Correa (Update, signs with Twins)

[Aristotelian]

6 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Do you have any insight to the logic employed by teams that are anti opt out?  With analytics as wide spread as they are now, teams have to know most of the value in a 10 year deal comes in the first half of the contract.  I think most GMs would prefer to sign a FA for 4 years instead of 10 if the market enabled them to so I don't understand opposition to an opt out.

I think the idea is that places all the risk on the team. The player could turn into Chris Davis and the team is screwed. If the player outperforms, they leave. The deal works out for the team only if they perform roughly as expected.

[interloper]

Not to continue to work myself into a froth about this, but the other thing I would love about a Correa signing is the domino effect it would cause. It then makes it so much easier to attract other qualified major league talent. Signing a decent starter becomes more feasible - now the O's can say look, the team is ready to compete, you're throwing to Adley who will make you better, Correa and Mullins are playing D up the middle for you, Hays is tallying up DRS in LF, which by the way, isn't as homer prone anymore. 

Ugh. 

Everything about it feels too right. I already know how this story ends lol. 

[jabba72]

A SS opting out when he's 30 years old, and has roughly 30m per year remaining over the next 6 years doesn't seem likely to me. 

[btdart20]

48 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think the idea is that places all the risk on the team. The player could turn into Chris Davis and the team is screwed. If the player outperforms, they leave. The deal works out for the team only if they perform roughly as expected.

Unless the contract is front-end loaded to some degree.  The first 4-5 years would average $30+ and the back half after the opt-out clause would be $10-15ish.  Or something along those lines.

[oriole]

44 minutes ago, interloper said:

Not to continue to work myself into a froth about this, but the other thing I would love about a Correa signing is the domino effect it would cause. It then makes it so much easier to attract other qualified major league talent. Signing a decent starter becomes more feasible - now the O's can say look, the team is ready to compete, you're throwing to Adley who will make you better, Correa and Mullins are playing D up the middle for you, Hays is tallying up DRS in LF, which by the way, isn't as homer prone anymore. 

Ugh. 

Everything about it feels too right. I already know how this story ends lol. 

As controversial as this would be, I think it’d be cool if Mullins was traded even if Correa is signed. If they could trade Mullins for a couple decent pitching prospects to come up around the same time as Rodriguez and Hall then I feel like that’d be a better starting point for future competitiveness. Hays could play center and hopefully between Stowers, Santander, and McKenna there should be enough depth to where it wouldn’t hurt too bad. 

[geschinger]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Well the opt out gives the player the control so if he's amazing he can opt out and go back on the market which makes team's leery. If I were a team I'd front load the contract, give the player an opt out after four and ask for team opt out option after 7 years.

That makes sense to me if the teams are the ones pushing to lock players up for 10 years.  But I'm convinced that if teams had their way free agents like Seager and Correa would be getting a 4-6 year contracts not 10 year contracts.  Unless I'm totally wrong about that a player opting out is not much different than what a team would consider the best case scenario before the player signed.

I like the idea of creativity with salaries and opt-outs.  If a team opt-out is a no go, a ^ structure would be interesting.  Opt out after four with a contract that has the max salary in years 5.

 

 

[Aristotelian]

34 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

Unless the contract is front-end loaded to some degree.  The first 4-5 years would average $30+ and the back half after the opt-out clause would be $10-15ish.  Or something along those lines.

That just guarantees the player more dollars up front. Team is still taking all the risk, they just pay for it earlier. If you make early payments on the mortgage it doesn't reduce the cost of your house 

 

[geschinger]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

If the player outperforms, they leave. The deal works out for the team only if they perform roughly as expected.

Not really, if they outperform you've gotten four years of outstanding performance *and* you've eliminated all the risk of years 8, 9 and 10 of that contract.   More times than not that would work out as a win for the team.

[Aristotelian]

5 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not really, if they outperform you've gotten four years of outstanding performance *and* you've eliminated all the risk of years 8, 9 and 10 of that contract.   More times than not that would work out as a win for the team.

If the guaranteed dollars are equal it doesn't matter whether they are paid up front or later. The only benefit would be a psychological comfort of having paid more when the player was more productive. All you do is give the player more incentive to take the opt out.

[geschinger]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

If the guaranteed dollars are equal it doesn't matter whether they are paid up front or later. The only benefit would be a psychological comfort of having paid more when the player was more productive. All you do is give the player more incentive to take the opt out.

You might be replying to something other else than what is quoted in the response?  If not, the guaranteed money isn't equal as when the player opts out he's giving up whatever guaranteed money remains in those years being opted out of. 

[Aristotelian]

15 minutes ago, geschinger said:

You might be replying to something other else than what is quoted in the response?  If not, the guaranteed money isn't equal as when the player opts out he's giving up whatever guaranteed money remains in those years being opted out of. 

I am responding to the notion that frontloading a contract reduces risk to the organization. Say were are looking at $30M for 10 years vs $40M for 5 with player option of $20M for 5. Either way it costs us $300M if the player underperforms. Even though we have paid less for the worst years the cost is the same. 

[geschinger]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I am responding to the notion that frontloading a contract reduces risk to the organization. Say were are looking at $30M for 10 years vs $40M for 5 with player option of $20M for 5. Either way it costs us $300M if the player underperforms. Even though we have paid less for the worst years the cost is the same. 

Ah, ok.  I was confused as it was quoting one of my posts which had nothing to do with frontloading.  

[oriolediehard]

https://clutchpoints.com/orioles-news-carlos-correas-massive-offer-from-baltimore-revealed/

Rumor Mill.  He'd be a star to build on. I don't care about how much money PA has to spend, the O's  need to be bold instead of being so cautious forever.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

6 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

I don't care about how much money PA has to spend, the O's  need to be bold instead of being so cautious forever.

One could argue that Chris Davis, Ubaldo Jimenez, and Alex Cobb were also "bold" moves.

[oriole]

19 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

One could argue that Chris Davis, Ubaldo Jimenez, and Alex Cobb were also "bold" moves.

Bold and stupid can be synonymous with each other. Something I should remind myself as I sit around checking MLBTR every few hours for a signing that I know won’t happen.