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

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Report: Harper to Phillies

They buckled.

 

Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 02:58 PM | 227 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: bryce harper, phillies

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:05 PM (#5819177)
13 years/$330 million and no opt outs. This is not really what I was expecting Harper to go for.
   2. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:07 PM (#5819181)
They buckled.


If #1 is correct, the "They" would be Boras and Harper, no? No opt out? Inconceivable!
   3. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:09 PM (#5819182)
And full no trade.

Long contract, but that AAV is not bad at all.
   4. Lassus Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:09 PM (#5819183)
Over/under on first battery thrown by a Philly fan?
   5. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:11 PM (#5819184)
That's a horrible contract for the Phillies.

They boxed themselves into a corner and will pay the price.
   6. Lassus Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:13 PM (#5819185)
More than anything, I'd like to see him live up to the contract. Good baseball players are fun to watch. That being said, the odds seem to be against that.
   7. bunyon Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:14 PM (#5819186)
I have that feeling I had when two of my best friends got married junior year of high school.
   8. Khrushin it bro Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:16 PM (#5819188)
Married in high school???

This is gonna get Ryan Howard bad year 10-13.
   9. KronicFatigue Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:18 PM (#5819190)
Yeah, I'm going to need more details on the highschool marriage
   10. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:18 PM (#5819191)
This is gonna get Ryan Howard bad year 10-13.

That's not a reason to not sign this deal, IMO. In fact, because the AAV is lower on the front end, it makes that part easier. Also, the NL will have the DH well before then.

But I still do think 13 years with no opt and a no trade make it highly likely at least one of the parties will want out well before the end (if not both of them).
   11. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:19 PM (#5819192)
I think that's a pretty reasonable deal. Yeah the last few years are going to be grim but cost of doing business. $25.4/year is a pretty reasonable AAV and no opt outs is a great win for the Phillies in my opinion.
   12. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:19 PM (#5819194)
There is 0 chance there are no opt-outs.

EDIT: This is a statement of disbelief not so much questioning the reporting. It's impossible to imagine that long of a deal not including opt-outs!
   13. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:24 PM (#5819196)
I'll be 81 when this contract is over. Eighty-#######-one.
   14. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:26 PM (#5819198)
No opt outs.

The amount of risk they have with this contract is huge. I'm glad I'm not a Phillies fan.

The Angels have the DH. Does that make the Pujols contract any better?
   15. Lassus Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:26 PM (#5819199)
Better than the alternative.

EDIT: Dammit, Jim. For #13.
   16. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:26 PM (#5819200)
Giving a 13 year contract AND a no-trade seems insane to me.
   17. BrianBrianson Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:28 PM (#5819202)
It's only $25million/year. The liability for the Phillies isn't that much. This isn't 1992, folks. It's 1/8th of the luxury tax threshold - less, depending on how it's structured.
   18. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:28 PM (#5819203)
Giving a 13 year contract AND a no-trade seems insane to me.


Why? To me it makes perfect sense. If you are willing to invest 13 years and $300+ million in someone then you shouldn't be planning on trading him. If you are thinking of your exit strategy then you shouldn't be signing the contract. An NTC can always be overcome. Who is the last player who flat out refused a trade? It's happened but it's awfully rare.
   19. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5819204)

The Angels have the DH. Does that make the Pujols contract any better?


What are the chances the Phillies have the DH by the end of this contract? >50%?
   20. Khrushin it bro Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5819205)
Adam Jones refused a trade if I remember correctly.
   21. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:30 PM (#5819206)
Will they still have payroll room for Trout in a couple of years? Or Keuchel now?
   22. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:32 PM (#5819207)
The Angels have the DH. Does that make the Pujols contract any better?

Pujols was approximately 37 years older than Harper when he signed his deal. The Phillies are getting the meat of Harper's prime, 26-38, when the Angels bought 32-41; that's a HUGE difference. Harper also is only making ~$1.4mil/yr more than Pujols, and is a smaller percent of the luxury tax.

That's not even counting the personal services portion of Pujols's deal. These contracts aren't close to each other in terms of badness.
   23. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM (#5819208)
Who is the last player who flat out refused a trade? It's happened but it's awfully rare.

Adam Jones, just last year.
EDIT: Beaten to the punch.
   24. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:34 PM (#5819209)
Will they still have payroll room for Trout in a couple of years? Or Keuchel now?

