Eyebrows were raised from Charlestown to South End today when, at the questioning of Boston Globe report Pete Abraham, Red Sox slugger J.D. Martinez seemed to express ambivalence about the prospect of returning to the team in 2020 (link). Martinez has a much-discussed opt-out to consider this offseason, and Abraham asked him whether the prospect of joining his fourth team in five years is truly an attractive one. “I don’t mind moving around,” Martinez told the reporter. “I kind of like it.”
That’s hardly the sort of “I love being here” boilerplate you often hear when players are asked about potential opt-outs or extension prospects. It may be a bit dramatic to read too much into the comments of a player likely eager to conclude what has been a frustrating season in Beantown, but the 32-year-old will indeed have a difficult decision to make this offseason. As part of the five-year/$110MM deal he signed with Boston in February of 2018, Martinez has an opt-out this offseason that would pay him $2.5MM if he elects to forego the remaining three years and $62.45MM on his contract. Essentially, Martinez will have to reconcile his desire to stay in Boston long-term with the ability of his agent Scott Boras to find a deal elsewhere in excess of that $62.45MM guarantee.
If Boras wants to market Martinez as the best DH option on the vine this season, he will no doubt be able to assemble some convincing presentations. Though this season didn’t quite see the former Astro, Tiger, and Diamondback replicate the offensive assault he placed on baseballs in the previous two years (170 and 167 wRC+ figures in 2018 and 2017, respectively), he still mounted a .305/.383/.559 line in 2019–output resulting in a 139 wRC+.
Though the market has not been kind to corner/DH types in recent years, Martinez should represent a more appealing free agent option than, say, Edwin Encarnacion, over whom the Yankees hold a $20MM club option; Nelson Cruz, still a Statcast darling at age 39, could challenge Martinez for DH supremacy among free agents, but the Twins would be smart to exercise that player’s $12MM club option for 2020.
Put another way: it’s quite possible that this year’s DH market will consist of Martinez, Avisail Garcia, and a handful of past-30 question marks like Mark Trumbo. If Martinez’s comments to Abraham are any indication, that might be a market context he is willing–if not eager–to place himself within.
I am sooooooo sick of the Boras clients, cept the X Man. JD helps the team, I know that n if they wanna contend they need him or a version of his kinda bat.
Isn’t Boras conflicted from using the phrase “best DH” since he also represents Castellanos? Any chance if JDM leaves, the Sox replace him with Castellanos? Not fair to say replace but the team will save $$ and could do a lot worse.
Not a chance! Castellanos signs with the Padres 4/60 – 5/70.
I think that’s what he will get, just not with the Padres. They traded Franmil because I thought they had too many outfielders, Doubt they have that type of coin to spend especially since they are still stuck with Myers contract.
Castellanos signs with the Padres 4/60 – 5/70.
————————————————–
The Padres already have Myers & Renfroe, and probably want to give some time to Naylor. Why would they want Castellanos?
No way he signs for less than 5/106, or 6/128. He’s young enough to wait for at least a 5 year deal.
That was my point. Sox would save $4 – 6m for maybe one extra year. JDM was in my view the league MVP last year as he (again in my view) was more important overall than Mookie. That said, the team’s pitching staff is so vulnerable that it’s more likely the team as constructed right now will not return to the playoffs in 2020. Whatever immediate investment the team can make should be for pitching. Thus paying for Castellanos in lieu of JDM and Betts might give them a better shot at having a balanced 25 man roster. If they keep Betts then either Bennie or JBJ should be traded.
go ahead sign him..you’ll wish for even a middling Fielding outfielder,he’s atro ious
JDM is going for the record of most out there one-liners ever
“…you often here…” I here that’s the wrong word. I believe you were looking for “hear”. You hear what I’m saying?
He spelled “ambivalence” right though.
Minnesota could sign him if he opts out and try him or Cruz at first.
Cruz isn’t playing first, or anywhere in the field, unless it’s in the WS. Also if MN is going to spend that kind of money ot will not be on a position player, it will be on a pitcher like Cole or MadBum or someone like that. I’m not saying I thi k they will sign a guy like that but that’s where the money is going if they do.
I think Texas regrets letting Cruz play the field in the World Series. And he’s much older now too.
Ya think! They would have a World Series trophy if Cruz didn’t butcher that fly ball in game 6.
Cole will likely be outpriced and MadBaum is a risky signee for a smaller market club.
He isn’t going anywhere. Rsox can only hope for a trade.
JDM ? He already said he’s going to listen to his agent, and his agent thinks he’s the best offensive outfielder DH available on the market. He can definitely score more than 20 million times 3 years out there. I believe he’s as good as gone. His comments indicate that as well.
Please talk to Kimbrel and keuchel before you listen to borass
Different animals. Teams are much more likely to spend on a hitter on the wrong side of 30 than a pitcher.
Didnt Chris Carter hit 50Hrs and was practically begging teams to sign him the year after?
Yeah they both got exactly what they wanted and didn’t have to play an entire season. Lol
Oh and FYI everyone with any depth in analytics new Kimbrel was done after the all star break last year. He likely pitched half a season next year and never sees a big league mound again and kuechel was never attractive to most teams to being with.
