JDM is signed-5 years, 110 mil

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I think the Red Sox simply beefing up their medicals on players acquired by trade or FA after being burned a few times in recent years. With Nunez for example they actually worked him out and rexamined him the next day to make sure there was no swelling.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
18,312
Rogers Park
It's hard to imagine that it's related to any lingering effects of the foot injury, given the second half Martinez had.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
14,235
Maine
I think the Red Sox simply beefing up their medicals on players acquired by trade or FA after being burned a few times in recent years. With Nunez for example they actually worked him out and rexamined him the next day to make sure there was no swelling.
Examples of them getting "burned" in recent years? The only acquisitions that come to mind who were soon hurt or hampered by injury were either known ailments (like Lackey's elbow or Allen Craig's foot) or injuries that took place on the field after the deal was done (like Hanley jamming his shoulder at the end of April 2015).

It's fine if they're being cautious with Nunez and Martinez, but I don't think it is necessarily motivated by some shortcoming in the recent past.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The premise behind not loving the deal depends on one's understanding of player opt-outs, which, for whatever reason, seems to be a very contentious subject on this board.

When you give a player an opt out, you're hoping that he will exercise it. In other words, the Red Sox are hoping that this is a 2/50 contract. If a player does not take the opt out, then it means it was, by definition, a bad deal. This last sentence is the controversial part. For my part, I don't know how it's debatable, but I understand that there are many (many many) on SOSH who disagree with me. (Is it possible that 3/60 will, in 2 years, seem "just about right" such that JDM just takes it and we think, "well, that's about right"? Sure. But looking forward, not in hindsight, the fundamental premise of an opt out is that you're giving the player a guarantee that he will only take if it's good for him, which necessarily means bad for you. At this moment in time, the value proposition is the sum of all possible results multiplied by their expected incidences.)

So, when one says it's a "bad" deal, it's not because one thinks that 2/50 is bad. It's not. 2/50 is great. Heck, 2/60 would have been great. Nor is it that one thinks 5/110 is a "bad" deal. It's not. I would have been delighted with a straight 5/110. Heck, I would have been delighted with a straight 5/120. Because both of those give the team the upside, which is what it's buying for the $110 million or $120 million guarantee. The part that's "bad" about this deal is guaranteeing a guy $110, which is an additional $60 million against injury or being sucky in years 3-5, with no commensurate upside -- other than the upside of thinking he'll be worth more than $50 million over the next two years. If there's upside in years 3-5, or if it looks like there will be at the end of year 2, the Red Sox will not get it. They'll either pay market for it, or some other team will.
It blows my mind that people can’t comprehend this. A 5/110 contract without a player opt-out is unequivocally a better deal for the club than 5/110 with an opt-out. To argue otherwise is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how business and contracts work.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like the contract, opt-out and all. And even though I don’t like this signing (mainly because of JDM’s lack of durability, and also a general opposition to committing this much $$ to the DH position for anyone besides Papi), I’d readily agree that the opt-out in this deal is thoughtfully structured.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Examples of them getting "burned" in recent years? The only acquisitions that come to mind who were soon hurt or hampered by injury were either known ailments (like Lackey's elbow or Allen Craig's foot) or injuries that took place on the field after the deal was done (like Hanley jamming his shoulder at the end of April 2015).

It's fine if they're being cautious with Nunez and Martinez, but I don't think it is necessarily motivated by some shortcoming in the recent past.
The Pomeranz trade is what I thought of when I read that post about the Sox getting “burned,” though of course that seems to have worked itself out.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,441
Hingham, MA
It blows my mind that people can’t comprehend this. A 5/110 contract without a player opt-out is unequivocally a better deal for the club than 5/110 with an opt-out. To argue otherwise is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how business and contracts work.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like the contract, opt-out and all. And even though I don’t like this signing (mainly because of JDM’s lack of durability, and also a general opposition to committing this much $$ to the DH position for anyone besides Papi), I’d readily agree that the opt-out in this deal is thoughtfully structured.
But what if you think he will perform great in years 1 and 2 but decline in years 3-5? Then 2/$50 becomes a great deal, he opts out, someone else signs him to a huge deal, he declines, and that team is unhappy. Seems as plausible as any other scenario, no?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,696
It blows my mind that people can’t comprehend this. A 5/110 contract without a player opt-out is unequivocally a better deal for the club than 5/110 with an opt-out. To argue otherwise is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how business and contracts work.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like the contract, opt-out and all. And even though I don’t like this signing (mainly because of JDM’s lack of durability, and also a general opposition to committing this much $$ to the DH position for anyone besides Papi), I’d readily agree that the opt-out in this deal is thoughtfully structured.
There have been two recent examples where a player did in fact opt out, and a more disciplined club would have gotten a tremendous benefit from it. Maybe those are outliers, but given how irrational the free agent market is, I’m not convinced the opt out doesn’t have a weird, seemingly paradoxical effect that doesn’t apply to more traditional business contracts.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Examples of them getting "burned" in recent years? The only acquisitions that come to mind who were soon hurt or hampered by injury were either known ailments (like Lackey's elbow or Allen Craig's foot) or injuries that took place on the field after the deal was done (like Hanley jamming his shoulder at the end of April 2015).

