Phillies 2025-2026 Hot Stove Discussion

[Austinfan]

The problem isn't that he opts out, it's that he doesn't opt out when he sucks.
All the risk falls on the team.

[fish]

I wonder if there was something in his medical. Otherwise that’s a no brainer of a deal. Who cares if he opts out after a year? It didn’t cost anything to get him except money that was less than expected.

[RolenRules]

MLBTR had projected a 6 year $150 million contract for Imai. How is the Astros deal riskier than the projected contract?

[Matt_Winkelman]

The projected contract is based on public knowledge that no team agreed with because no one gave it to him, they are two things you can compare. The contract is very limited upside, you pay at best market for one year and then QO (because you have the contract+posting fee to pay). If he is good you are also then now competing in the open market. You also do not benefit at all from putting development work in or getting possible subpar results for a few months while you work on dev.

The downside is he is hurt, a bad starter, or a reliever. Even if he is bad the first year, you gain no long term benefit if you make the year over year improvement. It is just money, but it is also no a small amount of money (in the Phillies case it is like $50-$60M of cash with tax and posting).

[RolenRules]

Thank you for weighing in. I always appreciate your knowledge and perspective.

[zambonir]

Yes, same is if you'd just signed him to a three-year deal with no opt-out.

[BostonRoss]

The Imai contract is less risky than the Nola and Wheeler contracts.

[Austinfan]

The downside risk is the same, the upside is far less.
Wheeler outperformed his contract, whether he'll match his 3 year deal remains to be seen. But Phillies benefited from the upside on his first deal.

[andyb]

The downside risk is the same, the upside is far less.

This is just nonsense. There is almost no risk if the deal for Imai ends up as a 1 year/21 million deal. That means they probably got a player who outperformed the contract for a year. Every contract is a risk, but guaranteeing $54 million plus a posting fee for a player that could easily be worth 3-4 WAR a year seems pretty low risk to me. And if he is great and opts out, then you have less risk overpaying for the player (which a $150 million deal with even larger posting fee might have been).

Yes there is less upside if he opts out after one year, but then you probably got 4+ WAR for a bargain 1-year deal (and maybe even a compensation pick in free agency).

One question I do have is whether a team gets some of their posting fee back after an opt-out. I wonder if MLB thought about that when they made the rules with Japan. Clearly avoiding some of the posting fee with shorter deals is a strategy now.

[zambonir]

Posting fee is low enough to eat, refund wouldn't be worth much even if there was one.

Meanwhile, the Lions will receive a posting fee based on Imai’s $54MM guarantee. The current system for international postings gives the original club 20% of the first $25MM, 17.5% of the next $25MM, and 15% of anything over $50MM. That works out to $9.975MM, so the Astros are on the hook for just under $64MM between the contract’s guaranteed money and the posting fee. If Imai opts out next season, Houston will have committed $27.975MM for one year of his services. The Astros would also owe a 15% posting fee to the Lions on any escalators that Imai unlocks if he doesn’t opt out.

More than that, if he hits all the escalators. So it's an expensive one-year deal, but still possiblly a one-year deal. And still cheaper/less risk (and no draft comp) than if the Astros had signed Suarez.

We are probably going to see Bregman return to Boston and Bellinger return to NY; the Astros are still the team most likely to have Imai after this year even if he does opt out. If he doesn't is where it will turn out to be a bad signing, but those are hardly unique to Japanese free agents.

[zambonir]

The other thing is, a team like the Phillies seems more concerned about CBT numbers than hard cash, and posting fees don't count against that. Neither do the escalators, for now.

Better to gamble on a 27 year-old than re-sign a 32 year-old, even if Valdez is better.

Also, the Astros ballpark is named for a Japanese company.

The Astros had previously traded for Kikuchi at the 2024 deadline. Another Boras client who left them for the Angels

Seven thoughts on the Astros’ Tatsuya Imai deal and their expansion into Japan

[Austinfan]

Uh, if he underperforms, he's going to exercise his option and you're overpaying for the entire contract.
That's the same risk as if you just gave him a 3 year deal.
But if he overperforms, he's gong to be UFA and you have to pay market rates to keep him. So zero upside for the team.

So the risk is all on the team.

[andyb]

Uh, if he underperforms, he's going to exercise his option and you're overpaying for the entire contract.

Uh, then don't renegotiate and let him go. This whole conversation is about risk and there is no risk other than opportunity cost to let him go. Sometimes just admit you are wrong. We agree that letting him go diminishes any potential upside, but that is not the point here. The Nats should have let Strasburg go. That is how opt outs can often benefit the teams giving them. It lessens risk on both sides.

[julio]

Uhh... I think the point is that if a player with an opt out to a multi-year guaranteed contract underperforms, then he will not opt out, and the club is on the hook for the entirety of the multi-year contract.

Unless I'm missing something, I think Austinfan is right about the risks here. If the player is good, he opts out and gets a big contract from somebody. If he's bad, he doesn't opt out, and he gets paid for the life of his contract, even if he's at replacement level (or worse). The player takes no real risk here.

The club risks being stuck with a bad multi-year contract. If the player is good, the club gets one year of good performance. If the player is bad, the club gets multiple years of a bad contract.

This can work for the club if the player is good, and that one year is worth the first-year salary plus posting fee, plus any signing bonus. But the risk if the player is bad is all on the club.

[andyb]

But if he is bad, how does option out lower the risk compared to a straight contract? And often the contract with the opt out is smaller in the out years because of the possibility of the opt out. The opt out NEVER increases the risk and frankly lowers them in just about any situation for the team. While a team can get stuck paying out on a player that is bad or injured they have to do that with a normal contract anyway.

I said nothing about the risk on the part of the player. That of course is very different and the player has little risk..

[LegoDoom]

I think this really depends on what the player thinks is good enough to opt out. There is a point where the WAR doesn't benefit the team for one year (especially with posting), but might benefit the player to opt out and get a good long term deal elsewhere.

It's a 3 year deal, so the teams risk isn't that bad. And really it's only a 2 year deal since the team is committed to 1 year. I wouldn't call this a bad multi-year contract even if he's not good.

[Austinfan]

The risk is the same as a straight contract, but there is no upside.
So it only makes sense to give an opt out when the player accepts a significant discount from a straight contract, reducing the downside risk to the team.

[LegoDoom]

The upside for the team is offering a contract like this instead of 6/$150M

[andyb]

Now you are saying the risk is the same. Pick an argument lane....

[zambonir]

The upside for the team is offering a contract like this instead of 6/$150M

Bingo