Rockies extend Arenado - 8yrs/$255M, opt-out after year 3

[NYChez]

2018 OPS away from Coors:

Arenado: .772

Moose: .774

Shaw: .825

[adambr2]

I still would very much doubt that a player opt-out ever comes at a team request. That's like saying that a team option is mutually beneficial if declined because the team gets off the hook and the player gets to try free agency.

 

In very, very rare circumstances, the player and team will be satisfied with the player decision to opt out.

 

In many, many more circumstances, one of three circumstances will occur, none of which is team friendly:

 

1) The player outperforms future market value and opts out and the team does not benefit from the now team-friendly back end of the contract.

 

2) The player uses the opt out to leverage even more money from their existing team.

 

3) The player falls below market value, sometimes far below, and does not opt out, thus saddling his team with a bad contract.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't understand the opt outs that teams are granting. If I'm guaranteeing a guy 7-10 years of guaranteed income no matter how he performs (or if), no way am I giving him the opportunity to leave early if he thinks the contract is undervalued.

 

The reason teams include opt outs is it because it gives them the opportunity to reap the rewards of the front end of the contract while potentially missing out on the risk at the back end.

 

A player is only going to opt out if they think they can get more money by doing so, which means they've performed well to that point. If they opt out the original team can let another team pay for the player's older/riskier years & reinvest that saved money elsewhere.

 

I don't see the advantage for the team in giving the player the option. If he is worth more he opts out and gets paid more. If he isn't worth more he doesn't opt out and the team is stuck overpaying him. There may be some players who overestimate their value but banking in it is a pretty huge risk.

 

The only advantage for the team is if adding it gets the player to sign the deal. As you said, if the player performs he gets to opt out and sign for more money. If he sucks he's guaranteed money not equal to his performance. It's a sweetener is all it is.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

Coors effect has nothing to do with Arenado’s fantastic glove and arm, but many seem to be ignoring that for some reason.

[Lathund]

Eight years is a long time for any contract, but I can see this working for Colorado (assuming Arenado doesn't opt out in three years). Arenado is almost 28, meaning his contract runs through age 35. While those later years might not be that good, it's not like you're going into the late 30s or even age 40 range (as with Pujols or Cabrera). Those are years where guys can really break down.

 

So, good for Arenado and the Rockies. Nice to see it work out.

 

I love the consistency that Arenado provides.

 

And while he isn't as good outside of Coors field, he's not bad (the last three years: 1.057 OPS at Coors, .830 OPS on the road). And it should be noted that he plays a ton of games in LA, SD and SF - all parks that aren't particularly hitter friendly.

 

In addition to those pitcher parks there's also the Coors Hangover effect. Now obviously that doesn't account for more than a small part of it, but if Coors was at sea level his road OPS would improve.

 

The most recent example I can think of where the opt out benefitted both the team & the player was with the Dodgers & Greinke.

 

He got 6/147 from LA with an opt out half way through. After three seasons he had put up 17.7 WAR for 76 million dollars, 4.3 million dollars per WAR, good deal.

 

He opted out of the remaining 3/71 to sign for 6/206. So far he has posted 12.6 WAR for 102 million over the first three seasons, 8.1 million per WAR, not as good of a deal, especially with another 3/104 left on the deal & Greinke getting older with diminishing velocity.

 

By giving Greinke an opt out & letting another team over pay him for his decline the Doodgers got those 17.7 WAR for a reasonable cost plus freed up the 71 million Greinke walked away from to reinvest in their team.

 

Then again, 12.6 WAR for 71 million (~5.6m/WAR), and having another star player like Greinke on the roster, would have been a very good outcome for LA. He'd have been a free agent now anyway, without being on the hook for his decline. The benefit for a team in an opt-out isn't the opt-out itself, it's that they might not have been able to sign the player at all without it. Or would have had to pay him more.

[JosephC]

Coors effect has nothing to do with Arenado’s fantastic glove and arm, but many seem to be ignoring that for some reason.

 

I don't think people are completely ignoring the defense, but when talking about mega-contracts, corner defenders are always going to be judged by the bat. Jason Heyward is still considered one of the best defenders in baseball, and his glove means near nothing when talking about his contract. Last year the Cubs even had him play a bit in centerfield, and he did a pretty good job there (+3 DRS, +5.4 UZR/150 in 154 1/3 innings), and pretty much everyone considers his contract to be a bad one. And Heyward's deal (8 years, 184 million) really isn't in the same league as the Arenado contract. Arenado could pile up gold glove after gold glove, but that contract will still be considered a bad one if his OPS slips to under .800 while playing his home games in Colorado.

