It is no different then any other free agent player.  The Cardinals were under tremendous pressure to bring Pujols back and intelligently let him walk.  Fans will move on.  It is the GMs job to make the right decision.  Maybe in 3 years the cubs end up on the hook for an underwhelming player.  I think the odds are that they got 3 years of heyward for bottom dollar price. Then if i was theo id let him walk.  If the team lets the player walk they will likely always come out ahead.

The yankees made the wrong decision.  They could have came out ahead if they would have let cc walk.  It would have been a blessing he opted.  He hasnt been worth his pre opt out contract or the extension he signed.  Imo CC is the perfect example of how a opt out could benifit the club.  The yankees could have reduced the 7 year 161 million dollar contract to 3 year 60 million dollar.  They could have caught his prime years and ditched him.  It was dumb to extend him at 31 even tho they really only added one year and a vesting year.  They had a way out.  See ya CC.

AP that really makes no sense to me. 

Someone plays well, and you offer them a long term contract. By nature, you have to offer them over-value on a long term deal because the assumption is it won't be league leading money by the end of the 7 year deal. (Financial impact 1, signing for 3 years vs 7 would have cost you less AAV for the first 3 years. This player takes a walk out clause at the end of 3. 

Here's what happens. 

If the player thinks he can get MORE money, he'll opt out (possible financial club loss, or fan outrage). If he feels he's overpaid.... He'll remain and continue to get overpaid (financial club loss)

To remedy this, I would suggest you either sign a 3 year deal (not 7), or make the walkout something the team can also trigger. I'm sorry, but we paid you 65 million over 3 years and you hit .225, no power, no speed since then? Contract ended. If the player can kill a contract for over-achieving, it seems ludicrous to handcuff a team to the full contract in the case of the player underwhelming. 

This is just common sense to me. You cannot give one side a clear advantage that you do not permit the other side to have. This would be like allowing husbands to divorce their wives, but not allowing wives to divorce their husbands... How unfair would that be? This is no different.
 

Im not following you alz.  Seems you agree and disagree with yourself.  Your agruement is that heyward isnt worth 7 for 184 but thats a better deal then 3 for 58?  And you admit it is a bidding war and players get what they want but you wont offer an opt out, assuming you realize that is what it will take to sign top, younger free agents.


"If the player thinks he can get MORE money, he'll opt out (possible financial club loss, or fan outrage). If he feels he's overpaid.... He'll remain and continue to get overpaid (financial club loss)"

This is the only part of ur arguement I get but it is easily remedied.   DONT RESIGN THE PLAYER.  Then the club loses no money.  Fan dont get outraged.  Are we pissed pujols is gone?  Are dodger fans pissed grienke is gone?  I bet the ballparks are still full.  You win ballgames and nobody cares.  It is 2016 version of baseball.  Players dont stay with one team and fans dont care. 

As for the second part, ill say it again.  The same risk is there is the player does not have an opt out clause.

"This is just common sense to me. You cannot give one side a clear advantage that you do not permit the other side to have. This would be like allowing husbands to divorce their wives, but not allowing wives to divorce their husbands... How unfair would that be? This is no different."

It is 30 employers bidding for a handful of players.  The players will get their wishes.  That is why the large contracts and opt out clauses.  In the mlb it has always been a sellers market for top free agents, ask scott boras.  The cardinals can either never sign a young top tier free agents again or learn to use the opt out clause to their advantage.  There are players and situations that it can be done or attempted.   


"A player opts out, and the club wins? What kind of "you made me leave you" nonsense is that? The club ponied up nearly 200 million dollars. A fifth of a billion dollars... Unless Heyward walks away from it, that's spent, and no GM will get the ability to count it as money for the future. You'll lose whatever draft pick you gain when you have to pay through the teeth to replace the guy who just walked. So your draft pick and financial savings argument is out the window. All your fans who bought Heyward jerseys are pissed that your team couldn't keep him, and you hope they vent that anger at the player, and not your club. There's risk there too. "

Head shaking.....in baseball the value of a contract is measured by teams in output by the player vs money paid.  Anytime those two factors are equal or more output  by the player then money spent by the club, the club wins.  It doesnt matter if it is after 3 year or after 7 years.  It is my very strong opinion that heyward will surpass or equal his value in 3 years.  I am not very confident to say he will in 7.

