I do feel that pitchers and hitters are on a different scale. But Heyward would be that type of player. Stanton is a 6 WAR player and is certainly not being paid 7 million per WAR.
Johnny Cueto
- Thread starter blueagleace1
- Start date
I do feel that pitchers and hitters are on a different scale. But Heyward would be that type of player. Stanton is a 6 WAR player and is certainly not being paid 7 million per WAR.
This is why I'm so high on Greinke with the potential shorter exposure. Hadn't looked at the potential value in that light (obviously, since I'm not as numbers-savvy as you guys), but maybe you and/or nsacpi could rattle those around.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Heyward vs Greinke will be an interesting test of various opinions. Both are coming off 6 WAR seasons. Working against Greinke is that he is a pitcher and six years older. Working against Heyward is that he has so much of his value tied up in his defense, is not a MOL bat, is offensively inconsistent, doesn't love baseball, etc. My guess is that Heyward will get the bigger contract, not just in overall $ but in AAV as well.
Greinke could potentially be a good value deal depending on the length. My only issue is that he will be 32 next year and as good as he has been he's at the age where decline could happen at any time. Even Maddux hit a performance decline at age 33. Although going from legendary to just really ****ing good is still acceptable. All pitchers hit that at different times though. Another thing is that you would think he would want to go to a team that's trying to win. I know some players chase the money regardless so it depends on what he prioritizes.
I think so too. And I think a major factor in that will be their ages. Heyward should get a boost to his AAV because he's hitting FA so early. Getting those prime years will be big factor.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If he opts out, Greinke will be giving up a contract that would pay him 24, 23 and 24M over the next three years (age 32-34).
My assumption is he will be looking for a similar AAV but for a longer period (5-6 years). I think six years (age 32-37) with an AAV of 24 is a bit rich even for a pitcher of his quality. Some team might be willing to pay that, but we should stay very far away from that kind of contract.
My assumption is he will be looking for a similar AAV but for a longer period (5-6 years). I think six years (age 32-37) with an AAV of 24 is a bit rich even for a pitcher of his quality. Some team might be willing to pay that, but we should stay very far away from that kind of contract.
dak
Well-known member
I think 6 / $144m is a very fair guess on Greinke. Add in the approximate value of the draft pick forfeited, and I'll call it 6 / $150m.
With all the comparisons of Greinke to Maddux, I thought it would be interesting to project Greinke's performance over the next six years to Maddux's age 32-37 seasons. This would obviously be a best case scenario outcome for Greinke, or really any pitcher. Using age 29-31 seasons for Maddux as a baseline (avg of 7.9 fWAR!!!), his performance in his age 32-37 season seasons declined to 72% of the baseline. When throwing that same percentage at Greinke's age 29-31 seasons (avg of 4.9 fWAR), it results in an average of about 3.5 fWAR per season. This equates to $7.1m / fWAR in the best case scenario. Best to let the Mike Rizzo's of the world "wear" those contracts.
That's just another part of my point - there is no compensation due for another team that signs Greinke. He can choose to go back out on the market (which he already has according to the reports), but the Dodgers can't offer him a QO - he's an unrestricted free-agent.
Yet another reason I'm 100% against offering opt-out deals - if the player's market improves over those first however many years, he's able to cash-in and the team gets nothing.
dak
Well-known member
I'm not certain of the rule personally, but Mike Axisa of CBS Sports has reported that Greinke is eligible for a QO if he ops out.
The one good thing about that scenario is that it does let the team off the hook on the almost guaranteed decline years of the contract. Which is one reason I would give Heyward a big deal with the opt out. We would be getting the best years of the deal and likely his career. He could opt out in 4 years or so in his early 30's and cash in on another mega deal. In that situation is it really that bad of a deal?
That's wishful thinking IMO.
No player is going to opt out if the market's going to be softer during his decline years. The ball is entirely in the player's court. If you give Heyward a seven or eight year deal at $25 per with an opt out after four years and his representation is worth the money he's paying them, he's not going to go back out on the market if his value in 2020 is $18 million per. He'll just continue to be overpaid.
Think about it - if he's declining and the his market is even $20 million per at that time, someone would have to pony up a 5 year offer for him just to break even.
Greinke wouldn't opt out if he wasn't all but guaranteed to make more money.
That's the thing though. With inflation what are the odds that someone like Heyward would be worth less on the open market in 4 years or so? He likely wouldn't be hitting his decline phase yet. And as we see every year. There is always some team to pay players on the other side of 30 mega bucks.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think ML rules expressly forbid any agreements that involve waiving the right to offer a QO, including wink-and-nod deals.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
As dak pointed out that works out to about 7M/expected win. That's no bargain.
Even if that's the case, placing your budget in the player's hands (and the hands of his representatives) is absolute suicide for a mid-market team IMO. Most of you guys preach about how important it is NOT to have ANY bad contracts, and to an extent I agree. It simply doesn't make sense to put that kind of power in a player's hands.
With fully guaranteed contracts (unlike in the other sports), MLB front offices other than those in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and possibly a few others simply have to be RIGHT more often - missing on a player and overpaying him by even $5 million per year can be crippling. This is entirely the reason I don't usually disagree when someone says we "shouldn't" play on a Price/Greinke/Cespedes/whomever.
But you can't have it both ways - many who make the argument that we should play on Heyward are the same ones who scream the loudest about how much we need offense, and more to the point, power on offense. I just don't understand how it makes sense to then want to turn around and devote the financial resources that it will require to sign him to a player who doesn't help in the power department. No one questions Heyward's value as you explain it - he's absolutely a great player - but even you admit the vast majority of his value is derived from his defense. That doesn't help an offense that many of you described as "putrid", "awful", "historically bad", etc..Was he a better offensive player this season? Sure. He STILL hit less than 15 HRs with an OPS below .800.
I have trouble understanding how adding a player like that helps "fix" the problems everyone says our offense has - especially for $25 million a year.