This sounds like a take it or leave it offer, and that's probably the way you have to go. 

And I wholeheartedly agree - if wells doesn't take this, it obviously means he has no interest in staying in TO long term. 

I am curious to know whether or not the extension kicks in immediately or not...right now, wells is making 5.6 million this year.  I presume the Jays intend for the contract to kick in immediately, effectively giving him an 11 million dollar bump this season.  Presumably, right now no team is in a position to offer him that. 

And if he doesn't accept this, I think you probably need to trade him for everything that you can possibly get, effective immediately.

I assume the offer involves tearing up the last year of wells' current contract and starting the new one in 2007. Otherwise, there's not as much incentive for him to agree to it, since he can probably do a little better by waiting a year (taking the relatively minor risk of a serious injury). He's under contract for only $5 million for next season, so the ability to start a new deal in 2007 is a major advantage for the Blue Jays since an equivalent offer in a year by some other team would have to average $20 million a year or so, and that's without taking into account that a Toronto deal gets him more money up front.

If a deal something along these lines doesn't get it done, then it's safe to assume wells wants out, and then the team has to consider its options.

The $18 mil per season might be enough, although I can see his agent looking for $20 mil.  Why would the Jays offer a seven year deal though?  Why not try a five year deal?

Remember a few years ago when five year deals were considered too long?  Too much money, chasing too few players, makes for bad contracts.  I wonder how many of these long term contracts will look good in 2010?

I love Vernon, but this has Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu, and Mike Hampton written all over it. Good players signed to massive contracts that they are simply not worth, rendering them untradeable unless a large part of their contract is picked up.

No one here knows what the Canadian dollar or the team's ownership will look like in five years, let alone how good Vernon actually is. Flexibility is the key to future success. Locking the team into this deal is a bad move.

I'm going to make 2 comments on Vernon based purely on observation (uh oh)

1) He is definitely well above average as a defender, unless the average is very high (this was in response to a post in the previous thread actually).  I'm not sure defense metrics measure for 'big' plays but it certainly has to be accounted for to some degree sort of like avg with RISP (not overly so, mind you.. but is Sarge Matthews really a minus defender??  He could be, but I find it hard to believe on the surface)

2) As good and dangerous as a hitter as he is, I'm not sure that the confidence he instills in fans with his approach at the plate is equivalent to said talent.  That was phrased rather awkwardly, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that he 'seems' more streaky than consistently good.  My assumption is that studies have probably proven that all good players are streaky, but the streakiness I speak of ranges from single handidly carrying the team to victories to seemingly being lost at the plate which can almost make one wonder at the time if he's merely guessing up there.  With that said, he was much better in this regard last year which was hopefully a sign of maturation as he advances in his career (never thought of Thomas' influence, but good point), but I suspect that he will always have that as a part of his makeup; to what extent might be what determines his worth, especially at this kind of money.

The contract would kick in following 2007.  I'm not aware of any situation where a deal is ripped up in baseball.

Pistol, doesn't this happen all the time? If I'm not mistaken, Halladay's last re-up went that route.

I don't think you can make a maturation argument for his 2006 season. How do you explain his previous 3 seasons? His OPS was 909 in 2003, but dropped to 809 and 783 thereafter. 

Did he 'mature' in 2003, then forget everything in 2004 and 2005?

I love Vernon, but this has Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu, and Mike Hampton written all over it. Good players signed to massive contracts that they are simply not worth, rendering them untradeable unless a large part of their contract is picked up.

No one here knows what the Canadian dollar or the team's ownership will look like in five years, let alone how good Vernon actually is. Flexibility is the key to future success. Locking the team into this deal is a bad move.

Thank you Rickster, Heck, at least Todd Helton and Abreu for the most part had the offensive numbers to support such an extension.  wells on the other hand simply does not have the track record for a deal.

What is with all these people suddenly deciding they want to pay for potential.  Yeah, of course he might have some more potential, but you still have wells until he is 36, considering his build, likely dropping in speed by age 32 and parking himself on the corner of the OF as well.

wells in my opinion simply isn't that special player you tie yourself down with.  He has had 1 season, yes 1 with an OPS over .900, and only 2 seasons of 30+ HRs, and OBPs of .305, .359, .337, .320, .357.  He still hits Right handers at a poor clip, with a career OPS of under 800 (.797) as well.

