Brewers and Chourio: Heyman reports 8 years, $80 million + 2 club option years

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

1 minute ago, MrTPlush said:

That isn't my point though. When those options are cheaper, say $17mil it reduces the risk of the deal overall. Say he ends up a maybe just a really solid non All-Star starter. If those options are cheap or market rate there is a lot of value in having him for just a year or two without a huge additional commitment. Think of it like being able to have Grandal for a year versus a huge 5 year deal. Or, they make him tradable and valuable on the trade market. At $25mil, those really aren't that great unless he is a star. 

Not saying the deal is bad because of it...just disappointed the Brewers ended up with some crappy options compared to previous deals tended to have. 

I'd imagine that those two option years (and their value) were a key component to getting Chourio and his representation to sign off on this deal.

[brewerfan82]

23 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Not saying the deal is bad because of it...just disappointed the Brewers ended up with some crappy options compared to previous deals tended to have.

Not sure that's true though...

Luis Robert's deal (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/chicago-white-sox/luis-robert-22648/) ends with two club options of only $20M each, but those are his first two FA years (which Brewers are getting for $16M and $17M in the Chourio deal, and then the Brewers have the option of extending that to what would have been his 3rd and 4th FA years at $25M each)

Corbin Carroll's deal (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/arizona-diamondbacks/corbin-carroll-30414/) is $28M for each of what would be his first two FA year with an option for another $28M in what would be his 3rd FA year.

Wander Franco's deal (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/tampa-bay-rays/wander-franco-23844/) is $25M per year starting at what would have been his 1st FA year

Ronal Acuna's deal (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/atlanta-braves/ronald-acuna-jr-25027/) is the closest to what Chourio's getting with $17M in each of what would be his first two FA years. This is the only case of these four where the club options are a bit nicer at $17M per year.

Another way to visualize this:

• 1st FA Year: Chourio ($16M), Robert ($20M Club Option), Carroll ($28M), Franco ($25M), Acuna ($17M)
• 2nd FA Year: Chourio ($17M), Robert ($20M Club Option), Carroll ($28M), Franco ($25M), Acuna ($17M)
• 3rd FA Year: Chourio ($25M Club Option), Robert (FA), Carroll ($28M Club Option), Franco ($25M), Acuna ($17M Club Option)
• 4rd FA Year: Chourio ($25M Club Option), Robert (FA), Carroll (FA), Franco ($25M), Acuna ($17M Club Option)

So for the most part, the Chourio deal is a bit friendlier than those other deals, and possibly quite a bit friendlier depending on what a $25M contract looks like in 8 years.

[Underachiever]

Didn't we have similar conversations recently about our past manager's thought process? How he was a hometown guy who probably did well in investments, made $21 million as a player and more as a manager, so he didn't need a lot of money? That turned out to be crap. One thing I know about rich people, they often like to make more money. 

Here's my theory that I just made up. William Contreras borrowed $5 from Willson when he was 12. His brother hounded him for repayment, and at that moment, William vowed to never take another dime from his brother, AND to make more money than him, so he is going to get every cent he can. How's that?

And, it has been said, but it's not as if the players get assigned an agent. They choose. Demonizing Scott Boras for doing his client's bidding is weird. He is well-compensated for being the fall guy for fans and front offices all over the country. Hate the game, not the player, right?

[Outlander]

Having a peak Grandal type player at $25 million a year is a deal, especially 10 years from now. I'm sure the White Sox would have loved two one year deals versus the four they had to give him, with the latter two being negative production.

[monty57]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

That isn't my point though. When those options are cheaper, say $17mil it reduces the risk of the deal overall. Say he ends up a maybe just a really solid non All-Star starter. If those options are cheap or market rate there is a lot of value in having him for just a year or two without a huge additional commitment. Think of it like being able to have Grandal for a year versus a huge 5 year deal. Or, they make him tradable and valuable on the trade market. At $25mil, those really aren't that great unless he is a star. 

Not saying the deal is bad because of it...just disappointed the Brewers ended up with some crappy options compared to previous deals tended to have. 

Well, sure. If they had signed him for 8/$50M it would have been better for the team than 8/$80M. There was no way Chourio would sign this deal if it would also include two option years at well below projected market value. 

