AP, I don't know that the option needed to be a CF... Didn't Heyward play RF for St. Louis? Want me to list the serviceable outfielders who could have been had for a contract that was 3 years/65.5 million?

Alex Gordon to me was a far more attractive signing. He was signed for 4 years/72 million.... Hit .271 instead of .293, but he had the same HR's, and if the Cubs have plans for a new outfield in 3 years, he's where they'd have went. Maybe risking 75 million on Cespedes for 3 years is a better move. Or Upton who at least brings a power stroke to the dish.... All signed for collectively less and I can argue that all of them strike as much fear into the opponent as Heyward does, if not more when they stand in the batter's box. 



 

None of those options are at the same level as heyward.  Alz argument was that there was better options.  You cant tell me you believe span or fowler to be a better options then heyward?

It is completely illogical to think heyward would request any of the provisions I mentioned in the contract.  I cant believe you would even entertain the idea.

1. His 4th year is for 20 million dollars.  The second lowest year in the contract.  The first lowest is year one.

Why would heyward request this as his lowest year?  He could theoretical choose to stay for this fourth year and opt out after it.  I would think heywards preference would have been to shift some of the money that is offered later in the contract to the earlier years.  After all he may not even be there for the later years.  Heyward doesnt not have one single advantage of the 4th year being a low salary year.  The cubs do, as ive argued, because it further temps heyward out the door.

2.  The no trade clause shifting from a full no trade clause in year 1-3 to a limited no trade clause in year 4 and 5.  Heyward can block trades to 12 teams. 

What advantage is this to heyward?  Of course one could argue that limited no trade protection is better then the team being able to trade you to anyone.  However heyward clearly wanted full trade protection in year 1-3.  Thats a request players make, not teams.  Any trade protection is in the players favor, not the clubs.  Why shift a full no trade protection to limited for 2 years before heyward becomes a vested 10 year player with automatic trade protection.  The answer is simple.  The cubs want a few years to dump heyward if he doesnt opt out.  An intended or unintended result of this is it may push heyward towards opting out and choosing his new team vs being traded.  You cant argue that heyward ask for his trade protection to be lowered in year 4 and 5.  That makes zero sense. 

3. In order for heyward to vest into his second opt out he has to have 550 PA.

In no way shape or form is it to heywards advantage to request a vesting opt out year instead of a automatic one.  550 is alot.  Heyward basicly cant make a trip to the dl.  He cant be platooned and he must be used as an everyday player.  All things out of his control. No way he requested that.  An intended or unintended result is that this is another stipulation that would push heyward out the door after year 3.

-------------------------

So after year 3 say heyward has performed at his career averages and his remaining contract is roughly the same as his market value.  This is best case scenario for the cubs, right?  Well they didnt set up his contract in a way to succeed in this situation because heyward now has to decide if he wants to stay and risks not vesting for his second opt out, get paid less in year 4 and subject himself to a possible trade.  Doesnt that sort of seem counter productive for the cubs?  Hmmm, exactly.  It is okay to admit I have a point.

Let's just agree to disagree, at this point I think you're completely crazy. I'm sure you feel the same way.

 

alz wrote:

APIAD wrote:

None of those options are at the same level as heyward. Alz argument was that there was better options. You cant tell me you believe span or fowler to be a better options then heyward?

It is completely illogical to think heyward would request any of the provisions I mentioned in the contract. I cant believe you would even entertain the idea.

1. His 4th year is for 20 million dollars. The second lowest year in the contract. The first lowest is year one.

Why would heyward request this as his lowest year? He could theoretical choose to stay for this fourth year and opt out after it. I would think heywards preference would have been to shift some of the money that is offered later in the contract to the earlier years. After all he may not even be there for the later years. Heyward doesnt not have one single advantage of the 4th year being a low salary year. The cubs do, as ive argued, because it further temps heyward out the door.

2. The no trade clause shifting from a full no trade clause in year 1-3 to a limited no trade clause in year 4 and 5. Heyward can block trades to 12 teams.

What advantage is this to heyward? Of course one could argue that limited no trade protection is better then the team being able to trade you to anyone. However heyward clearly wanted full trade protection in year 1-3. Thats a request players make, not teams. Any trade protection is in the players favor, not the clubs. Why shift a full no trade protection to limited for 2 years before heyward becomes a vested 10 year player with automatic trade protection. The answer is simple. The cubs want a few years to dump heyward if he doesnt opt out. An intended or unintended result of this is it may push heyward towards opting out and choosing his new team vs being traded. You cant argue that heyward ask for his trade protection to be lowered in year 4 and 5. That makes zero sense.

