Here’s the latest on the Nationals and Orioles, two local rivals who will be going in opposite directions at the trade deadline…
- Bryce Harper’s impending free agency is a major subplot to the Nationals’ season, though the team’s larger short-term concern is how to get Harper back in top form. As per ESPN.com’s Buster Olney, some rival executives speculate that Harper’s relative down year (he entered today hitting .212/.353/.465 slash line with 19 homers through 326 PA) could help his chances of returning to Washington in 2019, as the Nats are more familiar with Harper’s ups and downs than any other team. Harper and the team could explore the possibility of a shorter-term contract with an early opt-out clause, so Harper could re-enter the market as early as the 2019-20 offseason if he puts up better overall numbers next season. The opt-out clause has been a favored tool of Scott Boras, Harper’s agent, in the past, and it makes particular sense for a player who is hitting free agency at such a young age.
- Also from Olney, some teams will wait for the Orioles to approach them with solid offers for trades this summer. The strategy stems from last year’s failed talks for Zach Britton, with Olney writing “the Dodgers and the Astros were among the teams that felt as if they wasted a lot of time talking with the Orioles — because in their view, Baltimore struggles with the process.” The counter-argument from the O’s, was that they decided to keep Britton after thoroughly weighing the offers presented. Waiting for the O’s to make the first move in negotiations is a risk unto itself, as there continues to be uncertainty about how large the market will be for star infielders, namely Manny Machado. “I’m not convinced [the Orioles] will actually trade him because I don’t know how attractive the offers will be,” one rival executive said. Barring an injury on a contender’s roster, Baltimore may have to settle for a less-than-expected return for Machado rather than just see him walk in free agency at season’s end.
- There continues to be speculation about what big-picture changes may be coming to the Orioles, as John and Louis Angelos have been taking on an increased leadership role from their father, longtime owner Peter Angelos. Jon Heyman of FRSBaseball.com even hears from some Orioles-related sources that a sale of the team within the next few years wouldn’t be a total surprise, as the Angelos sons had been previously thought to be in line to take over the family’s law and TV businesses rather than the ball club. In regards to more immediate rumors, Heyman hears from a source that the Orioles’ interest in Ned Colletti for a front office position was “overblown,” rather than necessarily untrue. Heyman also reports that there was little-to-no truth to speculation that longtime Orioles names Billy Ripken, Mike Bordick, or Rick Dempsey could be stepping in as the next Baltimore manager.
- Since the Nationals have been unwilling to meet the Marlins’ demands for J.T. Realmuto, Ken Rosenthal (in a FOXSports.com video) suggests that Rays catcher Wilson Ramos is a “logical” next option as the Nats look to upgrade behind the plate. Ramos is enjoying a nice bounceback year after an injury-shortened 2017, and he is a known quantity in Washington from his previous stint with the Nationals. Ramos is still owed roughly half of his $10.5MM salary, though Tampa could ask for a smaller prospect return in exchange for the Nationals taking all of that remaining salary off the Rays’ books.
The suggestion that the Orioles “struggle with the [trade] process” sounds accurate. They’ve made very few significant trades in the past several years, and it does seems that along with steering clear of the international market, trades of any type are not considered optimal. Just seeing this organization, it’s results, and the way it operates seems incredibly dysfunctional. I’ll be very surprised if Machado, Britton, or anyone else is dealt by the deadline.
I’ve been thinking the Baltimore FO has been the holdup in so many of the past negotiations. I don’t want to say it’s nice to hear because you don’t want clubs to be ran poorly. But insight is always appreciated.
Looking at what JDM fetched last year should be the floor of what the Os get offered. More realistically somewhere along the lines the Darvish trade. This is not me saying Machado isn’t worth more, just that’s what the market looks like to me.
Well if the team isn’t willing to run through cheese cloth for Showalter, why would they be inclined to do so with these three? Billy Ripken, Mike Bordick, or Rick Dempsey
Dempsey might be the best of the bunch, but I don’t think……
If the O’s do anything hire Joe Girardi, he would get the most out of every O and hire John Hart I felt did a terrific job with the Braves. He left them unceremoniously but still
As for the Angelos family, sell the team, enough is enough
Dempsey is the worst candidate in my opinion. Billy Ripken is the most knowledgeable by far. Girardi had his chance before Buck was hired. Buck will probably be the manager next year .
