NFBC Message Boards

We had an interesting discussion in chat during 'Mikey's Assholes' draft. It centered on long contracts given to players. Specifically, the opt out option for players.
Who was the first idiot General Manager to agree to this?
If the player is an upstanding citizen and will try to earn his money, there is absolutely zero benefit for the team.

It was argued that the opt out option gives a player incentive to perform well leading up to that option.
Isn't that what the millions are for?
Let's take the Giants stupid contract with Johnny Cueto.
It is slightly front loaded for the first two years and Cueto gets an opt out option at that same time.
Win/win for Cueto.
To put it in blunt terms, the Giants are telling Cueto...
"Here's a bunch of money. If you succeed after two years, you can join a team that'll help beat us.
If failing or having Tommy John, we will pay you for four extra years for your dead-weight ass."
Sign me up!

These clubs feel they 'have' to include these clauses to get a player to sign.
PHOOIE!
It's a trap door that needs to be closed.
There are two ways the opt out option can be manipulated to make it more fair for both parties.

Let's take Cueto's contract.
Instead of the opt out option after two years, incentives could be written in.
After two years, if Cueto maintains a 3.00 ERA or has 15 Wins, or throws 190 innings, whatever is agreed upon by the two parties, Cueto makes more money on the backend of his contract.
In this way, Cueto still has incentive, makes more money, AND the Giants retain control of him.

The other option is that Cueto still gets to opt out after two years, BUT the Giants get to opt out after four years.
This is only fair.
Why should the opt out only go one way?
Once upon a time, the 'no-trade' clause was the favored clause for players.
With opt out contracts, the no trade clause is not needed. The player knowing that most other teams would not want to carry the burden of that opt out clause and long contract.

It makes a head swirl to see how far the baseball players union is ahead of the football players union in terms of contracts.
Football players are still looking for guaranteed money.
Baseball players have all guaranteed money and are looking for ways to top themselves when making 20-25 million dollars annualy already.
Each year, player agents come up with something new to make more money.
And teams seem to fall through that trap door that agents open.

Dan there IS a benefit to the team because in almost every case the opt out clause is going to kick in after two or three years, the money paid in the years BEFORE the opt out is LESS than the later years.

Captain Hook wrote:Dan there IS a benefit to the team because in almost every case the opt out clause is going to kick in after two or three years, the money paid in the years BEFORE the opt out is LESS than the later years.

This is why I mentioned the Cueto contract which is front loaded.
A bad precedent.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Dan there IS a benefit to the team because in almost every case the opt out clause is going to kick in after two or three years, the money paid in the years BEFORE the opt out is LESS than the later years.

This is why I mentioned the Cueto contract which is front loaded.
A bad precedent.

Front "loaded" yes, (avg $23M/yr first 2 years, avg $21M/yr last 4 years), but not outrageously so.

It's probably a good deal for SF.
I would rather pay more now when the player is most likely to produce, than 5-6 years from now when he is less likely to produce and could be a bigger drain on team payroll.

The opt-out clause is probably the only way SF could have signed Cueto. And I assume that they felt they need Cueto.
We know he turned down 6yr/$120M from ARZ. The 6yr/$130 from SF is probably worth less when you factor in state taxes.
We also know that Cueto (and all players) want more total guaranteed money than they want short-term higher yearly salaries. He'd rather have 6yr/$130M with a $21.66 avg than he would a 2yr/$60M with a $30M avg.
SF probably couldn't go higher than $23M per season because they are very close to the Luxury Cap Tax. Most teams do not want to go over that.
So if they couldn't offer more per season, and if their $130 is less than Arizona's $120M, the opt-out clause was probably the only thing they could offer that would entice Cueto to sign.

The history on "opt-out" contracts is limited.
It is without doubt a win-win for the players.
It has also generally worked out well for the clubs.
The only real losers have been the teams that signed the players to new contracts after they opted out of the first one, but as I said, the sample size has been small.

I actually have a more philosophical question for you.
You stated that front-loaded contracts are a bad precedent. In your initial post you said "opt-out" contracts are a trap-door that needs to be closed.
Why?

Navel Lint wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Dan there IS a benefit to the team because in almost every case the opt out clause is going to kick in after two or three years, the money paid in the years BEFORE the opt out is LESS than the later years.

