JDM is signed-5 years, 110 mil

Status
Not open for further replies.

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,288
AZ
I think you're looking at it incorrectly. The question isn't opt-out vs no opt-out. The question is JDM with an opt-out or no JDM. Which do you prefer?

The opt-out has value, and it was (seemingly) part of the cost of getting him to sign on the line which is dotted. It's in the same category of the $110m.
Yes, in the end, I can live with the deal and I agree that the deal is "good" in the sense that if it was the best the Sox could do, I am happy they found a way to field a very competitive team notwithstanding the Castillo, Hanley, Panda and Craig deals. Obviously, one can invent deals that would have been bad deals -- 6/160, for example, is not a deal that I would have been happy about no matter how badly we need a hitter like JDM. The deal that Boras got, though, is pretty good and while I'm happy to have JDM, it's fairly close to neutral.

Not trying to pick a fight or belabor an argument, but I don’t understand this.

If the Sox signed JDM to a straight, 5-year, $110-million, no-option contract, and then JDM goes full-panda in years one or two, they’d be on the hook for years 3, 4 and 5.

With the year-two player option, if he goes full-panda in years one or two, there’s at least a small chance he exercises the option to leave. Worst case is he doesn’t, and the Sox are no worse off than in the above no-option contract.

So what’s the downside? I suppose it is a healthy JDM mashing in years 1-2, then exercising the option to leave. Two years of good/very good JDM For 2/50 doesn’t seem like much of a downside to me.
I don't think the "if there's a downside to this deal, then there would have been a downside to a straight 5/110 (or 5/120) too" argument is a valid one. You just can't apply that kind of hindsight analysis to this deal at this moment in time. The question here is what did you give and what did you get. A 5/110 contract is worth far more than this deal at this moment in time, because you are offsetting the concern that it turns into a Panda situation by buying yourself the upside that it turns into a great deal. You are trading upside for downside, and hopefully picking a number where you think the former justifies the latter.

What the option here does is that it gives you the panda downside, but you don't get any of the upside -- at least not after the first two years.

Obviously, my position depends on the notion that the player will act rationally. If, after two years, he views his market for the next three years as worth zero to $59,999,999, he will exercise the option. If he views his market as worth more than $60,000,000, he will opt out. (With some fuzziness here -- if he's happy with his kids' school, maybe he doesn't opt out over a few million dollars.)

So, unless you believe that the player will misjudge the market, or will act irrationally, you've bought yourself whatever JDM's upside over $50 million is for 2 years, and and to get it, you've guaranteed a player $110 million, which is a risk to the team of up to $110 million. I'm fine with people arguing that it's totally worth it, but I just don't feel like we're even speaking the same language. (As I was going to post this message, I see that happy has raised the point that the player might act irrationally. That I think is at least an argument that answers what I've been trying to say -- it does not move the needle for me personally. Boras isn't going to let him act irrationally. My view is that in two years, JDM will be, in all senses, a free agent looking at a 3/60 deal (or a 1/22.5 deal). This is a 2 year deal, with a promise to make a guaranteed 3/60 offer when JDM becomes a free agent in 2 years. But I respect others' views on this.)

Drek's points, though, are interesting, and ones I want to think about for a little longer.

Edit: Actually, though, maybe my "in all senses" is wrong even though I put it in bold :O) -- I'm not sure how much a player who owns an opt out who hasn't actually exercised it can actually get an adequate sense of the market like a free agent can. So, that's going overboard. But I should say he's "nearly the functional equivalent of a free agent looking at a 3/60 deal."
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
So what’s the downside? I suppose it is a healthy JDM mashing in years 1-2, then exercising the option to leave. Two years of good/very good JDM For 2/50 doesn’t seem like much of a downside to me.
The downside, in short, is that we lose of control of healthy, mashing JDM for the last three years of the contract, and have to replace him or renegotiate for his services on the open market. But this is a downside with an asterisk, since being healthy and mashing at ages 30-31 does not guarantee being healthy and mashing for ages 32-34; it only makes it somewhat more likely.

