The Cubs reintroduced Cody Bellinger at a press conference this morning. The two-time All-Star was alongside agent Scott Boras and Chicago president of baseball operations Jed Hoyer to discuss his protracted free agent process (link to the full presser).
At the start of the offseason, few would’ve expected Bellinger settling for a three-year guarantee worth $80MM. His camp began the winter in search of a much larger offer, reportedly seeking upwards of $200MM. Unsurprisingly, no one confirmed the precise contract terms that Bellinger had sought, although the former MVP conceded he initially expected an extended deal.
“Yeah, I think there’s definitely that thought that goes into it,” Bellinger said when asked if he anticipated signing a long-term contract. “Ultimately, that’s the goal. … I talked to Scott continuously to see what was going on. At the end of the day, I’m super excited how it all worked out. Yes, obviously (thought about a longer deal), but I’m very excited with it all and very happy to get going.”
With the offseason nearing an end, it’s clear that teams weren’t going to meet Bellinger’s asking price on that kind of contract. At that point, he moved to the much shorter term with the ability to opt out and retest free agency in either of the next two offseasons. He’ll collect $30MM for the upcoming season. If he repeats his 2023 production, he’ll almost certainly take another swing at a massive contract — this time without a qualifying offer attached and with potentially greater confidence around the league that he has put his dismal 2021-22 campaigns behind him.
Boras suggested that Bellinger was always targeting one of those outcomes: either an especially long-term deal or a short-term pact with opt-outs. “Cody and I agreed that we’re going to look at this in a couple ways. We’re going to have two positive outcomes for this process. … Our dynamic was to determine what it was on the other end with a contract of great length. As we got through that process and looked to it, that’s certainly where we let Jed know that on something like this — with this kind of structure, with this kind of flexibility, with these kinds of things, is what we’re looking for. We had mutual agreement and understanding that this type of structure was agreeable to both of us.”
Bellinger’s youth certainly plays a part in that. He turns 29 in July, leaving open the possibility of seeking another long-term pact next winter. His camp seemed to prefer that to locking in a five- or six-year contract that would’ve guaranteed more than $80MM but wasn’t close to his initial asking price and wouldn’t have allowed him to get back to the market.
The short term with the higher annual salary works well for the Cubs. Bellinger offers cover in both center field and at first base. Chicago had been set to turn to highly-touted but unproven players in Pete Crow-Armstrong and Michael Busch at those respective positions. The move pushes the Cubs to a franchise high in terms of player spending.
RosterResource calculates their 2024 payroll around $222MM. They’re at $234MM in estimated luxury tax commitments, just below the $237MM base threshold. It’s probable the Cubs will up end up paying the CBT if they’re as competitive as they hope. Even if this is their final move of the offseason, any salary taken on in midseason acquisitions counts against the CBT on a prorated basis.
Hoyer predictably declined to answer when asked if ownership was willing to pay the luxury tax. He noted that it’s his “expectation” they’ll carry this roster into the season, although he indicated the front office will stay open to opportunities. “Obviously, we’re never going to stop looking. Never put a final nail in that because things come up all the time — trades, free agents. But, it’s the 28th of February, so I think that’s the expectation, though I would never rule anything out.“
Boras is an American hero
He’s going to lose so much money with each passing year
Boras could run for office. No matter the outcome he spins it as a win.
“Boras could run for office”…Lawyers like Scott Boras are very much like politicians in that they have no scruples and will say or do anything to get what they want.
Most politicians are lawyers!
Most lawyers are politicians!
Which came first? The lawyer or the politician?
Not at all. Although a number of politicians are lawyers; very few lawyers are politicians.
Most politicians are lawyers by trade.
Yes, rather than applying the law, they make law. It’s not that surprising.
