Harper Hypothetical

[ettin]

The free agent marketplace sets the tone and price. There is a LOT of money ready to be spent right now and Machado and Harper are going to get paid amounts at or over $400M.

If you do a rough back-of-the-napkin projection of a Machado extension he projects out over 10 years at about $511M starting with a $9.5M base $/WAR amount in 2019 and a 7% $/WAR increase year to year. That is about 5 WAR per season over the next 5 years (through 2023) with age-decline added in through 2028. Even if you drop that to 4.5 WAR per season between 2019-2023, then add in age-decline that comes out to $440M. Machado just had a 6.2 WAR season and has two other 6+ WAR seasons in 2014 and 2015 for reference.

Some of you are letting the depressed 2016 and 2017 off-seasons and Stanton's extension contract fool you. High water marks are going to be set this off-season on free agent contracts (remember that extensions generally give the player less money than the free agent market will give them, so if Giancarlo had been a FA at that time he might have approached $400M).

Also because of Harper's incomplete season in 2016 and his lesser defensive value, his value will be depressed a bit more than Machado. Right now on a 10-year deal he projects to receive about $415M (quite a bit less than Manny). However this assumes approximate 4.3 WAR seasons over the next five years then five more years of age-related decline. There is a case to be made that Bryce will put up stronger WAR seasons than that (in the last four years he has a 9.1 and 4.8 WAR season in 2015 and 2017 respectively). Steamer projects him for a 4.9 WAR season in 2019 for reference.

When you factor in that the Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Twins (yes Minnesota has a ton of open salary), and White Sox all have a TON of money to spend, you will see bidding wars. That doesn't even consider the Braves, Blue Jays, Reds, and Astros that also have salary capacity to spend. This was by design for a lot of these teams.

I am going to go on record stating that Machado will get something in the $420M-470M range on a very long-term deal (10 years). Harper something in the $400M-450M range over the same length (10 years), likely with opt-outs (particularly with Bryce because he has been so inconsistent). Greinke's AAV is $34M per season (two years ago as well), you don't think both Machado and Harper will get more? Both will have to get at least $35M AAV, almost certainly more. Trout will get $500M because he is at least 50%-more productive as Machado and it will be a bargain based on the standard this free agent market will set.

I know that many of you have stated you can't possibly see either of Machado or Harper exceeding $400M but don't take my word for it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/11/07/bryce-harper-phillies-free-agent-contract/1924622002/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-spt-bryce-harper-scott-boras-400-million-20181109-story.html : Makes an interesting case about how Harper should sign before Machado to ensure Manny does not create an artificial upper boundary for Bryce's contract.

https://www.mlb.com/news/a-look-at-bryce-harpers-free-agent-suitors/c-268428784

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-phillies-can-afford-a-bryce-harper-or-manny-machado-but-that-might-not-be-enough-to-contend/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2757849-manny-machado-vs-bryce-harper-who-will-earn-more-hundreds-of-millions-in-2018

 

Have at me you wallet trolls!  

[Stradling]

No

[tdawg87]

Hyper Harpothetical

Edited November 17, 2018 by tdawg87

[Troll Daddy]

35 minutes ago, ettin said:

The free agent marketplace sets the tone and price. There is a LOT of money ready to be spent right now and Machado and Harper are going to get paid amounts at or over $400M.

If you do a rough back-of-the-napkin projection of a Machado extension he projects out over 10 years at about $511M starting with a $9.5M base $/WAR amount in 2019 and a 7% $/WAR increase year to year. That is about 5 WAR per season over the next 5 years (through 2023) with age-decline added in through 2028. Even if you drop that to 4.5 WAR per season between 2019-2023, then add in age-decline that comes out to $440M. Machado just had a 6.2 WAR season and has two other 6+ WAR seasons in 2014 and 2015 for reference.

Some of you are letting the depressed 2016 and 2017 off-seasons and Stanton's extension contract fool you. High water marks are going to be set this off-season on free agent contracts (remember that extensions generally give the player less money than the free agent market will give them, so if Giancarlo had been a FA at that time he might have approached $400M).

