Aaron Hicks Gets His Bite of the (Big) Apple
For a player whom the Yankees acquired from the Twins in exchange for a backup catcher who hasn’t posted a positive WAR since the deal, Aaron Hicks was already quite a steal. Now the team has inked the 29-year-old switch-hitting center fielder to a very club-friendly seven-year, $70 million extension. It’s the second extension they’ve handed out this month, after Luis Severino’s four-year, $40 million deal, and likely won’t be the last, as the team is reportedly working on extensions for Dellin Betances and Didi Gregorius as well
The Severino extension has the same average annual value as Hicks’, but the two situations are rather different. Severino’s deal buys out just one year of potential free agency for a just-turned-25-year-old Super Two pitcher. While his career has had its ups and downs — including a detour to the minors in 2016 after a tantalizing 2015 debut, as well as a two-month slump last year that featured a 6.83 ERA, a 4.99 FIP, and concerns about pitch-tipping that carried into the postseason — we’re still talking about a pitcher who ranked fifth in the majors in WAR over the past two seasons while making a pair of All-Star teams and receiving Cy Young votes in both years, with a third-place finish in 2017. He may well win the award before his new contract lapses.
Hicks, who could have become a free agent after this season, isn’t nearly as accomplished, in that he’s never made an All-Star team, and has a single 10th-place AL MVP vote to his name. Indeed, he’s something of a late bloomer, having taken until his age-28 season (last year) to qualify for a batting title, though it’s not as though his talent was unexpected. The 14th pick of the 2008 draft out of Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach, California, he made four appearances on Baseball America’s Top 100 Prospects lists from 2009-2013, ranking as high as no. 19 (2010). While I could spend a thousand words explaining how the Twins botched his development, Baseball Prospectus editor-in-chief Aaron Gleeman, who has covered the team since the days when blogs were a novelty, offered a succinct summary in less than 280 characters:
Twins rushed Aaron Hicks to the majors, skipping Triple-A, failed to help him develop even a little bit, criticized his work ethic publicly, gave up on him at age 25, and traded him for a backup catcher who played just 26 games for them. The end of the Terry Ryan regime was wild.
— Aaron Gleeman (@AaronGleeman) February 25, 2019
In 928 plate appearances spread from 2013-2015, Hicks hit just .225/.306/.349 for an 81 wRC+, though above-average (and occasionally spectacular) defense pushed his WAR in that span to 2.5. But with top prospect Byron Buxton waiting to be similarly screwed up in the wings, Ryan sold very low on Hicks, trading him straight up for catcher John Ryan Murphy, a former second-round pick who through his age-24 season had shown promise on both sides of the ball, if not at a level that lands one on the upper reaches of prospect lists. Long story short, Ryan started his Twins career going 3-for-40 as a backup behind Kurt Suzuki, and never really had a chance in the organization before being dealt to the Diamondbacks in July 2017.
Though Yankees general manager Brian Cashman loved his athleticism, Hicks did not pan out immediately. Amid three trips to the injured list (once for each hamstring, and once for his right shoulder), he hit just .217/.281/.336 (64 wRC+, -0.1 WAR) in 361 PA as a fourth outfielder behind Brett Gardner, Jacoby Ellsbury, and Carlos Beltran in 2016, a step backwards from his modest but solid 2015 (96 wRC+, 2.0 WAR). He finally broke out in 2017 (.266/.372/.475, 15 homers, 10 SB, 3.3 WAR) despite oblique strains on both sides that limited him to 88 games. An intercostal strain sidelined him early in 2018, but he recovered to put together his best season yet, batting .248/.366/.467 with 27 homers, 11 steals, a 127 wRC+ and 4.9 WAR, the Yankee lineup’s second-highest WAR total behind Aaron Judge (5.0).
Hicks’ extension will pay him $10.5 million per year from 2020-2023, then $9.5 million in 2024-2025, with a $12.5 million club option and a $1 million buyout for 2026, his age-36 season. The deal incorporates the $6 million salary he and the Yankees had already hammered out for this year, sweetening the pot with a $2 million signing bonus.
