Snodgrass'Muff said:Maybe he's banking on Stanton opting out after year 3 or 4 or whenever the clause is available . . . .
So what you are saying is that the opt-out clause would have some positive value for a particular owner/team . . . ?
Snodgrass'Muff said:Maybe he's banking on Stanton opting out after year 3 or 4 or whenever the clause is available . . . .
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
So what you are saying is that the opt-out clause would have some positive value for a particular owner/team . . . ?
glennhoffmania said:This is the ultimate example of whether money or non-monetary factors are more important to a player. Stanton has made about $8m in his career so far, and unless he gets hit by a bus in the next few months he'll more than double that in 2015. Obviously $300m puts him in a different stratosphere than something like $20m, but it's not like he'd be broke.
gammoseditor said:
It really depends on when the opt out is. If it's after year 4, they've only bought out 2 years of free agency. They already had him under control for the next two years. And they're taking massive gamble he doesn't have a serious injury. It's a game of Russian roulette.
maufman said:
That's probably an insurable risk. What you can't insure against is Stanton losing his nerve after getting hit in the face, or losing his groove at age 28-29 like some players do.
the NTC and opt-out shift me from thinking this contract is a calculated risk to thinking it's utterly insane. I'm glad the Sox aren't giving him this ridiculous deal.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS 54s54 seconds ago Miami Beach, FL
there's agreement on terms between stanton & marlins, at $325M, 13 yrs. just working on language.
Juan Gonzalez out up CRAZY numbers. Steroid era and all, but still. I don't think b-ref takes that into consideration when doing those comparisons. I think it's just the raw numbers.Rudy Pemberton said:To sign a guy a few years before FA...to a record setting deal, seems kind of crazy. I mean, what did they think he'd get on the open market to justify this.
That being said, 10 years / $200M with an opt-out seemed to be a pretty popular guess when we were speculating months ago, so good for Stanton.
Just for fun, his #1 bbref comp is Juan Gonzalez.
Rudy Pemberton said:To sign a guy a few years before FA...to a record setting deal, seems kind of crazy. I mean, what did they think he'd get on the open market to justify this.
That being said, 10 years / $200M with an opt-out seemed to be a pretty popular guess when we were speculating months ago, so good for Stanton.
Just for fun, his #1 bbref comp is Juan Gonzalez.
nattysez said:
This was probably the only way the Marlins could keep him. He's stated his unhappiness with the organization many times, so they either had to make that up to him with $ or watch him walk.
Food for thought: Posey got 8/$167 with three arb years left. I'd argue that paying an NL catcher (meaning no DHing) that much at age 26 carries a lot of risk, and the Giants could offer a clear commitment to winning and history of treating him well in addition to the $. Stanton's deal is still astronomical, but not completely insane.
Mike Trout has to be a little unhappy with his agents at this point, but he has $144.5 (over 6 years) to dry his tears. And he's got another mega-deal in his future.
rembrat said:How are the Marlins going to Marlin out of this contract? There is literally a zero percent chance Stanton is still a Marlin in 2024.
Oppo said:1999 or 2014 Pedro?
If you signed 1996 Pedro up to it would it be worth it?rodderick said:
If you signed 1999 Pedro to this contract, you'd almost have 2014 Pedro playing under it as well. 13 years is insanity.
MLBPA would never okay a team opt-out (with a few exceptions based on prior injury history).Ed Hillel said:Maybe either side can opt out? Otherwise, it just seems insane for the Marlins.
Jnai said:I know he's a fantastic player, but 10+/300+ million for Stanton is insane. Giving Stanton an opt-out of a 300 million dollar deal is doubly insane. This shifts basically all of the risk to the team.
Sure they would -- happens all the time. We just call them "club options."MLBPA would never okay a team opt-out (with a few exceptions based on prior injury history).
When a player signs a long term deal, both parties risk. The team risks that it will be stuck paying for a worse player than they thought. And, the player risks that at some point in the deal, the remaining money owed is fewer dollars than he is actually worth on the open market.E5 Yaz said:
I think the opt out is a decent play by ownership. Yeah, he could walk away a few years into the contract; but no one could say that ownership short-changed him or didn't want to keep him. The onus for that potential separation falls on him. The bigger risk for ownership, it seems to me, is the 12-13 years of the deal. The current owners (or whoever they sell to) will be hamstrung if his career goes south.
Of course, I could be missing your point. It wouldn't be the first time.
Plympton91 said:People here are way too concerned with how billionaires spent the interest on their war chests.
This is a great deal for all sides and a refreshing commitment to baseball in Miami. If you're not going to sign this guy long term at top dollar, then you should sell your team and go play shuffleboard at the old folks home.
