Dave Cameron FanGraphs Chat – 12/2/15
| 11:22 |
: So, after a slow start, we have something to talk about. David Price to Boston, Greinke likely choosing beween LA and SF in the next day or two, and of course, the rumored blockbuster of Yonder Alonso to the A’s.
|
| 11:22 |
: With the winter meetings kicking off Monday, let’s get our speculation game on, and try to figure out what is going to happen over the next few weeks.
|
| 11:23 |
: The queue is now open, and we’ll get started around noon.
|
| 11:24 |
: Also, you’ll note that the Jotcast team made a bunch of improvements to the chat software after feedback from you guys last week, so feel free to keep providing more; their responsiveness means that we can hopefully make this a great experience for both chatter and reader.
|
| 11:52 |
: Alright, let’s start a few minutes early, since the queue is already filling up.
|
| 11:52 |
: Thoughts on the M’s dumping Trumbo? Does Aoki provide similar value for (probably) about half the cost?
You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
|
| 11:53 |
: Yeah, I think that’s about right. Both are +1ish WAR players, so the M’s saved $5 million by signing Aoki and giving away Trumbo. A 1B should theoretically be easier to find than an OF as well.
|
| 11:53 |
: Will players ever be open to the idea of an inflated, record-breaking AAV in return for shorter years to avoid that back-end decline? Example: $120 million for 3 years of Price.
|
| 11:55 |
: Ever? Sure, but there’s no real incentive for either side to do this. Long deals are essentially a way for teams to defer present costs interest free, and the time value of money makes it far better for them to do long deals instead of short ones for the same price. And players generally don’t need more cashflow, so moving up their payment schedule usually isn’t worth it.
|
| 11:55 |
: Plus, high AAV/shorter deals would make it harder for a team to build a winning roster around that guy, so he’s probably hurting his own chances of making the postseason.
|
| 11:56 |
: Is signing 29yr old stud pitchers to large 7 year deals with an opt-out after 3, and then letting them walk after 3 years, and then repeating the process with the next 29yr old, not that bad of an idea?
|
| 11:56 |
: You’re assuming the stud pitcher will pitch like a stud and opt-out. It is more likely that Price will struggle and/or get hurt by 2018, and instead the Red Sox will still have him for years 4-7.
|
| 11:57 |
: Am I wrong, as a total third party observer, for actually kind of liking the Aoki signing and Trumbo trade for the M’s? Aoki is probably still a fine outfielder, and the Mariners needed somebody, anybody,to serve as a catcher.
|
| 11:57 |
: Well, Clevenger is nothing, and will just be a veteran backup behind Iannetta to let them send Zunino to AAA. The fact that the Mariners are sending a second player along with Trumbo for a 30 year old with negative career WAR should tell you all you need to know about Trumbo’s trade value.
|
| 11:58 |
: That Alonso “blockbuster”….can you walk us through what the Padres are likely thinking here? Clearing a position for Kemp and/or Myers? The Padres are on a rebuild now…right?
|
| 11:58 |
: Sounds like Myers moving to 1B; they may have non-tendered Alonso anyway.
|
| 11:58 |
: And I doubt they’re going to go full-scale rebuild.
|
| 11:59 |
: If Dustin Pedroia were a FA today, do you think he would top the 6/85 extension the Red Sox signed him to starting in 2016?
|
| 11:59 |
: No question.
|
| 11:59 |
: Apparently, Braves like Jorge Soler, and Cubs like Shelby Miller. How much of a gap is there in value there, in your opinion?
|
| 11:59 |
: It’s a fascinating rumor. I plan to write about it tomorrow, but I think I’d do that if I was the Cubs.
|
| 12:00 |
: Does the Price signing make it all the more likely the Cardinals will retain Jason Heyward?
|
| 12:01 |
: I think so. They reportedly offered something like $180M, so they clearly have that kind of money available. Even if they preferred Price to Heyward, I think they probably see Heyward as the most reasonable alternative to signing Price.
|
| 12:02 |
: With the Jays not signing Price, and their rotation almost set (albeit not flashy), do you think they’ll open the coffers for Chris Davis? He’d be a perfect fit.
|
| 12:03 |
: I don’t think so. I don’t get the sense that they’re going to sign a big FA this winter.
|
| 12:03 |
: Nice job guessing Price’s contract! Where do you think Cueto and Shark are going to land now in terms of years/dollars?
|
| 12:04 |
: I think Cueto turning down 6/$120M shows he’s confident that he can get a seventh year. I’ll stick with my 7/$140M guess, though it might end up as an option with a big buyout or something. Samardzija, I still think $80M, somewhere in there, probably for five years.
|
| 12:05 |
: Where are the Twins going to play Byung Ho Park?
|
| 12:05 |
: DH
|
| 12:05 |
: Would the Giants be the favorites in the NL West if they land Greinke ?
|
| 12:05 |
: No, the Dodgers would just go sign someone else really good — maybe Heyward — with the money they would have given Greinke.
|
| 12:06 |
: Odds that Bryce Harper/Boras manage to get a $500 million deal when he hits free agency?
|
| 12:06 |
: Very likely.
|
| 12:06 |
: When do you think Heyward signs? At the meetings? before? after?
|
| 12:07 |
: After. I think he’s probably looking at a mid-December signing.
|
| 12:07 |
: Are you going to be at the Winter Meetings? What does a baseball writer do there?
|
| 12:07 |
: I am. Mostly, we socialize and wait for stuff to happen. If you’re going to be in Nashville and want to say hi, hit me up on Twitter.
|
| 12:08 |
: Who trades for Cargo? Cleveland?