You can add Nick Castellanos to the list of prospective free agent DH-types this offseason. I mean, he’s young and can play the outfield. Just not very well. But the man can hit and he adds a spark.
nah,he really can’t hit all that well.what he did last part of year in Chicago was a fluke.did you say outfield and he can play in same sentence? lol
Castellanos isn’t near the level of Cruz, Encarnarcion, or Martinez
If Boras can find a deal of 4 years/25 million per I think he is gone. The question is does anyone see him as an OF or just DH? If DH Cleveland or Minnesota? Those are the only two teams that could spend the money and are competitive.
Cruz isn’t playing first, or anywhere in the field, unless it’s in the WS. Also if MN is going to spend that kind of money ot will not be on a position player, it will be on a pitcher like Cole or MadBum or someone like that. I’m not saying I thi k they will sign a guy like that but that’s where the money is going if they do.
JD can NOT play a position, he’s horrific! DH perfect for him.
Good riddance if he leaves following Boras. All I want is for The Brockstar to remain….,is that too much to ask?
Possibly.
I think Holt will be a beneficiary/casualty of the Mookie/JD fallout depending how it lands.
If one or both leave this offseason, it’s likely you see him return.
If JD declines to opt out, and mookie isn’t traded, you will see Holt depart in favor of Hernandez and CO as cost savings.
He will have to opt out of his deal first before Boras shops him around. Otherwise its collusion.
JD would cost a draft pick.
Not sure Cleveland is paying that kind of money. They are penny pinching these days.
I think the Rays would be an excellent fit, but I’m not sure they would spend that kind of money.
The Orioles have the money and the need, they might offer 4/100
The White Sox would do it.
The Mariners might do it just to be in the papers.
If a NL team thinks the DH is coming soon, I could see a huge increase in the market for JD. He definitely would opt out. Have him play LF one year and then DH if they go to it in 2021.
“The orioles have the money and the need”
Delete your account.
Agreed. At the stage of his career he’s at, he’s not going to a rebuilding team.
Even if JD was open to go to a rebuilding team the Orioles are not dishing out 100 million dollars to a 33 year old DH. The optimist in me says we can compete in the ALE by 2022 but the realist in me knows that’s an aggressive timeline. Suggesting that we’d make that kind of move now is beyond stupid.
The Rays will never spend top $$$ for a DH type. The always find one on the market cheap.
Baltimore learned the hard way with Davis and Trumbo. No chance they sign JD. They’ll be bargin hunters til 2021 or 22.
They also learned the hard way with Cruz, whom they let walk.
MInnesota has Cruz at DH for another year and the Indians just traded for Framill Reyes for their DH and they control him for 5 more years. Neither would be interested in J.D.
I’d bet that Minnesota will hold on to Cruz, at what now seems a bargain price, rather than shell out almost twice as much for JD. The White Sox have the money and a huge hole at DH; They were willing to guarantee 31 million a year for 8 years to Machado; I’d guess they’d go at least 25/4 to get JD. It may depend on whether Martinez believes that the White Sox are ready to contend. Boas recently made comments about JD being a good influence on young hitters and being able to play RF 40 or more games a season. The White Sox are counting on young hitters such a Moncada, Jimenez, Robert and, as they’re seeking a left-handed rightfielder, a right-handed DH who could play RF against tough Lefties would be a good fit. Boas sounded as though he was signally White Sox GM Hahn.
Dude JD will get north of 30 easy
Maybe there’s another motivation: If the Red Sox are serious about getting under the CBT, they have to offload some significant contracts. Does that make the team less competitive than it was this year? What’s the true talent level of the team they have now? They didn’t seem to suffer a lot of serious injury losses that would have explained the drop, so did they just have “one of those years” or was 2018 “just one of those years” where everything came together. Is it possible Martinez wants out, or is he angling for another year added to this contract?
You must not have been paying attention to how far their starting rotation underperformed in 2019. That led to bullpen abuse. A simple bounceback from Sale, Price and Eovaldi and they win several more games. If JD opts out they may drop from a top 5 type offense to a top 10 but starting pitching is the key. I hope JD leaves, offense is still very good and they easily reset the lux tax.
Simple bounce back. Haha. 3/5ths of the rotation just simply needs to do what they were unable to do all year.
And just do what they did one year before that, yes a simple bounceback. Not saying they all have perfectly healthy seasons, just get 10-15 more quality starts than 2019.
The year before that Sale was still hurt at the end of the regular season, David Price had to miss two starts because of playing fort nite and Eovaldi cashed in on two spectacular months to that insane contract from the previously terrible GM.
You and others seem to forget that Eovaldi has always been a mediocre to worse pitcher that was injury prone so what we saw this season is most likely what he actually is not the 2-3 months at the end of the 2018 regular and post seasons. People also forget that this would be the third season in a row that Sale has ended the season on the DL or with injury concerns. Price also has spent significant time on the DL in two of the last three season so a bounce back is anything but simple
Exactly the point, 2018 wasnt some completely healthy abberation, they still had challenges and contribited a lot more. Sale had an ERA 1.5 runs higher than his career, his first year over 4 and his lowest inning total since becoming a starter. He should easily be better. Price was several starts short, just needs to get a few more in and ending early this year should help. Eovaldi just has to be mediocre and that’ll be a big plus. He was hurt and coming off of in season surgery. Despite the bad contract I havent met a RS fan that thinks he is a top of the rotation guy. He just has to be a 4 or 5.
One more thing in their favor, they all ended early and had light years. I think they will participate this spring and will be motivated to wipe away the underperformance that was 2019.
