Shark Signs w/ Giants - 5/$90M (Happy Derwood?)

[ChiCubsFan]

And dammit I want Samardzija talk, not player opt-out talk.

 

We shouldn't give Samardzija a player opt-out for the same price as a non-opt-out contract.

 

Agree. However you will almost definitely be gaining something by agreeing to the opt-out. Unless you're Jim Hendry throwing in NTC and such for free. And an opt-out on a buy-low SP like Samardzija is much more significant that a guy like Price who is pretty much at his peak value.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But how can you say the contract would be identical without the opt out?

 

I absolutely can't. Which is why I said I didn't have any problem with people liking this deal specifically or any other deal that happens to have an opt-out in it. I don't, but that's just an opinion and there's plenty of leeway here.

 

But earlier someone said "If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong. Something like this comes up every time opt-outs are discussed. That was where I was coming into the "opt-outs are always bad in a vacuum" discussion.

[ChiCubsFan]

But how can you say the contract would be identical without the opt out?

 

I absolutely can't. Which is why I said I didn't have any problem with people liking this deal specifically or any other deal that happens to have an opt-out in it. I don't, but that's just an opinion and there's plenty of leeway here.

 

But earlier someone said "If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong. Something like this comes up every time opt-outs are discussed. That was where I was coming into the "opt-outs are always bad in a vacuum" discussion.

 

Gotcha. Well I don't really disagree. I just think with a player like Price at his age, an opt-out is almost negligible. I just can't see how his value would be any higher in 3 years than it is now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

When the opt-out comes up, he'll only be 10 months older than Greinke is now.

[seanimal]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bless your heart

[Guest]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

 

Uhhhh no lol

[davell]

18 is the AAV for Shark evidently. One team is at 5 years. I guess I'd be OK at 5/90 on him. But I think I'd pass and wait for one of the others to find a better deal(or make a trade). Finding money for Heyward/Gordon may be tough after a deal like that for Shark.

[toonsterwu]

If Samardzija gets to 100 mil, I'd have an awful hard time being excited about that. It's certainly possible his agent is bluffing right now about a 100 mil deal on the table, but if it's at or around 90, 100 isn't impossible. A 5 year deal at 100 mil would be an awful lot for Samardzija.

 

The first 2nd tier SP to come off the market may set the market for the other guys. Jordan Zimmerman was a bit in b/w that 1st and 2nd tier, but Samardzija is firmly in that 2nd tier. Still think one of the 2nd tier arms likely gets left hanging, and may come cheaper, but that might not be a gamble we can take.

[seanimal]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

 

Uhhhh no lol

 

i was just blustering for the most part, but i do think the downside of the opt out is being way overstated in part because it totally ignores the upside, which is also has the potential to be significant

[Guest]

The upside of an opt out from the team's perspective is dependent on a player making an irrational decision. Possible, unlikely enough for the benefit to be negligible.

[treebird]

The upside of an opt out from the team's perspective is dependent on a player making an irrational decision. Possible, unlikely enough for the benefit to be negligible.

 

given the success rate for big money long-term contracts, especially to aging pitchers, the player doesn't have to be irrational at all for this to work out well for the initial team. just because you get such great age 30-32 seasons from a guy that someone's willing to beat the last four years of the deal in place doesn't mean that you still aren't better off letting him go.

 

that said, i do think these opt-outs do favor the players, just only very slightly. i'd much rather give a player one of those instead of additional money if that's what it takes to get the contract signed.

[Guest]

The upside of an opt out from the team's perspective is dependent on a player making an irrational decision. Possible, unlikely enough for the benefit to be negligible.

 

given the success rate for big money long-term contracts, especially to aging pitchers, the player doesn't have to be irrational at all for this to work out well for the initial team. just because you get such great age 30-32 seasons from a guy that someone's willing to beat the last four years of the deal in place doesn't mean that you still aren't better off letting him go.

 

that said, i do think these opt-outs do favor the players, just only very slightly. i'd much rather give a player one of those instead of additional money if that's what it takes to get the contract signed.

 

A player opting out for a larger contract may not be as bad as the converse of a player being hurt/ineffective and staying the duration of the deal, but that doesn't make it a positive. Losing a player for nothing who was under contract for less than he can get on the open market is definitionally a negative outcome. If your risk tolerance is such that you don't want to pay the player, then you can get *something* in trade if teams are willing to pay more than the remainder of the contract in free agency.