Jayson Stark @jaysonst 3m3 minutes ago

The #Phillies projected to be $74 million under the tax threshold this year before signing Harper. So at just over $25 million in AAV, this deal gives them the flexibility to do more, both this year and beyond. Big reason for extending it over 13 years.
   25. bunyon Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:35 PM (#5819210)
Yeah, I'm going to need more details on the highschool marriage

The marriage never became a free agent.


I am stunned by this contract. I just didn't think Harper would go to Philly and I didn't think Philly would go for something so long.

I wonder if the Nationals would have done this? Did they even consider 13 years?

I really hope it doesn't go as badly as I fear it might.
   26. akrasian Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:35 PM (#5819211)
The NTC only matters for the first 5 years anyway. After that he'd have no trade rights anyway.

Not that I'd want to play (and live) in Philly, but I can see if you're signing a 13 year contract not wanting the team to trade you and you being committed to living someplace undesirable.
   27. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:35 PM (#5819212)
If you are thinking of your exit strategy then you shouldn't be signing the contract.

Exactly. A thirteen-year contract just about assures you'll want to get out of it eventually.

It's not just a money thing, BTW. Pujols contract isn't only bad because of how much he's getting paid. It's also bad because you are also pretty much committed to playing him.
   28. Monty Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:35 PM (#5819213)
He'd have no-trade power after five years anyway, wouldn't he? So this is only giving him the right to refuse a trade for the years where they're unlikely to want to trade him in the first place.
   29. Qufini Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5819215)
Now the Keuchel watch begins.
   30. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:38 PM (#5819216)

It's not just a money thing, BTW. Pujols contract isn't just bad because of how much he's getting paid. It's also bad because you are also pretty much committed to playing him.
Somewhat. But there's a limit to that. They will not be giving Pujols playing time until the end of the contract.
   31. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:40 PM (#5819217)
Harper doesn't want a no-trade clause so he won't be traded. He wants it so when the team wants (is desperate) to trade him he'll have the leverage to either get more money or choose where he's going.
   32. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:46 PM (#5819220)
Pujols was approximately 37 years older than Harper when he signed his deal. The Phillies are getting the meat of Harper's prime, 26-38, when the Angels bought 32-41; that's a HUGE difference. Harper also is only making ~$1.4mil/yr more than Pujols, and is a smaller percent of the luxury tax.

That's not even counting the personal services portion of Pujols's deal. These contracts aren't close to each other in terms of badness.

Pujols contract wasn't seen as a bad contract the day he was signed. We'll see how this looks 13 years from now.
   33. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:49 PM (#5819222)
OMG, the article over at CBSSports.com:
(Harper) may never repeat 2015 again -- almost no one has multiple seasons like that -- but Harper has the talent and pedigree to be a top five player over the life of his new contract.
Harper has exactly one season as one of the top 10 position players in the NL.
Arguably the best free agent of the last 18 years has a new team. Bryce Harper has agreed to a free agent contract with the Philadelphia Phillies, CBS Sports HQ baseball insider Jim Bowden confirmed on Thursday.
So then why did Machado sign a much better deal just last week?
   34. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:51 PM (#5819223)
I think this is a 10 year contract spread out over 13 seasons. Harper could definitely put up the 30 WAR to make the contract worthwhile for the Phillies.
   35. . Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:56 PM (#5819224)
That's a clown contract, bro.
   36. Red Voodooin Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:56 PM (#5819225)
I like Bryce Harper a lot and I hope does well in Philly. He had me at "that's a clown question, bro". I'd bet heavily on the "over" over what the BBTF consensus is projecting for the rest of his career.
   37. formerly dp Posted: February 28, 2019 at 03:59 PM (#5819227)
I think this is a 10 year contract spread out over 13 seasons. Harper could definitely put up the 30 WAR to make the contract worthwhile for the Phillies.

Glad I refreshed, was just about to post the same thing. At 33M/year, this seems reasonable for the player think Harper is. For actual Harper, I'm not so sure.