I think a lot of the discussion of this issue gets derailed by an assumption that the impact of any contract provision must be symmetrical -- if it's good for one party it must be bad, in an equal degree, for the other. I think optouts are an example of a provision that is a significant, unalloyed good for one party, but only a minor and relative evil for the other.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
No one is going to be happy unless the Sox stop taking the inherent risk of free agency AND they start putting acid in agents' coffee so they only agree to deals that the Sox "win" every time.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
The downside, in short, is that we lose of control of healthy, mashing JDM for the last three years of the contract, and have to replace him or renegotiate for his services on the open market. But this is a downside with an asterisk, since being healthy and mashing at ages 30-31 does not guarantee being healthy and mashing for ages 32-34; it only makes it somewhat more likely.

I think a lot of the discussion of this issue gets derailed by an assumption that the impact of any contract provision must be symmetrical -- if it's good for one party it must be bad, in an equal degree, for the other. I think optouts are an example of a provision that is a significant, unalloyed good for one party, but only a minor and relative evil for the other.
This is an important point, in relation to Denny's points above. Just because JDM mashes for 2 years and opts out, that doesn't guarantee the Sox have lost any upside in years 3-5. He may be able to get >3/$60 (without needing to exercise any irrationality), but it doesn't mean he'll earn that. There are a lot of possible scenarios for opt-outs, and they generally favor the player, but it's not cut and dried that they're some sort of huge $20M win for the player/agent.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,101
This is an important point, in relation to Denny's points above. Just because JDM mashes for 2 years and opts out, that doesn't guarantee the Sox have lost any upside in years 3-5. He may be able to get >3/$60 (without needing to exercise any irrationality), but it doesn't mean he'll earn that. There are a lot of possible scenarios for opt-outs, and they generally favor the player, but it's not cut and dried that they're some sort of huge $20M win for the player/agent.
It's not a zero sum game, they can favor both the player and the team. JDM opts out, gets a better deal somewhere else and craps out, it's a win for both JDM and the Red Sox.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Is it really going to be difficult in three off seasons, to be able to find another DH type who gives 2/3rd of JDM's production for a fraction of the cost? They can use the rest of the money to upgrade elsewhere at the very worst.

Ideally you don't spend much at that spot, but he is a luxury they were in a unique position to enjoy.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
I would argue in a "most likely" scenario you want to extend the effort to retain Betts. The injury-related volatility associated with pitchers makes me leery of making any 2+ year projections on Sale's future.

In any event, I'm pretty happy with this signing. It's about the best you can hope for in free agency (low-level value signings like Nunez excepted).
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Appreciate everyone’s replies.

Not to turn this whole thing into Opt-Out City, but a few questions:

Has any player opted out of a contract because they wanted to leave the team? Or has it always been because they were virtually guaranteed a bigger payday?

What are the examples of a player being signed (or re-signed) after an opt-out that have actually played to the team’s advantage?

To take two obvious examples, I think it is pretty clear that the ARod opt-out and sign was a dud, notwithstanding his amazing (and amazingly PED-fueled) 2009. And while he seemed to miraculously come back from the grave last postseason, Sabathia wasn’t close to the pitcher he was after he opted out. In both cases, I wonder if the Yankees would have preferred letting the guy go rather than keeping an older version of him at an even more expensive premium.

My general feeling is that there is something less messy about player opt-outs. And if someone had told me we signed JDM for 2/$50M, I would have been just as happy as if it had been 5/$110. The idea that the latter necessarily means JDM tanked his first two years seems suspicious to me. I mean, what if Boras had told him to opt out of a big FA deal this year? Are we really that sure he would’ve had a bigger deal on the table? After the market we’ve seen?

I guess my larger point is that options of any kind can be tricky and it’s not always clear who the winner is, regardless of who negotiated them. The option that was triggered by Lackey’s injury in 2012 seemed like a major win for the Sox...until it wasn’t.
 

wkline

New Member
Aug 4, 2006
3
Is it really going to be difficult in three off seasons, to be able to find another DH type who gives 2/3rd of JDM's production for a fraction of the cost? They can use the rest of the money to upgrade elsewhere at the very worst.