|
| 12:08 |
: I’ve been saying Anaheim forever, but I don’t know what they have left to trade at this point. But maybe they’ll take Reyes’ deal too and just make it a salary dump.
|
| 12:08 |
: If Jon Lester were a free agent today, do you think he would get more than the 5/125 left on his deal? Does this deal look better after the Price signing?
|
| 12:09 |
: Yeah, I think he’d get something like the 7/$140M I’m projecting for Cueto. I don’t think his signing ever looked bad, and Price deal doesn’t really change that.
|
| 12:09 |
: What is your stance on expansion? Do you think MLB is ready for it? When do you expect it to happen next?
|
| 12:10 |
: I do think that, with the demand for live sports television content, finding the right city in terms of infrastructure is less important than it used to be. A team can be profitable without selling a thousand luxury boxes now. But I still don’t think we see it within next 5 years. Maybe 10.
|
| 12:11 |
: Alright Dave…Miller, Mallex Smith, and Arodys Vizcaino for AJ Pollock. Who says no?
|
| 12:11 |
: The D’Backs
|
| 12:11 |
: You predicted Price to the Red Sox for 7 years and $215 million. He signed with the Red Sox for 7 years and $217 million. You missed by $2 million. What’s wrong with you, Dave?
|
| 12:11 |
: Well, I really missed by more than that, because the opt-out has real value to Price. So I probably missed by more like $20 million.
|
| 12:11 |
: How would you assess James Shield’s trade value, given the 3/66 left on his deal? How much would Padres have to eat to even out the value?
|
| 12:12 |
: I think the trick is his opt-out after next year. You’re basically asking a team to risk $66M for the right to hope for one good year and then the chance to make a qualifying offer next winter. That opt-out makes him very tough to trade.
|
| 12:13 |
: Thoughts on where the Cardinals go for pitching after losing out on David Price?
|
| 12:13 |
: I could see them getting in on a guy like Chen.
|
| 12:14 |
: Some fans are acting like the opt out is somehow good for Boston. Even if he pitches well and opts out, and they are a contender, they will be in a position where they are pressured to resign him and give him more money. Exactly what happened with CC and the Yankees
|
| 12:15 |
: The opt-out is never good for a team. It can be offset by reducing the amount of money the team guarantees — the player is essentially buying a perk at that point, not unlike a regular working stiff who takes a lower salary to get health insurance — but there is no scenario where the opt-out is a good thing for the Red Sox.
|
| 12:16 |
: Gardner + Nova + Refsnyder for Kipnis……who hang up first?
|
| 12:16 |
: Indians have no interest.
|
| 12:16 |
: Does Aoki effectively take the Mariners out of the running for Ozuna?
|
| 12:17 |
: Not necessarily. If they can land another OF, Seth Smith could move to 1B.
|
| 12:17 |
: Would you tender Alvarez a contract if you were the Pirates? He doesn’t seem to have any trade value, (a la Trumbo) but relying solely on Mike Morse to hold down the fort until Josh Bell gets there doesn’t seem ideal either.
|
| 12:17 |
: Alvarez is bad, so I’d non-tender him and look for someone better.
|
| 12:18 |
: Corollary to Meowmix’s question: isn’t an early opt-out arguably better for the Sox? Having the opt-out sooner rather than later reduces the risk that the wider market will reevaluate his value downward, thus increasing the chance that he walks, in which case they get Price for 3/90 while he’s still close to/in his prime.
|
| 12:19 |
: If he opts out of his deal, that means he’s worth more than the remaining 4/$102M left on his deal. And if he’s worth more than what’s left, he’s a positive asset, and if the team wanted to avoid the mid-30s risk, they could trade him for value. Think of it this way; would you think the Mariners should be happy if Felix Hernandez magically was given an opt-out and used it tomorrow?
|
| 12:21 |
: He’s coming off the worst year of his career, his velocity fell last year, and he’s been worked hard in his career. Lots of red flags suggesting there could be a big decline coming. But no one thinks the M’s should want Felix to leave right now, because everyone realizes that they could trade him for some pretty nifty things.
|
| 12:21 |
: If the Cardinals retain Heyward, do you anticipate them trading an OF for pitching? If so, would that be Grchuk, or Piscotty?
|
| 12:21 |
: I would think Piscotty would move to 1B
|
| 12:21 |
: There seems to be zero chatter out there on Kazmir. Is he underrated? What do you see as contract for him?
|
| 12:22 |
: Mid-tier pitchers waiting for top guys to clear the deck.
|
| 12:22 |
: I think I guessed 3/$48M for him.
|
| 12:23 |
: Wouldn’t you much prefer something like Heyward 10/200 (or even 10/220) to Price 7/217? They’re both 5-6 ish WAR players, but Heyward doesn’t pitch for a living and he’s younger.
|
| 12:24 |
: Price’s value is amplified in the postseason, and Heyward’s defense isn’t likely to stay at its current level, so I think it’s close. But yeah, I’d have no problem giving Heyward $220M.
|
| 12:25 |
: It seems like zobrist will get a 4 year deal. Is it possible he could get 5, with the rumored amount of teams interested in him?
|
| 12:25 |
: No, I don’t think anyone is going to go 5. It will be 4 years for $15 to $17M, probably.
|
| 12:26 |
: Does price deal set precedent for what a Harvey, deGrom, syndergaard could get when they become free agents (yes I’m a mets fan). If each of those guys hit FA today, what would each one get?
|
| 12:26 |
: Guys with TJ surgery on their resume will always have to take a discount.
|
| 12:27 |
: Is there a chance that part of the reason the Mariners are trading players like Trumbo is to clear salary room for a big free agent? Or are they just churning the roster as one might expect and trading those guys because they don’t fit Dipoto’s preferred profile
|
| 12:27 |
: Team already has big money on the books for Felix/Cano/Seager. I doubt they’re going to put another big commitment on there.
