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

[Trea Burner]

Good morning, Boras.

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1100392555303395335?s=21

[Natsinpwc]

They're almost 20 years old at this point. We had players who have opted out to sign with their same teams for more money (A-Rod, CC), players who have opted out to sign with other teams for more money (Greinke), players who have stayed with losing teams because they were not going to get as much money elsewhere (Andrus, Vernon Wells).

I can't think of a single instance where someone opted out to take less money. I don't think it'll be Bryce

You are right. He won’t opt out for less money. That’s why it makes no sense to offer after three years on a ten year deal.

[nfotiu]

If I were a baseball player I would want an opt out after the 2021 season. The new CBA could change the market considerably.

I think the most likely big change would be younger free agency, or at least starting the team control clock younger.   That could end up hurting the older free agents.

[imref]

Good morning, Boras.

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1100392555303395335?s=21

Bryce to the A's, then Rizzo trades for him.

[Natsinpwc]

Good morning, Boras.

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1100392555303395335?s=21

Some of the responses are funny. Especially the one about him being less reliable than the North Korean news media.

[imref]

SPORTSRADIO 94WIP
@SportsRadioWIP
"The opt out clause is what's holding up an agreement with the Philadelphia Phillies and I can tell you, Scott Boras insists that it be three years." #On94WIP🎙️

[RiotAct]

Gross.

[Slateman]

If they are offering 350/10, and he wants 350/10 with a 3 year opt out.  The potential value of that 3 year opt out can't be more than an extra 50 million, and that would only be if he was mvp for 3 years and baseball economics improve for the players.   

I can't see him turning down 350 million with no option for financial reasons.

I also think he is seriously considering a short term deal with the Dodgers, and would be my bet of what ends up happening. 

Honestly, given what Arenado just got, I want the Nats to offer him that, with a player options at year 3, 4, and 5.

[bluestreak]

If you were a baseball player, wouldn't you want an opt-out after every season?

Well, yeah, but assuming that no one would go for that, I’d especially want one in 2021 or 2022.

As far as the opt outs are concerned, if I were Philly, I’d give it to him. With an opt out after 3 or 4 years, there is some chance that you won’t have to pay for the back end declining years.
If you could sign Bryce to a 4 year/140 million contract, you’d jump at that, right? That’s what a contract with a opt out after 4 years almost certainly will become.
And if Bryce sucks or gets injured, you were going to be on the hook for that with a contact without an opt outs. Anyway.

[nfotiu]

Well, yeah, but assuming that no one would go for that, I’d especially want one in 2021 or 2022.

As far as the opt outs are concerned, if I were Philly, I’d give it to him. With an opt out after 3 or 4 years, there is some chance that you won’t have to pay for the back end declining years.
If you could sign Bryce to a 4 year/140 million contract, you’d jump at that, right? That’s what a contract with a opt out after 4 years almost certainly will become.
And if Bryce sucks or gets injured, you were going to be on the hook for that with a contact without an opt outs. Anyway.

Those opt outs though really change the risk/reward equation for the owners.  You give him 350 million, you want to benefit if you win the bet. 

If I was the owner, I'd at least want to backload the contract or attach a 35 million payout from Bryce if he opts out.  It evens out the financial risk/reward and still gives Bryce options to bail if playing in Philly sucks.

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

Well, yeah, but assuming that no one would go for that, I’d especially want one in 2021 or 2022.

As far as the opt outs are concerned, if I were Philly, I’d give it to him. With an opt out after 3 or 4 years, there is some chance that you won’t have to pay for the back end declining years.
If you could sign Bryce to a 4 year/140 million contract, you’d jump at that, right? That’s what a contract with a opt out after 4 years almost certainly will become.
And if Bryce sucks or gets injured, you were going to be on the hook for that with a contact without an opt outs. Anyway.

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. 

[bluestreak]

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.

I suppose you have to look at the probabilities. It is much more likely that he will perform well in the first half of that contract then falling off than it is for him to perform well through the entire contract.

