Votto

[Heathbar012]

3 years, $38 million?! I wish a great hitter would take a discount to play in San Francisco. Cincinnati? I don't see the appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just one more year and $18 more million than what the Giants gave Huff? Even if Aubrey has the year he had last year, Votto is still worth much more than that over the Giants' Beloved Career Resurrector, given that he is 27 years old. I'm not saying the Huff deal is bad because I believe it isn't even while expecting a regression in production, but wow. I'm not crazy here, right? The reigning MVP deserves a little more coin than this. Is it because of the anxiety problems at the beginning of last year? He seems to have taken care of those issues for the time being, but I can see how a club would worry about that. However, there is always a team that won't. Either way, good deal for the Reds, unless he really rakes all three of those years. Then it's good bye, Cincy, hello, money.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

3 years, $38 million?! I wish a great hitter would take a discount to play in San Francisco. Cincinnati? I don't see the appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just one more year and $18 more million than what the Giants gave Huff? Even if Aubrey has the year he had last year, Votto is still worth much more than that over the Giants' Beloved Career Resurrector, given that he is 27 years old. I'm not saying the Huff deal is bad because I believe it isn't even while expecting a regression in production, but wow. I'm not crazy here, right? The reigning MVP deserves a little more coin than this. Is it because of the anxiety problems at the beginning of last year? He seems to have taken care of those issues for the time being, but I can see how a club would worry about that. However, there is always a team that won't. Either way, good deal for the Reds, unless he really rakes all three of those years. Then it's good bye, Cincy, hello, money.

Is that really a discount?

Huff was a FA, Votta just had his arbitration years bought out. The deal doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why pay him that much if you are not going to buy out any of his FA years? If something goes wrong you are on the hook for a lot of money, if he is absolutely amazing you might just have to pay a little more.

Prince just got about $15.5 million in his last arb year and about $10 million the year before that. He would need to have made about $12.5 million in his first year to match Votto's contract.

 

[tzill]

It looks like a fair deal for both sides. Votto gets guaranteed money and security without giving up future years of free agency. The Reds get one of the best hitters in baseball in the prime of his career at a price they couldn’t get on the free market. In their arbitration years players usually get 40 (arb1), 60(arb2), and 80(arb3) percent of what their value would be on the market. Votto projects out to a 5.0 WAR player and the Reds are paying him $38MM for 1.8 seasons (discounting as above for arb [.4 + .6 + .8 = 1.8]). 1.8 x 5.0 WAR is 9 WAR, which should come out around $45MM (at the generally accepted value of $5MM/WAR). Thus, the Reds got him at a slight discount, and Votto gets security in case he either gets hurt or goes into the shitter.

All in all, a fair deal for both sides.

 

[Heathbar012]

Thanks for talking me down, guys. I still see it as a discount, and tzill's math supports that (if only slightly). I think he didn't hold out for more years and more money or go into arbitration because he is grateful for the time off that the Reds gave him when he was dealing with his anxiety issues. That's cool of him, and I hope his problems don't resurface, but if they do, he will miss out on some money. I still see it as a better deal for the Reds unless Votto keeps developing. I shouldn't be bitter about a guy taking a slight discount to give him a better shot at bigger money in three years, especially since Brandon Belt will be roaming first base for the Giants when Votto's contract is up.

 

[tzill]

Thanks for talking me down, guys. I still see it as a discount, and tzill's math supports that (if only slightly). I think he didn't hold out for more years and more money or go into arbitration because he is grateful for the time off that the Reds gave him when he was dealing with his anxiety issues. That's cool of him, and I hope his problems don't resurface, but if they do, he will miss out on some money. I still see it as a better deal for the Reds unless Votto keeps developing. I shouldn't be bitter about a guy taking a slight discount to give him a better shot at bigger money in three years, especially since Brandon Belt will be roaming first base for the Giants when Votto's contract is up.

Well, why would he need to hold out for more years? At the end of this contract, he'll be a 30 year old free agent, and the $ox/Phil$/Yank$ will give him 7 years. It sets up perfect for him.

 

[Heathbar012]

Well, why would he need to hold out for more years? At the end of this contract, he'll be a 30 year old free agent, and the $ox/Phil$/Yank$ will give him 7 years. It sets up perfect for him.

