Friends, it’s over. Bryce Harper has blessed the Phillies

[summit21]

1 minute ago, Lou said:

this has absolutely nothing to do with Pujols. 

 

Both reside in the top 10 in terms of total value so it is a fair comparison of how the contracts were structured. The idea that Harper at 39 is laughable on a diamond is less so when you compare it to Albert and his contract at 42. Simply saying the Phils did it right in terms of the structure, IMO.

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

if he passed it up, it's the same reason the other teams around baseball aren't giving out 13 year deal.  It's the total amount that either side is fixated on.  Not the AAV with an 'opportunity' to become a free agent again when it still matters.  

Yeah, I get it. Plus if this guy is right, there's a chance Harper's already peaked and won't get any better. It is a risk but not a risk. If he "only" signed for, say, 5/$200M, he'd be a free agent at 31 years old. At that point he could be a mega-star and command another $200M deal and make significantly more. Or he could be an aging slugger getting offers of 1/$15M or 2/$25M. 

The Phillies contract kind of makes sense for both. Harper gets his big contract and a ton of guaranteed money. The Phillies take a risk but could end up getting a bargain if Harper strings together half a decade of 2017-esque seasons.

[cez]

33 minutes ago, summit21 said:

 

Harper's last 3 years significantly better than Pujols (66 million vs. 87 million) and 3 years younger, the Phils knocked this out of the park in terms of future value, IMO.  

just about anything is better than the pujols deal.

 

[m0nkey]

I don’t get it, 13 years is long but isn’t 330 over 13 better than 330 over 10?

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

I don’t get it, 13 years is long but isn’t 330 over 13 better than 330 over 10?

Yea, I think that the 13 year thing is fine considering it is only an average of $25 million a season compared to the belief that he was going to get over $30 million a season. 

[Lou]

 

23 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

I don’t get it, 13 years is long but isn’t 330 over 13 better than 330 over 10?

for the Phillies, yes. not for Harper.

[Troll Daddy]

44 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Hey @Troll Daddy

what do you think of Jordan Zimmermann from detroit?  

He was a year younger than Keuchel when he became a free agent and about 10% better by era.  He got 5/110.  How's he doing now?  

how about Barry Zito

CJ Wilson pitched fewer inning than Keuchel to the same age in their careers but had a better ERA at the time of free agency.  

Jeff Samardzija had fewer innings and a little worse era

Mike Leake was younger with similar innings and era.  

Wei-Yin Chen is also similar.  

Actually, let's do this a different way.  Find be some free agent comps for Dallas Keuchel.  Tell me who you think he's similar to over the past several years.  

 

 

 

I’m have no idea what you’re trying to prove. All I know is that he has a better track record than any of our starters and he logged in about 200 innings last season. 

Cahill and Harvey should be enough 

[Troll Daddy]

9 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Probably.  But I honestly don’t think Harper understood AAV.  I think he probably thinks he “beat Machado”.

Only if you think Machado can sign for 3yr/$30M at the age of 37 ... otherwise Harper banks more money if he plays out his contract. 

[Docwaukee]

after a certain number of years, the aav doesn't matter.  It's all about the total dollars.  Players and teams both know that after the age of 35, the opportunity to earn is pretty minimal.  So Harper essentially took an extra 30 mil or so for the last 3 years of his career.  The max I've seen a hitter get over the age of 35 is about 15m and guys like Ortiz and Cruz are complete outliers.  Harper could make more than 330 over the next 13 years if things went right for him but maybe he gets to 350 is he's lucky.  Yet he could leave over 100m on the table if he takes a higher aav deal with fewer years.  

They tried to play this like Harper wanted to spend the rest of his career with one team and that's why he didn't want an opt out, but that's bullshit.  The phills agreed to the extra dollars in exchange for the opt out so Harper couldn't use that as leverage in 5 years.  It also makes sense because the team was more interested in front loading which doesn't work for them if there is an opt out.  

Both sides get what they want here.  

[Docwaukee]

18 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

I’m have no idea what you’re trying to prove. All I know is that he has a better track record than any of our starters and he logged in about 200 innings last season. 

Cahill and Harvey should be enough 

I am trying to prove to you that while he has a better track record, deals for guys at his age and skill set don't work out well.  ever.  literally, they have never worked.  

so he might help us for a year and then we're saddled with a shit contract paying a back end starter 20m per season that could be used in other places.  

Harvey and Cahill might be good enough.  Even if they're wouldn't justify adding a 4 year deal for Keuchel instead.  That's the type of mistake that has been made in the past.  

Best available doesn't mean it's good for the team.  

[summit21]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I wonder what sort of higher AAV deals were offered by LA and the Giants. If LAD was offering 5/$200M, I'd almost think that would be preferable to Harper. But it seems he really just wanted that $330M.

Apparently, Cali taxes played a role...

[Docwaukee]

giants were pawns or in on the game.  

