Mets Ink Francisco Lindor to Ten-Year Extension

When the Mets traded for Francisco Lindor earlier this offseason, an extension felt likely, even certain. As the season rolled inexorably closer with no deal in place, however, that likelihood (certitude?) ebbed: The Mets seemed tied to their offer, Lindor had a March 31 negotiation deadline, and no one was budging. Last night, the impasse ended: The two parties agreed to a 10-year, $341 million extension that will make him the highest-paid shortstop in history, as Jon Heyman first reported.

Lindor’s brilliance hardly needs recapitulation, but for giddy Mets fans drinking in every piece of marginalia about this deal, I’ll offer a quick one. If Andrelton Simmons didn’t exist, Lindor would be the best defensive shortstop of the 21st century. He boasts a rare combination of mobility, sure hands, a strong arm, and defensive instincts. If those sound like everything you could ask for in a shortstop, you’re not wrong. There’s really no way of overstating it, because this isn’t a place where eye tests and various wonky metrics disagree. Every advanced defensive metric places him among the top handful of defenders since he entered the league, with only Simmons and Nick Ahmed as peers. The eye test will tell you that his mere presence stabilizes an infield and calms the pitchers in front of him. The talent and panache on display nightly is simply irrefutable.

Lindor isn’t quite that accomplished at the plate, but he’s no slouch there either. He is, for the most part, a classic leadoff hitter. He has a solid grasp of the strike zone and strong contact skills, as demonstrated by his career 7.6% swinging strike rate. That keeps his strikeout rate down; his 14.1% career rate will make you forget what baseball looks like these days. This isn’t a Willians Astudillo situation where he limits strikeouts by swinging at everything, either; his 8.1% walk rate is roughly average. When you strike out much less than average and walk at a normal rate, it’s hard to be bad.

That’s not to say that Lindor is Juan Soto at the plate. As you might expect from a slight shortstop, he doesn’t boast eye-popping power on contact. As measured by wOBACON (that’s wOBA on contact, but we analysts never miss a chance to reference bacon), he’s slightly above average, with a .380 mark in his six-season career as compared to .370 for baseball as a whole. Average power on above-average opportunities (remember: he hardly strikes out, which means more balls in play) produces solid counting statistics, as his three straight 30-homer seasons (2017–19) can attest.

I can tell you all that, and I can tell you that Lindor is known as Mister Smile for his relentlessly upbeat demeanor and overall delightfulness. I can tell you that he projects to be the Mets’ best position player since the days when Carlos Beltrán and David Wright shared the field. None of that is new information, but it doesn’t make it any less valid. It’s worth mentioning, though, lest we lose sight of the player on the field while we talk about the contract that will keep him on that field.

As always happens in one of these articles, I’ll break down the ZiPS projections for Lindor’s on-field value throughout the life of the contract in a bit. It’s the internet; if you want to ignore the next chunk of paragraphs and zip down to the big table with the fancy columns, be my guest. But before we do that part, I think it’s worth mentioning the value of an exclusive negotiating period, as demonstrated by this signing.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

How much could Lindor have expected to make in free agency next offseason? We can’t know. How much would the Mets have been willing to pay to get the job done? We also don’t know. But I think we assign too much certainty to both these estimates and our approximation of fair value.

The estimates you’ll see below aren’t immutable truths. They aren’t the only estimates that exist, and they aren’t even the only reasonable ones; change the weight on different inputs, and you could skew your estimate of Lindor’s ten-year projection by a huge net amount. Converting wins to dollars is hardly settled science, even if we did have a perfect win estimate, further complicating matters.

Every team operates in that uncertain space, and every player does too. The Dodgers might see $370 million as “fair value” for Lindor, the Yankees $310 million, and the Mets $350 million. That’s not a wild spread of estimates; teams have their own models, and it’s not like they share.

Furthermore, negotiations don’t work in the frictionless way we discuss them. This isn’t an open-outcry auction with every team having last right of refusal via a bidding system; teams make free agents their “last and best” offers without knowing the other deals on the table. The Mets reportedly offered $325 million to Lindor before sweetening the pot to best Fernando Tatis’s total guarantee, and if this negotiation were happening on the open market, they might have left it at that; here’s our number, call us back if you want to talk more.

But when other teams are also involved, the “if you want to talk more” isn’t guaranteed. If another suitor offered $345 million, there’s no guarantee that Lindor would have come back to Queens to give them a chance to counter. It’s not like $325 million, or $341 million, or any other round number, is some written-in-stone level past which the Mets wouldn’t go; that’s simply an amount they were willing to pay to secure Lindor’s services, and an amount at which he was willing to offer those services.

If anyone tells you that they know the extra $16 million (with unknown deferrals) the team offered moves this deal from good to bad, they’re lying. It’s all guesswork, albeit with a ton of data driving the guessing. And the Mets’ estimate of fair value isn’t as important as their puke point, the number they wouldn’t be willing to go above. If their fair value estimate was $338 million, it’s not like they’d be ecstatic to seal the deal at 325 and unwilling at 341; things don’t operate that way.

