Cespedes to opt out of contract


jeffl said:

Happy or sad, Mets fans?

He may still end-up with the Mets ... If not, we'll live. The main thing is getting all those arms healthy ...


Well I for one am disappointed. His presence in the lineup has made such a difference.

Just out of curiosity is there a stats geek on here who can compare the Mets records with and without Cespedes?


No surprise at all. This is exactly why he negotiated the deal that he did, and so long as he had a decent year and remained relatively whole I am certain this is exactly what Sandy expected.

As SoulJa_29 says, he may well re-sign with the Mets, likely for a higher number. Depends on how the market unfolds. The Yankees have to be in the running because a) he likes playing in New York, and b) the Yankees like to mix some big veteran bats in with their youth, and with the youth exploding last year and Tex and Arod retiring Cespedes would be a good fit. This is even moreso if they trade Gardner and McCann and if Trumbo signs elsewhere.

Expect the Mets to make a qualifying offer that Cespedes will reject, meaning he will cost another team a high draft pick which will make him yet more expensive. And the Mets can sit back as they did last year and wait to see if he falls back to a range they want.


he could keep doing this every year. Opt out, sign a three-year deal with a one year opt out, etc. If they offer him another front-loaded 3-year $75MM deal, I think he'd take it. Something like $30MM in year one and $22.5MM in the second and third years.


I'd like to point out that jeffl should have posted this in the Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!) thread ... Because of his failure to do so, he is banned from that page until Opening Day 2017.


Hmmm. Thought the Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!) thread was for Mets fans only. I follow instructions, Soul29. Perhaps I should have started a Meet the Mets (For Non-Mets Fans Only) thread.

Soul_29 said:

I'd like to point out that jeffl should have posted this in the Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!) thread ... Because of his failure to do so, he is banned from that page until Opening Day 2017.



Um, you've NEVER posted in the Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!) thread?

You should check the video ...



jeffl said:

Perhaps I should have started a Meet the Mets (For Non-Mets Fans Only) thread.

A cult of two.


Mixed feelings. Immensely talented, but sometimes immensely lazy and unfocused. Not a team guy.


Nobody, not even the Yanks or Sox have unlimited budgets. And over the next few years, the Mets are going to have to pay their pitchers if they stay healthy. If they bring Cespedes back on a similar deal to the one he signed last winter, great. But if some other team throws 6 years and $180MM at him, wish him luck. Because in years 4, 5, and 6 there's a good chance you're going to be paying a guy premium $$ to spend a lot of time on the DL with hamstring and quad issues. If he's dealing with those problems at 31, what's he going to be like at 35?



ml1 said:

Nobody, not even the Yanks or Sox have unlimited budgets. And over the next few years, the Mets are going to have to pay their pitchers if they stay healthy. If they bring Cespedes back on a similar deal to the one he signed last winter, great. But if some other team throws 6 years and $180MM at him, wish him luck. Because in years 4, 5, and 6 there's a good chance you're going to be paying a guy premium $$ to spend a lot of time on the DL with hamstring and quad issues. If he's dealing with those problems at 31, what's he going to be like at 35?

Exactly. Hope they give a qualifying offer, other teams back off, and the Mets do a one or two year deal for him. I don't think he is lazy or not a team player, as someone said above. That said, he does not seem to be a dynamic leader either. The guy can electrify a game at the plate and carry a team at times, so he is well worth keeping around for the near term.

Signing him to a long-term contract is a gamble that is not worth taking for this team. They have too many other holes to fill over the next two to three years, and as ML1 noted, one or two pitchers to hold onto (depending on whose arm breaks down first).


This is 100% what most people expected.


Just keep this in mind when wishing for big contracts for Mets players.......

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/16650867/why-mets-pay-bobby-bonilla-119-million-today-every-july-1-2035

It's Friday, July 1, and we should be thinking about our Fourth of July weekend plans. But as baseball fans, we can't. Why? Because today is all about Bobby Bonilla.
A man who last played 5,381 days ago owns this day. Not just this July 1, but every July 1 through 2035. It's the day when the New York Mets pay him $1,193,248.20.


With regards to Bonilla, are the Mets actually paying him anything? Or did they buy an annuity that is paying him? In other words, did they shell out some money and invest it in an investment vehicle with a guaranteed interest rate that pays him annually over the life of the investment? If so, and if the rate lock was set at a time when rates were closer to 10% a year, then it is not as bad a deal as it seems from a payout point of view (leaving aside the wisdom of anyone paying anything close to that amount for Bonilla on his second go-round with the team and late in his career).


Five thirty-eight.com analyzed that deal. The Mets actually did well on a number of measures. It's kind of an easy joke to make. But the cost of money spread out over that many years isn't taken into account. Not to mention they used the money they saved deferring Bonilla salary to pay Mike Hampton who took them to the series in 2000. And when he left to go free agent, the compensatory pick turned out to be David Wright.



ml1 said:

Five thirty-eight.com analyzed that deal. The Mets actually did well on a number of measures. It's kind of an easy joke to make. But the cost of money spread out over that many years isn't taken into account. Not to mention they used the money they saved deferring Bonilla salary to pay Mike Hampton who took them to the series in 2000. And when he left to go free agent, the compensatory pick turned out to be David Wright.

Love it!


If you read the link I attached it explains some details of the Bonilla deal. They used an interest rate of 8% to figure out the total payout. Which is great for Bonilla since interest rates have been WAY below that since the early 00s.

The Mets were counting on consistently high returns from the Madoff money (12-15%). So they invested the $5.9 million still owed to Bonilla hoping to earn more than they owe Bonilla.

We all know how the Madoff thing turned out. Horrible deal for the Mets all-around. They should have paid the guy and moved on.


The Bonilla deal was a smart deal. It was the Madoff deal that was stupid. Had they invested in an annuity, they could have paid Bonilla the deferred money and not lost out.



ml1 said:

The Bonilla deal was a smart deal. It was the Madoff deal that was stupid. Had they invested in an annuity, they could have paid Bonilla the deferred money and not lost out.

But are you sure they did NOT invest in an annuity? That is what I am trying to understand. Because the article made a big point of how Bonilla's agent was an insurance broker, and they specialized in annuities and GICs back then. Given the payout structure I gotta think that they bought an annuity or GIC with a guaranteed interest rate of 8%. I was involved in structuring some different deals back around that time and we absolutely used annuities to provide a guaranteed cash flow over many years without the perceived risk of having to have someone in an organization cut a check every year (I say perceived because had the annuity been in AIG or Lehman Brothers it might not have been as safe as it once seemed around 2007).


maybe they did, but the article is hinting that they invested what they owed Bonilla in Madoff's fund, planning to make a profit on it.

mfpark said:



ml1 said:

The Bonilla deal was a smart deal. It was the Madoff deal that was stupid. Had they invested in an annuity, they could have paid Bonilla the deferred money and not lost out.

But are you sure they did NOT invest in an annuity? That is what I am trying to understand. Because the article made a big point of how Bonilla's agent was an insurance broker, and they specialized in annuities and GICs back then. Given the payout structure I gotta think that they bought an annuity or GIC with a guaranteed interest rate of 8%. I was involved in structuring some different deals back around that time and we absolutely used annuities to provide a guaranteed cash flow over many years without the perceived risk of having to have someone in an organization cut a check every year (I say perceived because had the annuity been in AIG or Lehman Brothers it might not have been as safe as it once seemed around 2007).




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.