 

EDIT: Just to make sure I'm clear, I'm with you on the second paragraph. I don't overly care if the Cubs give an opt out, especially if it's to a 30 year old SP like Shark or Price. So if giving Samardzija an opt out after 2 years makes it possible to get him for something like 4+team option at 70 instead of a straight 5/90, sign me up. But at the same time, I recognize that opt out has no positive outcomes for the team itself.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

I would much rather have Price for 3 years and 90 million than 7 years and 210 million.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I would much rather have Price for 3 years and 90 million than 7 years and 210 million.

 

So would I, but I have no interest in letting him decide between those two three years from now.

[Banedon]

I would much rather have Price for 3 years and 90 million than 7 years and 210 million.

 

So would I, but I have no interest in letting him decide between those two three years from now.

 

Exactly! The team has zero control over this...the opt-out doesn't swing both ways here.

[Derwood]

I would much rather have Price for 3 years and 90 million than 7 years and 210 million.

 

So would I, but I have no interest in letting him decide between those two three years from now.

 

Exactly! The team has zero control over this...the opt-out doesn't swing both ways here.

 

That's why you honk to the deal expecting to pay 7/$210 without regrets if the player stays the full 7 years

[CubColtPacer]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

 

As TT pointed out, this just isn't true. If there was no trading, there could be an argument made. But if Price is good enough that he wants to opt out after three years, than he would have positive trade value.

 

And in fact, I would make the argument that teams are even more irrational in trade value for great players. We have seen aces get traded for significant assets even at market value contracts. The opt out robs you of all that.

 

Is it worth losing a player over an opt out? That's a different question and is case by case. But the opt out causes a smart thinking ball club to lose the highest value scenarios out of the deal.

[Guest]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

 

As TT pointed out, this just isn't true. If there was no trading, there could be an argument made. But if Price is good enough that he wants to opt out after three years, than he would have positive trade value.

 

And in fact, I would make the argument that teams are even more irrational in trade value for great players. We have seen aces get traded for significant assets even at market value contracts. The opt out robs you of all that.

 

Is it worth losing a player over an opt out? That's a different question and is case by case. But the opt out causes a smart thinking ball club to lose the highest value scenarios out of the deal.

All that smart thinking leads to not getting top targets. I mean, in a purely academic sense it's true. But the team is competing against other teams for the player's services. Also, if Price is really good for three years creating surplus value, the team isn't trading him unless there have been a series of unfortunate accidents to the level or a Cardinals team drinking problem. I don't know why it has to be said again, but I'll go ahead and do it. The object is to win the most games possible.

[CubColtPacer]

"If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong.

 

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team

 

As TT pointed out, this just isn't true. If there was no trading, there could be an argument made. But if Price is good enough that he wants to opt out after three years, than he would have positive trade value.

 

And in fact, I would make the argument that teams are even more irrational in trade value for great players. We have seen aces get traded for significant assets even at market value contracts. The opt out robs you of all that.

 

Is it worth losing a player over an opt out? That's a different question and is case by case. But the opt out causes a smart thinking ball club to lose the highest value scenarios out of the deal.

All that smart thinking leads to not getting top targets. I mean, in a purely academic sense it's true. But the team is competing against other teams for the player's services. Also, if Price is really good for three years creating surplus value, the team isn't trading him unless there have been a series of unfortunate accidents to the level or a Cardinals team drinking problem. I don't know why it has to be said again, but I'll go ahead and do it. The object is to win the most games possible.

 

All that is being said is that it's not a trivial thing to throw in. Sometimes you have to add in an opt out clause to get a player that you want, just like sometimes you have to go an extra year or bump up the money by a couple million per year. But the thought that a 7 year deal with a 3 year opt out is preferable to a club over a straight 7 year deal is just not correct.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"You may have to give one to get the player" is a completely different argument from "they are equal or better for the team, all else equal."

[UMFan83]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Jayson Stark also tweeted that while the Cubs are still interested, the price may be going too high for them.

[davell]

And Tim Brown is saying we're hot after Lackey, discussing two and three year deals.

[Guest]

"You may have to give one to get the player" is a completely different argument from "they are equal or better for the team, all else equal."

 

Reading comprehension is hard.