The Mets are in desperate need of a LOOGY now, if those still exist.
   38. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:01 PM (#5819229)
Reports of mixed reactions from Phillies fans. Some vomiting in disgust, others vomiting in celebration.
   39. . Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:04 PM (#5819232)
(Harper) may never repeat 2015 again -- almost no one has multiple seasons like that -- but Harper has the talent and pedigree to be a top five player over the life of his new contract.


I've never understood -- because it makes no sense -- how a guy all of a sudden is a way better player just because he signed a big contract. It's like there's a glow appended to him simply because of the contract.
   40. Dale Sams Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:04 PM (#5819233)
GD...Mookie is going to cost a trillion dollars to keep.
   41. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:04 PM (#5819234)
Walt? Walt? Where are you mate? I know it's only 8:00am in Sydney but you know he's going to post one of those, the contract is designed to get all the value in the first 9 years type of thing quoting zips projections etc.

Here's my weak attempt at it....at $25 mil per, in today's WAR/dollars, it's only a bit over 3 WAR per year, so needs about 40 WAR to make the contract worthwhile....and the Phillies have total control of it; no opt outs, etc.

If he has a few good years, then a a down year or two, then a bounce back year around the 7th/8th year, the can dump him to someone who thinks he might be decent in years 33-36 type of thing.

I think it's a pretty reasonable deal from the Phillies standpoint...and I'm not on the Harper bandwagon. However he does have the potential to throw in a couple more 6 WAR seasons alongside a few more 3 WAR seasons and can average maybe 4.5 WAR for the next 7-8 years type of thing. 4.5 WAR for 8 seasons gives you 36 WAR and almost fulfils the value of the contract.
   42. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:05 PM (#5819235)
I think this is a 10 year contract spread out over 13 seasons. Harper could definitely put up the 30 WAR to make the contract worthwhile for the Phillies.



Glad I refreshed, was just about to post the same thing. At 33M/year, this seems reasonable for the player think Harper is. For actual Harper, I'm not so sure.
You guys are right, conceptually, but why exactly 10 years? Just because it's a round number that makes it easier to divide the total?

If you can predict a decade in advance the exact year when a player stops deserving to be on a roster, you should become a GM.
   43. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:07 PM (#5819236)
Not that I'd want to play (and live) in Philly


I'm trying to think of the last player who played in Philly and wanted out because, you know, Philly. Imports such as Jim Thome, Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Hunter Pence, Jake Arrieta seemed to love it here.
   44. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:09 PM (#5819237)
Harper is a good player who just got a superstar contract.

   45. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:10 PM (#5819238)
.Mookie is going to cost a trillion dollars to keep.


And yes, I don't think anything less then 10/340 will secure Mookie's services....
   46. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:14 PM (#5819239)
LF McCutchen
SS Segura
RF Harper
1B Hoskins
C Realmuto
CF Herrera
3B Franco
2B Hernandez

NL East is going to be nuts this year.
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:15 PM (#5819240)
What dominoes now fall in terms of the other teams interested in Harper?
   48. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:17 PM (#5819242)
What dominoes now fall in terms of the other teams interested in Harper?


Seems like the only other two were LA and SF. The Dodgers didn't even really need him, and the Giants will most likely just go with the young guys and see who sticks.
   49. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:19 PM (#5819243)


Seems like the only other two were LA and SF. The Dodgers didn't even really need him, and the Giants will most likely just go with the young guys and see who sticks.
But do the Giants now turn to Kimbrel and Keuchel and offer big deals?
   50. Dale Sams Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:19 PM (#5819244)
My rough calculations show a 34mill a year Mookie contract would still be smaller fraction wise to the Sox payroll than ARods in regards to the Rangers overall payroll.
   51. Rally Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:22 PM (#5819245)
Pujols was approximately 37 years older than Harper when he signed his deal. The Phillies are getting the meat of Harper's prime, 26-38, when the Angels bought 32-41; that's a HUGE difference. Harper also is only making ~$1.4mil/yr more than Pujols, and is a smaller percent of the luxury tax.