This is why I mentioned the Cueto contract which is front loaded.
A bad precedent.

Front "loaded" yes, (avg $23M/yr first 2 years, avg $21M/yr last 4 years), but not outrageously so.

It's probably a good deal for SF.
I would rather pay more now when the player is most likely to produce, than 5-6 years from now when he is less likely to produce and could be a bigger drain on team payroll.

The opt-out clause is probably the only way SF could have signed Cueto. And I assume that they felt they need Cueto.
We know he turned down 6yr/$120M from ARZ. The 6yr/$130 from SF is probably worth less when you factor in state taxes.
We also know that Cueto (and all players) want more total guaranteed money than they want short-term higher yearly salaries. He'd rather have 6yr/$130M with a $21.66 avg than he would a 2yr/$60M with a $30M avg.
SF probably couldn't go higher than $23M per season because they are very close to the Luxury Cap Tax. Most teams do not want to go over that.
So if they couldn't offer more per season, and if their $130 is less than Arizona's $120M, the opt-out clause was probably the only thing they could offer that would entice Cueto to sign.

The history on "opt-out" contracts is limited.
It is without doubt a win-win for the players.
It has also generally worked out well for the clubs.
The only real losers have been the teams that signed the players to new contracts after they opted out of the first one, but as I said, the sample size has been small.

I actually have a more philosophical question for you.
You stated that front-loaded contracts are a bad precedent. In your initial post you said "opt-out" contracts are a trap-door that needs to be closed.
Why?

Russ, you are a very vain man. (At least for the purpose of this analogy)
You live in a corner house and very proud of your Christmas decorations each year.
This year, you want to go all out.
You hire a man, Nick Christmas is his name, who has shown great promise. You've seen Nick work on other houses and would like him to do the same for you.
You offer him a six year contract, $10,000.
He says yes to the six years and $10,000, but he wants $2,000 the first two years and 1,500 the last four years and he wants an opt out option after those first two years.
You don't like the idea, but your vanity over rules your heart.
You agree.
Now, many different things can happen, but let's just see the best and worst case 'Scroogy' scenarios,

Nick Christmas is wonderful!
Russ, your name is in the paper! With pictures of your house!
Thousands of folks are lined up to see your place! Nick Christmas has exceeded all your dreams.
And most of all, your neighbor, the hated Jack Haan, is gnashing his teeth, much to your delight!
For two years, you happily fork over $4,000 to Nick Christmas.
Take that, Jack Haan!
But, In November of the next year, Nick Christmas comes to your stoop.
He tells you that Jack Haan, that no-good neighbor of yours, is offering him $2,000 a month for the next 10 years.
For the next 10 years, you will be looking at everybody else as they marvel at Jack Haan's house and its pretty Christmas scenes.
Soon, you don't even look forward to Christmas...

Nick Christmas is horrible!
Even the disliked Jack Haan who does his own Christmas lights is doing a better job than Nick Christmas!
Why oh why did you give Nick Christmas, a fella who only looked like a guy who would do a great job, this six year contract?
After two years, Nick Christmas comes to your stoop.
He tells you that he will be happy to take the $1,500 for the next four years.
And for the next four years, you look at your house during Christmas and shake your head.
What was I thinking?!
I never thought he would underperform like this!
Soon, you don't even look forward to Christmas...

Parts for the first story were played by Andrew Friedman and Zack Greinke as Nick Christmas

Parts for the second story were played by Brian Sabean and Johnny Cueto as Nick Christmas

Russ and Jack Haan played themselves

Ok.
You've reiterated the fact that these contracts are win-win for the player. Something that I've already stipulated to in my previous post. In fact almost every true free-agent contract is a win for the player. It's a rare case when the player out-plays his free agent deal.

But as you say, a lot of things could happen in an opt-out situation.
A win-win for the player doesn't mean that the club automatically loses.
Since you've identified me as a Christmas light aficionado, lets continue that theme .

