Snodgrass'Muff said:
So what you are saying is that the opt-out clause would have some positive value for a particular owner/team . . . ?
Stanton & Marlins discussing $325M, 13-year deal?
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
So what you are saying is that the opt-out clause would have some positive value for a particular owner/team . . . ?
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
So what you are saying is that the opt-out clause would have some positive value for a particular owner/team . . . ?
It really depends on when the opt out is. If it's after year 4, they've only bought out 2 years of free agency. They already had him under control for the next two years. And they're taking massive gamble he doesn't have a serious injury. It's a game of Russian roulette.
glennhoffmania said:
Man, you know how much the insurance costs on a Ferrari?
$20 mil over the course of his short career is nothing. $300 mil, now that's real, Jay-Z type cheddar. I say he takes the money.
gammoseditor said:
That's probably an insurable risk. What you can't insure against is Stanton losing his nerve after getting hit in the face, or losing his groove at age 28-29 like some players do.
the NTC and opt-out shift me from thinking this contract is a calculated risk to thinking it's utterly insane. I'm glad the Sox aren't giving him this ridiculous deal.
maufman said:
I'm surprised his injury (and recovery) aren't brought up more as a factor. There is a chance he will not be the same player he was before the injury. Where every inside pitch (and he will get those) has him bailing and then waving at the next pitch - slider biting away. I'd want to be sure what the product was before I bought it. But we are talking about the Marlins here.
Remember when the rumor was that Miami offered a similarly ridiculous contact to Pujols and we all thought it was BS? Maybe that was a real offer... I can't remember the details.
Yeah, no way anyone can justify turning down that kind of deal, given that he's not a free agent. $325 million dollars? Holy mother of god.
Well, if anything, it's nice to finally be able to put the "The Sox are going to trade for Stanton" stuff to rest.
Well, if anything, it's nice to finally be able to put the "The Sox are going to trade for Stanton" stuff to rest.
Rudy Pemberton said:
This was probably the only way the Marlins could keep him. He's stated his unhappiness with the organization many times, so they either had to make that up to him with $ or watch him walk.
Food for thought: Posey got 8/$167 with three arb years left. I'd argue that paying an NL catcher (meaning no DHing) that much at age 26 carries a lot of risk, and the Giants could offer a clear commitment to winning and history of treating him well in addition to the $. Stanton's deal is still astronomical, but not completely insane.
Mike Trout has to be a little unhappy with his agents at this point, but he has $144.5 (over 6 years) to dry his tears. And he's got another mega-deal in his future.
nattysez said:
I don't think Trout has any regrets. He only gave up 3 free agent years, and his AAV for those years is insane. His per year for FA years might be $10 million more than Stanton.
Oppo said:
If you signed 1999 Pedro to this contract, you'd almost have 2014 Pedro playing under it as well. 13 years is insanity.
If you signed 1996 Pedro up to it would it be worth it?rodderick said:
I am far from an expert on the WAR/$ calculations, but on quick inspection it looks like it would be. Obviously you are getting next to nothing for your money at the end of the contract, but the peak years your definitely getting value.
People here are way too concerned with how billionaires spent the interest on their war chests.
This is a great deal for all sides and a refreshing commitment to baseball in Miami. If you're not going to sign this guy long term at top dollar, then you should sell your team and go play shuffleboard at the old folks home.
This is a great deal for all sides and a refreshing commitment to baseball in Miami. If you're not going to sign this guy long term at top dollar, then you should sell your team and go play shuffleboard at the old folks home.
MLBPA would never okay a team opt-out (with a few exceptions based on prior injury history).Ed Hillel said:
Jnai said:
I think the opt out is a decent play by ownership. Yeah, he could walk away a few years into the contract; but no one could say that ownership short-changed him or didn't want to keep him. The onus for that potential separation falls on him. The bigger risk for ownership, it seems to me, is the 12-13 years of the deal. The current owners (or whoever they sell to) will be hamstrung if his career goes south.
Of course, I could be missing your point. It wouldn't be the first time.
Sure they would -- happens all the time. We just call them "club options."