It's fine if they're being cautious with Nunez and Martinez, but I don't think it is necessarily motivated by some shortcoming in the recent past.
Crawford (wrist), Pomeranz (elbow), Thornberg (shoulder) Smith (elbow), Price(elbow), .

As for known injuries like agon (shoulder), Lackey (elbow) and Craig (foot) and Panda (fat)? This could suggest they may be understimating the impact on such factors on immediate future performance seeing as they all played a role in diminished performance within 1-2 years and not the tail end of the commitment as expected

Not blaming anyone , maybe nothing could have been done, but if I am JWH I put folks on notice to look harder. Some big money there in prospects and dollars that didn't or haven't gone as well as expected. Far too many IMO. Maybe bad luck, maybe not.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
It blows my mind that people can’t comprehend this. A 5/110 contract without a player opt-out is unequivocally a better deal for the club than 5/110 with an opt-out. To argue otherwise is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how business and contracts work.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like the contract, opt-out and all. And even though I don’t like this signing (mainly because of JDM’s lack of durability, and also a general opposition to committing this much $$ to the DH position for anyone besides Papi), I’d readily agree that the opt-out in this deal is thoughtfully structured.

Not if you want the player to opt out to shorten the deal and structure the deal to facilitate it happening (Hosmers is a better example) . In a perfect world the Red Sox would have preferred a 3 year deal but players want more dollars guaranteed which means more years.

The opt out after 2 years is in JDM's favor since he should have no problem getting a 3-4 year deal after if he performs well the next 2 years. The 3rd year opt out which the Red Sox gave into quickly was more in their favor IMO since its the age 33-34 years that they /other teams are most wary of (too wary IMO) when a player is several years removed from that age
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
But what if you think he will perform great in years 1 and 2 but decline in years 3-5? Then 2/$50 becomes a great deal, he opts out, someone else signs him to a huge deal, he declines, and that team is unhappy. Seems as plausible as any other scenario, no?
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.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,696
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.
But unless we’re taking about a rebuild, that’s a very messy situation for a club to shop a player like that. Maybe it shouldn’t matter but the reality is that it does. There is no way the Yankees would ever have shopped CC or A-Rod at the points where they opted out, but letting them sign elsewhere (and reallocating the money into younger players) would have been somewhat more palatable. It’s a much cleaner situation for the club.
 
Last edited:

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
So hesitant to get involved in this discussion again, but this assumes that there will definitely be a buyer if the contract is deemed 'below-market' and that isn't the case, since there are only 29 other teams. One real world example is Rafael Soriano, who opted out of the last year of his deal with NY in winter 2012 which he would have been paid $14M, only to realize he wasn't actually worth that in the free market, and luckily the Nats bailed him and Boras out in mid-January with a 2/22 deal. NY not only didn't have to pay a solid but unexceptional reliever $14M because of the opt-out, but they got a first round pick back as compensation, and there's almost certainly no way they would have found a buyer for the last year of his deal if he hadn't opted out.

Anyway, pretty sure we had a dedicated option thread last time this came up, and I doubt one side will ever convince the other.
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.

On that subject, has anyone done a thorough analysis of Scott Boras’s results as an agent? He’s unquestionably had some huge successes, but I feel like he’s been living off his reputation for the past decade or so — he got huge deals for some of his clients, but guys like Soriano or (especially) Stephen Drew would’ve been better off with someone else representing them. Even JDM got a deal that pretty much any competent agent could’ve landed for him. It seems as though Boras’s tactics haven’t evolved as the market has changed — but I haven’t done the empirical analysis, so it’s possible he’s still outperforming the competition, a few high-profile miscalculations aside.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
940
Connecticut
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.
Perfectly summed up. I hope these 2 sentences end this debate forever.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
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.