|
| 12:27 |
: With Zimmermann’s contract coming in under most experts’ estimates, why are so many reasonable commentators (e.g., Passan) holding it up as “with this guy is worth 22m/year, the market’s finally gone crazy”? Haven’t a lot of riskier bets have been made in that AAV ballpark?
|
| 12:28 |
: Yeah, I didn’t get that column at all. Zimmermann is obviously worth $22M per year, no irrationality needed.
|
| 12:28 |
: Even if the Reds decide to embrace a full rebuild, what besides Chapman do they have to deal without having to put money in the deal?
|
| 12:28 |
: Bruce, Frazier.
|
| 12:29 |
: Many fans think Price’s contract is outrageous. How do you explain to them that he’s actually worth around $240M in the simplest way possible?
|
| 12:29 |
: “Would you rather have one David Price or three Jeff Samardzijas?”
|
| 12:30 |
: As a Red Sox fan, I’m concerned that we had to offer Price $30+ mil more than the Cardinals because he wasn’t very excited about the idea of playing in Boston. Is that a legitimate concern or am I overthinking?
|
| 12:30 |
: I think it was probably specific to Price. His negative history with Ortiz, the stigma of black players in Boston, and the fact that STL is closer to his home in Nashville probably made STL a better fit for him if the money was the same, but not every player has those same variables.
|
| 12:31 |
: Can’t fathom the Cubs being willing to give up Soler for what would be their #3 SPer. And Soler signed to an incredibly team friendly contract now at 5/$18M. It would be idiotic to give that upside up.
|
| 12:32 |
: Depends on what you see as a reasonable expectation of his future production. He wasn’t very good last year, and Steamer hates him. If you think the power is only above average instead of elite, then he’s a league average player, and not that hard to replace.
|
| 12:32 |
: If you think he’s a +4 WAR monster in the making, then yes, you keep him. But I don’t think that’s the obvious expectation at this point.
|
| 12:33 |
: If every player were a FA, would average salary go down because of excess supply? Or would that be taken care of by increased demand?
|
| 12:33 |
: The top salaries would come way down, and the bottom salaries would come way up. FAs are paid from the savings of pre-arb and arb eligible players. If you do away with those structures, not as much money left for aging veterans.
|
| 12:34 |
: Last week you said that Pedro Alvarez wasn’t worth a tender, but the next question said that Trumbo would get traded. They’re virtually the same player (besides RH, LH) so why the dislike of Alvarez? I don’t think either are great, BTW.
|
| 12:35 |
: Alvarez can’t catch the ball, shouldn’t play first base. Trumbo is a decent defender at 1B.
|
| 12:35 |
: Have you ever seen an actual major league contract? I wonder if it’s many pages like when you buy a house, medium like when you buy a car, or just a single sheet of paper?
|
| 12:35 |
: Yes, I have. They’re pretty long. Lots of stuff in there.
|
| 12:35 |
: is it possible for a CLUB to have an opt-out clause? Or is that what club option years are for?
|
| 12:35 |
: Yeah, opt-out is just another term for player option. When a team has one, it’s called a team option.
|
| 12:37 |
: If the Mariners were to target a 1B via a trade or free agency, who do you see as some likely candidates?
|
| 12:37 |
: Steve Pearce makes some sense for the Mariners now that they’ve dumped Trumbo and could probably use some RH power to balance out the line-up.
|
| 12:38 |
: Shelby Miller to Sox for Benintendi and Johnson. Who turns this down?
|
| 12:38 |
: Red Sox
|
| 12:38 |
: They love Benintendi
|
| 12:39 |
: If the Dodgers don’t sign Greinke, are they more likely to sign or trade for pitching?
|
| 12:39 |
: I would think trade.
|
| 12:39 |
: Why should I trust fWAR when you openly defy it by voting for Arrieta over Kershaw?
|
| 12:40 |
: It is entirely possible to believe a metric has value without believing that the metric perfectly encapsulates the entire value of player valuation. WAR is great, but it is also flawed.
|
| 12:40 |
: If you need a metric to be perfect before you trust it, you should never trust any number.
|
| 12:41 |
: Because Heyward is 26, you have to think his deal will include an opt-out after 3-5 years. Agree?
|
| 12:41 |
: Yeah, I’d guess after 4.
|
| 12:41 |
: I don’t disagree with your opt-out logic. But its very possible Price could opt out because he believes that one or more of the 30 MLB teams will give him a better deal than 4/125 AND the Red Sox are not one of such teams. In that scenario (not implausible) the Red Sox benefit from the opt out.
|
| 12:42 |
: No, because the Red Sox could just trade Price to that team, who would be happy to have him for less than what they’d have to pay him in FA, and would compensate the Red Sox with talent in order to get him.
|
| 12:42 |
: Has the Dbacks FO suddenly improved or is Pollock for Miller just so obviously lopsided that everyone knows it?
|
| 12:43 |
: I would imagine that everyone in baseball knows that offer is nutso.
|
| 12:43 |
: I feel like there are situations where a team would prefer 3 Jeff Samardzijas.
|
| 12:43 |
: Sure, there definitely are. But Boston isn’t one of them.
|
| 12:43 |
: Cliff Corcoran at SI wrote an article re: the David Price contract, and used a $6.85/WAR figure, supposedly derived from Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS model. Can you explain the difference in the number? I’m pretty sure teams were paying 6-7 / WAR 2-3 offseasons ago…
|
| 12:44 |
: There are a lot of ways to calculate $/WAR, and lots of different assumptions that drive the conclusion. People even have different ideas of replacement level, so if there are more WAR in the world, you’re going to pay less per WAR.