Buck will almost certainly not be the manager next year. His contract is up. The door is slammed shut on this team. Our next manager is going to be going through some rough years. I don’t think girardi would even consider. Our next manager, (unfortunately for him) is probably going to be the stopgap before we complete a rebuild. A Pete mackanin type of situation.
Girardi is going to have his pick of the best jobs available. He certainly isn’t going to take one of the worst current situations short and long term due to the owner.
I think of John Hart the same breathe as Phil Jackson. Content with being retired, had to be convinced to take the job, didn’t do much day-to-day stuff.
The O’s have no chance of competing this year and aren’t gonna resign their free agents after this season so why wouldn’t they trade Machado, Britton, etc. Even if the deals aren’t as great as they want still trade them to get pieces to help in the future. Machado will easily bring back a top 100 prospect that could even help this year.
You don’t want a guy that could help this year. You want guys that can be up by 2021. It’s going to take years to fix the Orioles. No need to get guys for now when it’ll just be wasted service time.
Right on target. Now is nothing. This organization needs to burn it to the ground and start over at square one. The problem is ownership won’t do it despite the fact there are few options aside from staying the course in perpetual mediocrity. Sell the team, turn over 100% of the front office, and rebuild it. Most O’s fans would not only accept it, they’re clamoring for it.
the O’s won’t trade because Peter Angelos has a fan’s view. He likes them too much to trade them
He like most fans shouldn’t be making those baseball decisions unless you want to lose
Bryce Harper has really only had 2 superstar level seasons. I think whoever gives him 400 million bucks is going to regret it.
Amen!
…..and anyone giving Manny Machado an 8 to 10 year superstar contract …….
May regret it also! But i’d rather sign Manny to a long term contract than Harper. Just one man’s opinion.
In all honesty the only player I’d feel confident in giving that much cash for that many years is Mike Trout. Somebody will give those 2 a hell of a lot and maybe they’ll be worth it but i couldn’t be the one.
Machado is worth it because he’s more consistent then Harper. I have him in philly next season.
Not one player has ever lived up to an 8-10 year deal worth over $2 million. Not one. If anyone gives Machado or Harper 8-10 at $300+ they’ll be trying to unload it within 5 years. And…. they’ll probably command opt outs.
*$200 million
“Machado… more consistent than Harper”
Not exactly true. Harper has never had a season worse than Machado’s 2017 season.
Tonypro that Arod contract he signed for 250 he actually out produced it giving the team surplus value. Now had that team been the yanks he wouldn’t have got traded, Rangers however had to unload Arod because the owner was selling the team.
But yes generally any deal over a 100 mil has been not just bad but god awful.
These two guys are outliers because they’ve reached free agency so young.
Bryce Harper is on pace to be worse than Machado wasn’t last season if he doesn’t turn it around. I think he will but I don’t think either one of them is more consistent than the other.
Harper has had 3 average seasons, 2 really good seasons, and 2 below average seasons. Machado, besides last season, has been very consistent.
Which seasons were below average for Harper? That’s just not true. His worst season is 2014, and he put up a 114 ops plus that year.
The people suggesting he had below average seasons are either only looking at batting avg or saying those seasons were below average for him and not below league average
Yeah… that’s my point. The Rangers couldn’t afford the deal regardless of his production and the Yankees tried to unload him for 3 years at the end. They even released him before the deal expired. Harper and Manny are closer to Arod’s position than anyone else. Only the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs and Dodgers could pay these guys that kinda money. Any other suitor will have to unload them at some point.
For Bryce Harper standards, this season, and 2016 would be considered below average.
Harper had a .814 OPS, and was worth only 1.5 WAR (according to BBRef). That was his lowest of his career in where he had played at least 140 games and 500 PA’s.
Tony: I think you are forgetting that Arod opted out of his first 10 year deal and resigned another. Had he completed that first contract he would have provided excess value. He like Harper and Machado hit free agency very young.
You are combining two deals together. The one Texas signed Arod to was actually a great deal. He opted out after 2007. The comparable here is the deal with Texas. That was a good deal for the team. Arod our performed the deal. The owner hicks went through a divorce or something and had to sell Arod and the team eventually.
