Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

[Lillian]

I assume that most of you would agree that this is simply a matter of opinion. There is no absolute, correct answer to the question, regarding what kind of opt out would be acceptable. In any case, as hopeful and optimistic as I am that the Sox are covertly pursuing Harper, I seriously doubt that they would agree to an opt out, after just 2, or 3 years, on a 10 year, $330 + million contract. That is probably a deal breaker for ownership, given the fact that the team is not yet ready to contend, even with Harper.

[Dick Allen]

If they had signed Machado, and if Madrigal worked out, Moncada would have had to move to 1B or the OF.  That's where Harper is, so it's basically the same except a bit worse defensively.

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

If they had signed Machado, and if Madrigal worked out, Moncada would have had to move to 1B or the OF.  That's where Harper is, so it's basically the same except a bit worse defensively.

Under that setup - with Machado's opt out being 5 years away, trading Madrigal is a reasonable option with low risk.

If you sign Harper and his opt out is 5 years away, f*** it trade everyone who is useful enough to be traded other than your likeliest CF candidates.

If you sign him and that opt out is 3 years away...this is a much riskier proposition. Maybe you trade 1 guy but you really start wanting to keep some depth since you don't know what will happen after 2021. Maybe you half DH Harper that year and half play the other guy, I dunno. 

[GenericUserName]

53 minutes ago, almagest said:

If the Sox are bad enough that Harper wants to leave in 3 years then it doesn't matter if he opts out.

The problem is the risk that if he sucks that he won't opt out. So we are taking on ~$200m of risk for 1 year of contention. That risk might be small, but that sum is very large.

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Under that setup - with Machado's opt out being 5 years away, trading Madrigal is a reasonable option with low risk.

If you sign Harper and his opt out is 5 years away, f*** it trade everyone who is useful enough to be traded other than your likeliest CF candidates.

If you sign him and that opt out is 3 years away...this is a much riskier proposition. Maybe you trade 1 guy but you really start wanting to keep some depth since you don't know what will happen after 2021. Maybe you half DH Harper that year and half play the other guy, I dunno. 

You would probably have a pretty good idea if he was going to opt out or not a year in advance. Ideally, a 3 year opt out isn't great, but if it's the difference between deal and no deal, make the deal. I think if you offered enough money, a 4 or 5 year opt out could be negotiated. 

[almagest]

Just now, GenericUserName said:

The problem is the risk that if he sucks that he won't opt out. So we are taking on ~$200m of risk for 1 year of contention. That risk might be small, but that sum is very large.

Sure, but you bet on his track record. That's why you pay him. Projecting Harper to be bad before age-based regression is catastrophizing.

[almagest]

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

A 3 year opt out only makes trading any of those guys awfully risky when they're probably 2 years away from big league debuts.

Maybe, but if you get something really good in return for them it lessens that blow. The Sox could always find a 2-3 WAR outfielder in free agency or from someone else in their system (assuming they have any depth which they probably won't).

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

The problem is the risk that if he sucks that he won't opt out. So we are taking on ~$200m of risk for 1 year of contention. That risk might be small, but that sum is very large.

hows that different than if he doesn't have an opt out in his deal?

[GenericUserName]

3 minutes ago, almagest said:

Sure, but you bet on his track record. That's why you pay him. Projecting Harper to be bad before age-based regression is catastrophizing.

His track record is of wild inconsistency. Plus, one more leg injury and he might be a 1B only. At that point, his offensive output might not be nearly enough to justify the cost.

1 minute ago, bmags said:

hows that different than if he doesn't have an opt out in his deal?

Because then we also get the upside if he is outperforming his deal. With a three year opt out, we take a huge amount of downside risk and we don't also get the upside. Its really an asymmetric payoff especially when we are not supposed to contend for at least 1/3 of the upside portion of the deal.

[Balta1701]

Just now, almagest said:

Maybe, but if you get something really good in return for them it lessens that blow. The Sox could always find a 2-3 WAR outfielder in free agency or from someone else in their system (assuming they have any depth which they probably won't).

A 2-3 WAR OF is, IMO, surprisingly hard to find in free agency. As far as I can tell there were 0 available before 2018, Josh Reddick was the only one signed in 2017 (Carlos Gomez was close at 1.9). 