If he gets injured or sucks from day one, the team is screwed in either scenario.

[Natsinpwc]

I suppose you have to look at the probabilities. It is much more likely that he will perform well in the first half of that contract then falling off than it is for him to perform well through the entire contract.

If he gets injured or sucks from day one, the team is screwed in either scenario.

In any event sounds like the Phillies have offered an opt out after five. He wants it after three. I don’t see a team advantage going from five to three. Unless Ernie Grunfeld was negotiating.

[nfotiu]

In any event sounds like the Phillies have offered an opt out after five. He wants it after three. I don’t see a team advantage going from five to three. Unless Ernie Grunfeld was negotiating.

The team gets 5 guaranteed years for their risk of 350 million instead of 3.   

[machpost]

Good morning, Boras.

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1100392555303395335?s=21

I wish someone would take the time to sit down with Jon Heyman and help him understand how to use the shift key to type capital letters more consistently in his Tweets.

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

I suppose you have to look at the probabilities. It is much more likely that he will perform well in the first half of that contract then falling off than it is for him to perform well through the entire contract.

If he gets injured or sucks from day one, the team is screwed in either scenario.

You're still missing the point.  A fair contract should have some upside/downside for each party.  With no opt-outs, then that is the case.  The player could prove a bargain if they stay healthy and very productive through the duration, or they could be stealing from the franchise if they fall off.  With the opt-out, the team can be "screwed" but not the player.  The player has zero downside.  Either they are overpaid with their existing deal, or they perform well and opt-out.

[CoryTheFormerExposFan]

In any event sounds like the Phillies have offered an opt out after five. He wants it after three. I don’t see a team advantage going from five to three. Unless Ernie Grunfeld was negotiating.

Seems a pretty simply solution...opt-out at 4 and call it a day.

[NJ Ave]

You're still missing the point.  A fair contract should have some upside/downside for each party.  With no opt-outs, then that is the case.  The player could prove a bargain if they stay healthy and very productive through the duration, or they could be stealing from the franchise if they fall off.  With the opt-out, the team can be "screwed" but not the player.  The player has zero downside.  Either they are overpaid with their existing deal, or they perform well and opt-out.

This is very different for hitters and pitchers though. I agree with you that with pitchers, opt outs are just extremely detrimental for the club. Pitchers don't have "aging curves" as much as "breaking points". If a pitcher opts out, that means he's still healthy and worth more than you're going to pay him. If he doesn't opt out, he likely got injured and isn't good anymore.

But hitters are very different, with less injury risk. And the injuries they do have, they can come back from more often. There is an excellent possibility that if Philly gave Bryce a 3-year opt out, they would lose him but also just have gotten 3 years at a decent price for an all-star level player.

[bluestreak]

You're still missing the point.  A fair contract should have some upside/downside for each party.  With no opt-outs, then that is the case.  The player could prove a bargain if they stay healthy and very productive through the duration, or they could be stealing from the franchise if they fall off.  With the opt-out, the team can be "screwed" but not the player.  The player has zero downside.  Either they are overpaid with their existing deal, or they perform well and opt-out.

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.

[Natsinpwc]

Seems a pretty simply solution...opt-out at 4 and call it a day.

For reasonable parties. Who knows in this case?  Or if the reporting is true?

[Natsinpwc]

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.

They are not resisting an opt out. Just the year. If we can believe what’s been reported.

A fairer contract would be a player opt out at three years and then a team opt out at five. The players wouldn’t like that however.

[HalfSmokes]

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.

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

[Mattionals]

This smells of Harper bringing down the hammer on Boras saying "Get me on the west coast with a save face deal, even if it's shorter than 10 years".

[bluestreak]

I think a player opt out definitely benefits the player more than the team.  It removes all risk from the player. But I don’t assume that teams are always caring rationally.

[NatsAllThe Way]

You wear bonnets up there??

We have museums.