That doesn’t change things all that much, but it makes it easier for apples-to-apples comparisons with the last two free agent center fielders to ink big contracts, namely Lorenzo Cain (five years, $80 million from the Brewers last winter) and A.J. Pollock (four years, $55 million from the Dodgers in January). Both were a bit older and more accomplished when they reached free agency. Cain hit the market after his age-31 season, having already made an All-Star team, helped the Royals to back-to-back pennants (with a 2014 ALCS MVP award, a 2015 ALCS-winning mad dash home, and a championship in that same season), and reeled off four straight seasons of above-average production totaling 17.0 WAR. Pollock reached free agency after his age-30 season, having made one All-Star team and won one Gold Glove. Those were both back in his monster 6.8-WAR 2015 season; since then, a variety of injuries has limited him to 237 games and 5.2 WAR.
Pollock’s deal included all kinds of bells and whistles: a $12 million signing bonus; an opt-out after 2021, with a potential $5 million buyout based upon his PA totals; a $10 million player option — which also increases based upon his PA totals as well as placement in MVP voting — with a $5 million buyout; a $1.5 million assignment bonus if he’s traded; and (probably) an extra popsicle out of the freezer every weekend night. Leaving all of that aside to focus on the guaranteed money, here’s a side-by-side comparison with Hicks, using ZiPS projections supplied by Dan Szymborski:
| Hicks | Pollack | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Year) | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | WAR | Age (Year) | WAR | |
| 29 (2019) | .253 | .354 | .459 | 116 | 3.2 | |||
| 30 (2020) | .252 | .353 | .461 | 116 | 3.0 | |||
| 31 (2021) | .251 | .350 | .451 | 113 | 2.7 | 31 (2019) | 2.7 | |
| 32 (2022) | .247 | .346 | .438 | 108 | 2.3 | 32 (2020) | 2.3 | |
| 33 (2023) | .244 | .338 | .414 | 100 | 1.8 | 33 (2021) | 1.9 | |
| 34 (2024) | .238 | .326 | .388 | 90 | 1.1 | 34 (2022) | 1.3 | |
| 35 (2025) | .231 | .313 | .357 | 79 | 0.4 | 35 (2023) | 0.8 | |
| Total | 14.4 | 8.9 | ||||||
| Ages 31-35 | 8.3 | 8.9 | ||||||
WAR-wise, the two players are just over half a win apart when it comes to their 31-to-35 projections; for that period, Hicks is guaranteed $50.5 million to Pollock’s $55 million, though the latter could reach $65 million if he maxes out his incentives with 600 PA in 2022 (a level he reached only in 2015), and go even higher if he finishes in the top 10 of the MVP voting in any of those four years (something he’s never done). Even before factoring inflation, Hicks is taking a discount relative to that guaranteed money, but again, he’s less accomplished in the traditional sense, even if he’s been the more valuable one over the past two or three seasons.
As with Severino’s extension (and most deals struck prior to a player reaching free agency), there’s a decent chance that Hicks has sold himself short. Then again, the past two winters’ trips through free agency haven’t been much fun for many players, and there’s also a chance Hicks might not merit a starting job by the middle of this deal, and thus be the kind of fourth outfielder who only a big-spending team like the Yankees — who are paying Gardner $7.5 million for a year in which he might wind up in that role, and have paid Ellsbury $42 million for the past two seasons, one of them a complete washout — can afford. If Mike Trout absolutely demands to wear pinstripes after the 2020 season, while Judge and Giancarlo Stanton are under contract, Hicks’ salary won’t be a huge impediment.
Seventy million dollars of guaranteed money isn’t nothing. For a player whose major league career seemed to take forever to get off the ground, and who, after one more good season before hitting the market, might at best have netted the same dollar amount but compressed into a shorter time period (say, five years and $70 million as Cain Lite) and then been forced to scramble for scraps given the way the market is treating outfielders in their mid-30s, it’s a solid payday. If this is Hicks’ one bite of the (Big) Apple, he did all right.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Good for A-a-ron. We shall have all the Aarons for a long time.
