ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, NVRamsFan said: Full no trade clause and a 2021 opt out. So he’s signed for two years if he wants it. He does have some leverage. 2 years is better than 8 years, but it's not like that changes who has the leverage. The Rockies have 2 more offseasons and 2 more trade deadlines to move him, and he wants out now. The teams who want Arenado now are in full win-now mode, and might not have the same interest in paying top dollar for him 2 years from now (e.g. imagine how the 2017 Red Sox would react to his availability versus the 2019 Red Sox). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy1609 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 more on Arenado. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28527906/nolan-arenado-ire-rooted-rockies-inactivity-71-91-season ccording to Jeff Passan of ESPN, Nolan Arenado's frustration with the Rockies is rooted in the team's inactivity this offseason. After Rockies GM Jeff Bridich downplayed the chances of a trade involving the All-Star third baseman, Arenado said via text message Monday that he has felt "a lot of disrespect" from the Rockies' front office. It wasn't the trade talks that have frayed the relationship as much as the team's reluctance to improve this offseason. In fact, Passan hears that Arenado "expressed betrayal" when the Rockies said they didn't intend to expand their payroll. Even an in-person meeting with Rockies owner **** Monfort didn't cool tensions. It's an awkward situation which could put the possibility of a trade back in focus. Arenado can control his destiny in such a scenario, as he holds a full no-trade clause. His contract also includes an opt-out after the 2021 season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, flyguy1609 said: more on Arenado. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28527906/nolan-arenado-ire-rooted-rockies-inactivity-71-91-season ccording to Jeff Passan of ESPN, Nolan Arenado's frustration with the Rockies is rooted in the team's inactivity this offseason. After Rockies GM Jeff Bridich downplayed the chances of a trade involving the All-Star third baseman, Arenado said via text message Monday that he has felt "a lot of disrespect" from the Rockies' front office. It wasn't the trade talks that have frayed the relationship as much as the team's reluctance to improve this offseason. In fact, Passan hears that Arenado "expressed betrayal" when the Rockies said they didn't intend to expand their payroll. Even an in-person meeting with Rockies owner **** Monfort didn't cool tensions. It's an awkward situation which could put the possibility of a trade back in focus. Arenado can control his destiny in such a scenario, as he holds a full no-trade clause. His contract also includes an opt-out after the 2021 season They have a projected CBT payroll of 178 million. I'm not sure what he expected them to do this offseason. Does this hurt the Rockies trade value? How for sure is he going to opt out of that deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Slateman said: How for sure is he going to opt out of that deal? If he remains in Colorado, I'm about 99% sure he's opting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If he remains in Colorado, I'm about 99% sure he's opting out. Yea, but if he gets traded and doesn't opt out, it's an albatross contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, Slateman said: Yea, but if he gets traded and doesn't opt out, it's an albatross contract. Oh agreed. That's why I think what he should get, and what he will eventually get dealt for are quite different. Just using St. Louis as a relevant example, if you're the Cardinals are you willing to move any of you top 3 prospects for a guy who will/could opt out in 2 years? Dylan Carlson was already off-limits even before this Arenado thing came up. And Gorman/Liberatore are in the hard-to-trade category, so I'd be reluctant to trade them as great as Arenado is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, CWood21 said: 10 minutes ago, Slateman said: How for sure is he going to opt out of that deal? If he remains in Colorado, I'm about 99% sure he's opting out. The 1% being a career altering injury, yeah. But if he gets traded, we have no idea. So the trading team would have to convince Arenado to forfeit his opt-out, which realistically means they'd have to negotiate some kind of perk for Arenado in exchange. So basically, you're re-negotiating his entire deal, and I think per the CBA the maximum amount of time you can negotiate with another team's player is 72 hours. This isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Oh agreed. That's why I think what he should get, and what he will eventually get dealt for are quite different. Just using St. Louis as a relevant example, if you're the Cardinals are you willing to move any of you top 3 prospects for a guy who will/could opt out in 2 years? Dylan Carlson was already off-limits even before this Arenado thing came up. And Gorman/Liberatore are in the hard-to-trade category, so I'd be reluctant to trade them as great as Arenado is. See, him opting out in 2 years makes him way more valuable. You get two seasons of premium level Arenado and then you get a draft pick when he opts out and tries to get a bigger deal? That's ideal. What would be killer is if you trade for him and he doesn't opt out. Now you're on the hook for a lot and Arenado is probably going to be significantly declining. So unless you negotiate something where the Rockies pay a significant portion of his post-opt out salary, I don't see how the Rockies can expect a big return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The 1% being a career altering injury, yeah. But if he gets traded, we have no idea. So the trading team would have to convince Arenado to forfeit his opt-out, which realistically means they'd have to negotiate some kind of perk for Arenado in exchange. So basically, you're re-negotiating his entire deal, and I think per the CBA the maximum