JDM is signed-5 years, 110 mil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 9, 2011
56
I’m actually a little concerned something came up from the physical that the team doesn’t like.
Agreed- something smells off here. At a minimum, this delay is probably not defusing any alleged tension that built up between JD and the organization during the drawn out negotiation process. Hope I am wrong because I want him on the team, but have a gut feeling the next details that trickle out will not be that he passed the physical and all is well.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
Agreed- something smells off here. At a minimum, this delay is probably not defusing any alleged tension that built up between JD and the organization during the drawn out negotiation process. Hope I am wrong because I want him on the team, but have a gut feeling the next details that trickle out will not be that he passed the physical and all is well.
You mean the FedEx package didn't get lost? <end sarcasm>
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
No news has me thinking JDM may be a repeat of JDD.

Depending on the problem any issue with body part X in the first 2 years turns the player options to team options. Something like that.

Whatever, the offseason from hell continues.
 
Jun 9, 2011
56
You mean the FedEx package didn't get lost? <end sarcasm>
Nailed it? Much of the discussion has been centered on the value of option years and Scott Boras with seemingly little angst that the deal was agreed to on Monday, JDM showed up to camp early Wednesday, and we are heading into the weekend without a passed physical. The lack of speculation was surprising to me, and I was expecting to see more posts similar to the one above from Sampo. Does the reported tension during the drawn out negotiation process combined with the additional foot-dragging from the Red Sox this week lead to an outright divorce or do people think things are far enough along that the deal gets amended to add some protections for the Sox? What sort of avenues would you like to see the Sox pursue?

Seemed like the logical direction to take the thread, and I was curious as to what others think. Feel free to carry on with your fire FedEx jokes though.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
In that case, the 5/110 with an opt-out is good, but 5/110 without an opt-out would be better — because someone would give you an asset to assume the remaining 3/60, which would be below-market at that point.

The point isn’t that a club should never agree to an opt-out; it’s that a contract without an opt-out is always preferable to an otherwise equivalent contract with an opt-out.
Please explain how a 12/$360 deal for a 29yo Mike Trout would be better than the same deal with an opt out after year 4. "The sky is blue" is generally a true statement. "The sky is always blue" is not a true statement. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes...it rains. And then the sky isn't blue. But rain isn't all that rare.

Put another way, people who deal in absolutes are always wrong.
There’s always the possibility that one side or the other will behave foolishly. I don’t think that possibility should be given any weight when evaluating a contract ex ante — you have to presume that both sides will act in their rational self-interest.
Some questions:
Do you think it feasible JDM's performance will decline over the next 5 years? I do.
Do you think it feasible JDM will still be a very, very good hitter over the next 2-3 years? I do.
Is it unrealistic to think his wRC+ could look something like 140, 140, 130, 110, 100 over the next 5 years? I don't think so.
There is a likelihood that he will have 2 very good years, opt out, get 3/$60 or better, and not be worth whatever deal he signs afterward (or what would have remained on his Sox deal). He could make more than a straight 5/$110 contract (good for him) and the Red Sox would not be paying him for decline years (good for them). That doesn't require anyone to act foolishly, but it is better for the Red Sox than a straight 5/$110 deal. This exact scenario doesn't have to happen for it to be included in forecasting. The fact that it is (in my opinion) somewhat likely to be the case illuminates the idea that the opt outs are not unequivocally bad. I would have preferred a 2/$50 deal to 5/$110, but that wasn't going to happen and neither were team options. If his wRC+ goes more like 140, 140, (opt out) 150, 150, 150, I would still prefer the current contract to one without opt outs ex ante. Sure, we missed out, but a) no one is forecasting that and b) that $60M is going to go somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
This just won't die.

No one has ever argued that it is impossible that an player opt out works out favorably for the team.

However, if a player has 2 great years and opts out, resulting in a better contract for the player. Then the player had excess value above the previous contract and the team could trade the player and receive an asset back in return.

So even in that case where the team had the foresight to predict an unexpected fall off, the opt out would prevent them from turning that foresight into an asset.

The other case is that the player misjudges the market and opts out to receive a lesser contract. That is just the team benefiting from a bad decision and obviously can happen but is unlikely to happen.

So opt outs decrease the risk for a player in the case of injury or poor relative performance while increasing the risk for the team. At the same time, it caps the upside for the team shifting upside to the player.

However, team's negotiate opt outs as a player benefit to avoid giving more money or some other benefit.
No team has ever negotiated for a contract like this:
After both sides agree on 5 year at 20 MM per year without an opt out. Then the team says -- oh and by the way we also will let you opt out after year 2.