When evaluating the merits of a 7x18 offer, we should consider its present value, particularly given its length (there's a whole bunch of years of mega-inflation in there that need to be accounted for).

David Gassko did just that for Soriano's 8/136 contract and certainly shed new light on it. Now, whether one believes that Soriano's 8/100 NPV contract is still worth the money is debatable, but at least it can be evaluated more objectively.

The contract would kick in following 2007.  I'm not aware of any situation where a deal is ripped up in baseball.

Well if the two parties agreed, it could certainly be ripped up.  Unlike other sports, the CBA doesn't restrict this practice.  Conversely, you could leave his 2007 salary at $5.6m and give him an immediate $18m signing bonus, making the annual salary going forward from 2008 a palpable $15.4m.

Bay Street doesn't share Bauxites concern over Uncle Ted's throwing around of $126m....Rogers shares are up over 3% in early trading today.

Didn't the Cardinals essentially just rip up Carpenter's contract with his latest extension?

No, not at all. The team had $7M and $8M options for 2007 and 2008, which they excercised. On top of that, they signed Carpenter to a 3/49 extension starting in 2009 with another team option for 2112 (with a $1M buyout).

The media kept referring to the contract as 5/65, which is only \"sort of\" truthful as it implies that Carpenter's market value is $13M per annum, making his perceived annual rate much closer to the likes of Meche and Lilly than is entirely truthful.

Carpenter could have elected to test free agency in 2009 (with the idea of bettering 3/49), but that's a ways down the road for a pitcher in his 30's with a history of injury. The Cardinals excercised some risk, counting on Carpenter to remain healthy and effective 2.5 years from now. Carpenter opted for the security while risking the potential for a 3/70, say. pay day (or whatever the hell the market conditions will be at that time).

Rickster, I tend to agree with you, and I think the general undertone of my point would hint at which way I sided with in the matter (although not overwhelmingly).

Also if I could carry out a pre-emptive strike so to speak, the 'it's not your money' argument is just silly, and it should have been red flagged right from the start considering the source.  Lest we forget which division we are in...  while this financial windfall that Ted is willing to committ is greatly appreciated, it most certainly is finite and still needs to be utilized in an optimal manner in order to compete with the 2 biggest spenders in the game. 

I think the danger in the current climate is that it is natural to compare some of the other ridiculous contracts this off season and figure we would much rather give Vernon that kind of contract over any of those players, but I don't think this should necessarily be confused as being the prudent move either, simply because of this fact.  And this isn't meant to sound rhetorical but historically speaking, how many teams with 1 player taking up a large % of the payroll have contended, much less won it all?   Of course, I ask this feeling it is a safe enough assumption in saying the payroll won't even be close to approaching the $ox/Yank$.

What makes this such an interesting decision is that this is a contract that you would give to one of the best players in baseball.  The question is whether wells is one of those players.  Frankly, I really don't know.  Here are his last seven full seasons of AAA and above:

06 - .303/.357/.542

05 - .269/.320/.463

04 - .272/.337/.472

03 - .317/.359/.550

02 - .275/.305/.457

01 - MLB - .313/.350/.427

      - AAA - .281/.333/.453

00 - AAA - .247/.313/.432

The bottom line is that in 2 of the last 7 years ('06 and '03) he has hit like one of the best players in the game (considering his position) - the rest of the time he has hit like, Reed Johnson (actually an extremely good comparable in his off years).  Age and injury could be used for some of this but if you want to stretch further back the pattern continues even in the lower minors.

This offer is a huge gamble and one that even I might make if I was convinced that wells could stay in CF for the life of the contract; however I'm not convinced.  I have always thought that wells was an above average CF (although somewhat overrated locally).  However, I thought that he slipped somewhat last year defensively.  In my opinion, wells will be a corner outfielder (even if that's not where he's put on the field) in his 30's.  Even in his best years, his offense does not justify $18-20m per year as a corner outfielder.  I hope that he passes on this offer.  I say all of this and wells is one of my all time favourite Jays.

It would be interesting to know how exactly wells will suss this out. Does he (as a pro athlete and someone presumably with no shortage of self-confidence) assume that 2006 is his true level of ability, and that he can replicate that in 2007, thereby positioning himself for 7/140 (or whatever numbers he's chasing)? Or does he do what some of us fans do, and look at his spotty track record, and think that 2007 might perhaps look like 2005, which would, one would think, render his value lower than the 7x18 Toronto is allegedly currently offering?

