Harper and Machado

[kcmets]

Multiple sources per MLB channel ticker that it's Harper to Phillies.

[dgwphotography]

Well, I posted in the wrong thread...

[kcmets]

Lol, you musta posted that while I was digging up this thread from page 3.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Wild. 13 years/$330M, no opt-outs. Signed through age 38 season.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That's an average value of $25.385 million.



I guess we have to hope that he turns out to be what Jason Bay was for the Mets.

[Lefty Specialist]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Wild. 13 years/$330M, no opt-outs. Signed through age 38 season.

Oof. Trapped in Philly for 13 years. That's like a prison sentence. A luxurious prison, no doubt, but still.



If healthy, he'll hit 40 homers a year indefinitely.

[A Boy Named Seo]

that $25M per year is not so outrageous in the end. Phils obv have to pay him 4 or 5 years when he's decidedly post-prime, but what is $25M in 2030 gonna be anyway? Seems a good deal for both.

[Frayed Knot]

Weird that, after all that waiting, he opts for a longer deal -- one where I guess both he and Boras can [CROSSOUT]claim[/CROSSOUT] brag is the biggest deal ever in terms of total dollars -- but for an AAV that's lower than several existing contracts such as Machado, Arenado, Scherzer, Cabrera (just off the top of my head).

Not sure I'd see going from 10/$300 (the Nats initial offer) to 13/$330 as worth five months of dillying, haggling, and flying coast to coast for meetings in the end, but if that's what he wanted then muzzle tuff.

[Edgy MD]

And the Nats claimed (for whatever that's worth) that they upped the 10-$300 offer substantially.

[Guest 41Forever]

Frayed Knot wrote: Not sure I'd see going from 10/$300 (the Nats initial offer) to 13/$330 as worth five months of dillying, haggling, and flying coast to coast for meetings in the end, but if that's what he wanted then muzzle tuff.

And the threats of labor unrest.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Thirteen years from now, $25M will very likely be worth less than $10M in today's dollars. Plus, owners are counting on an ever increasing revenue stream. So 13 years from now, a player who's the equivalent of Steven Matz will probably be making $25M a year in MLB.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Internet abuzz with reports that Bryce turned down a shorter deal with a $45M AAV. That's insane. Would Harper have been leery to re-enter the market in, say 4 years, at 30 years old after bagging $180M? That he wanted security for 13 years instead sez to me that even the upper echelon players are wary of hitting free agency anywhere near 30 years old and up.

[Willets Point]

Reminds me of the W.C. Fields quip: "First prize was a week in Philadelphia. Second prize was two weeks." This must be like 676th prize.

[metsmarathon]

I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies. Also should take them out of the mike trout sweepstakes

[batmagadanleadoff]

=metsmarathon post_id=3589 time=1551392026 user_id=83]
I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies. Also should take them out of the mike trout sweepstakes

[A Boy Named Seo]

I don't know. That $25M won't be outrageously restrictive. I read somewhere that as of now, they're still $70-something million under the luxury tax.

[Centerfield]

Philly has Nola and Harper locked up long term. Anything can happen, but they have a good chance to be good for a long time. This is shitty.

[MFS62]

And when this contract expires, Bobby Bonilla will still have 4 years to go on his.

If I'm still around then, I'll be grousing about that.(although it will be player's pocket change by then)

"Kiddies, I remember when .... "

Later

[Frayed Knot]

I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments

[Fman99]

=metsmarathon post_id=3589 time=1551392026 user_id=83]
I'm cool with this. One more reason to hate the Phillies.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments

its a Madoff thing.

[kcmets]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=3585 time=1551388374 user_id=68]Thirteen years from now, $25M will very likely be worth less than $10M in today's dollars.

[Guest 41Forever]

My buddy is convinced that Machado will be an MFY in a couple years, when they're done with Tulo and the Padres are looking to get out from under that contract.

[smg58]

The Yankees are welcome to have Machado's down years. The Padres may have a tough time affording Machado and the escalating arbitrated contracts their top prospects will likely eventually get, but it's five years before that is even a concern.



It's certainly true that if revenues keep going up, $25M won't look even a little bit prohibitive in a decade for a high-end player. Even if Harper plays more like the last three seasons than like 2015, it's not going to be an albatross. An injury that compromises his play long-term would render all bets off, though.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments its a Madoff thing.

How so?

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: I find ZERO reason to grouse over the Bonilla payments its a Madoff thing. How so?

The Wilpons would never have given out such a generous deferment if they didn't believe they would continue receiving an even greater return on their durty Madoff money.



http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/16650867/why-mets-pay-bobby-bonilla-119-million-today-every-july-1-2035http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/16650867/why-mets-pay-bobby-bonilla-119-million-today-every-july-1-2035

The Mets have never really talked about the deal, but it is well known that their owners, the Wilpons, had many accounts with investor Bernie Madoff. Madoff was returning 12 to 15 percent a year in what we now know were fictional returns. So deferring deals wasn't a problem because the payout would occur years later and the interest rate would be lower than the money they were (fictionally) getting back from Madoff. To see the deal as the Mets would have seen it, let's say the Wilpons put $5.9 million into a Madoff account in 2000 and got a conservative (by Madoff standards) 10 percent annual return. By 2011, when they would have to pay Bonilla for the first time, they would have already grown their pot to $16.83 million. Even with paying off Bonilla every year, they would wind up with a $49 million profit on the deal. Of course, the Madoff returns weren't real, which complicates this hindsight.

[Guest 41Forever]

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/see-it-noah-syndergaard-pokes-fun-at-bryce-harpers-bring-a-title-back-to-dc-slip-up/304692022https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/see-it-noah-syndergaard-pokes-fun-at-bryce-harpers-bring-a-title-back-to-dc-slip-up/304692022



Oops. Bryce having a little trouble with the transition to Philly.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: Release younger players from the bonds of controlled salaries and and sole rights and the older players will be worth more money. Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall.

I'm not sure when or how 10 or 20 elite players became or would become simultaneously available, but this isn't how supply and demand work.



If it was, teams wouldn't be forcing players to stay in reserve, available to one team until they've completed six major league seasons.

[nymr83]

If each team thought THEIR amateur talent evaluation was exactly average then it would be a wash to them. I'm guessing each team thinks they can do better over the long run.

[RealityChuck]

Edgy MD wrote: Wouldn't they be worth LESS money if the younger players were taking more of the pie? Precisely right. Simple supply and demand says so. If there are two elite players available, they're going to command more money if there are 10 or 20. The overall effect would be to deflate salaries overall. I'm not sure when or how 10 or 20 elite players became or would become simultaneously available, but this isn't how supply and demand work.

It's exactly how supply and demand works. If there is one item and multiple people wanting it, it drives the price up due to scarcity (small supply, big demand). Think of deBeers, which limits the supply to keep the price of diamonds up.



The current rules and practices make it unlikely that multiple impact players are available. But if you granted free agency to the younger players, the supply would increase.



Look at Harper. Several teams fought to get him, raising his price. He could say, "You're only giving me $100 million; Team B wants to give me $150 million. You've got to do better." And the team has to decide to match or beat the other bid.



Now if there were four players the equivalent of Harper, then the teams have the whip hand. "$100 million? We can get player B for $85 million."