Player Power

It's not often that I take something from the comments and put it on the front page, but I found myself agreeing so strongly with the following "tirade" that got buried in amongst yesterday's Bears talk (guys, you should know better, follow real football - you know, the one in which they use their feet) that I thought I'd give it a little attention...
433--
n't get why Hendry has started agreeing to the player option to become a FA mid-contract. All that does is give the player leverage to renegotiate the deal at that point -- if the player CAN become a free agent, he essentially IS a free agent for negotiating purposes. If the player is unable to use the FA opt-out as leverage (because it's unlikely that he would be able to get a better deal elsewhere), that will just mean that he is being paid above market by the Cubs at the time. The thing I dislike most about that option is that it's self-defeating. Here's how. We have to assume that Hendry offers the option as a way to secure a salary that's slightly less attractive to the player in some way (amount, years, structure, etc.) than the player might accept without the option. (If that's not true, then the option wouldn't be offered in the first place.) But if the player agrees to a salary that isn't the absolute best he can get, it just makes it that much more likely that the player will be at a below-market salary when the option kicks in, and consequently able to use the option as renegotiating leverage. So even if the option "works", it backfires. I know that each deal is a unique negotiation and it's likely that Hendry gets something in return for this concession (i.e. it may be the final throw-in in order to get the player comfortable with the dollars offered). But this term really has the potential to blow up in Hendry's face. It is indeed a trend amongst Hendry's deals of late, and it's one I also don't like. I'm also really not a fan of the more traditional player option at the end of a contract, which can be used to similar ends, and which is the only reason Glendon Rusch has himself a shiny new two-year deal right now. Not that it's a terrible deal in this market - as you probably know, I'm a bit of a Glendon Rusch fan. Still.

Comments

I can see the logic of your argument 433. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head that Hendry would like this clause is that it fits with his negotiating style of offering some degree of trust to the player and not looking at them only as a commodity. This approach of course doesn't make sense when analyzing a single contract (like Aramis'), but if you gain the trust of your players through individual deals (and I'm sure the players talk about their negotiations), then you're giving all your players an incentive to resign with the club and when doing so consider things like leaving Hendry enough money to sign a big free agent when Hendry explains to the player he's on a strict budget. If there is no trust between the negotiators, such an explanation sounds simply like a tactic to weasel some money out of the deal, instead of a mutual feeling of making the club better.

Further, with the player option, if he gets hurt or under-performs, then it's just like a deal over the course of the entire contract without the option. If he over-performs, Hendry will likely want to resign him a year earlier (like he did with Aramis and we propose he does with Lee), and now the player is keenly aware of the trust Hendry put in him since his ability to become a free agent this year was given to him by Hendry in his previous negotiations. And like you said in your above post John, if the player is greedy and spurns the trust Hendry offered to him, then in the long term we probably don't want him on the team anyway.

I know Aramis has the opt-out in his contract, and supposedly Furcal would've had it, but who else has Hendry given this to?

He's also given Kerry Wood an opt-out after 2006, IIRC. For the record, Scott Eyre has a $3.8mm option in 2008.

I was about to comment that the player option (or opt out) is self-defeating in the sense that it essentially is only used by the player to lock-in a salary above what he would otherwise find in the market. In other words, Scott Eyre will only exercise his $3.8mm option in 2008 if he can't find that on the market. Similarly, Aramis Ramirez will not exercise his opt out after 2006 if his $11mm salary in 2007 (and his future salaries beyond that) are above what he can find elsewhere. In this sense, economically speaking, the Cubs can't "win" on player options; their best hope is that if Ramirez is worth more than $11mm next year, that he and the Cubs renegotiate for a market rate salary at that time.

The problem with this thinking is that it overlooks the fact that, in Hendry's opinion, he was signing Ramirez, Wood, and Eyre to *below* market rates through the date of their respective options. Put another way, with respect to Ramirez, Hendry can't "win" in 2007, but he believes he already "won" when he signed him in April 2005.

I would like to hope that the Cubs aren't going into these arrangements blindly -- they should be aware of the fact that the player options can only be used in a way that would make them overpay, but should be considering this the cost of getting some payroll flexibility on the front end . . . or the cost of getting the player to sign in the first place.

John, thanks for the props.

Cubsnerd, it's possible (maybe even likely) that Hendry is banking on the relationship to get him past the player option window in these deals, but I really hope that's not the case. Time clouds one's memory, especially when money is involved and there's a contract that clearly spells out the rights of the parties.

Sadly, this option requires us to hope that the player isn't worth more than his Cubs salary when the option kicks in. That is an upside-down result of a goofy deal term.

I disagree that player trust gets cloudy over time. People remember being treated well and it makes them more willing to work with you than simply for their own interests.

I say this from doing custoemr and billing service for 20+ years. Giving a little now often means keeping more later.

I don't think that trust get's cloudy either, as long as it's properly maintained. But trust has little to do with being paid what one thinks he is worth.

The player FA option wouldn't be included in the first place if the player wasn't expected to be able to use it. Trust and good feelings might make it more likely that the player will stay with the Cubs, but at a renegotiated, higher salary.

I'm just guessing that Hendry thinks that in the vast majority of the cases the over-performing player won't use the free agent option because the Cubs will have an inside track on resigning the player due to the fact he's already a Cub and Hendry has built up a healthy relationship with the player. There might be some cases where this could be problamatic such as in the case that the Cubs have a young stud on the horizon that will be ready as a replacement the year after a player option of a player at the same position. The cubs would want to have the player for only one more year. But it's my guess that Hendry would want to resign him anyway if he thought he could get above market value and use the young stud as a trading chip to aquire a stud at a position of need.

