|
|
Post by bettsonmookie on Nov 27, 2024 16:58:27 GMT -5
I understand that opt outs are not meant to be good for teams but in the case of potential 15 year contract would it really be that bad if the sox game him one and he balled out till he was 31 and then left before his prime ended? Exactly. Soto cashing out on market value one last time and the Sox getting out from under the back end of a mammoth contract can be a win win, particularly if the Sox have ascending kids to fill the gap. |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 27, 2024 16:59:22 GMT -5
So. The Yankees are being used as leverage right? Thats how these “reports” work.
|
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 27, 2024 17:01:50 GMT -5
Guys he only opts out when you don't want him to. When he develops a long term back issue he stays for the whole 15 and it's a disaster.
You either win a little or lose a lot.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,951 
Member is Online
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 17:05:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 27, 2024 17:05:43 GMT -5
Guys he only opts out when you don't want him to. When he develops a long term back issue he stays for the whole 15 and it's a disaster. You either win a little or lose a lot. I do get that but if his defense continues to get worse and his bat takes a slight drop but he wants to opt out at 31 then that would be a plus for the Sox. Or in a scenario where he doesn't have an opt out he just keeps playing foe the sox and getting worse. I fully understand that in most scenarios the opt out is a plus for player and not team but frankly I don't see a 15 year contract as most scenarios. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 27, 2024 17:06:22 GMT -5
This is what I am thinking too Ha I'm glad I'm not the only one. I really do understand that opt outs aren't usually beneficial for teams but generally contracts don't go 15 years. They aren't good for the teams, but since they have value for the player they presumably keep the overall cost of the contract down. I.e., the player is exchanging guaranteed money in order to get the opt out. |
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,951
Member is Online
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 17:08:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 27, 2024 17:08:41 GMT -5
Ha I'm glad I'm not the only one. I really do understand that opt outs aren't usually beneficial for teams but generally contracts don't go 15 years. They aren't good for the teams, but since they have value for the player they presumably keep the overall cost of the contract down. I.e., the player is exchanging guaranteed money in order to get the opt out. See my comment above for final thought. I understand both avenues but I don't think I'm out of line thinking it'd be a plus to offer an opt out. |
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 3,070
|
Post by asm18 on Nov 27, 2024 17:09:28 GMT -5
What is an opt-out “worth” in terms of dollars and cents? Like if Soto likes 13/620 with multiple opts out, what dollar amount do you have to hit in terms of a straight line deal for it to be worth his while The way I look at it is to just look at the contract as being for the pre-opt out years. Then make a wild ass guess at how much negative value the player option has - % he takes it times how bad is it when he does. So let's say it's 6/300 with a 7/300 player option. He opts in 50% of the time and is worth $150 million on average when he does - that's negative $75 million of value to the team. So it's basically a 6/375 deal. What’s crazy is at face value at 6/375 (62 AAV)… Soto might actually still be worth it if he just keeps putting up 6 to 8 WAR seasons for that stretch. But man that is that still quite an ask. Not sure if teams are in a position to say no though |
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Nov 27, 2024 17:10:13 GMT -5
Guys he only opts out when you don't want him to. When he develops a long term back issue he stays for the whole 15 and it's a disaster. You either win a little or lose a lot. Yeah I think for a team obviously you’d prefer to not have those opt-outs, but I’d rather have Soto for 5 years because I was willing to give him the opt outs and lose him early when he’s raking than not get him at all because someone else is willing to give him those opt outs. To me it can never be an outright disaster because you either get a player who lives up to his contract and opts out, meaning you get good production on a short contract, or he’s not worth the contract and the result is the same as if he never had the opt outs in the first place. Again I understand it’s not the optimal scenario but I don’t see it as a huge deal. I guess put another way it’s about how you frame it. Having opt outs is worse than not having them for a team sure, but it’s better than not signing the player to the deal at all. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Nov 27, 2024 17:12:24 GMT -5
Ha I'm glad I'm not the only one. I really do understand that opt outs aren't usually beneficial for teams but generally contracts don't go 15 years. They aren't good for the teams, but since they have value for the player they presumably keep the overall cost of the contract down. I.e., the player is exchanging guaranteed money in order to get the opt out. I think historically these opt outs have worked out great for the players because of a principle-agent problem. If the GM negotiates the deal he likes the opt out because the scenario where the player sucks and wants to opt in is one where the GM is fired anyway so who cares. But in this case the owners will be involved and not asleep at the wheel and you would think these things will all be priced fairly appropriately. |
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,951
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Nov 27, 2024 17:17:41 GMT -5
I'm silly but gimme Juan Soto for the next 5 years then he can opt out and go elsewhere if everything goes well.