Pujols was still an above average player at age 35, and wasn't terrible at age 36. If Harper ages like Pujols, they'll get 11 good years out of this deal. I think they would be very happy with that. Pujols from 26-38 had 62 WAR, that's great return for 330 million. Though of course Pujols before 26 was quite a bit better and much more consistent than Harper has been.
   52. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:22 PM (#5819246)
The Phillies dropped out on Manny because his contract exceeded their evaluations. Are their evaluations done with a random number generator?
   53. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:23 PM (#5819247)
So Philly doesn't go for Trout in a couple of years?
   54. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:23 PM (#5819248)
Okay, so using a discount rate of 5% annually you get a NPV of 238.41m

If you assume that he'll get a little better next year (call it 0.5 WAR), hold that for a couple more years, and then decline at 0.5 WAR/year, the Monkey says that he'll end up creating 24 WAR for the Phillies. Now, last year was skewed by horrific fielding numbers. If you zero out his Rfield he gets about 3.75 WAR last year. Making the same assumptions about aging and again using Marcel this contract nets the Phillies 32.5 WAR. (I assume that they stop playing him when he drops below replacement level. Under the former assumptions that happens after year 10, under the latter it's after year 11.)

Under the pessimistic assumptions the Phillies end up paying $9.9 million per WAR. Under the optimistic ones they pay about $7.3 million. We can't do a straight comparison of these figures with what FAs usually cost, however, because usually we don't adjust those contracts for NPV. Without the NPV adjustment the Phillies end up paying $13.75/win on the pessimistic assumptions and $10.15/win on the optimistic ones.

   55. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:23 PM (#5819249)
But do the Giants now turn to Kimbrel and Keuchel and offer big deals?


Considering they are about to lose 80-90 games, I doubt they have any interest. I'm not even sure they were interested in Harper other than having a "draw" as they rebuild the next few years.
   56. DCA Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:23 PM (#5819250)
What dominoes now fall in terms of the other teams interested in Harper?

I think this means Denard Span and Adam Jones are the best available OF. I don't think the Giants will want another go-around with Span, but they sure could use a league averagish corner OF who can fake center in an emergency. Or two of them.
   57. Walt Davis Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5819251)
Thanks Hugh! I'm trying to learn how to work like Boras does -- if I wait long enough, somebody will cave and do my work for me. :-)

I've opined on Harper plenty. I think it mainly comes down to how much of last season's defensive collapse was real and permanent. If last year's defnese is what we can expect going forward, then he kinda already is Ryan Howard which is very much not good. If he's back to being an average corner OF and can stay there for a while, then it will probably be fine or even good for the Phils. As a GM/owner I have no idea what I would take as "proof" that he can play decent defense again.

Boras had to get creative but he got a magic number, beating Stanton's contract total. When you figure Stanton's included 2 arb years and was signed 4 years ago then that's a lot less impressive but Boras gets the headline anyway. (Not sure why but b-r lists it as $325 ... Cots doesn't have it yet.)

Anyway, are the Phils NLE favorites yet? They've heavily revamped the lineup and, while still looking pretty bad, the defense has to be better than it was.
   58. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5819252)
But do the Giants now turn to Kimbrel and Keuchel and offer big deals?


I don't think so. My impression is the Giants saw Harper as a guy they could build around long term. I'd be surprised if they view Kimbrel or Keuchel the same way. I think both of those guys are going to have a lot more appeal to a team more certain of contending in 2019 than the Giants are.
   59. Banta Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:26 PM (#5819253)
Also shocked by this deal if there are truly no opt outs. I have always thought that Boras/Harper wanted to set the record for most money, but I really thought it wouldn't come at the expense of AAV. That's why I kept thinking like 300/10 with an early opt out to try again, hoping Harper doesn't repeat last year (by WAR mostly) and take another crack before he turns 30.

Just stunned that Harper locked himself into a deal where he won't be anywhere near the top in AAV shortly. Where does the contract currently rank? Like 6 to 10 range? Wild.

EDIT: Harper's deal is the 11th highest AAV out of active players, 14th all-time.
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:26 PM (#5819254)
No opt outs.

The amount of risk they have with this contract is huge. I'm glad I'm not a Phillies fan.


Opt outs increase risk to the team, they don't decrease them.

I like the deal for Philly. The AAV is low now, and will be lower in 10 years. With no opt-outs, if he blossoms, they get all the benefit.
   61. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:27 PM (#5819255)
I don't think the Giants will want another go-around with Span, but they sure could use a league averagish corner OF who can fake center in an emergency


They do have Cameron Maybin. Steven Duggar looks to be an excellent fielding center fielder.
   62. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:32 PM (#5819258)
Pujols was still an above average player at age 35, and wasn't terrible at age 36. If Harper ages like Pujols, they'll get 11 good years out of this deal. I think they would be very happy with that. Pujols from 26-38 had 62 WAR, that's great return for 330 million. Though of course Pujols before 26 was quite a bit better and much more consistent than Harper has been.