Actually 2018 looks like the healthy aberration even with all those injuries. Sale is now over 30 with three years in a row of breaking down at the end of seasons. Thats a bad trend that generally doesn’t reverse. Looking at Price even when he was healthy his numbers still declined significantly. He’s being paid like an ace and putting up 3rd starter numbers at best and like Sale is on the wrong side of 30 except with a crappy attitude. Expecting Eovaldi to even be mediocre is a big ask given that the only thing that’s been consistent about his career is his inability to stay healthy and frankly you could find many pitchers at a third of the price to do what he does.
The pitching was so bad that even a simple bounce back as you said isn’t going to be good enough and expecting those three players to do so given their recent trends/career trends isn’t realistic.. In fact it would take a major bounce back for those three to revert to their form even of 2018.
Calling 2018 which was consistent w the previous 8 years the abberation says all I need to know about your view. We shall see next year.
…and describing the team and pitchers as needing a simple bounce back should have told me all I needed to know about yours. by all means keep ignoring Prices steady decline over the past four years, Eovaldi’s very checkered injury history/ underperformance over his entire career and the concerns regarding a rail thin left-hander who hasn’t made it through a full season of the past 3 years.
It was only 11 months ago those 3 were part of a historically great team, you act like it has been years. Must be a hopeful Yankee fan.
nope Red Sox fan all the one. I just happen to not be an ignorant Sox fan and. I’m just being realistic. I gave them credit for 18 and you act like the past 11 months and the previous 3-5 outside of last year are meaningless.
Ok, we shall see if the 3 of them pitch more innings and win more games next year and find out who is “ignorant” because they have a different opinion.
Considering that between the three of them they pitched 320 innings and won 15 games that isn’t exactly high bar that’s you’re setting for them. That said you’re missing my point. It’s going to take way more than a “soft” bounce back from those three for this team to be competitive. The sox need Price to be an ace and pitch like he did prior to joining the Red Sox, Sale to be the pitcher was in 2017 and Evovaldi to be the pitcher he was for only 2 months in his career. All three of those things are possible just unlikely especially for pitchers in their 30s (in Price’s case mid thirties) I hope Sale bounces back but I’m concerned his injury problems are representing a trend. Price has been slipping for years and really hates playing in Boston so I wonder how motivated he’ll be. The Eovaldi you saw this year is more likely what you’re going to get based on how his career has been although I grant that this year was probably more extreme.
Finally you hit my point, they are likely to contribute more. Won 84 games after skipping spring and basically giving up the last few weeks. They arent far off of being in the playoffs as constructed w only losing Porcello, Moreland, Pearce, Holt, Wright, Leon and Hembree.
Glad I hit your point which I don’t agree with but you’re completely missing mine which is that the need to contribute significantly more for this team to contend not just slightly more or a little more which you are saying especially if they are planning to shed payroll and I highly doubt that all three will be even be better next year let alone two.
They aren’t just going to lose those guys other contributors most likely Martinez will be gone as well.
Can the Red Sox defer the QO in order to encourage JD to opt out?
Maybe JDM is thinking “either I can be trade away without my consent or I can opt out and find my next team.”
Red Sox may want to trade JDM in order to get under the luxury tax.
This is why opt outs hurt the team. Without the opt out, if you really want to shed the dude’s contract regardless of his current production, you can do so by trading him. With the opt out, you lose him for nothing.
If he is underperforming his contract then the team will have to pay it down either with cash or players if they want to move him. Teams get other considerations for providing the opt-out in any event.
If he is underperforming the contract he isn’t going to opt out in the first place.
Opt outs are beneficial to the player only.
Unless the player overestimates his market at the time of opting out. Or he hates his current organization enough to leave money on the table…. The latter two aren’t very likely scenarios.
@jbigz012 correct. Cases like AJ Burnett with the Phillies are few and far between. A lot of people said when they signed their contracts that James Shields and Ian Kennedy would opt out if they didn’t think the team could contend. They both decided against opting out despite being on teams that were going nowhere real quick.
Of course. The opt-out is part of the contract. It’s been a great contract so far, but it might not have been signed without the opt-out. Even now, as good as he’s been, the opt-out is still about a coin flip.
@jbigz12, no, opt-outs do not benefit the player only. The team would have to guarantee more money to sign the players without one. The opt-out is seen by both the player and the team as having future cash value and they are factored into the contract negotiations as such.
@ Show Me, of course, that was my point. If the team is stuck with an underperforming contract they will have to eat some of it to move the player. If the player opts out and signs a new contract for more money then the original team pockets the discount they got for giving him the opt-out. The assumption that many seem to make incorrectly is that teams offer opt-outs for nothing in return.
You don’t pocket the discount with JD’s front loaded contract. If his contract provided an opt out before a backloaded contract then maybe you’d be reaping the rewards of a discount. JD’s salary declines by 20% in years 4 and 5. The opt out protection is downside protection from the player.
Should the player “opt in” the only discount the team got was whatever the two sides determined the value of the option was at initiation. So for example if JDM’s MV was 120 million and the Sox gave him 105 with an opt out then the option value was 15 million. But once he chooses to “opt in” you’ve got an underwater contract which further hampers the teams upside of the total contract. If the player is insanely productive and chooses to opt out the team doesn’t win; especially in a contract where the deal is frontloaded.
If he’s not productive then the team gets stuck with an underwater deal that they saved the option value on…… That’s the team upside right there. Which, If your arguing for it benefitting the team that to me is a very very small one.