Many GM's seem to have no problem accepting that a player's most recent season is representative of his true ability (e.g., Hendry with Soriano) and certainly a good many fans fall into that trap as well. But what about the players themselves? Are they perhaps the least objective of everyone, given their life long track record of things working out well for them? Could wells even put up a 2007 comparable to 2006 if, in the back of his mind, was the nagging fear that he might regress to 2005 levels?

\"Verrry interesting!\" I can see our little German friend in Laugh-in peeking through the potted plant foliage as he contemplates this offer. \"Verry interesting, but vill it fly?\"

Ya, that's the question. And if it fly's will we wish it hadden't?

Too much money. No question. But then, I remember coffee at 25 cents a cup with unlimited refills. Sigh!

I don't think this is a take it or leave it offer. It's a respect offer. The Jay's are telling wells we \"respect\" you. We know this is the neighbourhood and we'll start here. We have very little more to play with but we can play games with how we cut this. More up from, bigger bonus, more deferred, whatever. Maybe even a few more bucks, a few, a very few. After the dance, wells will take this, partly because he knows this is not the last looney in piggy, there will be enough yen left to address the pitching for the next few years.

I'm convinced that there is more money in the Jays bankroll. I'm convinced that if JP had signed Lilly and Meche this offer would still have been made. I see Teddy realizing he needs to operate in the $110 to $120 million dollar area by 2009/10 if he has any chance and I see the money being there. This is a good time to be a Jay's fan. Even if wells says no.

I don't think this is a take it or leave it offer. It's a respect offer. The Jay's are telling wells we \"respect\" you. We know this is the neighbourhood and we'll start here. We have very little more to play with but we can play games with how we cut this. More up from, bigger bonus, more deferred, whatever. Maybe even a few more bucks, a few, a very few. After the dance, wells will take this, partly because he knows this is not the last looney in piggy, there will be enough yen left to address the pitching for the next few years.

I think this assessment is bang-on.  This is exactly where I'm coming from and I see any negotiation coming in moving money forward in the contract.  I think the Lilly/Meche failure has left us with a lot of signing bonus availability.

Mylegacy, you are wise, even beyond your \"25-cent-unlimited-refill-coffee years\".

     I am in favor of this offer to wells.  Over the past several years, he's been the team's best player, aside from Halladay, and he's still got potential to improve.  If anyone deserves this money, he does.  wells does everything right:  power, speed, hitting for average, defence, intelligence.  And the intangibles do count for something -- he's a role model, a team leader, a good influence on younger players, and has character that goes beyond the statistics.

    I don't see how this \"handcuffs\" the team in any way, unless you have a crystal ball and can predict the team's budget in 2010 or 2011.  Rogers has shown that he's willing to spend money, and obviously he must have approved any offer to wells, so why should we assume that he can't afford the offer that he's willing to make?   To complain about \"ridiculous\" salary offers is just plain silly -- these offers are based on market conditions and the money sloshing around in the pockets of the owners.  If they can afford it, the salaries are not ridiculous at all.

   A lot of the fan opposition to this offer is based on pie-in-the-sky dreaming about fantasy trades.  There's no way that the Jays could get fair value for wells if they trade him.  A trade is a last resort, to be considered only if it's clear that wells will not sign.

If the Red Sox keep Manny, that team could be very, very scary next season.

As for wells, I think we have to factor in the fact Ted Rogers is no spring chicken, and would like to see another World Series banner go up under his watch asap. The man has $2.2 billion, I don't think we're in danger of any financial constraints as long as his heart is still beating. We have 2 more years of Halladay, Burnett, Glaus, Thomas, and Ryan ALL being here...with the likes of Overbay, Johnson, Rios, Hill, Chacin, League, and Lind hopefully emerging as solid and consistent contributers over the same time span. The time to win is now, I think JP realizes that too, hence the big money offers to Meche and Lilly. If we keep wells, and we manage to sign or trade for a decent starting pitcher, I don't think it's too much to ask for one of our young guns to step up and take over that #5 slot, and hope our offense can carry us into the playoffs.  Let Doc and AJ take over from there. 5 years from now, I think we'd be better off without wells' huge contract, but if we can win #3 before that time arrives, I could care less. What it comes down to is \"if you trade wells, will you be a better team next year and in 2008?\" If the answer is yes, then trade him. If you answer no, then Vernon has to stay.

but I read somewhere that Matsuzaka would have made 3.5 MM per season for the next 2 seasons in Japanese baseball until becoming a free agent. 