3. In order for heyward to vest into his second opt out he has to have 550 PA.

In no way shape or form is it to heywards advantage to request a vesting opt out year instead of a automatic one. 550 is alot. Heyward basicly cant make a trip to the dl. He cant be platooned and he must be used as an everyday player. All things out of his control. No way he requested that. An intended or unintended result is that this is another stipulation that would push heyward out the door after year 3.

-------------------------

So after year 3 say heyward has performed at his career averages and his remaining contract is roughly the same as his market value. This is best case scenario for the cubs, right? Well they didnt set up his contract in a way to succeed in this situation because heyward now has to decide if he wants to stay and risks not vesting for his second opt out, get paid less in year 4 and subject himself to a possible trade. Doesnt that sort of seem counter productive for the cubs? Hmmm, exactly. It is okay to admit I have a point.

AP, I legitimately believe that Gordon is a wash with Heyward, and Upton is better. The equalizer for Heyward was he maybe hasn't hit his prime, and signing him to 10 years really isn't unreasonable since he just turned 26. 

For his 4th year, you might want to talk with baseball-reference and tell them they got it wrong. I took his numbers from them.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heywaja01.shtml

I'm sure Heyward requested a second automatic walk out, and the Cubs told him no way, but allowed him one if he had 550 PA that year. As far as I know, they totally can keep him from that if they want to by managing him during the year. It would void a walkout though. You're making my point for me... The Cubs are doing everything to keep him for the full contract, and not signing him to a long one planning on 3 years...... wtf AP, did you get hooked on something and not tell us?
 

The very things you say that the cubs did to keep him are also the things likely to push him out the door after year 3.  And if the cubs totally wanted to keep him they wouldnt have worried about limiting his trade protection.
 

"AP, I legitimately believe that Gordon is a wash with Heyward, and Upton is better."

Neither have played a single inning at cf.  Idk how they figure into this conversation at all but lets not let facts get in the way of an arguement.

"AP, I don't know that the option needed to be a CF... Didn't Heyward play RF for St. Louis? Want me to list the serviceable outfielders who could have been had for a contract that was 3 years/65.5 million?"

I missed this.  Yes it most certainly did need to be a cf.  Rf and lf are occupied by 2 players the cubs see as part of their future soler and schwarber.  The cubs were exclusively shopping for a cf.  There was some rumors that soler would be traded but the cubs dispelled those.

Last edited by APIAD (2/02/2016 5:39 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

AP your argument about the terms of the contract is flawed because it presumes that all of the contract terms were proposed by one side or the other.  That's highly unlikely.  It's much more likely that the terms were the product of negotiation--give and take.  Thus there are some terms favorable to Heyward and others favorable to the Cubs.

You keep saying why would Heyward ask for this or why would the Cubs ask for that--but you don't know who asked for what.  You're simply guessing and making those guesses the basis for your position.

As far as options being on the same level as Heyward, I think you could make the argument Cespedes (in Wrigley) might be a much better return on investment than Heyward.

I guess we'll see in 3 years.  If Heyward opts out and the Cubs don't try to re-sign him, that would certainly suggest you're correct.

Im a fan of cespedas for production and contract reason but youve pointed out why teams have steared clear.

Im aware of how negotiations work.  The items i stated are most certainly proposed by the club as they are disadvantages to heyward.  And it is likely that is the price he paid to get his opt out clause/clauses which is an advantage to him.  A rule of contract negotiations is that you dont get something without giving something, correct?  Being that uve been involved in far more negotiate then i ever will im sure you understand the strategy of offering something or giving up something that you dont care about to get something you actually want.  Also it was pretty predictable that heyward wanted an opt out clause.  Therefor it is pretty easy fod the cubs to prepare a strategy.

Your right, only time will tell.  And i very well could be wrong.  It is however possible this is the strategy the cubs have used.

"So using this... Heyward gets dumped on his first 3 years. The money is at the end of the deal (last two yrs worth 49 million). "

Alz,

Not trying to jump into the middle of this, and I've made my position on this issue well known, but those numbers are deceptive.  Heyward's contract included a signing bonus.  He receives that regardless of how long he's with the Cubs.  Those websites simply prorated the signing bonus ($20M) over 8 years and added $2.5M to each year's salary.  That isn't really accurate.

If Heyward opts out after year 3, he gets $78M for 3 years: $20M signing bonus, $15M in 2016 and $21.5M in 2017 and 2018.  The last 5 years pay him $106M.  The annual salary is spread relatively equally over the life of the contract, but the signing bonus makes it front loaded.

I agree with AP that the contract incentivizes Heyward to opt out.  He can collect $78M for 3 years, opt out and, at age 29, seek another 8-10 year deal worth the then-market rate (probably $25M/year).  But I agree with you, that the opt out is something Heyward wanted and something the Cubs were simply willing to live with, not something they wanted.

