There is something to be said for that opt-out clause: the middle ground

Let's say Heyward puts up similar numbers over the first four years of an 8/200 contract. At that point, he'd be 30 years old and in line for a possible 7-8 year deal that could pay him another 250-300 million.

If you're the Cardinals and you give him 8/200 and he turns into a 7 WAR player, then you still get excess value over those first four years. Then, when he opts out, you save yourself from the back end of the contract becoming an albatross.

Your biggest risk is obviously that he maims himself and then he turns into a massive drag on your payroll, but there are other options where he can live up to, or exceed the contract, we get his best years for a fair price, and avoid paying for the decline years.

It's pretty much my thoughts on that and why I was thinking about an opt clause. I'm pretty confiedent that he will be a solid player up to till he is 30/31. You get his best WAR and hope he opts out for another big pay day. But of course by then, 24/25 million a year might be a standard type deal for an upper end player.

I don't see it like that at all. If he is great and he opts out, yeah your scenario is valid. But thats just one of many projectable outcomes. The team assumes all risk if he regresses, skills decline etc, The player gets all the money guaranteed.

If the player over-performs for the first 3-4 years the team doesn't get any benefit of placing a long term bet on him, they just get their money back in value on the front of the contract.

These contracts never work out for the team. Holliday's is one of the few $100+ Million contracts that the team has actually received their monies worth of return.

Doesnt mean we should never do them. Like in this case, we know how the player will fit into the locker room, play for us. He is what he is, a great complimentary player, not a game changer. The market says thats worth $200 million then thats what he is worth. :shrug:

Cubs need like a 2 year option in CF.

I don't know why they aren't going out and re-signing Austin Jackson or someone in a similar price bracket like going for a 1 year deal on Span. Almora is the closest thing to being ready for the Cubs in the minors in CF but he's questionable to be ready for next year and if he'll even be worth the wait.

Would you pay Heyward more money for similar numbers at age 30? That just doesnt make sense to me. You are overpaying him right now because of his age and hoping he develops into the slugger some people believe him to be.

If he's putting up 5-6 WAR, he's giving your surplus value, even at 24 MM.

If he's putting up 3 WAR, he's not.

Think of it this way: is Heyward likely to be worth 4/96? I think that's a sound bet. It obviously carries risk on the back end, but it runs the benefit of having someone else pay for his decline years.

No one can convince me that WAR isn't a flawed statistic as it sits right now.

With all the idiots trying to say Heyward is on an even plane with Rizzo yesterday I looked at their numbers.

Heyward's DRS was 24 last year, Rizzo's was 10. But Rizzo hit 18 more HR's, drove in 41 more RBI's, and scored 15 more runs. There's no way I can sit here and say Heyward provided more WAR than Rizzo.

And then you have WAR saying that Kevin Keimaier is the 3rd best player in the AL? Come on...

Does anyone know if this is true?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MLB Team Spending as a Percentage of Revenue (2015) (via: Reddit user Constant_Gardner11) <a href="https://t.co/IHeIHty61z">pic.twitter.com/IHeIHty61z</a></p>&mdash; The Birds On The Bat (@BirdsOnTheBat13) <a href="https://twitter.com/BirdsOnTheBat13/status/675329531562053632">December 11, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It's absolutely a flawed stat, but O will be along shortly to tell you producing runs don't matter.

The problem I have with WAR is that it wildly overestimates defense, IMO.

Allen Craig was considered a 2 WAR player in 2011 and 2012; 4.6 total over those two years to be exact - does anyone believe that Allen Craig was worth 1.5 fewer wins in 11 and 12 than Jon Jay was over the same period? Or that Peter Bourjos was more valuable in 2010 than Craig was in '11 and '12 combined? Or that Jason Heyward's 3.8 oWAR in 2015 was worth a full win more than Craig's oWAR in 2013 when he was batting cleanup and absolutely driving our run production? Or that Heyward was a more valuable player this year than Nolan Arenado?

WAR completely ignores run production and overvalues defense. It's a fine stat, but it's still just one stat. Too many people now believe WAR to be a dispositive stat and I simply don't buy it. WAR is probably the best place to start, but beyond that you still have to view a player's entire line.

They actually talked about that yesterday on the radio. The local radio guys have flipped on Heyward after digging deeper on WAR. They went from begging the team to sign him to hoping someone else takes his contract. Were like how many balls does he get hit a game 3? Making WAR over propped by defense. Also hit home how it was a joke he was ranked higher than Rizzo. O wouldn't like it because people are saying the exact same thing now I have been saying for months...You can't pay a guy that much that can't knock in and produce runs.

Nor do I buy into the 'each WAR is worth $8 million'.

First of all, a 2 WAR position player over 600 ABs is pretty much a JAG. Those guys are generally pretty easy to find and don't cost anywhere near $16 million. And if they did, you'd simply bring someone up from the minors or put together a platoon. Each WAR does not cost $8 million if you're a decent organization. That said, I'll listen to the argument that each WAR above 2 starts to cost a fair amount. I'd say 10, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4 is a fair guess; so about $18 million for a 4 WAR guy, $22 for a 5, etc....

That's how the market generally plays out. The 'average WAR' model considers a complete bust of a contract in its calculus. That's a risk - not an accepted price range for GMs.

Moreover, I think using it to calculate 'surplus value' is also a mistake. Let's take the 8 million on faith. Remember, a replacement level team is expected to win a whopping 48 games. To be a legitimate playoff caliber team, you need to come up with an additional 42 WAR. By that math a playoff team would need a $320+ million payroll - obviously that's not what it takes. Really, I think we're at a point where a $140 million payroll should be seen as a fair median payroll and a level whereby any team that's willing to spend $140 million can/should be a playoff contender.

So when the entire rosters, including team controlled players, are factored into account - a 'target WAR' should be around $3.5 million/win share. If you're going above that, then you have to find other wins elsewhere in your system to be competitive. If you're having to lean on other players in your system to backfill for amounts you overspent on a free agent, even if that FA comes in at $5 million and beats the 'market' WAR, you still aren't getting surplus value there. You still need to find another $1.5 million in 'free' WAR to backfill.

If you pay Heyward $20 million/season then he needs to be a 6-7 WAR player, IMO, because I simply think he's a 'hollow WAR' player. Much like a guy like Mark Grudzielanek was a pro at racking up counting stats when they didn't really matter, I believe Heyward is pretty damn good at racking up win shares in ways that actually don't do a hell of a lot to help you win; or at least they do less than other items that are heavily underweighted in a WAR analysis.

FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal reports that it would be "premature" to call the Nationals the front-runner for Jason Heyward.
Rosenthal notes that the revelation of the Nats as the "mystery team" in the Heyward derby created "significant buzz," but it doesn't appear they're necessarily the favorites to land him. The outfielder reportedly has a $200 million offer in hand, and the feeling is that it's more likely to have come from either the Nationals or Cardinals rather than the Cubs. Heyward is expected to make a decision soon.

Goold says it looks like the Cards didn't get Heyward and that he's made his decision.

Oh well. Moving on...

@JonHeymanCBS: Doesn't sound like nats are optimistic on heyward. They made big try, but he didn't agree by deadline set with them.