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 3,070
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 17:27:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by asm18 on Nov 27, 2024 17:27:44 GMT -5
Is there a way to get weird and defer a bunch of the money for years occurring after the opt out that Soto would be intent on using and thus would never see or is that too much math for today
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Nov 27, 2024 17:31:50 GMT -5
They aren't good for the teams, but since they have value for the player they presumably keep the overall cost of the contract down. I.e., the player is exchanging guaranteed money in order to get the opt out. I think historically these opt outs have worked out great for the players because of a principle-agent problem. If the GM negotiates the deal he likes the opt out because the scenario where the player sucks and wants to opt in is one where the GM is fired anyway so who cares. But in this case the owners will be involved and not asleep at the wheel and you would think these things will all be priced fairly appropriately. Hmm, good point. I could also see there being a psychological bias that would prevent this from being a 100% rational negotiation. Like I can imagine a team getting close to the maximum they'd be willing to spend and then Boras comes back with "and just one more teensy weensy widdle thing, an opt out after year 5," and the team being like "all right fine let's just get this over with already, what could one opt out cost, Michael, $10, etc. etc." Even if the value of that concession is a lot bigger than they would have been willing to concede in straight AAV terms.
Also there could be just a generic positive outcome bias that leads a team to underprice the cost of the opt out.
But *in theory* opt outs are only "bad for teams" in the sense that adding salary is "bad for teams"; it's just part of the overall package they're giving a player (and of course they'd like it to be as small as possible).
|
|
|
|
Post by curll on Nov 27, 2024 17:36:46 GMT -5
Hey, we can write legislation and petition to introduce it to the State House. What if we, for starters, destroy the Chelsea to Logan bridge and replace that area with something functional and call it the Juan Soto Improvement District and Juan Soto Super Bridge/Juan Soto Mega Tunnel. We can get Juan Soto a no-show construction management contract and pilfer Federal funds to some off-shores and financial products. Boom, a trillion dollars.
|
|
|
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 17:50:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sxfan on Nov 27, 2024 17:50:02 GMT -5
Pepen breaks the Soto news and “Seguimos, Positivo y OK” becomes the new state motto of Massachusetts I would rather sing Sweet Caroline. |
|
|
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 17:52:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by itinerantherb on Nov 27, 2024 17:52:07 GMT -5
Hey, we can write legislation and petition to introduce it to the State House. What if we, for starters, destroy the Chelsea to Logan bridge and replace that area with something functional and call it the Juan Soto Improvement District and Juan Soto Super Bridge/Juan Soto Mega Tunnel. We can get Juan Soto a no-show construction management contract and pilfer Federal funds to some off-shores and financial products. Boom, a trillion dollars. They're categorically good for players. The only exception would be if the player opts out and then can't match the rest of the contract in the open market. Has that ever happened? A particular opt-out may or may not be good for the team, depending how the player performs in the post opt-out. I wonder if Soto would be interested in a moderately front-loaded contract with an opt-out after the 5th or 6th year. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,837
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 27, 2024 17:56:41 GMT -5
Guys he only opts out when you don't want him to. When he develops a long term back issue he stays for the whole 15 and it's a disaster. You either win a little or lose a lot. Or he develops his career changing back issue shortly after he opts out and it's a dodged bullet. |
|
|
|
Juan Soto
Nov 27, 2024 18:13:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by scottysmalls on Nov 27, 2024 18:13:10 GMT -5
There is no scenario other than pure luck where the opt out benefits the team. Without an opt out, if Soto would opt out and the Red Sox didn’t want to keep him they could trade him and get a positive return.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 27, 2024 18:29:42 GMT -5
From Heyman. Really don't like the sound of opt outs in a 15 year deal.
“The Yankees recently staged calls with star free agent starters Corbin Burnes and Max Fried, along with several other top available players, but remain almost solely focused on Soto and have not made offers to the pitchers, who might merely be part of the Yankees’ Plan B in case Soto goes to the Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Blue Jays or perhaps an unknown mystery team” I think heyman should be legally required to disclose when Boras ghost writes articles on his behalf |
|
|
|
Post by curll on Nov 27, 2024 19:32:48 GMT -5
Hey. Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwin's Curve on Nov 27, 2024 20:02:20 GMT -5
From Heyman. Really don't like the sound of opt outs in a 15 year deal.
“The Yankees recently staged calls with star free agent starters Corbin Burnes and Max Fried, along with several other top available players, but remain almost solely focused on Soto and have not made offers to the pitchers, who might merely be part of the Yankees’ Plan B in case Soto goes to the Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Blue Jays or perhaps an unknown mystery team” I think heyman should be legally required to disclose when Boras ghost writes articles on his behalf To my ear, "staged calls" sounds like they're making it up. |
|