I'd rather have the deal as is (with the two $25M options/$2M buyouts) than signing the deal without any options. I'm glad the Brewers are committing to $4M in buyouts in order to get him at $25M for each of two years if he's worth it. That's justifiable risk in my opinion. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I'd imagine that those two option years (and their value) were a key component to getting Chourio and his representation to sign off on this deal.

I'd actually guess it was the other way around. Those 2 years don't do a ton for Chourio. They're lose/lose for him. 

The Brewers gain 2 years of team control for a risk of just 2M dollars. 

[monty57]

6 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I'd actually guess it was the other way around. Those 2 years don't do a ton for Chourio. They're lose/lose for him. 

The Brewers gain 2 years of team control for a risk of just 2M dollars. 

I believe it's $4M total ($2M for each option year). 

It doesn't do a ton for Chourio, and could cost him a big contract at the end if he falters during that timeframe, but it does guarantee him an additional $4M. That's only 5% of an $80M package, but it's still $4,000,000, which is a lot of money.

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

I didn't compare those two. The logic is the same though. But it is vs someone who is broke not vs each other.       Lottery is the same or at least a way closer comp than you acting like normal people.  His bro has over 100 mil, just like I would if I won the lottery.

This is it, which player is more likely/able to gamble and risk it and which is more likely to take the safer route.

Player 1: comes from impoverished country to here with nothing with no fallback option, family money, or anyone else to rely on. Likely is also the person his family back home are relying on to help them.

Player 2: Brother has 100 million dollars.  Or dad has 200 million dollars.  Or sister is Taylor Swift.  Assuming good relations with all.

To me, it not even arguable that 1 would be the more likely to take the safe 'put it in the bank' route.   I see no way to do so, but if you somehow disagree (especially since you already said yes to Dad 200) so be it

Now we're bringing Taylor Swift and her billion dollar ass into this?

 

And yeah dude, I get how it's unfathomable to you that I couldn't possibly agree that you could just rely on your Brothers money(he does NOT have over 100M by the way given this thing in the states called TAXES, he probably has about 10M right now and will make another ~40M IF he's spent his money well). 

 

It's not even arguable though. So...I don't know, STOP arguing it then? If you don't get how making almost 9 million YOURSELF in a signing bonus, vs 10,000 in a signing bonus is a big difference, well, I don't know how you can't understand that.

If you can't understand how it's different asking your PARENTS for help rather than your brother who's a few years older...I don't know how THAT is even arguable. 

4 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

This is it, which player is more likely/able to gamble and risk it and which is more likely to take the safer route.

THIS is it. This is how you changed the argument from William Contreras being less likely to because of his brother's money vs this strawman that if you were to judge between two hypothetical people...who'd be MORE likely to go year to year. 

I simply said I don't think his Brothers money would be a huge factor. Now we're measuring by degrees vs someone who hasn't got a penny to his name?

And then the random "if I won the lottery." 

I tried going with we just don't agree, but this is ridiculous.

Be honest in your hypothetical. BOTH players have "won the lottery." William, in this scenario, would be offered roughly the same as Wilson just got as a FA. 

 

Finally, AGAIN, if you can't even fathom how "this is arguable," then stop arguing I guess? I can't even see how it's arguable that you risk 80M dollars thinking, "hey, I can leech off my Brother if things go bad." But that's just me.  

[BrewerFan]

7 minutes ago, monty57 said:

I believe it's $4M total ($2M for each option year). 

It doesn't do a ton for Chourio, and could cost him a big contract at the end if he falters during that timeframe, but it does guarantee him an additional $4M. That's only 5% of an $80M package, but it's still $4,000,000, which is a lot of money.

I don't think it's 4M total, I think it's 2M for each year. I don't think you could be forced to pay a buyout a year after you turned down a buyout. I could be wrong about that, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, he got a signing bonus of 2M. If you add up his yearly contracts, those come out to 78. The 82M GTD would mean he has just 1 more buyout left, right?

 

But in any event, 2M or 4M at this point is going to be pretty insignificant(it's not all that significant right now). To get the 2 more years of him from ages 28 and 29...that's worth 2M or 4M.

[monty57]

1 minute ago, BrewerFan said:

I don't think it's 4M total, I think it's 2M for each year. I don't think you could be forced to pay a buyout a year after you turned down a buyout. I could be wrong about that, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, he got a signing bonus of 2M. If you add up his yearly contracts, those come out to 78. The 82M GTD would mean he has just 1 more buyout left, right?