Harper had a monster April and since then he’s gone into suspended animation. He struggles with consistency, and that may be a function of the fact he’s still only 25. I have no idea what will snap him out of this funk, but Mets fans could hold the solution. Mets fans are by far the best hecklers in the majors – have been for a long time. Next time WAS is in NY, Mets fans need to chant “OVER-RATED clap, clap, clap-clap-clap”. Just trying to get creative here.
Good you think that to be the case & hope others with an actual title of GM view it the same. Then, the Nats can keep Harper at a much lower price.
Nats should honestly be looking to trade Harper at the deadline. Clearly the goal is long-term success, which he won’t be a part of beyond this year.
Yeah ok buddy. Back to reality.
I am in reality. They could probably trade him for a close to Major League ready mid-rotation starter. Beats losing him for nothing.
Flags fly forever.
You’re never in reality. Just look at the stuff you posted about the Yankees expecting higher returns with lowball offers, a week or so ago. Do you even watch American baseball with some of the crazy things you post, like trading Harper. WOW just WOW
Ok Terry Taylor please cite the example of a team who is a World Series contender trading away their homegrown superstar in his walk year?
You are not in reality and clearly do not understand how Mike Rizzo & Nats front office operates. Nats are NOT trading Harper! If anything, they will offer Harper an extension to his current contract at $40MM-$45MM per season range, with a player’s option after the 2020 season. Similar to the deal with Strasburg. Both players have same agent (Boras). Rizzo and Boras have a great working relationship and Boras likes these type of deals for a player of Harper’s young age (25).
Red Sox trading Nomar Garciaparra. A’s trading Yoenis Cespedes (and he had another year of control)
Harper isn’t signing an extension. You are the one who doesn’t understand how the Nats’ front office operates. Their goal is long-term success, which he won’t be a part of.
You’re the dumb ass who said the Yankees would get Brad Hand and Tyson Ross for McKinney, Drury and Adams. So I think we know who is in truth never in reality LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Show me a World Series contender. There isn’t one in Washington, no matter how bad ESPN wants there to be.
Stead didn’t sign for $40-$45M per season, he signed a reasonable contract. Nats will never pay pay Harper the kind of money that u mention.
Should have read “Stras” before auto spell
I totally agree with you about this. I think this team has gotten to use to counting on him to win games. I would rather get prospects for him then draft pick. a better chance of them working out
I’ve thought about that myself, and it does make a lot of sense. Ownership/FO would never make such a controversial move, but even though he’d be a rental, Harper would net WAS quite a haul. I get the concept that a poor 2018 performance may increase the possibility he’ll stay in WAS, but I seriously doubt it plays out that way. No matter what he does the rest of the season I think it’s safe to say he’d decline the QO leaving the Nats with just a comp pick. Harper the player can match the image of Harper the superstar if he achieves consistency. With Boras as his agent the offseason promises to be an epic circus of hubris if nothing else.
Unless a team is relatively sure they can sign Machado for 2019, the offers for him won’t blow them out of the water. The question the Orioles will have is this. Which is more profitable to them? 3-4 players already in the minors and close to major league ready, or the number one draft pick and a drat spot from another team??? The weigh out. How many number one draft picks have made it big??
Do you really think a team will trade “3-4 major league ready prospects” for 40% of a season of Manny Machado? How many teams even have “3-4 major league ready prospects”? That would literally gut a teams farm system.
Do you have any idea of the financial cost of scouting, signing, coaching up of 12-25 prospects to get to where “3-…..4
You don’t give up extra value in a Machado trade because you think you can sign him. You give up whatever his remaining club control is worth to you. Trading for Machado does not have the future in mind.
Aw, man. Another opportunity to rebuild and they are going to screw it up again.
I know some team will lay out the money, but each time one of those monster deals is handed out, people groan for the final years of the term. Alex Rodriguez was a consistent performer for the first 7 years of his deal with Rangers/Yankees until he voided the contract in 2007 and signed the 275M 10 year extension with the Yankees.
giving opt-outs is stupid. a player wants hundreds of millions of dollars, make a commitment.
