Post by rog on Feb 10, 2019 12:39:10 GMT -5
Boagie's favorite, Bob Nightengale, reports that the Giants are uninterested in offering a long-term contract to Bryce Harper such as the reported 10/$300 from the Nationals he rejected earlier. Instead, Nightengale reports that the Giants will proffer Harper a "short-term, big money offer."
Without know just what that offer might be, I can't say I'm on board with the idea. I'm thinking in order to hold a large appeal, the brief-tenured pact woud have to include an extremely high average value in order to be attractive to Harper. I think Bryce and Scott Boras might like to break ground in setting a new average annual value record, but I would think that on a short pact, that number would need to be over $40 million.
Harper could look for a three-year commitment, which would make him eligible for free agency again at age 29, but I would think it would take at least $125 million for that to happen. Once one gets above a $40 million average, it takes at least five wins to justify the contract. Bryce has averaged four per season.
In addition, the Giants likely need to begin opening a new window for the 2020's, and a three-year contract to Bryce would more crack that window than fully open it.
I understand the appeal of a short-term contract. Risk is greatly reduced for the signing team. But the risk is greatly increased for the player, which demands the high average value. Which means the player has to have a very, very good season or seasons to justify the high freight.
Boagie believes Nightengale is usually wrong, and in this case, I hope he is. Perhaps I'm overlooking some factors, but given where the Giants are and where I believe they should be heading, the only way I can see a short-term contract being a good thing is if Farhan sees it as being similar to the large contracts the Dodgers took on when they changed ownership so that they could be competitive quickly, contracts that bought them time to achieve their ultimate goal of building from within.
The short-term contract would seem to fit with Farhan's modus operandi in that he's never given out a nine-figure commitment (which he still might be able to avoid doing if Harper's contract were only for two years), and I could see the Giants justifying it as a move to keep the fans excited while they begin to make inroads on Farhan's long-term goals.
Perhaps Farhan sees a short-term Harper contract as the least of evils to achieve ownership's goal of being competitive short-term with what I believe is Farhan's longer vision.
If the Giants and Harper wind up signing a short-term pact, it will almost certainly be ground-breaking. Josh Donaldson's 1/$23 million set the standard for one-year contracts to give the player a chance to rebuild his value. Harper's value is just fine, so the annual amount would need to be perhaps twice Donaldson's agreement.
It is certainly possible teams will seek to cut their long-term risk by moving more toward shorter-term contracts. To some extent that is happening already. In the long run, shorter contracts would mean more supply on the free agent market, which should then bend the supply/demand equation back toward the owners. Much of the reason free agent contracts are so big now is that so few players are eligible for free agency each winter, at a time when teams are looking for the player or players to put them over the top.
It is conceivable that the Giants and Bryce will forge a ground-breaking deal. I'm a little more convinced it might fit with the Giants' plans than when I began this thread, but I'm still having a hard time coming around to the idea. That is the one disadvantage of looking at the reasons WHY something that at first appears counter-intuitive might actually make sense. It makes it harder to be firmly against something. Or perhaps the advantage, since if one takes a fully open-minded look at an idea and still is against it, he can feel that is has tested his views and not found them wanting.
But of course, that risks gaining new insights. I'm at the stage where my mind has opened a bit, but I haven't yet reached the point where I'm comfortable closing it in on a firmer grasp of the subject. If Farhan truly is going the short-term route, there is almost certainly a good reason. I'm just not yet certain enough of what it and its value are to be fully behind it.
I remain open-minded and not yet decided. We'll likely learn more as the next few days unfold. At the very least, the winter has gotten more exciting again.
Without know just what that offer might be, I can't say I'm on board with the idea. I'm thinking in order to hold a large appeal, the brief-tenured pact woud have to include an extremely high average value in order to be attractive to Harper. I think Bryce and Scott Boras might like to break ground in setting a new average annual value record, but I would think that on a short pact, that number would need to be over $40 million.
Harper could look for a three-year commitment, which would make him eligible for free agency again at age 29, but I would think it would take at least $125 million for that to happen. Once one gets above a $40 million average, it takes at least five wins to justify the contract. Bryce has averaged four per season.
In addition, the Giants likely need to begin opening a new window for the 2020's, and a three-year contract to Bryce would more crack that window than fully open it.
I understand the appeal of a short-term contract. Risk is greatly reduced for the signing team. But the risk is greatly increased for the player, which demands the high average value. Which means the player has to have a very, very good season or seasons to justify the high freight.
Boagie believes Nightengale is usually wrong, and in this case, I hope he is. Perhaps I'm overlooking some factors, but given where the Giants are and where I believe they should be heading, the only way I can see a short-term contract being a good thing is if Farhan sees it as being similar to the large contracts the Dodgers took on when they changed ownership so that they could be competitive quickly, contracts that bought them time to achieve their ultimate goal of building from within.
The short-term contract would seem to fit with Farhan's modus operandi in that he's never given out a nine-figure commitment (which he still might be able to avoid doing if Harper's contract were only for two years), and I could see the Giants justifying it as a move to keep the fans excited while they begin to make inroads on Farhan's long-term goals.
Perhaps Farhan sees a short-term Harper contract as the least of evils to achieve ownership's goal of being competitive short-term with what I believe is Farhan's longer vision.
If the Giants and Harper wind up signing a short-term pact, it will almost certainly be ground-breaking. Josh Donaldson's 1/$23 million set the standard for one-year contracts to give the player a chance to rebuild his value. Harper's value is just fine, so the annual amount would need to be perhaps twice Donaldson's agreement.
It is certainly possible teams will seek to cut their long-term risk by moving more toward shorter-term contracts. To some extent that is happening already. In the long run, shorter contracts would mean more supply on the free agent market, which should then bend the supply/demand equation back toward the owners. Much of the reason free agent contracts are so big now is that so few players are eligible for free agency each winter, at a time when teams are looking for the player or players to put them over the top.
It is conceivable that the Giants and Bryce will forge a ground-breaking deal. I'm a little more convinced it might fit with the Giants' plans than when I began this thread, but I'm still having a hard time coming around to the idea. That is the one disadvantage of looking at the reasons WHY something that at first appears counter-intuitive might actually make sense. It makes it harder to be firmly against something. Or perhaps the advantage, since if one takes a fully open-minded look at an idea and still is against it, he can feel that is has tested his views and not found them wanting.
But of course, that risks gaining new insights. I'm at the stage where my mind has opened a bit, but I haven't yet reached the point where I'm comfortable closing it in on a firmer grasp of the subject. If Farhan truly is going the short-term route, there is almost certainly a good reason. I'm just not yet certain enough of what it and its value are to be fully behind it.
I remain open-minded and not yet decided. We'll likely learn more as the next few days unfold. At the very least, the winter has gotten more exciting again.