On that subject, has anyone done a thorough analysis of Scott Boras’s results as an agent? He’s unquestionably had some huge successes, but I feel like he’s been living off his reputation for the past decade or so — he got huge deals for some of his clients, but guys like Soriano or (especially) Stephen Drew would’ve been better off with someone else representing them. Even JDM got a deal that pretty much any competent agent could’ve landed for him. It seems as though Boras’s tactics haven’t evolved as the market has changed — but I haven’t done the empirical analysis, so it’s possible he’s still outperforming the competition, a few high-profile miscalculations aside.

On Boras.

Chen, Choo, Ellsbury, Fielders, Wieters, Davis are clear wins for Boras relative to what they delivered to the teams they signed with

Scherzer and Beltre might have done better given their performance
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
735
Maryland
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.
But I think this is not the right question. The choice was not between 5/110 with an opt-out (or two) and 5/110 with no opt out. Given that the first two years before the opt-out are at 25 per, I suspect that Boras and JDM would only agree to something like 5/125 without an opt-out. By offering the opt-outs, the Red Sox probably saved 15m overall, and a few million a year on the AAV if he doesn't opt out.

So the real question is whether you would have preferred something like 5/125 with no opt-outs to the deal that was negotiated.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
But I think this is not the right question. The choice was not between 5/110 with an opt-out (or two) and 5/110 with no opt out. Given that the first two years before the opt-out are at 25 per, I suspect that Boras and JDM would only agree to something like 5/125 without an opt-out. By offering the opt-outs, the Red Sox probably saved 15m overall, and a few million a year on the AAV if he doesn't opt out.

So the real question is whether you would have preferred something like 5/125 with no opt-outs to the deal that was negotiated.
Was another club offering JDH more than 5/110, with or without opt-outs?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.

On that subject, has anyone done a thorough analysis of Scott Boras’s results as an agent? He’s unquestionably had some huge successes, but I feel like he’s been living off his reputation for the past decade or so — he got huge deals for some of his clients, but guys like Soriano or (especially) Stephen Drew would’ve been better off with someone else representing them. Even JDM got a deal that pretty much any competent agent could’ve landed for him. It seems as though Boras’s tactics haven’t evolved as the market has changed — but I haven’t done the empirical analysis, so it’s possible he’s still outperforming the competition, a few high-profile miscalculations aside.
I have no idea how one could possibly surmise the bolded. An agent can only ‘create’ a market to a certain extent. And he can only advise his player, he can’t make the choice for him. We’ve no earthly clue if he advised Soriano to not opt out, but regardless, he got him another deal, albeit less AAV, but by more total. We have no idea what he recommended Drew to do and he had no control over him being hampered by the new QO system (which was also a brave new world at that time). I also think it’s a leap to say JDM could have gotten the same deal from any competent agent when we have no idea what happened in negotiations and clearly he got the best offer on the table. While I don’t discount the premise that GMs may be tiring of his tactics, I see no proof borne out there from the results. He just got a DH 5/$110 with two opt outs and a mediocre 1B and eight year deal.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
As to JDM and his physical, I wouldn’t be surprised if DD is requiring the medical staff to be a bit more careful and thorough after the Pomeranz episode. I understand it’s not a trade and the Medicaid they received would really have no incentive to be fudged, but an extra day or two of in person exams and tests seems prudent. He may be a bit snake bitten.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,603
Portland
On that subject, has anyone done a thorough analysis of Scott Boras’s results as an agent? He’s unquestionably had some huge successes, but I feel like he’s been living off his reputation for the past decade or so — he got huge deals for some of his clients, but guys like Soriano or (especially) Stephen Drew would’ve been better off with someone else representing them. le miscalculations aside.
He did make up for the Morales hold out by getting him a 3 years 33 mill with the Jays after a one WAR season, so that was a win for him. Most DH's aren't getting paid so I don't know if he would have necessarily done better elsewhere.

Soriano was a pretty finicky dude - so I think kind of hurt his own cause. He had a list of demands like only pitching one inning, not working back to back days, and only pitching in save situations. I think he resisted being asked to warm up more than once in a game too but could be misremembering.