Opt-outs can be very smart for both player and the organization under the circumstances. A player at Harper’s age can do a two-year deal and come back to reassess the market still very much in his prime. The organization doesn’t have to overcommit, strangleholding them with a big salary & a lack of movement under the salary cap.
Opt outs are always great for the team. Never does a player opt out if he has an awful year.
Think about why do players opt out. It’s because the player has a huge year and that means the team got huge surplus value from the player. If the player opts out you get out of a huge finical commitment if you’re a team (that’s good by the way) and you can relocate those resources.
Only thing I don’t agree with opts is, teams should have team opt outs if a deal includes multiple opt outs for the player
Opt outs are terrible for the team! If the player opts out it means the team wanted to be stuck with the rest of the contract because they’d get even more surplus value out of it. Like, take a look at the players who had opt-outs and actually used them. Zack Greinke, Justin Upton and Alex Rodriguez come to mind. Them opting out clearly didn’t help their teams.
Oh and team opt outs in the middle of a deal will NEVER happen.
I’m looking at this strictly from a Nats standpoint. Having Harper with an opt-out works for the Nats, as they buy time for two more seasons with Harper and it is a deal they can get done with Boras.
In the meantime, the club’s future outfield of Juan Soto and Victor Robles continue to mature and develop at 19 and 21 years of age, respectively.
Anyone who has seen Soto over the past month recognize he is a future All Star and Robles is a 5-tool player who is the higher rated of the two. But even having Harper just two more seasons will stabilize the outfield and lineup.
It’s a smart move for the Nats who are all too familiar with players, like Matt Wieters, having a bad year and the club is stuck with carrying a $10MM opt-in this season. A 27 year-old Harper in 2020 is a low risk investment opt-in with his history.
What I’m saying is the contract would be better from the Nats’ POV without the opt out (or if it were just straight up two years). Opt-outs are pure downside for the team. Player will opt out if and only if the team doesn’t want him to.
Opt outs are NEVER smart for the team! If the player is performing at a level where the contract would be “strangleholding them with a big salary” then the odds of the player opting out are effectively zero.
“Opt outs are NEVER smart for the team!”
One could just as easily point out that team options are NEVER smart for the player.
“If the player is performing at a level where the contract would be “strangleholding them with a big salary . . . “
Not sure I follow. “Strangleholding” a team is a financial concern, it is/would be entirely independent of player performance. Stanton is an example. The Fish traded him because their new ownership felt the economic need to do so, not due to the player’s poor performance.
“ . . . then the odds of a player opting out are effectively zero.”
Which is the mirror image of what a team option does. If the player’s performance justifies the option salary the team will exercise the option. If the team prefers not to pay the option salary to the player for any reason at all, it simply declines the option.
Yes, player options—or opt outs— benefit the player while team options benefit the team. In other breaking news, water is wet.
But a lot of commenters on here claim that player opt-outs benefit the team by potentially saving them from being on the hook for the back end of the contract. But these commenters fail to realize that if the player is playing at a level where the team is worried about the back end of the contract, the odds of the player opting out are effectively zero. Like, for example, Jason Heyward and David Price aren’t opting out.
The same people also claim that club options benefit the player because “He gets $10m guaranteed with the potential for even more.” They forget that if that “even more” is picked up, it means the player would have gotten that money anyway without the club option. I’m not strawmanning, these are actual arguments I’ve seen people make.
While what you are saying is correct, you are making things unduly complicated. An option is an asset, it always benefits the person/entity which holds it. While the person/entity on the short end of the option may benefit based on whether or not it is exercised that does not make the option favor them.
If a player opts out the team does not benefit unless the player is pulling a Kaepernick (and in hindsight he wouldn’t have opted out).
“If a player opts out the team does not benefit unless the player is pulling a Kaepernick . . . “
I don’t follow football hence have no idea what Kaepernick “pulled” other than taking a knee.
However what you wrote above isn’t necessarily correct. But we are now dealing with unintended and unexpected consequences. Any time a player opts out of a guaranteed salary and then goes on to play poorly or rarely due to injury you could argue that the team he opted out from benefitted.
Just look at any of the free agent disasters, many of them were offered a guaranteed salary in the form of a qualifying offer but chose to opt out instead. The point being that while a team may end up benefitting from a player’s decision to opt out, that benefit is collateral and not intended.