Pujols had 37.6 WAR through age 25; Harper has 27.4. What if he ages like Grady Sizemore (25.7), Cesar Cedeno (35.1), Andruw Jones (37.6), Evan Longoria (27.2), David Wright (26.2), or Jim Fregosi (28.7)? (Jason Heyward even comes in at 29.8.)

A thirteen-year contract is full of hope and risk. I wouldn't be willing to assume the amount of risk they have in the hope I get close to my money's worth.
   63. Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:34 PM (#5819259)
A thirteen-year contract is full of hope and risk. I wouldn't be willing to assume the amount of risk they have in the hope I get close to my money's worth.


The risk is there but if you aren't willing to absorb the risk you are never going to get the superstar in free agency. I'm not convinced Harper is the superstar he's perceived as but I think this deal is one that is going to be good for the Phils over the life of it. I think I'd be less sanguine if he had signed the same contract Machado did though I think Machado is a superstar worth that contract.
   64. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:35 PM (#5819260)
Does this mean anything for Trout? If this is the value for Harper, 10 years @ $400 is an underpay for Trout, but is a team going to go much higher than that? If the Angels could extend him for that, I'd be ecstatic.

Philly is the team all Angels fans were worried about since Trout is a Philly kid (well, New Jersey, but grew up rooting for all the Philadelphia teams). The Phillies still have plenty of room under the luxury tax to sign Trout in two seasons, but they probably don't want two 35-year-olds making a combined $60 - $70 million roaming the outfield. I could see them offering a short term deal for a crazy high AAV, though. Something like a 4-year, $190 million deal.
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:36 PM (#5819261)
A thirteen-year contract is full of hope and risk. I wouldn't be willing to assume the amount of risk they have in the hope I get close to my money's worth.

They're paying him to average < 3 WAR over the course of the contract. They're hoping they get a bunch of 5-8 WAR seasons in the first 8 years.

A 13-year contract is great for a team if they plan to go up to the luxury tax threshold.
   66. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:38 PM (#5819264)
A 13-year contract is great for a team if they plan to go up to the luxury tax threshold.
and/or they're willing to bet on him aging well.

edit: I believe that if a player is released a few years earlier than the end of a guaranteed contract, his luxury tax AAV is re-calculated for past years and any resulting penalties assessed.
   67. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:45 PM (#5819267)
Some vomiting in disgust, others vomiting in celebration.


I laughed, but I'm a 10 year old.
   68. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:48 PM (#5819269)
Opt outs increase risk to the team, they don't decrease them.


Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but I don't think opt outs increase risk for the team, at least not bad risk, which is how we think about it. The risk that the Phillies have to spend a bunch of money on a bad player if Harper goes in the tank is the same whether there's an opt out or not since he'd stay in Philly either way.

Opt outs do decrease the potential reward, since if Harper is good he'll opt out and get more money from someone else, depriving Philly of a potential bargain. However, in that case they likely received a bargain anyway since any performance good enough for Harper to exercise the opt out was probably one where the value exceeded Philly's cost.
   69. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:51 PM (#5819272)
The dollars are the risk, the length is a feature. Those knocking the length are misguided.

It'll be interesting to see how the dollars are structured.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:53 PM (#5819273)
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but I don't think opt outs increase risk for the team, at least not bad risk, which is how we think about it. The risk that the Phillies have to spend a bunch of money on a bad player if Harper goes in the tank is the same whether there's an opt out or not since he'd stay in Philly either way.

Opt outs do decrease the potential reward, since if Harper is good he'll opt out and get more money from someone else, depriving Philly of a potential bargain. However, in that case they likely received a bargain anyway since any performance good enough for Harper to exercise the opt out was probably one where the value exceeded Philly's cost.


Losing "good risk" makes the deal more risky. It decreases the expected return, while leaving all the downside risk.

   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:55 PM (#5819274)
The dollars are the risk, the length is a feature. Those knocking the length are misguided.

