The Bryce is Right, Bitch

[Bertz]

Broadly, there are five ways it can work out:

 

1. The player is awesome, opts out and leaves, and continues being awesome. The opt out was pretty bad.

 

2. The player is awesome, opts out and leaves, and then sucks. The opt out was really great here, but I think people vastly overrate the likelihood of this scenario.

 

3. The player is awesome, opts out and resigns, and continues being awesome. The opt out was modestly bad because you lost a little surplus value.

 

4. The player is awesome, opts out and resigns, and then sucks. The nightmare scenario.

 

5. The player is not good enough to opt out. The opt out was modestly good here, because it saved you a little cash.

 

I think number five is by far the most likely, so I'm generally in favor of opt outs. That being said the downside risk is pretty substantial.

[imb]

Broadly, there are five ways it can work out:

 

1. The player is awesome, opts out and leaves, and continues being awesome. The opt out was pretty bad.

2. The player is awesome, opts out and leaves, and then sucks. The opt out was really great here, but I think people vastly overrate the likelihood of this scenario.

 

3. The player is awesome, opts out and resigns, and continues being awesome. The opt out was modestly bad because you lost a little surplus value.

 

4. The player is awesome, opts out and resigns, and then sucks. The nightmare scenario.

 

5. The player is not good enough to opt out. The opt out was modestly good here, because it saved you a little cash.

 

I think number five is by far the most likely, so I'm generally in favor of opt outs. That being said the downside risk is pretty substantial.

 

The bolded part is not "pretty bad," in fact it's pretty good. You got your money's worth for the time that player was on your team. If you had not offered him the opt-out, he wouldn't have signed with you and you would have had to give your money to someone else who might have been good and might not have been good. You also now have $25 million you can spend again on another player (or a pro-trump pac if you're a ricketts)

 

You know what sure would have sucked? (this is not directed at Bertz)

 

If Jason Heyward had been an MVP candidate for the last three years and had opted out. Sure would have been terrible to have him have been awesome. And as a further gut punch, we would have had more than $20 million to spend this offseason. Wonder who we could have signed with it.

[David]

this is all much easier to make sense of in an expected value sense rather than from a hindsight standpoint. who cares about hindsight? you can't make decisions in hindsight.

 

with every one of these scenarios, there's an expected value at the time the decision is made. that's what should be driving these decisions...i don't really care how the scenario plays out after the fact as far as good, bad, better, worse, whatever range of possible outcomes.

[Derwood]

we've been reduced to arguing about the opt-outs that the contract of the player we didn't sign doesn't have

[Hairyducked Idiot]

this is all much easier to make sense of in an expected value sense rather than from a hindsight standpoint. who cares about hindsight? you can't make decisions in hindsight.

 

with every one of these scenarios, there's an expected value at the time the decision is made. that's what should be driving these decisions...i don't really care how the scenario plays out after the fact as far as good, bad, better, worse, whatever range of possible outcomes.

 

That’s why I think the blackjack analogy is apt.

 

“If he is a superstar for three years and opts out, great!” Is like saying “I bet $10 on a 50/50 bet, and got back $15, great!”

 

Opt-outs chop a chunk off the high end of expected value for the team, which drives down the average expected value. And yes, that can be worth it if you get concessions elsewhere in the contract, but just because you and I get that doesn’t mean everyone does.

[imb]

this is all much easier to make sense of in an expected value sense rather than from a hindsight standpoint. who cares about hindsight? you can't make decisions in hindsight.

 

with every one of these scenarios, there's an expected value at the time the decision is made. that's what should be driving these decisions...i don't really care how the scenario plays out after the fact as far as good, bad, better, worse, whatever range of possible outcomes.

 

That’s why I think the blackjack analogy is apt.

 

“If he is a superstar for three years and opts out, great!” Is like saying “I bet $10 on a 50/50 bet, and got back $15, great!”

 

Opt-outs chop a chunk off the high end of expected value for the team, which drives down the average expected value. And yes, that can be worth it if you get concessions elsewhere in the contract, but just because you and I get that doesn’t mean everyone does.

 

yeah but how it actually works in a baseball sense is you can:

* bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and if you win you get back $15

* or not bet at all.

 

there is no table where you can bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and get back $20. So what do you do.

[Brian]

[soccer10k]

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.

 

100/$500M. Lifetime contract.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

yeah but how it actually works in a baseball sense is you can:

* bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and if you win you get back $15

* or not bet at all.