 

But in any event, 2M or 4M at this point is going to be pretty insignificant(it's not all that significant right now). To get the 2 more years of him from ages 28 and 29...that's worth 2M or 4M.

They could exercise his first option and pay him $25M. Then something happens where they don't want to exercise the second option, at which point they would have to pay him the $2M buyout. They are separate options contracts, which can either be exercised or not. If you exercise it, he plays for you for a year at the rate of $25M. If you do not exercise it, you pay a $2M buyout. There would have to be wording that if the first option is not exercised, the second contract cannot be exercised, triggering both buyouts. 

But I agree with your main point, that in relation to the entire contract, and in relation to what he might be giving up by having those options included in this contract, whether it's $2M or $4M, it's not a lot and as I said earlier, it's easily a justifiable risk for the Brewers to take.

There is a chance that he could miss out on a $500M deal because the Brewers exercise their option, and then through injury or underperformance never get that chance again. The Brewers seem to gain a lot more out of the option years than Chourio. I was just saying that he doesn't get nothing. If he underperforms and is "dead money" for the end of his contract, the Brewers still have to pay his buyout at the end. 

[BrewerFan]

10 minutes ago, monty57 said:

They could exercise his first option and pay him $25M. Then something happens where they don't want to exercise the second option, at which point they would have to pay him the $2M buyout. They are separate options contracts, which can either be exercised or not. If you exercise it, he plays for you for a year at the rate of $25M. If you do not exercise it, you pay a $2M buyout.

Yes, but you don't buy someone out twice, that's all. 

Anyway, we agree it benefits the Bucks MUCH more than Chourio. It was a huge contract for him. 

[tmwiese55]

11 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Now we're bringing Taylor Swift and her billion dollar ass into this?

 

And yeah dude, I get how it's unfathomable to you that I couldn't possibly agree that you could just rely on your Brothers money(he does NOT have over 100M by the way given this thing in the states called TAXES, he probably has about 10M right now and will make another ~40M IF he's spent his money well). 

 

It's not even arguable though. So...I don't know, STOP arguing it then? If you don't get how making almost 9 million YOURSELF in a signing bonus, vs 10,000 in a signing bonus is a big difference, well, I don't know how you can't understand that.

If you can't understand how it's different asking your PARENTS for help rather than your brother who's a few years older...I don't know how THAT is even arguable. 

THIS is it. This is how you changed the argument from William Contreras being less likely to because of his brother's money vs this strawman that if you were to judge between two hypothetical people...who'd be MORE likely to go year to year. 

I simply said I don't think his Brothers money would be a huge factor. Now we're measuring by degrees vs someone who hasn't got a penny to his name?

And then the random "if I won the lottery." 

I tried going with we just don't agree, but this is ridiculous.

Be honest in your hypothetical. BOTH players have "won the lottery." William, in this scenario, would be offered roughly the same as Wilson just got as a FA. 

 

Finally, AGAIN, if you can't even fathom how "this is arguable," then stop arguing I guess? I can't even see how it's arguable that you risk 80M dollars thinking, "hey, I can leech off my Brother if things go bad." But that's just me.  

Bud, you are arguing about things I've never said or made a point on.  The entire comment was based on the hypothetical vs a broke person without family money, that's not me changing anything. It was the whole comment to begin the whole things. Its not changing anything.  

 You are creating an argument over nothing.    You are getting caught up on irrelevant things and degrees of it.   I never compared brother's money vs dads money.    I compared to a broke person.  That was my only point the whole time and you're going off on these tangents that I never said and are irrelevant.

I find it hard to believe if someone agrees a dad being rich would affect if their kid is less likely to take the safe route I don't understand at all how the same person would think its irrelevant if the kids brother has 100 million. But if you somehow do, so be it.  I never said it would affect more, less, or the same as the dad. You are arguing with yourself on it. I said that vs a broke kid (like in the example). You are the one arguing degrees, not me.  To me, it was always family money vs broke kid. 

Me randomly bring up the lottery?  You brought up what we would expect from our siblings if they're rich, not me. But for some reason used an example using us as normal people, which makes no sense in this.  The real discussion would be what would happens with our siblings if one of us were super rich and the way we become that is winning the lottery, I could've said if I was word class athlete, actor, etc.   

Taylor was just a way to use a rich sister since dad and bro were in the first. First name that popped in my head for rich younger lady.   But, if you think if her (or any rich person's) brother was a good baseball C that he'd for some reason be more likely to play it safe than a broke person thats fine.  