Yes, we’ll be hearing (and hearing, and hearing) about the Yank Aarons for a long time.
He was a supremely mediocre hitter at almost every level (majors and minors) from 2013-2016, so it’s not like the Twins exactly “missed” on him.
The Twins didn’t miss on him as much as they screwed up his development big time, then sold lower than low.
Basically he started hitting home runs when the ball got juiced. It’s not a mystery.
He’s fine and the deal is a very good one for the Yankees, but I predict he is below average in 4 years or fewer. All the defensive metrics show him as above average but not phenomenal in center and when he moves to a corner, he’s only ok.
Anyone actually familiar with juiced ball theory knows that shit started in 2016, when Hicks sucked.
I believe “Mariner’d” is the correct verb for massively screwing up a prospect’s development.
Seven years, $70 million pays him through his age 35 season. You could argue he has an argument to make Lorenzo Cain money, but he’d probably have to hit the open market to do that. So it would seem like he should get somewhere in between Pollock and Cain, and he did sort of get that–$64M in new guaranteed money compared to $55M or $80M. The big difference is that both those contracts were over 5, while Hicks’ contract stretches over 6. Given what people are making in their Age 35 seasons these days, you could argue Hicks should just get the biggest guarantee possible, but I would argue the appropriate money would be this guarantee over five years instead of six.
I am a little surprised that Hicks agreed to this deal, because the Yankees would be kind of screwed if Hicks walked next year. The team has a core that can cover almost every position going forward except center field and shortstop, and Hicks was the *only* center fielder worth anything who is going to be a free agent next year, and they have no internal replacements (unless they think that Frazier can play center field, which he probably can’t). Florial isn’t going to be ready in 2020, if ever, and the Yankees’ teenager CFers probably won’t be ready until Hicks is ready to move into a corner. But he must have been really worried about the possibility of everything falling apart next offseason, because you could see a team like the Mets bidding quite a bit for him.
This part about there being literally no one of value who on the FA market next year who can play center field…this is something to keep in mind as Zack Granite dangles in DFA limbo, as Corey Ray moves into AAA, as the Rays try to figure out where they’re going to play all of their center fielders, and as the Padres try to figure out whether Franchy Cordero or Margot should be in center field. If a team winds up unsatisfied with their options or a big name goes down, there are not a lot of guys out there who can step in next offseason.
Even with a repeat of last year’s numbers his upside was likely the Cain contract. So I agree that I would have expected the $64M guarantee over 5 years not 6 to be about market value.
But we generally see these extensions come with some form of discount and it leads me to believe Hicks is just more risk averse than some guys and didn’t want to bet on his own health if a large enough guarantee was presented. There’s a very human element to contract negotiations that can be taken for granted. Not every player seeks to maximize their earnings. I think we all may underestimate to an extent a player’s comfort with their specific situation.
Plus if Hicks would have walked after the year the Yankees would have just traded a back-up catcher to MN for Buxton who would struggle for a year before becoming a solid 3-4 WAR player…Kidding but if Hicks walked I’m sure the Yankees would have turned to the trade market in some fashion for a replacement. It wouldn’t be a Hicks or bust dilemma.
Also, in theory, Torres could cover SS for the Yankees long-term.
I disagree with the premise that the Yankees would be able to pull another starting center fielder out of a hat, but I do agree that shortstop is a less pressing situation for them. Between Torres sliding over to shortstop and Thairo Estrada hanging out as a possible bridge piece, their back isn’t up against the wall like it would be for center field.
They have Ellsbury still in 2020…. 😉
I am imagining my Yankees-fan-friend shapeshifting into a snorting bull, pawing the ground angrily.
I’m not sure saying they could make a trade for a CF is equivalent to pulling one out of a hat. Plenty of starting caliber CFs were available or moved in trades recently.
-Pillar could have been had this offseason if a team wanted. He’s a solid 2 WAR regular
-JBJ was rumored available, though cost prohibitive
-Tommy Pham didn’t cost much last summer as something of a distressed asset
-Mallex Smith went for a reasonable return
Hard to say exactly who will be available this summer or next offseason but there would have been options had the Hicks extension not happened.