... if he plays as well, better or just slightly below what he did this year. I don't think he has made a big mistake by going with the three-year deal, but when contracts in sports are trending lower (though MLB has been somewhat immune to that this off-season), he has a history of letdowns (beginning of last season and moments of his second full year) and he could have the opportunity to ca$h in with one of the Big Three sooner, why not play out the arb. years and get $13-$18 mil per, depending or grab something in the neighborhood of 7 years, $130 mil while the iron is hot?

Again, this contract is not as bad for Votto as my original knee-jerk reaction would suggest, but I still feel like he gave the Reds an opportunity to walk away from what could have been a great contract for him and bad one for them, if he regresses. Of course, a really big contract might have spurned more anxiety issues, and the justification for getting more years and more money might have ended up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Big contract leads to bad play, which leads to bad contract for the ball club.

I still think this has better risk-reward possibilities for the Reds, for the time being (more long-term flexibility and a cheaper reigning NL MVP than most teams have had), and it bothers me that anyone would take even a slight discount to play in Cincinnati and not San Francisco. Votto could certainly prove me wrong by killing the ball (in that postage stamp of a ballpark) and signing with the Yanks at 30 for an A-Rodesqe 10 year, $200 million deal. We shall see.

 

[tzill]

I doubt the Reds were going to pony up for a 7 year deal; his options were likely year-to-year for the next three or a three year deal. He took some insurance and now he's set for life.

 

[Heathbar012]

I doubt the Reds were going to pony up for a 7 year deal; his options were likely year-to-year for the next three or a three year deal. He took some insurance and now he's set for life.

Agreed, but if he would have gone the year to year route, he could've gotten a little more money and the big contract after the arbitration years (a la Prince Fielder). He might have bought himself the flexibility to have one bad year and still get the big years and big money at age 30, but he should have been greedier.

 

[calsnowskier]

Agreed, but if he would have gone the year to year route, he could've gotten a little more money and the big contract after the arbitration years (a la Prince Fielder). He might have bought himself the flexibility to have one bad year and still get the big years and big money at age 30, but he should have been greedier.

I think tz's point is that by signing the 3-year deal, worst-case-scenario, Votto is set for life with 38M.

If he goes year-year, he gets hit HARDER due to a down year (he has to negotiate based on the single year instead of a collection of years), and worst case scenario he gets hurt and is "only" set for life at about 13M.

He might as well lock in the long contract after an MVP season, without giving up any of his BIG contract years (post-Arb) in the process.

Seems to me that Votto got more out of this signing than the Reds did. Heck, The Gs have Timmeh at about 11M per...

 

[tzill]

Agreed, but if he would have gone the year to year route, he could've gotten a little more money and the big contract after the arbitration years (a la Prince Fielder). He might have bought himself the flexibility to have one bad year and still get the big years and big money at age 30, but he should have been greedier.

Annnnd....he might have blown out his ACL in year one and never made anything after that. That's all I'm saying.

 

[tzill]

I think tz's point is that by signing the 3-year deal, worst-case-scenario, Votto is set for life with 38M.

If he goes year-year, he gets hit HARDER due to a down year (he has to negotiate based on the single year instead of a collection of years), and worst case scenario he gets hurt and is "only" set for life at about 13M.

He might as well lock in the long contract after an MVP season, without giving up any of his BIG contract years (post-Arb) in the process.

Seems to me that Votto got more out of this signing than the Reds did. Heck, The Gs have Timmeh at about 11M per...

Exactly. And I don't think a deal longer than 3 years was ever on the table.

 

[Heathbar012]

I get it. You guys are right. I think I just wanted every first baseman in baseball (especially the younger guys with better numbers) to have exorbitantly large contracts, so that Huff's looks like a steal.

He earned it, and it's a good deal, but I envisioned every player that came close to his production in 2010 getting franchise crippling contracts, so I could turn to the Giants' two-year plan and say, "Expect a Decade of Dominance, Bitches!" I think I can still do that, though (if everyone stays healthy and develops properly). Good job, Votto and agent. I won't fly off the handle again

 

[tzill]

I get it. You guys are right. I think I just wanted every first baseman in baseball (especially the younger guys with better numbers) to have exorbitantly large contracts, so that Huff's looks like a steal.

He earned it, and it's a good deal, but I envisioned every player that came close to his production in 2010 getting franchise crippling contracts, so I could turn to the Giants' two-year plan and say, "Expect a Decade of Dominance, Bitches!" I think I can still do that, though (if everyone stays healthy and develops properly). Good job, Votto and agent. I won't fly off the handle again

I've found it's just good general policy to refer to fans of other teams as bitches whenever practical. Except doyerfans -- they're whiny douchebags.

And bitches.