Also because of Harper's incomplete season in 2016 and his lesser defensive value, his value will be depressed a bit more than Machado. Right now on a 10-year deal he projects to receive about $415M (quite a bit less than Manny). However this assumes approximate 4.3 WAR seasons over the next five years then five more years of age-related decline. There is a case to be made that Bryce will put up stronger WAR seasons than that (in the last four years he has a 9.1 and 4.8 WAR season in 2015 and 2017 respectively). Steamer projects him for a 4.9 WAR season in 2019 for reference.

When you factor in that the Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Twins (yes Minnesota has a ton of open salary), and White Sox all have a TON of money to spend, you will see bidding wars. That doesn't even consider the Braves, Blue Jays, Reds, and Astros that also have salary capacity to spend. This was by design for a lot of these teams.

I am going to go on record stating that Machado will get something in the $420M-470M range on a very long-term deal (10 years). Harper something in the $400M-450M range over the same length (10 years), likely with opt-outs (particularly with Bryce because he has been so inconsistent). Greinke's AAV is $34M per season (two years ago as well), you don't think both Machado and Harper will get more? Both will have to get at least $35M AAV, almost certainly more. Trout will get $500M because he is at least 50%-more productive as Machado and it will be a bargain based on the standard this free agent market will set.

I know that many of you have stated you can't possibly see either of Machado or Harper exceeding $400M but don't take my word for it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/11/07/bryce-harper-phillies-free-agent-contract/1924622002/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-spt-bryce-harper-scott-boras-400-million-20181109-story.html : Makes an interesting case about how Harper should sign before Machado to ensure Manny does not create an artificial upper boundary for Bryce's contract.

https://www.mlb.com/news/a-look-at-bryce-harpers-free-agent-suitors/c-268428784

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-phillies-can-afford-a-bryce-harper-or-manny-machado-but-that-might-not-be-enough-to-contend/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2757849-manny-machado-vs-bryce-harper-who-will-earn-more-hundreds-of-millions-in-2018

 

Have at me you wallet trolls!  

 

[AngelsFanSince86]

1 hour ago, ettin said:

The free agent marketplace sets the tone and price. There is a LOT of money ready to be spent right now and Machado and Harper are going to get paid amounts at or over $400M.

If you do a rough back-of-the-napkin projection of a Machado extension he projects out over 10 years at about $511M starting with a $9.5M base $/WAR amount in 2019 and a 7% $/WAR increase year to year. That is about 5 WAR per season over the next 5 years (through 2023) with age-decline added in through 2028. Even if you drop that to 4.5 WAR per season between 2019-2023, then add in age-decline that comes out to $440M. Machado just had a 6.2 WAR season and has two other 6+ WAR seasons in 2014 and 2015 for reference.

Some of you are letting the depressed 2016 and 2017 off-seasons and Stanton's extension contract fool you. High water marks are going to be set this off-season on free agent contracts (remember that extensions generally give the player less money than the free agent market will give them, so if Giancarlo had been a FA at that time he might have approached $400M).

Also because of Harper's incomplete season in 2016 and his lesser defensive value, his value will be depressed a bit more than Machado. Right now on a 10-year deal he projects to receive about $415M (quite a bit less than Manny). However this assumes approximate 4.3 WAR seasons over the next five years then five more years of age-related decline. There is a case to be made that Bryce will put up stronger WAR seasons than that (in the last four years he has a 9.1 and 4.8 WAR season in 2015 and 2017 respectively). Steamer projects him for a 4.9 WAR season in 2019 for reference.

When you factor in that the Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, Twins (yes Minnesota has a ton of open salary), and White Sox all have a TON of money to spend, you will see bidding wars. That doesn't even consider the Braves, Blue Jays, Reds, and Astros that also have salary capacity to spend. This was by design for a lot of these teams.