Kaepernick had an opt-out in his contract. He exercised it thinking he could do better. But he was wrong as no one was interested in signing him. That is the only benefit where a player having an opt-out benefits the team and if the player’s agent is worth a darn it won’t happen.
In the event you described, a player opting out and then going on to play poorly, the team still doesn’t benefit from the opt-out and here’s why. If he didn’t have the opt out, they could have traded him without eating any of the contract and probably got back a decent prospect or two in the trade. Take Zack Greinke for example. After he opted out, the Diamondbacks signed him for twice as long and about 1.5x as much money on an AAV basis as his original contract. Don’t you think that, if he hadn’t been able to opt out and the Dodgers wanted to get rid of him, they would have been able to trade him for something really freaking good at that point? The fact that they heavily pursued him in free agency that offseason should tell you something about how good him opting out was for the Dodgers.
“Kaepernick had . . . “
OK, got it now.
“Take Zach Greinke for example.”
Cool, let’s use Greinke.
“Don’t you think that . . . they would have been able to get rid of him, they would have been able to trade him for something really freaking good . . .?”
Not necessarily. Your premise assumes that Greinke chose to finish his contract with the Dodgers, which had ~3 years remaining. He was already making $25M, dunno if that number was scheduled to go up. Plus he was having, for him, an off year. Trading Greinke meant trading the remaining term on his contract. It isn’t at all clear that, given your premise, the Dodgers would be able to trade him at all, let alone for a prime piece.
“The fact that they heavily pursued him in free agency that offseason should tell you . . . how good him opting out was for the Dodgers.”
But you are looking at results now. Pretty much every “big” free agent first rejected a QO. Had Heyward been offered and accepted a QO do you think the Braves would have benefitted from that extra year, could they have traded his first season in Chicago for something of value?
Closer to (my baseball) home, both Ian Desmond and Jordan Zimmermann were offered and rejected QOs. Neither had much/any value during the first season of their deals and very little since. I’m sure the Nats are quite happy, after the fact, that both players opted out even though both had been offered extensions in excess of $100M.
While your underlying point about player options is correct you appear unwilling to concede that sometimes things work out such that a team is better off because a player opted out. Doesn’t make player options team friendly but it does happen.
Your entire argument is an exercise in hindsight. Greinke was coming off his best season when he opted out. If the Dodgers had tried to trade him then, they would have gotten all sorts of surplus value. And no I’m not looking at results now. I am looking at what he was worth then. The Dodgers losing Greinke who they had signed for like 3/$75m was terrible for them. The fact that they offered him way more money (but not as much as the Diamondbacks) when he opted out confirms this. And even if we want to look at results now, Greinke if he hadn’t opted out and then pitched the way he has in the last 2.5 years would hold some surplus value. The Cardinals and Nats also wanted Heyward, Zimm and Desmond to accept the QO’s at the time (but knew they wouldn’t) and because the QO is for 1 year, they wouldn’t be any worse for the wear if those players had accepted.
The team is never better off because if the player played well enough to opt out but couldn’t, they could have traded him. That’s all I’m saying.
“Greinke if he hadn’t opted out and then pitched the way he has in the last 2.5 years would hold some surplus value.”
The verbal gyrations are a bit difficult to follow but I’ll give it a shot. If Greinke hadn’t opted out of his contract with the Dodgers, meaning he’d be pitching in his final contract year @ $25M, his performance being exactly as it has been. You think there would be teams lining up to trade for his services? If the Dodgers were out of the race this year the opportunity to save $10M or so by unloading him would be the largest factor. I’d expect the market for the soon to be FA Greinke would be small and the pickings slim.
“The team is never better off because if the player played well enough to opt out but couldn’t, they could have traded him.”
You are still resisting my initial point. Player options benefit the player. The player will exercise—or not—that option based upon what he perceives to be his own best interests. In order for the team to benefit from a player choosing to opt out the player’s calculation of ‘his own best interests’ would have to have been mistaken.
Both Desmond and Zimmermann turned down QOs of ~$15M. Neither of them were worth anywhere near that during their QO years. Had they accepted the QOs the Nats would not have been able to trade both of them for a bag of balls. The Nats clearly benefitted from both players rejecting QOs. Not sure which part of this you’re really arguing?