Ideally you don't spend much at that spot, but he is a luxury they were in a unique position to enjoy.
If the Sox can replace him at a fraction of the cost, he won't opt out, to detriment of the Sox.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
I’m not sure how much a then 32-year-old DH is going to be in demand for big money by another club. I know this was a down FA market, but there was no other strong interest to in JDM besides Arizona kicking the tire and this is after Martinez was playing as an OF. I’d love to see him rake for 5 years in Boston. I’d be happy with four very good years.
 
Last edited:

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
I think you're looking at it incorrectly. The question isn't opt-out vs no opt-out. The question is JDM with an opt-out or no JDM. Which do you prefer?

The opt-out has value, and it was (seemingly) part of the cost of getting him to sign on the line which is dotted. It's in the same category of the $110m.

I think that's a key point---from what I've read, the Sox's offer was always 5 years, 110 million, and JD wasn't signing that. So the opt outs were a concession to get him to sign---it's not like they started with those. Would he have eventually signed without them? Maybe, no way to know now. But at least there was plenty of posturing that the original contract was not enough for him to sign. So without the opt-outs, they would have had to raise their offer. Would people here be happy with 5/120? Probably most of us, yes, but we don't even know if that would have been enough. So we can kvetch about opt-outs all we want (and don't worry, we will) but they were a necessary part of the offer that allowed us to sign him without having to pay more in guarantee
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
A lot of our positions about opt outs were forged in an environment of steady inflation in FA contracts. Now that that's not a safe assumption — maybe this year's FA market is a hiccup, maybe it's the new normal — does anything change?

The one thing I think changes is that we should be less quick to assume players will choose to opt out.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
I did a comparison between Stanton and JD and came up with these numbers.

Giancarlo Stanton 2014-2017(2,118 plate appearances)
.366 OBP/.573 SLG/149 wRC+/152 OPS+/248 XBHits

JD Martinez 2014-2017(2,143 plate appearances)
.362 OBP/.574 SLG/148 wRC+/150 OPS+/262 XBHits
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
I think that's a key point---from what I've read, the Sox's offer was always 5 years, 110 million, and JD wasn't signing that. So the opt outs were a concession to get him to sign---it's not like they started with those. Would he have eventually signed without them? Maybe, no way to know now. But at least there was plenty of posturing that the original contract was not enough for him to sign. So without the opt-outs, they would have had to raise their offer. Would people here be happy with 5/120? Probably most of us, yes, but we don't even know if that would have been enough. So we can kvetch about opt-outs all we want (and don't worry, we will) but they were a necessary part of the offer that allowed us to sign him without having to pay more in guarantee
It's not just sign or no-sign. There's value to the Sox, especially with a new coaching staff coming in, in getting the deal completed before ST really launched.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
---from what I've read, the Sox's offer was always 5 years, 110 million, and JD wasn't signing that. So the opt outs were a concession to get him to sign---it's not like they started with those. Would he have eventually signed without them? Maybe, no way to know now. But at least there was plenty of posturing that the original contract was not enough for him to sign. So without the opt-outs, they would have had to raise their offer. Would people here be happy with 5/120? Probably most of us, yes, but we don't even know if that would have been enough. So we can kvetch about opt-outs all we want (and don't worry, we will) but they were a necessary part of the offer that allowed us to sign him without having to pay more in guarantee
Further to the above, while it's conceivable that the Sox could have waited JDM out until he relented and signed the original offer, there would have been inherent dangers in that approach. Human nature being what it is, it's safe to assume that a camp that (essentially) starts with the full "this is our team" vibe would be a more stable environment than a "who - if anyone - is going to be walking through that door?" vibe - especially for a rookie manager. Then, there's always the chance that a key spring-training injury to another team would create a new landing spot for JDM. Meanwhile, with each passing day, there was a greater likelihood that whatever fallback options could come off the board. The worst-case scenario being that the Sox make no significant upgrades to the offense.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
If the Sox can replace him at a fraction of the cost, he won't opt out, to detriment of the Sox.
Unless some kids from the farm really pan out.