Drew probably got screwed the most. If he had signed a 3 year deal, he may have gotten 40 mill, but has only made 21 since 2014.

Both Drew and Morales had draft pick compensation tied to them as well.

As to the last decade - he's lived up to his reputation, particularly getting huge signing bonuses for 1st rounders

2007 - Andruw Jones got paid as the 5th highest in baseball after a poor season

2008 - Teixeira got his huge deal

2009 - Holliday got his 7 year deal, Harper got a 5 year 10 mill deal as a 17 year old.

2010 - Cargo got 7 years and Beltre 6. He got Fielder the largest arbitration settlement in history. Werth signed his huge deal

2012 - Fielder's 9 year deal.

2013 - Michael Bourn somehow got 43 mill. Andrus got 8 years Kris Bryant broke the signing bonus record. Ellsbury and Choo got 7 years each and robbed their teams blind.

2015 - Scherzer got a 7 year deal.
 
Last edited:

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Are there any references that say this is true? no biggie, just haven't heard this before.
I read somehwere that once the REd Sox gave in on the 2nd year opt out the deal was done. I assumed that was the sticking point and that the Red Sox had conceded to the 3rd year opt out more easily. Which makes sense IMO. No time to find a link, will try later
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It blows my mind that people can’t comprehend this. A 5/110 contract without a player opt-out is unequivocally a better deal for the club than 5/110 with an opt-out. To argue otherwise is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how business and contracts work.

That doesn’t mean you can’t like the contract, opt-out and all. And even though I don’t like this signing (mainly because of JDM’s lack of durability, and also a general opposition to committing this much $$ to the DH position for anyone besides Papi), I’d readily agree that the opt-out in this deal is thoughtfully structured.
I think there is an inherent incongruity in this (and similar) analyses, namely that the parallel to the contract as signed (in this case) would have been 5/$110. Almost every negotiation involves some measure of this-for-that. So maybe Boras said “we need 5/$125” so the Sox counter was the contract as signed. Boras accepts as he can say “I got you $25/year for two years with an opt-out that could be 4/$120 after you mash at Fenway for two years. And if you get hurt, you have 3/$60 in your pocket.”

In this scenario, the opt-out saved the Sox $15MM in the out years in the so-called worst scenario.

So in any comparison, or more pointedly, in the negotiation, you have to try to figure out how much you sold (or bought, depending on your POV) that option for.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
6,944
0-3 to 4-3
I think there is an inherent incongruity in this (and similar) analyses, namely that the parallel to the contract as signed (in this case) would have been 5/$110. Almost every negotiation involves some measure of this-for-that. So maybe Boras said “we need 5/$125” so the Sox counter was the contract as signed. Boras accepts as he can say “I got you $25/year for two years with an opt-out that could be 4/$120 after you mash at Fenway for two years. And if you get hurt, you have 3/$60 in your pocket.”

In this scenario, the opt-out saved the Sox $15MM in the out years in the so-called worst scenario.

So in any comparison, or more pointedly, in the negotiation, you have to try to figure out how much you sold (or bought, depending on your POV) that option for.
Agreed. It's frustrating to see everyone frame this in a 'is the opt-opt good or bad' way. If the Red Sox could have gotten a 5/110 no opt-out deal done, but instead chose to institute the opt-outs, then sure, let's debate whether that was good or bad. But I'm pretty sure that's not how it went. It's fair to say that from what we know as facts, it went from "sorry, your offer isn't good enough for JDM to sign" to "okay, now it's good enough for JDM to sign".

So the debate should be JDM w/opt-out or no JDM? And I don't think it's fair to assume that JDM would have eventually caved in and done the no-opt-out version of the deal, unless someone has a functional crystal ball.
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,808
Dan Roche was filling in on Zo and Beetle and said that the Bruins player who had season ending surgery yesterday (not a Bs guy, don't know his name) had his surgery done by the Sox Dr, so he implied that's why JDM couldn't be given a physical yesterday
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I think there is an inherent incongruity in this (and similar) analyses, namely that the parallel to the contract as signed (in this case) would have been 5/$110. Almost every negotiation involves some measure of this-for-that. So maybe Boras said “we need 5/$125” so the Sox counter was the contract as signed. Boras accepts as he can say “I got you $25/year for two years with an opt-out that could be 4/$120 after you mash at Fenway for two years. And if you get hurt, you have 3/$60 in your pocket.”

