Official Offseason Thread

clvclv said:
I can't imagine anyone thinks it's not a legitimate possibility given how quickly baseball's financial landscape changes. There wasn't a single poster here who imagined Donaldson would get 4/$92 million when he signed a pillow deal last winter - there's very little reason to believe that Trout will be the only $40 million per player 2 years from now IMO. I remember plenty of conversations about there being "no way" Strasburg was going to opt out of his deal.
Click to expand...

I once said that there was absolutely no way that Trump would win the presidency. I also said that tie-dye unicorns who are addicted to kindness didn't exist. Must mean that I was wrong about both of those things.
 
clvclv said:
Not ever, under any circumstances - there's just a 0% chance.
Click to expand...

You're arguing just to argue. The odds of winning the lottery are a fraction of 1 percent. To be more exact, for the Mega Millions it is roughly .00000003304692%. Sure it isn't technically zero, but it's close enough to say it's effectively zero and not to bother thinking of it as a plausible outcome.
 
Last edited:
clvclv said:
I can't imagine anyone thinks it's not a legitimate possibility given how quickly baseball's financial landscape changes. There wasn't a single poster here who imagined Donaldson would get 4/$92 million when he signed a pillow deal last winter - there's very little reason to believe that Trout will be the only $40 million per player 2 years from now IMO. I remember plenty of conversations about there being "no way" Strasburg was going to opt out of his deal.
Click to expand...

you do realize KEEPING the opt-out gives Arenado far more control if/when the financial landscape changes, correct? it's precisely because he could get even more if he's elite, or less if he is hurt or starts to trend down, that there's no incentive for him to waive the opt-out to go to a new team. it puts him in complete control of the very thing you're describing.
don't you think Strasburg is quite happy he didn't decide to waive his opt-out? deciding to opt-out is completely different than deciding to waive your opt-out to change teams.
 
Super said:
lol but why would Arenado waive it? simply to play for a contender? i don't think you can find ONE player who would waive that much monetary security to play for a contender...it doesn't happen. so talking about it over and over is silly and pointless because it's completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...


Monetary security? Waiving his option would leave him with a 199m guarantee for that portion of his career.

We don't know what is important to Arenado, but there are many athletes who don't think getting the absolute maximum number of dollars out of their playing careers is the most important consideration.

Many athletes have taken less or waived things to get themselves out of or into a situation that they preferred better. Or to stay in one in which they are comfortable.

Not every player is motivated by the marginal dollar once they have more money than they will ever need.
 
BeanieAntics said:
They would have to pick up more than that. We'd be sending two top 40 prospects for an essentially value-neutral asset. Waters and Anderson are worth more than 40-50 million dollars. Plus, we'd be adding ~25 million dollars to the 2020 payroll while creating yet another hole in the outfield. So at that point would the plan be to just roll out Markakis, Acuna, and Duvall? That doesn't sound that awesome. I'm also not a big fan of the notion that Ender has negative surplus value or is value neutral. I'm still confident in his ability to be a 3 win outfielder, which gives him substantial value.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, we would use the saved money in 2020 and sign someone like Puig to a 1 year deal. But I will concede on the initial point.
 
clvclv said:
So "it's not literally impossible" and "there's a 0% chance he would" are somehow the same thing? I was under the impression that a 0% chance was an absolute. Wouldn't that actually make it impossible?

No one - at least most people - is arguing that it's not unlikely and that it wouldn't take a lot to get him to waive the opt out. The only point some are trying to make is that it's not out of the question. I even went so far as to explain that it would be easy for him to "renegotiate" now instead of two years from now by saying he wouldn't waive the no-trade clause unless someone kicked in substantial money even if the Rockies were able to somehow get the type of return they want.

No one is suggesting he's going to give up all that leverage for nothing - at least I'm not. This is the reason I've been completely against opt-outs since Stanton got his - the player then is in a position to hold the organization hostage from that day forward. There's absolutely no way including an opt-out will ever be good for a team.
Click to expand...

Yeah those two things are different. Its technically possible for me to get into incredible shape, climb the Seven Summits, and bang every chick in Maxim's top 100. But there is literally a 0% chance of that happening. At best I could do Kilimanjaro plus 20-30 Maxim Top 100, but even that is pushing it.
 
Super said:
back to things that might actually happen, it feels like the Braves are going to go a cheap route at least temporarily and explore a trade option mid-season. it does seem like the Cubs basically need to trade Bryant at this point, tho, with how unhappy he is.
Click to expand...