Boras is an absolute clown. I really don’t get this whole holdout tactic, it used to work but it increasingly becomes less effective every year. If I was a professional athlete I could care less about the extra $5m if I could have just signed for $75m back in December… regardless you’d be set for life. The greed in this game is getting to be way over the top. I truly believe a salary cap would be better for the game. Stop all the deferment loop-holes and have an equally competitive league..
Boras is a great agent for the few superstars in baseball. For guys like Bellinger, Chapman, Snell, etc, who are good but have massive holes in their respective games, its hard to imagine Boras being the best representative for them.
I mean he did just get Bellinger 60 million guaranteed for the next 2 years with his choice to leave 30 of that on the table. Not every player is gonna get 10 to 12 years
I don’t think many teams were interested in a long term deal or even at all in Bellinger than what Bellinger was lead to believe by Boras from reading these quotes. The phone wasn’t ringing, take the short term deal from the only team interested.
A cap just protects the owners from overspending on players. In any other profession it is called collusion and it’s illegal. We all get a bit tired of the “my billionaire owner isn’t as much of a billionaire as your billionaire owner and that isn’t fair” routine. The players should try to get as much as they can while they can. Restricting the amount players earn will not “get the greed” out of baseball. The greedy owners will just keep more of your money. They aren’t going to restrict players earnings and then lower ticket prices and offer free parking. Also, owners that see winning as a way to make profit should not be restricted in investing their money into what they see as an opportunity to make more money. Everybody doesn’t get a trophy. Just because the Pirates are awful doesn’t mean that all teams need to be awful for it to be “fair”. I would pick a new team if you have bad ownership, not drag other teams down to that level.
@Larkraxm…Was that a point or a socialist manifesto?
mlb fan, like it or not, everything Lark wrote is true. Especially now that all that Regional Sports Network money is going down the drain. They got to recoup that loot somehow.
How did you get that from what he wrote?
“Everything Lark wrote is true”..I wouldn’t know I didn’t read it. When you have strong points it usually doesn’t take a week or a manuscript length to relay them. If you cannot summarize your point 95% of people aren’t going to read it.
Arguing that workers should get as much money as they can for their labor and that owners should be able to invest as much of their money as they want in order to make more money was the first chapter in Karl Marx’s Capital. Owners agreeing to suppress workers salaries actually sounds a lot more like socialism.
@mlb fan – the commentary by @Larkraxm was a pure capitalist manifesto. He said: “owners that see winning as a way to make profit should not be restricted in investing their money into what they see as an opportunity to make more money.” This is the opposite of socialism.
Socialism is when you want laborers to get paid for their labor apparently
larkraxm,
Excellent commentary!
larkraxm
Bam! Nailed it
I really don’t care if the billionaire or the millionaire gets my money. I just want to see some parity when it comes to free agent signings, and a salary cap would accomplish that. Everyone knew Ohtani and Yamamoto were going to the Dodgers before free agency even started.
ted,
A salary cap wouldn’t do that because the cheap owners would still stay cheap and well under the cap. It would just reduce how much money the players get.
Increased revenue sharing would be more likely to accomplish your goal without taking money from the players.
gbs42… The problem with increased revenue sharing is that it still doesn’t mean the same small market teams that don’t spend now, will suddenly start to. And I doubt they’d sign up for it if it meant they had to.
rondon,
That’s true, but there could be incentives and/or punishments to encourage the small-market teams to spend the additional revenues.
I think the current structure that taxes a team like the Yankees at 110% if they want to sign a player like Blake Snell is already problematic. The Yankees are balking at paying $63 million per season for a pitcher on a $30 million dollar contract, and yet the Orioles and Pirates still haven’t pounced. Ohtani and Yamamoto had other offers. They chose the Dodgers, seemingly because of their commitment to winning. Every team last year received $110 million dollars, for free, in revenue sharing at the start of the year. 15 teams had a payroll less than that, and the Orioles spent $35 million and won 100 games. The Mets, Padres, Yankees and their millions in payroll watched the Diamondbacks go to the WS. Explain to me how the Mets spending a combined $90 million on two pitchers that were a combined 90 years old hurt the Brewers. Let them spend their money. The Mets spending on those guys created opportunities for a team like the Rays to sign Zach Eflin to a reasonable deal, and he had more WAR than Verlander and Scherzer combined. Tell your billionaire owner to spend his revenue sharing money before you cry about parity.