Of course, no player would agree to permit a team to double the length of their contract if it was working well for them at the midpoint, or to walk away if it wasn't. Salvador Perez's deal with KC is the only deal I can think of that comes anywhere close to this.
When a player signs a long term deal, both parties risk. The team risks that it will be stuck paying for a worse player than they thought. And, the player risks that at some point in the deal, the remaining money owed is fewer dollars than he is actually worth on the open market.E5 Yaz said:
If Stanton is really a hof level talent, which means this contract, in that world, is a comparative bargain, the team never gets to reap the benefits because Stanton can opt out and go realize his actual value.
Plympton91 said:
I agree with Plympton on this. $25M AAV could very well be a bargain for a talent such as Stanton. This kid is only 25 years old meaning there's a very good chance the best is yet to come from him. It's only money, afterall.MakMan44 said:
If he is good enough where opting out makes sense, the Marlins will have reaped the benefits for the first (however many) years of his deal. And there's an excellent chance that what they miss out on is two or three profit years and a whole bunch of decline ones. Asking whether the opt out benefits the player or the team is too simplistic. It can benefit both, at the expense of a third party who will be coerced into making a bad deal.Jnai said:
I guess the other question is how backloaded the deal is going to be. I'm sure the deal is structured so that he gets dealt at the 2019 trading deadline though. Would a team take him if the AAV of the final 8 years is 30M and he is still performing at a good level?
If you went to a casino, and there was a $1 blackjack table, but the house had the "option" to pay just 50 cents if you won, would you play that game? After all, it's a win-win: you're still up 50 cents!moondog80 said:
Of course not -- that's a sucker's bet, unless the house balanced that option by cushioning your downside risk.
If Stanton signed for 12/240 with an opt out after year 5, that might be fair to Miami -- they would get the bulk of Stanton's prime years for something like 5/100, and Stanton would get immediate money, a $140mm insurance policy, and the ability to re enter the market at age 29.
The problem with the reported deal, like most opt-outs, is that the club doesn't get value for writing that insurance policy, unless you think $25mm a year for a guy who's two years from free agency and recuperating from free agency represents a discount to fair value.
The value they get from the opt out is that he signs a deal he otherwise would not have.maufman said:
From the team's perspective, the risk of a player opt-out is that is exercised at a time when the balance of the contract projects as a bargain. Is that ever going to be the case with this deal? I mean, if he hits 60 HR a year for the next 4 seasons, I still don't like his chances of being a bargain for the remaining 9 years. It would take some resolve to let him walk away in that situation, but as has been discussed, the Yankees would have been much better off had they let A-Rod and CC go when they opted out. The mid-thirties can be a bitch, even for player who perform very well right up until that point.
Wait, a contract that big means that the Marlins would have to take Craig along with the prospects when the Red Sox trade for Stanton right?
Discuss...
Discuss...
Where did you hear that this contract will actually pay him $25 million a year over the first 5 years before the opt-out? That's shocking.
IIRC the Halos also discussed going to 10 years with Trout, but Trout ultimately rejected it in favor of hitting FA again.gammoseditor said:
I saw a tweet noting that all of this "largest contract ever talk doesn't take inflation into account - ARod's first deal was worth close to $400m in today's dollars. That's also something to consider with a long term investment from both sides. Player salaries are going up and dollars are worth less.
I said it over on the Lester thread. I really like the idea of putting in a player opt out option that allows the teams to pay for the players best years. It's not a guarantee, but it seems that in any case where the player opted out, it was in the team's best interest to let the player leave.
With the opt out, at least Stanton can presumably enjoy his twilight years on contending teams. Seems like a win-win for the Marlins, assuming Stanton doesn't get hurt/decline and decides to pull an Albert Belle.
You can insure against career-ending injury (though you might be unable to fully insure a 13-year deal). .You can't insure against underperformance.
So if you're a team like the Marlins that never figures to have a payroll close to the CBT threshold, signing the next Albert Belle is bad, but signing the next Carl Crawford is worse.
So if you're a team like the Marlins that never figures to have a payroll close to the CBT threshold, signing the next Albert Belle is bad, but signing the next Carl Crawford is worse.