Trading for Bryant makes a heck of a lot more sense than trading for Arenado.

It's the same amount of control, at a cheaper dollar figure, without a long term commitment.
 
All I read on here for most of 2 months was how JD would be coming back to Atlanta cause AA had right of first refusal. Those who were more attuned (in their opinion in most cases) to how AA,s mind works thought for sure if not Atlanta then most definitely Nats.
See how all that forum expertise turned out. If JD had come back 2 days ago we could have saved 8 pages of what ifs.
 
PawPawMaxwell said:
All I read on here for most of 2 months was how JD would be coming back to Atlanta cause AA had right of first refusal. Those who were more attuned (in their opinion in most cases) to how AA,s mind works thought for sure if not Atlanta then most definitely Nats.
See how all that forum expertise turned out. If JD had come back 2 days ago we could have saved 8 pages of what ifs.
Click to expand...

lol wtf are you even talking about?
most here found it very possible JD would be leaving.
what on earth does this have to do with Arenado waiving a highly valuable opt-out just to play for a different team now rather than in 2 years?
like almost everything else posted, this "gotcha" attempt was poorly thought out.
 
PawPawMaxwell said:
All I read on here for most of 2 months was how JD would be coming back to Atlanta cause AA had right of first refusal. Those who were more attuned (in their opinion in most cases) to how AA,s mind works thought for sure if not Atlanta then most definitely Nats.
See how all that forum expertise turned out. If JD had come back 2 days ago we could have saved 8 pages of what ifs.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is made up. I don't recall many people saying unequivocally that Donaldson would for sure be coming back or that it was definitely down to us and the Nats. I recall mostly reading arguments on the number of years and dollars that should be given to Donaldson. I don't recall anyone of note saying that they were certain that Donaldson was coming back. I feel like I was more confident than most that we would get him, but even I spoke with several caveats in that regard.
 
Super said:
lol.........................he has this option without waiving his opt-out.
Click to expand...

Yes, no ****. "Monetary security" has nothing to do with his decision.

Players have done things against their maximum earning potential from much less secure financial positions.

If nothing else, the option has a dollar value that is based on the probabilities of his various career outcomes and potential markets. A rational player driven only by money should be willing to accept a reasonable offer.

.....

Bottom line though, I don't see Arenado as a reasonable target for Atlanta and certainly not at that cost.

Bowman's proposed package and his attempt to make it seem more reasonable by eliminating the opt-out is all pretty misguided, I think.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yes, no ****. "Monetary security" has nothing to do with his decision.

Players have done things against their maximum earning potential from much less secure financial positions.

If nothing else, the option has a dollar value that is based on the probabilities of his various career outcomes and potential markets. A rational player driven only by money should be willing to accept a reasonable offer.
Click to expand...

right. the option has monetary value. that is the only way he'd waive it.
i don't think he signed a market-setting, top-dollar, long-term deal a year ago that severely limits his trade value only to turn right around and say you know what, i don't care that much about the money despite signing the deal i just signed, i'll sacrifice tens of millions in potential earnings to get away from a team i just recently signed a long-term deal with.
it makes no sense.

and all of what i just said ignores that fact that in 2 years, should he sanely decide to, ya know, keep that very valuable opt-out, he can exercise it and go to a new team of his choosing at that point (for less money per year, even!) if he wants.
 
Last edited:
Super said:
right. the option has monetary value. that is the only way he'd waive it.
i don't think he signed a market-setting, top-dollar, long-term deal a year ago that severely limits his trade value only to turn right around and say you know what, i don't care that much about the money despite signing the deal i just signed, i'll sacrifice tens of millions in potential earnings to get away from a team i just recently signed a long-term deal with.
it makes no sense.

and all of what i just said ignores that fact that in 2 years, should he sanely decide to, ya know, keep that very valuable opt-out, he can exercise it and go to a new team of his choosing at that point (for less money per year, even!) if he wants.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is another point that isn't related to money at all. Why would he waive his opt out to get out of his current situation, to enter into a different situation that he knows nothing about, and lock himself in to that situation for the rest of his career. The opt out isn't exclusively about money, its also about getting out of a situation you don't want to be in. So the exact reason why people are saying he would waive his opt-out is the exact reason why he should keep it. Otherwise he's locking himself in to a situation that he may hate in a year's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top