To gain a draft pick through compensation a player has to be ranked in the top whatever % of the league.   When do you think heyward is more likely to be a top of the league player?  After 3 years or after 7? 

Im not selling any property.  This is what contracts are in the mlb today.  Success in the mlb has always been had by teams who are ahead of the curve.  Players are becoming free agents earlier now because they are entering the league sooner.  Because of this opt out clauses are here to stay.  Teams will learn to value and manipulate them the best they can.  The only control they have is not resigning the player after he chooses to opted out of there contract.  I suggest they do just that.  If they are ahead in the money vs output equation then they won.

  When gms are using there metrics to determine a contract this is what they have to figure.

1. What is the likelyhood the player opts
2. If he does not can we live with the full contract

AP any situation where you tell me that a player can drop a contract if he desires to, but a club does not have that same option is unfair to the club. This isn't some overly complex saber-metric based GM simulator where you're in charge of travel fare too, and expected to understand losing a walk out player just frees up space on the plane.....

If you give one side a power at the negotiating table that you do not give the other side, there's no balance there. If a team cannot cut a contract when the player doesn't live up to it, the player shouldn't be able to cut a contract when he exceeds it. That's a mutual risk taken by both sides. Extending it to one side is not fair. How is this lost on you? 

You think if Heyward walks, the Cubs got value! No, they get screwed. The only way that happens is if he turns into a serious offensive force. In which case, the front office would normally look at 4 more seasons of a player for a reasonable salary. This walk out clause is more of a "Fuck you, you cannot win!!!!" type installment. Surprise mutha fucka!, I'm leaving!!!! Instead he drops the contract, he runs off and sets a new high for Outfielders, pushing EVERYONE's salary higher, and now they have to pay as much to get less, or more to maintain what they had. Sure they could get some draft pick, which is cool, except they get to dive into the FA game themselves and lose one getting a replacement, because anyone good enough to step into those shoes without the fans thinking the team just got worse is going to cost you that same pick...

So .... without worrying about how I value Heyward.. Explain this to me, because I confess I don't get it. If you empower the players at the contract table, you can't look at the owners and tell them they just won. Hey AP, I bought your brother an ice cream, it's a complete win for you though because he could get brain freeze and you won't have to deal with that! I mean seriously, that's how elementary this is to me... I'm not trying to make it sound dumb or basic, it really is dumb and basic. 

"If you give one side a power at the negotiating table that you do not give the other side, there's no balance there. If a team cannot cut a contract when the player doesn't live up to it, the player shouldn't be able to cut a contract when he exceeds it. That's a mutual risk taken by both sides. Extending it to one side is not fair. How is this lost on you? "

You do realize that club options have existed for a long long time and many players on the cardinals have them?  There is also mutual option.  The players who have enough bargaining power have just now started to push for opt outs.  So if your arguement is that it isnt fair to the club I supose realisticly it is now more of a fair playing field and clubs were taking advantage of players for years.  I didnt really consider this till you hinted at it.

"You think if Heyward walks, the Cubs got value! No, they get screwed. The only way that happens is if he turns into a serious offensive force."