Maybe you aren’t replacing all of Hicks production, but I would be hard pressed to say a team with the Yankees resources is screwed if they don’t land a specific free agent.
I doubt JBJ was really available, except in the theoretical “every player is available for the right return” sense. The Red Sox are smart enough not to trade a good, cheap player just because WEEI callers don’t like him. And he was especially unavailable to the Yankees, who double-especially aren’t going to send prospects to the Red Sox.
I’d disagree about his availability. I think the price was high but I believe the Sox were genuinely testing the market and would have moved him more readily than the Cubs/Bryant for example. The team needs and will continue to need payroll space and has two other CF capable outfielders.
JBJ has one season left in arb after this year which means he’s only getting less valuable from a cost perspective. With Sale, Bogey, Betts, and potentially Martinez all needing contracts, JBJ is low on their priority list for an extension (even if he comes at a bargain).
Whether we like it or not, teams are treating the lux tax like a cap and the Red Sox know they need payroll space for those extensions. JBJ, imo, represents the most realistic, least harmful trade candidate from the Red Sox roster that would save a few million between 2019 and 2020 (as much as I hate to say save a few million when thinking about the Red Sox revenues).
That said JBJ was just an example of an “available” CF. The Sox wouldn’t deal him to the Yankees of all teams unless the offer was absurdly favorable.
I think there’s a big difference between “should be available for a reasonable price” and “available on the terms that you want.” Pillar is a good example. For a lot of good reasons, he should be on the Mets right now (or in Cleveland, or Colorado), but the Blue Jays aren’t all that interested in trading useful players right now unless they get a really good return.
The Mallex Smith trade is a better example, but the return was a starting major league player with two years of control. Do you think the Yankees are interested in moving useful players off their major league roster with years of control left? In this scenario, who would be the candidate to move? Gleyber Torres? Miguel Andujar? Gary Sanchez? The logical piece is Clint Frazier, although his stock is pretty down at the moment and hasn’t established himself as a major leaguer in the same way. I don’t think a lot of teams are willing to do what Dipoto did in Seattle.
The thing is, if Hicks hit the free market, replacing him would cost a lot of money or resources from something. The demand for center fielders right now is somewhat higher than the supply.
I agree with the idea that replacing Hicks with a starting caliber CF would cost the Yankees resources they would rather hold onto, but it still wasn’t a Hicks or bust scenario. Hicks was just the best and easiest answer to the potential problem.
The Rays may well have accepted a different kind of return for Smith if they felt the value was better. The Yankees wouldn’t necessarily have to subtract from the ML team for such a trade.
I actually don’t think the market for CFs is all that robust. If demand were higher than supply teams would be more willing to pay a higher asking price for CFs and I don’t see evidence of that being the case. The trade returns haven’t been overwhelming, Cain and Pollack both didn’t seem to have much of a bidding war shape up as FAs.
Teams seem more willing to get creative to fill the spot sacrificing defense – Astros, Nats (last year) – or betting on athletic infielders to make the switch – Mariners and Gordon (didn’t take) or Dbacks and Marte.
As for Pillar not having been moved, how much of an upgrade is a 2 WAR Pillar over whatever combination of Conforto, Nimmo, Lagares, Broxton plays out there? Not enough to justify both the salary and trade cost since a deal hasn’t been made.
The same goes for the Indians with Martin, Zimmer, etc. Their larger need is in the outfield corners and they just don’t have a willingness to add salary at this point. Joc Pederson would make a lot more sense for Cleveland as a Brantley replacement at this point.
I just don’t agree with you at all about the landing spots for Pillar, but I’m not sure I can convince you about that. On the other hand, Cain got an awfully nice contract and Pollock got a shockingly good contract for a guy who is below-average in center field and a league-average hitter (and always hurt). It sure looked like the market was robust for both of them from here.
Just differences of perception. Appreciate the analysis and back and forth though definitely keeps the site interesting!
I think the big point for Hicks is that he’s a player who has been on the disabled list at least once every year since 2013. It’s very understandable that “$70 million guaranteed” is attractive security for a player with that history.
