Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
Sure there is. If someone like Harper tears it up for three years and then opts out you get his three best years and let someone else pay for his likely decline phase. Opt-outs are only a risk if you assume that the guy is going to underperform the contract and/or get hurt.
And if you're a team like the Dodgers that is always on the brink of a World Series, the risk of signing someone like Harper is more than obviated by the upside. After all, you're the guy that has repeatedly said, "flags fly forever" on here. For as much as you've chastised Mozeliak for being risk averse, I would think that you'd realize that fear of these long term deals is an overly conservative reaction that actually creates a market inefficiency in favor of signing these guys, because executives look at it only through the prism of what can go wrong.
If you sign Harper to 10/300 with opt-outs after years 3 and 6, and he ends up giving you 12+ WAR total over the first three years and opts out, you win.
|
I think Mozeliak is being a complete coward. I've said 100 times over (I think here, but maybe just at my Cardinals board) that he needs to hang the concern over the damn opt outs and sign the guy.
But I don't think it's a
rational decision. Nor do I think getting 12 wins for $90 million is anything approximating a win (the $8 million win share remains idiotic).
But I simply do not care because the Cardinals are now at a point where Harper takes them from an also-ran to a genuine contender for at least 1 season while also giving them a known throughput for what will almost certainly be 2 more after that. They can 'lose' the deal less badly than many if not most.
Getting roughly market value out of your player isn't winning a deal - it's simply not losing it. If they can get 15-18 wins out of Harper over 3 years and pay $90 million for that privilege then I'd say they've gotten their money's worth.
But if Bryce Harper would take $90 million over 3 seasons he'd have signed the day after FA opened. By all accounts if he'd have taken $30 million/season over 10 seasons without opt-outs he'd have signed by now. I don't believe teams are being unreasonable in saying "Y'know, that's a hell of a lot of risk for us to take for the upshot of getting what we paid for..."
I wish the Cardinals would do it anyway, but only because it's simply money DeWitt will be taking to his grave or spending on less impactful players. I don't think it's a 'sound' decision in a vacuum.