The Bryce is Right, Bitch

[Andy]

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.

Yeah, in a world where Pujols is still getting paid until he's like 42, having Bryce signed to age 39 isn't going to ruffle feathers.

 

The most interesting thing to come out of the last day-plus's reporting to me is that the Nationals' supposed $300M offer from right after the season was basically a scam operation by their front office, with deferrals all the way until Harper would turn 60.

[treebird]

I don't think so.

 

argh argh argh argh argh

 

(tool man)

[CubColtPacer]

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

 

That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out:

 

13 year deal with no opt outs seem bad for both Harper AND the team

 

Harper passes on the chance to get a second contract in his early 30s, the Phillies pass on a chance to not have to pay this dude when he's 39 years old

 

Bizarre

 

That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side.

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Derwood]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

[imb]

 

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

 

That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out:

 

13 year deal with no opt outs seem bad for both Harper AND the team

 

Harper passes on the chance to get a second contract in his early 30s, the Phillies pass on a chance to not have to pay this dude when he's 39 years old

 

Bizarre

 

That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side.

 

saying "hey an opt out might work out for the team" is not the same as "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

[David]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

[CubColtPacer]

 

no one describes them either of those two ways

 

That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out:

 

13 year deal with no opt outs seem bad for both Harper AND the team

 

Harper passes on the chance to get a second contract in his early 30s, the Phillies pass on a chance to not have to pay this dude when he's 39 years old

 

Bizarre

 

That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side.

 

saying "hey an opt out might work out for the team" is not the same as "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

 

Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out.

[imb]

 

That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out:

 

 

 

That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side.

 

saying "hey an opt out might work out for the team" is not the same as "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

 

Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out.

 

right, and that is a different thing from "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

[David]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

[jersey cubs fan]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

I think the value is that if you're willing to give one the player will be more willing to sign with you. I don't think you're getting that much of a financial discount to include one. It sure didn't help bring down the Heyward price.

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Bertz]

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

I think the value is that if you're willing to give one the player will be more willing to sign with you. I don't think you're getting that much of a financial discount to include one. It sure didn't help bring down the Heyward price.

 

It's hard to completely divorce the opt outs from just getting the hell out of St. Louis, but didn't we offer Heyward 15-20 million less than the Cards?

[Derwood]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

 

But it seems to me that from the player's side, if they are really really good for the first 3 years, they are going to opt out for more money, and you are likely to lose that awesome player. If they suck, they are NOT going to opt out, and then you're on the hook for the rest of the contract (see: Jason Heyward)

[imb]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

i tend to think of it this way - every future season carries some volatility for any player in terms of performance, no matter who it is. The older a player gets the more volatility there is.

 

Take Harper for example, has a 9-WAR season and an MVP and hits FA at 26, seems like as good a bet as any to live up to whatever deal he gets. But even he has had multiple injuries and up and down seasons.

 

Still, because of his age and track record, he can command a very lengthy deal - it's literally the price of admission to even begin the discussion of signing him.

 

Ideally maybe you would sign him for say 6 years so you're not locked into his decline phase. He may still be very good from 32-36 and could very likely be worth the money through that phase, but there's a much higher chance you're getting your money's worth (or surplus value) out of those first handful of years.

 

Regardless, he's getting 10+ years.

 

So say Harper had demanded an opt out after 4 years so he could hit FA again at 30. The scenarios are this:

* He gives the team surplus value for those four years and leaves - Not ideal but hey, you got surplus value so it's still a win.

* He is merely worth the contract and leaves - again, not super ideal but at least you got your money's worth.

* He is injured and declines or plays poorly and chooses not to opt out - 10+ years was the price of admission so even with no opt outs you were going to be stuck with this anyway.

 

In the first two scenarios, at minimum the signing still worked for you. Not to mention that you may be in a different window where you're not interested in 6+ additional years of a past-prime outfielder anyway.

 

in the third scenario, opt-out or no opt-out, you were going to have him for the length of the contract he could command regardless.

[Sammy Sofa]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please; let's do the right thing and speculate what hilariously terrible offer the Cubs made to him (if they made one at all).

 

I'm going to say 7/$27m (just to keep it under $200 mill because the Ricketts are dicks like that) with 2 team options and exclusive naming rights to all Cubs players' pets in perpetuity.

[imb]

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

 

But it seems to me that from the player's side, if they are really really good for the first 3 years, they are going to opt out for more money, and you are likely to lose that awesome player. If they suck, they are NOT going to opt out, and then you're on the hook for the rest of the contract (see: Jason Heyward)

 

if jason heyward's contract had no opt outs would he still be here, yes or no

[CubColtPacer]

 

saying "hey an opt out might work out for the team" is not the same as "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

 

Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out.

 

right, and that is a different thing from "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

 

Sure, but the sentiment is that it is good for the team because the player will hopefully opt out. The distinction doesn't change the overall point, that many times when opt outs are discussed people think they are good for the club even if it doesn't change the money in the contract, but only because they don't want to pay the second half of the contract.

[imb]

 

Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out.

 

right, and that is a different thing from "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out."

 

Sure, but the sentiment is that it is good for the team because the player will hopefully opt out. The distinction doesn't change the overall point, that many times when opt outs are discussed people think they are good for the club even if it doesn't change the money in the contract, but only because they don't want to pay the second half of the contract.

