Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Votto and the Reds together till 2023


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
15 replies to this topic

#1 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 15,074 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:41 PM

Joey Votto and the Reds have agreed to a ten-year, $225MM contract extension according to Bob Nightengale of USA Today. The deal includes full no-trade protection. Dan Lozano of Icon Sports Group represents Votto.


From MLBTR http://www.mlbtrader...joey-votto.html


EDIT: Just to note, this is on top of his remaining 2 year deal so all told he's under contract for 12 years and 251.5$ Mil

Edited by MakMan44, 02 April 2012 - 06:44 PM.


#2 Puffy

  • 1,103 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:59 PM

Wow. Adrian's $154 million / 7 years is looking like a bargain.

#3 Domer

  • 2,134 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 07:19 PM

Votto will be 40 years old when that contract expires. He's a bit older than I had thought.

#4 Puffy

  • 1,103 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:28 PM

Votto will be 40 years old when that contract expires. He's a bit older than I had thought.


No kidding. He's basically 6 months younger than Adrian Gonzalez was when he signed the 7 / $154 million extension. Gonzalez will be 36 when his contract expires. I'll take that deal any day of the week at that price over having Votto, Pujols, Fielder, Howard in their upper 30s and low 40s.

#5 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 15,074 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:36 PM

No kidding. He's basically 6 months younger than Adrian Gonzalez was when he signed the 7 / $154 million extension. Gonzalez will be 36 when his contract expires. I'll take that deal any day of the week at that price over having Votto, Pujols, Fielder, Howard in their upper 30s and low 40s.


The Howard deal looks terrible at this point.

#6 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,619 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:42 PM

The Howard deal looks terrible at this point.


The Howard deal is terrible, and that was before the Achilles Tendon injury (which I believe happened before the contract takes effect).

#7 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 15,074 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 05:15 PM

The Howard deal is terrible, and that was before the Achilles Tendon injury (which I believe happened before the contract takes effect).


Unless I'm mistaken it kicks in this year.

#8 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,808 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 05:22 PM

Unless I'm mistaken it kicks in this year.


In other words, the injury occurred right before the contract takes effect.

#9 MakMan44


  • stole corsi's dream


  • 15,074 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 01:00 AM

In other words, the injury occurred right before the contract takes effect.



It's almost like he planned it.....
:c070:

#10 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 01:15 AM

Wow. Adrian's $154 million / 7 years is looking like a bargain.


Of course, you have to look at the prospects given up. There is a lot of unrealized surplus value there if Rizzo and Kelley have decent careers, and thats part of A-Gons cost. AAV is about the same.

#11 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,058 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:10 AM

Of course, you have to look at the prospects given up. There is a lot of unrealized surplus value there if Rizzo and Kelley have decent careers, and thats part of A-Gons cost. AAV is about the same.


If we're playing the game that way, we actually only need to price in the difference between Rizzo/Kelley/Fuentes and the compensation picks the Reds would receive if Votto signed elsewhere.

#12 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,619 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:49 PM

Of course, you have to look at the prospects given up. There is a lot of unrealized surplus value there if Rizzo and Kelley have decent careers, and thats part of A-Gons cost. AAV is about the same.


Yes. except Adrian and his agent should not take that into comparison. That trade got them one year of Adrian at his current salary. Anything further than that was to be negotiated, and it was, in good faith, between the two parties. Flash forward to today and it looks like a huge bargain.

#13 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:08 PM

Yes. except Adrian and his agent should not take that into comparison. That trade got them one year of Adrian at his current salary. Anything further than that was to be negotiated, and it was, in good faith, between the two parties. Flash forward to today and it looks like a huge bargain.


Not sure what Adrian and the agent have to do with determing the total cost to the Red Sox for signing him. We don't make the trade for 1 year of A-Gon, even if that is something A-Gon need not consider in determining to sign or not. I have to imagine that before the trade was finalized, A-Gon or his agent let the Red Sox know they would be receptive to signing a contract outside of free agency.

Looking at it from A-Gons POV, he was just coming off shoulder surgery so was probably more inclined to take a less than market value deal rather than wait to test the FA market. The fact that Pujols and Fielder were also going to be FA may have played a role as well, the fear being they would depress the market.

If we're playing the game that way, we actually only need to price in the difference between Rizzo/Kelley/Fuentes and the compensation picks the Reds would receive if Votto signed elsewhere.


Good luck in doing this. The players the Red Sox gave up had a couple of years development under their belt and are more projectable than unknown hypothetical picks. You could take the average value looking back at the history of all such picks, but that value would be relatively low since most picks, except for top 10 picks, don't make the MLB in any significant role.

#14 Puffy

  • 1,103 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:16 PM

If we're playing the game that way, we actually only need to price in the difference between Rizzo/Kelley/Fuentes and the compensation picks the Reds would receive if Votto signed elsewhere.

Yes. except Adrian and his agent should not take that into comparison. That trade got them one year of Adrian at his current salary. Anything further than that was to be negotiated, and it was, in good faith, between the two parties. Flash forward to today and it looks like a huge bargain.


Yeah - I get your point nvalvo, but Adrian Gonzalez didn't give Boston a deal because they gave up Rizzo/Kelley/Fuentes. He agreed to a seven-year-deal right before it appears the market would have supported a 9- or 10-year deal, based on Pujols/Votto/Fielder. Just based on current market value, that contract was a coup for Boston, since they could easily have given up Rizzo/Kelley/Fuentes and then had to pay Gonzalez 9 years / $198 million or something like that.

#15 Sampo Gida

  • 3,163 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:10 PM

The other thing to consider on the plus side, is the Red Sox did receive 23.5 million in surplus value for 2011 for A-Gon given they paid him 6 million, while he produced 29.5 million.

That surplus value probably covers the cost of the lost prospects, or at least some of it.

Looking at it from the Reds POV, Votto in his first 6 years, assuming 12 WAR over the next 2, will have produced 153 million and received 34.2 million, or about 119 million in surplus value, which makes it easier to overpay one of your own in his FA years. .

225 -119 = 106 million.

Voto of course will produce more than 106 million over the 10 years of his deal, but in essence, the Reds are just giving back some of that surplus value they have received to keep one of the top 1Bmen in the game.

#16 glennhoffmania


  • Rudy of P&G


  • 8,384,841 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM

I didn't think this warranted its own thread:

The right side of the Reds' infield is set for the handful of seasons. Just off the heels of a monster contract extension to first baseman Joey Votto, second baseman Brandon Phillips has agreed to one of his own. The Reds have announced they have agreed to sign him to a new six-year contract, which takes effect immediately and runs through 2017.

Former Reds' general manager Jim Bowden, now with ESPN, reports the deal is for $72.5 million.


Link