This is just math.  It isnt even a hard concept to get.  In the mlb a dollar amount is attached to production.  This is basic 101 GM stuff.  When a team, especially a fincially responsible GM like mo, offers a contract it is because that player fits into there cost vs production equation.   Mo said this over and over this winter.  They felt like heyward and price offered a unique situation because of thier projected value of them.  Heywards season have pretty much been about 15/60/.270, plus excellent defense and 20sb (im rounding up on everything).  He has been a 6 WAR player for 4 of 6 years.  The 2 he wasnt he didnt play full years.  So if the cubs or cardinals (who offered him more money then cubs supposedly) vaule his production + defense at about 23 million a year.  Here is what I am say spelled out.  And I guess heyward signed a 8 year deal.  I keep saying 7.  Here is a hypothetical career for heyward

Year 1 26yo. 15/60/.270, excellent defense, 20sb=17.5mill
Year 2 27yo. 15/60/.270, excellent defense, 20sb=24 mill
Year 3 28yo. 15/60/.270, exellent defense, 20sb=24mill
Opt out clause one
Year 4 29yo. 15/60/.270 exellent defense, 15sb=22.5mill
Opt out clause two
Year 5 30yo. Lost to injury 10/40/.250, 2sb = 23.5mill (these is basicly 2013 stats)
Year 6 31yo. 15/60/.270, average defense, 10sb,=23.5 mill
Year 7 32yo. 10/50/.260, average defense, 10sb= 24.5mill
Year 8 33yo. 10/50/.255, average defense, 10sb= 24.5mill

I think my projections are fair and definitely possible.  It is likely he could lose a season from the age of 30-33 to injury.  It is likely as he passes 30 years of age his stolen bases and defense will decrease.  This is even more true if the cubs play him in center field for 3 years.  If anything I probably over valued heyward.

So in this scenario how would the cubs get screwed by not paying heyward in his declining years becaause he opted out? 

If you could pick would you want heywars for all 8 years at 184mill or his first 3?

In fact as I have been saying they would come out ahead because they got the best years out of heyward for below the AAV of the contact and didnt have to pay for his injured year or declining years. 

Heyward turning into a power threat has nothing to do with this at all.  His value and contract are most certainly factoring in his modest to below power ablities.

"Now that said, you're acting like this is a power move by great agents, and clubs fighting to get the highest bid! It has to come with walk outs... No it didn't but the owners somehow allowed this tragedy into the CBA (which agents and single players have NOTHING to do with).. This isn't about players getting clubs to fight over them, this allowance of walk out clauses and the denial of the teams ability to do the same is in the current CBA. You act like this is a power move by Boras, and it is not. "

Once again,  there are many more players in the mlb with team options vs opt out clauses.  Teams defiantly have that ablity.  And this is about players demanding contract terms to which they want and teams being willing to meet those demands.  That is exactly what is happening.

"AP- simple question. If the opt out is to the team's advantage, why is it that the players insist on them and teams are hesitant to give them?  Are GMs just stupid?"

Well it clearly doesnt apply in every case.  In heywards case I think it is an advantage for the cubs if they can end the contract after 3 years.  You think maybe that is why his salary decrease in opt out years and then jumps up?  Of course, they want to make it appealing for him to leave.   At that point he is likely to be as good as he is now and likely worth more on the market.  They drop his salery those years to slide the odds alittle more in their favor.  However with his skill set (sb and defense) they could erode quickly.  With cespedas it is a good deal.  The contract isn't bad in its entirety.   If the mets can get rid of him after one year at only a 17 million dollar price and gain a draft pick, yeah thats a good deal.  It certainly doesnt apply to every case but what does?

"The opt out is a free insurance policy for the player. If he's good in the short term, he opt out for more money. If he sucks or gets hurt, his money is guaranteed. "

The cardinals offered equal or the same money as the cubs did for heyward.  They clearly evaluated him to be worth the money of the entire contract or they wouldn't have offered it.  If he is worth a 8 year contract, why wouldnt he be worth a 3?  What is the extra risk if that is what it took to keep him?

And who says it is free?  The cubs supposedly got heyward for less money.  Heywards hang up was being with the cardinals long term.  An opt out might have been what it took to sign him. Cespedas pass on more money for a lower contract with an opt out.  It doesnt seem in those two case the opt out was free for the player and did offer saving to the club.

"Is that a good deal for you?"