 

i do not think that happens "many times," and anyone who thinks that is what these people are saying are completely misunderstanding the conversation

 

opt outs are not "a good thing" for the team - however they are often the cost of signing a player, so if you want that player you have to play along, otherwise you dont get that player. Meanwhile it's not out of the realm of possibility that a player can be good, opt out, leave and get more money elsewhere, and it eventually helps or at least does not hurt the team who originally signed then lost him.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Elon Musk

[Derwood]

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

 

But it seems to me that from the player's side, if they are really really good for the first 3 years, they are going to opt out for more money, and you are likely to lose that awesome player. If they suck, they are NOT going to opt out, and then you're on the hook for the rest of the contract (see: Jason Heyward)

 

if jason heyward's contract had no opt outs would he still be here, yes or no

 

Sure, but that's hindsight. The opposing argument would be: If jason heyward had been in the top 3 for MVP every year, would he still be here, yes or no?

[TMan92]

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)

 

My 9 year old will be graduating college at the end of Bryce's contract.

[imb]

 

But it seems to me that from the player's side, if they are really really good for the first 3 years, they are going to opt out for more money, and you are likely to lose that awesome player. If they suck, they are NOT going to opt out, and then you're on the hook for the rest of the contract (see: Jason Heyward)

 

if jason heyward's contract had no opt outs would he still be here, yes or no

 

Sure, but that's hindsight. The opposing argument would be: If jason heyward had been in the top 3 for MVP every year, would he still be here, yes or no?

 

No, he would not. And so what? We would have gotten 3 years of surplus value out of him as he played above our expectations.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Thinking opt outs are good for the team is an.....odd take

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

i tend to think of it this way - every future season carries some volatility for any player in terms of performance, no matter who it is. The older a player gets the more volatility there is.

 

Take Harper for example, has a 9-WAR season and an MVP and hits FA at 26, seems like as good a bet as any to live up to whatever deal he gets. But even he has had multiple injuries and up and down seasons.

 

Still, because of his age and track record, he can command a very lengthy deal - it's literally the price of admission to even begin the discussion of signing him.

 

Ideally maybe you would sign him for say 6 years so you're not locked into his decline phase. He may still be very good from 32-36 and could very likely be worth the money through that phase, but there's a much higher chance you're getting your money's worth (or surplus value) out of those first handful of years.

 

Regardless, he's getting 10+ years.

 

So say Harper had demanded an opt out after 4 years so he could hit FA again at 30. The scenarios are this:

* He gives the team surplus value for those four years and leaves - Not ideal but hey, you got surplus value so it's still a win.

* He is merely worth the contract and leaves - again, not super ideal but at least you got your money's worth.

* He is injured and declines or plays poorly and chooses not to opt out - 10+ years was the price of admission so even with no opt outs you were going to be stuck with this anyway.

 

In the first two scenarios, at minimum the signing still worked for you. Not to mention that you may be in a different window where you're not interested in 6+ additional years of a past-prime outfielder anyway.

 

in the third scenario, opt-out or no opt-out, you were going to have him for the length of the contract he could command regardless.

 

There’s a fourth option: he continues to provide good value for the team in the later years.

 

By completely removing that option, you meaningfully change the expected value of the the deal for the team. It’s like sitting at a blackjack table that only pays 70% when you win. You can say “well, if we win we are still ahead, and if we lose we would have lost anyway, so what’s the problem?” But that 30% chop to the payoff meaningfully changes the average value of the bet.

[David]

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean

 

if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team.

 

what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.

I think the value is that if you're willing to give one the player will be more willing to sign with you. I don't think you're getting that much of a financial discount to include one. It sure didn't help bring down the Heyward price.

 

but it still has a monetary value, even if that's just a theoretical concept. if another team offers him more money, there's a point at which he should or would say "screw the opt out, i'll take more money" and whatever that number is is the value.

[imb]

opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team

 

i tend to think of it this way - every future season carries some volatility for any player in terms of performance, no matter who it is. The older a player gets the more volatility there is.

 

Take Harper for example, has a 9-WAR season and an MVP and hits FA at 26, seems like as good a bet as any to live up to whatever deal he gets. But even he has had multiple injuries and up and down seasons.

 

Still, because of his age and track record, he can command a very lengthy deal - it's literally the price of admission to even begin the discussion of signing him.

 

Ideally maybe you would sign him for say 6 years so you're not locked into his decline phase. He may still be very good from 32-36 and could very likely be worth the money through that phase, but there's a much higher chance you're getting your money's worth (or surplus value) out of those first handful of years.

 

Regardless, he's getting 10+ years.

 

So say Harper had demanded an opt out after 4 years so he could hit FA again at 30. The scenarios are this:

* He gives the team surplus value for those four years and leaves - Not ideal but hey, you got surplus value so it's still a win.

* He is merely worth the contract and leaves - again, not super ideal but at least you got your money's worth.

* He is injured and declines or plays poorly and chooses not to opt out - 10+ years was the price of admission so even with no opt outs you were going to be stuck with this anyway.

 

In the first two scenarios, at minimum the signing still worked for you. Not to mention that you may be in a different window where you're not interested in 6+ additional years of a past-prime outfielder anyway.

 

in the third scenario, opt-out or no opt-out, you were going to have him for the length of the contract he could command regardless.

 

There’s a fourth option: he continues to provide good value for the team in the later years.

 

By completely removing that option, you meaningfully change the expected value of the the deal for the team. It’s like sitting at a blackjack table that only pays 70% when you win. You can say “well, if we win we are still ahead, and if we lose we would have lost anyway, so what’s the problem?” But that 30% chop to the payoff meaningfully changes the average value of the bet.

 

Sorry, I actually meant to include that scenario. It could definitely happen, but that's where the volatility comes in. Is it likely that they provide expected value the whole way through? Maybe, maybe not. Is the gamble that they opt out at 30 and provide lesser value for someone else on the backend of what would have been your deal worth it? Could be. Either way, as long as opt outs are allowed, any player you give one to was either going to get it from you or from someone else.