Look, mullethead. The Diamondbacks offered Greinke 3x as much total money in free agency as the money he opted out of. The Dodgers themselves also offered a great deal more than the money he opted out of. How can you say him opting out benefited the Dodgers? They were willing to pay him much more than that. Getting him on the terms of his original contract would have been HUGE for them. Or if they wanted to get out from under the 3/$75m owed to him anyway, don’t you think they could have traded him to the Diamondbacks for a king’s ransom? And they would be fine if they had kept him until today. He’s pretty durable, he puts up ERA’s south of 3.5 and they would owe him nothing beyond this season under the terms of his original contract. Greinke opting out was horrible for the Dodgers and still is today.
“In order for the team to benefit from a player choosing to opt out the player’s calculation of ‘his own best interests’ would have to be mistaken.”
Correct. That is what happened with Kaepernick and Desmond. Although Zimm isn’t a good example because the contract he got from the Tigers was much better than the QO. Had he accepted the QO the Nats could have then traded him to the Tigers for something good. But cases where the player think he’s more valuable than the money he’s opting out of but the GM’s disagree are the exception, not the rule. That doesn’t mean opt outs benefit the team. It means the player needs to fire his agent.
“Look, mullethead.”
Can’t have a serious argument/discussion/debate with someone and insult them at the same time. If you’d prefer an exchange on insults just say so, I can do that too.
“They were willing to pay him much more than that.”
What they were willing pay is irrelevant to the present question. The question was whether Greinke at $25M for this and the past two seasons held any/sufficient surplus value to be a useful trade piece. One could argue that the Dodgers benefitted from him opting out AND from him rejecting their subsequent offers. You aren’t appreciating just how few teams would eat that salary.
“Correct. That is what happened with Kaepernick and Desmond. . . Had he (Zimmermann) accepted the QO the Nats could have then traded him to the Tigers for something good.”
Um, no. You must be unfamiliar with Zimmermann’s would have been QO season, more commonly known as his first year in Detroit. There was no point during that season when Zimmermann could have been traded for anything of value.
“But cases where the player think (sic) he’s more valuable than the money he’s opting out of but the GM’s (sic) disagree are the exception, not the rule.”
Right, and entirely consistent with my argument all along. I didn’t say that it was common, just that it is possible and has happened. Despite you coming up with examples which prove my point you’re still arguing with me for some reason.
“That doesn’t mean opt outs benefit the team. It means the player needs to fire his agent.”
It also means that I have been right all along. Jeebus, this was a pointless exchange. Next time just go directly to insults and spare me the pretense of an argument.
What they were willing to pay is absolutely relevant! You must be out of your freaking mind to say the Dodgers benefited from Greinke opting out. No one in their front office would agree with that sentiment. Had he not opted out, he’d have been a guy coming off a 1.66 ERA season with the track record to back it up who was only owed 3/$75m. That is crazy good value. And if the Dodgers were really worried about him regressing, they could have traded him. He would have fetched a king’s ransom in the 15-16 offseason had they gone that route. Even if they hadn’t traded him, I can’t see them having any complaints about a guy who pretty consistently throws 200+ innings of sub-3.5 ERA ball who they owe zero money beyond 2018. Dodgers did not benefit from Greinke opting out. If you don’t see that then you are a lost cause.
I meant the Nats’ could have traded Zimm right after he accepted the QO (although upon further investigation there is a rule against that). Either way, a one year deal would not have hurt them. I don’t know what the Nats offered Zimm as a free agent but they would have been very happy if he had taken the QO, which is precisely why he didn’t.
Cases where the player overvalues himself are the only ones in which the opt-out benefits the team. Greinke and Zimm don’t fall under that banner.
“Cases where the player overvalues himself are the only ones in which the opt-out benefits the team.”
That isn’t true either. A player who is injured or performs poorly would also benefit, in hindsight, the team he opts-out from.
“And if the Dodgers were really worried about him regressing, they could have traded him.