This is true. The length is the years of control, which is a good thing for the Phillies. For a given NPV of a contract you want the longest contract possible as a team.
   72. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 04:57 PM (#5819278)
This is true. The length is the years of control, which is a good thing for the Phillies. For a given NPV of a contract you want the longest contract possible as a team.

Absolutely. This is a fact.
   73. Moses Taylor, glorified meat shield Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:07 PM (#5819281)
Alex Pavlovic @PavlovicNBCS 6m6 minutes ago

I’m told Giants made a 12-year, $310 million offer to Bryce Harper. They were willing to go higher but would have had to go well over $330 million to get it done because of California taxes.
   74. BillWallace Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:11 PM (#5819284)
I'm bullish on Harper. I think this is a good deal all around. Good for Harper, good for the Phillies, great for Phillies fans, great for baseball. The only people who should be criticizing this deal are people that believe baseball teams should operate in a purely profit maximizing fashion. Any Phillie fan that just hated hated hated Harper I'll give a pass.... anyone else should like it.

re: Giants, they should definitely sign Adam Jones, I brought that up in another thread. Jones may be holding out for the contract he would have gotten in this situation 5-10 years ago, i.e. 2-3 years at a 1-2 WAR valuation. He won't get that now, but he's very useful at 1/5 for a Giants team that is rolling the dice one more time and needs above replacement OFs.
   75. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5819287)
More than anything, I'd like to see him live up to the contract. Good baseball players are fun to watch. That being said, the odds seem to be against that.


First thing I thought of, was I'm glad Philly did this, and it wasn't one of the usual teams, and considering the true revenue that Philly is capable of (haven't checked in a while, but I was under the impression that they had the largest market of any single team city.) it's good to see them going that route. And I'm hoping that Harper is able to work the city and have a good career there.
   76. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5819288)
They're paying him to average < 3 WAR over the course of the contract. They're hoping they get a bunch of 5-8 WAR seasons in the first 8 years.

The length is the years of control, which is a good thing for the Phillies. For a given NPV of a contract you want the longest contract possible as a team.


These two quotes, from the same poster, seem to contradict each other. If you know the most valuable seasons are going to be in the early part of the contract, why do you want a long contract?
   77. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:17 PM (#5819289)
This is gonna get Ryan Howard bad year 10-13.


The only reason for those years was to surpass the Stanton contract, not that anyone on either side of the equation thinks that he's going to be worth it.. .it's deferred money more or less.
   78. BillWallace Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:17 PM (#5819290)
Everyone always focusing on the downside and the risk. What about the upside? If a sober analysis of projections and values shows the deal to be reasonable, then one just needs to remember that projections are near the midpoint of expected outcomes. So why not think about the outcomes above the midpoint?

The upside is that Harper puts up 50-60 WAR and leads the Phillies to multiple titles. Absolutely within the realm of possibility.
   79. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:20 PM (#5819291)
These two quotes, from the same poster, seem to contradict each other. If you know the most valuable seasons are going to be in the early part of the contract, why do you want a long contract?
Because less-valuable-than-peak seasons are often still valuable.
   80. Jim Furtado Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:26 PM (#5819296)
Just out of curiosity, I have three questions for those of you who think 10-13 year contracts signed at the top of the wage scale are good ideas. Over the thirteen years of this contract, how many competitive years do you think the Phillies will have? How many competitive years would make this deal a success? How many championships?
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:26 PM (#5819297)
Just glad he's still in the NL East, so I don't have to care whether he wins 13 Triple Crowns or breaks his leg 13 times.
   82. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:27 PM (#5819298)
These two quotes, from the same poster, seem to contradict each other. If you know the most valuable seasons are going to be in the early part of the contract, why do you want a long contract?


Because you can then sign him, and 25mil 10 years down the road is not the same as 25 mil today. At 5-8 war he's a 40+ mil a year player that you are getting at a discount. You pay for it later, and just hope that league revenue continues going up, so that 25 mil ten years down the road is what is paid for a 2 war free agent, and hope he produces at that level, if not, it's just defferred money for a superstar who is going to eventually go into your teams hall of fame....
   83. Panik on the streets of Flushing! (Trout! Trout!) Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:29 PM (#5819299)
I think 8-10 competitive seasons and 1 championship. What do you think?
   84. It's regretful that PASTE was able to get out Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:35 PM (#5819301)
It seems to me that Harper has failed to meet his sky-high expectations in all but one glorious season in large part because he's constantly picking up little (and occasionally not so little) injuries. I'd actually be a lot more bullish on him if I heard he is going to be a full time 1B/DH going forward. I absolutely would have signed him to this contract under that condition. The man was born to hit. But if he's going to continue playing outfield I worry a lot about committing $325 million to someone with his injury history.