[Troll Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I am trying to prove to you that while he has a better track record, deals for guys at his age and skill set don't work out well.  ever.  literally, they have never worked.  

so he might help us for a year and then we're saddled with a shit contract paying a back end starter 20m per season that could be used in other places.  

Harvey and Cahill might be good enough.  Even if they're wouldn't justify adding a 4 year deal for Keuchel instead.  That's the type of mistake that has been made in the past.  

Best available doesn't mean it's good for the team.  

Maybe if you quit trying to put a price tag (yrs/money) on him and trust the FO to figure that out ... we can agree he would be valuable addition to the rotation. 

Anyways this is a moot discussion because they’ve already signed two starters. 

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

2 isnt frontline?  man you guys are tough. 

That’s why I said ‘at best’. I’m skeptical he’s even that good at this point. There’s a reason no one is biting. 

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

I don’t believe he is a #2 starter.  I think he would be a solid #3 this year and I doubt he would be any better going forward.  If the last few years are any indication he is declining.   

I don’t disagree. I think he could be this year, but if he is the smart money is that it’ll be the last time. 

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Maybe if you quit trying to put a price tag (yrs/money) on him and trust the FO to figure that out ... we can agree he would be valuable addition to the rotation. 

Anyways this is a moot discussion because they’ve already signed two starters. 

what?  

do you mean that they'll add him if it makes sense?  like at 3/50?  ok.  

every player has a cost.  he'd be a good addition at a certain cost.  I trust the front office.  I am one of the few that actually agrees with the current plan.  

[Troll Daddy]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

what?  

do you mean that they'll add him if it makes sense?  like at 3/50?  ok.  

every player has a cost.  he'd be a good addition at a certain cost.  I trust the front office.  I am one of the few that actually agrees with the current plan.  

There you go ... now you’re catching my drift. Although, the current plan should be winning now ... maybe that is the plan. 

Me and my buddy Trout won’t settle for less than the playoffs. 

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

"shorter-term offers...as high as $42.5" means 2/$85M, or maybe 4/$170M. If it was 6/$255M then Harper is a fool for passing that up.

this is the most likely scenario, imo.  his new deal will pay him 4/$108M 

dummy 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

6 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

But while I don't think Harper-to-Philly diminishes the chances that they'll go after Trout, I don't think it increases the chances that they'll actually get him. That is up to Trout.

I suspect we'll know whether Trout will remain an Angel for life within the next few weeks. If he doesn't sign an extension now, I don't think he ever will.

Trout lobbied for the Angels last offseason in the successful attempt to convince Ohtani that the Angels was the best place for him to start his MLB career. Hopefully Ohtani's talent will return the favor.

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

There you go ... now you’re catching my drift. Although, the current plan should be winning now ... maybe that is the plan. 

why don't you trust the front office?  They are trying to win now.  They're just not going all in to do so because they also want to win 2 years from now.  and 4 years from now.  and 6 years from now.   

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

6 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Nobody is bullet proof ... Harper keeps his body in excellent shape and his intensity level isn’t going to change imo. 

I still wouldn’t give ANY player a 13 year deal.

If Trout isn't bullet proof, he certainly is bullet resistant. Harper is consistently going to hit HRs and drive in runs. But otherwise he is very inconsistent one year he hits .330 then next year .240. He's a box of chocolates IMO. He has extended slumps a lot...

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

1 hour ago, m0nkey said:

I don’t get it, 13 years is long but isn’t 330 over 13 better than 330 over 10?

No, that means you're essentially working 3 years for free.

[Pancake Bear]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

I actually agree with this. Not to mention that Harper in Philly may take a bit of the heat off Trout, who likes a lower profile than he'd normally experience playing for one of the bigger East Coast teams.

But while I don't think Harper-to-Philly diminishes the chances that they'll go after Trout, I don't think it increases the chances that they'll actually get him. That is up to Trout.

I suspect we'll know whether Trout will remain an Angel for life within the next few weeks. If he doesn't sign an extension now, I don't think he ever will. I suppose they could have a great year and he could feel inspired in November, but I guess I just think it lowers the chances greatly.

In other words, right now I think he'll probably be an Angel for life. If he doesn't sign before Opening Day, that probably becomes a maybe. If he doesn't sign next offseason that maybe becomes a probably not.

I’ve thought this for some time. If he doesn’t sign before the season, to me that says he either isn’t interested in staying or he’s not sure he wants to. He could wait until next offseason if he genuinely is unsure whether the Angels will be competitive, but I doubt it. If he’s not convinced of it now, I doubt one season makes the difference. 

Of course, this is all moot if the Angels lowball him. I don’t see that happening at all, however. 

[UndertheHalo]

 

[m0nkey]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

 

for the Phillies, yes. not for Harper.

 

1 hour ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

No, that means you're essentially working 3 years for free.

My post was in response to those saying it’s a bad deal for the Phillies. 

[Troll Daddy]