[JimH5]

I don't understand the opt outs that teams are granting. If I'm guaranteeing a guy 7-10 years of guaranteed income no matter how he performs (or if), no way am I giving him the opportunity to leave early if he thinks the contract is undervalued.

 

The reason teams include opt outs is it because it gives them the opportunity to reap the rewards of the front end of the contract while potentially missing out on the risk at the back end.

 

A player is only going to opt out if they think they can get more money by doing so, which means they've performed well to that point. If they opt out the original team can let another team pay for the player's older/riskier years & reinvest that saved money elsewhere.

 

I don't see the advantage for the team in giving the player the option. If he is worth more he opts out and gets paid more. If he isn't worth more he doesn't opt out and the team is stuck overpaying him. There may be some players who overestimate their value but banking in it is a pretty huge risk.

 

They don't "give" the opt out. It's a negotiated item that has value for the player in lieu of other things. If the team refused to include that option, the player and agent should expect that they would be able to negotiate for more money or something else that makes up for the value of that option.

[brewcrewdue80]

Arenadocs bat is far more consistent than Heywards who didnt have an .800 OPS the 3years leading to his Contract. 28 years old prime for a bat like his likely 5years. Before an impactful decline even starts to begin. That's why hes paid more and have no problem seeing him produce above its value. He's the new Adrian Beltre for Fantasy only hes 37+HRs 110+RBIs vs 30/100RBI

[Thurston Fluff]

 

The most recent example I can think of where the opt out benefitted both the team & the player was with the Dodgers & Greinke.

 

He got 6/147 from LA with an opt out half way through. After three seasons he had put up 17.7 WAR for 76 million dollars, 4.3 million dollars per WAR, good deal.

 

He opted out of the remaining 3/71 to sign for 6/206. So far he has posted 12.6 WAR for 102 million over the first three seasons, 8.1 million per WAR, not as good of a deal, especially with another 3/104 left on the deal & Greinke getting older with diminishing velocity.

 

By giving Greinke an opt out & letting another team over pay him for his decline the Doodgers got those 17.7 WAR for a reasonable cost plus freed up the 71 million Greinke walked away from to reinvest in their team.

 

I'm not saying it never works out for the team. I'm saying I don't think your reason is why teams offer them in the first place. I think it's because the player wants it. I do think it might limit some of the danger of long term deals thus a reason why some teams are willing to take the gamble. Which perhaps is what you meant. But I doubt the team in the one that wants it in there to begin with.

[reillymcshane]

Opt outs in contracts almost NEVER favor the team.

 

The only situation I can see it helping a team is if a player opts out early is if the club isn't forced to pay for the later career years (which are often not that good).

 

As for players not using opt outs -- David Price did not use his this past off season. He had $127M over 4 years left on his deal - no way he got more than that in free agency. And Masahiro Tanaka did not opt out of his contract after the 2017 season (he had 2 years and $67M on his deal remaining). He potentially could have gotten more, but coming off a bad season, that's debatable.

 

So it happens - but it usually means the player has dealt with some injury or performance issues. Again, an opt out pretty much only protects the player. I'm guessing the Red Sox would have been okay with losing Price this off season in exchange for shedding $30M+ in salary.

[Ennder]

We know a good about Coors, we know it inflates home OPS quite a bit and we know that it heavily deflates road OPS a bit. Every player who has gone from Coor's to another park has gotten better on the road as a result. Stop quoting road splits for players in Coor's like it means much, it really doesn't.

[MrTPlush]

We know a good about Coors, we know it inflates home OPS quite a bit and we know that it heavily deflates road OPS a bit. Every player who has gone from Coor's to another park has gotten better on the road as a result. Stop quoting road splits for players in Coor's like it means much, it really doesn't.

 

Problem is there really aren't many great examples of guys going from Coors to another team at a young age and not derailed by injuries (Tulo). Holliday went from COL to STL and never got put up what he did in COL (in a full season). However at the same time he was getting into his 30s when he went to STL. Tulo was nowhere near himself after leaving COL, but he was a walking DL and once again at an older age.

 

I think going from COL to anywhere is likely to make you notably less, but not drastic. Arenado isn't going to be a human garbage can and have a sub .800 OPS if he went elsewhere.

[ctmyers]

Every player who has gone from Coor's to another park has gotten better on the road as a result.

 

This seemed too strange to be true and it is. Some names who have gone on to post worse road numbers after leaving Coors: Dante Bichette, Vinny Castilla (x2), Jeff Cirillo, Jay Payton, The Jeromy Burnitz, Brad Hawpe, Jeff Baker, Seth Smith, Michael Cuddyer, Nick Hundley, Mark Reynolds, etc.