Teams do not receive 110 million dollars in revenue sharing.
Every team does get around 100 million dollar due to MLBs tv and streaming deals. Teams also split gates so basically any MLB will earn about 200 million dollars. However, operating a minor league system, players salaries, coaches, draft bonuses, scouts, hotel rooms ect cost teams an excess of 100 million dollars.
If every team took your business model, and spent on the major league roster vs their minor league system, they would be even less competitive and there would be even greater disparity between major market teams and smaller markets.
Not everything is as black and white as people think it is.
In 2023, each team received shared revenue of $110 million dollars before the start of the season. That is before gate, parking, advertising, and other sources of revenue. You can spin that however you want. I know that there are other expenses beyond MLB roster salaries, but there are also other revenue streams beyond what they get from MLB. Including the fact that minor league teams have revenue streams as well like apparel, gate, and advertising that help fund the minor league system. If the Orioles spent $70 million of their revenue sharing funding their minor league system and $30 million on their MLB roster, then I don’t really care. If your small market billionaire is too poor to make it as an MLB owner, they should sell the team, like they did in Baltimore. Some other poor billionaire sucker will take their spot. Can’t we admit that some owners are keeping that money and other owners invest it back in their club? That is the black and white part. Some owners pocket that free money, and others invest it back into their club.
It’s such a micro part of society. I don’t care who gets a bigger slice of the pie; 30 owners or 750 players. Literally has no impact on 99.99% of the 335+ million people in the US, a.k.a. you don’t have a dog in this rich mans fight anyhow.
The Yankees spending 300 mil versus a team spending 100 mil is ridiculous. No other organized game is one side allowed 3x the assets of the other and it is considered fair. A cap and a floor is simply pragmatic and not akin to say a blue collar warehouse gig where labor negotiations have actual effects on the welfare of the employee.
Mninn
“I don’t care who gets a bigger slice of the pie; 30 owners or 750 players. Literally has no impact on 99.99% of the 335+ million people in the US, a.k.a. you don’t have a dog in this rich mans fight anyhow.”
So sad that people think like this
The improved welfare of workers anywhere is good for workers everywhere
My name,
MLB is a $10B-$11B business, not just a game, where owners claim to be in favor of free markets while simultaneously asking for corporate welfare like new ballparks every 25-30 years and systematically restrict employee pay, all the while convincing the public this is the best approach for everyone.
I want the players I go to see get a reasonable piece of the pie vs. owners underpaying them compared to what a true free market would allow.
A cap would keep more money in owners’ pockets unless the floor-ceiling gap was small and owners were honest about their revenues, which they never will be.
If the payroll disparity is too large, increased revenue sharing would help.
Gbs42-
It’s a luxury to play a child’s game for a living. The fact we share a nostalgic joy in the game is what assures the best an extravagant salary.
You made the game big business and worth 10B, not those dastardly billionaires. You voted in the braindead, compromised officials. You pay the $50 parking, $13 beers and monthly streaming/cable bill.
That has nothing to do with men playing a game for youth. Games have rules and structure or chaos follows. Baseball is long overdue for a cap and floor.
Mninn
“It’s a luxury to play a child’s game for a living.”
Baseball players work their [butts] off. Calling it a child’s game is
1) factually incorrect
2) capitalist propaganda meant to convince people that that players deserve less of the money they bring in
“You made the game big business and worth 10B…You pay the $50 parking, $13 beers and monthly streaming/cable bill”
Yes. People like baseball and spend a lot of money on it. And?
“You voted in the braindead, compromised officials. ”
What are you talking about?