Again, the player 1 vs player 2 thing above was literally my only point in this. And its very basic and straightforward. That is it, everything else here is you making arguments about irrelevant things to it all and wanting to win the argument.    You can literally delete everything else other than the player 1 vs 2 thing.  My best guess on those is clear.  If somehow you would guess the broke person is more likely to risk it, so be it.

[BrewerFan]

7 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

You are creating an argument over nothing.    You are getting caught up on irrelevant things and degrees of it.

I am?

I'm the one getting caught up in "degrees of it?" I made a statement about how I didn't think Contreras would turn down an 80M extension and you started this whole thing because we had a different opinion of Holliday and then turned it to your which would be MORE likely to sign, a player who didn't have a penny(which is neither) or a player who had a rich relative. 

That's literally you brings up irrelevant things and the degrees of how likely these hypothetical people would be. 

 

I'm done. This is stupid. You've already said "It's not even arguable," which basically a way of saying your point is so stupid, I don't see how you could argue it. And I tried to go with the "we just don't agree," and it gets more ridiculous and convoluted each time. 

 

But you're right. Because Willson Contreras signed a contract, William Contreras won't sign one because he can rely on his brothers money and that's...just how it is and it's crazy to suggest otherwise. WE good now? FFS....

 

Quote

Again, the player 1 vs player 2 thing above was literally my only point in this. And its very basic and straightforward. That is it, everything else here is you making arguments about irrelevant things to it all and wanting to win the argument.    You can literally delete everything else other than the player 1 vs 2 thing.  My best guess on those is clear.  If somehow you would guess the broke person is more likely to risk it, so be it.

Yeah, I'm not using your strawman as the basis for the entire argument. 

I'm not using "if one person is dirt poor and lives in an impoverished country vs another player who has a Brother, who is MORE likely in that scenario..." as that wasn't the question and is...as I said, a silly strawman argument. 

 

I said I don't think William Contreras would turn down a fair contract extension for ~80M because his brother has made money. Maybe(and this is a WILD thought) we just stick with THAT point rather than all these other absurd hypotheticals?

[tmwiese55]

16 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I am?

I'm the one getting caught up in "degrees of it?" I made a statement about how I didn't think Contreras would turn down an 80M extension and you started this whole thing because we had a different opinion of Holliday and then turned it to your which would be MORE likely to sign, a player who didn't have a penny(which is neither) or a player who had a rich relative. 

That's literally you brings up irrelevant things and the degrees of how likely these hypothetical people would be. 

 

I'm done. This is stupid. You've already said "It's not even arguable," which basically a way of saying your point is so stupid, I don't see how you could argue it. And I tried to go with the "we just don't agree," and it gets more ridiculous and convoluted each time. 

 

But you're right. Because Willson Contreras signed a contract, William Contreras won't sign one because he can rely on his brothers money and that's...just how it is and it's crazy to suggest otherwise. WE good now? FFS....

 

Yeah, I'm not using your strawman as the basis for the entire argument. 

I'm not using "if one person is dirt poor and lives in an impoverished country vs another player who has a Brother, who is MORE likely in that scenario..." as that wasn't the question and is...as I said, a silly strawman argument. 

 

I said I don't think William Contreras would turn down a fair contract extension for ~80M because his brother has made money. Maybe(and this is a WILD thought) we just stick with THAT point rather than all these other absurd hypotheticals?

Not using the strawman or hypothetical? It is the entire argument you entered in here.  It was my whole point I said several days ago now.   It was the point/argument.   I don't get how you're objecting to it, it was the hypothetical the entire time.   

Who's making a strawman now?  Where did I say William "won't sign extension".   I said its a factor working against the need to lock in money early.  

And yes, I do think he is less likely to sign an early deal because his family is rich already. Somehow you agree for others but not him, which is fine.  That doesn't mean he would not sign one. But I think it decreases chances and/or the number would have to inch higher before he says yes.   Again, I think its a factor.  You for some reason do not (in spite thinking it does matter if someones dad is rich).   Fine by me.

[BrewerFan]

17 minutes ago, tmwiese55 said:

Not using the strawman or hypothetical? It is the entire argument you entered in here.