I was under the impression that he could become a true free agent (i.e., no posting process) in 2008. If so, it's hard to imagine what was driving him to make the jump now rather than 365 days from now. Certainly he'd fare much better on the open market in 2008 than 6/54, or whatever his Boston deal works out to.

I imagine that there will be endless speculation, despite the official protestations to the contrary, that some of the $51M posting fee may have found its way into his bank account.

Fair market value is determined by what a purchaser is willing to pay, and certainly includes all costs of acquisition.

But is it really \"fair market value\" when the marketplace consists of exactly one buyer? Had Matsuzaka been a true free agent, we would have seen what fair market value truly was.

I know it's tough to believe in this day and age, but there's a chance Matsuzaka wants to play ball, and that the bottom line isn't absolutely everything to him...

And nothing says that like Scott Boras.

But is it really \"fair market value\" when the marketplace consists of exactly one buyer? Had Matsuzaka been a true free agent, we would have seen what fair market value truly was.

I recognize your point.  At the beginning of the process, there were 30 teams representing \"the market\" and then Boston  won the bidding rights.  I'm just saying that Boston could argue quite successfully that in a notional market nobody would pay $25m per year for Matsasuka ($16m plus amortized posting fee) which is essentially what Boras wanted them to pay. 

I'm wondering how much of the negotiations were centered around Seibu.

Four quick thoughts:

1. D-Mat doesn't have to be all that good for the Red Sox to be very, very scary next year.

2. JP hit the nail on the head when he paid Ryan and Burnett what he did. He lept at quality pitching when he had the chance, and even though he gave us a scare for a moment, he didn't allow himself to be forced into really overpaying for Meche or Lilly out of absolute need:

2.1. JP deserves some credit for predicting the market accurately.

2.2. Paying for a good proven performer, a great talent, or a hard to replace player is a good use of the payroll if he's got it to spend. There are wells in the non-tenders or AAA FAs; there are Matthews and potentially Meches. And if 2.1 is true at all, it's possible that this could look reasonable next year.

3. A few years ago, someone might have predicted that the Rockies saved money on Helton. All we need is a market shift, a payroll change from ownership, or a change in ownership for this to become far worse than Delgado's big deal (a contract whose impact I think was more than a little overblown. I haven't researched this, but don't all of those numbers & arguments about \"teams can't win with only 1 player taking up 25% of the payroll\" seem skewed by the fact that most cheap teams [by choice or by necessity] don't tend to spend a lot on more than one or two guys? You mean for KC that Sweeney was the problem? If you're filling up your team with Dave Berg and Ken Huckaby, you're not going to win? Really?).

4.  Is there any chance at all that this could still harbinger a trade with the difference being cost certainty and a locked-up player as a chit rather than a one year rental? How dishonest would that be? If MLB were fantasy baseball......

2.1. JP deserves some credit for predicting the market accurately.

Were that entirely true, I'm thinking he might have floated a 5/75 extension offer to wells sometime before the end of the season, before the free agency period established the new market prices.

All you would have done was insulted him.  Beltran set the market in CF a few offseasons ago.  While Vernon isn't the player that Beltran is, the amount of money that has poured into the game is going to get him Beltran money.  There is no way that wells would have signed that deal.

While you may well be correct that wells' agent may have been aware of how the market was about to dramatically shift this off-season, your argument is mixing past tense and present tense. Certainly it is clear now that wells will get Beltran money, and more. Was it clear before the off-season hijinx began? Maybe the agents and GMs all knew full well what was afoot and it was only we fans who were caught by surprise. That being the case, a 5/75 offer certainly would have been an insult.

For what it's worth, and remembering that we fans are often much more in the dark than we like to believe, precious few in these parts were even comfortable with the idea of 5/75 when the notion was bandied about in July and August.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALMOST A DONE DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!

FOXSPORTS KEN ROTHENTHAL REPORTS THAT THE JAYS ARE ON THE VERE OF SIGNING wells!

