Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 11, 2017

Derek Jeter’s defense of Giancarlo Stanton trade was weak | SI.com

Jeter hasn’t gotten a lot of criticism during his MLB career. We’ll see how well he reacts when/if his plan goes awry.

Jim Furtado Posted: December 11, 2017 at 07:40 PM | 50 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: derek jeter

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. ptodd Posted: December 11, 2017 at 08:12 PM (#5590495)
Here is my theory. Bit wild I admit. Jeter wanted to establish a baseline to justify the deal to NY was comparable so he arranged deals with 2 teams he knew Stanton would reject as teams not on his list, knowing he would take some heat. Hard to see the team that let Pujols walk doing that deal. Giants GM is a former Yankee. Both teams benefit by showing the fan base they are trying. Good PR.

MLB has always wanted a strong team in NY. The first AL President used to strong arm teams to give good players to NY for 10 cents on the dollar as it was in the leagues interests. Since Manfred took over a couple of sweetheart deals for the Yankees in Didi , Castro and Chapman, posting rules suddenly change in their favor for Tanaka, Arods suspension was a gift, etc

Funny how the breakup of the Marlins by a new owner takes you back to the Orioles when the Giants raided the Orioles and got them to move to NY (and become the team we know as the Yankees) as the ALPresident had been pushing for at least a year. Do you think MLB approving an ownership group who cant afford to operate a competitive team in Miami is a prelude to a move elsewhere? Miami fans have to be done with that team now. Maybe thats the point. What better way to end a marriage than a sucker punch (not recommending this)

Also Jeters people told Stantons agent that Boston was not interested. DD said he had talks with Miami and that this was not so (tampering rules prevented direct contact) but that Miami asked for the moon and never came back to see if a better deal could be obtained even after he called while they were talking to NY. Did Jeter really try and get the best deal ? Maybe the worst deal is best for their plans.
   2. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 11, 2017 at 08:24 PM (#5590497)
The last thing I want to do is defend Jeter, but I don't know where people are coming from in terms of the actual return on the trade. Castro plus 2 prospects (one of whom might be something special, albeit years from now) is about as good as they could have hoped for if all they were picking up was $30M (in the event that Stanton doesn't opt out).

Jeter and the Marlins deserve a lot of criticism about their process and for being undercapitalized. But in the end, they got a decent deal for Stanton all things considered. And the Gordon trade wasn't a train wreck either.

Now if they dump Yelich or Ozuna for peanuts, then there's something to complain about.
   3. JJ1986 Posted: December 11, 2017 at 08:34 PM (#5590499)
Maybe Jeter would want to help the Yankees, but why would Bruce Sherman put up his money to be a part of the conspiracy?
   4. LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 11, 2017 at 09:54 PM (#5590511)
Castro plus 2 prospects... is about as good as they could have hoped
... since they destroyed Stanton's trade value by making it clear they were going to trade him come hell or high water.
   5. QLE Posted: December 11, 2017 at 09:57 PM (#5590513)
Then there's another major hole in it:

Marlins Park is only five years old at this point- if the Marlins were to run out on that stadium, it could deeply harm the ability to MLB to get people anywhere to agree to publicly finance baseball stadiums, and that would be harmful for MLB as a whole.

Certainly it would make moving the team really difficult- who'd agree to finance the stadium in that circumstance?
   6. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:14 PM (#5590518)
... since they destroyed Stanton's trade value by making it clear they were going to trade him come hell or high water.


“I don’t wanna trade for the reigning MVP, his current team doesn’t want him.”
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:15 PM (#5590519)
Here is my theory. Bit wild I admit. Jeter wanted to establish a baseline to justify the deal to NY was comparable so he arranged deals with 2 teams he knew Stanton would reject as teams not on his list, knowing he would take some heat. Hard to see the team that let Pujols walk doing that deal. Giants GM is a former Yankee. Both teams benefit by showing the fan base they are trying. Good PR.


To quote CJ Cregg... "Wow are you stupid." I'm supposing the moon landing was faked also.
   8. ReggieThomasLives Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5590520)
If anyone conspired to get Stanton to the Yankees, it was Stanton.
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:21 PM (#5590521)
... since they destroyed Stanton's trade value by making it clear they were going to trade him come hell or high water.

Exactly.

If anyone conspired to get Stanton to the Yankees, it was Stanton.

Yup. Once Sherman and Jeter effed up by showing the world they were willing to dump Stanton for nothing, Stanton decided to use his leverage to go where he wanted to.

