Is it wise to buy out some position players arbitration years to hedge against future success?
Putting on your GM hat, does it make some sense to talk long term deals with Adam Jones, Matt Wieters, and maybe Brian Matusz? I rarely want to do long term deals with pitchers, but sometimes exceptions can be made for those guys that show future Cy Young trophy winning stuff.
My quick answer is yes. Extending one or all into a season or two beyond arbitration eligible seasons takes thier prime years and hedges growth to value.
The one recent example that could have saved a few dollars in a multi-year deal was Luke Scott. I bet the Orioles could have done a 5 year deal for 20 million dollars after the 2008 season. The Orioles would have locked his arbitration years and a year of free agency. The Orioles choose a yearly deal with arbitration cases every season. He is likely to cost the Orioles more in 4 years of service and he still hits the open market after 6 season of restricted free agency.
I am not saying it was wise to sign him to a long term deal. I simply want to show that you can save a few dollars by extending them now. As a GM, you will have to feel the ball player will continue to grow and is still within your long term plans. I do not know what it will take to sign any of the three mentioned players, but it is something for the front office to consider.
They could extend a few and now exact pay roll for the core group of Orioles. It saves a few dollars and the Orioles could continue to add players with this core group. This is the practice we see with the 2011 team and it could be a staple for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 plans.
What are your thoughts?