This is a lengthy explanation of Mauf's previous 2 liner.
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,310
Ann Arbor
Some questions:
Do you think it feasible JDM's performance will decline over the next 5 years? I do.
Do you think it feasible JDM will still be a very, very good hitter over the next 2-3 years? I do.
Is it unrealistic to think his wRC+ could look something like 140, 140, 130, 110, 100 over the next 5 years? I don't think so.
There is a likelihood that he will have 2 very good years, opt out, get 3/$60 or better, and not be worth whatever deal he signs afterward (or what would have remained on his Sox deal). He could make more than a straight 5/$110 contract (good for him) and the Red Sox would not be paying him for decline years (good for them). That doesn't require anyone to act foolishly, but it is better for the Red Sox than a straight 5/$110 deal. This exact scenario doesn't have to happen for it to be included in forecasting. The fact that it is (in my opinion) somewhat likely to be the case illuminates the idea that the opt outs are not unequivocally bad. I would have preferred a 2/$50 deal to 5/$110, but that wasn't going to happen and neither were team options. If his wRC+ goes more like 140, 140, (opt out) 150, 150, 150, I would still prefer the current contract to one without opt outs ex ante. Sure, we missed out, but a) no one is forecasting that and b) that $60M is going to go somewhere else.
In the absence of large contract inflation, this precisely requires someone to act foolishly* because it means someone has to exploit a market inefficiency at the expense of someone else. The value the Red Sox gain has to come from somewhere.

*here I am using "foolish" to mean doing something irrational with respect to reasonable value not foolish like "after JDM opts out, Yankees offer 6/$210"

EDIT: That's obviously not to say everyone *will* act rationally, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume that if JDM has a great 3 years and opts out the Red Sox will be inherently smarter than 29 other teams with respect to properly valuing him over the course of a hypothetical new contract.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,705
Michigan
Do you think JDM would have accepted a 2-year, $60 million offer? A 2-year, $65 million offer? $70 million?

Seems to me that’s how you value the options value to JDM (The value to the team isn’t necessarily the same.) If JDM would have accepted a 2-year, $70 million contract, then the value of the options *to him* equals $20 million. That’s what it would cost the Sox to, in effect, “buy” the options from him.

Using the same logic, the value of the options to the team is the amount they’d be willing to pay to “buy” them. The Red Sox are obligated to pay JDM $110 million over 5 years, with player options in years 3 and 4. If they’d willingly pay $125 million over 5 years with no options, then the option value *to the team* is $15 million.

Note that in both cases, the option value *today* doesn’t change based on what *might* happen in the future. That’s all baked in.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,928
Isle of Plum
I took a course in options once. I know there’s a solid answer to the question of how to value player options. I just have no idea what it is. (Didn’t do so great in that class.) I bet Henry the Quant and his minions do, though.
From a financial/quant perspective the holder of the right to end a contract early always trades something for it at issuance. For example, if you buy a bond with an option to 'put' it back to the issuer you will get less yield than the same bond without that option. If the bond seller gets to 'call' the bond early they will pay a higher yield for that privilege. The same principle applies to more complex assets as well. Valuing the option properly takes a real quant but the principle isn't that out there.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
So opt outs decrease the risk for a player in the case of injury or poor relative performance while increasing the risk for the team.
Wait, what is the "risk to a player in the case of injury or poor relative performance" in a simple guaranteed contract? There is none. And conversely, there is no increased risk for the team.

Optouts have no significant impact on the downside scenario, for either the player or the team. If the player sucks or gets hurt, he's still getting paid, optout or no optout. It's only in the upside scenario that the optout becomes relevant. I keep reading posts that seem premised on the fallacy that the alternative to a player optout is not a simple guaranteed contract but a team optout.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,040
However, if a player has 2 great years and opts out, resulting in a better contract for the player. Then the player had excess value above the previous contract and the team could trade the player and receive an asset back in return.

So even in that case where the team had the foresight to predict an unexpected fall off, the opt out would prevent them from turning that foresight into an asset.
The “they could trade him” argument is great in theory but in reality a contending team never takes a productive player to market two years into a long term deal. Maybe they should, but they don’t. The Yankees never would have traded A-Rod or CC at the time their options came up, but the opt out allows for a clean break.

Even if you reject that point, letting A-Rod opt out and sign elsewhere may not have been as good as trading him for an asset, but is still would have been better than having him play out his deal with no opt out at all.

History tells us that drop offs during long term deals are the opposite of unexpected. And that’s the key. If a player on the wrong side of 30 is still productive 2 years into a deal with 3+ years left, you’re probably better off getting out while you can, unless it’s a case where the player has been ridiculously productive in relation to his deal. That’s how bad a bet long term deals are.
 
Last edited:

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
This just won't die.

No one has ever argued that it is impossible that an player opt out works out favorably for the team.