Filihok- The game would enjoy greater parity with a cap and floor. MLB is an outlier in competitive fairness among the major sports. Whenever this logical statement is made it turns into a capitalism vs socialism argument- and most usually from a fan of a major market team.
I was responding to gbs42 and he talked about corporate welfare and public funding for stadiums, which I pointed out is due to representatives people vote in. Have a problem? Organize a petition and reject public funding on a ballot. But most will just whine and call sports talk instead.
It is absolutely a child’s game and if you want to put in massive hours in the minors in order to never get a real job, a.k.a abandoning skills training in real life arenas, that is your choice of pursuit.
You like and spend money on it, because you played it when you were a child so that is very much youthful nostalgia and the coinciding dopamine releases are absolutely rooted in escapism from the rigors of reality.
Mninn
“The game would enjoy greater parity with a cap and floor”
Sure. That would also serve to limit player salaries
The game would have greater parity with more equal spending
A cap and floor is not the only way to do that
Increase revenue sharing. Ensure that teams that receive that money are spending it on the team.
That I would be in favor of.
Salary cap, no way
Mninn
“in order to never get a real job”
Professional baseball player is absolutely a real job
So sad how capitalists have sunk their propaganda so deeply into people’s psyches
Filihok- The world keeps turning without baseball. Not so much without pipe fitters and truckers.
Mninn
“Not so much without pipe fitters and truckers.”
Factually incorrect. The world would very much continue turning without pipe fitters and truckers.
Maybe we need more science teachers. No, we definitely need more science teachers.
You are here on MLBTR. Presumably you like baseball. Presumably you spend money on baseball. You’re free to not spend that money and baseball and pay it to pipe-fitter if you wish.
You’re also free to vote for people who want to tax the hell out of millionaires and give that money to pipe fitters
Truckers are, rightfully, going to go away soon.
You can also vote for people who’d rather tax the people making millions off of self-driving vehicles and make sure that truckers continue to be able to have a house, food, health care, etc…
You seem to confuse reality for your ideals. Similar to you, there are lawmakers in California who envisioned an all EV populace by 2030- a market falling flat on its face as dealerships across the country refuse to accept non selling EV options.
An automated world with a universal basic income luckily remains only a technocrat fantasy. And I do not believe throwing around fists full of fiat from other people’s pockets is the path to prosperity.
Mninn
The idea world would be nobody working….but, anyway…
…the reality of the situation is people spend a lot of money to watch uber-talented, highly-specialized, athletes who have worked their [butts] off perform to the best of their abilities.
I think those people should be rewarded for their skills and efforts moreso than than the people that have just come to own a team.
So, are you going to quit spending on baseball and give your pipe-fitter extra or what?
“And I do not believe throwing around fists full of fiat from other people’s pockets is the path to prosperity.”
It’s worked really well for MLB – and other sports franchise – owners for a very long time.
Hah, I live off grid in the high desert, raise livestock and can make my own general repairs, but I would compensate a tradesmen for his time and ever increasing value given how many people prefer to lecture with smooth hands and grand plans.
Mninn
Ok. Did you build you own computer? How about the network that you’re using? Do you want to throw some extra money towards the smooth-handed nerds who helped make those things happen?
Also, who’s hands do you think are smoother? Bellinger’s or Thomas Ricketts’?
I compensate the CPU builder according to the value of their product- which considers scarcity of materials and skills/time required to assemble. But even that required the labor of tiny hands in faraway lands to actualize the materials.
I watch the Starlink satellite launches play follow the leader into orbit which provides me with internet to have this discussion- my bill has increased twice, but I still agree with the value. I’m not intending to fall into a white collar vs blue collar debate with you- many people have extraordinary value in our world and we are eons from the tenets of this back and forths origin, but ultimately, that’s a damn good question; Does Ricketts golf gloved or is it only Cody who plays his favorite game with protected hands?