As for what the Yankees might otherwise cobble together for 2020 if they hypothetically wouldn’t have Hicks, I think there would be a few viable but not exciting options. Billy Hamilton and the Royals have a mutual option for 2020. Those normally aren’t exercised, and he should be very available in a trade even if it was. Perhaps Gardner sticks around on a 1-year deal for 2020. Florial’s 2019 performance would be important context on if the team thinks it needs a solution for all of 2020 or just part of the season. I’m not saying any of those are great options, which gets to why this deal makes sense for the Yankees as well as Hicks.
” Seven years, $70 million pays him through his age 35 season. You could argue he has an argument to make Lorenzo Cain money, but he’d probably have to hit the open market to do that.”
not only would he have to hit the market, but he almost certainly would have to sign with a team less likely to win than the Yankees.
winning and being part of a winning team has a good deal of value
Aaron Michael Hicks Jr. was born in January and might have had some influence on the negotiations. Security isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Yes exactly. Everyone seems so focused on players trying to maximize their earnings that they forget there are other factors to consider. While the $6 million Hicks agreed to avoid arbitration this year is nice, $70 million guaranteed will comfortably set up his newborn (and future Hicksie generations to come). Taking into account Hicks’ short successful track record and injury history, the deal seems like a win for both sides.
Also consider this recent quote from Brett Gardner: “I’ve played with quite a few people who have come from other places and can’t believe the way we do things around here. I play with people here who go other places and call me and say, ‘You don’t want to come over here,’” he said.
I can’t really tell what Gardner was trying to say. Is it that Yankees players enjoy the team’s culture?
> “If Mike Trout absolutely demands to wear pinstripes after the 2020 season”
Wow, we’re getting the Trout to the Yankees hype train started early, I like it!!
All jokes aside, this is a great deal. Very affordable, basically buying low on his potential if he can remain healthy.
New York has a lot of different kinds of weather, if you’re into that sort of thing.
Everyone knows that if you want to be serious about meteorology, you have to study in the Midwest. Trout in NLC division blue pinstripes is my ultimate dream.
Well, the Dodgers aren’t getting him.
As a Twins fan all I can say is I’m so glad we got John Ryan Murphy instead of this guy. Dodged a real bullet there.
Actually I’m happy to Hicks make good, even if for another team. He was one of the first players I followed all the way through the minors when I first got into baseball, and his struggles with the Twins were not quite a Buxtonian level of disappointment, but close
He’ll provide a few more very good seasons serving as a bridge until Mike Trout signs as a free agent. Then the Yankees can trade his surplus value contract to another team to acquire a pitcher.
The deal is going to look bad the last two years, but the Yankees will have gotten so much value it won’t matter if they release him.
Is this the longest, lowest deal since players got big bucks? When was the last even just 4-year deal that didn’t pay more than $10M per year?
I can immediately think of one free agent deal that fits those criteria, but it was for a relief pitcher. Brett Cecil currently has a 4 / $30.5 million contract running from 2017 to 2020.
Maeda also has a long-term deal for less than $10 million per year guaranteed, signed in early 2016. It’s 8 / $25 million guaranteed, but with big incentives each year: up to ~$11 million *per year* based on innings pitched and games started. The Dodgers also had to pay his Japanese team a $20 million posting fee, but it still adds up to less than $10 million per year guaranteed AAV even counting that fee.
Also, I assume that we’re excluding early career extensions that cover multiple arb years. There are plenty of those that are 4 or more years with AAV’s under $10 million. I agree with putting Hicks’ deal in a different category than those others since Hicks’ extension only covers one arb year.
I like this deal for the Yankees. For all the outrage on Twitter about the number of years, we are still talking about $70 million overall. If a WAR is worth $8 million (debatable at this point, but just assume), he only needs to produce 9 WAR over seven years. And on the upside he may well provide 9 WAR over the next two years alone. Do Harper or Machado have that kind of upside, for a $300 million contract?