The Dodgers weren't interested, since they be in luxury tax hell forever if they added Stanton, so Giancarlo picked the Yankees, and vetoed everyone else.
   10. The Duke Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:34 PM (#5590531)
#1. What is the government really hiding in Roswell?
   11. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:37 PM (#5590533)
The Ark of the Covenant. Duh.
   12. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:41 PM (#5590537)
Derek Jeter's defense of Giancarlo Stanton trade was weak

Yeah, but he'll win the Gold Glove for it anyway.
   13. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:41 PM (#5590538)
From Stanton's presser this afternoon:

Jared Diamond

@jareddiamond

Giancarlo Stanton said he gave his list of teams to the Marlins in advance, but the team went out and negotiated deals with the Giants and Cardinals anyway. While he was willing to listen to the pitches, he pretty much knew he didn't want to go to those clubs.
11:14 AM - Dec 11, 2017


That's pretty clownshoes ...
   14. stevegamer Posted: December 11, 2017 at 10:43 PM (#5590541)
Anyone else shocked Jeter's defense was weak? Didn't think so.

I am shocked I got to make that joke with double-digit posts already made, though.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: December 11, 2017 at 11:44 PM (#5590551)
Cutting payroll to boost owner/shareholder profits -- told you Jeter couldn't go to his left!!

if all they were picking up was $30M

Well it's $30 M plus $22 M they now owe Castro ... or from the Yanks perspective, they owe Stanton 10/$265 (if he stays around) and don't owe Castro 2/$22.

since they destroyed Stanton's trade value by making it clear they were going to trade him come hell or high water.

Meh. Everybody knew they were going to do this, it was widely rumored that whoever took over the Marlins would try to trade him, everybody seemed agreed he wasn't "worth the contract", etc. Moreover, since the only reason to trade him was to get out of the commitment, as soon as they discussed him with any team, that team would have known why he was being offered. Given the payroll of the rest of the team and that a reasonable chunk of that is tied up in players they would have a very hard time moving, the only way the Marlins could realistically move enough payroll to matter was trading Stanton.

And they still have a long way to go. B-R currently projects their payroll to about $105.

What do folks seriously think they could have gotten under any circumstance? The man was owed 10/$295. Do you think he would have gotten more than that if he was an FA this year? How much more? Unless a team was sitting there thinking "oh lucky us, we would have had to pay 10/$350 otherwise", no team was going to give up anything of substantial value. Then you get the fact that Stanton has a full NTC.

So sure, they didn't help themselves making it even more obvious, they didn't help themselves giving Stanton a "you'll hate it here" ultimatum and they didn't help themselves working out deals with other teams despite his NTC. But nobody was ever going to give them a big package for a market-rate contract that is probably a year longer than what he could get on the open market.

Now if you want to argue that the Marlins' assessment of their financial situation and Stanton's positive impact on it was wrong, feel free.

   16. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 12, 2017 at 02:21 AM (#5590583)
Everybody knew they were going to do this, it was widely rumored that whoever took over the Marlins would try to trade him, everybody seemed agreed he wasn't "worth the contract", etc.


Everybody knew from literally the moment the contract was announced that he would be traded at the earliest convenience.
   17. Leroy Kincaid Posted: December 12, 2017 at 06:29 AM (#5590591)
Anyone else shocked Jeter's defense was weak? Didn't think so.

I am shocked I got to make that joke with double-digit posts already made, though.


I think #12 beat you to it.
   18. Rally Posted: December 12, 2017 at 08:18 AM (#5590602)
told you Jeter couldn't go to his left!!


Bringing Castro to Miami is a pretty left wing move.
   19. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2017 at 08:22 AM (#5590603)
I think #12 beat you to it.

Gonfalon would have to confirm, but those are are different jokes. #14 mocks Jeter, #12 mocks Jeter's audience.
   20. Rally Posted: December 12, 2017 at 08:23 AM (#5590604)
Marlins Park is only five years old at this point- if the Marlins were to run out on that stadium, it could deeply harm the ability to MLB to get people anywhere to agree to publicly finance baseball stadiums, and that would be harmful for MLB as a whole.

Certainly it would make moving the team really difficult- who'd agree to finance the stadium in that circumstance?


Is that even a possibility? I would have assumed the city would have some kind of contract here to keep the team around for a while. The Rays play in a stadium that looks like a giant trashcan and they've been stuck there forever.

