The Bryce is Right, Bitch

[The_Achiever]

I think he's going to regret not having any opt outs.

[UMFan83]

weird, the Cubs are not even mentioned in this Verducci article that details the entire process of signing Harper

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/03/01/bryce-harper-philadelphia-phillies-contract-scott-boras

 

Harper, 26, had given Boras strict instructions at the start of his free agency: prioritize length of contract, and don’t bother even asking for opt outs.

 

“It was not only important not to have an opt out, he refused to allow me to do it,” Boras said. “He said, ‘I want to be with one team.’ I tried to talk him out of it. He gave me my marching orders.”

 

That is dumb as hell unless it was leverage for more money. You can still be with one team, you just have an opportunity to bail out and make more money if the team that you've never played for until now turns out to suck.

 

13 years ago the highest salary in baseball was $21m (ARod) and in 2018 Trout (who was technically still in his final arb year of service time) made $34m. Kershaw made $35. So a $14m rise highest paid player in 13 seasons. We can't assume a rise will be linear, but I would guess he's not even among the 20 highest paid players in a few years. This year if you include his signing bonus, he's only 7th, and that $30m number will drop to $26 for most of the remainder of the deal, which would be tied for 13th highest in 2019. Among players making ~$26m this year: Jon Lester, Jake Arrieta, Felix Hernandez, pre-extension Aranado, Jordan Zimmerman. If he's producing MVP numbers and seeing worse players make more, he's going to be pretty pissed that there is no opt out.

[The_Achiever]

And regarding that Silvy pole, our fans are idiots. 73% of them, anyway.

[UMFan83]

weird, the Cubs are not even mentioned in this Verducci article that details the entire process of signing Harper

 

The Cubs were so under the radar on this one that even Harper and Boras weren't in the loop.

[jersey cubs fan]

That is dumb as hell unless it was leverage for more money. You can still be with one team, you just have an opportunity to bail out and make more money if the team that you've never played for until now turns out to suck.

I don't think it's dumb as hell. The guy doesn't want to go through free agency again. An opt-out is something you negotiate in to a contract. If he didn't want one, there is no point to try and get one. He got what he wanted. Generally speaking players don't seem to enjoy all the talk of "what are you going to do when your contract expires in two years" dialogue that goes on. If you have an opt out in three years, within a few months of your new deal you are going to be asked about what you are going to do. Some players may be obsessed with always being as highly paid as possible and will deal with the questions in order to get that. Other guys would be happy to get a record contract and then let somebody else beat that record.

 

But in no way is it "dumb as hell" to have a $330 million guaranteed contract.

[Brian]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

[WrigleyField 22]

Is Bryce gonna rename his dog now?

[Brian]

The guy doesn't want to go through free agency again. An opt-out is something you negotiate in to a contract. If he didn't want one, there is no point to try and get one. He got what he wanted. Generally speaking players don't seem to enjoy all the talk of "what are you going to do when your contract expires in two years" dialogue that goes on. If you have an opt out in three years, within a few months of your new deal you are going to be asked about what you are going to do. Some players may be obsessed with always being as highly paid as possible and will deal with the questions in order to get that. Other guys would be happy to get a record contract and then let somebody else beat that record.

 

That's a good point I didn't think about, he's been asked about his free agency since he was high school so I can see the appeal of never being asked about it again.

[UMFan83]

That is dumb as hell unless it was leverage for more money. You can still be with one team, you just have an opportunity to bail out and make more money if the team that you've never played for until now turns out to suck.

I don't think it's dumb as hell. The guy doesn't want to go through free agency again. An opt-out is something you negotiate in to a contract. If he didn't want one, there is no point to try and get one. He got what he wanted. Generally speaking players don't seem to enjoy all the talk of "what are you going to do when your contract expires in two years" dialogue that goes on. If you have an opt out in three years, within a few months of your new deal you are going to be asked about what you are going to do. Some players may be obsessed with always being as highly paid as possible and will deal with the questions in order to get that. Other guys would be happy to get a record contract and then let somebody else beat that record.

 

But in no way is it "dumb as hell" to have a $330 million guaranteed contract.

 

You are right that not every player wants the distraction and not every player cares about being the highest paid player. It just doesn't personally make any sense to me though that you wouldnt want control. If the Phillies werent willing to go to $330 with an opt out, fine its a concession, but if it isnt even on the table at the player's insistence it just seem right. Maybe he feels great about the Phillies being able to have sustained success, but if they don't you are stuck being underpaid on a middling team for the rest of your career with no other options unless they trade you.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

I wouldn't be surprised if he's had conversations with guys who have opt-outs who have said if they had to do it all over again they'd rather not deal with it.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Phillies werent willing to go to $330 with an opt out, fine its a concession, but if it isnt even on the table at the player's insistence it just seem right.

