Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Soriano and his opt-outs.

157060_braves_soriano_baseball_medium

Rafael Soriano just signed a 3 year, $35 million deal with the Yankees, as some of you may have heard.

And maybe I am just not getting this, but to me it feels like the Yankees get something out of these opt-outs too, rather than if it was simply a 3 year, $35 million contract with NO opt-outs.

The risk for a a reliever, on a 3-year deal with a lot of money involved ($35 million), is not the best way to build a team. Or the shrewdest of moves, I would say. Throw in Soriano's injury history in addition to all of that, and the only way this deal is worth it, is if he of course pitches well.

So, Soriano will only opt-out if he has a better offer, or thinks he can get a better offer, which means he will have to have pitched very well in order to do so. And since the draft pick is lost either way, it seems that if Soriano is great in 2011, then he might opt-out -- and the Yankees should be fine with that...

Star-divide

...because it would eliminate the risk of having to pay him two more years at $25 million. They would have surrendered the draft pick, and received one good year of Soriano, at $10 million.

Is anyone suggesting that signing Soriano to a one year deal, at $10 million would have been a mistake? Even so, it would have been much more logical to sign him for one or two years, rather than a guaranteed three. If there was no opt-out, then Soriano could have a great year, which is good for both parties, but the Yankees are still on the hook for 2 more years, $25 million for an injury prone reliever.

And there is nothing they can do about it, as they HAVE to pay him the money.

The only way the Yankees seem to lose is if Soriano doesn't pitch close to what he is being paid -- relative to what relievers are paid in general, not just what they are worth according to fWAR.  If he posts, say, a 3.90 ERA and a 4.00 FIP, then opts out, the Yankees will have lost a draft pick AND received a performance that was not indicative of Soriano's talent level or his given salary.  But the likelihood of him opting out after a sub-par year is practically non-existent, as only a foolish front office would give him more than the 2 years, $25 million he would already be guaranteed to get from the Yankees.

I honestly might not be getting this concept.  I have had several people explain to me that having these opt-outs is worse for the Yankees, than not having them, and having given Soriano that three year, $35 million contract with no opt-outs at all.  But it seems like Brian Cashman -- who according to sources wasn't really on board with this transaction -- now has a way of not having to commit all this money to Soriano.  If there was no way to opt-out, then Cashman would have to pay a 31 year old, injury-risk of a reliever, $35 million, no ifs, and's, or but's about it.  

I know that people say player opt-outs most always favor the player himself, but for some reason I can't grasp the concept that this doesn't help the Yankees too.  

So finishing up...I don't condone these types of contracts to relievers.  Because three years is too long for relievers in their 30's, and giving up the draft pick is a definite risk as well.  So the Soriano contract is not a good one, and am no way am I saying that it is.  It just seems to me that this contract is better than it would be, if there was no escape for the Yankees.  No escape for Cashman, who has proven in the past that he prefers to be build a cheap bullpen surrounding Rivera.  Investing money into starting pitching and position players all around the diamond. 

And now there is an escape...

Poll
Which would have been the better deal for the YANKEES: Soriano receives 3 years, $35 million with no way to opt-out? Or the contract as currently constructed?
No opt-outs
39 votes
Currently Constructed, with opt-outs
52 votes

91 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 17 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Essentially the argument against them is

that if he pitches well enough to opt out, odds are the Yankees would still want him.

And if he doesn’t, then the Yankees are on the hook. They’re assuming all the downside risk.

I would have much preferred a mutual option – maybe even for a $1 million more a year.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 8:59 AM EST reply actions  

mutual options

Do mutual options ever get picked up? Seems as though, if it’s not advantageous to one side that side will reject it.

Searching a bit, I see that Brian Moehler and the Astros picked up a mutual option after the 2009 season, but I can’t find any other cases offhand.

If I’m right, then the mutual option would basically turn it into a one-year deal; which might well be better. But you’d see why Soriano wouldn’t want it.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 18, 2011 8:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I think this is one of those scenarios where it might be picked up by both sides.

Say Soriano has a good, but not great year and it’s a buyer’s market for closers again. He still might be worth $10+ million a year to the Yankees as cyborg, I mean Mariano, insurance. But he probably wouldn’t get that on the open market.

With the mutual option, he’s sharing in the risk.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 8:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Great question.

The assumption has to be that he/his agent thinks he might be able to get more after next year, right?

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Jan 18, 2011 9:51 AM EST reply actions  

Not really

If he thinks he can get more, he opts out. If not, he’s guaranteed the money from the Yankees. It’s pretty much no lose for Soriano, unless they misread the market.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 10:11 AM EST up reply actions  

I think I mean that the assumption made by the article is that

the Yankees don’t give players “no-lose” deals. They’re getting something beyond a $10M setup man, or they think they are.

I’m making the conclusion (perhaps wrongly) that the option was included to sweeten the deal, which makes me wonder how much more Soriano thinks he could get either this year or next..

