imb

im for the three-batter rule strictly because i like seeing the fucked up "oh my god why is this happening" face that relievers make when they suck butt and also the "oh my god why is this happening" face fans make when their relievers suck butt. it will be bad when it happens to us but good when it happens to everyone else so therefore in conclusion the good outweighs the bad, do not respond to this post

How does it definitely make the game better though? Because we’ll save maybe 7 min a game on pitching changes (not to say this won’t make games longer since there’s chances for blowups for guys forcing them to face 3 batters and creating long innings)? There’s far more downside than upside, imo. i dont know how it makes the game better, i just dont think it makes it worse either, just different. I really dont care one way or the other so i dont know why im even posting (very on brand for me.)

i think the three-batter minimum is kind of stupid but i also think you'll get to the end of a season and be like "oh that was bad like 4 times overall" so who cares

it hurt to unfollow PFT commenter last year but i dont regret it

every derwood tangent ever someone: posts a thing derwood: makes a post misunderstanding the post me: horsefeathers post someone: derwood that's not what they were saying derwood: i know that obviously

darin

remember all the attack ads people made? it truly was a different time

there wasn't a single aspect of that thread that was not embarassing

i had so many good ones from back pre-crash when the board was hopping with crazies. Goddman, you aren't kidding. Though sulley tried to singlehandedly keep it going for a while. oh horsefeathers if you go log in on the archives site they're all still there edit: omg lol i have the letter omc sent tim and 1908 about me, amazing

i rarely ever get one but got a lengthy one recently that said i should ignore this poster's posts and that i'm dumb. fred did PM me once when my location was "Pirate Country" and asked if I wanted to catch the Cubs @ Pirates game with him. I guess the board crash deleted that one : ( i had so many good ones from back pre-crash when the board was hopping with crazies.

As an idiot who just got nailed with the MLB TV auto-renewal yet again, mineaswell watch some oh god dammit

bitch we know

this thread has taken an extremely normal turn at the hands of this extremely normal guy. thankfully it's distracting everyone from the fact that bryce harper is playing elsewhere on a contending team for the same AAV we gave yu darvish

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 a million dollars

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."