Imagine all the hopes and dreams of prospects humpers everywhere come true and Sam Travis, Michael Chavis, and Rafael Devers all show themselves to be quality ML hitters by end of 2019. It would be entirely possible that JD Martinez could get more money elsewhere, while Boston would rededicate that money to pitching or their own ending arb. talent like Betts or Bogaerts.

Or the negative - all things go wrong at some point pre-opt out other than JDM raking away for the next two years. He's worth more than his remaining 3 and wants to go get paid, the Sox are no where near competitive. They gladly watch him walk with a QO attached to bring back picks and expedite the rebuild.

Or he opts out, Dombrowski grabs a slightly lesser player for substantially less money, etc..

The point isn't that JDM won't be worth a good chunk of money, the point is that team needs, player needs, and good market value all can change to make things line up in a different way. Right now the Sox really need someone like JDM. In two years they might not so much. JDM isn't Chris Sale. There are a lot of really good one dimensional bats in the league. They might not replace him 1:1 but they can make comparable use of the money even in a market where elite assets are disproportionately valued.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,288
AZ
This is an important point, in relation to Denny's points above. Just because JDM mashes for 2 years and opts out, that doesn't guarantee the Sox have lost any upside in years 3-5. He may be able to get >3/$60 (without needing to exercise any irrationality), but it doesn't mean he'll earn that. There are a lot of possible scenarios for opt-outs, and they generally favor the player, but it's not cut and dried that they're some sort of huge $20M win for the player/agent.
It's not a zero sum game, they can favor both the player and the team. JDM opts out, gets a better deal somewhere else and craps out, it's a win for both JDM and the Red Sox.
Yeah, both of these are correct. There's a spectrum of all possible results. If you had perfect information, you could ascribe a probability of all of them, and if you could assign a value in dollars to them, you could identify exactly what a good contract is for JDM right now. And you could make the same point in two years and in three years. If he plays at a very high level in the next two years, there is a very good chance that someone will overpay for him, sure. There are definitely scenarios that have a decent chance of coming to be where the Red Sox get his best two years at a good price, and where it all works out great, and then another team overpays for him -- maybe even someone in our division or league. I hope it didn't seem like I wasn't allowing for that possibility.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
They just mentioned on the radio the postponement today and this injury from a year ago. Maybe the consulting ortho for the Sox hasn't signed off yet?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
Is there any actual connection for the press conference delay and the injury? Or are they literally just speculating?
They mentioned the injury, which I had forgotten. I was speculating. He certainly didn't resemble Allen Craig last season.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
MLBN mentioned (speculated?) that at least part of the delay was due to Boras flying from AZ to FL to attend both JD and Hosmer's PCs.
 

pjr

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
780
Quincy,MA

Scott Lauber
@ScottLauber


Not surprising that results of J.D. Martinez’s physical are still being reviewed. In addition to medical staffers who are in Fort Myers, info has to be shared with doctors in Boston. Logistics are challenging.
 

wkline

New Member
Aug 4, 2006
3
Unless some kids from the farm really pan out.

Imagine all the hopes and dreams of prospects humpers everywhere come true and Sam Travis, Michael Chavis, and Rafael Devers all show themselves to be quality ML hitters by end of 2019. It would be entirely possible that JD Martinez could get more money elsewhere, while Boston would rededicate that money to pitching or their own ending arb. talent like Betts or Bogaerts.

Or the negative - all things go wrong at some point pre-opt out other than JDM raking away for the next two years. He's worth more than his remaining 3 and wants to go get paid, the Sox are no where near competitive. They gladly watch him walk with a QO attached to bring back picks and expedite the rebuild.

Or he opts out, Dombrowski grabs a slightly lesser player for substantially less money, etc..