Instead, the two sides, without any confusing intervening offers, simply negotiated a number that could make both happy. Both sides off-laid risk here. The Mets get to skip going into the winter without a star shortstop locked up, which lowers the risk that they’ll need to pay more to get their man, or simply miss him. If the Yankees were willing to pay Lindor $380 million (to pick a number out of a hat), and the Mets were intent on signing him, then hey, they just saved $39 million. Lindor avoided the risk that contract offers would come in lower. If the Yankees (they’re a fun hypothetical team to use) offered only $300 million and the Mets stood pat at $325 million, great; Lindor made $16 million by signing this deal now.

If you start thinking about contracts less as teams trying to extract surplus relative to some modeled expected value, and more as teams and players exchanging educated guesses to see if their incentives line up, the trade-and-extend move makes more sense. We don’t know the highest number New York would pay, and we don’t know the lowest number Lindor would accept, but by trading for him earlier this offseason, the Mets got to find out if those numbers overlapped — and they did.

Fine, fine, you can see what we estimate for these ten years of Lindor’s steady brilliance. You’ve earned it by sitting through my half-baked economic treatise. ZiPS projects him for roughly 34 wins from 2022 to ’31:

ZiPS Projections – Francisco Lindor
Year BA OBP SLG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB OPS+ DR WAR
2022 .264 .331 .491 595 95 157 38 2 31 85 56 106 17 122 7 5.3
2023 .265 .332 .495 582 94 154 37 2 31 85 55 99 17 123 6 5.3
2024 .266 .333 .501 563 91 150 35 2 31 83 53 94 17 125 5 5.1
2025 .265 .329 .499 543 87 144 33 2 30 79 49 88 18 123 4 4.8
2026 .263 .325 .495 521 82 137 30 2 29 76 45 82 16 121 3 4.3
2027 .260 .321 .484 496 75 129 27 3 26 71 41 75 15 117 2 3.7
2028 .254 .311 .455 468 67 119 24 2 22 62 36 67 14 107 1 2.7
2029 .247 .301 .435 437 59 108 21 2 19 54 31 59 12 99 0 1.9
2030 .240 .291 .396 404 50 97 17 2 14 44 26 50 10 86 -2 0.9
2031 .226 .273 .341 287 31 65 10 1 7 25 17 31 5 68 -1 -0.1

Handily enough for those converting WAR to dollars, that comes out to a clean $10 million per win. That’s in line with our estimate of Mookie Betts’ extension last year, and he feels like a good comparison point; since Lindor’s debut in 2015, the only two position players with more WAR are Betts and Mike Trout.

Again, though, turning a big contract like this into a dollars-per-WAR estimate misses the real point. The Mets would have preferred to spend $20 million less, and Lindor would have preferred to receive $20 million more, but a little surplus value isn’t the point of the deal; building a team is the point of the deal, and the Mets have indisputably done that.

This deal stands as the third-largest in history, trailing only the extensions signed by Betts and Trout. Given that Lindor has been the third-best position player of recent vintage (pitcher contracts are different beasts), trailing those same two, that sounds quite reasonable. Time will tell what becomes of it, but at the moment, both sides must be thrilled with the outcome. The Mets got their man, at a price that they were willing to pay. Lindor got his contract, the most ever awarded to a shortstop. And both sides agreed to that deal without the crushing uncertainty of an open market. There are no losers here, except the other teams who hoped for a bite at the Lindor apple this offseason.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

97 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Mahoney
5 years ago

I swear, it’s like the Mets and Lindor looked at Dan’s ZiPS projections for the contract, the Mets added a couple million a year for Lindor’s “face of the franchise” value, Lindor asked for a few million a year more and then they sort of split the difference.

Such logical behavior is a 180 degree turnaround from the Mets of previous years.

JoserMember since 2021
5 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

Having an owner with such money to spend and a willingness to spend it is certainly a change from the Mets of the recent past.

SirCharlesKMember since 2025
5 years ago
Reply to  Joser

Definitely a nice change of pace over pretending they’ll explore all options and signing the retread’s retread.

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

It also helps that they’re no longer in debt to Madoff’s pyramid scheme…at least I assume so. When exactly did they finish paying that off?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

When Bryce Harper signed his mega contract, someone wrote in the comment section at fangraphs that the two best days in a boat owner’s life are they day they buy their boat, and then the day they sell the boat. The first thing that popped into my mind when I saw Lindor’s extension: “Enjoy your boat.”

MoateMember since 2022
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Is he the boat? Or is his contract the boat? Who owns this boat?

I’m confused who we’re dunking on here, sorry.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Moate

He’s the boat. A really nice boat. Enjoy the feeling of getting the boat. That feeling may not last.

JayMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  Moate

The contract is the boat. Clubs don’t own people, they own player contracts.

Manco
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay

The contract is the price of the boat. The Club has paid for the rights to have him play for them. That isn’t owning people, it is compensation for sole rights to Lindor’s service.

treebeardedMember since 2019
5 years ago
Reply to  Manco

It’s not my money. I’m a Mets fan, and the Mets have Lindor. The contract doesn’t bother me at all, even if it becomes a drag in years 8-10. I understand the boat metaphor here, but that’s apt for Steve Cohen, not Mets fans.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Not sure about this metaphor. A boat is a luxury for most people- unless you’re a fisherman or similar, you don’t need one. Every team needs a shortstop. This may look like an overpay, but an elite player like Lindor is an opportunity to concentrate value in a single position. The value of the 4th/5th win above replacement he provides compared to a 2-3WAR player is worth more than the $10M/WAR figure Ben quoted.

proiste
5 years ago

“Every team needs a shortstop”

Who’s gonna tell the Reds? 😳

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  proiste

Don’t need anyone else when you’ve got enough third basemen.

The Duke
5 years ago
Reply to  proiste

After today – everyone will be telling the Reds

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
5 years ago
Reply to  proiste

An even better joke after seeing the first game of the Suarez experiment

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

I was a little afraid I was putting down too many markers about how bad this was going to be but after today I think I might have undersold it.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

See, here’s where I disagree. A $300M+ player is a luxury for a team. That’s not a refrigerator, or a dishwasher. That’s a boat. And for better or worse, the most exciting day in a boat owner’s life is the day you get the boat.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

$300M players are not boats, or appliances, or any other commodity. They are people, doing a job, and they are getting paid more than other people to do that job because they are seen as the best at doing that job. The exact amount they are paid is due to market forces, because they are so good that teams are competing for their services. If you don’t think it’s smart for your favorite team to have a $300M player, then basically you don’t think your team should ever try to acquire one of the best players at a given position other than as a draft pick or IFA. It worked for the Royals once, I guess.

VinnieDaGooch
5 years ago

You sound like you are trying to run for office lol

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

Can’t a person try to dissuade fellow commenters from comparing people to property without being labeled idealistic?

Introspective Baseball Fan
5 years ago

You’re trying to tell others how to think and then judge them on your thoughts. So yes, you definitely deserve the downvotes.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago

I retract nothing.

bmt24Member since 2023
5 years ago

Turn off your siren, PC police- it’s a metaphor- a tool used to compare two different things that behave similarly. Nobody here actually thinks Lindor is a boat (although maybe there is a boat named “Lindor” somewhere out there).

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  bmt24

@bmt24, I’m gonna re-write “reindeer are better than people” to “boats are better than people” so gvanlue realizes this was not an insult. Or would that make it worse? I think that would make it worse.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Is the “reindeer” thing a reference that I should know? I’m not even old, just out of the loop. Anyway, I understand that your metaphor was not meant as an insult- but I do still feel like it’s not a great way of looking at things. And, if you look at my comment, it really wasn’t even primarily about the metaphor- it’s about the idea that a huge contract for a player is almost always regrettable. Elite players are always going to command huge contracts; if you’re unwilling to take a chance on a huge contract, you will only ever have elite players that you luck into developing– and even, then, only for 6-7 years at most, until they leave for a better payday elsewhere. I get where you’re coming from and understand why you’re skeptical and pessimistic that the deal will work out. But is aiming lower really the answer? Saving money by going after the 2nd or 3rd best FA is a lot more likely to end up like the Jason Bay signing.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

If you don’t know “reindeer are better than people” you should look it up. it’s short, it’s safe for work, it’ll help you relate better to the literal kids (like, the ones born since 2010). super silly. I think it’s cute.

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

…and then look up the reprise from the sequel.

Although, technically the title is “Reindeers Are Better Than People.” Yes, it’s bad grammar, but that’s nothing unusual where song titles are concerned.

If you have time, listen to the other songs from the “Frozen” duology, as well. Those movies have incredible soundtracks!

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
5 years ago

This level of sensitivity would drastically reduce the manner in which ball players could be described. And I’m not even talking about a slippery slope. You’ve already slid off. That pitcher is a workhorse. Nope, can’t say that. That hitter is a grinder. Grinders are a thing you own to grind materials. Can’t say that either.

I find it impossible to see the analogy of the boat as a means or an effort to dehumanize Lindor. I tried. I can’t see it.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Like I said, my concern with the language of the analogy was only a fraction of my comment. But, if you are completely unable to imagine any reason why it might be preferable to avoid talking about people as things that can be bought and sold, and if the mere suggestion of that makes you reflexively angry for some reason, I think that’s your problem and not mine.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
5 years ago

You are clearly the angry one, and I can only presume it is because you really, really want something to be angry about. Your imaginary problems are your problem, not mine.

fredsbankMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Ah yes, baseball players, simple commodities to be bought and sold, just like boats.

