I will be blunt about this: I think Lindor will enter the Hall of Fame. I think he will become among the best shortstops in baseball history. I think the evidence strongly suggests Frankie is special, and a good bet to age gracefully. I investigated Francisco Lindor's Baseball-Reference page while writing this, and guess who Lindor's #1 comp is through age 25? Answer: Cal Ripken Jr. For anyone who forgot: Cal Ripken Jr is on a short list for best shortstop ever (although, as I have written elsewhere he's not quite at the top); he played forever, breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive game's played record, cracked over 3,000 hits, and defined Baltimore sports for a generation.
Now, I investigated the question of a Francisco Lindor extension previously, however recent comments bring me back to this topic again largely due to a debate I am sick and tired of: people who simply claim we cannot afford Lindor. Instead of paraphrasing, I will quote a proponent of this argument in full:
Show me one small/mid-market team that committed 20% of their payroll to one player for 7+ years that had continued success through the life of that contract
We had trouble putting a team around him this year while paying him 10mm… imagine paying him 30. The only way to compete would be to be very fortunate with the farm and have a young core all come together at one time and take advantage of their pre-arb years. As soon as they hit arbitration we’d have to trade at least some of them. The risk of an extension like the one we’d have to give Clevinger/Bieber would be too great. Its not just the 30 mil that would kill us (that’s assuming that’s all it would take which isn't a given) it’s the amount of years we’d have to give him. We’ll have no financial wiggle room and inevitably be paying for down years in his mid-thirties. I think the man wants to hit the open market in which case there is absolutely no way we compete in a bidding war. He may get the richest contract in history… do you really that that’s coming from Cleveland?
I do not think this is a fair or complete analysis. Most teams in our market size haven't bothered trying to sign anyone of Lindor's caliber to a long term extension. I also think much of the argument ignores realities we need to hit anyway. Looking at it closely:
The only way to compete would be to be very fortunate with the farm and have a young core all come together at one time
How is this any different than our current strategy? Signing Lindor to this deal does not preclude the Indians from doing this, and we're going to have to do it whether or not we sign Francisco Lindor to a long term contract. If the Indians sign Francisco Lindor to a long term contract: we're going to need cheap, young talent to place around him. If the Indians don't sign Lindor to a long term contract: .....we're going to need MORE chap young talent to replace Lindor AND put MORE talent around that talent.
it’s the amount of years we’d have to give him. We’ll have no financial wiggle room and inevitably be paying for down years in his mid-thirties.
I believe this critically misunderstands why teams sign players to long term contracts, and also assumes Lindor is guaranteed to decline quickly. Long term contracts benefit the team, not the player. Why? Because long term contracts hedge against injuries. One thing true of contracts is teams attempt to pay for the value of a player's performance in aggregate, and spread if out over a number of years. If you expect to sign a player who will provide you with 10 bWAR: you're going to pay him $80M (assuming an $8M/bWAR correlation). Now, if you think a player is going to be worth 5 bWAR: you'd have to pay him $40M for that season. No team has ever paid a player $40M a year. No player, not even Mike Trout, is being paid that much in a season. The answer is to pay a player for more years, and not pay as much for a season.
If players really wanted to get their full value: they'd do what Bauer threatens to do and sign a new contract ever single season. No team would sign a player to this type of contract because of the risk of injury (or risk of an unusually down year). If a player gets injured: the team just paid millions for nothing. Longer contracts reduce this risk. If anything, I'd suggest the Indians offer a longer deal for Francisco Lindor. True, they're almost assuredly going to pay him for bad years but they're increasing their financial flexibility when he's good. That has value to the team as well.
Finally: there's no guarantee Lindor declines. Some players (ahem: usually the generational talents, of which Lindor is one) age quite well. Joey Votto is a great example of this: Votto has been a steal for Cincinnati since he signed his contract extension seven years ago. He remained as good, or better, than he was in his MVP season until he was 34. There's no reason Lindor cannot match his longevity (and since Lindor will be younger he could surpass him in total good years on his contract). I have looked at the debate over big contracts as well, and find they typically end up being much better for their teams than people frequently comment.
He may get the richest contract in history… do you really that that’s coming from Cleveland?
There is almost no chance Lindor gets the richest contract in history. That is currently owned by...Mike Trout. Mike Trout signed a contract worth nearly a half billion dollars. There is literally no comparison between Trout and Lindor. If Trout is the bar for richest contract in history, I cannot fathom Lindor breaking it (or anyone else for that matter any time soon).
On the other hand, I largely cannot disagree with him: I do not think Cleveland WILL sign Francisco Lindor to this kind of contract (I just think they SHOULD sign him).
How Risky is a Lindor Extension?
Tough to say, I would argue no more than any other signing, and less than most mega extensions. Francisco Lindor's top comp is Cal Ripken Jr. If Lindor aged like Cal Ripken, he'd post over 50 bWAR from his age 28 season onward. Now, there's no guarantee Lindor will age like Ripken (Lindor has not been as good as Cal), Here are some other Francisco Lindor comps:
2. Xander Boegarts
Considering Xander is just as young as Lindor this does not provide useful information for us to parse.
3. Vern Stephens
A shortstop from the World War 2 period, he only posted 17.2 bWAR from his age 28 season onward.
4. Joe Torre
Torre posted 24.3 bWAR from his age 28 season onward.
This is probably worst case scenario
One more interesting comparison....#8 Derek Jeter. Jeter was an excellent old player, and posted a majority of his value from his age 28 season onward.
Overall, I believe there is a really good chance Lindor ages well. One helpful thing is: Lindor is really good defensively, and certainly a better defender than most of the players on this list. He's also a strong baserunner; there's no reason Lindor cannot age well, and there's also no reason we cannot move him off shortstop, and still get decent value out of him as he ages.
Conclusion
At the end of the day this is a question of how well we think Lindor ages, nothing more. I suspect Lindor will age well, and there is zero reason he cannot be well worth his contract when he signs it. There is also no reason Lindor could not be worth it to a market like Cleveland. Yes: he will be expensive, but players like Francisco Lindor do not grow on trees and Cleveland should not just let him go. I also do not agree with the argument that big deals are inherently bad: many big deals end up working well for the signing team.