|
| 12:45 |
: Seems as you’ve cooked some on Soler’s outlook. Is that the case?
|
| 12:45 |
: I’m certainly lower on him now than I was a year ago. Which, given his pretty poor 2015 season, is probably appropriate.
|
| 12:46 |
: If Greinke resigns with Dodgers who do you see the Giants going after? Do they get two starting pitchers and a LF like Upton?
|
| 12:46 |
: They seemed to be interested in re-signing Leake when they traded for him.
|
| 12:47 |
: So maybe they go Samardzija/Leake instead of Greinke or something.
|
| 12:47 |
: So we keep hearing about how sluggers don’t age well, defense peaks early, etc. Even plate discipline can fall off if players have to cheat starting their swing earlier due to decreased bat speed. So are there any skills/player types that age well?
|
| 12:47 |
: Athletes. Guys in good physical shape with a broad base of skills age better than anyone else. Think Kenny Lofton.
|
| 12:49 |
: Can Lonnie Chisenhall follow the same career arc as Gordon? Already a parallel with switch from 3B to OF, being top prospect.
|
| 12:49 |
: Bat isn’t anywhere close to as good.
|
| 12:49 |
: While playing with the same defense behind them, Kershaw’s FIP was .14 points better than his ERA while Greinke’s FIP was 1.1 points worse than his ERA. The answer could simply be that they throw different pitches (Kershaw relies more on strikeouts while Greinke plays to contact), but can you explain this?
|
| 12:49 |
: Defensive performance isn’t static.
|
| 12:50 |
: No one thinks teammates who share an offense get the same run support. You shouldn’t think they get the same defensive support either.
|
| 12:50 |
: When a player opts out, can you hang a QO on him? You can with a player option right? So isn’t that a potential difference?
|
| 12:50 |
: Yes, if a player opts out, you can hit him with a QO. Gordon and Greinke this year, for instance.
|
| 12:51 |
: It’s true that, if Price exercises the opt-out, then the Sox probably could have traded him for something of value (I assume they can make him the qualifying offer in that instance, but also assume they could have traded him for something worth more than that). Still and all, if he exercises the opt-out it will mean that he’s pitched quite well so it’s something of a win-win.
|
| 12:52 |
: Again, no. Think of this in non-baseball terms. I’ll sell you my car for $10,000. In three years, if you haven’t wrecked the car or it hasn’t proved to be a lemon, I’m going to repossess it. Are you happy about that?
|
| 12:52 |
: Of course not. At that point, you have a great car, it will cost you more to buy a new one, you could sell it to someone else, but I just take it away from you for nothing. You’re not happy, even though you got three good years out of the car.
|
| 12:53 |
: Why are opt-outs so hard for people to get? Pretty easy concept, though there’s more to it than “team’s are dumb for giving them.”
|
| 12:54 |
: Right. The opt-out can be fine if you offset it by paying the player less. It’s a benefit to the player, but that doesn’t mean that benefit can’t be removed from the AAV of the deal, or by cutting a year off the back-end or something. There are plenty of ways to compensate for including an opt-out to not make any deal including one stupid. But the opt-out itself is never good for the team.
|
| 12:54 |
: How many more elite yrs do you anticipate from Price, and how bad will he be towards the end of the deal?
|
| 12:55 |
: I’d guess another 2 high-level years, then a few above average ones, then some injured time.
|
| 12:55 |
: How much activity do you foresee at the winter meetings next week? Specifically, how likely are teams like the Rox, Reds, and Brewers to make major moves toward a rebuild?
|
| 12:55 |
: I think next week could be bananas. So much stuff still to come, and no one wants to do any of this at Christmas time.
|
| 12:56 |
: I went to Wake, big fan of Sweet Potatoes. Do they still serve their spaghetti with fried chicken in it? The rumors I saw had a proposed Wilson Contreras and Billy McKinney for Shelby Miller; which package would you prefer to give up if you were the Cubs?
|
| 12:56 |
: They just swapped out their spaghetti for a different pasta dish with a sweet potato pesto; it’s what my wife got when we went there, and it was awesome. I don’t think Braves sell Miller that lightly.
|
| 12:57 |
: I’d be happy about it if I had $5000 in payments remaining on the car and the car was about to break down, and there was a market of car-buyers that historically overpayed for similar cars.
|
| 12:57 |
: Seriously? If you had a car that someone would give you $7500 for, and you owed $5K on it, you’d be happy to just have it be taken away from you?
|
| 12:58 |
: Something seems wrong when teams are so happy to pay for dead years at end of a contract. Inflation and the value of a dollar over time I know, but even so, it’s a weird system when they are knowingly writing off such a large chunk of money.
|
| 12:59 |
: Just think of it as deferred money then. The Red Sox are hoping to get five good seasons out of Price, and then deferred $60 million of his cost to reduce their present expenses.
|
| 12:59 |
: What free agent do you think is most likely to linger later into the offseason unsigned
|
| 12:59 |
: Ian Kennedy
|
| 1:00 |
: Alright, off to get some work done this afternoon. Thanks for the chat, everyone.
|
| 1:00 |
: We’ll do a bunch of these next week from Nashville.
|
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I have a billion comments about how jotcast is worse this week. If you don’t put them in the chat I’ll enumerate but this week is BAAADDD compared to last week.
I am giving up on this chat. I’ll finish the transcript. Here were my notes on its being unusable this week.
2013 MBP Retina with 16 gigs of ram, so it’s not like I’m messing around here. Running Chrome on OS X.
Notes:
– Using retro os x gumdrop scrollbars makes it look like the app is just as decade-old as it feels.