Mninn
Nobody is paying to watch Ricketts play golf
“The greed of the game” goes both ways. These owners are even richer, but we all know they’ll reduce payroll as soon as the tens of millions they receive in profits each season are threatened. I’d much rather see my money go to the people who actually entertain me than old dudes who use sports as passive income.
I think the Jays just increased their payroll over the CBT just for Ohtani. Now that that isn’t happening I can see it going down under as soon as this window closes. Shatkins aren’t the kind of guys that pay taxes.
You’re right, Atkins and Shapiro aren’t the kind of guys that would pay taxes because they aren’t the owners. Rogers Communications dictates payroll, pays the salaries, and pays any taxes. Your anger is misdirected.
It’s about getting all the attention on himself.
What about the greedy billionaire owners? If there’s a cap and smaller contracts, they’ll just pocket that money and get richer. They’ll still come begging for public funds to update their stadium though.
Brettlez,
But what about poor owners like Jerry Reinsdorf? He can’t afford more than $75M for any free agent contract and needs Chicago to give him $1B for a new White Sox ballpark. My heart bleeds for him.
Agreed that few people expected the 3 for $80, but am pretty sure even FEWER expected anything @10yrs either.
“We always wanted to be paid less for a shorter period of time and a lower guarantee.” OK
Boras is a complete clown . This guy needs to be spaded and neutered.
Cubs have a lot to lose if Cody is a flop
Cody can make 80 million for stinking
Cody got a great contract
I would not have given him this contract if I ran the Cubs
“Cubs have a lot to lose”… In my opinion “opt outs” are very bad business, because the team only keeps the player long-term if they falter or stink. For me, either you’re in or you’re out, none of this being half-way in business. If the player gets an “opt out” the team should ask for one too.
Normally, I do not like opt-outs but here they are great for Cubs because Matt Shaw, Michael Busch and PCA are on the way. The third year is only $20 million, so hopefully Belli plays well and opts out after year one or two.
Agreed. I also didn’t see a NTC. There is the possibility that He plays well, and the team doesn’t, They could flip him to a contender for assets at the trade deadline, and let another team deal with the opt-outs or ins. That is to say, it isn’t a contract that is “untradeable”.
Good take
It was a good move for the Cubs. Every big contract is a gambe but they are a big market team in a winable division. There are not a lot of options out there for lefty CFers which is what the Cubs needed. Belliger was a 4.1-4.4 WAR player last year missing a month. His wRC+ was 13th best in the MLB and best on the Cubs. It could be a great deal. Even if Belliger is a league average bat he’s a 2-3 WAR player because of defense & baserunning and they are still under the tax.
CM
“Cody can make 80 million for stinking”
Them’s the risks
Good on the Cubs to include the optouts to mitigate their risk
@ Filihok – The opt outs don’t mitigate any risk for the Cubs. Only the player can initiate the opt out; the Cubs cannot. So if Bellinger has a bad year in 2024, he’s taking the $30M for next season. If he has another very good to great year, he exercises the option and the Cubs most likely lose him. 100% of the risk falls on the Cubs but that is the price of doing business in MLB, especially with free agency for a very good player.
DJ
‘The opt outs don’t mitigate any risk for the Cubs.’
Yes, they do.
They mitigate risk for the team by lowering the amount the team pays. If he reverts to 2021 form, the team will only pay $80 million instead of $90 million or whatever.
How is that not mitigating their risk?
@fillhok
I read several head scratching comments from you on this story. opt-outs mitigating in favor of the cubs is your funniest, in a not funny way. you truly do not know what you speak of.
Tuna
The truth can be funny, I suppose
Player opt-outs absolutely mitigate risk for teams
What’s a bigger risk? Paying more for something or less for something?
Hopefully you know it’s paying more for something
So, a team potentially paying $80 million for a player is less risky than a team paying $90 million for that player.
The player opt-out mitigates risk for the team.
Player opt-outs add downside risk for teams, because the player will opt out if can clearly do better than his remaining contract, and otherwise will stay.