Other than that though I doubt it will make one bit of difference to another team's ability to get their city to fund a ballpark. If bad results from past deals mattered Marlins park never would have been built in the first place.
   21. eddieot Posted: December 12, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5590607)
He likely expected a job where he could do as he saw fit, and that the fans citizens and media would accept whatever it was he did because, well, he’s Derek Jeter Donald Trump, and he knows more about baseball everything than you.
   22. Mudpout Posted: December 12, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5590652)
Presumably the Giants and Cardinals were offering better packages, that's why the Marlins tried to make either of those trades work, so it's safe to say Stanton's use of his leverage meant the Marlins didn't get back the best possible package they could.

If you agree that the Marlins absolutely had to trade Stanton this offseason, then I think they did the best they could. But I think they seemed to actively seek the worst negotiating position they could.
   23. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: December 12, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5590655)
What do folks seriously think they could have gotten under any circumstance? The man was owed 10/$295. Do you think he would have gotten more than that if he was an FA this year? How much more? Unless a team was sitting there thinking "oh lucky us, we would have had to pay 10/$350 otherwise", no team was going to give up anything of substantial value. Then you get the fact that Stanton has a full NTC.
There's all sorts of stuff going on here.

1. The 10/$295M left on the contract. It's very possible Stanton will earn that, but the trading team is taking on a lot of financial risk.
2. The escalating salaries to come. Stanton will make $25M in '18, $26 in '19-20, $29M 21-22, $32M 23-25, then it falls to $29M and $25M the last 2 years.
3. The NTC. That makes the contract tougher to move if the team needs to, or wants to go in a different direction, or has a hot shot prospect. More financial risk.
4. The opt-out. Despite what others think, I think this helps the team. If he's good enough to opt out, that would mean the team got lots of excess value and can walk away before his decline.

In my mind, Stanton's remaining contract looks exactly like Homer Bailey's did when he signed it - if everything works out, he'll be worth about what he's signed for. That means no injuries* or slumps or early declines just for the team to break even in "value".

*Bailey signed his contract after the first 2 full, healthy seasons of his 7 year career; he's made 49 starts in the 4 seasons since. In 8 seasons, Stanton has >505 PA just 3 times; the first 2 seasons after signing his current contract, he totaled 788 PA.
   24. stevegamer Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:00 AM (#5590663)
Anyone else shocked Jeter's defense was weak? Didn't think so.

I am shocked I got to make that joke with double-digit posts already made, though.

I think #12 beat you to it.


Sadly, I note that your are correct. I should've refreshed the page.

RC to Billy Ripken.
   25. jmurph Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:01 AM (#5590665)
Giancarlo Stanton said he gave his list of teams to the Marlins in advance, but the team went out and negotiated deals with the Giants and Cardinals anyway. While he was willing to listen to the pitches, he pretty much knew he didn't want to go to those clubs.

I've seen this cited as a criticism of the Marlins elsewhere, but I don't think it makes them look bad. They liked what the Giants and Cardinals had to offer, and hoped that two successful, relatively free-spending organizations would convince Stanton to accept trades there rather than holding out for worse deals elsewhere. I think that makes perfect sense and was worth the effort, it just didn't work out.
   26. Rally Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:29 AM (#5590695)
The opt-out. Despite what others think, I think this helps the team. If he's good enough to opt out, that would mean the team got lots of excess value and can walk away before his decline.


Doesn't make sense. If he's good enough to opt out, then without the opt-out the team could trade him and get something good in return if they are that worried he's about to decline. It is possible to imagine a team benefiting from an opt-out, but only because they got lucky (someone else pays 250 million right before he stops producing).
   27. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5590707)
I've seen this cited as a criticism of the Marlins elsewhere, but I don't think it makes them look bad. They liked what the Giants and Cardinals had to offer, and hoped that two successful, relatively free-spending organizations would convince Stanton to accept trades there rather than holding out for worse deals elsewhere. I think that makes perfect sense and was worth the effort, it just didn't work out.


Agreed. I feel it was the Marlins' due diligence to pursue as many deals as possible to maximize the possible return.



   28. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5590723)
If he's good enough to opt out, then without the opt-out the team could trade him and get something good in return if they are that worried he's about to decline. It is possible to imagine a team benefiting from an opt-out, but only because they got lucky (someone else pays 250 million right before he stops producing).
Let's say Stanton is still very good and healthy the next 3 seasons; that leaves 7/$218 on his contract. If Stanton opts out, the Yankees are free from the 6 most expensive years of the contract, plus another expensive year, plus a buyout - all of those years starting with his age-31. That just seems like an awful lot to pay for what are likely to be decline years for a guy with an iffy health history.