Nothing about last year’s performance screams fluke. His BABIP was in fact, down. The bigger risk is probably injury. But I wonder if the Yankees can mitigate that the way they handled another injury prone player, Stanton, by giving him more DH opportunities and maybe splitting time in CF with Gardner. Given that Gardner still has his speed I don’t see why Gardner can’t play CF.
Brett Gardner is fine in CF when needed. Last year he played 284 innings there at +3.7 UZR/150. I wouldn’t want him to be the everyday center fielder, but if Hicks goes on the DL he can absolutely slide over to CF with Stanton in LF.
“And on the upside he may well provide 9 WAR over the next two years alone”
Of course, next year was already locked in at a similar rate with or without the extension, so I’d probably consider more then 2020 onward bit, ie the actual extra years the Yankees just bought.
Looking for non-catchers, debut 1961 onward, who were within 10% of his age 26-28 PA and within 0.5 fWAR/600PA and +/- 10 points of his wRC+… here is what the 10 comps I got averaged each year going forward:
29 3.7 fWAR (already under contract before ext)
30 3.1
31 2.9
32 1.6
33 0.9
34 1.1
35 0.2
Lets smooth that out into what looks like an aging curve (same total fWAR age 29-35):
29 3.0 fWAR
30 3.0
31 2.5
32 2.0
33 1.5
34 1.0
35 0.5
Figuring $8M per win for 2019 and +3% per year going forward, then I get the 6/$64M extension bit projecting out to being worth 6/$91M. So, Hicks probably left a bit of money on the table, but the trade-off was that he ran his risk pretty close to 0%.
If his 2019 isn’t at least a 2-3 win sort of year, he very well could have lost that difference right there.
This is a really great analysis, thanks for putting it together, and good point about not including 2019.
I do wonder if your comps are underrating Hicks, because he actually had some mediocre years, before “figuring it out”–or so it appears from observation. I have no data to back this up, but if you believe he will be more like the last two years, then the years before that, his projected wins go up. I’m assuming (based on your description) that your comps are based on averages from his entire career.
I used just ages 26-28 only, which include his, by far, two best seasons. Here are the 10 comps that I came up with:
Paul Molitor
Kevin Youkilis
Tom Haller
Josh Hamilton
Jose Reyes
Jerry Mumphrey
Milton Bradley
Cody Ross
Cesar Cedeno
Colby Rasmus
Just to add one more factor to the comp- Hick’s BsR/600PA was well above average for this group, again age 26-28. using +/- 2.25 BSR/600PA makes the sample at least pretty close toHicks overall. This eliminates Youkilis, Haller, Bradley and Mumphrey.
The remaining 6 comps, with the same process as before… 6/$92M, so eliminating the slower players doesn’t make a difference.
Regarding the beginning of Gleeman’s tweet where he says that the : “Twins rushed Aaron Hicks to the majors, skipping Triple-A”…is there any proof that skipping AAA is an actual problem?
Juan Soto skipped it. Jose Altuve skipped it. Mike Trout and Jose Ramirez both played in the majors before spendng time in AAA. Alex Bregman and Mookie Betts barely played in AAA. Going way back in time, I know Johnny Damon skipped AAA. I could go on but I think you get the picture.
Now obviously those are the success stories. Perhaps the pool of players who skip AAA and fail is a lot larger than the successes. But it would be nice to see some evidence of that.
Also, Hicks was 23 when he made the majors. That doesn´t strike me as being rushed. Perhaps the Twins messed up his development in other ways. But I’m having a hard time seeing someone debuting at the age of 23 without having played AAA as a major issue.
There’s also no proof that the Yanks were solely responsible for his breakout. He was pretty rough in his first season in pinstripes. Sometimes talented guys take a while to figure it out – look at Alex Gordon who was written off as a bust until he figured it out at age 27.
This is a great point. I’d love to see some contemporaneous comments that took issue with the decision at the time. Otherwise it’s just ex-post second-guessing.
IE, after the 2012 season, the FG player cap included that ” he could see time in Minnesota during the second half of the [2013] season. ”
It turned out that he saw that time in the first half of the season instead – and was then sent down circa August 1 when it wasn’t working out. (And he finished out the year in AAA, so I wouldn’t say it’s entirely accurate that he skipped it.)