I paid mostly cash for my house.  I dont believe in buying on credit.  Like with a contract in baseball, you better be prepared for the extended cost if things go to shit.

"Well it clearly doesnt apply in every case.  In heywards case I think it is an advantage for the cubs if they can end the contract after 3 years."

This is my entire disconnect with your argument. The Cubs can't end the deal after 3 years. Only Heyward can end the deal after 3 years. IF Heyward opts out, the Cubs can then make it a 3 year investment, but if Heyward exercises the opt out its because he has met or exceeded expectations and believes he can get something better than the 5 year deal that's remaining. If Heyward does that, the Cubs would likely prefer to keep Heyward for the remaining 5 years of the deal. But the Cubs don't have that option.

You didn't answer the question I posed about the house, so let me try it a different way. Let's say in 2004, the Cardinals offered a young Albert Pujols an 8 year deal that ran through 2011. Pujols is willing to agree to the 8 year deal, but only if he can opt out after the first 3 or 4 years. Does that deal work to the Cardinals advantage because the Cardinals only end up making a 3-4 year investment rather than an 8 year deal?

I hear what you're saying about long term deals--they certainly don't always work to the team's advantage. But sometimes they do. Pujols' deal worked to the Cardinals benefit because of how well he performed. The Cardinals took a risk and were rewarded for doing so. The opt out removes the possibility of a long-term reward but the team keeps all the risk of the long term deal.

Since you brought pujols into the equation lets discuss, remembering it is all hypothetical backed up by a few facts.

Pujols entered the league in 2001.  Lets hypotheticaly say pujols and the cardinals were not able to agree to a contract extension during his arbitration period.  I believe players have 7 years of team control.  That puts him as being a free agent at the end of the 2007 season.  Lets hypotheticaly say pujols will not sign without an opt out clause.  Lets hypotheticaly say his market value is 10 years 200 million (approximately what the cardinals offered him 5 years later)

Option one:  pujols signs with another team and the cardinals are left with no first baseman

Option two: pujols signs to the cardinals with an opt out clause in 4 years.

Of course option 2 is better.  And as I have been saying could be seen as a team advantage.  Pujols is actually a good example.  In 4 years pujols would have won the 2011 ws and that is when he left anyway.  I doubt the cardinals win a ws without him.  It has been widely published that the cardinals dodged a bullet by pujols choosing the angles.  This is because of the sharpe decline he has faced since.  While he is still a good player he is no longer great and without the dh he would be worst.  In this exact scenario pujols likely would have opted out and left because they is what he choose to do after 2011.  And clearly his career has declined and the cardinals made the right decision in not signing him.

So in this scenario do you believe the opt out still wouldn't have been to the clubs benifit or at the very least not to there complete disadvantage?   To say it, in this scenario,  is still a disadvantage to the club you are saying that the 2012-2017 pujols is worth 20 million a year.  At best that is argumentative.

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Since you brought pujols into the equation lets discuss, remembering it is all hypothetical backed up by a few facts.

Pujols entered the league in 2001. Lets hypotheticaly say pujols and the cardinals were not able to agree to a contract extension during his arbitration period. I believe players have 7 years of team control. That puts him as being a free agent at the end of the 2007 season. Lets hypotheticaly say pujols will not sign without an opt out clause. Lets hypotheticaly say his market value is 10 years 200 million (approximately what the cardinals offered him 5 years later)

Option one: pujols signs with another team and the cardinals are left with no first baseman

Option two: pujols signs to the cardinals with an opt out clause in 4 years.

Of course option 2 is better. And as I have been saying could be seen as a team advantage. Pujols is actually a good example. In 4 years pujols would have won the 2011 ws and that is when he left anyway. I doubt the cardinals win a ws without him. It has been widely published that the cardinals dodged a bullet by pujols choosing the angles. This is because of the sharpe decline he has faced since. While he is still a good player he is no longer great and without the dh he would be worst. In this exact scenario pujols likely would have opted out and left because they is what he choose to do after 2011. And clearly his career has declined and the cardinals made the right decision in not signing him.

