RealGM

A 13 year deal? Eesh.

No trade clause and no opt-outs. He's gonna be in Philly all 13 years. Crazy!

Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

MikeIsGood wrote:Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

This may go down as one of the worst contracts in the history of sports, driven more by hype than actual production. Outside of 2015, I don't see much more than a fringe all-star. To date, has he been much better than peak Jeromy Burnitz? I'll take Yelich all day, everyday.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/30951/bryce-harper

leroyjw10 wrote:

MikeIsGood wrote:Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

This may go down as one of the worst contracts in the history of sports, driven more by hype than actual production. Outside of 2015, I don't see much more than a fringe all-star. To date, has he been much better than peak Jeromy Burnitz? I'll take Yelich all day, everyday.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/30951/bryce-harper

He's going to destroy Citizens Bank Park.

MikeIsGood wrote:Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

Just don’t see how you can commit to a player for 13 years. Reading all the hot takes from the scribes about how this contract will be great for the Phils for the first 5 to 8 years, so its worth it.

Just grateful we have Stearns.

paulpressey25 wrote:

MikeIsGood wrote:Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

Just don’t see how you can commit to a player for 13 years. Reading all the hot takes from the scribes about how this contract will be great for the Phils for the first 5 to 8 years, so its worth it.

Just grateful we have Stearns.

What I’m trying to imagine is what Trout should be able to command coming off this and the Machado contract. He’s a FA after next season, I believe? I’ll be interested to see how the market changes and what he and his agent can do/get.

Honestly not that bad on a yearly basis for Harper. Whether he'll be good or healthy during that duration will be interesting. Wouldn't be upset with the deal whatsoever if I was a phillies fan.

The Yankees and Red Sox have it so easy in the AL right now.

What I’m wondering is if the big market MLB teams were holding the line (or colluding if you prefer) but once they got a lot of guys placed at reasonable prices, the pressure came down for a couple teams to then make the big offers to Harper and Machado to create “proof” of no collusion.

I’m generally skeptical that you can control 30 owners, all with big egos, but you never know.

They years are absurd but the AAV is great for a dude his age and calibre of player.

I follow a bunch of Phillies' fan cause of the Eagles and it would've been a disaster for the organisation if they came away this offseason with nothing.

I just think Bryce Harper is a classic hyped up star but is really not even a top 15 MLB player. Maybe he finds that 2015 form? 13 years. No opts outs. No trade clause. Yikes. Good Luck Philly!

paulpressey25 wrote:

MikeIsGood wrote:Will be fine for several years obviously, and maybe it pays off for them, but I have a feeling this will be hilariously bad for them for several, several years.

Just don’t see how you can commit to a player for 13 years. Reading all the hot takes from the scribes about how this contract will be great for the Phils for the first 5 to 8 years, so its worth it.

Just grateful we have Stearns.

There are lots of questions here:

DH in play in the NL 8+ years from now? Very likely.
What does revenue sharing/salary cap/luxury tax look like in 8+ years?
Outside chance of Harper allowing a Vegas expansion team to draft him? Unlikely but it could happen.
Do they happen to be rebuilding in years 9-13? If so, maybe they can just eat the cost.

These are obviously all risks and it seems that mutually they were able to take the risks on both sides where they basically deferred payment to the later 3 years but guaranteed the extra years (and a little cash) as compared to other offers.

I wouldn't do it, but you can do worse. Another thing with Harper is that we know his age. He didn't sign it at the same age as Pujols contract and others...there is some question of Pujols' age. And obviously Harper is still in his prime years. So we know that Harper should be very good for 5-8 years.

bizarro wrote:I just think Bryce Harper is a classic hyped up star but is really not even a top 15 MLB player. Maybe he finds that 2015 form? 13 years. No opts outs. No trade clause. Yikes. Good Luck Philly!

One pedantic note: Harper was really good in 2017. He was just hurt. He was hitting .319/.413/.595 and if he played ~40 more games would've hit over 40 HRs again in all likelihood.

His patience/vision means he doesn't put a ton of balls in play. Also, the ones over the fence don't count in BABIP. So he's very susceptible to BABIP. Some years he's gonna bat .235 and other years he's gonna bat .310.

Shifting can obviously hurt him but an even shorter porch in that park he's now in + guys always on base will make it even harder to pitch around him and shift him. Granted, the Nats did have a pretty potent lineup for most of his tenure as well so maybe not that drastic of a difference.

This contract is actually quite well structured from a Phillies perspective.

Yes, that will cost them more in the short-term, but they're gunning for it now and have been running a really cheap payroll for a big market franchise, so they could stomach this easily.

It's not overly front loaded. A little, but not much.

Per ESPN:

2019: $10M (plus $20M signing bonus)
2020: $26M
2021: $26M
2022: $26M
2023: $26M
2024: $26M
2025: $26M
2026: $26M
2027: $26M
2028: $26M
2029: $22M
2030: $22M
2031: $22M

MikeIsGood wrote:It's not overly front loaded. A little, but not much.

Per ESPN:

2019: $10M (plus $20M signing bonus)
2020: $26M
2021: $26M
2022: $26M
2023: $26M
2024: $26M
2025: $26M
2026: $26M
2027: $26M
2028: $26M
2029: $22M
2030: $22M
2031: $22M

That's not SO bad, though. With inflation, we're paying Ryan Braun probably as much or more until the age of ~37 plus somewhat deferred payment at 38 and more deferred payments well into his 40s and not playing for us. $22 million is probably less with inflation as compared to the $16-20 million we've been paying him of late.

Of course the first response will be, "yeah, but the Braun contract sucked!"

The Phillies had to pay a premium to get Harper in the first place and I think the point is that $22 million in his true twilight will not inhibit them from contending if they want to. The Brewers are. We were inches away from 2 World Series with Braun on the team. If we had the DH now, Braun would barely be an issue other than the fact that he's probably $5-7 million overpaid/year.

$22 million at that stage means a lot less for the Phillies than us as well.

Any deal over 5 years usually isn't worth it.

I keep forgetting Kimbrel is still unsigned. That's going to be a pretty nice bonus pickup for some team.