Can't happen in MLB without more across the board revenue sharing.
MLB Offseason 2018-19: SIGN KIMBREL AND KEUCHEL YOU FUCKS
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
Can't happen in MLB without more across the board revenue sharing.
It's hard to wrap my head around Harper's deal. The only thing that helps it make sense to me is something I heard Tim Kurjian say about Harper a couple of days ago. He said Harper is so competitive and driven in everything he does that he needed to get the largest contract ever. That was the mission. Now in the context of just signing with the Phillies, while the average annual value is not the highest ever, the total does exceed Stanton's contract in total money.
So this contract had to be about pure ego satisfaction. How is this better than the Nats original offer of $300 million over ten years with no opt outs? It's mostly a lateral move. Of course, at that time, Harper and Boras probably thought $400 million was possible so they let that offer sit until the Nats basically decided to go on without him. When Harper and Boras realized $40 million a year for ten years wasn't going to happen, they must've shifted strategies to negotiate the largest aggregate contract ever, which they did by beating Stanton's by a whole $5 million.
I mean, come on, ten years at $300 million from the Nats was offered months ago. Let's say he took that and then had good years. When that contract expired, at 36 he still would've been able to sign another for far more than just three years at $30 million. This just seems weird. It's not like the Phillies are any better than the Nats or have a brighter future, either.
Weird.
So this contract had to be about pure ego satisfaction. How is this better than the Nats original offer of $300 million over ten years with no opt outs? It's mostly a lateral move. Of course, at that time, Harper and Boras probably thought $400 million was possible so they let that offer sit until the Nats basically decided to go on without him. When Harper and Boras realized $40 million a year for ten years wasn't going to happen, they must've shifted strategies to negotiate the largest aggregate contract ever, which they did by beating Stanton's by a whole $5 million.
I mean, come on, ten years at $300 million from the Nats was offered months ago. Let's say he took that and then had good years. When that contract expired, at 36 he still would've been able to sign another for far more than just three years at $30 million. This just seems weird. It's not like the Phillies are any better than the Nats or have a brighter future, either.
Weird.
Large revenue clubs would never go for the type of revenue sharing required to make a salary cap work. If I'm the Yankees, why would I want to give away hundreds of millions of dollars to small revenue teams?
Best that can be hoped for is that the players can get a guaranteed slice of the overall revenue pie.
I do wonder if whispers of Harper not being a good clubhouse guy and his fight with Papelbon a few years ago damaged his value in the eyes of some teams?
https://nesn.com/2018/06/mlb-exec-shreds-bryce-harper-calls-nats-star-selfish-losing-player/
As you know, I live in the DC area, and I'm not a Nats fan, but I watch and listen to a lot of their baseball and obviously follow the local media stuff. Yeah. Harper wasn't exactly a beloved teammate. Actually, I heard on the radio yesterday that the players had moved on from him days ago. He had been the occasional topic of conversation in the club house (coming back or not?), but that talk stopped a while back.
Neil Greeberg just wrote a piece (like an hour ago) in the Post showing that using the analytics commonly used to obtain value and predicted value now, the contracts of Machado and Arenado actually fit into the metric. They make sense. By the same metric, the Phillies have overvalued Harper by a lot. He said they'll need several seasons like 2015 to get value for money from him.
He is kind of the Pete Rose type. Very intense. Wound tight. Too competitive. A bit too individualistic, sometimes. Like Rose, he's one of those who always knows his numbers. You certainly wouldn't mind him on your team in your lineup, but he's not the kind of guy you would want to knock back a few beers with after the game, either, or expect leadership from him. You also wouldn't want an entire team of Bryce Harpers.
One other thing Kurkjian said that was interesting is the big difference between Harper and Trout beyond ability is Harper occasionally goes "over to the dark side" on the field sometimes and Trout doesn't.
Pardon the double post, but one other thing about the above: the Nats believe they have made improvements in other places that will more than make up for the loss of production from Harper in right field.
It's going to boil down to who wins a pennant first, Harper's Phils or the Nats. Believe me, we Cardinal fans took serious satisfaction in the Cards winning a pennant after Albert Pujols left and before he could bring one to the Angels (which they're still waiting for, of course).
It's going to boil down to who wins a pennant first, Harper's Phils or the Nats. Believe me, we Cardinal fans took serious satisfaction in the Cards winning a pennant after Albert Pujols left and before he could bring one to the Angels (which they're still waiting for, of course).
If you own a professional sports team, you are already rich as fuck.
Jeez, that Harper contract is insane. Would be awful if Harper got injured a few years in and ended up sucking. 
The length would suck, but at least the amount per year helps mitigate the injuries.
Just read a story about Harper's leaving in the Post that may help explain why he never took the Nats' offer. I don't recall hearing about his before, but the Nats' offer was said to have had up to $100 million of the $300 million in deferrals. The article says it was to be paid out over such a long period of time it concerned MLB. The article goes on to say there are no deferrals in the Phillie contract. So it's less when averaged annually, but it's all there over the thirteen years.
Oh, no, he would've gotten $100 million over a very long period of time. 
It isn't so much "boo hoo for him" as the degree to which making deferred payments affects baseball's luxury tax going forward and how teams compete for players. It turns out the Nats are big on deferred contracts for their players (Scherzer has deferred payments in his contract, for example). The deferred money the Nats pay is without interest, too. So, if I say I'll pay you a $10 million bonus for 2019, but the payments are over ten years starting five years from now, and the money doesn't accrue interest, then you're losing money.Oh, no, he would've gotten $100 million over a very long period of time.
Players don't care too much for deferred contracts, either. That's the main reason from their point of view. They lose real money in the long run.
Oh, no, he would've gotten $100 million over a very long period of time.
He needs it all now for his Scrooge McDuck style vault so he can swim in it!
Jason
Harper and Machado both took insane contracts instead of going to a team that actually cares about winning. I don't think either will ever see a world series title.
Of course not. Those teams spent so much damn money on them that they won't be able to build an effective team around them unless they get lucky in the farm system.
When the stove is this cold, yes.
Oh, no, he would've gotten $100 million over a very long period of time.
The reason players like Harper and Machado deserve so much money is that they put asses in seats, both in-person and on television. It's just like the primary KPI of hotels: Getting heads in beds. Labor provides the value that earns MLB record levels of revenue every year.
- Status
Similar threads