Lorenzo Cain was better than that range. But 2-3 WAR - that's the Horrible range of the FA market in my eyes. That's the range where something  like 80% of players you sign seem to underperform. I looked through the entire list of everyone who got a contract in 2018 with an AAV between 10 and $20 million and the only good deal out of that entire range was Cain, out of something like 10 players. 

[ChiSox59]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

A 2-3 WAR OF is, IMO, surprisingly hard to find in free agency. As far as I can tell there were 0 available before 2018, Josh Reddick was the only one signed in 2017 (Carlos Gomez was close at 1.9). 

Lorenzo Cain was better than that range. But 2-3 WAR - that's the Horrible range of the FA market in my eyes. That's the range where something  like 80% of players you sign seem to underperform. I looked through the entire list of everyone who got a contract in 2018 with an AAV between 10 and $20 million and the only good deal out of that entire range was Cain, out of something like 10 players. 

That Cain deal looks like an absolute steal now.  Well done by the Brewers. 

[Jose Abreu]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/giants-held-2nd-meeting-yesterday-with-bryce-harper.html

[shipps]

3 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/giants-held-2nd-meeting-yesterday-with-bryce-harper.html

Man the Sox are good at being stealth. No mention of them in this report either! 

[Lillian]

26 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

His track record is of wild inconsistency. Plus, one more leg injury and he might be a 1B only. At that point, his offensive output might not be nearly enough to justify the cost.

Because then we also get the upside if he is outperforming his deal. With a three year opt out, we take a huge amount of downside risk and we don't also get the upside. Its really an asymmetric payoff especially when we are not supposed to contend for at least 1/3 of the upside portion of the deal.

This is precisely the point, and well stated. I'm all for players being paid fairly, but it's a two way street. Another way to illustrate the point is to remember that there is virtually no risk to a player that a team will not honor its contract and pay the money guaranteed. However, there is no assurance, what so ever, that the player will be able to deliver on his expected performance. Under those circumstances, players need to give a little on the nature of their opt outs. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Lillian said:

This is precisely the point, and well stated. I'm all for players being paid fairly, but it's a two way street. Another way to illustrate the point is to remember that there is virtually no risk to a player that a team will not honor its contract and pay the money guaranteed. However, there is no assurance, what so ever, that the player will be able to deliver on his expected performance. Under those circumstances, players need to give a little on the nature of their opt outs. 

Depends on how much competition there is for the player. If the player wants a 3 year opt out, it's probably available - for a slightly lower guarantee from another team (if negotiated properly).

[103 mph screwball]

Sox don't have to meet.  Just text "10 year 350 opt outs 3 and 7"

[OneDog847]

8 minutes ago, shipps said:

Man the Sox are good at being stealth. No mention of them in this report either! 

Yep. They cannot afford Harper and have absolutely no intention of signing him and probably never did. 

[Kiebs13]

 

[ChiSox59]

1 minute ago, Kiebs13 said:

 

Is he really going to take a short term deal from the Dodgers or San Fran?  Man TF up Jerry.  

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

1 minute ago, Kiebs13 said:

 

Get it done Jerry!!!

[southsider2k5]

The Phillies are calling the Boras bluff.

[yesterday333]

Just now, Kiebs13 said:

 

if their chances are really that remote and Harper isn't considering a short term deal, then it would have to be a stealth team who is likely to sign him...

[OneDog847]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Phillies are calling the Boras bluff.

Bad move. Didn't work out too well when the Sox tried to call Lozano's bluff. 

[Kpet1010]

1 minute ago, Kiebs13 said:

 

Totally saw this coming. 

 

Check out @SchinstalksSox1’s Tweet:

This guy broke it yesterday and has had legit insider info. He also broke then signing another outfielder after ervin Santana. He says the Sox are waiting until the final bid requests come in to make their move. Hence them being "out". Going to try to pull what the Padres did to them

 

 

[shipps]

2 minutes ago, Kpet1010 said:

Totally saw this coming. 

 

Check out @SchinstalksSox1’s Tweet:

This guy broke it yesterday and has had legit insider info. He also broke then signing another outfielder after ervin Santana. He says the Sox are waiting until the final bid requests come in to make their move. Hence them being "out". Going to try to pull what the Padres did to them

 

 

Looks to me that he is telling people the Sox are probably not going after Harper. Where do you see him saying that Sox are waiting to put in final bid?