\"An agreement between the Jays and wells is close, according to major-league sources. The deal is expected to include full no-trade protection and an opt-out clause.... the Jays engaged in lengthy negotiations with wells' representatives on Thursday, sources said, leaving the sides on the brink of an agreement.\"

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6274400

If it happens, as Foxsports believes it will, then I must say I do not like either the full no trade clause nor the opting out option (I assume it is definately a wells option).

The article ends with this tidbit to consider....

\"The Jays still want to add pitching, and their signing of wells could lead them to trade another of their outfielders, most likely Alex Rios, for a proven starter.\"

If they do this then they better make sure that they get a good young pitcher in return or a Brad Penny and a very good prospect.  They also would be advised to move quickly on signing Nixon or C.Wilson (preferably lefty Nixon).

The Jays still want to add pitching, and their signing of wells could lead them to trade another of their outfielders, most likely Alex Rios, for a proven starter.

wells it's about time. Class act, great athlete, should be peaking over the next three years. He and Halladay will form the quality public face of a great organization.

Rios, this boy is becoming a man. Trade him at your peril. You won't get fair value for what he's going to be worth the next few years.

Rios for Willis straight up?

Apparently, this was discussed last spring. The attraction to Rios by the fish is that he is under control for four more years. Willis is under control till the end of 09. Young quality for young quality? It all comes down to how close, and how real, Lind is.

I think the Rios thing is really just speculation, no need to look at that too seriously right now.

Anyways, not the best case scenario (I was personally hoping for him to decline, and for us to trade him for young pitchers), but certainly not the worst case scenario either. How can anybody feel that bad about signing their franchise player for less than market value?

\"How can anybody feel that bad about signing their franchise player for less than market value?\"

You mean Doc right?

You think that 126 over 7 is below market value?

Where's the Moneyball GM I was promised?

Amen...The more money Rogers gives Ricciardi the more I dislike what he does with it.

Leaving aside the obvious issue that the A's don't have to contend with both the Yanks and Red Sox in their division, the fact of the matter is that Oakland has thrived on the strength of its pre-free-agent young stars (i.e., the fruits of their farm system).  Toronto cannot cheaply contend at this time -- not in this division, not in this marketplace, and not with the talent currently on hand in the minors.  It really does puzzle me when people assume that it is a useful end in itself to field a cheap team, as if Billy Beane would ever turn down an additional million bucks to improve his club.  Budgetary concerns are, 100% of the time, constraints on a GM's ability to field a contender.  They are not badges of courage that score style points for teams that win in spite of them.  (And if they are, who cares?)

If what you really want is not a contender but a team that overachieves, wins 86 games for cheap and earns \"wow, we underrated them\" plaudits from ESPN analysts while finishing well behind New York and Boston...I think JP has proven his ability to do exactly that.  All it took was a pitcher to win the Cy Young while making $3 million, a first baseman to finish second in MVP voting and an outfielder to emerge into a superstar while making a half-million dollars.  Still wasn't nearly enough.

You can always, in lieu of paying a superstar big money, acquire somewhat lesser players for far less money.  But elite performances put teams in tough divisions into the playoffs.  Elite players are the most likely to put forth elite performances.

If the issue is that you don't want Vernon wells to be the CF for the next several years, that's one thing.  If the issue is that you like wells but think the contract is above market value, that's also a reasonable point (though I can't agree).  If, on the other hand, is \"great to have him, fair value, but too much money for the Jays to spend,\" then the question that must be asked is this:  What are the negative consequences of spending that money?  Does it make the GM say \"we think player X is a great value for dollar amount Y, but we don't have Y to spend?\"  Does it make the GM say \"we're making the team worse by trading Z, but we've got to trade him to save money?\"  This is the crucial distinction between the Delgado contract (which provoked both of the above-referenced situations) and the wells contract, which in my opinion is unlikely to do so.

And about that farm system...if you're still demanding \"that Moneyball GM you were promised,\" just sit back and enjoy the benefits of years of all-college non-toolsy drafting.  I don't mean to criticize the Jays' drafts in hindsight; I merely point this out to note that whatever the failings of JP, a sharp departure from so-called Moneyball (and the various distortions and oversimplifications of the philosophies depicted in the book) is not one of them.  And only a massive influx of ready-to-succeed minor league talent can create a cheap winner in Toronto.  Such an influx is not forthcoming.  So do you spend and try to win, or not spend and certainly lose?