No, they won't get anything for him via trade, but as he has a full NTC it's not a given they could anyway (coming off an MVP season as a 27 year old, the Marlins basically got salary relief and a couple of middling prospects). There is risk and downside to the opt-out, but I think there's also an opportunity to take advantage of a pro athlete's (and his agent's) natural ego.

EDIT: And my original post might not be clear - the team can't "walk away" from the deal, but they're certainly (in my mind) in a good position if Stanton walks away.
   29. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5590757)
Let's say Stanton is still very good and healthy the next 3 seasons; that leaves 7/$218 on his contract. If Stanton opts out, the Yankees are free from the 6 most expensive years of the contract, plus another expensive year, plus a buyout - all of those years starting with his age-31. That just seems like an awful lot to pay for what are likely to be decline years for a guy with an iffy health history.

No, they won't get anything for him via trade, but as he has a full NTC it's not a given they could anyway (coming off an MVP season as a 27 year old, the Marlins basically got salary relief and a couple of middling prospects). There is risk and downside to the opt-out, but I think there's also an opportunity to take advantage of a pro athlete's (and his agent's) natural ego.

EDIT: And my original post might not be clear - the team can't "walk away" from the deal, but they're certainly (in my mind) in a good position if Stanton walks away.
That's true. But think of it this way: if he's good enough to opt out, there is a pretty good likelihood that the Yankees are going to immediately commit 7/$218m for a worse player(s), or they will spend more than 7/$218m to bring back the same player.
   30. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:13 AM (#5590762)
But think of it this way: if he's good enough to opt out, there is a pretty good likelihood that the Yankees are going to immediately commit 7/$218m for a worse player(s), or they will spend more than 7/$218m to bring back the same player.
The Yankees willingness to overspend in 3 years doesn't change the fact that the opt-out gives them an easy way to avoid it.
   31. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM (#5590779)
I find it fascinating that there is as yet no conventional wisdom on how to value an opt out.
   32. Stormy JE wanted to milk the soft power dividend Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5590786)
Also Jeters people told Stantons agent that Boston was not interested.
Is this accurate? Was DD really not interested in Stanton?
   33. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:36 AM (#5590790)
The Yankees willingness to overspend in 3 years doesn't change the fact that the opt-out gives them an easy way to avoid it.
It doesn't change it, but it renders it less relevant.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5590804)
Yankees just traded Chase Headley and Bryan Mitchell to he Padres for Jabari Blash. Salary dump.

So, Todd Frazier and CC Sabathia?
   35. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:03 PM (#5590816)
They're rare these days, but Blash strikes me as an actual Ken Phelps All-Star type. Solid pickup. Headley is an OK player, not really overpaid, but just OK. The Yanks have been very very smart to keep collecting hitters in their mid-20s.
   36. jmurph Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:18 PM (#5590833)
So, Todd Frazier and CC Sabathia?

Baltimore has supposedly asked for offers on Machado, but surely Angelos wouldn't send him to the Yankees?
   37. fra paolo Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5590836)
Everybody knew from literally the moment the contract was announced that he would be traded at the earliest convenience.

Posts that use formulations like 'Everybody knew from literally the moment' always make me ask myself 'But did they really?' so I thought I'd play Truth-O-Meter.

Going back to the November 2014 threads on this site, one finds three broad positions.

To the initial rumour of the contract, the general mood was 'STUPID MARLINS, TOO MUCH MONEY'. There wasn't a lot of mention of trading him as attention focused on the AAV rather than the structure.

The main thread that dealt with the signing was more measured. There was some talk of him being traded during the course of the contract, but the big question was 'Will he be worth it?' The reason being that this was the off-season after Stanton's savage beaning, his Tony C moment. (Also, dingers were down, and people felt Stanton hadn't lived up to expectations so far.) Many people felt that Loria had pulled the trigger a season too soon. However, there was also a small cohort arguing that 'this is the cost of doing business -- what's interesting are the opt-out and the no-trade clause'. (There was also a single over-under post of how many years Stanton would remain with the Marlins, which suggested four.)

Finally, after people had time to digest the signing, in two more threads most people focused on the opt-out. In other words, the general mood was that Stanton's future with the Marlins depended more on the opt-out, placing great faith in the effects of the no-trade clause.