"I agree with AP that the contract incentivizes Heyward to opt out.  He can collect $78M for 3 years, opt out and, at age 29, seek another 8-10 year deal worth the then-market rate (probably $25M/year).  But I agree with you, that the opt out is something Heyward wanted and something the Cubs were simply willing to live with, not something they wanted."

Thats all im saying.  I dont expect anyone to necessary agree that the cubs have a conspiracy going to get heyward to leave but it is certainly possible.  I cant prove that the cubs intentions are to force him to opt out anymore then you two can prove the cubs really want him to stay.  If the cubs do intend on heyward opting I think it is clever.  Thats my opinion.

APIAD wrote:

"I agree with AP that the contract incentivizes Heyward to opt out.  He can collect $78M for 3 years, opt out and, at age 29, seek another 8-10 year deal worth the then-market rate (probably $25M/year).  But I agree with you, that the opt out is something Heyward wanted and something the Cubs were simply willing to live with, not something they wanted."

Thats all im saying. I dont expect anyone to necessary agree that the cubs have a conspiracy going to get heyward to leave but it is certainly possible. I cant prove that the cubs intentions are to force him to opt out anymore then you two can prove the cubs really want him to stay. If the cubs do intend on heyward opting I think it is clever. Thats my opinion.

Which is fair. Although I think they'd have actually front loaded the annual salaries if that were the case, and that isn't. Now to my initial point. Why in the world do you think a walk out is beneficial to the club? You were talking about Heyward for 3 years and 58 million. That's not true, it's 78 million! That's over 25 million dollars a season for a guy hitting 13 HR's and .293.... And he's not a natural CF, which is where you want him to play.... I'm still going to say I don't see the Cubs making out on an exercised opt out.

This was a post from a media article I read while looking to find a list of players who've opted out and "lost". I can't find any to this point. 

As a one-sided option, they turn contracts into a “heads I win, tails you lose” quagmire for clubs: if the player disappoints, the team is stuck paying him to underperform, whereas if he exceeds expectations, he is free to waltz off to a competitor. 

This sums it up perfectly to me.
 

"You were talking about Heyward for 3 years and 58 million. That's not true, it's 78 million! That's over 25 million dollars a season "

"Although I think they'd have actually front loaded the annual salaries if that were the case, and that isn't."

Thats true and something I admittedly overlooked.  That makes the first 3 years less of a good deal for the cubs but further temps heyward to opt out.  It is 26 million dollar average he will have made in his first 3 years.  20 million is defered tho, not that I think that matters.  This even further supports my arguement that heyward will be tempted to leave because he will be taking a pay cut.

As you have correctly pointed out, including the signing bonus the cubs have front loaded the contract.

Last edited by APIAD (2/03/2016 12:14 pm)

"I don't know a team that has ever done that because when the player opts out, it creates a hole in the roster that needs to be filled by someone, and the usual tendency is to fill that hole with the player with whom you're most familiar."

Im asking here, jd drew when he opted out of the dodgers deal.  Did the dodgers try and resign him?

Id also assume even if the team isnt very interested in the player that opted they would still show some interest out of curiosity.   Maybe im off base but I got the opinion the dodgers were just sort of kicking the tires on greinke.

APIAD wrote:

"I don't know a team that has ever done that because when the player opts out, it creates a hole in the roster that needs to be filled by someone, and the usual tendency is to fill that hole with the player with whom you're most familiar."

Im asking here, jd drew when he opted out of the dodgers deal. Did the dodgers try and resign him?

Id also assume even if the team isnt very interested in the player that opted they would still show some interest out of curiosity. Maybe im off base but I got the opinion the dodgers were just sort of kicking the tires on greinke.

I looked for some stories about Drew, and it sounds like you might be correct, but not because the team didn't want him.  Rather the team basically told Drew to fuck off after he opted out.While Colletti refused to say he was angry, his feelings came
through during a 30-minute conference call."I hang onto my feelings," Colletti said. "You try to use
some diplomacy right now."But the GM also said: "I know J.D. is a spiritual guy and a man
of his word. I guess he changed his word. You learn never to be
surprised when you're dealing in this arena. People change their
minds. People change their word. They move on."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2655862

As far as Greinke, the Dodgers definitely did more than kick the tires.  They were reported to have a 5 year offer on the table at more than $30M per year.  Greinke wanted 6, and Arizona offered it

Her are 2 article i found interesting on this topic.  They both list all opt out contracts.  They also discuss both sides of the fence on this issue.  Several points that i have brought up were mentioned as the disadvantages for the clubs, which ive never denied.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/12/contracts-baseball

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/160027064/opt-out-clauses-mlb-offseason-cueto-price