but at the end, the budget is the budget, and there is never ever carry over, year to year

[Mike Sixel]

 

Of course they have a budget, but it's not fixed the way a salary cap is. If in 2023 they have to over-spend the budget because Ryu has been released due to injury, and they need to replace him, but they were under budget the last 3 years because they weren't paying him $30 million, it should be fairly easy to get ownership to approve going over budget for that one season. A good business doesn't have a strict budget that ignores prior year shortfalls and surpluses. And an MLB team is going to be more flexible than a "normal" company.

 

That's not how sports' franchises generally work......it is pretty much year to year.

 

edit: mostly ninja'd, so I shortened this reply.