Two years ago, I scouted this potentially great Christmas light decorator, Nick Christmas. I really think his service will make my display the best.
Unfortunately for me, Dave Van derStuyf lives across the street and he wants to hire Nick Christmas as well.
Dave offers Nick a 6yr/$10,500 deal. $1,750 per year.
I can't beat $10,500, I only have $10,000.
So I offer my 6yr/$10,000 deal. $2,000 in years 1&2, $1500 per year after that with an opt-out for Nick after two years. I tell him that he gets more up front, and if he is as good as he thinks he is, he will make a lot more money in years 3 through 6. He takes the deal.
Things go great. Nick is an awesome decorator.
In year two, my house wins the Great Christmas Light Fight on ABC and I get this wonderful trophy. I will always be remembered for winning the championship.
But as I knew what could happen, Nick comes to me and says he opting out of the deal.
My other neighbor, Jack Haan, who has a lot more money than me gives Nick a deal that pays him $2000 a month for 10 years.
Sadly though, while working on his first display for Jack, Nick falls off a ladder. It's something that could have happened at any time.
Despite all of Nicks honest best effort to rehab and get back to top decorating skills, he is just never the same as before the accident. Jack Haan never wins a light championship.
Nick does keep getting the money from the contract that him and Jack mutually agreed to.

A win for Nick Christmas.
A win for me. I got Nick's service under market value, and I won a Championship.

And I'm sure there are many other scenarios that we both could come up with. All of them with Nick Christmas coming out a winner and some variation of the different house owners winning and/or losing.

So is this why you are against these contracts? Because Nick always wins?
Should the players that sign these mutually agreed upon deals (in a relatively free market), under no circumstances be allowed to have a win-win situation?
Even if that means that some teams will have their hands tied because they can only get some free agents through "creative" terms when more money is not an option for them.
Is that what you are saying?

Until free agency, the club was in the position players are in now. It seemed they always won. Sure, there were some hold outs.
Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale come to mind most. Only the stars could afford to hold out.
I always rooted for the teams to give in and give the stars the money I thought they deserved.
To me, the owners had too much of an advantage. The players had little leverage. They knew the only way to make money was to sign a contract, even if it wasn't to their liking.
And they did.

Now of course, the tables have turned. The plyers have the upper hand. It seems with each passing year, contracts become more like video game money while players see less and less of the field.
I understand that the owners make much more than these players. They're also running a business. They wouldn't pay what they could not afford.
But as a baseball fan, the players have me rooting against them.

Owners have nobody but themselves to blame. That has been said since George Steinbrenner gave large contracts and other owners tried to compete.
Now, pitchers like David Price are getting paid a million dollars per start.
I know that I can't fault players for making this much money. At the same time, I feel less than good for them.
More so, incredulous, than anything else.

Now players have guaranteed long contracts with an opportunity to dismiss part of the years if performing well.
It galls me.
It galls me that they get such a favorable contract as much as it galls me that owners offer them.
It is approaching the day where a pitcher will not only get a million per start, but more for actually winning that start.
Players are paid to perform at their best.
They get paid even if performing at their worst.
Guaranteed.
And now, if performing at their best, they get to leave their team and if performing at their worst, they stay for a long period of time. I'm not a fan of any team, but it doesn't seem fair to them.

Russ, I know these players have agents that are doing what is best for them.
The agent wants long term contracts for his own security as well as the players.
Agents don't like gambles.
If Daniel Murphy finds a three year contract for 40 million, the agent calls that a win.
If I'm in Murphy's shoes, I'd think I was offered 15.5 million and turned it down.
If I were Murphy, I'd think that I can play just as well over the next three years. And earn 15.5 per season or more.
That's seven more million dollars in his pocket.
But, security rules the day.
Self-confidence pocketed.

I don't think it is a good thing for baseball. I know that you probably disagree, Russ. And I totally understand.
Right and the American way are clearly on your side.
But, I don't have to like it

I don't begrudge any athlete for making as much as they can and I think hometown discounts are for suckers. I have never rooted for any team Darrelle Revis has ever played for, but I've always admired the way he recognized the value of his unique and virtually irreplaceable skill set. He has worked hard to put himself in a position where he never has to undersell himself. Even to the point of risking everything by signing essentially a one year contract when the multi-year deal he wanted wasn't available.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/list/top-50-singers/

Estimated net worth of 50 singers.

