APIAD wrote:

Is walden out of the picture?

I haven't seen anything suggesting he's healthy enough to pitch.

Cespedes staying with the Mets. 3/$75M

It's one thing to be a dick, it's another to be a terrible teammate. From what I've heard the Cardinals had no interest, and it appears they weren't alone.

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

It's one thing to be a dick, it's another to be a terrible teammate. From what I've heard the Cardinals had no interest, and it appears they weren't alone.

Thats true as far as lack of interest he recieved in this market and with his numbers.  Maybe im just blinded by the idea of having a middle of the order bat again.

What, you don't think this is the year Matt Adams blossoms into a 30 HR hitter?



Yes, that was sarcasm.

Cespedas contract.... 3 years/75 million. Walkaway after 1 season should he wish.....

Uh ???? WHAT? 

I'm beginning to get seriously turned off by baseball... I don't understand how a player cannot risk a 3 year contract because heaven forbid he has to spend 2 years getting underpaid to the tune of 25M per....

Grienke jumping ship on 27.5 million a season started me raising my eyebrows. Heyward signs a deal with multiple "I'm leaving options" then gets up on a podium and talks about "growing old with a team". Chris Davis got 161 million over 7 years to be a .250 hitter with power. Now this.

Baseball is really beginning to just lose it's appeal to me. 

APIAD wrote:

I dont care how teams spend money. I do care how the cards do because a few bad long term deals can handcuff them. I think it was less about the money that cespedas will make then it was about reentering the market for a longer contract.

I get that, I also don't care what the reason is behind it. 15 years ago it would have been unheard of, and it's a change I don't like. If a player wants to have contract options then sign a 1 year deal. 

APIAD wrote:

I suppose it would be consider a collusion if owners banded together and refused to do opt outs. Imo it can benifit the club. For example:

Contract 1:

180mill over 7 years. Evenly distributed at about 25 or 26 million per year.

Contract 2:

A front loaded 180 million over 7 years. Say the first 3 years are at 28-30 mill with an opt out after.

I think the potential win for the club is paying alittle more for a shorter contract. As a whole teams dont get burned by shorter contracts. It reduces the risk of a long term spiral. Some teams have been bailed out by tv deals but that will come to an end. Teams will spend to there limit again and bad contracts will be a burden. The arguement can be mad that the only way the player doesnt opt out is if he underperforms. My opinion is that the team woukd be on the hook for an underperforming player with or without an opt out.

They heyward deal doesnt make sense to me because the first 3 years of his contract is the cheapest. 3y 58mill. He potentialy signed for less the cespedas.

I don't see them as a club benefit. The only way Heyward does the Cubs any favors is if he tanks, and somehow takes the walkout. Which would be madness. If Heyward gets rid of his slow starts, and finds a power stroke? What do 3 years of 30 HR's and a .325 AVG put him? Asking for 30 million a season, and the club loses. In this case it's the Cubs losing which makes it easier to deal with.

f Cepedas wants to line himself up for a long term deal, then sign a 1/2 year deal. Or he can look at the long term offer and see if that's money he wants to commit to for the next 7 years. 

I see walk out clauses as a player hedging his bet, when the club gets no such option. If clubs had the ability to drop contracts at certain points as well? Fair enough. But that's pretty one-sided to me, and it does nothing but inflate already gross salaries that are already stupid.

 

That's kind of what I'm saying though, the only way a player walk's out is if he feels you should pay him more or for longer. That is not a club benefit. If Heyward hit .180 with no power, and lost a step in the field and bases..... You think he'd walk out and renegotiate for the much lower value? No. He wouldn't. 

forsberg_us wrote:

I'm with Alz on this one. An opt-out never benefits the team. If the player plays well, he leaves (or makes you pay him more money). If he sucks, you're stuck with him.

Like Alz, I'd like to see a GM insist on a mutual opt-out. Player wants an opt-out after year 3, that's fine, but the team wants one after year 4. That way if you suck (which would be the only reason player doesn't take the opt out), the team is only on the hook for 1 more season of suckiness.

 

You dont think that jason heyward at 3 years 58 million is a steal?  Or 4 year 78 million?  If the cardinals could have signed him to those numbers everyone would have jumped at it.  Even tho heyward is young the risk is still at the back of his contract.  The hardest years to predict is at the end of his contract. 

I realize the player is going to do what is financialy best for themself and that isnt to the clubs advantage most times.  However if the team can live with the pre opt out part of the contract then why does it matter?  Yeah maybe you dont get heyward for 7 great years if he preforms well and are stuck with him if his value is below market value.  I get that.  That doesnt change the fact that the team would have been on the hook for the full 7 years without an opt out clause no matter his performance.

I really think it is a wash.  A team considering a opt out clause has to evaluate the contract at all levels.  Is the full term of the contract worth the risk?  In heywards case the cubs paid his market vaule over 7 years.  Then ask if the opt out levels are worth the risk.  In heywards case they are.

Lastly what are the odds:

1.  Heyward reenters the market and makes a bigger contract and then natural declines and his would be 5, 6 or 7th years are below his 2016-2018 or 2019 levels.  This would be a win for the cubs.  Often times in the free agent market a player can make premium contracts even tho their best years are behind them....cough. ...pujols.  heywards skillset of defense and baserunning are traits that can decline quickly.  It is very possible that heywards value at an opt out stage is above his contracted pay.  It is likely he would opt out at that point.  It is also very possible that after heyward opts out his skillset declines and the cubs be better off he opted out.