I am going to go on record stating that Machado will get something in the $420M-470M range on a very long-term deal (10 years). Harper something in the $400M-450M range over the same length (10 years), likely with opt-outs (particularly with Bryce because he has been so inconsistent). Greinke's AAV is $34M per season (two years ago as well), you don't think both Machado and Harper will get more? Both will have to get at least $35M AAV, almost certainly more. Trout will get $500M because he is at least 50%-more productive as Machado and it will be a bargain based on the standard this free agent market will set.

I know that many of you have stated you can't possibly see either of Machado or Harper exceeding $400M but don't take my word for it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/11/07/bryce-harper-phillies-free-agent-contract/1924622002/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-spt-bryce-harper-scott-boras-400-million-20181109-story.html : Makes an interesting case about how Harper should sign before Machado to ensure Manny does not create an artificial upper boundary for Bryce's contract.

https://www.mlb.com/news/a-look-at-bryce-harpers-free-agent-suitors/c-268428784

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/the-phillies-can-afford-a-bryce-harper-or-manny-machado-but-that-might-not-be-enough-to-contend/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2757849-manny-machado-vs-bryce-harper-who-will-earn-more-hundreds-of-millions-in-2018

 

Have at me you wallet trolls!  

I could see it happening, but it would still surprise me. Grienke had just put up an incredible 3 year stretch and had just come off a 9 WAR season. The d-backs are currently shopping him around to unload that salary. He's an active example of what happens when you sign those contracts and he's likely being most actively shopped to those teams that have the money to take him on.  And this is a guy, who other than 2016, has been very good.  I could be wrong, but it seems the Grienke example would serve as a fresh reminder of what not to do rather than serve as a benchmark.

[Tank]

i can't see either of them getting over $300 mil right now, let alone $400 mil. Harper runs hot and cold, but owners dig the long ball. Machado is lazy and has a rep as a dirty player.

[TroutField]

2 hours ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

I could see it happening, but it would still surprise me. Grienke had just put up an incredible 3 year stretch and had just come off a 9 WAR season. The d-backs are currently shopping him around to unload that salary. He's an active example of what happens when you sign those contracts and he's likely being most actively shopped to those teams that have the money to take him on.  And this is a guy, who other than 2016, has been very good.  I could be wrong, but it seems the Grienke example would serve as a fresh reminder of what not to do rather than serve as a benchmark.

Bingo, teams have learned that you usually get burned in free agency. It’s just not worth investing that much time and money into one player. 

[ettin]

3 hours ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

I could see it happening, but it would still surprise me. Grienke had just put up an incredible 3 year stretch and had just come off a 9 WAR season. The d-backs are currently shopping him around to unload that salary. He's an active example of what happens when you sign those contracts and he's likely being most actively shopped to those teams that have the money to take him on.  And this is a guy, who other than 2016, has been very good.  I could be wrong, but it seems the Grienke example would serve as a fresh reminder of what not to do rather than serve as a benchmark.

In a vacuum I would agree with your last sentence but we are talking free agency here and there are too many teams with too much cash that want to put those finishing touches in place.

1 hour ago, TroutField said:

Bingo, teams have learned that you usually get burned in free agency. It’s just not worth investing that much time and money into one player. 

Teams do understand the use of free agency and the lack of surplus value in the upper tier of players but that will not stop them from grabbing guys who will put them over the top competitively. They will spend and the circle change up of life will go on.

[Troll Daddy]

10 hours ago, ettin said:

In a vacuum I would agree with your last sentence but we are talking free agency here and there are too many teams with too much cash that want to put those finishing touches in place.

Teams do understand the use of free agency and the lack of surplus value in the upper tier of players but that will not stop them from grabbing guys who will put them over the top competitively. They will spend and the circle change up of life will go on.

Most of the best teams in baseball haven’t invested huge $$$ on position players. Teams are investing more money on bench players nowadays. Premium pitching still getting the big dollars. 

Dodgers highest paid position player is Justin Turner @16M (Kemp excl)

Red Sox highest paid position player is JD Martinez @23M

If I’m being honest ... I’m not jumping for joy paying Mike Trout $45 +++ M a season for ten + years. 