So in this scenario do you believe the opt out still wouldn't have been to the clubs benifit or at the very least not to there complete disadvantage? To say it, in this scenario, is still a disadvantage to the club you are saying that the 2012-2017 pujols is worth 20 million a year. At best that is argumentative.

Actually, that's a great example.  A player is under control for 6 years.  So in your scenario, Pujols signs his 10 year deal before the 2007 season and opts out after 2010.  Goodbye 2011 World Series.  That's a terrific outcome for the team.

Okay, but still how is that better then not having pujols for 4 years?  Thats the other option.  Not signing him to the full 10 years.  Players with enough bargaining power are not going to agree to deals without opt outs because it is to their advantage to have them.  You are a labor attorney,  you understand that.
 

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Since you brought pujols into the equation lets discuss, remembering it is all hypothetical backed up by a few facts.

Pujols entered the league in 2001. Lets hypotheticaly say pujols and the cardinals were not able to agree to a contract extension during his arbitration period. I believe players have 7 years of team control. That puts him as being a free agent at the end of the 2007 season. Lets hypotheticaly say pujols will not sign without an opt out clause. Lets hypotheticaly say his market value is 10 years 200 million (approximately what the cardinals offered him 5 years later)

Option one: pujols signs with another team and the cardinals are left with no first baseman

Option two: pujols signs to the cardinals with an opt out clause in 4 years.

Of course option 2 is better. And as I have been saying could be seen as a team advantage. Pujols is actually a good example. In 4 years pujols would have won the 2011 ws and that is when he left anyway. I doubt the cardinals win a ws without him. It has been widely published that the cardinals dodged a bullet by pujols choosing the angles. This is because of the sharpe decline he has faced since. While he is still a good player he is no longer great and without the dh he would be worst. In this exact scenario pujols likely would have opted out and left because they is what he choose to do after 2011. And clearly his career has declined and the cardinals made the right decision in not signing him.

So in this scenario do you believe the opt out still wouldn't have been to the clubs benifit or at the very least not to there complete disadvantage? To say it, in this scenario, is still a disadvantage to the club you are saying that the 2012-2017 pujols is worth 20 million a year. At best that is argumentative.

Actually, that's a great example.  A player is under control for 6 years.  So in your scenario, Pujols signs his 10 year deal before the 2007 season and opts out after 2010.  Goodbye 2011 World Series.  That's a terrific outcome for the team.

Okay, but still how is that better then not having pujols for 4 years? Thats the other option. Not signing him to the full 10 years. Players with enough bargaining power are not going to agree to deals without opt outs because it is to their advantage to have them. You are a labor attorney, you understand that.
 

I do, but you're arguing that it's beneficial for the team.  In certain circumstances it could work out to the team's benefit.  But the team is taking all the risk and the player gets all the benefit.  Since I root for a team, and not individual players, I'm not a fan of contracts that are so dramatically one-sided.

"I do, but you're arguing that it's beneficial for the team.  In certain circumstances it could work out to the team's benefit.   But the team is taking all the risk and the player gets all the benefit.  Since I root for a team, and not individual players, I'm not a fan of contracts that are so dramatically one-sided."

That is what I have been saying.  I believe it is in the cardinals best interest to identify when those circumstances are more likely then not.  It is either that or they can make one of their unwritten team rules to never enter into bidding on top free agents that are young enough to demand a opt out.  Opt outs are not going away and as the trouts and harpers of the league enter into free agency at a young age id like to see the cardinals learn to identify when and how to manage opt out clauses.  That isnt because im rooting for any specific player but because I want to see the cardinals win with the best players available.

Like you im on the fence on if heyward is worth his contract or the more expensive contract the cardinals offered him.  If you throw out that arguement and just internally decide the cardinals are better with him, then I want him on the team, ot out or not.