Assume you're a GM for a team and that all your players on the 40 man roster are average and no one in the minors is blocking their respective positions.
Which player would you choose? Which deal would you rather have?
Harper's Deal Machado's Deal
The agreement is for a record $300 million over 10 years, with an opt-out after five years and a partial no-trade clause.
Note: What the cardinals ownership should have done this off-season is outside of the scope of this thread. If you'd like to discuss that topic please create a new thread.
Last edited by Michael on February 28 19, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Harper deal is better by a long shot. He's got more upside and in the case that he realizes that upside he can't opt out. On top of that you're getting another three years of control for $10M per year which will be almost negligible in a decade.
If I had to choose, probably Machado/Machado. The opt-out is meaningless, because it cones after what should be his best years. Him opting out really saves you from the inevitable post-30 crash.
But in reality I don’t like either signing right now, because I think the next CBA won’t place such an emphasis on veteran deals. If all the cost-controlled rules change (as they should), and teams have to start paying younger players more, there’s going to be less payroll space to absorb these albatross veteran deals.
But in reality I don’t like either signing right now, because I think the next CBA won’t place such an emphasis on veteran deals. If all the cost-controlled rules change (as they should), and teams have to start paying younger players more, there’s going to be less payroll space to absorb these albatross veteran deals.
If only the veterans of the MLBPA cared as much about labor as some of the members of this board do, they could drastically redistribute that 50% of revenue they get all the way down the line into the minor leagues, but essentially they'll have to skip a generation who feels like it's their turn to cash in.