Pujols was still an above average player at age 35, and wasn't terrible at age 36. If Harper ages like Pujols, they'll get 11 good years out of this deal.


If Harper ages like Pujols he'll be well below replacement level by 35, because he's starting out from a much lower peak than Pujols did.
   85. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5819302)
How many competitive years would make this deal a success? How many championships?
That would depend on the relationship of his performance to the teams' success (or lack therof). E.G. the Red Sox won 108 games last year but that doesn't reflect on the Sandoval/Castillo deals, obviously
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5819303)
Just out of curiosity, I have three questions for those of you who think 10-13 year contracts signed at the top of the wage scale are good ideas. Over the thirteen years of this contract, how many competitive years do you think the Phillies will have? How many competitive years would make this deal a success? How many championships?


1. First question is how many competitive years the Phillies will have, is all about management, we've seen good management in New York, St Louis currently, and in Atlanta in the past that has produced 12 or more seasons of competitiveness in 13 years. We've seen other franchises put out 10 years over a 13 year stretch, and it helps that the NL East has the Marlins in it, a completely inept franchise that has no chance of succeeding over the next 5 years. So in answer to the question, 8 years seems reasonable if the owners are willing to spend and considering their revenue stream and their division, 10 years isn't out of the realm of possibility.

2. How many competitive years will make this deal a success? zero. I don't even get that question, this is an individual deal for an individual player, this deal is a success if Harper manages to play well and become a fan favorite... even war totals don't totally matter in whether this is a success or not. Team being competitive doesn't rely on one player, and if Harper puts up 4 consecutive seasons of 9 war, while the Phillies win 60 games a year, it doesn't negate that this was a successful deal, just that management screwed up other places.

3. How many championships? again zero. Bonds had zero championships and his deal was a success. Any deal given to Ted Williams would have to be called a success etc. This is a puzzle piece, it's not the solution.
   87. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:41 PM (#5819305)
Because you can then sign him, and 25mil 10 years down the road is not the same as 25 mil today. At 5-8 war he's a 40+ mil a year player that you are getting at a discount. You pay for it later, and just hope that league revenue continues going up, so that 25 mil ten years down the road is what is paid for a 2 war free agent, and hope he produces at that level,


But the argument isn't that those out-years are a necessary evil that you pay to get those 5-8 WAR years. The argument is that you want as many out-years in the contract as you can get.


   88. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:44 PM (#5819307)
If Harper ages like Pujols he'll be well below replacement level by 35, because he's starting out from a much lower peak than Pujols did.

Through age 25: Pujols: 5 seasons, 790 games, 167 OPS+, 37.6 WAR.

Through age 25: Harper: 7 seasons, 927 games, 139 OPS+, 27.4 WAR.


That's the difference between a real superstar and a very good but below superstar level player.
   89. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:45 PM (#5819308)

But the argument isn't that those out-years are a necessary evil that you pay to get those 5-8 WAR years. The argument is that you want as many out-years in the contract as you can get.
The argument is that for a given total amount of money ($330m in this case), you might as well get as many years of control as possible. Even if there's a chance that might result in some undeserved playing time down the road.

You still expect that most the value will mostly come in the first half, but that doesn't mean the back half is worthless.
   90. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 28, 2019 at 05:46 PM (#5819309)
Ah, OK. I misinterpreted NPV to mean AAV.
   91. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:06 PM (#5819313)
The upside is that Harper puts up 50-60 WAR and leads the Phillies to multiple titles. Absolutely within the realm of possibility.
I'll take the under.
Does this mean anything for Trout? If this is the value for Harper, 10 years @ $400 is an underpay for Trout
Since '12 (Trout's 1st year as a regular, Harper's (he was a regular right away) and Machado's first year), Trout has been worth 63.8 bWAR while Harper+Machado have been worth 61.2. IOW, it's not unreasonable to think Trout is worth north of $60M/yr on a long term deal (because having one 10 WAR player is more valuable than two 5 WAR players).
   92. TDF, trained monkey Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5819315)
They're paying him to average < 3 WAR over the course of the contract.
Considering he's averaged <3 WAR over the last 3 seasons, and he's likely at the top of the aging curve, that's a hell of a chance.
   93. Busted Flush Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:25 PM (#5819317)
The argument is that for a given total amount of money ($330m in this case), you might as well get as many years of control as possible.