The team benefit is a small one? When a team struggles to keep payroll below luxury tax, you better believe it benefits the team. Especially a team like Boston. They would be in a better position to extend Mookie Betts. That’s not exactly a small benefit.
Well trim if they wanted to save those funds to extend Betts they would’ve front loaded Martinez’s contract to make the opt out an absolute no brainer. They very easily could’ve paid him 90 million over the first 3 years or 75 over the first 2 and made the final 2 -3 option years a no brainer opt out decision. If they were to use that strategy as a means of keeping Betts they would’ve done that. No matter how they chose to pay out the 5/105 it counts the same for luxury tax purposes.
As I’ve said before though. I do not care to have any interaction with a guy who lies about changing his anonymous profile. Have fun commenting further, Trim.
The fundamental flaw with your analysis is you apparently assume teams give away opt-outs for nothing in return, that they basically have no clue about what they are doing. I don’t know why you’d assume such a thing, but I am one hundred percent sure that isn’t the case.
How is that my assumption? Your assuming that the opt out is mutually beneficial. If there’s a fundamental flaw it’s right there. The player has the leverage in this situation to negotiate the opt out in the first plaCe. Any player given an opt out is typically a highly sought after one.
The option value would be the difference between what he’d get without an option and what he’d receive if one was present. The trade off is the upside the team potentially gives up on the rest of the deal versus the discount they receive for giving up the option. If the player performs well and the contract was structured like JD’s where the deal was somewhat frontloaded they receive nothing but a slight discount on those first 2-3 years.
What you’re not seeing is that they want the player and will accept the risk of the opt out. It’s not beneficial for them to offer it. Other than what I said; they get a slight discount on the total dollar figure. That discount on the total dollar figure 99% is not worth it. That is magnified when the player exceeds expectations. When the player fails to meet expectations, the team just saved themselves whatever discount they received for offering the option. To me, That’s not a very big win. .
My point is pretty clear that almost all the upside in a player option is with the player. That should be fairly intuitive. If JD wanted a straight 5/115-120 I’m fairly certain Boston would’ve given him that; I’m positive he was the one pushing for the right to opt out of his contract.
JBigz, the same guy using homophobic slurs, acting as the moral authority. I guess I’m the one showing tolerance you could never dream of.
Red Sox CEO validated my argument. You’re also digging a hole with BlueSkyLA. Try finding a career, JoblessBigz. My offer to help you with your resume still stands.
@WereAllJustGuestsHere and jbigz12 why do the both of you feel the need to bust out the ad hominem attacks? It is possible to disagree with someone without insulting them you know.
@BlueSkyLA while it is true that giving the player an opt-out allows them to sign the player for less total guaranteed money, some commenters such as outinleftfield, stymeedone and padres2019ha like to push the narrative that a contract with an opt-out is better for the team than the exact same contract with no opt-out because if the player opts out, the team doesn’t have to pay for his decline years. The key detail they leave out is that if the player didn’t have an opt out and the team really wanted to shed his contract, they would be able to do so by trading him. Trading a player for prospects will ALWAYS beat losing him for nothing. Take for example, your team and Zack Greinke. The Dodgers could have gotten a king’s ransom in prospects for him after the 2015 season by trading him if not for his opt out. Instead he opted out and they lost him for nothing.
We aren’t the first and won’t be the last, Tatis. I’d rather keep it to baseball. Unfortunately when JBigz loses an argument he resorts to insults. And went below the belt, badly. Funny thing is, he brings valid points to many threads on here. I have no problem sticking to baseball which is what I did in my first response regarding JD Martinez, Boston and the Betts situation.
Trim, I’ve attempted to end all internet communications. You for some reason have decided that’s not possible. You’ve also drawn the conclusion that I’m a jobless, video game nerd. From I believe because I use stats to back up my analysis. Which is the basics of doing any research. Which is just funny to me.
Very funny. I don’t know what else to say. I’m not even going to address that other crap because it’s just crap. I don’t know if you’re projecting because you’re sad about where you are in life or what but I truly do not care. So Ill say it one more time, I have no desire to communicate with you on the internet. Have a good time with your other MLBTR engagements.
Going back to the point of this conversation that apparently sparked some feelings whilst I slept… If the Red Sox wanted to clear JDM’s salary, if not for his opt out, they would be able to clear his salary by trading him and could probably get back top prospects in the trade. But with the opt-out, they lose him for nothing. That is why opt-outs are bad for teams.
And if no one is interested in trading for JDM as Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA said, then he isn’t going to opt out in the first place.
So no, you do not “reap a discount” or whatever if the player opts out because it means his production will just have to be replaced and doing that will cost more than whatever money he left on the table.
@Show Me. First up, it isn’t true that the Dodgers got nothing for Grienke’s opt out. In fact they got a comp pick, and that pick was Will Smith. So they came out just fine on that one. They also came out ahead by pocketing whatever discount they got for including the opt-out in his contract. So again they did fine.
Second, I am not making the argument that the value of an opt-out to the team is they might not get stuck with paying for a player’s out years. My argument is it gets the team a discount on the years before the option vests. How much is open for debate but that they get one really isn’t debatable because that’s the team’s entire actual incentive for including one in a contract offer.