amount of time you can negotiate with another team's player is 72 hours. This isn't going to happen. The question is, how many teams want to be paying Arenado $35M+ in his 30s? I mean, Giancarlo Stanton killed just about his entire market by utilizing his NTC to essentially force a trade to the Yankees. What's stopping Nolan Arenado from doing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: The question is, how many teams want to be paying Arenado $35M+ in his 30s? I mean, Giancarlo Stanton killed just about his entire market by utilizing his NTC to essentially force a trade to the Yankees. What's stopping Nolan Arenado from doing that? I mean, nothing is stopping him from that if he really is dead set on running down his contract to the opt-out, and then making the Rockies choose between a compensation pick or a package of players that is probably just about the same in value as a compensation pick. But to directly answer your question, the Rockies. They'd be fine keeping Arenado for his entire career, and have no incentive to let him go. This situation is entirely different than the Giancarlo deal to the Yankees because the Marlins had to let him go so that Derek Jeter could swim in a pool of money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, Slateman said: See, him opting out in 2 years makes him way more valuable. You get two seasons of premium level Arenado and then you get a draft pick when he opts out and tries to get a bigger deal? That's ideal. What would be killer is if you trade for him and he doesn't opt out. Now you're on the hook for a lot and Arenado is probably going to be significantly declining. So unless you negotiate something where the Rockies pay a significant portion of his post-opt out salary, I don't see how the Rockies can expect a big return. But the teams acquiring Arenado can't assume that he's going to opt out. In fact, if he gets deal to a situation he likes (say St. Louis in this example), he's not opting out. And then you're stuck with the entirety of that 7 year, $234M deal. That's a LOT of money to be paying someone for the downside of their career. That's the problem with these opt-outs. You don't know which way they're going to lean. As I've said from the beginning, it seems like it's the "ask for the moon" beginning of the negotiations. I don't think Colorado had any real desire to move Arenado. He's their franchise player, and he's locked up longterm. But if a team was willing to back up a franchise-altering package, they'd be stupid not to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Slateman said: See, him opting out in 2 years makes him way more valuable. You get two seasons of premium level Arenado and then you get a draft pick when he opts out and tries to get a bigger deal? That's ideal. This is often repeated, and it's never true. Players opting out is always a bad thing for the team. The reason is because the player is opting out because they will get more money elsewhere. If you have a player who on the open market is worth 4/$100MM, but you have under contract for 3/$75MM and they opt out, it's bad for you. You lost an asset that was under control for cheaper than the market. And anything that happens after that (the player getting hurt or declining) doesn't matter. You could have traded that player the day before the opt out and gotten a positive return. Once the player opts out, you have nothing. It's still a net negative. Edited January 21, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, CWood21 said: But the teams acquiring Arenado can't assume that he's going to opt out. In fact, if he gets deal to a situation he likes (say St. Louis in this example), he's not opting out. And then you're stuck with the entirety of that 7 year, $234M deal. That's a LOT of money to be paying someone for the downside of their career. That's the problem with these opt-outs. You don't know which way they're going to lean. As I've said from the beginning, it seems like it's the "ask for the moon" beginning of the negotiations. I don't think Colorado had any real desire to move Arenado. He's their franchise player, and he's locked up longterm. But if a team was willing to back up a franchise-altering package, they'd be stupid not to listen. I think we're on the same page with this. I think most teams are going to look at it like they're going to have to eat the whole contract, but the Rockies are trying to trade him like he's going to opt out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: This is often repeated, and it's never true. Players opting out is always a bad thing for the team. The reason is because the player is opting out because they will get more money elsewhere. If you have a player who on the open market is worth 4/$100MM, but you have under contract for 3/$75MM and they opt out, it's bad for you. You lost an asset that was under control for cheaper than the market. Not if they get out from a bad contract. And Arendao at 31 may be able to get a better deal, but the back end is going to be bad. The Cardinals may want Arenado for his age 31 and 32,but getting out of ages 33-35 would be worth it. The Red Sox are sitting there wishing JD had opted out. Do you think the Yankees don't want Stanton to opt out? Edited January 21, 2020 by Slateman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Slateman said: Not if they get out from a bad contract. And Arendao at 31 may be able to get a better deal, but the back end is going to be bad. The Cardinals may want Arenado for his age 31 and 32,but getting out of ages 33-35 would be worth it. Nope. See my edit: 4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: And anything that happens after that (the player getting hurt or declining) doesn't matter. You could have traded that player the day before the opt out and gotten a positive return. Once the player opts out, you have nothing. It's still a net negative. This is repeated over and over again, and I don't know why. Edited January 21, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.