Agreed. But with that said, why wouldn’t Philly push for a 15 year deal at say $350? I guess I’m asking if anyone sees the chances of an NHL-style contract happening in MLB. Other than the fact that Boras or the Union wouldn’t love the lower AAV. But Harper signing a 25-year/$400 contact would benefit both sides.
   94. phredbird Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:44 PM (#5819321)

Reports of mixed reactions from Phillies fans. Some vomiting in disgust, others vomiting in celebration.


on each other?
   95. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:54 PM (#5819323)
If Trout were a FA right now, he'd get 12/$600m, right?
   96. Tin Angel Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:55 PM (#5819324)
on each other?


Obligatory.
   97. BillWallace Posted: February 28, 2019 at 06:57 PM (#5819325)
I'll take the under.


So would I. It was literally phrased as the 'higher than expectation' outcome. And my entire point was that everyone always only focuses on the possible unlucky outcome but not the lucky one. Your snide remark was exactly what I was already saying is silly.
   98. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2019 at 07:02 PM (#5819326)
But with that said, why wouldn’t Philly push for a 15 year deal at say $350?
Because they'd rather not pay $20m for his 39-40 seasons.
   99. BillWallace Posted: February 28, 2019 at 07:04 PM (#5819327)
I have three questions for those of you who think 10-13 year contracts signed at the top of the wage scale are good ideas


I suppose it depends on exactly what you mean by 'top of the wage scale'. A contract that pays at the highish end of a market rate for a mean projected outcome can be a fine idea. The assumption is that your projection has to cover the worst downside cases, while it will also include some upside cases.

Where you get into trouble is when you're paying for a best case scenario. Sober analysis indicated that the Pujols contract was a bad deal from inception. Things had to break right for it just to break even. If things break right with Harper this is a steal.
   100. Busted Flush Posted: February 28, 2019 at 07:09 PM (#5819329)
Flip
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Spring 2020
(410 - 5:59am, Jul 12)
Last: Egregious Hidden Genitals (CoB).

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(6877 - 5:45am, Jul 12)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogHow quickly did San Francisco realize that Candlestick Park was a debacle?
(23 - 12:35am, Jul 12)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogGiants catcher Buster Posey opts out of 2020 MLB season
(34 - 10:37pm, Jul 11)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT – NBA Revival Thread 2020
(527 - 10:06pm, Jul 11)
Last: never forget: the pee tape is 57i66135

NewsblogMLB Owners Will Look For Ways To Recover Millions In Lost Revenue
(33 - 8:48pm, Jul 11)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogWill MLB's Testing Plan Sink Its Season?
(1 - 8:29pm, Jul 11)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogMLB Is Trying to Get a Grip on Foreign Substances. What Does That Mean for Pitchers?
(14 - 8:21pm, Jul 11)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (July 2020)
(5 - 6:57pm, Jul 11)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogMLB announces 2021 regular season schedule
(2 - 12:29pm, Jul 11)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogThere’s a multi-part 30 for 30 on the 1986 Mets coming to ESPN, with Jimmy Kimmel and Cousin Sal involved as executive producers
(15 - 11:15am, Jul 11)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogReport: MLB didn’t test players for COVID-19 coming back from D.R.
(5 - 7:34am, Jul 11)
Last: Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew

NewsblogSteve Cohen puts in $2B bid on Mets, Alex Rodriguez-Jennifer Lopez still in hunt
(2 - 6:58am, Jul 11)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-10-2020
(5 - 3:26am, Jul 11)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogTo bunt, or not? How to handle new rule in extras
(15 - 8:20pm, Jul 10)
Last: Karl from NY

-->

Page rendered in 0.6677 seconds
46 querie(s) executed