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  fredsbank

In a way, yes, they are.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

But seriously, if you asked me whether I’d rather have Lindor at $340M or Correa at $220M (or Story at $150M, or whatever he and Correa will get) I am picking the latter every time. Lindor is good, and he’ll make the team way better, and he’s likely the best of the shortstops who would have been available next offseason. But pretty much every contract this long goes sideways and he’s not THAT much better than the other guys.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Are Correa and Story really expected to sign for that much less? Especially after Lindor’s signing removes one of their top competitors? If they’re on the free market, who’s to say they sign with the Mets? And, again, if you can afford it, why not concentrate as much value as possible in a single position?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago

I don’t know what they’re going to sign for but unless they have absolutely insane years they’re not getting anywhere close to Lindor. It’s going to be a weird year in free agency with four potentially elite shortstops (Correa, Story, Seager, and Baez) although Seager might not be a shortstop much longer and Baez might not be elite anymore.

I think the big concern I would have if I’m an agent for one of those four is that aside from the Dodgers, it’s not at all clear there are teams going to be looking for a $200M shortstop. If the Yankees aren’t sold on Gleyber Torres, that would be two, but a lot of teams like the Angels, Astros, Rockies, and Cubs are likely not players at that level even if they should be (well, not the Rockies, but the other three). The Brewers and Twins are not giving out anything like that either. We have something like eight $300M players in history ever.

bookbookMember since 2019
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I honestly think the Mariners should at least consider making the plunge. SS isn’t a hole, but it may be the obvious place to upgrade since large FA contracts to pitchers are an even worse bet. (France becomes the 1b if White doesn’t work out.) A Seager or healthy Correa could win them a pennant or three.

carterMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

With the exception of last year Seager has been + every single season at SS. He is also thinner than he used to be. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that he has to move off of SS soon.

Johnnie TMember since 2024
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

“… pretty much every contract this long goes sideways.” So true! Aside from like Manny, Scherzer, Maddux, and a handful of others, just about every megadeal for the time comes up to be at least a minor disappointment.

Of course, the teams know this as well… so why do they go ahead anyway? I guess they have to spend their money on something… or they understand that they need top of the line talent to win games (unless they are the Rays) even if it is overpriced .

Jon
5 years ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

Are they disappointments? Or do they just seem like it because the player has declined so much by the end of it? Teams know they are underpaying for the early years of the contract, and overpaying at the end.

Or also because there’s usually more downside than upside? e.g. if a player is getting paid as if he’s a 4-win player, it’s a lot more likely that he’ll put up 0-WAR seasons (particularly at the end) due to injury or otherwise, than it is that he’ll be worth 8 wins a seson.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

I don’t really mind giving out mega contracts to mega stars in theory but in practice this is a big, big contract. I think my reaction to the Betts contract was “I hate this less than other $300M+ contracts,” and I’m not as confident in Lindor keeping his skill-set as I am with Betts.

I’d put this in the same bucket roughly as the Harper, Machado, and Stanton deals, where if this thing goes sideways it’s real bad news, but you’re tempted to do it anyway based on age and talent level and the fact that a star like this can put you over the top. Lindor’s a bit older than Machado and Harper were but he’s also been more consistent. The decline will probably be worse but he’ll be more consistent before then (He’s also not likely to ever embarrass the franchise, something you can’t say about the other ones).

Shalesh
5 years ago
Reply to  Johnnie T

Great question. Teams do this because young 4+ win players are scarce. This is better than the Reds giving $32M/year to Moustakas and Castellanos. The last few years of Lindor’s deal could be bad and that may make the Mets forego other player acquisition targets in those years, but if League Revenues and Attendance keep rising (and new TV contracts that other leagues are signing indicate it will), it may not be a big concern for a big market team like the Mets.

I think teams would prefer not to do this and would prefer to run less risky models like the Rays, Indians, and A’s. The first two are difficult to replicate because they seem to have deep networks in the Dominican Republic which allow them to scoop up every 16 yo there. They both have excellent player development as well. The A’s success is a bit more of a mystery to me — they do trade stars for top prospects and develop players as well as the Rays and Indians. They’re probably a bit better at the amateur draft and they seem to have sustained success (like the Dodgers rather than episodic success like the Brewers of recent years) in rejuvenating players other ML teams have given up on. Maybe the Coliseum allows them to get away with lesser pitchers as well because of the vast foul areas.

treebeardedMember since 2019
5 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

And the Mets’ window of contention (unless it extends indefinitely into the future, which, wouldn’t that be the day?) is now, with deGrom in peak form, Conforto, Nimmo, Alonso, McNeil all early in their careers and three of those four in their arbitration years or pre-arb years. This is designed to put them over the top in the next 3-5 years, as Cohen said in his introductory press conference. There is something to be said for capitalizing on the moment when the iron is hot (to mix metaphors). That’s something the Wilpons would never have done, nor done well. Might Lindor’s deal be an overpay in years 8-10? Sure. But if it wins the Mets a World Series in years 1-7? It’ll have been worth it.

SyndergaardengnomesMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Add the salary of the backup SS to that 220M for Correa, since he’s going to miss a couple months every year…

And Story is going to get a lot more than 150M unless he craters this year.

dl80Member since 2020
5 years ago

Story’s away numbers are going to give a lot of teams pause (fairly or not). And he’s going to be 29.

I think 7/200 is about his max.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  dl80

Yeah, and Correa’s contract is going to be big because he’s young. Obviously, yes, the walk year is important because he gets hurt a lot and had a down year after getting busted for cheating. But almost nobody hits free agency at 27 unless they get non-tendered, so he has a chance to get a lot of years.

Dmjn53
5 years ago
Reply to  dl80

Story has a career 100 wRC+ on the road, Lindor’s road number is 106. Basically splitting hairs

jcutigerMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Dmjn53

Not bad for a Rockie. Most of is know that when players leave Colorado the Coors effect, both home and road, go away.

fredsbankMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Correa gonna stay healthy at some point? $220 million of a dude who can’t show up, and may not be able to hit all that well without cheating, isn’t a very good investment.

Dmjn53
5 years ago
Reply to  fredsbank

The thing about Correa is that he has a 5 win season in 109 games and a 3 win season in 75 games, so even if he’s missing significant time he’s still more valuable than most shortstops are in 150 games

loria_estefan
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Cool man

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

You don’t think the others are going to get similarly lengthy contracts? I bet you’re wrong.

In any case, the contract only runs through age 37, which isn’t that bad. Preferably, top dollar long term contracts should cut off at age 36 or earlier to overall turn out decently, but at least it’s better than going through age 38 or later like most of the really bad ones.

padres458
5 years ago

This will be the worst of all the deals over 200 million. At least Pujols and Cabrera had bats worth big commitments. The mets will pay 34 million a year for a guy who isn’t an elite hitter, who isn’t a great hitter. The real winners are the other teams in the league looking to compete.

stakhanovitamix
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Was he ever billed as an elite hitter? He’s a good hitter and an elite defender. He’s established a baseline of defense, contact-skills and power that suggests that- even in a down year- his floor is likely to be a 3 WAR player for the foreseeable future, and his ceiling is MVP-caliber. He may not wildly outperform this contract, but his health and track record suggests he will continue to be, at a minimum, solid.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Worse than Pujols and Cabrera? I find that extremely unlikely. I think it has a pretty good chance of being worse than all of Machado, Harper, and Betts. But we’re dealing with pretty big numbers projected a long way out so there’s going to be huge error bars in any projection, so I’m not even comfortable saying anything for sure on that.

gottaIch116Member since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Last time I check the Angel’s have gotten like 6 WAR from Pujols on his current contract. I wouldn’t be surprised if that contract is in the top three worst of all time.

gottaIch116Member since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  gottaIch116

And the Tigers have only gotten 5.3 WAR from Cabrera so far on his current contract…

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  gottaIch116

Prince Fielder didn’t even get to play through the second half of his mega deal, and since his retirement was medically-based, he still got paid for his entire contract up until last year.

gottaIch116Member since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

Another great example that I totally forgot about. It would be tough for Lindor to have one of the worse contracts ever. Texas did get some relief from an insurance policy. Still bad contract though:
https://www.si.com/mlb/rangers/news/texas-rangers-9-million-prince-fielder-mlb-highest-salary-2020#:~:text=Those%20players%20include%20Wei%2DYin,%24214%20million%20contract%20in%202020.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Lindor may produce more WAR in the first season of the extension than Pujols did in the entirety of his deal. You don’t have to like the deal, but this is an asinine statement.

Dmjn53
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Pujols has been worth 5.9 fWAR as an Angel. I would take the over on Lindor topping that in just 2021

synco
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Pujols and Cabrera are not good examples for proving your point. Both of those contracts were disastrous.

BigDaddy
5 years ago

One question I have is – if Lindor even had a normal-ish Lindor season (let’s say he plays to his ZIPS projections), does he a do a lot better than this in FA? Not a critique just a question/observation? Another meh season would obviously move him down in FA. Seems like all upside is already baked in.

But am most curious about the divide between NYM ownership willing to give Lindor 10/341 and HOU ownership not willing to go past 6/120 for Correa. I get that it’s different ownership and Lindor is seen as having less stink on him than CC, but it just seems like such a colossal valuation gap between two players that feel similarish to me. Different profiles, but I’m not so sure I wouldn’t rather have Correa for the next few years.

Lindor seems safer than Correa because of the (seemingly) higher floor and better health, but I feel like defense at SS can go quick and Lindor has already run some kind of uninsipring OBPs. I dunno.

FrancoeursteinMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  BigDaddy

Availability has everything to do with it. Both Lindor and Correa debuted in 2015 and each one played in 99 games a piece. As of today, Lindor has 777 games played compared to 604 for Correa. A FO would naturally feel more comfortable giving a lengthy contract to a guy who has never missed a significant amount of time on the IL vs. a guy who can’t stay away from it. It’s really hard to pin down who Correa is as a player, too. Sometimes he’s a great hitter, sometimes he’s average. Some defensive metrics so he’s a plus SS, some indicate that he will need to move off the position in the future. With Lindor, the upside isn’t as high, but you know what you’re getting: above average offense and plus-plus defense.

If Correa plays in 150 games and posts a 7 WAR this season, then I guarantee that someone would consider him for a mega contract. A healthy, elite season would boost his stock tremendously. But right now, he leads the league in question marks.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Francoeurstein

So it’s possible Correa will need to move off of shortstop in the future, but he grades out well by OAA and that’s similar to what most teams use. So I think he’s probably going to be at short for a while.

Mahoney
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Between the “good enough at short…for now” defensive reputation, the current age, the star-but-not-superstar level performance after being the team’s teenage phenom, I now know who the Astros had in mind when giving Correa the 6/120 offer….Xander Bogaerts.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

I mean, he’s solidly above-average at shortstop which you can’t really say for Bogaerts, and his offensive production has been better than Bogaerts too. The big questions are (1) was his past production entirely because he was cheating and (2) will he stay healthy? I’m willing to say #1 isn’t something to worry about, but Franceourstein is right that 150 games is going to go a long way for him.

Ryan DCMember since 2016
5 years ago

“How much could Lindor have expected to make in free agency next offseason? We can’t know. How much would the Mets have been willing to pay to get the job done? We also don’t know. But I think we assign too much certainty to both these estimates and our approximation of fair value.

The estimates you’ll see below aren’t immutable truths. They aren’t the only estimates that exist, and they aren’t even the only reasonable ones; change the weight on different inputs, and you could skew your estimate of Lindor’s ten-year projection by a huge net amount. Converting wins to dollars is hardly settled science, even if we did have a perfect win estimate, further complicating matters.

If you start thinking about contracts less as teams trying to extract surplus relative to some modeled expected value, and more as teams and players exchanging educated guesses to see if their incentives line up, the trade-and-extend move makes more sense. We don’t know the highest number New York would pay, and we don’t know the lowest number Lindor would accept, but by trading for him earlier this offseason, the Mets got to find out if those numbers overlapped — and they did.”

Extremely good shit Ben, this is why I enjoy your writing the most of anyone currently on the FG masthead.

soddingjunkmailMember since 2016
5 years ago

wRC+
2018: 132
2019: 115
2020: 102

Small sample size caveats apply of course, but that’s not the sort of trend line I’d like to see if I was handing out a $300M contract. If he pops right back up to the 120 range, I suspect the Mets will be very happy with the deal. But if 100-110 is a new consistent level of performance, this one could get ugly fast, especially as the defense starts to go with age.

fredsbankMember since 2020
5 years ago

in 16,17, and 19, he was at 109, 115, and 116 wRC+ putting up 5+ WAR/162. Is… that not good enough? I wouldn’t exactly call that ugly. Dropping an entire win of defense (unlikely, but lets go bad case here) still has him bracketed in 4 wins. Is this ugly? I really don’t think so.

Is it the most absolute efficient possible spending? No, but who cares? It’s the Mets. They don’t have to be min-maxed to the moon.

tomerafan
5 years ago

This isn’t fantasy baseball. Offense isn’t the only thing that matters. Lindor is the best SS of the last 10 years; Simmons has a little better defense but nowhere near the value at the plate.

Beyond that, though, the Mets had to decide on a player who would carry the flag for the franchise and symbolize a new era. The other FA-to-be SS don’t fit that description. Lindor does.

isavage
5 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

Not a lot of players maintain + much less ++ defense into their 30s though. Lindor doesn’t have to decline much to just be league average hitter with average shortstop defense. Which is still an above average overall player, just not someone you’d have a desperate need to sink 34 million a year into

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  isavage

Elite defenders generally do carry at least + defense into their 30’s, though. Scott Rolen won his last Gold Glove in his age 35 season, Jim Edmonds at 35, Pudge Rodriquez at 35, Yadier Molina at 35 (and a Platinum Glove at 32), Mike Schmidt at 36, Ozzie Smith at 37, and Greg Maddux in his final season at age 42.

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

True or not, Gold Gloves are probably not the best way to measure defensive ability…so many of those (particularly by late in a career) become “hey I know that guy, he was (maybe still is?) good on defense, check box, move on”

padres458
5 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

Its a mistake to pay 20 million a year for defence.