I’m open to the idea that MIN screwed this up somehow – but giving a 23 yo with a AA 134 wrc+ a shot to open with the club doesn’t seem like evidence of clear malpractice to me. (In fact if this happened today and the club *didn’t* give him an Opening Day shot, some in the peanut gallery might be claiming service time manipulation!)
The three data points where “skipping AAA is a bad idea” are usually Buxton, Hicks, and Dansby Swanson. Of those, I think that Swanson was probably going to wind up in the same place as he is now even if he had some more time, Buxton really needed more time to iron out his swing and build his confidence, and Hicks…Hicks could go either way. He actually did play a little bit in AAA in 2013, and a little in 2014, and you could make a pretty strong argument he needed more time there given how he performed in the majors around that time. And then, in 2015, he finally seemed to figure it out, at least temporarily–both in AAA and that majors.
The real issue with promoting a player too fast is if you have to add them to the 40 man early, giving you less roster flexibility, or if it’s the kind of player who needs some confidence building it can take a while to put humpty-dumpty back together again. But normally, I suspect what happens is if someone is over their head in MLB, they just send them back to AAA to work things out.
Good overall points. In the particular case of Hicks, he was added to the 40 man roster after the 2012 season because he was otherwise eligible for the Rule 5 Draft, so he was going to be on the 40 man roster in 2013 either in the majors or the minors.
To that point on numerous successful examples of players who skipped AAA, Benintendi also skipped AAA and only had 263 total PA’s at AA.
As a Yankees fan this makes me so happy. If Didi is Jeter’s heir, Hicks is Bernie’s. There’s something to be said to have great people (not just great ball players) signed to play your key positions and be the backbone (if not necessarily the face) of your team.
Now we just got to keep them both healthy.
Doe anyone else think the Yankees made it 7 years instead of 5 just to keep the AAV luxury tax figure low? A 5/$70 contract would be more in line with what Cain and Polluck got. Hicks probably doesn’t care because it’s not like 34 year old CFs get paid much in free agency.
I was wondering the same thing. It did feel a little like the Dodgers/Utley contract.
But I have to assume they paid *something* for those last two years, if only because it seems like he’s the type of guy (great eye and arm, switch hitter, and still should have some semblance of speed left) who at 34 could still be a nice 2 WAR LF or RF which has to be worth at least $5M a year, even in this market.
Maybe it was a choice between 5/$60m and 7/$70m?
I think Hicks would have needed to have a really strong year this year to do any better than this contract. $70 million guaranteed seems like a fair deal – it’s over $6 million per win and given his limited history you have to imagine the error bars are really wide for his projections. Volatility swings both ways but I think the chances he becomes a 1.5 WAR players are higher than the chances he becomes a 5.5 WAR player.
Still like NY as a Bryce mystery team
Gardner is 35
God, I was so wrong when I said that trade was fair.
So was I – I really liked JR Murphy in the minors.
The recently history of center fielders in their 30s is not terribly favorable. This really is a 5-year, 70M contract, for a player who has had his share of injuries, who was essentially replacement-level until 2017, whose career earnings amount to little more than $5M, and who plays a position with a reputation for rapid decline after the age of 30. Look where Adam Jones is, or how Andrew McCutchen dropped off the past few years. Cutch is still serviceable because he was much better than post-breakout Hicks at the same age. Hicks doesn’t have the same margin for error.
He was a little bit better on a rate basis, mainly he was better at staying on the field. Then he dropped off precipitously at age 29 which I don’t think is the norm.
I looked when Kiermaier’s extension first came out, and the center fielders who don’t drop off significantly around age 30, give or take a couple of years, seems like the exception.
Defensively, or overall?
Either way, Hicks’ current projections are based on the premise that his 2016 is equally indicative of his 2019 performance as Trout’s is.
The generic “Hicks’ projected value will beat his contract” stats are based on a value that doesn’t *truly* exist, these days.
I don’t know, but Cutch dropped like 5 WAR from age 29 to 30. That can’t be the norm, anyway