 

there is no table where you can bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and get back $20. So what do you do.

Well, then you wouldn't bet at all, obviously...a scenario which you are the resident expert for.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

yeah but how it actually works in a baseball sense is you can:

* bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and if you win you get back $15

* or not bet at all.

 

there is no table where you can bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and get back $20. So what do you do.

Well, then you wouldn't bet at all, obviously...a scenario which you are the resident expert for.

 

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

yeah but how it actually works in a baseball sense is you can:

* bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and if you win you get back $15

* or not bet at all.

 

there is no table where you can bet $10 on a 50/50 bet and get back $20. So what do you do.

Well, then you wouldn't bet at all, obviously...a scenario which you are the resident expert for.

 

 

i know this is fun for you, being able to talk nonsense with everyone on your side because im being *that guy* but you are really not doing well at this

I'm just shamelessly trying to buy a new pair of shoes. I'LL GIVE YOU +200!!!!!

 

ok cool ILL TAKE IT

I can do anywhere from 50 dollars to 500 from you.

Oh man very tempting very tempting

I thought you said you were taking +200.

Ok let's end this game because I'm going to bed. Just because I said the words "I'd bet" on a message board didn't mean I literally meant I would paypal money to random virgins on that same message board.

[jersey cubs fan]

I bet that took you a while to compile and you don't even feel better after doing so

[imb]

imagine going through life thinking every time someone says the words "i bet" in a sentence it's some binding deal that means they actually want to bet money with some rapey stranger on the internet they've never met Edited March 1, 2019 by Elon Musk

[SouthSideRyan]

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)

 

It’s exceedingly rare that a players best years will be at the end of their contract. Losing those because your FA did even better than expected at The part of the contract he’s supposed to be good at is a win

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, then you wouldn't bet at all, obviously...a scenario which you are the resident expert for.

 

I'm just shamelessly trying to buy a new pair of shoes. I'LL GIVE YOU +200!!!!!

 

ok cool ILL TAKE IT

I can do anywhere from 50 dollars to 500 from you.

Oh man very tempting very tempting

I thought you said you were taking +200.

Ok let's end this game because I'm going to bed. Just because I said the words "I'd bet" on a message board didn't mean I literally meant I would paypal money to random virgins on that same message board.

 

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

I bet that took you a while to compile and you don't even feel better after doing so

[Sammy Sofa]

Please tell me that insanely forgettable exchange was from, like, 2 years ago.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

imagine going through life thinking every time someone says the words "i bet" in a sentence it's some binding deal that means they actually want to bet money with some rapey stranger on the internet they've never met

Except you accepted the +200 so don't pretend that's what I was harping on. I wouldn't say you welched because we didn't agree to an amount after your million dollar offer, but you wussed out because you were talking out of your ass, which is a frequent occurance.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Please tell me that insanely forgettable exchange was from, like, 2 years ago.

3 actually! :D

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh god.

 

Please link us via the bookmark you, of course, have handy.

[SouthSideRyan]

imagine going through life thinking every time someone says the words "i bet" in a sentence it's some binding deal that means they actually want to bet money with some rapey stranger on the internet they've never met

 

I’m still waiting for Groucho Marx’s corpse to arrive at my door

[imb]

Oh god.

 

Please link us via the bookmark you, of course, have handy.

 

it was in the playoffs when we were getting our ass beat by the dodgers and i made the stellar prediction that we would not make it back to Chicago for the end of the series.

[imb]

imagine going through life thinking every time someone says the words "i bet" in a sentence it's some binding deal that means they actually want to bet money with some rapey stranger on the internet they've never met

Except you accepted the +200 so don't pretend that's what I was harping on. I wouldn't say you welched because we didn't agree to an amount after your million dollar offer, but you wussed out because you were talking out of your ass, which is a frequent occurance.

 

at the risk of making fun of a disabled person, if you can't read the obvious sarcasm in those quotes then you should ... work on ... comprehending posts better

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Oh god.

 

Please link us via the bookmark you, of course, have handy.

I just searched for "+200" in the game threads around the time of the 2016 playoffs. Have fun. The last half was via PMs...which, btw, I've gotten a fair amount of lately from people that don't understand what certain people's problems are on this board, but I guess they don't feel like being berated at the drop of a harmless hat.

[imb]

lmao i didn't remember it being in PMs but sure enough

 

for transparency sake here is the first pm he sent me along with my first reply. can't imagine why he didn't include it

 

How much are you wagering?

 

a million dollars