I thought it would be invidious to cite specific posters in relation to this, which is why I have gone for a broadly worded summary than precise quotations.

The Truth-O-Meter reading depends on how one wants to interpret the sentence under scrutiny. It is fair to say that the general mood was that Stanton would not stay on the Marlins for the duration of the contract (giving a charitable interpretation to 'earliest convenience'), but wrong to assert that the change of teams would be effected by a trade.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5590837)

Baltimore has supposedly asked for offers on Machado, but surely Angelos wouldn't send him to the Yankees?


I can't imagine him doing that. That's just rubbing your fans nose in it.

That said, I really do want the Yankees to keep 3B open for a potential Machado signing. Would Frazier accept a one year overpay, with an option and a big buyout?
   39. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5590839)
I thought it would be invidious to cite specific posters in relation to this

Don't hold back! One of the great joys of this website is seeing how wrong we were about things.
   40. jmurph Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM (#5590856)
Don't hold back! One of the great joys of this website is seeing how wrong we were about things.

Agreed. We do this in the NBA thread on occasion. It's not like anyone has a monopoly on being right around here, so I think it's all in good fun.
   41. fra paolo Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5590861)
Don't hold back!

Okay, it's also more work than I want to do!
   42. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: December 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5590862)
The Yankees willingness to overspend in 3 years doesn't change the fact that the opt-out gives them an easy way to avoid it.

It doesn't change it, but it renders it less relevant.
Only because it's the Yankees (or more precisely, the caricature of the Yankees).
   43. Walt Davis Posted: December 12, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5591068)
I thought I had the monopoly on being right around here. Am I wrong about that?

On what was thought at the time, I recall a story about how happy Loria was because they had gotten such a huge bargain on the early years and he was certain Stanton would opt out. Either the new owners are total skinflints or they are far less certain that Stanton will opt out.

#37/41 ... the anonymous approach is appreciated but it is customary to provide links to the threads. (copy the link, click "<a>", paste the link, label the link)

#31 ... in part, we are talking about the opt-out at two different value points. The opt-out is priced at the time of the contract signing. Without the opt-out, maybe Stanton is owed 10/$310 or something. (There has been some work on pricing opt-outs and my memory is they came up with a value around $5-10 M ... but those are usually in shorter contracts.)

Now we're speculating as if we are at the decision point. Still the argument it benefits the team boils down to "Stanton might not really be worth 7/$218 but will think he can get more while the Yanks might think he's not worth it and it could be that the Yanks will be right." Which is to say it's to the team's benefit if the player acts irrationally while the team acts rationally and since there is some non-zero probability that this happens, the opt-out is beneficial to the team. Of course it would seem just as likely that the team is irrational and jumps the gun and gives the player an extra year or two. Or the ARod situation where both parties are irrational.

Regardless, there really is no argument that the opt-out is beneficial to the Yanks -- a player option is obviously always of benefit to the player. There seems confusion that the opt-out could work to the benefit of the Yanks if Stanton makes a mistake establishes that it is to their benefit.

There's also the possibility that, as luck would have it, the Yanks as a whole are in decline by then and while Stanton might be worth more than 7/4218 in general, he's not worth more than 7/$218 to the Yanks. Or, based on team needs and who else is available that offseason, the Yanks have better ways to spend 7/$218+. That's just saying that after the option is exercised, the Yanks will be in the same boat as every other team. Those we can essentially treat as random since neither party has any control over them ... although I will note that is the same offseason that Trout is scheduled to be FA.

It occurs to me that it may also depend on how the agreement with the Marlins is worded. If Stanton opts out, presumably the Yanks don't get $30 M but that's OK because they won't need it. The question is how does this work if they extend Stanton to keep him from exercising the option. If, for example, they guarantee the age 38 year and add an option for age 39 with $10 M buyout (essentially adding $25 M to the contract), do they still get $30 M from the Marlins? If not, then extending Stanton essentially costs the Yanks a further $30 M.
   44. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 12, 2017 at 08:47 PM (#5591257)
Regardless, there really is no argument that the opt-out is beneficial to the Yanks -- a player option is obviously always of benefit to the player.