Believe Greinke had a NTC. But the principle is the same. Who could they have traded three years at twenty five million a year to? D”backs, pretty obviously, maybe Yanquis/Red Sox. Anyone else I missed? While Greinke may have been worth his salary it still isn’t clear that the remaining term on his contract had any surplus value. Repeating that it does does not make your point. Saying that all those who don’t see it your way are beyond help doesn’t make your point either.
“ . . . but they (the Nats) would have been very happy if he had taken the QO . . . “
The Nats actually offered Hayward more than the Cards did. Because of their ongoing feud with the Os over teevee revenue, the Nats offer included a structured payout rather than straight money. At the time the Nats would have celebrated signing Hayward. Yet, as we can see now, they are much better off because he rejected their offer.
“ . . . which is precisely why he didn’t.”
Um, no, again. When deciding whether to accept the QO, the Nats desire that he accept the offer played no part in his calculations. The player did what he believed best for himself, nothing more or less. If Zimmermann had believed it in his best interests to accept the QO he would have done so, even if the Nationals made it clear that they didn’t want him to.
“What they were willing to pay is absolutely relevant.”
No, it isn’t. See comment above re: Hayward, Jason. The fact that someone makes a stupid offer doesn’t make the recipient worth it. The whole point here was unforeseen and unintended consequences.
No, they wouldn’t benefit if he gets injured or regresses because if not for the opt out they could have traded him for prospects.
Greinke did not (and does not) have a NTC. He literally said when he entered free agency in 2015 that he doesn’t care who he plays for as long as he gets paid.
“Who could they have traded three years at twenty five million a year to?”
A lot of teams. The Giants and Diamondbacks to name a few. Then maybe others who didn’t come close to them in the bidding but still would have offered him more than he opted out of. Or they could have just kept him to fill a spot in their rotation. And asolutely the remaining term on his contract had surplus value! If it didn’t, he wouldn’t have opted out.
We weren’t talking about Jason Heyward, but the contract the Cubs offered him was better than the contract you are saying the Nats’ offered him because 1. Two opt outs and 2. The Nats’ contract was deferred which means it has a lower net present value due to inflation.
The Nats’ desire that Zimm accept the QO may not have played a part in him declining it, but he did decline it for the exact same reasons that the Nationals wanted him to accept it (namely: it being well below what he was worth on the open market).
“The fact that someone makes a stupid offer doesn’t make the recipient worth it.”
Yes it does. In baseball, you are worth whatever the highest bidder says you are worth. If you want to say that the team overpaid then fine, I don’t necessarily disagree. But the thought of someone overpaying is precisely why the player opts out and why the team doesn’t want him to (because if he doesn’t, they can keep him for below market value or trade him for prospects).
“A lot of teams. The Giants and Diamondbacks to name a few.”
Not meaning to nitpick here but you named two, one of which (D’backs) was obvious to both of us. I also granted you the Yanks and Sox as possibilities. Still don’t see anywhere near a “lot” of candidates. There might be other teams willing to pay that salary but would they pay a premium for the privilege of doing so? That part isn’t clear. It’d be easier to name the teams which we both know wouldn’t take on that contract, let along trade something of value for it.
“The Nats desire that Zimm accept the QO may not have played a part in him declining it, but he did decline it for the exact same reasons that the Nationals wanted him to accept it ( namely: it being well below what he was worth on the open market.)”
No, you aren’t getting it. The Nats didn’t/don’t care what he would be worth on the open market, it’s irrelevant to them. They aren’t gonna commit $15M to a player on the hope that he plays well enough to be traded.
The fact that Desmond was expected to sign a ~$100M contract to be somebody’s SS does not mean that the Nats wanted him to accept the ~$15M QO to be their SS. Teams which want a player to accept a QO have several reasons, including team chemistry, availability of someone to replace that player, and overall team budgetary concerns. The Nats had prepared for Desmond’s departure and merely wanted the draft pick they got for a rejected QO. You may not recall as it’s been some time but there have been QOs extended which the team was both hoping and expecting to be declined.
We can argue the details ad infinitum. Although a player option benefits the player, the way it is exercised can end up benefitting the team. If the Yankees had been smarter they would have waved ‘goodbye’ when both ARod and CC opted out. And they would have benefitted both times, regardless of both players subsequent success. A player may opt out of what would have been a bad deal for the team, thus unintentionally helping the team.