However, if a player has 2 great years and opts out, resulting in a better contract for the player. Then the player had excess value above the previous contract and the team could trade the player and receive an asset back in return.

So even in that case where the team had the foresight to predict an unexpected fall off, the opt out would prevent them from turning that foresight into an asset.


The other case is that the player misjudges the market and opts out to receive a lesser contract. That is just the team benefiting from a bad decision and obviously can happen but is unlikely to happen.

So opt outs decrease the risk for a player in the case of injury or poor relative performance while increasing the risk for the team. At the same time, it caps the upside for the team shifting upside to the player.

However, team's negotiate opt outs as a player benefit to avoid giving more money or some other benefit.
No team has ever negotiated for a contract like this:
After both sides agree on 5 year at 20 MM per year without an opt out. Then the team says -- oh and by the way we also will let you opt out after year 2.

This is a lengthy explanation of Mauf's previous 2 liner.
Right, that's why all players are traded while they have excess value and before they become free agents - so the controlling team can maximize that excess value in the player market. It's certainly better than having them produce that value for your own team. No player should ever become a free agent without being traded. And every other team prefers to give up assets in a trade for a player, rather than spending only money on the same or a similar player.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Wait, what is the "risk to a player in the case of injury or poor relative performance" in a simple guaranteed contract? There is none. And conversely, there is no increased risk for the team.
I should have been a little more clear. The comparative risk I was referring to in this case would be a comparison between the simple longer term contract with opt out vs. length of contract being the option period. That is, comparing a 2 yr/40 MM deal with a 5 yr/100 MM deal with a 2 yr opt out when the salary is identical in each year . The contract with the option protects the player against under-performance.
 

timduhda1

New Member
Dec 10, 2016
16
Didn’t it take 3 days between the announcement and press conference when David Price signed a couple of years ago? Given the amount of money involved, I’m not surprised it has taken this long.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
744
Didn’t it take 3 days between the announcement and press conference when David Price signed a couple of years ago? Given the amount of money involved, I’m not surprised it has taken this long.
According to the link below, the Price deal was reported on Dec 1 and he was introduced on Dec 4. Lots of other stuff in there, too, but don't waste your time if you're craving even more scintillating discourse on the quantum economics of opt outs.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/22/why-have-red-sox-not-made-official-jd-martinez-announcement/
 

timduhda1

New Member
Dec 10, 2016
16
Thanks for the link. I can honestly say that material was more enjoyable reading than opt outs.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
In the absence of large contract inflation, this precisely requires someone to act foolishly* because it means someone has to exploit a market inefficiency at the expense of someone else. The value the Red Sox gain has to come from somewhere.

*here I am using "foolish" to mean doing something irrational with respect to reasonable value not foolish like "after JDM opts out, Yankees offer 6/$210"

EDIT: That's obviously not to say everyone *will* act rationally, but I don't think it's a good idea to assume that if JDM has a great 3 years and opts out the Red Sox will be inherently smarter than 29 other teams with respect to properly valuing him over the course of a hypothetical new contract.
It doesn't take someone acting foolishly or exploiting an inefficiency, because every team values every player differently, is at a different place on the win curve, and has varying resources to expend. Contracts are offered and signed on forecasts, not actual performance, so the error bars are large. We just saw this as the apparent only serious bidders for JDM. He was worth more to us than any other team, and we had more to spend. Did we act foolishly in signing him?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
MLB has instructed teams (other than those already using a humidor) to condition balls in an air conditioned room. Seems they will only control temperature and not humidity (unlike the humidor)

https://www.google.com.tw/amp/amp.si.com/mlb/2018/02/23/mlb-mandate-teams-store-baseballs

This should lower balls moisture content since a/c reduces humidity and that should increase HR's, assuming that the ball is unchanged.

This should be should news for JDM and other hitters. Not so good for our pitchers
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
So a study over at FG shows fielders making 20% fewer plays since 2007 at all positions except 1B and 3B . This is due to the increase in strikeouts.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/where-defensive-opportunities-have-declined-most/

In that case the corner IFers position adjustments should be increased and other positions decreased. This would significantly bumb the WAR At 1B, 3B and DH (which is based on position adjustment for 1B)

JDM is more valuable than we thought .
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
744
In that case the corner IFers position adjustments should be increased and other positions decreased. This would significantly bumb the WAR At 1B, 3B and DH (which is based on position adjustment for 1B)

JDM is more valuable than we thought .
I trust that I'm far from alone as I eagerly await the inevitable, fresh and insightful pontifications from our resident savants on the ramifications of such revised WAR calculations vis-a-vis JDM and the dual opt outs.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,365
This is starting to worry me. What could they have found in his physical that is this concerning?
It doesn't necessarily have to be a major issue, but rather the two sides can't come to an agreement on how to handle it.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,263
deep inside Guido territory
FORT MYERS, Fla. -- J.D. Martinez and the Red Sox are indeed sorting through a medical matter, but one that a baseball source with knowledge of the situation said would not have any affect on Martinez in the immediate future. It's unclear what the specific issue is, but a better understanding between the parties could come as early as Saturday.