In this scenario, the opt-out saved the Sox $15MM in the out years in the so-called worst scenario.

So in any comparison, or more pointedly, in the negotiation, you have to try to figure out how much you sold (or bought, depending on your POV) that option for.
All I’m trying to rebut is the idea that the deal is better for the Sox with the opt-out than it would be without it.

I’m skeptical that DD shaved $15mm, or really anything of consequence, off the price tag by offering the opt-out — if another club offered more money and JDM chose the Sox because of the opt-out, I think we’d have heard about that. But thats a separate issue, and none of us really knows.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
All I’m trying to rebut is the idea that the deal is better for the Sox with the opt-out than it would be without it.
You don't know this. Nobody will know this until the opt-out date occurs and the years following. Stop being stubborn and speaking as if this is a cut-and-dry situation and those that disagree with you are clearly lacking understanding.

With the value of hindsight, we've seen situations recently where the opt-out was beneficial for the team and not the player. At this stage, nobody knows what the result of JDM's opt-out will be.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
You don't know this. Nobody will know this until the opt-out date occurs and the years following. Stop being stubborn and speaking as if this is a cut-and-dry situation and those that disagree with you are clearly lacking understanding.

With the value of hindsight, we've seen situations recently where the opt-out was beneficial for the team and not the player. At this stage, nobody knows what the result of JDM's opt-out will be.
The only way the opt-out is beneficial for the team and not the player is if the player (or more accurately, his agent) screws up. Yes, that happens about 2% of the time. That shouldn’t keep us from concluding ex ante that an opt-out is bad for the club, unless the GM is able to extract concessions that more than offset the value ceded by granting the opt-out. None of us knows if that happened with JDM, though I suspect Boras would want us to know if JDM had left money on the table to secure an opt-out, so I think it’s likely that no one was offering more than 5/110.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,896
Oregon
The only way the opt-out is beneficial for the team and not the player is if the player (or more accurately, his agent) screws up. Yes, that happens about 2% of the time. That shouldn’t keep us from concluding ex ante that an opt-out is bad for the club, unless the GM is able to extract concessions that more than offset the value ceded by granting the opt-out. None of us knows if that happened with JDM, though I suspect Boras would want us to know if JDM had left money on the table to secure an opt-out, so I think it’s likely that no one was offering more than 5/110.
We really need to have a detailed discussion sometime on who benefits most from an opt-out
 
Sep 13, 2006
690
We really need to have a detailed discussion sometime on who benefits most from an opt-out
What a delightful suggestion! May I suggest we do so in a separate thread...in another forum...in another dimension...in a galaxy far, far from here.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,533
39.932N, -85.848W
Dan Roche was filling in on Zo and Beetle and said that the Bruins player who had season ending surgery yesterday (not a Bs guy, don't know his name) had his surgery done by the Sox Dr, so he implied that's why JDM couldn't be given a physical yesterday
Anders Bjork and Dr. Peter Asnis.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
18,312
Rogers Park
You don't know this. Nobody will know this until the opt-out date occurs and the years following. Stop being stubborn and speaking as if this is a cut-and-dry situation and those that disagree with you are clearly lacking understanding.

With the value of hindsight, we've seen situations recently where the opt-out was beneficial for the team and not the player. At this stage, nobody knows what the result of JDM's opt-out will be.
Very nearly the entirety of the disagreement is over whether hindsight is appropriate in evaluating opt outs — i.e. thinking about whether past opt outs turned out to be good for teams, which some have — or if it is better to think of their value ex ante. Opinions will differ. I guess that question hinges on whether you think baseball contracts with opt outs are similar enough to each other that we can draw meaningful inferences from history, from the past experiences of teams and players, or if it's best to think about them more theoretically from a finance option-valuation standpoint. I don't have a dog in that race, but it's really not worth getting riled up about.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
20,366
We really need to have a detailed discussion sometime on who benefits most from an opt-out
I will benefit by opting out of such a discussion.
(Others may think that they, too, will benefit from my opting out of such a discussion. They are probably correct).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,696
The only way the opt-out is beneficial for the team and not the player is if the player (or more accurately, his agent) screws up. Yes, that happens about 2% of the time. That shouldn’t keep us from concluding ex ante that an opt-out is bad for the club, unless the GM is able to extract concessions that more than offset the value ceded by granting the opt-out. None of us knows if that happened with JDM, though I suspect Boras would want us to know if JDM had left money on the table to secure an opt-out, so I think it’s likely that no one was offering more than 5/110.