 

I doubt Boras went into meetings saying "My client refuses to accept an opt out".

[David]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

[UMFan83]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

 

Yeah...for example I don't think many people were talking about Kershaw joining another team last year. Yes there was a 'will he opt out' discussion but most people knew that even if he opted out he was going back to the Dodgers. But whatever I guess some people are wired differently and based on his comments it seems like the distraction may have affected his play last year. I guess its comforting for him to know that he doesn't have to worry about his next contract or next team for the rest of his career and he can just focus on baseball.

[UMFan83]

If the Phillies werent willing to go to $330 with an opt out, fine its a concession, but if it isnt even on the table at the player's insistence it just seem right.

 

I doubt Boras went into meetings saying "My client refuses to accept an opt out".

 

No but if we take his comments at face value (which yeah big if) he instructed Boras to not discuss opt outs. I highly doubt the Phillies were bringing the topic of player opt outs to the negotiating table.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

 

Yeah...for example I don't think many people were talking about Kershaw joining another team last year. Yes there was a 'will he opt out' discussion but most people knew that even if he opted out he was going back to the Dodgers. But whatever I guess some people are wired differently and based on his comments it seems like the distraction may have affected his play last year. I guess its comforting for him to know that he doesn't have to worry about his next contract or next team for the rest of his career and he can just focus on baseball.

It's fun to rip on Philly but it's a pretty cool city and there are multiple nice places to live. Assuming he doesn't want to be a renter downtown, he can go buy his $10 million house, set his wife and kids up with a place down the shore for the summers and be set. That's also enticing for some when compared with buying that $10 million house, then selling in three years to go buy another one in another city.

[UMFan83]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

I wouldn't be surprised if he's had conversations with guys who have opt-outs who have said if they had to do it all over again they'd rather not deal with it.

 

Or he could go the Jason Heyward route and vastly underperform to the point where no one is discussing the possibility of him opting out.

[SouthSideRyan]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

 

That’s Tim

[imb]

Yeah it's such a weird demand. I understand wanting to be with 1 team the rest of your career, but to refuse security and leverage or even let your agent discuss it doesn't make sense.

 

On top of that, hasn't pretty much every single big time contract with an opt out either not been used or the player signs back with the same team anyways?

I wouldn't be surprised if he's had conversations with guys who have opt-outs who have said if they had to do it all over again they'd rather not deal with it.

 

who knows if it's even true anyway

 

the $330 million figure is so suspicious because it just happens to be $5 mil more than stanton's deal. I dont buy the "prioritize length" of contract thing from Boras at all. it seems way more likely that the motivation was to top Stanton's total dollar figure, and only the phillies would do it — and even they would only do it with a 13-year deal so they could knock down the AAV.

[Brian]

I wonder, in an alternate universe where the Cubs "had the money" would they have gone 13 years? (which is a number it appears he was unwilling to go under)

[David]

wasn't there talk that mlb would step in if a team tried to circumvent the luxury tax by reducing the AAV with a ridiculously long contract like NHL teams try to do?

 

i suppose you can barely pull a 13 year deal off with a 26 year old, tho.

[jersey cubs fan]

wasn't there talk that mlb would step in if a team tried to circumvent the luxury tax by reducing the AAV with a ridiculously long contract like NHL teams try to do?

 

i suppose you can barely pull a 13 year deal off with a 26 year old, tho.

 

$25m/per, with $22m in each of the final three seasons isn't that ridiculous. But I'm sure MLB is much happier with 13/330 rather than 5/200.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

 

Nah, I get that part. That’s still not how most people describe them. They don’t say “it sucks to give an opt-out but it saves us $60m in guaranteed money.” They say “this is actually good for us because we don’t want his decline years and he is definitely going to opt out.”

[imb]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

 

Nah, I get that part. That’s still not how most people describe them. They don’t say “it sucks to give an opt-out but it saves us $60m in guaranteed money.” They say “this is actually good for us because we don’t want his decline years and he is definitely going to opt out.”

 

no one describes them either of those two ways

[Hairyducked Idiot]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

 

Nah, I get that part. That’s still not how most people describe them. They don’t say “it sucks to give an opt-out but it saves us $60m in guaranteed money.” They say “this is actually good for us because we don’t want his decline years and he is definitely going to opt out.”

 

no one describes them either of those two ways

 

Look, most of my thoughts on how human interactions work are gonna be hypothetical

[Tim]

yeah and we're doing that thing again where we pretend that the opt outs don't have monetary value and aren't exchanged for guaranteed dollars. kyle likes to go this route a lot when he goes all "the player opt outs are pure downside for the team"

 

That’s Tim

?

 

I don't think so.