For those with investing knowledge opt-outs are similar to stock options (most nearly, “put” options). The investor in a put option buys the right to sell a stock they own at a fixed price in the future. If the price is lower when the option vests, the owner of the stock might choose to exercise it. If it’s higher, the option expires and they get nothing for it. These options don’t cost a lot relative to the price of the stock but they aren’t free insurance. In this analogy the player is the buyer of the put and the cost of that insurance is something less in salary in the years before the opt-out.
If Greinke hadn’t opted out, they would have been able to trade him and the remaining money owed to him for more/better prospects than Will Smith, or just keep him and take the 10 WAR he produced from 2016-18 for only $71m. So no, the Dodgers did not do fine with Greinke opting out. It was a complete disaster for them. In hindsight the Dodgers just offer Greinke whatever amount of money it takes to get him to sign without an opt-out, knowing that it will be less than they tried to sign him for anyway three years later after he opted out.
I am not and have never tried to argue that including an opt out doesn’t allow the team to sign the player for less money. It provides some intrinsic value to the player and so some teams choose to offer that in lieu of more guaranteed money. But some commenters on here try to argue that a contract with an opt-out is better for the team than the exact same contract with no opt-out.
I invested for a living. It’s what enabled me to retire comfortably at 33 and have these titilating discussions on the Internet in the middle of the day. To continue with that analogy. Arguing that opt out clauses benefit teams is like arguing that a put option is beneficial to the put writer because if the stock’s price skyrockets after the put is exercised, he or she owns the stock and will later be able to sell it at an exorbitant price. In reality, if they thought the price was going to go up, they could have just bought the stock. They didn’t need to write a put option.
Off topic but we’re now discussing put options. Any CFA’s here? It appears all 3 of us are finance professionals.
I would argue that an opt-out is closer to a call option. With a call, you are hoping that the value of the underlying asset (that being your free agent stock) goes up. If it goes up, you can buy the underlying asset (which the player does by leaving the remainder of his contract on the table) for less money than its market price (as the player can get more money on the open market than he just left on the table). Then if the value of the underlying asset goes down, you just don’t exercise your option and keep your money.
I can see BlueSky’s framework for that conclusion though. What is omitted in that conclusion is the purchaser’s (JD’s) preferred outcome.
I’d Argue He’s buying a call option with the ability to also have a put option for almost nothing. (The almost nothing being the slight discount they received from offering the opt out)
If it were a straight call then JD’s value could obviously go down to 0 where JD would be left with his hand out and his pockets empty. Which is obviously not the case here as his contract could be underwater in which case you could easily use his framework and say it was a put option.
And that’s the problem with using a stock analogy for a MLB option contract…..
In a call option if the value of the underlying asset goes to zero you just don’t exercise your option, which is exactly what a player with an opt-out does if their value goes to zero (see Shields, James). In a put option, if you exercise it you receive a fixed amount of money for selling the underlying asset. JD isn’t receiving a fixed amount of money in FA if he opts out. He is receiving whatever the highest bidder wants to give him. That is why I think it is closer to a call. Because JD is paying a fixed amount of money (the contract he is leaving on the table) in order to take his services to the open market.
But in a pure call option if your value is that low you do not get an above market value return. The presence of a contract that could potentially pay him an over market rate makes it impossible for it to be a true call.
I’m not suggesting It’s a true put by any means either. And I would tend to agree w you that if you forced me to put into one of two bins I’d lean towards the call for many of the reasons you brought up.
But making an analogy with the 100 million dollar contract being the “zero” doesn’t really jive either. All 3 of us know that’s true.
I thought about it and I guess it depends if you are looking at it as a 5 year deal with an opt-out after 2 or as a 2 year deal with a 3 year player option. If you look at it the former way it looks like more like a call because you have the right but not the obligation to give up a set amount of money that you already have (the remaining contract) in order to take your services to the open market. But if you look at it the latter way it looks more like a put because you have the right but not the obligation to sell your services at a set amount of money (the remaining contract) after 2 years.
I considered both the put and call analogies. It doesn’t matter which one you think is closer to this situation, the analogy is still the same. Investors buy puts and call as hedges, as insurance. I prefer the put analogy because in that analogy the player is investing in himself. If his value is higher than the put he lets the put expire by opting out and sells himself at market value. If it’s lower, he exercises the put and collects on the insurance.
My premise is the assumption that both the team owners and the player agents are sophisticated about money, are used to dealing with very large sums of it, understand the value of such concept as options and present values, and don’t often get hornswoggled into giving stuff away. If the argument that some blunder into these contracts blindly because outcomes vary then that is hardly evidence of anything except that outcomes always vary. Fish swim in water, too. I heard that somewhere.
no. they wouldn’t.
zack still had 3 years left on his dodgers deal if he doesn’t opt out.
all 3 were at 23 million or more, plus a 3 million trade bonus, and the right if traded to opt out after the season.
not a chance the dodgers would have traded him anyways, but even if they did, no one would give them a huge haul of players for what could end up being a 1 year rental (or less if traded in season).
hell, kershaw had the exact same thing in his deal
Zack Greinke had 3 years and $71m left on his contract when he opted out. He ended up signing for 6 years and $217m. And the team that signed him gave up their first rounder to do it. Absolutely the Dodgers would have gotten a king’s random in prospects by trading him after the 2015 season if he hadn’t opted out.
Although in reality they probably would have kept him because they knew that if they traded him his production would just have to be replaced and doing that would cost a lot more than 3/$71m. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to trade him if they really wanted to shed his contract, which is the point I was making all along.
