Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Nope. See my edit: This is repeated over and over again, and I don't know why. You got peak performance and don't have to pay the back end. That's literally the most ideal situation for a team. Baseball is literally filled with bad contracts. You might bail on a player a year early, but the long term effects of getting out of that deal far outweigh the immediate loss. 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 3 minutes ago, Slateman said: You got peak performance and don't have to pay the back end. That's literally the most ideal situation for a team. You'd be paying a below market rate for the back-end, which means you could trade the back-end for something positive instead of being left with nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: You'd be paying a below market rate for the back-end, which means you could trade the back-end for something positive instead of being left with nothing. Until the back end performance dips below market value. Having nothing means you have payroll available to improve the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, Slateman said: Until the back end performance dips below market value. Having nothing means you have payroll available to improve the team. You could have traded them immediately after the opt out. The future performance, good or bad, is not related to whether the opt out is a positive for the team or player. The only thing is relevant is the player value before and after the opt out. After, it's always zero. Before, it's always positive (otherwise they wouldn't opt out). Therefore, opt outs are always bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: You could have traded them immediately after the opt out. The future performance, good or bad, is not related to whether the opt out is a positive for the team or player. The only thing is relevant is the player value before and after the opt out. After, it's always zero. Before, it's always positive (otherwise they wouldn't opt out). Therefore, opt outs are always bad. Future performance is always relevant to the team. You're assuming that a player always has a net positive or that the net positive outweighs the impact of the contract to the team. If Pujols had "opted out" of his contract in 2017, regardless of whether or not the Angels got anything in return, it would have been a huge win for them. Likewise, if Heyward had opted out at the end of this season, the Cubs end up with victory simply because they get out from a bad contract and a guy who isn't living up to it. Same thing for the Yankees and Stanton. If Arenado is a 2 WAR player after the opt out, then whoever he opts out from will win because they got the best out of Arenado and didn't have to overpay to keep him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Slateman said: Future performance is always relevant to the team. The market has already gauged the expected future performance of the player prior to the opt out. And, if the player is opting out, that means the player's current remaining contract is an underpay. So teams will be willing to pay the team in prospects to trade for the player, or pay the player a premium if he's opted out. The player getting to opt out and get the difference between his current contract and market value is not a good thing for the team. You're not the only one who doesn't believe this, and I have no idea why. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The market has already gauged the expected future performance of the player prior to the opt out. And, if the player is opting out, that means the player's current remaining contract is an underpay. So teams will be willing to pay the team in prospects to trade for the player, or pay the player a premium if he's opted out. The player getting to opt out and get the difference between his current contract and market value is not a good thing for the team. You're not the only one who doesn't believe this, and I have no idea why. Except that baseball free agency is based entirely on overpaying players, particularly at the end of your career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Slateman said: Except that baseball free agency is based entirely on overpaying players, particularly at the end of your career. Market value is market value. Losing the option to trade a player who is getting paid at below market value is a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 25 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Market value is market value. Losing the option to trade a player who is getting paid at below market value is a bad thing. You're assuming that the player will continue to perform at market value. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 22 minutes ago, Slateman said: You're assuming that the player will continue to perform at market value. I'm not assuming anything. Day -1: Player is worth $XMM surplus value on remaining contract Day 0: Player opts out of contract Day 1: Player is worth $0 surplus value This happens every single opt out. That loss of $XMM is a negative. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy1609 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Slateman said: 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? my guess is he's using that as an excuse, it seems like he wants out. i think it hurts the trade value, from what i was reading the GM put the opt out clause in the contract to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours 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. 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. again, this is wrong. Things dont happen in a vacuum. if youre a non competitive team, paying arenado 30 mil to be sub .500 does not help, especially when youre a mid market team. out of three scenarios of trading him, him opting out or him opting in, if the rockies or no where close to competing then the worse scenario is him opting in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 The opt out scenario is exactly the same as buying a car versus leasing one. Leasing a car (a player opting out) can only be worthwhile if you continuously replace the car (player) with another lease (player with an opt out). Example: 1. Arenado signs huge deal for $32 million AAV as a 28 year old. 2. Arenado plays at peak prime level for 3 years at this salary and opts out 3. Rockies use the $32 million to sign 28 year old superstar with an opt out. 4. New superstar plays at peak prime level for 3 years at this salary and opts out. 5. Rockies use the $32 million to sign 28 year old superstar with an opt out. Rinse and repeat. The big issue is that free agents of that caliber are not reaching free agency each year, and that there is no guarantee you could get one of them to sign with you. But if a team was able to essentially have a perpetual peak prime superstar, that would be far more valuable than whatever mediocre prospect package they could get for an expensive 31 year old Arenado. The scenario exists where opt outs can greatly benefit the team; it just isn't very likely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, hrubes20 said: 1. Arenado signs huge deal for $32 million AAV as a 28 year old. 2. Arenado plays at peak prime level for 3 years at this salary and opts out 3. Rockies use the $32 million to sign 28 year old superstar with an opt out. 2 would be more profitable for the Rockies if they could trade Arendo, and if he's good enough to opt out, that means his contract has tradeable value. Losing a sub-market rate contract for nothing is not a good thing. I have no idea how many different ways I have to phrase this before it sinks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 The answer is easy and obvious. Trade him to the Dodgers. We're not afraid of the salary and have prospects and players to give for him. There aren't you glad I answered this for everybody? 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.