POLL: UPDATED: Bryce's team in 2019 will be.....

[Natsinpwc]

We have museums.

No way.

[NJ Ave]

If the opt out didn’t benefit the player more than the team Boras wouldn’t be pushing it and the team wouldn’t be fighting it- I tend to assume that Boras knows what he’s doing when it comes to maximizing earnings

It benefits the player certainly - I think it is less clear that it penalizes the team. Certainly it didn't work out for the Yankees re-signing A-Rod, but then they shouldn't have signed a 32-year old to a 10-year contract.

Look at the Greinke situation - the Dodgers signed him for 6/$147 million and got him for 3/$64 million in the end. He was a 4.5 WAR pitcher for them. In no way were they "hurt" by him opting out - in fact they have a lot more financial flexibility because he did.

And if the alternative is simply no opt-out, isn't the team on the hook for 100% of the contract anyways? That's why it makes no sense to frame it as "well the only way the player doesn't opt out is if they get injured". That's what happens anyway! The way I see it, the only time it penalizes the team is if they overpay for the player after the opt-out, but that's easy to fix right?

[BigMeech]

can we just ban bryce harper from baseball for being too selfish so everyone can move on?

[HalfSmokes]

It benefits the player certainly - I think it is less clear that it penalizes the team. Certainly it didn't work out for the Yankees re-signing A-Rod, but then they shouldn't have signed a 32-year old to a 10-year contract.

Look at the Greinke situation - the Dodgers signed him for 6/$147 million and got him for 3/$64 million in the end. He was a 4.5 WAR pitcher for them. In no way were they "hurt" by him opting out - in fact they have a lot more financial flexibility because he did.

And if the alternative is simply no opt-out, isn't the team on the hook for 100% of the contract anyways? That's why it makes no sense to frame it as "well the only way the player doesn't opt out is if they get injured". That's what happens anyway! The way I see it, the only time it penalizes the team is if they overpay for the player after the opt-out, but that's easy to fix right?

The team negotiates a certain price for a players performance, if the player opts out and makes more money, then the team has lost value (assuming you trust the market to correctly assign value)

[bluestreak]

The team negotiates a certain price for a players performance, if the player opts out and makes more money, then the team has lost value (assuming you trust the market to correctly assign value)

This is assuming that they wouldn’t have had to pay a higher price for a contract without opt outs. Plus if the player opts out and gets more money, by definition you’ve gotten surplus value, but the new team won’t necessarily get surplus value. In fact it’s more likely they won’t. In fact there isn’t a guarantee that the new team will get value even above the player’s original contract number.

[HalfSmokes]

This is assuming that they wouldn’t have had to pay a higher price for a contract without opt outs. Plus if the player opts out and gets more money, by definition you’ve gotten surplus value, but the new team won’t necessarily get surplus value. In fact it’s more likely they won’t. In fact there isn’t a guarantee that the new team will get value even above the player’s original contract number.

If a player signs for more than they were under contract for originally then, presumably, their current team would have been in a position to trade them for something of value. As far as making more without the opt out- do you think Harper gets a straight 10 for 375 with out an opt out? I can’t think of a player with an opt out who go a contract that anyone said was on the low end

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

I’m not missing the point. I understand what you are saying. And what you’re saying is true if you assume there is close to an equal chance that his last years are as good as his first or that performance in the back half of the contract is correlated with performance in the front end.

My assertion is based on the assumption that performance will very likely be good in the beginning and very likely be bad at the end. I think this is by far the most likely scenario to happen. And if that’s true, then you want to 1) decrease the probability that you pay for those bad years at the end and 2) pay as little as you can for those good years.

Ideally you would do a long contract with multiple team options, but that’s a non-starter for someone like Bryce. Next you would do a short term contract, but that would be more expensive on a per-year basis. Next is a long contract with a player opt out, because you are paying less money on a per year basis because of the contract length and you’ve given him the opt out. Last is a long term contract without options which guarantees you’ll pay for the crap years. And you’ll pay more per year because you didn’t give the opt out.

