Jimellicksman

[tntoriole]

54 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Why would Tillman accept a multi year deal that was a cut in pay?  I think you are correct though if that is what he wants.  In fact if he will pitch 2 years for 10M id probably take that chance right now!

A two year deal at 7 million per would be a raise, not a cut in his salary. 

[Frobby]

13 hours ago, tntoriole said:

A two year deal at 7 million per would be a raise, not a cut in his salary. 

That's an odd way to look at it.    He's being paid to pitch for two years, not one.    I'd argue that if he takes 2/$14 mm then he's betting against having a solid year next season.   

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

That's an odd way to look at it.    He's being paid to pitch for two years, not one.    I'd argue that if he takes 2/$14 mm then he's betting against having a solid year next season.   

The dynamics of the negotiation are that the player wants the one year deal at as high a salary as possible to then springboard to the bonanza of the multi year contract that he misses out on now due to his year.  But, he also has some motivation to not just take a one year deal IN CASE he also flames out again and he gets the protection of one more year.   He is hedging his bet not betting against himself. 

The teams will all want to get the really low ball, one year deal which, of course, minimizes their financial risk and if he rebounds makes it a good value and they lose nothing really if he flames out.

 But because  there will be a lot of teams that will think just like that and will all want to make that kind of low risk, one year, incentives based deal, then the competition will drive up the price until one team will take the extra risk of a 2 year.   Remember this is starting pitching we are talking about here, that rarest of commodities, and with someone whose pedigree has been at the higher end. 

 The advantage for teams to the low cost 2 year deal is that it enables a rebuild team to flip him for a really great haul if he is doing well and a high market team to really have a high value piece if he rebounds and they can better eat the sunk cost if he doesn't. 

So, it is more security for Chris that might lead him to hedge for a 2 year at that kind of money and for the teams it is the flexibility and high payoff potential that might lead to it.  

And I was just using 2/14 as an example of the lowest case scenario.  It might be something like 2/18 that would meet both sides of this dynamic. 

Or maybe not...lol.  

[Frobby]

50 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

The dynamics of the negotiation are that the player wants the one year deal at as high a salary as possible to then springboard to the bonanza of the multi year contract that he misses out on now due to his year.  But, he also has some motivation to not just take a one year deal IN CASE he also flames out again and he gets the protection of one more year.   He is hedging his bet not betting against himself. 

The teams will all want to get the really low ball, one year deal which, of course, minimizes their financial risk and if he rebounds makes it a good value and they lose nothing really if he flames out.

 But because  there will be a lot of teams that will think just like that and will all want to make that kind of low risk, one year, incentives based deal, then the competition will drive up the price until one team will take the extra risk of a 2 year.   Remember this is starting pitching we are talking about here, that rarest of commodities, and with someone whose pedigree has been at the higher end. 

 The advantage for teams to the low cost 2 year deal is that it enables a rebuild team to flip him for a really great haul if he is doing well and a high market team to really have a high value piece if he rebounds and they can better eat the sunk cost if he doesn't. 

So, it is more security for Chris that might lead him to hedge for a 2 year at that kind of money and for the teams it is the flexibility and high payoff potential that might lead to it.  

And I was just using 2/14 as an example of the lowest case scenario.  It might be something like 2/18 that would meet both sides of this dynamic. 

Or maybe not...lol.  

I personally don't think any team is going to guarantee Tillman more than $10 mm, or about $5-6 mm on a one year deal.    There's just too much risk after the lousy year he's had.    Mind you, this year isn't just subpar like 2014 for Ubaldo or 2015 for Tillman and Miggy.    This year is epicly bad.    He's extremely risky at this point.   

[tntoriole]

51 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I personally don't think any team is going to guarantee Tillman more than $10 mm, or about $5-6 mm on a one year deal.    There's just too much risk after the lousy year he's had.    Mind you, this year isn't just subpar like 2014 for Ubaldo or 2015 for Tillman and Miggy.    This year is epicly bad.    He's extremely risky at this point.   

You certainly could be right.   But with big risks come big potential gains.  If he comes anywhere back to the every year but 2017 Chris then a team that has him at 5 million a year will be the king of the offseason bargain winners.  

If I am Chris I have to ask myself...if I sign the 5 mil, 1 year deal and have a really good year, then yes, I likely am going to be getting the big bucks deal 3-4 years, 35-45 million or whatever. 

But, if I pitch like I did in 2017,  then the 5 mil will be the last money I see with a MLB team's name on the check. 

That is what he pays a good agent for I reckon...lol.