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  padres458

Then it’s a good thing they’re paying him for both his defense and offense, then. Guys who can regularly post an excellent OBP and hit 30+ homers don’t grow on trees, after all.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
5 years ago

I don’t know why Lindor’s obvious ability to consistently hit the ball over the fence, or off the fence, is constantly pooh-poohed by all the writers. I will admit that when I watched him play in the Eastern League that if I was asked whether Lindor would be more likely to hit more than 30 HR’s in a season or less than 30 HR’s in his career I would have bet on the latter but he has and to suggest that “He is, for the most part, a classic leadoff hitter” is not even close to reality. He may not look like a masher but very, very few players have ever put up 3 straight seasons with 40 doubles and 30 homers. Ted Williams, sorry, Stan Musial, close but no, Willie Mays, nope, maybe Babe Ruth, uh-uh, nor Frank Robinson nor Alex Rodriquez nor Mickey Mantle but Lou Gehrig and Albert Pujols did. Rather elite company. No leadoff hitter has ever hit 30 HR’s for 3 seasons in a row. Even the few mashers who have played the majority of their career hitting leadoff. Not Bobby Bonds, not George Springer, not anybody. Lindor has a higher slugging percentage than Yaz and Adrian Beltre who hit 475 HR’s. Forget that he looks like Willy Miranda and recognize that Lindor, who also adds in 20+ steals, is an outstanding offensive player and a true power hitter.

Tanned Tom
5 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

You can cherry pick stats all you want, but Lindor is not in the same class of hitter as Mantle, Williams, et al. A great fielder and solid hitter, nothing wrong with that, but his career wRC+ is still 118.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  Tanned Tom

I am not trying to. What I am saying is that any player who can hit 40 doubles and 30 HR’s 3 years in a row is an outstanding hitter and a true power hitter. Ben, who I enjoy reading, and usually agree with, is not alone in what he says. To suggest that Lindor even faintly resembles “a classic leadoff hitter” is bizarre coming from a knowledgeable baseball writer, truly bizarre. For reasons I do not understand. it seems like every pundit has tried to downplay Lindor’s offense during this off-season.

Mahoney
5 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

There’s probably a bit of a size/defense based narrative going on with Lindor’s hitting profile, sort of like how folks couldn’t accept Cal Ripken’s defensive prowess because guys his size don’t typically profile as agile.

Honestly, I’m not sure why Lindor is ever called a classic leadoff hitter. Lindor’s average hitting numbers are pretty much what Maikel Franco would do in a career year, and that’s one guy nobody would mistake for a leadoff man.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

That is a good analogy. One thing I have gleaned from 70+ years of following baseball very closely is that stereotypes are very strongly entrenched. The Dodgers would not have had to wait 32 years between WS championships if they hadn’t tossed away some relatively short, rather slight, young pitcher with the name of Pedro Martinez for a journeyman whose one redeeming skill was stealing bases. It took Mookie Betts years before he was recognized as a consistent producer of between 24 and 32 dingers every year and last year he might have approached 40. He had shown that power by hitting 15 HR’s in 127 games in 2013 at age 20 in the Sally and Carolina Leagues. That is amazing in those leagues because the balls at that level are inferior but all you could find in print was the usual garbage. Something to the effect of ” The question is whether the 156 lb. Betts continues to hit for power.”

Dmjn53
5 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

I had a similar reaction to the “classic leadoff hitter” line as well. Lindor is an excellent player, but his OBP isn’t exactly as high as you’d like for someone leading off

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Well, it depends on your definition of “power hitter.” Albert Pujols, currently 5th all-time with 662 career HRs, always called himself a line drive hitter (with power) instead of a true power hitter.

Nevertheless, someone who can hit like Lindor shouldn’t be batting leadoff.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

I am sure Ted Williams was also a hitter first, with power, since he had a 3/1 BB/K ratio. My definition of power is simple. If you hit 30+ HR’s 3 years in a row, you are a power hitter. If none of them go 390 feet that doesn’t make a rat’s ass bit of difference. Who is the true power hitter, Lindor or somebody who hits twenty five 450 foot bombs?

Lanidrac
5 years ago
Reply to  bosoxforlife

Even the greatest leadoff slugger of the modern era (if not ever), Mookie Betts, has so far only done it twice. He was just one homer shy of a third time, but then again those weren’t 3 consecutive years, either.

bosoxforlifeMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  Lanidrac

I think I would put George Springer ahead of Mookie as a leadoff slugger. Bobby Bonds, 332 HR’s, the majority but not all, as a leadoff man, is the all-time #1.

JayMember since 2016
5 years ago

In what sense, exactly, would NOT taking a $341 million risk be a “catastrophe?” That seems like a very amateurish take from the bleachers, not an informed take by a serious writer or editor.

gottaIch116Member since 2020
5 years ago

I’m glad Lindor got paid. From a team’s perspective, the Tatis deal is looking even better to me. I understand Tatis had a lot more years under team control. I don’t know. Maybe I’m not looking at this correctly. But I bet the Padre’s feel good after yesterday’s news.

rocktomatoMember since 2017
5 years ago

as an Cleveland fan wish we could have kept Francisco Lindor but know full well that Lindor will mean to the Mets what Jeter meant to the Yankees… but with better defense ..charisma just about equal..You Met fans are so very lucky to have an owner willing to spend there money!!!