Good year – Bellinger opts out
Bad year – Bellinger stays
This does not mitigate risk for the Cubs
This guy is so out of touch with reality that he truly believes that opt-outs are team beneficial and he equates The MLBPA with your local teachers union. He’s so out of touch with reality it’s frightening. Scott Boras doesn’t even know he exists yet he defends him like family. Posts have really gone downhill over the past few years but this guy is an all time toolbox. He muted me because I proved him wrong and he can’t take facts I’m actually honored by it.He sound bytes whatever you comment is. Anyone who does that lacks foundation for what their saying. I agree with you 100%.
TIm
Come on…
“Player opt-outs add downside risk for teams, ”
Player opt-outs have value to the player. Thus, to offer one, the team has to get something in return. What they get in return is usually giving less money.
Good Year – Cubs paid $30 million
3 Bad years – Cubs paid $80 million.
WIthout the opt out the Cubs would have paid MORE than $80 million for Bellinger. THAT is what mitigates the risk.
Paying less for a risky asset is absolutely mitigating the risk.
Ultimately the teams will decide player’s salaries and set the market, not Scott Boras.
He knows how to manipulate people
Please study his past and you will see
As soon as the season is over this year he should fire Boras he doesn’t need him or his time wasting. Belli will know his value by how the negotiations played out
Anthony, it seems you’re only counting about 12M extra when evaluating the CBT hit. My understanding is that there is about 17M in benefits, 2.2M for the minor leagues, and another 1.6M in bonus pool money. All that totals 20.8M which would leave Chicago at 242.8, not the 234M you’re coming up with. I’ve read this in several different sources over the years. Help me out here somebody.
lt;dr Bore-ass sucks. Nothing else needs to be said
Bore-ass. How creative. Workshop that one for a long time?
Also, he’s been the most successful agent in the game for many years, so it’s difficult to understand how he “sucks.” Annoying, certainly, but not sucky.
He sucks for the fans who end up paying for his overpaid clients
Study his past clients who got big contracts and sucked money from the teams who passed that on to the fans
Fans don’t pay salaries
Players getting paid is good actually
It did sound like Bellinger genuinely wanted to return to the Cubs through the clear disappointment in not getting a longer deal. Granted, getting paid 30 mil and a chance to try again in 9 months is enough to make anyone smile.
Mr. Valentine has set the price. Ahahaha!
I don’t think that Boras screwed up here, I think Belli received a contract commensurate with his overall track record. I think we all know Belli has a high ceiling and a low floor. Good risk for Cubs to take at three years, right to have refused long contract.
No way is this good for them
If he does well, then he is gone
If he sucks they are left holding the bag
CM
Look how absurd
“It’s not good for the Cubs if they sign a player who has a good season for them”
How broken are people’s brains?
@ fillhok
I read your comments and wonder the same exact thing.
tuna
hey, if you think Bellinger having a good season for the Cubs is…bad for the cubs then I’m more than happy for you to disagree with every single thing I ever say.
More over-analysis of the bellinger saga. He thought he was going to get a multi-year,$200+M contract. He didn’t. Boras didn’t tell his client he wasn’t worth it. Bellinger goes crawling back to the cubs for less money and less years. End of story, move on.
Another words…bellinger wanted a super long term deal. No teams would give him that so they took a short term deal with opt outs.
Curious if there is a no trade clause in this.
The Cubs were fools to put Boras on the stage with Bellinger and Hoyer! Cubs over-paid $30M for a guy unlikely to sign elsewhere for that much and then gave two opt-outs… protecting Bellinger, but not protecting the Cubs at all… When Bellinger does not perform, in year one… sure hope he does, the Cubs now get him for two years.
BORE ASS!
Haha good one
Not even the first person in the comments to use that one. Work on some original material, HV.
HV
Muted (not likely to say anything that will benefit me to read)
Boras sounds like a guy who got beat up in negotiations. Almost a word salad in trying to justify not getting what he told his client he could get.