Idk what the Yankees and Red Sox offered Greinke so I didn’t include them. But the Dodgers wouldn’t have needed a lot of teams to be willing to trade for him. They would have only needed one. And considering the Diamondbacks paid him 3x as much as what he opted out of in free agency and forfeited their first rounder to do it, yeah, they would have paid a premium in prospects to have Grienke for 3/$75m.
The Nats would have gladly paid Zimm $15m on a 1-year deal after the 2015 season. But it’s pretty much irrelevant because they knew the odds of him accepting the QO were zero from the get-go. They made the QO so they could get the pick, but idk what they offered him in free agency.
Again, Desmond overestimated his market. In hindsight, he accepts the QO and if the Nats think he might accept it, I doubt they make it. Situations like Desmond or Moustakas are the only ones where the team benefits from the player declining the QO.
You’re tiptoeing the line of psychotic if you think A-Rod and CC’s opt-outs benefited the Yankees. IIRC the Yankees were genuinely upset when A-Rod opted out. If them opting out benefited the Yankees, they absolutely would have just showed them the door once they opted out. But they didn’t. And if they hadn’t opted out and the Yankees really wanted to get out from under the contracts, they could have gotten out from under them by TRADING THEM.
You really need to double check things dude. This entire thread was just a disaster for you. So many awful, incorrect statements that I had to correct.
“You really need to double check things dude. This entire thread was just a disaster for you.”
Funny, we were both involved in the same exchange but view the outcome entirely differently.
“So many awful, incorrect statements . . . “
Like what? Other than Greinke not having a NTC—which I conceded to you despite not remembering it that way. You conceded my point several times over yet still found something to argue about. If this is your idea of winning, losing must require actual bloodshed.
“ . . . that I had to correct.”
You did nothing of the sort. Try not to herniate a disc when you pat yourself of the back. I do understand the sentiment, however. If you don’t praise yourself, nobody will.
“The Dodgers wouldn’t have needed a lot of teams to be willing to trade for him.”
You said “lots”, that was your word, not mine. Now you don’t want to defend it. And, while it is technically possible, your example assumes that the Dodgers would trade Greinke, and possibly the division title with him, to a division rival.
You can respond if you like but I’m done here. Next round, and I’m sure there’ll be one, won’t be so polite. Cheers.
“Funny, we were both involved in the same exchange but view the outcome entirely differently.”
That says more about you than me.
“You conceded my point several times over yet still found something to argue about.”
Actually I said from the beginning that the only way the opt-out benefits the team is if the player pulls a Kaepernick. You on the other hand are trying to argue some stupid theory that Zack Greinke opting out benefits the Dodgers even though they were quite clearly willing to offer him a great deal more than he opted out of (which means tbey would have preferred him not opting out).
“And while it is technically possible, your example assumes that the Dodgers would trade Greinke, and possibly the division title with him, to a division rival.”
If they don’t want to do an in-division trade, you mentioned the Yankees and Red Sox. Although I don’t know what they offered him (if anything) in free agency which is why I didn’t go there. But I’m sure there would have been takers for a guy coming off the season Greinke had whose contract wasn’t at all exorbitant and I don’t think the Dodgers would have taken an inferior return if the best return came from a division rival. You can argue that doing that would hurt the Diamondbacks more than the Dodgers (having to trade impact prospects to a division rival then face them for potentially the next decade).
Waiting in earnest to see what stupid theory you try to argue next. And you can stop hiding behind your snide “cheers'” now 🙂
If an opt out gets that player sign though, it’s worth it as long as he performs
But it would be more worth it without the opt-out
It’s so frustrating when DD says “well we just didn’t find the right offer” when in reality “they just don’t know the process”. What a waste of talent for the Orioles recently. From 2012-2016 and even possibly today, the Orioles could be a World Series caliber team had they made some better moves.
The O’s do many things differently than other teams. Their resultant lack of success prevents any other team from emulating them. They don’t participate in the international draft, they don’t make trades, they constantly bid against themselves for free agents nobody else wants, and they blindly worship the god of the Rule V draft.
“…some Orioles-related sources that a sale of the team within the next few years wouldn’t be a total surprise…” Best news I’ve heard in 20 years. Yo Cal…