Post by rog on Feb 14, 2019 15:58:22 GMT -5
Bleacher Reports questions whether the long-term market for Bryce Harper has come down to only the Phillies. Bob Nightengale says the Giants are interested in giving Harper a 5- or 6-year deal at $30 million per. Bleacher Reports writes that might make sense if there are opt outs for Harper along the way.
It would seem that a short-term deal would make sense for Harper only if the Average Annual Value is well north of $30 million. But if the long-term market has become the Phillies and the Phillies only, maybe Harper has to get the best short-term deal he can find and hope the market becomes better for free agents down the road. Perhaps when there's a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, there will be.
It's probably good for the Giants that they've gotten involved with Harper, who may now be wishing he had taken the 10/$300 million contract the Nationals offered him. At the time, he was likely hoping for something closer to 14/$420.
If the free agent market is taking a positive turn for teams like the Giants who have protected this winter what they have to spend, it may also work against them on the trade market. Why would teams want to trade for the Giants' big contracts if they had hopes of picking up cheaper free agents this winter or next without having to give up anything in return.
So I have a suggestion for the Giants in how to work out a contract for Harper. Because players usually decline as they age, they are worth less in the later years of their contract. If a team paid Harper say the 10/$300 the Nationals offered Bryce, they would perhaps be paying that amount based on Bryce's being worth $40-$45 million a season early in the contract, $30-$35 million per season in the middle, and $10-$20 million in the final years.
Why not structure a contract that way, with strategically-placed options for Harper and maybe even for the Giants? Let Bryce make big bucks early in the contract, then give him an opt-out. Then maybe a couple more years at a more affordable AAV, and then an opt-out for the Giants, so that Bryce's guaranteed money is still high, but the Giants can get off the hook when Bryce approaches his mid-30's.
The point is, I believe that if the Giants get creative, they can limit their long-term exposure a bit while still guaranteeing Bryce some big enough early paychecks to make it worth his while to sign kind of a comibination short-term/intermediate-term/long-term contract that rewards Bryce for still being in his prime but also allows the Giants not to be swamped if say Bryce's pronenes to injury doesn't go away, and he declines more quickly than he would like.
I think the Giants also have to be prepared that they could have a very hard time getting rid of their high-priced players. That might mean making a bigger play for it now and being willing to wait for some of those contracts to expire to be able to reap the benefits of their high draft choices and player development, while also waiting for significant money to free up as the contracts of the expensive players begin to come off the books.
A year from now, Madison, Smith and Watson come off.
In two years it's Samardzija and Melancon.
In three years, it's Belt, Crawford and Cueto.
In four years, it's Buster and Longoria.
The gradual nature may call for a gradual execution of a solid long-term plan.
bleacherreport.com/articles/2820713-bryce-harper-shouldnt-close-the-door-on-a-short-term-mlb-megadeal?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=mlb
It would seem that a short-term deal would make sense for Harper only if the Average Annual Value is well north of $30 million. But if the long-term market has become the Phillies and the Phillies only, maybe Harper has to get the best short-term deal he can find and hope the market becomes better for free agents down the road. Perhaps when there's a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, there will be.
It's probably good for the Giants that they've gotten involved with Harper, who may now be wishing he had taken the 10/$300 million contract the Nationals offered him. At the time, he was likely hoping for something closer to 14/$420.
If the free agent market is taking a positive turn for teams like the Giants who have protected this winter what they have to spend, it may also work against them on the trade market. Why would teams want to trade for the Giants' big contracts if they had hopes of picking up cheaper free agents this winter or next without having to give up anything in return.
So I have a suggestion for the Giants in how to work out a contract for Harper. Because players usually decline as they age, they are worth less in the later years of their contract. If a team paid Harper say the 10/$300 the Nationals offered Bryce, they would perhaps be paying that amount based on Bryce's being worth $40-$45 million a season early in the contract, $30-$35 million per season in the middle, and $10-$20 million in the final years.
Why not structure a contract that way, with strategically-placed options for Harper and maybe even for the Giants? Let Bryce make big bucks early in the contract, then give him an opt-out. Then maybe a couple more years at a more affordable AAV, and then an opt-out for the Giants, so that Bryce's guaranteed money is still high, but the Giants can get off the hook when Bryce approaches his mid-30's.
The point is, I believe that if the Giants get creative, they can limit their long-term exposure a bit while still guaranteeing Bryce some big enough early paychecks to make it worth his while to sign kind of a comibination short-term/intermediate-term/long-term contract that rewards Bryce for still being in his prime but also allows the Giants not to be swamped if say Bryce's pronenes to injury doesn't go away, and he declines more quickly than he would like.
I think the Giants also have to be prepared that they could have a very hard time getting rid of their high-priced players. That might mean making a bigger play for it now and being willing to wait for some of those contracts to expire to be able to reap the benefits of their high draft choices and player development, while also waiting for significant money to free up as the contracts of the expensive players begin to come off the books.
A year from now, Madison, Smith and Watson come off.
In two years it's Samardzija and Melancon.
In three years, it's Belt, Crawford and Cueto.
In four years, it's Buster and Longoria.
The gradual nature may call for a gradual execution of a solid long-term plan.
bleacherreport.com/articles/2820713-bryce-harper-shouldnt-close-the-door-on-a-short-term-mlb-megadeal?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=mlb