I prefer the call analogy because in that scenario and in actuality, the investor is hoping the value of the underlying asset goes up. In a straight-up put contract, the investor wants the underlying asset’s price to crash to zero. So this would be a covered put (where you own the underlying asset and the put option) as opposed to a straight up put.
The put buyer is taking out insurance against against a crash, but has no reason to want the value of the investment to crash. That’s like saying the owner of an insured property profits if it burns down. The put buyer still does better if the value of the investment increases and doesn’t have to cash in the insurance. But as I said, it is unimportant which analogy you prefer, the point of it is exactly the same. Insurance is never free.
Like I said, it’s a covered put. Where you buy both the stock and the put. A covered put option is essentially a pure call option only you pay the money and take ownership of the asset earlier.
No ones offering anything for JDM. They just wait the sox out.
I mean you slap the QO on him and receive a draft pick. Many contracts with the opt out clause come with significant reservations. Stanton and Price come directly to mind. They tend to be contracts that you really can’t trade; due to age, injury, underperformance, knowing there is no chance a guy is opting out for multiple reasons etc. There are always exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between. Do you really believe anybody is trading for JDs contract? And if they do are you really getting value? You provide the opt out knowing you save some in AAV off the top hoping the player performs well enough to use it. The opt out provides a monetary value on both ends. If we’re talking about the Red Sox’s in particular they’re easily hovering around 170 M AAV for 8 players and fringe roster depth pieces. Not accounting for arb raises and the 17 other players to fill out the roster. So with 3/5 of their staff coming off of major durability questions knowingly reaching upper classes of the cbt threshold, previous 2 years with a desire to reset, they probably won’t be saddened if JD were to opt. They are probably hoping he opts out to settle their burden and decision making process.
@Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA if no one is trading for JD’s contract as you said then no one is going to offer him a better contract in free agency. And if no one is going to offer him a better contract in free agency, he’s not going to opt out. Therefore, JD’s opt out provides no benefit to the Red Sox.
“… they probably won’t be saddened if JD were to opt. They are probably hoping he opts out to settle their burden and decision making process.”
If all of that is true (and I’m not saying it isn’t), then you can forget about JD opting out. If a team is “hoping that the player uses the opt out,” he’s not going to. Look at the players who actually did opt out. Zack Greinke, Alex Rodriguez and Yoenis Cespedes come to mind. Players who could CLEARLY get more money on the open market. THOSE are the type of players who opt out. And them opting out hurts their team every time.
David Price already decided against opting out. It’s fairly certain Giancarlo Stanton will do the same next year.
Stanton has a no trade and no option for when he signed his contract for the 10-year deal. So now we’ve had him 2 years He’s got eight more years to go with NYY. Obviously missed basically the entire season And he’s making all of that dough so he’s not going anywhere and he can’t
Exactly. Back when he was traded a bunch of people said that his opt-out clause was a plus for the Yankees because if he opted out it would save them from being on the hook for his decline years. But the chances of him leaving all that money on the table as a 31 y/o free agent were basically zero from the get-go.
Exactly he signed for something like 325 million for 10 years so the amount of money is crazy. So two years of work down eight to go and this year like we said I think he only played maybe 12 games in the regular season so I think putting those You know no trade and no acting out clauses to some players are good they work more towards the player to secure them their money. And just reading these comments I don’t know why I wish the American league national league would have the same rules I wish the national league had a DH because as you see that so many players like JDM who I am not a Red Sox fan as you can see but there are some players that could get picked up as a DH and then they now might have a hard time getting on a team because it narrows down the Plainfield for who they can actually be signed with and it sucks.
It’s hard to just throw names/situations out as though they are the same. I.E. Stanton: the Marlins backloaded the contract so significantly it’s was hard to ever see him opting out with the market shifts and emphasis on youth. But Loria did so knowing he never had any intention to pay him.
I think you missed my point. In discussing value for JD, nobody is going to take on money and give value, especially with a guy like Castellanos out there. The trade market has played that out. There’d be a willingness for certain teams to take on the money aspect, but one dimensional players don’t possess the trade value you’re suggesting. As though not having an opt out would change much in the pure evaluation of value. The simple fact of the matter is JD would probably be the type of hitter certain teams pay well on a high AAV short contract type. In discussion of opt outs I think we’re not acknowledging different situations here. Grienke and Cespedes outperformed their contracts. Did the Dodgers get value out of Grienke? You can sure bet they did. With a competent well run machine they recouped Smith. Did the Mets get value out of Cespedes? You can sure bet he completely outperformed his contract. Now you can question what followed after and if they paid the correct guy, but really it’s somewhat hard to argue that the option didn’t provide value.
It provides value to both sides in the semblances of less monetary commitment up front and also allows a player to opt out should they outperform their contract. Now with the QO the Sox’s will not receive the same potential, because of the tax bracket they reside in, but you can assure the Soxs would be ecstatic to slap the QO on him. Much of this has to do with the other aspects surrounding the Soxs. It’s an interesting topic, and we can disagree, but imo it lies in your definition of value. Production is value, management will look at butts in the seats as value, if you have a good FO and development staff you can recoup value. The contracts we are discussing generally are market specific due to sheer size of them. So really when discussing value, we have to be realistic that these contract types generally won’t replenish a farm especially with such risk adverse value oriented FOs.
“I think you missed my point. In discussing value for JD, nobody is going to take on money and give value, especially with a guy like Castellanos out there.”
