MLB 2018-19 Offseason Thread

That's still the same as saying "Who cares if my payout at the blackjack table is halved. If I win, I'm still ahead! And if I lose, I was gonna lose anyway."

 

It would be delicious if the Phillies miss out on Harper too. Though they could just wait for Trout to be an UFA.

 

It's really not at all. That analogy makes zero sense.

 

Trout seems like the kind of guy who would take less money to avoid Philly than take extra money to play there.

 

Why?

 

I know Trout grew up near there and is a big Eagles fan. Don't know, but it would make sense if he liked the Phillies as well.

 

Yes, it does. Fans are always trying to handwave away the problems with opt-outs with your logic, and it's always flawed.

When you sign a player to a guaranteed contract, you are taking a risk and gaining a chance at reward. The reward is that he outplays his contract, the risk is that you are stuck with him if he doesn't.

When you give the player the option to opt-out, you are cutting the reward you have a chance at significantly, but the risk remains the same. Exactly if you were risking the same bet in blackjack but the payoff was cut in half.

Opt-outs are really, really bad for the team.

 

Except for the fact that a 10-year contract is all but guaranteed to have diminishing returns over the final three or four years. No club signs a player to a 10-year deal expecting him produce at the same level in the final three seasons as he did in the first three.

If you can get five years of strong production from a player at a cost you are comfortable with and then he opts out, you let him walk and you thank him for his service. You've reaped all the benefits you hoped for during that period, and when he walks away to another team, your fans blame the player.

Now, ideally, the team would have the option, obviously. But the choice isn't really between team option or player option. It's between player option and 10 years fully guaranteed. San Diego is happy to give him the opt out.

The blackjack analogy makes no sense. You should stop.

 

Put it this way — every team that gives a player an opt-out clause hopes he exercises it. If he doesn't exercise it, it probably means they're fucked.

 

*shrug*

This isn’t an argument. This is empirical game theory that I’m trying to explain.

 

I understand game theory. It simply doesn't apply in any meaningful way to a 10-year, $300M MLB contract. The cards' performance normalizes and doesn't really change over a large enough sample size. The players' performance will absolutely diminish over a large enough sample size.

 

A player can't outplay this kind of contract. At best, Machado might live up to it. That's why the opt-out is great for a team in this situation.

There's almost no upside to the player playing out all 10 years in the same uniform. It's nearly guaranteed that the last few years of this type of contract will see diminishing returns. Given that, it's best for the team if he plays great for five years and then opts out.

When you consider the Padres' history of limited finances, it seem obvious they hope they won't be hamstrung by the last two, three or four years of this deal.

And, again, this is a Boras client. He is going to opt out. The Padres aren't going to be surprised when this happens. They are counting on it.