Schoop locks in early pay-day for future earnings

[Can_of_corn]

Certainly is an intriguing prospect.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Thanks! This is really interesting. It's funny how some sports gambling is legal if done in a market environment.

I'd still like to see us lock Schoop into a reasonable extension. Something like this:

17: 5M

18: 8M

19: 12M

20: 15M (FA)

21. 17M (FA)

That's 5/57. We have a lot of money coming off the books in the next 2 years. This is a good risk/reward.

 

1 minute ago, Tryptamine said:

Giving him 15M and 17M at this point would be insanity unless those were team options. Remember he's only been worth 3.3fWAR over the last 3 years.

I have to agree that the numbers you picked are higher than I would like to go for a player that hasn't truly established himself as an above average performer.

His second half last season was very disappointing.

[weams]

23 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Thanks! This is really interesting. It's funny how some sports gambling is legal if done in a market environment.

I'd still like to see us lock Schoop into a reasonable extension. Something like this:

17: 5M

18: 8M

19: 12M

20: 15M (FA)

21. 17M (FA)

That's 5/57. We have a lot of money coming off the books in the next 2 years. This is a good risk/reward.

All market environments are gambling. Silly. 

[sportsfan8703]

7 hours ago, waroriole said:

Thanks! This is really interesting. It's funny how some sports gambling is legal if done in a market environment.

I'd still like to see us lock Schoop into a reasonable extension. Something like this:

17: 5M

18: 8M

19: 12M

20: 15M (FA)

21. 17M (FA)

That's 5/57. We have a lot of money coming off the books in the next 2 years. This is a good risk/reward.

That's a lot of money.  Those 19-21 years seem real pricey.  

[weams]

11 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

His second half last season was very disappointing.

He never did have surgery. That knee did not just get better. It takes a lot of work even to find stability. It's probably wears him down. 

[weams]

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/12/29/why-an-extension-for-jonathan-schoop-makes-sense-for-orioles

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, weams said:

https://www.pressboxonline.com/2016/12/29/why-an-extension-for-jonathan-schoop-makes-sense-for-orioles

 

Of course, he says nothing about what the O's should be willing to pay.   It's easy to advocate an extension when there's no price attached.  

[Frobby]

So, if Roughned Odor is worth 6/$49.5 mm, what's Schoop worth?

Odor - 2.121 years of service time,   .265/.302/.464, 103 OPS+, 58 HR, 197 RBI in 1519 PA, 4.5 rWAR, 4.9 fWAR

Schoop -  3.027 years of service time, .251/.283/.428, 90 OPS+, 57 HR, 168 RBI in 1464 PA, 5.0 rWAR, 3.3 fWAR

Odor is 2+ years younger, which factors pretty heavily.   I'd go with Odor as the player likely to be better in the future, though it's close.     I'm not sure if the 6/$49 starts this year or next.    (Odor is not arbitration-eligible this season, while Schoop was and is making $3.5 mm.).   Assuming next year, then Schoop is probably worth a little more than 6/$49.5 mm, because he's a year further up the arbitration curve and will be a free agent one year sooner.    5/$43 mm or 6/$57 mm.

[Frobby]

So, Schoop’s career earnings since signing the Fantex deal are about $20 mm so far, including his 2019 contract.    Still $29 mm to go before Fantex breaks even (disregarding the time value of money; it’s more than $29 mm if you account for that).

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

So, Schoop’s career earnings since signing the Fantex deal are about $20 mm so far, including his 2019 contract.    Still $29 mm to go before Fantex breaks even (disregarding the time value of money; it’s more than $29 mm if you account for that).

Truly, there has been no time value of money since 2008. Only a gambler's winnings if risked in the stock market. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, weams said:

Truly, there has been no time value of money since 2008. Only a gambler's winnings if risked in the stock market. 

Well, interest rates are up a little bit, anyway, though very low by historical standards.   

Anyway, Fantex never really became a thing.    They’ve stopped being publicly traded, and have stopped entering into contracts with new athletes.    Basically, there just wasn’t enough investor interest in this.    But, the existing contracts with players remain in force.  

[Hallas]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

So, Schoop’s career earnings since signing the Fantex deal are about $20 mm so far, including his 2019 contract.    Still $29 mm to go before Fantex breaks even (disregarding the time value of money; it’s more than $29 mm if you account for that).

Aside from Schoop playing badly enough to get non-tendered, this investment was also totally screwed by major league teams suddenly deciding to stop spending money on FAs.  The past 3 years the FA value of a win has largely stayed stagnant after a period of like 10 years where it went up by around 5-10% every year.   He probably would have made around $10m in arb if he went there, so it's not like that's a huge loss, but he's likely not going to to get any sort of big deal that will cover the price of the investment.  I suppose he could sign a 3/30 deal next year if he plays well, and after that it's going to be a series of 1 year deals for close to the veteran minimum until he's ready to retire.  If he plays really well next year he might be able to get a 4/45 deal, which is probably the best case scenario.  Either way he's barely going to cover the upfront fee, and will likely not net the investors a good rate of return if he even covers the upfront cost.

[weams]

53 minutes ago, Hallas said:

Aside from Schoop playing badly enough to get non-tendered, this investment was also totally screwed by major league teams suddenly deciding to stop spending money on FAs.  The past 3 years the FA value of a win has largely stayed stagnant after a period of like 10 years where it went up by around 5-10% every year.   He probably would have made around $10m in arb if he went there, so it's not like that's a huge loss, but he's likely not going to to get any sort of big deal that will cover the price of the investment.  I suppose he could sign a 3/30 deal next year if he plays well, and after that it's going to be a series of 1 year deals for close to the veteran minimum until he's ready to retire.  If he plays really well next year he might be able to get a 4/45 deal, which is probably the best case scenario.  Either way he's barely going to cover the upfront fee, and will likely not net the investors a good rate of return if he even covers the upfront cost.

He also played well enough in 2017 to have gotten a nice return on an extension. The fact that he and his agent did not extend cost those investors. I wonder if a fiduciary responsibility claim could be made?

[Can_of_corn]

57 minutes ago, weams said:

He also played well enough in 2017 to have gotten a nice return on an extension. The fact that he and his agent did not extend cost those investors. I wonder if a fiduciary responsibility claim could be made?

Do we know one was offered?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, weams said:

He also played well enough in 2017 to have gotten a nice return on an extension. The fact that he and his agent did not extend cost those investors. I wonder if a fiduciary responsibility claim could be made?

 

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do we know one was offered?

No, we don’t.   In fact, I believe there were some rumors and Duquette shot them down.    

And even if he turned down a deal, I have little doubt that his contract with Fantex gave him full discretion to decide what deal to take or not.     I can’t imagine an agent allowing his player to sign away his right to do that.