The point isn't that JDM won't be worth a good chunk of money, the point is that team needs, player needs, and good market value all can change to make things line up in a different way. Right now the Sox really need someone like JDM. In two years they might not so much. JDM isn't Chris Sale. There are a lot of really good one dimensional bats in the league. They might not replace him 1:1 but they can make comparable use of the money even in a market where elite assets are disproportionately valued.
100% happy with the contract as is. If it took the opt outs to get it done, so be it. Perfect fit and a fair price given the current state of the team. Hopefully we'll look back at it as a beneficial deal for each party. The opt outs look to me like sweeteners to get him to sign for 5yrs/$110MM. The idea of the player option being a possible positive for the Sox would solely be due to luck or circumstance though.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
I'm fine with people arguing that it's totally worth it, but I just don't feel like we're even speaking the same language.
The two sides of the Great Opt-Out Debate never even agreed on what the definition of "is" is, so this is pretty much right. Stop looking for a point of logical disagreement when the whole conflict is about value weighting outcomes. Two million billion words, zero probability/impact grids. Phillysoxfan wouldn't have stood for it, I tell you.

Now get off my f***ing lawn.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
Couldn't a player's option be considered an insurance policy? We don't know the premium since we're not privy to contract negotiations, but the team essentially fills the role of the insurance company. This makes sense given the financial disparity between organizations and individual players.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
Couldn't a player's option be considered an insurance policy? We don't know the premium since we're not privy to contract negotiations, but the team essentially fills the role of the insurance company. This makes sense given the financial disparity between organizations and individual players.
But if he was injured irreparably he would take the options and we would be saddled with his entire $110, no?
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,871
Take your own advice on this....
sorry, these threads are just killing me. Need some real games. If you think you’re contributing something meaningful at this point, you’re mistaken.
Thoughts and prayers
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,076
Greenville, SC
But if he was injured irreparably he would take the options and we would be saddled with his entire $110, no?
Sure, but that would be the case whether they offered the opt-out or not. The Sox are basically placing a bet on Martinez’ aging curve. It pays off if he performs to or outperforms his contract over two (or three) years, opts out, and then underperforms the remainder of what his contract would have been. It loses if he opts out and performs to or outperforms the remainder of his contract, and the Sox can’t allocate the money freed up to players who add as much value or more than what they lost from Martinez. I don’t think it’s crazy for an older player.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Sure, but that would be the case whether they offered the opt-out or not. The Sox are basically placing a bet on Martinez’ aging curve. It pays off if he performs to or outperforms his contract over two (or three) years, opts out, and then underperforms the remainder of what his contract would have been. It loses if he opts out and performs to or outperforms the remainder of his contract, and the Sox can’t allocate the money freed up to players who add as much value or more than what they lost from Martinez. I don’t think it’s crazy for an older player.
Right. Its not crazy at all. Free agency is always a bet, with unavoidable risks of winning and losing. This is just a different kind of bet. And in the usual FA contract, we all are quite resigned to the idea that there's a probability of an overpaid crappy year at the end. Maybe this way its a hair more likely that that year is with another team.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Maybe they had a tough time finding a secure fax machine. (HIPAA fax yes; email no.)
More than likely, the most relevant records are actual images saved to CD-ROM.

This way, the team's doctors can actually see the pictures and re-interpret any significant abnormalities.

So, with email a violation of HIPPA, overnight courier would be the only way to go.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
More than likely, the most relevant records are actual images saved to CD-ROM.

This way, the team's doctors can actually see the pictures and re-interpret any significant abnormalities.

So, with email a violation of HIPPA, overnight courier would be the only way to go.
What about saving images to a secure server that can be accessed by both locations?
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
It's not a HIPPA violation to send by secure email with a password. More likely it's just doing it and having the personnel available on the other end. Scheduling's a pain...!
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
What about saving images to a secure server that can be accessed by both locations?
I’m sure there are tons of different ways to do this, each of which is far more difficult and costly to implement and regulate for a one-off issue than sending a CD-ROM overnight delivery.

What does it really matter? I mean, for anyone other than Ben Taylor...
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
MLBN also saying that there is a JDM signing presser today, but the Sox are still looking at his physical stuff? How does that make sense? If there is a presser, anybody know if NESN or other channel is carrying it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.