Kyle Tucker - What's that new contract going to look like?

I think no player wants to be a FA in their mid-30s.

They will either take a contract that gets them to FA before 33 so they still have some earning power, or want a deal that extends beyond age 37-38 (depending on how long they expect to play).

I think Bregman wants this to be his last contract.

If he hopes to play until he is 40 it needs to he 9-10 years because he has no earning power at 38, 39 years old.

If he hopes to play until he's 38 then a 7-8 year deal will be acceptable.

The only other acceptable option is a 1 or 2 year deal where he is a FA at 32 or 33 but that would take a $40M AAV deal to give up year(s) of his prime and not what either he nor the team want.

IMHO there is 0 chance he signs a deal that makes him a FA between 34-37 unless he has the option to extend it w/ player option or it has an opt out after yr 1 and/or 2

 

My guess is, it’ll be flat, white, and with black ink. There will either be a 2 or a 3 on there with a lot of 0’s after.

 

everyone keeps saying Crane won’t go more than 5/6 years hence the presupposition that they may not have offered him an 8-10 year contract. I think Tucker is worth it given his age at the end of the contract (which is basically the age we brought on Abreu in at $20M per ) and the growing AAV in 5 years will likely make it look like a good deal

 

I somewhat disagree

Players still get paid even when they are old , its just shorter contract.

We gave jose abreu 19.5 mil a year for his 36 and 37 seasons .

Granted , bregman is a different type of player , and given his poisiton i feel like what you said was fair.... but still. He could get 10 million as a 38 year old if he hasnt completely fallen off . His eye will still be good. Maybe he will have some defensive value still .

 

It's about expectations. A player can get much more money the more of his prime is included in a deal.

A star player will make more money signing a deal for ages 31-39 than 2 for 31-36, then 37-39 because teams don't pay $25M+ for position players in their mid-late 30s.


Show me an example of a position player getting over $19M per year at age 38 or later?

I haven't researched it so may eat my words, but don't think there are many, if any.

Now how many players have $25M+ AAV deals that run past 38 or even 40?

 

I don't disagree. I just don't agree with over paying them early for those same season.

 

We agree on this.

My point is not about what a team should or should not do.

It's simply what would be required for to happen.

As long as players are getting peanuts ( compared to more tenured players) the first 6 years, they will want to make that up once they hit FA

It may be perfectly legal, ethical and smart to pay players much less than their value to start their careers then never pay more than their value after, but it's surely not fair from an equality sense.

 

The truth is the only reason I care about how much Crane spends is how it effects preventing spending for the rest of the team or negatively impacting the roster (losing draft picks for instance)

I would be happy if there was a system where players got compensated in FA based on how much excess value they generated during under control seasons AND it didn't reduce what owners spent on the rest of the team

Only fans want that though. Owners want their cheap labor without ever paying retail and players don't want any system that puts any kind of limit or requirement on what they make

 

true. The ones that make it subsidize those that don't until FA.

 

I'm more interested in what his new contact is going to look like

 

The Athletic posted this today about potential extensions:



Seems low, but would be a good compromise deal for both parties. Astros go longer than 6 years, and Tuck gets a nice pay day. Maybe have an opt out or something after 6 years?

 

That would be a good deal for Houston. With 2 more seasons like the last 3 he will be a $250M+ player in free agency.

 

Rafael Devers got 300 million before hitting FA. He's was a little younger than Tucker, but not as good a player.

Maybe the market shrinks a little, but it seems absurd to me that Tucker wouldn't get at least 250 million given how many players equal or lesser than him have gotten 300.

 

That’s my take as well and I’m not even sure how much I like Tucker. I’m a high ceiling guy, but yeah- Tucker is super reliable more or less all star or fringe all star if not MVP candidate. I would assume his representation would laugh at that suggestion.

 

But they all fall apart when they hit thirty! But you are supposed to pay them top dollar till they're 40.

 

#1 very few players who are consistent 4 WAR players throughout their 20s fall apart when they hit 30.

Most will still average over 3 WAR 30-35 and don't "fall apart" until well after mid 30s.

Players with Tucker's skill set, body type, and health history "lose it" more slowly.

#2 $25-30M is not top dollar. These contracts are not $40-45M per year specifically because they include years in late 30s and up to 40.

Wheeler just got $42M per year because it's only 3 years eventhough he is in late 30s.

If Tucker was willing to sign a 3 year deal, ages 29-31, it would be $50M per year or very close.

 

No player is ever worth a 10 year contract. MLB should have a 6 year cap all around for home team (5 years for FA)

 

Not true. 10-year contracts are all about getting guys on lower AAVs for the about first 5 years relative to performance with the assumption that their contracts will be upside down after 5 years (i.e., it is robbing from future payrolls typically to keep prices down while contending in the earlier years of the contract or the teams are so rich it doesn't matter).

 

A contract that is upside down for 5 years is sort of the definition of not worth their contract. For a team that intends to stay in contention for all of those years such a contract is unjustifiable.

 

BINGO.