No, it was not. My "entire argument," was I think these type of early extensions are good and that Contreras should be someone we try to extend and that I don't think his brothers money would deter him from signing a deal similar to what Murphy signed(adjusted for the fact that Contreras is a year further away from FA). 

 

THAT is the argument I've made. And beyond that, I'm done as this is getting dumbed down to a Twitter-type level. @Brewcrew82 and I pointed out several differences between the likelihood Jackson Holliday(who AGAIN has already made ~9M himself, has Boras as an agent and a Father) and Jackson Chourio signing an extension and you somehow equated that with William Contreras. 

So I'm not sure what was a "strawman," or a "hypothetical," but sure. I don't care enough to keep going. 

[brewerfan82]

this is the worst thread ever

[tmwiese55]

9 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

No, it was not. My "entire argument," was I think these type of early extensions are good and that Contreras should be someone we try to extend and that I don't think his brothers money would deter him from signing a deal similar to what Murphy signed(adjusted for the fact that Contreras is a year further away from FA). 

 

THAT is the argument I've made. And beyond that, I'm done as this is getting dumbed down to a Twitter-type level. @Brewcrew82 and I pointed out several differences between the likelihood Jackson Holliday(who AGAIN has already made ~9M himself, has Boras as an agent and a Father) and Jackson Chourio signing an extension and you somehow equated that with William Contreras. 

So I'm not sure what was a "strawman," or a "hypothetical," but sure. I don't care enough to keep going. 

That wasn't my argument. That is yours.    There was a discussion on Contreras being a target and I had what I thought was a pretty nothing post saying one factor to remember is his bro is rich and it might be something making it harder to sign him to an early team friendly deal.   Which, is the hypothetical. Has family money vs someone who does not.   that was my only point.     When questioned on, I said I don't think its too crazy since someone just said it matters for Holliday its logical to say it would matter for Contreras.  The rest is all you. 

[homer]

I think you have both made points. Time to move on.

Edit: guys when a mod says to "move on" that doesn't mean make one more post. 

[igor67]

I think from Chourio's perspective the 2 option years at the end are probably more like only 1 real year. If the deal only covers the basic 6 years, especially give the glut of our current OFers you have to assume that there will be games played to try and play around with and delay the service time from starting right away. The extension kind of mitigates that and makes it more likely he gets to start his march towards free agency right away. Being able to see some real money right away even in year 1 and not waiting 3-4 more years for more than the league minimum is also nice from a value perspective.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

Worried about an amount Yelich makes now, but 9-10 years from now? If Chourio is what the Brewers think he is, they'll giggle while writing those checks in the years 2033 and 2034

[rickh150]

The Brewers think this high about the guy and they leave him off the playoff roster for Winker. That is how I first look at this deal. He’s this good and he didn’t play last year. Or could it be Arnold wanted him up and CC wasn’t going to play him. I just don’t understand it all but going not good enough for MLB to starting CF batting third is a big leap in a couple months

[Brewcrew82]

47 minutes ago, rickh150 said:

The Brewers think this high about the guy and they leave him off the playoff roster for Winker. That is how I first look at this deal. He’s this good and he didn’t play last year. Or could it be Arnold wanted him up and CC wasn’t going to play him. I just don’t understand it all but going not good enough for MLB to starting CF batting third is a big leap in a couple months

Because there would have been major service time ramifications....And they were considering it, they just weren't ready to go there without an extension in place. 

[sveumrules]

1 hour ago, rickh150 said:

The Brewers think this high about the guy and they leave him off the playoff roster for Winker. That is how I first look at this deal. He’s this good and he didn’t play last year. Or could it be Arnold wanted him up and CC wasn’t going to play him. I just don’t understand it all but going not good enough for MLB to starting CF batting third is a big leap in a couple months

October, November, December, January, February, March is a couple months a few times over.

Big difference between making your MLB debut at age 19 in the pressure cooker of a do or die three game playoff series versus at age 20 on Opening Day of a brand new 162 game regular season.

Just two completely different sets of stakes.

[Team Canada]

2 hours ago, rickh150 said:

 I just don’t understand it all but going not good enough for MLB to starting CF batting third is a big leap in a couple months

Did I miss Arnold announcing that he was starting in CF and batting third?

[Frisbee Slider]

5 hours ago, Team Canada said:

Did I miss Arnold announcing that he was starting in CF and batting third?

I assume this is a rhetorical question but no, Arnold didn’t even promise Chourio would be on the opening day roster during the press conference.