It’s possible a guy like Bryce blows out his knee and never plays again in the first year of the contract. It’s possible he’s so bad in the first 3 or 4 years that he doesn’t opt out. It’s also possible he plays at an MVP level for the entire 10 years. Or even 8. But all of these scenarios are extremely unlikely. I would think you’d want to base your actions on what is the most likely outcome and not outlier scenarios.

That being said, the Phillies are resisting the opt out, so they have a different assumption of risk than I do. But if you are really risk averse, you shouldn’t be signing players to 10 year contracts at all, opt out or no.

Let's say Bryce opts out of a final 7 years and 240 million.  He'd only do that if he felt his value was now actually more, right?  Say he thinks he can now get 7 years 300 million.  The team is robbed of the upside value of getting a guy whose market is 7 years 300 million for 240 million over those final 7 years.  Or, he can not perform and/or be injured and not opt-out, meaning the team gets only the downside. 

It's only a fair situation when both sides have a risk and reward.  The opt-out leaves no potential value for the team, their best case if just getting what they paid for in terms of his market. 

[bluestreak]

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t care about the market. I care about the performance. So what if you get him under market value if he doesn’t perform at a level that’s commiserate with what you’re paying him. Which is more likely the older he gets. You’re not winning some accounting game. I assume the goal is to win baseball games. And it’s harder to win baseball games when you have expensive old players on your team.

[HalfSmokes]

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t care about the market. I care about the performance. So what if you get him under market value if he doesn’t perform at a level that’s commiserate with what you’re paying him. Which is more likely the older he gets. You’re not winning some accounting game. I assume the goal is to win baseball games. And it’s harder to win baseball games when you have expensive old players on your team.

If he’s worth more than he’s being paid, he’s a undervalued asset that can be traded. In the three years of overperformace followed by an opt out scenario-if not for the opt out, the team could trade him and reap the reward of the over performance

[JCA-CrystalCity]

The team absords all the risk in this scenario with none of the upside.  Say Bryce is a healthy MVP-level player for 3 years, in which case he'd opt out.  You don't get the "bargain" of getting him in further prime years when he's 29. 

couldn't you structure it as $30MM the first 3 years, with a $15MM bonus if he does not exercise his opt-out, then 5- 7 years at $33MM if he opts in?  That way, the team gets a bargain if he opts out, and he gets a big guarantee if he stays (but less than $35MM/yr)?

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t care about the market. I care about the performance. So what if you get him under market value if he doesn’t perform at a level that’s commiserate with what you’re paying him. Which is more likely the older he gets. You’re not winning some accounting game. I assume the goal is to win baseball games. And it’s harder to win baseball games when you have expensive old players on your team.

If you don't want expensive old players on your team, then don't give them deals into their elder years.  "Hoping" they opt-out isn't a prudent way to go about it.  Teams give these star players more years than they'd probably like to when the market dictates they have to because other teams are offering it.  In turn, if the player signs long-term like that and gets that security, they should have to also in turn forfeit their chance to captialize should they raise their value during the contract.  If the players had their way, they'd get 10 year deals with an opt-out after each year. 

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

couldn't you structure it as $30MM the first 3 years, with a $15MM bonus if he does not exercise his opt-out, then 5- 7 years at $33MM if he opts in?  That way, the team gets a bargain if he opts out, and he gets a big guarantee if he stays (but less than $35MM/yr)?

He wouldn't do that.  Say he kills it.  That means he only makes 30 million over 3 years then opts out.  10 million a year for 3 prime years?  He's not doing that.   

[JCA-CrystalCity]

He wouldn't do that.  Say he kills it.  That means he only makes 30 million over 3 years then opts out.  10 million a year for 3 prime years?  He's not doing that.   

I meant $30MM per year over the first 3.  Now with Arenado, bump that to $32MM per for 3, but still keep that bonus for not opting out.

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

I meant $30MM per year over the first 3.  Now with Arenado, bump that to $32MM per for 3, but still keep that bonus for not opting out.

Gotcha.  That's interesting. 

[bluestreak]

If you don't want expensive old players on your team, then don't give them deals into their elder years.  "Hoping" they opt-out isn't a prudent way to go about it.  Teams give these star players more years than they'd probably like to when the market dictates they have to because other teams are offering it.  In turn, if the player signs long-term like that and gets that security, they should have to also in turn forfeit their chance to captialize should they raise their value during the contract.  If the players had their way, they'd get 10 year deals with an opt-out after each year.