I agree with Plympton on this. $25M AAV could very well be a bargain for a talent such as Stanton. This kid is only 25 years old meaning there's a very good chance the best is yet to come from him. It's only money, afterall.MakMan44 said:There is no way this can be called a "good" deal for the Marlins. I agree that it's cool to see them commit to Stanton in such a way, but the deal as rumored is absolutely nuts.
If he is good enough where opting out makes sense, the Marlins will have reaped the benefits for the first (however many) years of his deal. And there's an excellent chance that what they miss out on is two or three profit years and a whole bunch of decline ones. Asking whether the opt out benefits the player or the team is too simplistic. It can benefit both, at the expense of a third party who will be coerced into making a bad deal.Jnai said:When a player signs a long term deal, both parties risk. The team risks that it will be stuck paying for a worse player than they thought. And, the player risks that at some point in the deal, the remaining money owed is fewer dollars than he is actually worth on the open market.
If Stanton is really a hof level talent, which means this contract, in that world, is a comparative bargain, the team never gets to reap the benefits because Stanton can opt out and go realize his actual value.
If you went to a casino, and there was a $1 blackjack table, but the house had the "option" to pay just 50 cents if you won, would you play that game? After all, it's a win-win: you're still up 50 cents!moondog80 said:If he is good enough where opting out makes sense, the Marlins will have reaped the benefits for the first (however many) years of his deal. And there's an excellent chance that what they miss out on is two or three profit years and a whole bunch of decline ones. Asking whether the opt out benefits the player or the team is too simplistic. It can benefit both, at the expense of a third party who will be coerced into making a bad deal.
HEY, you can opt-out of the thread if you don't like it.Darnell's Son said:Yay, another thread about options!
Wish I could opt out of you...wait..what?MakMan44 said:HEY, you can opt-out of the thread if you don't like it.
The value they get from the opt out is that he signs a deal he otherwise would not have.maufman said:If you went to a casino, and there was a $1 blackjack table, but the house had the "option" to pay just 50 cents if you won, would you play that game? After all, it's a win-win: you're still up 50 cents!
Of course not -- that's a sucker's bet, unless the house balanced that option by cushioning your downside risk.
If Stanton signed for 12/240 with an opt out after year 5, that might be fair to Miami -- they would get the bulk of Stanton's prime years for something like 5/100, and Stanton would get immediate money, a $140mm insurance policy, and the ability to re enter the market at age 29.
The problem with the reported deal, like most opt-outs, is that the club doesn't get value for writing that insurance policy, unless you think $25mm a year for a guy who's two years from free agency and recuperating from free agency represents a discount to fair value.
Where did you hear that this contract will actually pay him $25 million a year over the first 5 years before the opt-out? That's shocking.If you went to a casino, and there was a $1 blackjack table, but the house had the "option" to pay just 50 cents if you won, would you play that game? After all, it's a win-win: you're still up 50 cents!
Of course not -- that's a sucker's bet, unless the house balanced that option by cushioning your downside risk.
If Stanton signed for 12/240 with an opt out after year 5, that might be fair to Miami -- they would get the bulk of Stanton's prime years for something like 5/100, and Stanton would get immediate money, a $140mm insurance policy, and the ability to re enter the market at age 29.
The problem with the reported deal, like most opt-outs, is that the club doesn't get value for writing that insurance policy, unless you think $25mm a year for a guy who's two years from free agency and recuperating from free agency represents a discount to fair value.
IIRC the Halos also discussed going to 10 years with Trout, but Trout ultimately rejected it in favor of hitting FA again.gammoseditor said:I don't think Trout has any regrets. He only gave up 3 free agent years, and his AAV for those years is insane. His per year for FA years might be $10 million more than Stanton.
And currently MLB revenues are 3x (even adjusting for inflation) what they were when Arod received his contract. That was pre-regional TV deals and online streaming.OCD SS said:IIRC the Halos also discussed going to 10 years with Trout, but Trout ultimately rejected it in favor of hitting FA again.
I saw a tweet noting that all of this "largest contract ever talk doesn't take inflation into account - ARod's first deal was worth close to $400m in today's dollars. That's also something to consider with a long term investment from both sides. Player salaries are going up and dollars are worth less.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24816967/marlins-stanton-mega-deal-is-in-place-325m-13-years-early-opt-outSuperstar outfielder Giancarlo Stanton and the Marlins now have a deal in place for a record $325 million over a record 13 years, sources connected to the team say. That landmark contract keeps the beloved Stanton in Miami at least through his 20s and maybe until he's 38, and brings credibility to a franchise that's seemed cash-strapped and beleaguered at times but appears to be on the upswing now.
HangingW/ScottCooper said:I said it over on the Lester thread. I really like the idea of putting in a player opt out option that allows the teams to pay for the players best years. It's not a guarantee, but it seems that in any case where the player opted out, it was in the team's best interest to let the player leave.