John,

If you want some soccer-talk, how 'bout some musings about how the U.S. got screwed with their World Cup draw this year? Italy, the Czech Republic, and the U.S. are all in the top 11 of the international rankings, and Ghana isn't a team to just dismiss, either. I know a lot of people are saying that the group with the Netherlands and Argentina is the group of death, but that one doesn't have the depth that the Czech-Italy-US group does, and i don't think Argentina and the Netherlands have as much to fear in terms of elimination as the other 3 do...

AND HOW BOUT DEM BEARS?!!?!?

I also think that Hendry knows if the player walks, its the player that looks poor to the public and not the Cubs. Thus, in many ways its a publicity move for the Cubs. They get a "discount" and the player will have to opt out and walk away to get more money if this is something they are considering. The majority of fans will just see a greedy player.

Recent comments

Subscribe to Recent comments
The first 600 characters of the last 16 comments, click "View" to see rest of comment.
  • I am right there with you closing in on 60.

    I don't care that much about "mortgaging" one player who is not only blocked by two guys, but is not ready to hit the majors for at least a couple years.

    There is no reason why this team, this year, can't have a real shot at something NONE of us have experienced.

    Further, I don't feel that even if they fall short that they have ruined their farm system.

    I have made my opinion clear here, with others, Warren was shit on the Cubs save one spot start.

    The E-Man 42 min 2 sec ago view
  • Trading for Warren, Warren sucking, getting Warren back for Chapman plus 3 prospects, sounds like Revenge of The Yankees on the former Boston executive. Old rivalries never die.

    I pray to the heavens above Chapman doesn't suck for some reason, or he'll be booed out of town faster than a Todd Hundley revival meeting.

    Old and Blue 49 min 41 sec ago view
  • I'm kind of nostalgic for the Schwarber-for-Miller rumors.

    Brick 1 hour 1 min ago view
  • This offseason, after some ridiculous playoff run and Chapman saving every game from here until the end of the postseason striking out 27/9innings, I welcome anyone to quote this thread and call me a dummy: I hate this trade, and my hate is 2 parts Chapman makes this team less likeable and 1 part that's a ridiculous overpay for 30 regular season innings and, at tops, 10 postseason innings. Already hoping they don't extend him.

    Charlie 1 hour 3 min ago view
  • btw...Thanks AZ Phil. I'm really enjoying your take on this trade.

    Cubster 1 hour 25 min ago view
  • I'm a bit disappointed on the Warren experience. Essentially they gave Castro away for crickets (OK, well they signed Zobrist with the Castro salary dump). Otherwise one might look at it as Chapman for Castro and our #1 minors prospect (Torres) + McKinney/Crawford. Seems pricey for a 2 month rental. We will see if this price tag is that steep in a relative way based on the remaining deadline deals for relievers.

    Cubster 1 hour 26 min ago view
  • Yep. One of the great things about this team (in addition to being really good at baseball) was the "likable" factor. Feels a bit different now. Who knows...maybe Chapman will be the king of the dance parties.

    billybucks 1 hour 34 min ago view
  • Here are some possible corresponding minor league moves we might see in the aftermath  of the Chapman trade: 

    SOUTH BEND to MYRTLE BEACH: OF Donnie Dewees and INF Bryant Flete  

    EUGENE to SOUTH BEND: OF Robert Garcia and INF Vimael Machin 

    There is really no reason to replace Billy McKinney at Tennessee because both Chris Coghlan and Jorge Soler are doing their rehab at Tennessee.  

    And there are plenty of pitchers at Iowa. No need to replace Warren at AAA. .  

    Arizona Phil 1 hour 55 min ago view
  • I am 70 years old. The Cubs last played in the World Series in 1945. I was born in 1946. I hate to lose a prospect like Torres, but when the opportunity is there to get that World Series ring, you go for it. This was the idea in stock piling all this young talent. I would like to see Reddick added now and the Cubbies should be done.

    Hagsag 2 hours 25 min ago view
  • I would expect Richard to accept an optional assignment because based on how he's played this season, there is a decent chance that he won't find work elsewhere. Rather stay and potentially get a ring. Same goes for Coghlan since he's struggled mightily this year.

    Edwards should not go down. He's pitched very well and Maddon is very impressed with him. I would expect Grimm to go down for Cahill so he can get back on track (he's pitched better in July, but he's not getting enough appearances).

    chitownmvp01 2 hours 29 min ago view
  • chitownmvp01: Indeed Clayton Richard would seem to be odd man out once Chapman reports, but Richard might accept a minor league assignment if he is promised a return to Chicago on 9/1 when MLB Active List rosters expand (Richard has minor league ioptions left).

    Arizona Phil 2 hours 32 min ago view
  • The only player in the deal that would cause me a second thought is Gleyber Torres.

    McKinney and Crawford are decent prospects but both are redundant/replaceable in the system and Warren was really only a middle-reliever or #6 starter, so to me it's really just Torres for Chapman.

    Arizona Phil 2 hours 52 min ago view
  • There is no Comp pick for players traded mid-season. 2+ months of Chapman is it.

    mbauer 2 hours 54 min ago view
  • to get one of the best you have to give up one/some of your best...but it's a bit painful to watch the system's best prospect walk for any 2-3 month rental, especially one that's not an everyday player.

    crunch 2 hours 57 min ago view
  • I assume Chapman will replace Richard on the roster, but who goes down when Cahill gets activated? Maybe Grimm?

    And when Soler and Coghlan get healthy, how do they fit them on the roster when they're ready to be activated?

    chitownmvp01 3 hours 19 sec ago view
  • We are giving up a lot, but it's not like we're trading Addison Russell for 2+ months of Jason Hammel. When impact players become available, they are going to cost you. The other bids could also have been high.

    Having Chapman as a rental is potentially less disruptive than having him come in with an extension in place. 

    CTSteve 3 hours 2 min ago view