– Chome repeatedly told me shockwave flash plugin wasn’t responding
– Don’t like the larger retro iOS style talk bubbles. It was compact and easier to read last week.
– I want a chat app that lets me review/edit/delete my comments from the queue.
– Last week, fan on my laptop was running intermittently. THIS week, it’s running constantly, started within seconds of loading chat, so app is using stupid more CPU. Chrome has already locked up twice between this and the plugin crashing within ten minutes of chat starting. And again, I’m on a beefy MBP / few tabs open.
– Last week I simply didn’t like jotcast based on a few oddities. THIS week, it’s unusable but I’m hanging in there.
– Image upload only takes a youtube link or web link… I can’t actually UPLOAD like the old chat software.
– Hide chat window feature is nice, but the icon is a little unclear, and I want a full screen mode so it’s easier to catch up.
Switched to ipad cuz this is killing my laptop…
– it’s nice that ipad is full screen.
– laptop fan *immediately* stopped spinning after I closed the window. I have SSD and it never really spins since I got SSD except for this chat the last two weeks. I voted “keep looking” last week, and now I’m even more in that camp. I am not at all impressed with the “improvements.” Jotcast can hire me as a consultant if they want, but ugh.
Chat works great here! Win7, Chrome. Much better than CIL.
I wish the chat window were larger, can’t see more than 3-4 responses at a time, but otherwise behaves cleanly and visually nice.
So im not the only one. Everything I had opened on my computer slowed down big-time while the chat was active.
Solidarity!
Hi,
Thank you for reporting this issue. We’re sorry that you are experiencing these issues, and it is surprising to hear as we have not seen this behavior in any of our testing. We will test with Chrome on El Capitan and see if we can reproduce the problem. It would be great if you can shoot us an email to support@jotcast.com in case we need any additional information.
Thank you,
JotCast Support
I thought the chat looked great, had prompt and organized responses, and flowed quite well. What didn’t you like about it?
I see. I had absolutely none of those problems. But I’m not on Chrome. Visually and functionally, I rate it very highly.
It was pretty much a non starter for me today. Last week it worked better.
I didn’t try Safari or ff or anything today. It was actually better on the ipad this week compared to last week fwiw, but on chrome on 10.11 el cap, it was fail.
The chat’s over, but a quick correction on the car hypothetical.
If I have $5000 remaining on the car, and I know it’s worth less than the remaining payments because similar models break down, I’m happy to see it taken off my hands. The person taking it off my hands is overpaying.
That doesn’t mean I would say “no” if someone wants to offer me $7500 for it, on top of everything else.
But you’re one of the few people who overpay for junk, and you’ll probably use that money to overpay for other junk. Likely with Ramirez and Sandoval decals.
Pumpsie Green:
I’ll commend you for posing a problem with the argument as I presented it, instead of just replacing my premises with different premises which McNulty did.
So, fair enough. This only works if Dombrowski, who overpaid for Verlander and Cabrera, doesn’t do that here.
But that’s a comment on Dombrowski. Of course my own example depends on a market full of people like Dombrowski. But the important point is that this re-locates the problem away from a supposed disadvantage of the opt-out and into a new subject: Dombrowski’s irrationality.
He’ll at least be afforded the opportunity to overpay for something else besides David Price, such as a free agent Sonny Gray, or, say, a Xander Bogearts extension or whatever else he wants. Or, perhaps David Price +3 years of information on is bona-fides as a starter.
grumble: That’s clearly not how the opt out works. If your car is worth more than what you have to pay on it, that’s surplus for you, but guess what! The car is going to opt out. You get no surplus.
But if your car turns out to be a piece of junk, you still have to pay it $5000, it’s going to stick around at that price.
Opts outs suck for teams, but it is one form of consideration teams give players.
McNulty:
Except!!! I now get $5000 back that I can reinvest in whatever I want. So I don’t lose the car, I lose the difference between the car and whatever I reinvest that $5k in.
And best of all, I was worried the car wouldn’t be worth the remaining $5k anyway.
“But if your car turns out to be a piece of junk, you still have to pay it $5000, it’s going to stick around at that price.”
Not necessarily. There’s a historical context of buyers who overpay for these things. If anything they are the rule as opposed to the exception. Price… er. the car, can be right to opt out, because there exists a market willing to overpay for pitchers in mid 30s, and simultaneously be bailing out the Red Sox.
Which would you prefer – to give up the car (and its associated $5000 payment) for nothing, or trade (and its monthly payment) it to someone else for a different car you like that will cost less? This is a pretty easy choice.
@Chinatown Express
In the event that someone is actually willing to make me that trade, I thank whatever baseball god is watching over me and accept their offer.
In the event that the only available option is to give up the car and it’s payment, I happily accept that as well, being freed from the worry it is not worth the impending payment.
In either event I am not inconvenienced by the impending loss of the car.
“In the event that someone is actually willing to make me that trade”
This is exactly the point – you cannot get rid of the car and the $5000 payment except in the event someone is actually willing to make you that trade.
indyralph:
I think you may be conflating the question of whether there’s a buyer for Price via free agency with the question of whether there’s a buyer for Price via trade prior to free agency. As Jon explains below, there may be idiosyncratic reasons why there is one but not the other.
I was already putting forward an argument that there exists a market willing to take “the car” aka Price. In the event that Price exercises the opt-out, he will only be doing it because that market most definitely exists.
The question of whether there’s an opportunity to trade him in advance of the opt out is just a question of whether there’s an even greater benefit above and beyond being freed from the remaining commitment to Price. If there’s no opportunity to trade (and there may not be for the reasons Jon stated below), then you shrug and wait for the opt out.