But again, the opt out doesn't have to be beneficial for just one of the owner or the team. They can both win. Player gets a bigger deal, team gets two high quality years and then a clean break from the remainder of the contract (which is more and more likely to turn toxic with each passing year). Yes, the team would be better still if they could instead trade the player after the two high quality years, but we know teams simply don't do that in those situations (unless they are rebuilding). But even if I concede that point, letting CC Sabathia sign with another team after the opt out, while not 100% optimal, would still have been for the Yankees than not having him opt out at all and getting stuck with the lean years of his contract.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
12,191
Michigan
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
54,988
letting CC Sabathia sign with another team after the opt out, while not 100% optimal, would still have been for the Yankees than not having him opt out at all and getting stuck with the lean years of his contract.
Not a great example to use as a few things have happened with CC in NY:

2008: Signs with NY in the winter for 7/161 including an opt-out after 2011.
2009: NY wins the WS, and CC carries the pitching staff, pitching on 3 days rest when needed. 2009-2011 ends up as easily the best three year stretch of his career, 18.3 combined bWAR.
2011 offseason: To stop CC from opting out, NY adds an additional year plus a vesting option in 2017.
2012: He's still pretty good, no complaints.
2013-2015: He is terrible for three straight seasons and NY management and fans count the days until his massive deal expires. If the original 7 year deal had remained in place, his time in NY almost certainly ends here.
2016-2017: He figures out how to pitch with his new repertoire and is quite good, 5.8 bWAR combined with the lowest exit velocity allowed of any SP in MLB in 2016 and a very strong 2017 including being selected to pitch both deciding playoff games (game 5-ALDS, game 7-ALCS).

So NY has gotten two very solid additional years from him because of the opt-out (they had the shitty 2013-2015 either way) as well as getting him back on a cheaper deal this year (1/10) because the team did not cut ties with him after 2015, as they almost certainly would have under the original deal. So in a strange way, the team was helped by the player opt-out.

A lot of detail, but the main point is that general economic theory doesn't really apply to baseball opt-outs, each situation is different.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Getting back to JDM, the opt-out helped Boras save face, in a scenario where DD could likely have forced him to eat crow. (If DD said “show up for a physical tomorrow or the deal is off the table,” what would Boras have done?) So the Sox banked some relationship equity with Boras. Ymmv as to what, if any, value that has.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,696
Not a great example to use as a few things have happened with CC in NY:

2008: Signs with NY in the winter for 7/161 including an opt-out after 2011.
2009: NY wins the WS, and CC carries the pitching staff, pitching on 3 days rest when needed. 2009-2011 ends up as easily the best three year stretch of his career, 18.3 combined bWAR.
2011 offseason: To stop CC from opting out, NY adds an additional year plus a vesting option in 2017.
2012: He's still pretty good, no complaints.
2013-2015: He is terrible for three straight seasons and NY management and fans count the days until his massive deal expires. If the original 7 year deal had remained in place, his time in NY almost certainly ends here.
2016-2017: He figures out how to pitch with his new repertoire and is quite good, 5.8 bWAR combined with the lowest exit velocity allowed of any SP in MLB in 2016 and a very strong 2017 including being selected to pitch both deciding playoff games (game 5-ALDS, game 7-ALCS).

So NY has gotten two very solid additional years from him because of the opt-out (they had the shitty 2013-2015 either way) as well as getting him back on a cheaper deal this year (1/10) because the team did not cut ties with him after 2015, as they almost certainly would have under the original deal. So in a strange way, the team was helped by the player opt-out.

A lot of detail, but the main point is that general economic theory doesn't really apply to baseball opt-outs, each situation is different.

If they had let him opt out and sign elsewhere, how would they have had the shitty 2013-15?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
54,988
If they had let him opt out and sign elsewhere, how would they have had the shitty 2013-15?
You're right, I got confused. The problem at the time as I wrote a lot about here was that NY hadn't developed any pitching from 2009-2011 so they were over a barrel and had to resign him, but the reason I went through all of that is just to show that it was a case where he went from awesome to awful back to very solid, each phase lasting multiple years.

Edit: I was comparing what would have happened if the original contract had no opt-out and was just a guaranteed 7/161 to what actually ended up happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.