imb

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."

no one describes them either of those two ways 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."

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

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.

man i hated estes and dusty so much for cruz not starting then we traded cruz for horsefeathering andy pratt! yeah, cruz never turned out to be anything special but jesus christ both of those decisions juan cruz would have been pedro martinez if only we'd given him the chance

most of my hate is for pitchers - glendon rusch (though he follows me on twitter now so he's cool) shawn estes and jason maquis.

i cant believe there's no opt outs. there's gonna be a strike and then a new cba and $25 mil is gonna be next to nothing. Imagine if LeBron had signed a decade long 25m a year contract before the last CBA, he'd be passing up on $15 million per year. Just insane.

he barely makes more than jason heyward does lmao, we're fucked

Most Americans eat theirs well done with ketchup, because Americans mostly suck at everything most americans do not eat steak well done with ketchup

or both were out for personal reasons and we should let them be. personal reasons aka house shopping in san fran

they can literally have iowa

not only that BUT boras is clearly leaking the "additional meetings with the giants" stuff to pressure the cubs into just making the heyward/zobrist trade already and then giving 350 million to harper

i trust everyone has seen the willson contreras bomb. if he and bryant are good again ...

why would the giants want a good player on their team? to me, it makes no sense.

opens the door for jaxon's return

bryant is a little more bad ass than i thought

im so glad this horsefeathers is going bald

we did it https://twitter.com/WTraymor/status/1100499088112566272

thanks for clearing that up

in the end this thread was more of a curse than the injury threads