 

[Lou]

12 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Dodgers highest paid position player is Justin Turner @16M (Kemp excl)

so he's not the highest paid position player on the Dodgers 

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

so he's not the highest paid position player on the Dodgers 

not to mention that Turner is going to make $19m in 2019.  Not 16m.  

[floplag]

21 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Most of the best teams in baseball haven’t invested huge $$$ on position players. Teams are investing more money on bench players nowadays. Premium pitching still getting the big dollars. 

Dodgers highest paid position player is Justin Turner @16M (Kemp excl)

Red Sox highest paid position player is JD Martinez @23M

If I’m being honest ... I’m not jumping for joy paying Mike Trout $45 +++ M a season for ten + years. 

 

i have to admit i kinda agree to this.  If were having payroll issues now or are near what the front office considers its comfort zone salary wise, how could the team maintain a competitive model, assuming it even plans to, with one player taking up that much?  He would literally be about 25% of payroll in that range. 
I know many here consider it blasphemy to even consider a trade, but if this was any other superstar player, ask yourself honestly,  dont you have to at least consider alternatives?

[DCAngelsFan]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

i have to admit i kinda agree to this.  If were having payroll issues now or are near what the front office considers its comfort zone salary wise, how could the team maintain a competitive model, assuming it even plans to, with one player taking up that much?  He would literally be about 25% of payroll in that range. 
I know many here consider it blasphemy to even consider a trade, but if this was any other superstar player, ask yourself honestly,  dont you have to at least consider alternatives?

4

Trout's salary vs. contribution isn't presently the problem - take his salary and spend it on any free agents you like, and show how you've replaced his ~10 WAR.  Good luck - he's still a valuation bargain right now.  

The real problem is players like Pujols - where you're paying them extravagant dollars for replacement player production.  

Trading Trout could only make sense - right now - because of his impending free agency, and not because of his salary load.   And trading him now had better include Vlad Jr as part of the package back  ...

[floplag]

56 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

Trout's salary vs. contribution isn't presently the problem - take his salary and spend it on any free agents you like, and show how you've replaced his ~10 WAR.  Good luck - he's still a valuation bargain right now.  

The real problem is players like Pujols - where you're paying them extravagant dollars for replacement player production.  

Trading Trout could only make sense - right now - because of his impending free agency, and not because of his salary load.   And trading him now had better include Vlad Jr as part of the package back  ...

Of course, at some point Trout is going to become Albert, we all do.   Even on the short term though one man taking 25% of payroll... as great as he is i dont think hes giving 25% of production.   My greater concern here is that if the recent quote are true, and 175-180 is about as high as the front office will ever go, how can we compete with that much in one guy?  Salaries for other players arent going down as far as i can see, not the good ones anyway. 

[ettin]

54 minutes ago, floplag said:

Of course, at some point Trout is going to become Albert, we all do.   Even on the short term though one man taking 25% of payroll... as great as he is i dont think hes giving 25% of production.   My greater concern here is that if the recent quote are true, and 175-180 is about as high as the front office will ever go, how can we compete with that much in one guy?  Salaries for other players arent going down as far as i can see, not the good ones anyway. 

So in principal, yes, I agree tying up a large percentage of payroll on one player is usually risky. The difference here is that if you believe Trout is an 8-WAR/season player for the next 4-5 years, he will provide more than enough surplus value to make the contract worth it. Also any team is going to put insurance on such a large deal in all likelihood.

The key to all of this Trout extension talk is the surplus value you will have on your team. Mike's production in economic terms very likely will outstrip what we pay him. The teams that have significant surplus value are the ones better positioned to win championships. Take the Indians for example: They have Kluber, Carrasco, and Ramirez all on long-term contracts at very reasonable prices. The surplus value from those three contracts alone are big drivers of why Cleveland has been competing so strongly over recent years. Throw in other good surplus players like Lindor and Bauer and you have the makings of a very competitive team.

