Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 27 minutes ago, hrubes20 said: 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. Couple problems with this. The main one is that you aren't accounting for the car losing substantial amounts of performance at a certain point after you buy it. You also aren't factoring your inability to build/upgrade other parts of your house and life because you are spending so much money on a car that is performing worse and worse every month you drive it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, NVRamsFan said: 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? Dodgers are clearly afraid of long term money commitments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, Slateman said: Dodgers are clearly afraid of long term money commitments. Not at all. We offered by reports the same as the Yankees did for Cole. Stras was never going anywhere and we offered Rendon similar to the Angels he just didn't want the Dodgers for his own reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 33 minutes ago, NVRamsFan said: Not at all. We offered by reports the same as the Yankees did for Cole. Stras was never going anywhere and we offered Rendon similar to the Angels he just didn't want the Dodgers for his own reasons. Because who would want the Dodgers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 hour ago, hrubes20 said: 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. this has already been covered tbh. Arenado is a fantastic player, if the rockies arent going to be good then its kind of a waste. all youre factoring in is that arenado is a good player and then ignoring all the factors around that. Real life just doesnt work like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: 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. We both know that other teams are not going to trade much for a 31 year old Arenado making $32 million a year, even if he's been really good. There are only a handful of teams that can take on that type of contract. He would absolutely have value though. I'm in agreement with you on that. But the ability to have a peak prime player in perpetuity is considerably more valuable. I don't see how that is even debatable. But as I mentioned, it would take a perfect storm of events to allow that to happen. The even MORE perfect storm of events would be for the team to be able to trade the superstar player every 3-4 years instead of having them opt out, but that's even more far-fetched. 2 hours ago, Slateman said: Couple problems with this. The main one is that you aren't accounting for the car losing substantial amounts of performance at a certain point after you buy it. You also aren't factoring your inability to build/upgrade other parts of your house and life because you are spending so much money on a car that is performing worse and worse every month you drive it. I used the 3-4 year interval in my scenario. A vehicle, assuming normal use, is going to sustain high performance during this time, just like the 3-4 peak prime performance of the player I referenced. Assuming you didn't take an 8 year loan, the vehicle should be worth more than is owed on it after 4 years. Not a ton, mind you, but there is value there (as would be the case with Arenado's trade value if he didn't opt out). You do make a very good point about financial flexibility in today's game, though. With owners treating the LT threshold as a salary cap, the ability to NOT have to pay a declining player $32 million is likely to have some value. Stupid owners. This shouldn't be a thing, but it does need to be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDez Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Arenado would have 5/200 left if he didn’t opt out in two years (not including bonus’). At the same Arenado would be, Rendon just got 7/245. Man I forget how much the Angels signed him for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, hrubes20 said: The even MORE perfect storm of events would be for the team to be able to trade the superstar player every 3-4 years instead of having them opt out, but that's even more far-fetched. But this the point I've been trying to make. Academic or not, opt outs are not the best scenario for the team because of the possibility for a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 @hrubes20 the GOAT BFIB moment happened today: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 7 hours ago, Leader said: Because who would want the Dodgers? People who want a nice payday. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 13 hours ago, hrubes20 said: We both know that other teams are not going to trade much for a 31 year old Arenado making $32 million a year, even if he's been really good. There are only a handful of teams that can take on that type of contract. He would absolutely have value though. I'm in agreement with you on that. But the ability to have a peak prime player in perpetuity is considerably more valuable. I don't see how that is even debatable. But as I mentioned, it would take a perfect storm of events to allow that to happen. The even MORE perfect storm of events would be for the team to be able to trade the superstar player every 3-4 years instead of having them opt out, but that's even more far-fetched. I used the 3-4 year interval in my scenario. A vehicle, assuming normal use, is going to sustain high performance during this time, just like the 3-4 peak prime performance of the player I referenced. Assuming you didn't take an 8 year loan, the vehicle should be worth more than is owed on it after 4 years. Not a ton, mind you, but there is value there (as would be the case with Arenado's trade value if he didn't opt out). You do make a very good point about financial flexibility in today's game, though. With owners treating the LT threshold as a salary cap, the ability to NOT have to pay a declining player $32 million is likely to have some value. Stupid owners. This shouldn't be a thing, but it does need to be considered. You're taking out an 8 year loan on Arenado if he doesnt opt out. I think owners and GMs believe it's not a smart business decision to overpay for declining performance. They may be willing to do it in an effort to "win it all," but by and large, it's a losing proposition for the team. There are very few long deals where the team came out ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 13 hours ago, DirtyDez said: Arenado would have 5/200 left if he didn’t opt out in two years (not including bonus’). At the same Arenado would be, Rendon just got 7/245. Man I forget how much the Angels signed him for He'll actually be a year older. Also, Arenado would have 5 years, 165 million left. Rendon is paid through his age 36 season, so that would mean Arenado would need a 6 year deal to match Rendon. Of course none of this accounts for Rendon being a better player than Arenado and what happens if Arenado is one of the hitters that benefits from Coors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Mets are finalizing a deal with Luis Rojas to be their manager, replacing Carlos Beltran. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy1609 Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuy82 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Sounds like the Jays have inquired about CF Ender Inciarte and 3B Nolan Arenado The latter makes no sense with Vladdy set at 3B but I'm good with Inciarte over Teoscar Hernandez in CF. We do have some interesting potential trade chips 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.