"I imagine that today is a day that we could have some definition," the source said.

Martinez can opt out over two years, in which he would make as much as $50 million, per the originally agreed upon deal. Naturally, a priority for the Red Sox is to be sure that any potentially latent issue would remain just that, latent, for not only two years but the potential five years of the deal.

Additional medical experts have been involved as the Red Sox and Martinez sort out the issue, including experts consulted on agent Scott Boras' referral, not only the team's. The process was described as thorough and cooperative.

http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/source-medical-issue-delays-jd-martinez-deal-boston-red-sox
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
No news has me thinking JDM may be a repeat of JDD.

Depending on the problem any issue with body part X in the first 2 years turns the player options to team options. Something like that.

Whatever, the offseason from hell continues.
Or if it's a longer-term concern they could just ditch the opt-outs and give him 2/54. 0r 2/46. I'm not sure.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
The closest thing I can think of is Napoli's hip, but I doubt this is a hip. paging DRS?
Lackey had something like this contract-wise (not specific injury-wise) which eventually resulted in a clause that the Sox were able to exploit to acquire Allen Craig.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,190
I mean for Lackey they were more worried about TJ than other pitchers, and hey he needed TJ.

I can't think of an equivalent for a position player though.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,820
St. Louis, MO
Lackey had something like this contract-wise (not specific injury-wise) which eventually resulted in a clause that the Sox were able to exploit to acquire Allen Craig.
Speaking of Allen Craig, JDM had a Lisfranc injury, which is what effectively ended Craig’s career. That’s definitely worth thoroughly exploring when you have 110 mil on the line.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Speaking of Allen Craig, JDM had a Lisfranc injury, which is what effectively ended Craig’s career. That’s definitely worth thoroughly exploring when you have 110 mil on the line.
I agree in general, but the fact that it has been noted that the injury would not have any effect on his immediate career would make me to believe it is something else similar to Napoli or another degenerative condition. A Lisfranc injury would have an effect on his immediate career.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,047
Speaking of Allen Craig, JDM had a Lisfranc injury, which is what effectively ended Craig’s career. That’s definitely worth thoroughly exploring when you have 110 mil on the line.
JDM’s injury has been reported as a Lisfranc sprain. It took a while, but I did find an article that specifies Craig’s was a Lisfranc fracture.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2152895-allen-crai

It would seem that Craig’s was more severe and then, as the above link talks about, he suffered a twisting ankle injury early in the following season. I didn’t remember that.

I haven’t read any concern for the immediate or long term health of JDM wrt this injury. Have there been any?
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,030
Florida
Or if it's a longer-term concern they could just ditch the opt-outs and give him 2/54. 0r 2/46. I'm not sure.
I'd assume it would have to be better then that, since it did appear Arizona (who probably possessed previous knowledge of the issue in question from their own physicals) had some type of hold out interest until the very end, and I'm guessing Boras/JDM might end up screaming bloody murder at this point that the Sox potentially screwed them out of getting a better deal given Arizona already pulled the trigger on Plan B.

Not that they'd really have much of a choice in the matter if they still want to get paid something of note mind you, but worse case scenario there (for them and not us obviously) I think we'd be looking at maybe upping the per/rate a touch and dropping a year off the back end. Or maybe even a second in the extreme case. Can't see us completely nixing the opt out aspect though.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
So we don't know what the actual issue is but we're speculating about ways the team could address it? Ok, I'll play. Just make the 5th year a mutual option, exercisable by JDM if he gets 500 ABs in year 4 or by the team, at the same cost as the current deal provides. So, same overall potential value. But if an injury knocks JDM out, we get some protection.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
And if we want out of the deal in the final year we can always sign someone new and relegate JDM to part time platoon duty.

You know, the way we're doing with Hanley.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,446
Rogers Park
Comment from Heyman:

Though sources stressed to FanRag Sports that Martinez is currently healthy and ready to play, it appears some kind of issue has arisen in Martinez’s medical reports that is delaying the official completion of the deal. Right now, both sides are being cautious and expect a deal to be completed, with the delay mainly stemming from a desire to make sure the exact language of the contract is right in light of any potential issue.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
That sure sounds like the Red Sox are looking for protection against a specific injury and we're likely to see team options or something weird like the Lackey clause put in under very specific injury circumstances
 
Status
Not open for further replies.