This assumes that it is impossible for the opt-out to benefit both sides, which is a false assumption (or at least an unsupported one). For instance, if Stanton opts out and signs elsewhere for more money, but ends up not being worth his new contract, the opt-out helps both sides. (There could also be other scenarios - if Stanton hates playing in NY and his production suffers as a result, or if the Yankees somehow find themselves in a position to rebuild in 3 years.)
   45. eric Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:11 PM (#5591305)
I am of the opinion that opt-outs almost always hurt the team. This is not one of those cases. I think the Yankees hope he opts out.

The only way he opts out is if he has a stellar three years. Thus, the Yankees did great on the deal. Then he opts out and it allows another team to pay him gobs of money for his decline phase. Pujols and Rodriguez are the obvious cautionary examples of long-term contracts to someone already 30, but there's also Chris Davis, and Robinson Cano has been worth it so far...but has six more years to go, through his age-40 season.

Of course, in the small chance he does actually opt out, the Yankees would have to show some restraint and not re-sign him to an even bigger deal.
   46. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2017 at 10:22 PM (#5591316)
This assumes that it is impossible for the opt-out to benefit both sides, which is a false assumption (or at least an unsupported one).


Right, because there are three actors. The player, the first team, and the second team. There's an assumption here that the second team will always - literally always - get ripped off. The assumption is so strong that we all agree that even if the player in question blows past expectations in the first few years of the deal, the team is still dodging a bullet when he opts out. And that assumption even seems fairly well borne out by history.
   47. stevegamer Posted: December 13, 2017 at 03:57 AM (#5591453)
Note that there don't have to be three actors. It's possible - unlikely but possible - that somebody opts out and never plays again due to circumstances beyond their control.
   48. McCoy Posted: December 13, 2017 at 08:58 AM (#5591493)
Looking through the old threads I see that I correctly predicted that the Marlins weren't going to get much value back in trading Stanton and that they would have to throw in money to get much back at all.
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 13, 2017 at 05:35 PM (#5592102)
Mattingly on the Jeter criticism:

"Well, I know what goes on from the inside, so I know it's unfair," Mattingly said. "But I think, if you look at — Derek may be the first to admit, 'Hey, I would do some things maybe a little differently.' (Jeter said earlier this week he wouldn't have) I don't know that. But I kind of look back to Derek's first year in pro ball. He makes 58 errors — 50-something errors at shortstop, and we know what happened after that.


What happened after that, he sacrificed range for efficiency?
   50. Nasty Nate Posted: December 13, 2017 at 05:52 PM (#5592119)
The assumption is so strong that we all agree that even if the player in question blows past expectations in the first few years of the deal, the team is still dodging a bullet when he opts out. And that assumption even seems fairly well borne out by history.
It depends on what bullet you are referring to. If you just mean the remaining portion of the contract (that he opted out of), I don't think there is agreement about that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 15 January 2018:Mississippi's anti-gay marriage law is hurting two college baseball teams
(1407 - 12:22pm, Jan 19)
Last: Zonk, Genius of the Stables

NewsblogAndruw of Center Field
(198 - 12:12pm, Jan 19)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(2699 - 12:06pm, Jan 19)
Last: Athletic Supporter wants to move your money around

NewsblogWhy is J.D. Martinez's big bat still available
(4 - 11:59am, Jan 19)
Last: BDC

NewsblogComparing a Player Outside His Era | Articles | Bill James Online
(12 - 11:52am, Jan 19)
Last: Rally

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 1-19-2018
(8 - 11:33am, Jan 19)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Kansas City Royals
(12 - 11:23am, Jan 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(1529 - 11:10am, Jan 19)
Last: bachslunch

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2011 Discussion
(75 - 10:34am, Jan 19)
Last: caiman

NewsblogBenFred: Everybody can find a story about Musial's magic | Ben Frederickson | stltoday.com
(2 - 10:20am, Jan 19)
Last: Batman

NewsblogThe 2017-18 Offseason: Trend or Anomaly? - MLB Trade Rumors
(7 - 10:12am, Jan 19)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogRubbing Mud: The Evidence of Price Fixing We Have So Far - Baseball Prospectus
(24 - 10:09am, Jan 19)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogHere's why baseball's economic system might be broken
(67 - 6:02am, Jan 19)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogWhat Is Baseball’s Equivalent of the Vikings’ Miraculous Victory?
(69 - 2:16am, Jan 19)
Last: An Athletic in Powderhorn™

NewsblogChristian Yelich can only blame himself for Jeter entanglement | New York Post
(61 - 11:52pm, Jan 18)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

Page rendered in 0.7135 seconds
47 querie(s) executed