I don’t know why more people don’t see it your way grumble.
if Price sucks, the Red Sox pay him 7 years and 217, rather than les’t say 7 years and 235. They save some money in the worst case scenario.
if Price is really good, Price will opt out and the Red Sox will lose some surplus value for years 4-7. But they will have saved some money on years 1-3 (when Price will probably have been at his best)and get a draft pick. In this sense, it’s creating value, which is why you see these more and more. Price is willing to give up some pay for (1) the chance to voluntarily relocate in 3 years (2) the chance that he performs very well.
McNulty: I agree but with a quibble. The Sox may lose surplus value, or they may gain, due to the market’s historical and systematical tendency to pay elite players for their post-prime years.
All that’s required for the Sox to benefit from the exercise of the opt out is (1) Price continues to pitch well in the short term, (2) Price correctly judges the market will pay him more than what remains on his contract, (3) Price proceeds, from age 33 onward, to not pitch to the value of the contract he is given.
I find these all to be most likely scenarios. Doesn’t mean they’ll come to pass. But too many of the “opt outs are never good for teams!” arguments are curiously devoid of any attempt to account for most likely scenarios in how markets value pitchers and how pitchers age, both of which produce beneficial outcomes to the Sox.
Grumble: ask Dombrowski if he loved the idea of including an opt-out. He is a smart businessman; he will almost assuredly say he would rather not. Now, he may be in your shoes and twist it to look like it’s to his advantage, but probably not. Simply the cost of doing business, he’ll likely say. But who knows – even smart people will find a way to justify it when they get into hare-brained schemes. Or cults. Or Red Sox fandom.
@Pumpsie Green
Could you describe specifically what I “twisted” and exactly it is you dispute, instead of coyly alluding to it?
And maybe dispense with personal attacks in future comments?
Greinke is precisely at Step 2 in your scenario. The Dodgers would rather be bidding against the Giants right now, or they would rather he did not have an opt-out? Where, exactly, is the benefit to the Dodgers? If they want to walk away from Greinke, sign Upton and Heyward, and re-make their team into something different, I guess? If they lose out to the Giants I’m sure they will soldier on without Greinke, but I’m also positive they would rather have had Greinke at that price. They could have traded him for plenty, and then gone out and signed Upton and Heyward on top of that.
Let’s look at the teams that have given massive contracts with opt-outs: Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox (Sabathia, Tanaka, Rodriquez; Greinke; Price). Teams with money, teams that can absorb worst-case scenarios. The A’s, Rays and Pirates won’t be including them unless forced into it. Players are asking for them, and only the biggest teams can afford to give them. But even they would rather not. It’s not like we’ve stumbled upon the new market efficiency here. Stop trying to put lipstick on this pig! The Red Sox know it’s a pig, they’ve accepted it as their pig, and they’re quite happy with their pig. Pigs are lovable!
I’m not sure this is the kind of question that is going to be confirmed or disconfirmed with one off examples. You bring up Grienke, I bring up CC Sabathia. (CC used his impending opt-out as leverage to secure an extension.)
The fact that a player is worth more to the market at the time of his opt-out doesn’t necessarily mean he’s worth it to his present team. An option can be mutually beneficial in that it secures a player more money and frees resources that, after 3 years of changing circumstances, can more effectively apply those resources elsewhere. And whether it is or isn’t beneficial in a particular case is going to depend on circumstances.
As far as Red Sox circumstances are concerned, the most likely scenarios converge on an outcome where the Sox have a chance to get his best years, and mitigate the risk of being stuck overpaying for seasons in his mid-30s.
Quick correction: just like the biggest teams can afford to take advantage of the qualifying offer system, the biggest teams are poised to take advantage of opt-outs in contracts, your self-congratulatory rhetoric notwithstanding.
And on top of not having to pay the remaining yrs of the contract (which can be re-directed somewhere else) you can also get a draft pick.
Why is surplus value so difficult for you to grasp? If you want a very specific example look at Greinke. The Dodgers win in no way whatsoever by him opting out. Had he not left, LA could have traded him this offseason for MUCH more than a draft pick. Instead, they are forced to make a very tough decision that the player wins in 100% of the time.
Your logic (and Dave Cameron’s) about trading the player is inherently flawed. The assertion that the Red Sox could simply trade Price after 3 good years is completely specious. Has a perennial win-now team ever traded their ace in his prime in the middle of a huge contract to which he has lived up? That’s the kind of fantasy analysis that ultimately dooms many FanGraphs writers (and readers). DC gave the example of “Would the Mariners be smart to let Felix go this year?” Perhaps not but it would be a huge shock if they traded him. It’s simply not realistic to use that as a basis for your argument — especially in an age where star players routinely negotiate no-trade clauses into their contracts.
In addition, what many seem to be ignoring is Red Sox ownership’s stated aversion to awarding long contracts to aging pitchers. If Price opts out of his age 33-36 seasons, those are exactly the years that make John Henry and Co., most queasy. Let’s say two weeks ago that your buddy said he wanted his favorite team to sign Price to a 3-year, $90m contract. You’d say “there’s no way on God’s green earth that he goes for that.” Obviously that’s not the whole story, as there’s also a big insurance policy tacked onto the end in case he falters or gets injured. The Red Sox are betting, based on Price’s history and mechanics, that he is a low-risk for those outcomes, making the 3-yr, $90m outcome eminently likely.