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Jan 18, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

One fallacy with my conclusion is

the assumption that the Yankees have a mystical ability to make deals that always favor the club. That’s obviously not true.

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Jan 18, 2011 10:46 AM EST up reply actions  

I wish it were

But there are plenty that haven’t worked out. They’re just rich enough that it doesn’t seem to matter that much.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I think the second out-opt year is under-discussed.

If Soriano maintains his health/production for two years, the last year of his contract is a win for the Yankees, but he’d be unlikely to stay (a multi-year deal would yield more total money). And I think it’s more likely he opts out that year (and negatively affects the Yankees) than after the first year (which is only a small win for the Yankees, at best.)

I do generally agree that this contract is hurt less by the opt-out clauses than many others would. But that’s mainly because it’s an overpayment.

by Sky Kalkman on Jan 18, 2011 11:08 AM EST reply actions  

Correct me if I'm wrong,

but without the opt-outs, if Soriano wants to leave he still can. He just needs to get the Yankees to agree to void the contract. So the opt-outs give the Yankees nothing they didn’t already have except they give Soriano more power over the process.

by ThePanda on Jan 18, 2011 7:33 PM EST reply actions  

I didn't think you could just tear up a contract like that

I don’t know what the CBA says, but I’m pretty sure the Players Association would strongly frown on it.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Looks like the Uniform Player Contract doesn't allow for that

There’s no provision for mutual termination of contracts – if teams terminate the contract they have to pay the remainder. Players can only terminate the contract if the team has been delinquent in payment. Which would be a way to accomplish the mutual termination, but it’s got lots of other negatives.

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf – the UPC starts on page 210.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 18, 2011 11:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Opt out is clearly worse

Think of it this way:

Let’s take the best case scenario for Soriano—Rivera gets hurt and Soriano takes his place without missing a beat, dominating through the season and is World Series MVP.

What’s the contract he signs after than performance? At a minimum, my guess is $15 million/year for, say three years. If that’s the case, his market value for the remaining two years of the contract would be $30 million. Since the Yankees are paying him $25 million the opt-out has cost the Yankees $5 million just as surely as if the Steinbrenner brothers had been mugged hauling their money to Gringotts. With no opt-out the Yankees could have kept him OR traded him and receieved $5 million in returned value to them.

Since the Yankees overpaid for him his surplus value will always be modest—but there is no way that the opt-out is EVER better for the Yankees since the provision always allows Soriano to recapture the surplus value of his contract while leaving the Yankees on the risky hook for paying him out if he underperforms or gets injured.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Jan 19, 2011 11:00 AM EST reply actions  

The best way to think about it is to note that there is almost no way that Soriano is worth exactly $25MM over 2 years as of 11/2011. The economy, the CBA, the market for relievers could go in either direction. All that is not even considering the very likely possibility that he does not exactly meet his projection for 2011. His performance could legitimately show improvement or he could get injured. Chances are there is probably a 50%-ish chance that the market values him more than $25MM for 2012-13 and a 50%-ish chance that the market values him less than $25MM. Suppose for simplicity it’s a 50% chance it is $35MM and a 50% chance it is $15MM. If it’s $15MM, then he stays and the contract is still costing the Yankees $35MM + a draft pick but he is definitely underperforming his projected market value (either in terms of $/WAR or WAR) for one of those years at least; If it’s $35MM, then he leaves or demands market value from the Yankees, so he ends up paid $45MM. So basically it’s a 50% chance or so that he ends up getting paid more and a 50% chance or so that he ends up underperforming his projected dollar value.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 19, 2011 11:49 AM EST reply actions  

Good post, Matt.

but the question is how the Yankees benefit from that? It seems in either case, NYY is put in the lesser position; either Soriano wants more and can opt-out, or he under-performs and they’re overpaying him.

The assumption, at least on my part, is that they added it to the contract because he thought he was worth even more, which is quite astounding on its own. The other assumption on StatMagician’s part, I think, is that maybe there’s something NYY gets out of this that we’re not measuring. Thoughts?

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Jan 19, 2011 7:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

SaberGraphics

Yahoo_full_count

MLB Daily Dish

Get the latest MLB Trade Rumors, Transactions, and News at MLB Daily Dish!


Managing Editor:

Jbopp-kc_small Justin Bopp

Columnists:

Adam_small adarowski

Dme_small Satchel Price

Closeup4_small J-Doug

Carlosicon_small Julian Levine

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

Featuring:

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

12475953_small Jacob Peterson

Recent_pic_pg_small Patrick Gordon

Btbpro_small Dave Gershman

Me_small Bryan Grosnick

229331_10150183361996591_674441590_6760167_6637860_n3_small Lewie Pollis

Img_3830_small David Fung

30472_1481067225243_1190689185_1381415_997334_n_small Glenn DuPaul

1mnvxku7_small joshuaworn

Set_small MattFilippi18

Photo0011_small Nathaniel Stoltz