If that is the case, then there is no way in Hell that JDM opts out of his contract.
“There’d be a willingness for certain teams to take on the money aspect, but one dimensional players don’t possess the trade value you’re suggesting.”
If JDM does opt out, it’s pretty certain that the Red Sox will slap the QO on him meaning anyone who signs him has to give up a draft pick. If they wouldn’t be willing to trade anything decent for his current contract, then they aren’t going to give up a draft pick to pay him more money. And if that’s the case, you can forget about him opting out.
“Did the Dodgers get value out of Grienke? You can sure bet they did.”
Would have gotten more value out of him if he hadn’t opted out.
“Did the Mets get value out of Cespedes? You can sure bet he completely outperformed his contract.”
Would have gotten more value out of him if he hadn’t opted out.
“It’s an interesting topic, and we can disagree, but imo it lies in your definition of value.”
No we won’t agree to disagree, you’re wrong and in denial. A team will never benefit from a player opting out. If a team is in a scenario where they would benefit from a given player opting out, then he’s not going to opt out.
“The contracts we are discussing generally are market specific due to sheer size of them. So really when discussing value, we have to be realistic that these contract types generally won’t replenish a farm especially with such risk adverse value oriented FOs.”
It would more than the draft pick from the QO would.
Dylan, my eyebrows didn’t raise at reading the comments. Could you read them again to see if the same thing happens? If the twitching persists, perhaps you should see a doctor.
Stanton has a no trade and no opt out when he signed his contract for the 10-year deal. So now we’ve had him 2 years He’s got eight more years to go with NYY. Obviously missed basically the entire season And he’s making all of that dough so he’s not going anywhere and he can’t
Since the Sox are cutting salary anyway, this will just help them further! But seriously, I do think he can improve his AAV in FA, so yeah, gotta go chase the dollars.
No it won’t help them because if he didn’t or couldn’t opt out then the Red Sox could have traded him for a haul of prospects. But with the opt out they lose him for nothing.
Probably to early for you to get the “but seriously” but hey, thanks for explaining the obvious!
Boras Clients had better have a good memory of most of his clients missing at least Spring Training!!!! Proven fact—-missing Spring Training— the players are visibly behind the others. Some don’t get their timing back. Ask Holland, A. Miller, any player that’s been through sitting out—waiting on big money!! Then there was Keuchel and Kimbrell from last season who did not or would not sign until after mid season. Boras may have ruined their careers!!! So out of shape, no game experience, no control, etc.
Boras Clients——he is only looking at his own huge commissions. He could care less about the players he represents. Because another money hungry young stooge hot shot will be standing at his door as his next victim.
You don’t sign with Boras b/c you care about any of that stuff… And Boras doesn’t ruin their careers, these players are willing participants in the FA gauntlet under his umbrella. That said, Boras is horrible for the league, but he’s great at what he does. And the fact that he has an enormous client list suggests you final paragraph is just pure bias and wrong.
IDK, he was a breakout star in Detroit, and after being traded to the D-Backs, crushed it there as well. After that, he could only get 5 years and $110M. Now two good years in Boston, but two years older as well. Has anything really changed in the FA market the past two seasons? Just can’t see him scoring big time given he is really just a DH. And not many AL teams need or will afford his services.
I like your points and they make the most sense. But I heard JD say earlier that he would listen to his agent for advice.
Then in listening to boras it sounds like he will advise JD to opt out and sell him hard.
If JD opts out, who are his potential suitors? It seems the other big market teams in the AL have their DH spots filled (Yanks, Angels, Stros, etc.). Are the next tier of teams going to be willing to beat what he’s already got locked up in Boston?
20 million x 3 years? I think some team will step up and give him 75 x 3. Or maybe 80 x 4. In today’s market 3 X 20 might be pretty easy to beat for J D Martinez/Boras.
But your question is valid. Who? Which team? I’m not sure.
I’d bet that Minnesota will hold on to Cruz, at what now seems a bargain price, rather than shell out almost twice as much for JD. The White Sox have the money and a huge hole at DH; They were willing to guarantee 31 million a year for 8 years to Machado; I’d guess they’d go at least 25/4 to get JD. It may depend on whether Martinez believes that the White Sox are ready to contend. Boas recently made comments about JD being a good influence on young hitters and being able to play RF 40 or more games a season. The White Sox are counting on young hitters such a Moncada, Jimenez, Robert and, as they’re seeking a left-handed rightfielder, a right-handed DH who could play RF against tough Lefties would be a good fit. Boas sounded as though he was signaling White Sox GM Hahn.
The White Sox certainly have the money and they clearly have the need for a competent DH
My focus for JDM is how many teams can afford and need his services. Here is OPS for the DH position for all AL teams:
Twins 1.031 (Cruz)
Red Sox 0.916 (JDM)
Astros 0.896 (Yordon)
Rays 0.875 (Committee)
Royals 0.87 (Soler)
Rangers 0.858 (Choo)
Angels 0.848 (Ohtani/Pujols)
Mariners 0.817
Yankees 0.812 (Encarnacion)
Orioles 0.757
Tigers 0.748 (Cabrera)
Blue Jays 0.746
Indians 0.678
Athletics 0.673 (Davis)
White Sox 0.617
Based on this, I only see the Mariners, Blue Jays, Indians and WhiteSox that could use and POTENTIALLY afford his services. Any others? Based on this list of 4 though, if i’m JDM I am definitely not opting out no matter what Boras says.