It’s also worth noting that it’s not only the richest teams that incorporate player options into stars’ contracts: the Marlins also included a player option in the mammoth Giancarlo Stanton deal. Many analysts responded by saying “Well, it’s not really a $300m deal, it’s more like a $120m deal b/c Stanton will surely opt out.” (I’m ballparking the numbers, obviously, but you get the point.) Whether it’s smart or not for the Marlins to assume that kind of risk in the event of an injury (to an oft-injured player) is beside the point. They did it and many have made the argument that they did it in order to lock him up for the short term with an added insurance policy for the player for the long term. Same thing here one year later.
Well, there you are. I just read DC’s full column exploring this issue and he made most of the same points I just made. Nice to see that he’s willing to re-examine his (disappointingly frequent) black-and-white statements and find the holes in them.
So, the opt-out gives the player extra value which isn’t captured in the AAV of the contract? Basically, just a way to get around the salary cap, then?
What salary cap? Wrong sport.
To follow up on the car analogy:
The initial purchase price (in Dave’s example $10,000) causes the disconnect. If Dave sold you the car for $10,000 with an option to buy it back in three years for $5,000, the car on day one would be worth more than $10,000. He would have to sell the car for less than it was actually worth to have the ability, the option, to repurchase the car at a discounted rate later on. In David Price terms, he accepted $215 million over 7 years when he was probably worth $10-$15 million more than that. The present value of the money he left on the table is what the price of the option was worth to both parties. Price was willing to give up $15 million over seven years to have the right (not the obligation) to re-enter the free agent market in 3 years time.
Was there anything (other than Commissioner saying it’s in the best interest of baseball) stopping the Red Sox from paying Price the following amounts: 40, 40, 40, 1, 1, 1, 1 with an opt out after year 3? luxury tax threshold would be just ~18M when the team is in contention (and for the later years as well, but the team might have that space by then)
If that were to happen:
a) The BoSox lose out on the time value of their money
b) Price opts out in nearly every conceivable scenario, assuming he’s still capable of pitching a baseball
c) What’s the benefit for Price anyway? It’s only a $120M/3 contract, really, and he’s got other better offers for larger guaranteed amounts
d) There’s got to be some sort of accelerated luxuty tax hit that would occur in the opt-out case.
make the first three values whatever you want to make (c) work.
but wrt (A): let’s assume this is the break even point amount between a 3 year high AAS amount and a 7 year contract.
(b): that’s the point
(d): this is the question
This is a terrible idea for a company. No one wants to pay more up front and lose out on the time value of money. Also, ya, he just automatically opts out at that point, right? The option, like any option, has value. Price decided to pay that value, and the Sox decided to take on the downside risk. I don’t even understand the question, really?
If he opted out after 3/120, the luxury tax figure would be retroactively calculated for those 3 years at $40m per, and the team would be assessed any luxury tax payments resulting.
can a team then keep a player on their payroll at the minimum instead of the player retiring? What if the Angels added 5 years at the minimum to Pujols’ deal. Could save more in luxury tax penalties than the minimum salaries cost. It wouldn’t be an opt out. Rather it would just be a release.
Even if that was the case, baseball teams surely have some kind of yearly operating budget that would preclude them from paying one player such a huge amount of money while still being able to field a full roster, despite it maybe saving some money in luxury taxes.
Also you would be eating a roster spot, of which you have a finite number.
For starters, the 100 million dollars Price would be leaving on the table.
make it whatever amount you wish. There is an amount where Price would take 3 years over 7 years. Whatever you think that is, insert in the example.
The analogies and discussion of the opt out is getting a bit nauseating but I don’t want something to go unsaid.
Certainly, if Price opts out, it’s because there’s a market for his services that may or may not include the Red Sox. In theory, if he had positive value, the Red Sox could trade him to one of those other teams interested in picking up the back end of his deal, no doubt.
The problem is that the market doesn’t work that perfectly. There are relatively few teams that can absorb a $32M pitcher and it’s possible that they are undesirable trade partners (division rivals, poor relationship between front offices, etc). If there is a trade partner, there’s no guarantee that the available return is greater than the value of a qualifying offer. There’s also a chance teams would be less than excited to acquire an asset at full price that’s only being dealt because of the risk he’s about to decline. If he opted out, it’s likely more teams would get involved at a sub-32M AAV in exchange for years. Perhaps he’d take 6/150 rather than 4/128.
I tend to think along the same lines as Dave on this — that the opt out is obviously player friendly — but the argument that there is no conceivable benefit to the team is a little too black and white for me. They definitely won’t be able to acquire a package of players from an interested trade partner this way(versus “might have been able, otherwise) but I’m sure the Red Sox would get over the grief of being out from under pricy decline years and their newfound payroll flexibility and draft pick quickly enough.
To all those twisting in the wind trying to spin an opt-out as good for a team: Please stop making yourself look foolish.
All your scenarios boil down to this: It’s great for the Sox if Price opts out and then sucks after signing a new contract. In that case, the Sox aren’t stuck with the dead money.
But that’s it. That’s the only way the Sox benefit: If Price pitches well enough to opt out, and then sucks once he does.
That is all.
However, that is the entire proposed structure of contracts. The team gets positive value for the first few years in exchange for paying for negative value in the latter half. So what you are describing is not extraordinarily rare.
And of course, I agree its a player-friendly thing. The player ALWAYS wins because of the opt-out. But that doesn’t mean the team always loses. The team may also end up winning, and another team loses huge.
The “only way” the Sox benefit, is a benefit that is created by the opt-out, that would’t exist if not for the opt out. It’s inclusion creates the best-case scenario.
Furthermore the thing you are characterizing as the “only way” the Sox benefit, happens to characterize the most likely, or at least highly likely scenario (it’s possible that Price breaks down within three years, there’s an argument to be made there, at least).
If Price sucks, well, the Sox are stuck with him for 7 years, but that’s a comment on the underlying contract itself, not on a difference that’s made by the opt-out.