Not a single person on this list is capable of turning around a 99 mph fastball.

Adam Sandler makes demonstrably terrible movies. He also made $41 million last year. More than any athlete in any team sport. He wasn't the highest paid actor or singer in 2015, either.

Professional sports is the closest thing we have to a pure meritocracy in the world of entertainment. Unlike actors and unlike singers in most genres, athletes have relatively short careers and they don't get the mailbox money other performers get in the form of royalty checks in their golden years. They can also lose it all to injury at any moment. They also get heckled by fans if they underperform. Actors don't deal with that on set. Go tell Madonna she sucks and see how long before security throws you out.

These guys should get every penny they can, while they can. They should also hire someone to tell that army of cousins with their hands out that there's no such thing as a free ride. People like to smirk at the high bankruptcy rate of former NFL and NBA players, but they don't consider the gravy trains some of these poor guys are dragging. Tyron Smith of the Cowboys is basically estranged from his family because they tried to break him.

I was afraid that get this would get into the ' EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE' thing.
Really, I'm not challenging that.
It must be so hard to be a 10 year old baseball fan.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:I was afraid that get this would get into the ' EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE' thing.
Really, I'm not challenging that.
It must be so hard to be a 10 year old baseball fan.

I don't remember shouting my opinions in capital letters, but if you want to paint someone's comments as hysterical, I guess that's as good a method as any. Just seems like a conversation killer to me.

I think 10 year old baseball fans have it much better than 10 year old me did in 1974, Dan. I was fortunate enough to be living outside Los Angeles, so I did get Dodger games on channel 11, as well as Angel games on channel 5 on a regular basis. If I wanted to see other teams play each other, I had the Saturday Game of the Week and Monday Night Baseball and that's about it.

I mention this even with Times Warner screwing 10 year old baseball fans and everybody else in LA right now, because even with that, they have way more televised baseball games available to them in a given week than I did in 1974. Virtually every game if they cough up the money for Extra Innings. As a 10 year old, I'm not sure I could have swayed mom on that, even by shamelessly trying to pit the old man against her.

I bought this magazine in 1974 for a buck. I read it until it fell to tatters in my hands. I paid 15 bucks for a barely used copy at Bill's Collectible's in Denver last month. It brought back a lot of memories.



I remember being 10 years old and seeing a highlight video on This Week in Baseball right before the 1975 season full of diving catches, low camera angle shots of guys taking extra bases and all the other usual stuff and I got so excited I didn't now what to do with myself. I can still remember that excitement to this day. Because I was starving for baseball and barely getting enough to sustain me. Now, 10 year old baseball fans can get up to date information on every team in MLB, just like we do.

If I were 10 years old today, I wouldn't be gathering exactly enough baseball cards to fill a dozen teams and spreading them out on the table to create different lineups for hours on end. I would be logging onto ESPN and drafting my first fantasy league teams. I wouldn't be going to school in some Dodger's t-shirt I got at a giveaway night with a prominent Farmer John's or Union '76 label on it. I would have forced my parents to clothe me in Reggie Smith and Andre Dawson shirseys by Majestic. I know I had the juice to get that done.

The reason people miss the good old days is because they were young back then. That's the only reason I would go back to 1981; to be able to chase flyballs like 17 year old me again.

I know you weren't shouting, Jim.
This thread has wondered far off course.
It wasn't a good idea for me to start it in retrospect.

DOUGHBOYS wrote: Now of course, the tables have turned. The plyers have the upper hand.

not even close.

Never mind...

DOUGHBOYS wrote:I know you weren't shouting, Jim.
This thread has wondered far off course.
It wasn't a good idea for me to start it in retrospect.

It was obviously intended to be a monologue. Sorry for throwing my one cent in there, Dan.

A similar tactic being used by players and agents is leveraging no trade clauses, not as a way to necessarily control their destination, but more so as a way to renegotiate a deal. If there is a team option on the contract, you better believe it will need to be picked up to agree to a trade. If the current contract is below market value, then throw in some more money.

Given the same money and same contract, I wonder if Brandon Phillips would truly prefer playing for a last place Reds team, or have a chance for the playoffs with a contending Nats team. A deal to move him will likely still take place, but we may get the chance to find out.