[floplag]

4 minutes ago, ettin said:

So in principal, yes, I agree tying up a large percentage of payroll on one player is usually risky. The difference here is that if you believe Trout is an 8-WAR/season player for the next 4-5 years, he will provide more than enough surplus value to make the contract worth it. Also any team is going to put insurance on such a large deal in all likelihood.

The key to all of this Trout extension talk is the surplus value you will have on your team. Mike's production in economic terms very likely will outstrip what we pay him. The teams that have significant surplus value are the ones better positioned to win championships. Take the Indians for example: They have Kluber, Carrasco, and Ramirez all on long-term contracts at very reasonable prices. The surplus value from those three contracts alone are big drivers of why Cleveland has been competing so strongly over recent years. Throw in other good surplus players like Lindor and Bauer and you have the makings of a very competitive team.

For me it comes down to this, on the assumption that they plan to fill in the blanks around him and compete, im not opposed.  If they do not plan to make that effort, i dont see the point.  i wont make me buy tickets to see him play on 500 teams.  Its just my opinion i dont expect it to be shared. 

[ettin]

16 minutes ago, floplag said:

For me it comes down to this, on the assumption that they plan to fill in the blanks around him and compete, im not opposed.  If they do not plan to make that effort, i dont see the point.  i wont make me buy tickets to see him play on 500 teams.  Its just my opinion i dont expect it to be shared. 

Well this is probably why Eppler will not gut our farm system right now. I expect that Eppler will make trades off the fringes of our farm system and perhaps one or two key guys like Jones or Marsh for example. However, someone like Adell is far more likely to be a key piece moving forward that Eppler wants to use to surround Trout. The hard thing for any of us to see is which teams are offering what players in trade and what they are asking for in return off of our roster and farm system. The matches have to be there and make sense to Eppler.

[floplag]

28 minutes ago, ettin said:

Well this is probably why Eppler will not gut our farm system right now. I expect that Eppler will make trades off the fringes of our farm system and perhaps one or two key guys like Jones or Marsh for example. However, someone like Adell is far more likely to be a key piece moving forward that Eppler wants to use to surround Trout. The hard thing for any of us to see is which teams are offering what players in trade and what they are asking for in return off of our roster and farm system. The matches have to be there and make sense to Eppler.

Trades arent going to be the reason we win or lose though on the short term in the next 2-3 , at least not in and of themselves.  I wouldnt expect them to make too many trades if any really but even if they do make one or two good ones that wouldnt be enough to actually make a run at anything.  They would be only parts of that puzzle, the rest would come the FA and spending. 

For the immediate future its going to come down to if they are open to spending past their comfort level.  Over the next couple years that will determine the level of success while we wait and hope the key farm guys develop. 

There seems to be this perception that im pro trading all of them, im not, never have been.  There are a couple of very select players i would even entertain the idea for, such as Relamuto, Arrenado, DeGrom, outside of those guys there isnt much else id even talk about the top guys for.

[Troll Daddy]

Eppler first move as GM was trading two of our top prospects from a weak farm. 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

https://twitter.com/VanderTweets/status/1064241554255015936?s=19

When you look at the pitching market, if the #Angels have money to spend, a pursuit of Harper makes more sense. What free agent pitcher are you willing to commit big time dollars and years to? Harper is 26 and an elite hitter.

[Lou]

have we really gotten to the point where people are posting random fans' tweets? 

btw, he's an idiot 

 

[Halodays]

It might be possible with a back loaded contract and clearing of some dead weight, but the main hurdle might be his agent.

[Lou]

37 minutes ago, Halodays said:

It might be possible with a back loaded contract and clearing of some dead weight, but the main hurdle might be his agent.

seeing as he'll probably insist on an opt-out clause, there's no way he accepts a backloaded deal. 

 

[Halodays]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

seeing as he'll probably insist on an opt-out clause, there's no way he accepts a backloaded deal. 

 

Yeah most likely but he would have to be an idiot to opt out then wouldn't he?

[Lou]

17 minutes ago, Halodays said:

Yeah most likely but he would have to be an idiot to opt out then wouldn't he?

no.

if he makes less money on the back end, he would benefit from opting out