FTC. And they’re gonna suck cuz of the pitching anyway.
Remember the haters when Belli posts 5+ war this season and posts more HOF caliber seasons going forward
My only concern about Bellinger is that so much of his damage last season was done to left handed pitchers which is a complete outlier based on his previous seasons.
I am super excited though to hear fans complain once again about “underlying stats” like they actually understand them. “Well his exit velocity and hard hit percentage… blah blah blah” you know who has an outstanding hard hit percentage and exit velocity, Patrick Wisdom. Hitting the ball hard does not equate success. Hitting the ball often does.
I’m sure Bellinger is feeling anger, disappointment and frustration right now – that is the difference between expectations and reality. Cody expected a $200M deal based on the expectations Boras gave him that clearly underestimated the impact of the financial uncertainty in baseball related to RSN revenue. Boras even said part of his expectations for Cody getting a long-term deal were based on the number of long-term deals (4+ years) given to players in recent off-season. Does Boras not realize that every off-season/market is unique – different players, different financial conditions. It’s almost like Boras told Cody he would get a $200M contract because he was a Top-3 hitter in this market since the 3rd best hitter in the previous market got a $200M contract. Newsflash to Scott: different players with different skillsets/numbers in a completely different free agent market. It was funny to hear Boras try to say the teams incorrectly evaluated Cody’s underlying batted ball metrics and that “the power is still there.” Sure, Scott. Bottom line: Boras misread the market and did a poor job for Bellinger. I am guessing Cody could have received at least $150M guaranteed if Boras hadn’t told teams he was looking for $200M at the outset of free agency. Teams probably laughed and moved on. Yes, Cody is still guaranteed $80M, But if he suffers a career-ending injury in 2024, then he will have lost out on $70M (assuming he could have signed for $150M).. I think Cody’s numbers will regress in 2024 and there is no chance he is walking away from 2 years, $50M ($25M AAV) because his value next year – when he is a year older – will be far below $20M/year.
bj
An example of Dunning-Kruger
Imagine thinking that you know more about how to negotiate than Scott Boras.
Many of the baseball team owners accumulated great wealth via achievements in their professional fields. None of them will give unlimited contracts to players. To resent them for this is a peasant mentality.
Disappointed Boras got a seat at the table. The first team that flat out refuses to concede to that request should win a prize. Your works done. Thanks. Now fark off. Promote yourself on your own time.
Whether he plays a single game, Bellinger is set for life now. HRs going to get paid more than entire industries earn for actually working.
“Well, no matter what happened, it’s what we wanted all along.”
You’re a fool if you don’t think Boras and Bellinger didn’t go into the offseason knowing there was a good chance that this was the kind of deal they’d end up with.
gmy
Yep
fili
Unfortunately, the dumb jock stereotype is alive and well here in the MLBTR comment section.
gmy
I don’t know if it’s that. Maybe it is.
I think it’s Dunning-Kruger. People are so uninformed that they have 0 idea what goes on in contract negotiations. They have no idea how above their heads it all is.
So, not that they think jocks are dumb, necessarily, but that they think they know as much as the jocks do – when they obviously don’t know a fraction of the jocks do
You know next to nothing and parade around here like you have all the answers. And you have the emotional maturity of a child, always muting people and posting about it.
Fun fact: No one cares who you mute. Definitely one of the worst posters I’ve seen here in all my years.
The irony of you posting about Dunning-Kruger is quite hilarious.
Jonny 5
muted (insults)
Just speaking facts, the truth hurts sometimes.
fili- I was referring to the commenters here lol
But I get what you’re saying too.
Bellinger knows better than most the negative impact injury can have on performance and earnings. You could also be a fool if you don’t think that long term was his strong preference.
Everybody and their mom knew he wasn’t getting that huge deal. GM’s aren’t as stupid as they used to be, and they aren’t fans of huge risk and minimal reward situations.