But people are generalizing based on normal age/decline assumptions and that the final 4 yrs of the deal at full retail price will cover years that Price will more than likely decline in effectiveness. And if he decides to opt out to chase a bigger deal, it’s no stretch to see the Sox come out ahead for getting out of the last 4 yrs. Plus they could also come out with a draft pick after the opt-out.
The argument made in the chat was, if another team thinks there is MORE value in the player then what remains on his contract, then it would be more beneficial to the team to just trade him to that team instead of lose him to the team via the opt out. That is true with caveats
#1) The surplus value the team could trade him for would have to exceed a first round draft pick
#2) The team would have to actually find that team and work out a trade. Human nature means this is not necessarily easy because, like I mentioned in another comment, a GM is more likely to spend to win an auction and be more cautious when taking on another team’s “unwanted” player. I think this is the part people are underestimating.
All your scenarios boil down to this: It’s great for the Sox if Price opts out and then sucks after signing a new contract.
This is just a lie. That is all.
If Price opts out and then sucks after signing a new contract, that’s not really a benefit of the opt-out for the Red Sox. “Benefit: is the wrong word to use in this scenario.
There is literally only one way that the Red Sox could potentially “benefit” by the opt-out, and that’s if Price opts out, but he and his agent misjudged the market, and he’s forced to come crawling back and sign for less. Grumbleshoes, I appreciate your effort in this discussion, but I think it’s over, bud.
Also, that scenario would have to assume that he’d be crawling back to the Red Sox, and not some other team.
The opt out confusion is because people always view the idea of a contract being the team gets great value for a few years in exchange for getting bad value for the ending few years. So by that logic, an opt out should allow teams to get the good years and rid themselves of the bad ones.
I think there is a sliver of cases where the opt out will help the team slightly. In the case where the player opts out, thinks he can find a bidder for a long term deal worth more than he probably will actually be worth and finds that bidder. yes, the original team could have just traded the player to that team (although human nature says that may be not be trivial. Its easier to rationalize winning an auction then getting another competitors “unwanted” items). But even if such a trade were as easy to make as the other team signing the player, then the assets coming back would still have to exceed that of a first round draft pick which may not be the case.
I agree overall its a player perk but the case can be made the other way in certain scenarios because not every GM is perfectly rational.
It’s puzzling to me that so many posters have referred to the “bundle of prospects” a hypothetical competitor would be willing to surrender for the right to pay Price for the “back-end of his deal,” should he perform well in the first few years of his contract. As mentioned previously, not many teams can afford to pay a guy top dollar ($32 million) AND surrender the prospects necessary to pry that player away from his team. Furthermore, which teams would be willing to pay a ransom for a player knowing, if the player pitches well, his contract is tantamount to a short-term rental (because of the looming opt-out)? In fact, the only way the player wouldn’t exercise his opt-out, post-trade, would be due to injury or poor performance, leaving the acquiring team with a rapidly declining pitcher making top-dollar for the remainder of his deal. In this scenario, some value exists for the team shopping the pitcher, but not nearly as much as has been assumed.
What is so hard to get about the opt out? The only positive is that ever so slight discount he took in order to get it. The only possible, hypothetical scenario where him actually opting out could be considered a benefit requires a rare human exercise in not being greedy. This hypothetical would require Price to suck before the the available opt out date, then opt out anyway. Even then, it would have been bad for them because it would mean he under performed in the years he was expected to provide surplus value, but at least he walks away without making them pay the rest. Him opting out is only good if he sucks ahead of the opt out, but decides he has enough money already, and hates Boston enough to let them off the hook for the rest.
The only possible, hypothetical, way Price actually opting out of the contract could be considered being good for the team would require an extraordinary, almost un-human like act of not being greedy on the level I’ve only seen from Gil Meche, and that scenario is if Price sucks before the available opt out date, but then decides he hates Boston enough to opt anyway. Of course that would mean the contract sucked anyway because he drastically under performed in the years he would have been expected to provide surplus value, but least he would have let them off the hook for the final 4.
Computer bugged out, didnt realize the other comment posted.
Zero chance Alonso would have been non-tendered today.
And why on earth do you believe it’s very likely someone signs for 500 M$ when we’ve yet to even see 300 M$?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/marlins-giancarlo-stanton-agree-to-13-year-325mm-contract.html
Alternate from the car example presented above.
The reality is that Price is valued at $217 Million over seven years of payments. If you were most interested in Price for the first three years when in his prime, you may be willing to pay $120 million for those first three years, while you would only be willing to pay $97 Million for the last four.
In order to allow price an opt out, the price has allowed the contract to be backloaded, and no longer guaranteed due to the player option/opt out.
So, for the first three years, you have paid $90 Million for $120 Million asset. You now have $30 Million of excess value at the end of three years, compared to what it would have cost you on a 3 year deal (rough estimate). At this point, Price opts out and could command a new four year contract for $150 Million, implying he would have had $23 Million of excess value to be traded at that point. Even though you have forgone this excess value, you are still ahead because you would have paid more for the first three years on a stand alone basis.
If the assumption is that the annual values of the contract are identical, whether there is an opt out or not, there is no real value to the team. On the other hand, if the contract is back loaded to after the opt out would occur, there is some value. This must be weighted against the likelihood the value of the pitcher diminishes and can’t exceed the “option” value in free agency. Price is likely less valuable in this regard, but a contract like Giancarlo Stanton’s is much more back loaded which offers both more risk he doesn’t opt out and benefit from paying substantially below market rates pre opt out.
In principle, I would agree that the nature of opt outs are very heavily weighted to the player, but I do see the possibility of value add if the opt out is designed to push enough money behind the opt out.