Great points !! You know if you look at that list and the lack of potential suitors, plus the hard time Martinez had getting this current contract and how he had to settle for way less than they thought. Maybe you’re right?
Another thought about National League fit is not only that he’s crummy in the field but he’s more apt to get injured out there. He is a little bit injury-prone and as he gets older I don’t think a national league team would dare pay him big dollars to play out in the field and be on the shelf for 50 games. So I think you’re right, just a few American League teams are possible. I think it would be great if he stays with the Sox, but I’m afraid boras will advise him to opt out.
I think he’s in a great position. When his contract ends there is a possibility that the NL has a DH and now he will re-enter the market with more potential suitors. If not, he can aim to get a Nelson Cruz type of deal for 2 years with a strong AAV.from an AL team.
The problem with OPS is it’s just mathematics. What needs to be taken into consideration is stress and big moments. EE for example is worth more than just his number because of his consistency and ability to get the big hit.
IRT opt-outs, so few players have opted out of their contracts, that I don’t yet see this as a negative for teams. I think the last one was Upton, and Detroit is probably celebrating that they got out from underneath (assuming the trade was made assuming that LAA would extend him).
Just in general, probably 90% of FA contracts should be traded half-way thru, if possible.
Yes they are a negative for teams. Look at the players who have opted out of their contracts. Zack Greinke, Alex Rodriguez and Yoenis Cespedes come to mind. Their teams didn’t want to get out from under their contracts. In fact, they were willing to offer them much more to stay. And your Upton example is ridiculous because the Tigers were able to get out from under his entire contract by trading him. They didn’t need the opt out. And they didn’t assume that LAA would extend him. It says right there in the article about LAA trading for him that he offered LAA no assurance one way or the other with regard to his impending opt out.
In the end, all the players for whom their team “would be celebrating if they got out from under that contract” don’t opt out.
IRT to JDM, as a RS fan, I wouldn’t mind if he stayed or left. He’s good at ~ $21.5M, but he will be playing thru his 32-34 year old season. He is likely to under-perform by his last year, and possibly earlier.
More importantly, his departure would make the path to getting under the payroll cap a whole lot easier. If he leaves, it becomes a lot easier to trade Betts. If we (unfortunately) need a reset, I’d prefer to go all-in.
Past that, I doubt he opts out. I think this is all talk to try to get the RS to add another year to his contract, which I would not do. How much more can a 32 year old DH get? How many times can teams sign Pujols, Miggy Cabrera, Fielder, Choo, etc., before they learn their lessons?
Yeah, it’s all an act to get more
Money out of the Red Sox. Which there is no way they should add a dime to his deal. I’d bet the want his money off the books anyway. He really ties up the DH spot for other guys they could rotate in there more. He’s old, and offers zero other than hitting.
I’d be shocked if JD got more than 3/60 from another team. He can’t play the field everyday and is old. Teams just don’t like players like him, regardless of his production. I guarantee the Sox hope he opts out. That’s sign enough, that the market isn’t great for an old DH wanting a lot of coin.
Again, if he leaves, it could simply be he sees 2020 as a down year in Boston and would prefer to choose a team that he feels is ready to win.
Well it’s not like he’s willing to leave if he has to take less money. The money aspect is 90% of what weighs his decision to stay or go. Guaranteed.
The market may not be kind for aging DHs but there are certainly teams who will give JDM more than 62 MM over 3 years for his services. Boras is no fool at reading the market. He’s not going to advise his client to walk away from a guaranteed 60mm+ unless he’s certain that there’s a team that will guarantee a better deal.
JDM is a very good hitter and a below average fielder.
His below average fielding becomes more apparent in Boston.
Boston has 3 great defensive outfielders.
JDM has an opt out this off-season and again in next.
If he opts out it solves some of the payroll cap space issue in 2020 and beyond.
If he stays we have a very good hitter..
I would prefer JDM stay and we get rid of Price instead.
Boston needs starting pitching.
Price is not dependable here in Boston.
He is also a sort of clubhouse cancer.
Don’t care for the BS he gave Dennis Eckersley.
Plus he is getting paid top dollar and has only had 2 good years out of 4 here in Bosion with 3 years remaining on his contract.
A change of venue may inspire him as he does have talent.
He just doesn’t seem suited for Boston.
And it’s an attitude issue not a racial thing.
I just don’t see the pride and the effort that I would expect from a professional.
But again I just don’t think Price fits in here in Boston.
For whatever the reason.
Wish him well elsewhere except against Boston. LOL.
Hope they trade Price and put the money into keeping Mookie instead.
We are stuck w Price, no team is taking him at that price. We wouldnt get much and would have to eat a lot of the contract so it wouldnt help the cap much. Best scenario for Price is him giving us more of that talent.
don’t hold your breath
Tough to see Boston up the offer on JDM.
Yankees? Doubtful.
If Houston decides to deal Gurriel and Reddick for pitching help, JDM heads there to DH.
I agree. If they let JDM go, they get a pick. They could move Jackie to Cubs for Schwarber and let Bennie roam center. They replace the power if not other peripherals (though I think Schwarber could be a masher in Fenway).
hes gonna leave. I can feel it in my bones. I hope he doesnt. they’re gonna practically dare him to with another deal that gives the same impression that his first deal gave; that the Sox are trying to get a good deal on his premium talent. his use and skills dont appear to be a bad investment as it seems he could age well like Cruz or Ortiz.