Introspective Baseball Fan
5 years ago

This contract is going to make some other team way over-pay for another Shortstop. Good for Lindor, though

Manco
5 years ago

Gimenez, Rosario, Wolf and Greene for Lindor and Carrasco or Lindor 10 yrs 341M and Carrasco w/ torn hammy?

It’s 2026, which way does the cookie crumble?

proiste
5 years ago
Reply to  Manco

The Mets easily won that trade; the fact that they signed Lindor to an iffy extension does not change the fact that they got him for much less than he’s worth (plus Carrasco!)

pdunes
5 years ago

Does the ZIPs projections take into account the potential injury risk during 2021? If not, the value to Linder of having a guaranteed contact signed now, prior to the 2021 season is missing from the analysis. If Lindor gets hurt prior to free agency, there’s a potential loss from a smaller contract due to lower projected production. Signing this contract now eliminates that loss and is probably worth a decent amount to Lindor and is part of the cost of the contract for the Mets.

Throwing out some WAGs, a 5% of a serious injury costing $5 mil per year (0.5 WAR) in annual salary due to decreased performance is worth $2.5 million ignoring inflation. For pitchers, the value of the insurance from injury would be higher.

rosen380
5 years ago

I did some comps based on PA, fWAR rate and wRC+ through age 26, 1960 onward (n=13)… here are the average future fWARs by age (a DNP counts as -1 fWAR):
27: 3.9 (old deal)
28: 4.2
29: 3.8
30: 2.6
31: 2.5
32: 2.4
33: 1.5
34: 1.6
35: 1.5
36: 0.7
37: 0.0

There are a couple of player-seasons affected by the 1981 or 1995/1996 strikes, but I didn’t do any upward adjustment for those. Lets just call that “figuring in some probability of a future strike” 🙂

These total out *significantly* worse than the projections in the write-up (34 vs 21 fWAR),

FWIW- here are those comps:
Alan Trammell
Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltran
Eric Chavez
Grady Sizemore
Jim Fregosi
Paul Blair
Reggie Smith
Robin Ventura
Ryan Zimmerman
Scott Rolen
Troy Tulowitzki
Willie Randolph

rosen380
5 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Maybe it is worth paring that down further? Using 5/4/3 weightings on the most recent three years (and giving Lindor a conservative adjustment for the pandemic of 2x actual), I get the following weighted averages:

6.6 Dawson*
6.0 Beltran
5.7 Trammell
5.6 Smith
5.4 Tulo
5.1 Blair
5.0 Ventura*
5.0 Chavez
5.0 Rolen
4.9 Lindor
4.9 Sizemore
4.7 Zimmerman
4.7 Randolph*
4.4 Fregosi

I don’t think this helps Lindor’s case here. Remove Dawson and Beltran and the remaining 11 drop to 17.1 fWAR on average for age 28 to 37. Remove Trammell and Reggie Smith (leaving a nice symmetric +/- 0.5 range around Lindor) and it drops to 14.1.

*gave them +33% for strike shortened 1981 or 1994

joe_schlabotnik
5 years ago

I’m happy for lindor, and certainly happy that steve cohen has less money and that lindor has more, but this seems like a serious overvaluation on defense. players that are “average” defensive shortstops are still.. amazing at playing shortstop! (seriously i think about this all the time, they’ve had to rise through every level and continue to compete at an elite level to keep their jobs. only the jeter’s of the world – and now i guess saurez – are truly *bad* at defense) If i were a mets fan, id feel a lot more comfortable dishing this type of money out to an average defensive shortstop that has say… a 140 career wrc+. If nothing else, it’s just more tangible and easy to see the results. If lindor puts together a couple sub 100 wrc+ seasons (not out of the question), id have a really tough time stomaching 34 m for nothing more than elite defense.

bookbookMember since 2019
5 years ago

Average hitters are still… amazing at hitting the baseball! I think that, psychologically, you are correct, it is easier to be comfortable with sluggers who can’t D, than the other way around. In actuality, I don’t think the instinct holds up. In fact, players with old player skills (walks, slugging, less D and speed) don’t age as well as their speedy compatriots. Lindor was definitely a better bet than Correa (fragility) and Seager (at some point he won’t have the range for SS any more). I wish my team had made this deal.

bstoleMember since 2020
5 years ago

honestly love the signing. his defense probably limits the downsides and if he puts everything together at the plate he could still jump to another level offensively.

also, harder to model i’m sure but: that glove and that smile in nyc should make him a massive and beloved star. which obviously would have a lot of off-field value to the mets!