2.heyward kicks ass and makes more money by reenetering the market continueing to kickass.  In this case the cubs lose the value of 5th, 6th and 7th year.  However they got every penny òf value out of him while they had him.  They got their moneys worth.  If you are on the plus side of value then I would argue it was a good contract if the only way to sign the player is a opt out clause. 

3. Heyward goes in the tank and the team is stuck with heyward for the full 7 years because the cubs are paying over market value.  This risk isnt increased or decreased with an opt out clause.  Fact is that if heyward tanks even in a straight money and years contract the team is on the hook. 

Admittedly the team can only lose if the players stays after the opt out years.  If the players value has been met and the team lets the player walk it isnt really losing.

Edit: also players tend to play better prior to entering free agency.   This increases the odds of heyward meeting the value of his preopt out years. 

If cespedas opts out the mets paid him one year 17.5mill.  Thats pretty sweet.

Last edited by APIAD (1/27/2016 10:14 am)

Here's the problem AP. When a guy plays like Heyward... Who I could seriously argue isn't worth anywhere near 20 million a year. You have to be a terror at the plate to command 20 million, and Heyward isn't. He'll do all of the little things to win you some games, and he's young, but he doesn't have an average, or a power stroke that should command that kind of money. It was largely discussed here when we were trying to keep him, and while it sucked to see him leave, we all kind of walked away with some sense of relief we weren't going to be worried about him living up to some stupid contract for 10 years. To me.... You don't put that kind of money on a player you HOPE is real.... That's insane.

Let's examine case #1. Heyward finds a power stroke, drops his slow starts, and just gets better and better. 3 years//58 million dollars, and he walks out and demands 33 million a season. Clear win for Heyward, and now despite having him in a contract at a price, the Cubs have to go back and find MORE money to keep a star/fan favorite/etc. It's not a clear win to me.  

Case #2. He sucks ass, and turns into Fernando Tatis after he signed his contract. The Cubs are now roped into a full term 7 year commitment with a guy who did nothing but give them a false sense of hope and optimism. Heyward won't opt out of that deal. He's clearly being OVERPAID at that point, 3/58 Million for him is horrible, and the next 4 years are worse, and the club can't do shit about it. 


If the club has to risk the entire timeline of the contract, and the money that goes with it, I feel it's unfair for a player to wipe it out and demand more cash because he played well.

To use your analogy, that's like overpaying for a house because you have a good feeling. Thinking it pays off when the house value increases! Then 3 years later having the county tax man reassess and jump your property tax by 15 million dollars extra a year or you can move out.

Last edited by alz (1/27/2016 2:13 pm)

APIAD wrote:

Sounds like your opinion isnt based off of the opt out clause but is more based off of heyward not being worth what the cubs, cardinals and presumably other teams were willing to pay for him along with the value of his metrics.

Actually no man. I tend to hate any contract with a walkout clause. Cespedas putting one in a 3 year deal to me is just stupidity. Grienke rolling the bank over like he did left a bad taste with me too. It's a no-win situation for a club.

APIAD wrote:

Well i clearly disagree. Anytime the value of the contract equals the production i consider it a win. I look for heyward and cespedas to do just that. They may opt out for more money but the mets and the cubs likely wont spend money on value they didnt recieve.

I'm explaining something badly here, I know it. You're bringing up counters to things I never meant to even hint at.

 Let me simplify this. 

1) When a club signs a deal, they are on the hook with no "bail out" for the full contract term.
2) As such, I think it's fair that a player also makes this same commitment. 
3) Without it, GM's cannot effectively plan for their clubs future. 
4) Since the club cannot effectively count on a player to fulfill a contract, I do not see any reason for them to offer long term deals, unless they come clear of any walk away clauses.

Grienke hung the Dodgers out to dry this offseason. After losing Game 5 of the NLDS against the Mets, he voided his contract and cashed in with the D-Backs. I can guarantee you when the Dodgers signed him, they expected him to be there the entire duration. He claimed he wanted to win, and left KC because they weren't going to (the sweet sweet irony). Now he's in Arizona for 35 million a year?

Heyward as I discussed can either do "okay" and get paid 20 million to be the run of the mill player we've seen. He can do poorly, and laugh everytime he cashes a paycheck. He could also do amazing, which will have him voiding his "shitty underpaid" contract at the first possible opportunity and going for more money. For the Cubs? Now you have an outfielder you signed to 7 years and can only count on for 3.... I don't see that as a very big benefit. 

Cespedas. If you want to re-evaluate your worth after a single year, sign a 1 year deal. 

Regardless the player, the only way that a walkout clause is skipped is if the player is worth LESS than they make when they hit that point in time. I consider that a huge player win, but fail to see that as beneficial under any circumstances for the club. 

I understand when a player walks, you want to look at how he did, and how you spent and call it a win. For every one of those, there are going to be 5 others who didn't walk, because you're over-paying them, and since you have no option to adjust those finances, it's a net-loss to me.