And if the teams had their way they would do 10 year contracts with team options after every year.

Of course they shouldn’t sign long contracts. But the reality we live in is that a superstar like him is going to get a long term contract, unless someone pays an exorbitant amount.
By far the most likely scenario is that he plays well early and crappy late. Given the above realities the best situation is the opt out midway through the contract.

If he plays crappy from the outset you’re screwed. If he plays great throughout the whole deal, you’ve lost value. But if Bryce behaves like 95% of all baseball players, you’ve come out ahead.
And a player on the back half of this contract would have full no-trade protection.

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

And if the teams had their way they would do 10 year contracts with team options after every year.

Of course they shouldn’t sign long contracts. But the reality we live in is that a superstar like him is going to get a long term contract, unless someone pays an exorbitant amount.
By far the most likely scenario is that he plays well early and crappy late. Given the above realities the best situation is the opt out midway through the contract.

If he plays crappy from the outset you’re screwed. If he plays great throughout the whole deal, you’ve lost value. But if Bryce behaves like 95% of all baseball players, you’ve come out ahead.
And a player on the back half of this contract would have full no-trade protection.

He's 26.  An opt-out after 3 years isn't opting out of the likely "crappy" years.  He's younger than guys like Pujols when they signed their long-term deals.  And he's a power hitter with plate discipline.  That skillset ages better than others.  You aren't being bailed out of what should be "crappy" years if he's opting out after 3, 4, or 5 years.  There are a lot of less-talented players that have been productive power hitters in their mid-30s.  It's reasonable to think he is very productive the entire 10 years to the point he's 36.  If anything, maybe he starts to gradually decline a little the last few years but still is decent.  That's offensively.  He probably needs a home at 1B at some point. 

[nfotiu]

 

And if the teams had their way they would do 10 year contracts with team options after every year.

Of course they shouldn’t sign long contracts. But the reality we live in is that a superstar like him is going to get a long term contract, unless someone pays an exorbitant amount.
By far the most likely scenario is that he plays well early and crappy late. Given the above realities the best situation is the opt out midway through the contract.

If he plays crappy from the outset you’re screwed. If he plays great throughout the whole deal, you’ve lost value. But if Bryce behaves like 95% of all baseball players, you’ve come out ahead.
And a player on the back half of this contract would have full no-trade protection.

That rational makes a little more sense for a 5 or 6 year opt out, when the end of the contract are basically gravy years for the player.   

350 million is too much to risk for a best case of 3 good years for most owners, I would think.  It would be a pretty desperate play by the Phillies.

[bluestreak]

  That rational makes a little more sense for a 5 or 6 year opt out, when the end of the contract are basically gravy years for the player.   

350 million is too much to risk for a best case of 3 good years for most owners, I would think.  It would be a pretty desperate play by the Phillies.

My assumptions have been with a 4 or 5 year opt out.  Agree that 3 a probably too short, that being said, 3 makes it more likely he’ll opt,out and you won’t have to pay the end.  Would you sign Bryce for 3/95? I would.

[Elvir Ovcina]

If I'm the Phillies, I'm telling Boras to F off with the opt-outs.  That's far too much money over far too long to also give opt outs.   

[aspenbubba]

If I'm the Phillies, I'm telling Boras to F off with the opt-outs.  That's far too much money over far too long to also give opt outs.   

And didn't Philly learn a lesson from the Ryan Howard contract?

[Elvir Ovcina]

And didn't Philly learn a lesson from the Ryan Howard contract?

Ruben Amaro certainly did.

[bluestreak]

And didn't Philly learn a lesson from the Ryan Howard contract?

Did that contract have opt outs..

[awbb]

And didn't Philly learn a lesson from the Ryan Howard contract?

Hopefully not.

[Elvir Ovcina]

Did that contract have opt outs..

Would it have mattered if it had?

[Trea Burner]

https://twitter.com/br_betting/status/1100494361287114752?s=21

And now the Dodgers are the favorites.