The Pittsburgh Pirates and outfielder Bryan Reynolds have been talking contract extensions recently, and they seem to be more serious now. It was mentioned yesterday that they had a deadline of first pitch of yesterday’s opener to get the deal done. However, that appears to be extended as the team and Reynolds appear to be in line on the money aspect, but not some contract details.
The sticking point with the Bryan Reynolds' contract is indeed an opt out, per source.
They seem to be set at eight years and in the $106 million range, but Reynolds' desire for an opt out to be in the contract has held up the completion of a deal.
First: @RobBiertempfel
— Jason Mackey (@JMackeyPG) March 31, 2023
Jason Mackey confirms an earlier report by Rob Beirtempfel, while adding more details. According to Mackey, they seem to be set on an eight-year deal in the $106M range, which would include three arbitration years and five years of free agency. It’s said that the hold up now appears to be Reynolds wanting an opt out in the contract.
Reynolds is currently getting paid $6.75M for 2023. The Pirates still have him under contract control for the 2024-25 seasons if they can’t overcome this obstacle in the salary talks.
We will keep things updated if any other news pops up on this off-day for the Pirates.
UPDATE: Multiple sources are saying the opt out Reynolds wants is after four years. Pirates have him for three years anyway, so that wouldn’t be much of an extension if he took the opt out. I can see why that would be a hold up for the Pirates.
John started working at Pirates Prospects in 2009, but his connection to the Pittsburgh Pirates started exactly 100 years earlier when Dots Miller debuted for the 1909 World Series champions. John was born in Kearny, NJ, two blocks from the house where Dots Miller grew up. From that hometown hero connection came a love of Pirates history, as well as the sport of baseball.
When he didn't make it as a lefty pitcher with an 80+ MPH fastball and a slider that needed work, John turned to covering the game, eventually focusing in on the prospects side, where his interest was pushed by the big league team being below .500 for so long. John has covered the minors in some form since the 2002 season, and leads the draft and international coverage on Pirates Prospects. He writes daily on Pittsburgh Baseball History, when he's not covering the entire system daily throughout the entire year on Pirates Prospects.
I had been using Trey Mancini as a comp to BRey, and the perils of Trey Mancini who would hit UFA status at the exact same age. Mancini took a 1/7.5 deal this winter. I didn’t realize Mancini is a butcher in the field, though he was a better hitter his first full 3 years than BRey on a somehow significantly worse team. Starling Marte is probably the best comp. Marte has earned a super-nice 4/78 contract. But before that, he had to take two one year show me deals in 2021 and 2022 (albeit both relatively lucrative). But he had to take them nonetheless twice hitting FA at age 31. If Marte isn’t great in 2022 despite the very good 2021 he isn’t sniffing the deal he got. BRey can handle on himself by walking away from this deal. But that is a HELL of a gamble. The risk for the Bucs is BRey walks away from the deal is minimal. Seriously, what happens? They continue to suck in front of 10k yet remain profitable? Or they trade BRey and hope it’s a good deal or ride it out and hope he contributes to a postseason team. When you already have negative PR, what’s one more dent? If this was the Pens who have great PR and are reliant on attendance letting 87 go over something trivial and would see attendance drop by 33% overnight it’s a totally different story. But this is the Pirates. There’s literally no way for it to get worse. To me the risk of not signing is entirely born by Reynolds, and walking away from 100+M when the downside is 30M thru 2025 and then maybe 20M after that (I’d say that is the bottom of his expected performance being a 2WAR player) man that is one hell of a lot of downside. It’s sucks for him. Sucks SF didn’t get him to the bigs at age 23. Sucks his owner sucks. Sucks he could play his entire career here without a postseason appearance let along a WS. But he can still be paid 9 figures to be on a loser team, and there are a lot worse outcomes for players (see Mancini).
Nothing at all sucks for BR, in fact the future’s never looked brighter
Reynolds knows only the short covid of 2020 and dysfunctional “no mas” 2022 have slowed him. No more Covid, no dysfunctional tanking
He somehow managed a .900+ OPS in middle of this line -up of misfits Tucker, Reyes, Chang, Van Weezer, Osuna, Alford, Moran, Melky Cabrera, Shuck, Riddle, Evans, and Dyson Well out with old and in with new and he is well aware who’s coming to the party
Just like the first negotiation, everyone is going crazy over Brey over valuing himself. If your Reynold’s and had no less than 110M in mind. Would you start at 110M?
Maybe he asked for 4 yr opt-out with a 5 year in mind Reynolds is a professional RAKER entering his prime at the perfect time
3 things in life for sure death, taxes and absurd numbers BR will produce
Bae, Cruz, Rodriguez, Reynolds, Davis, Gonzo, Hayes Nunez, Swag
OR
Cruz, Gonzalez, Reynolds, Rodriguez, Davis, Hayes, CSN, Nunez, Bae
Also, I saw BR and Hayes up close in ST, both must have lived in the weight room in the off season
Reynolds all of the sudden has Garvey fore-arms so sit back and enjoy the raking comfort that comes with hitting between Cruz and Endy Rod instead of Pablo Reyes and Colin Moran
Get your popcorn ready and wait for the calvery
I like this post. Idk about his forearms, but his lower body is what I’m liking. His thighs help generate his swing speed and power. He’s a different body type than Cutch and will be more productive into his 30’s. I’d like to see an 8 yr deal. But a compromise at 4 or 5 yrs is still a win. It keeps BRey around for our “window” and BC definitely needs him to validate his “rebuild.”
So they never really agreed on term and money then…
Driving 8 hours each way to Cincy from Atlanta -$200
Tickets to Sat/Sun games – $150
Hotel Sat night-$200
Food/Drink – $150
Throwback 1982 Willie Stargell jersey -$80
Watching the 1st place Pirates – Priceless
Let’s Go Bucs!
You sneaking in mini bottles? That may save you some of your food/drink budget.
I don’t get it! Are agents’ lawyers, constantly mucking up the works. Stay with me a moment. If information that led to the trade request was correct, the Pirates low balled a 6 year contract while the Reynolds team ‘high balled’ (is that proper terminology?) an 8 year term. Now, the negotiators eliminated the balls and agreed on middle dollars and the Pirates conceded the 8 years. So, where did the
copopt out at 4 or 5 years come from. Didn’t the Reynolds team want 8 years?I’m thinking he wants the opt-out because the contract pays more later. If He’s taking less thru the first 4 years, he wants to be able to cash-in if his performance warrants higher pay.
Reyonlds wants the Pirates absorb the risks in this contract.
It’s very lopsided from a risk perspective. Basically asking Pirates to take a $60 million gamble for potentially only one extra year.
There HAVE been pre-free agent extensions with opt outs folks.
From the Athletic:
@Luke L. So the Rockies gave Charlie Blackmon an optout in his 2018 extension deal. He was in the final year of team control coming off a monster 2017 where he was good for 5.5 WAR. Interestingly his deal included an optout in 2022 (declined) as well as a player option for 2023 (exercised at $15M which is a pay cut but reflects the aging curve).
You can see Blackmon’s contract details at the first link below. I’m not sure if Blackmon is the only team control extension with an optout. They are certainly rare and obviously more often include team options. I think Blackmon’s case is slightly different than Reynolds in that Reynolds won’t become a UFA for 3 seasons. You can see a comprehensive list of contract extensions going back to 2014 at the second link where you’d want to sort on pre-arb or arb.
Blackmon extension: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/colorado-rockies/charlie-blackmon-9156/#:~:text=Current%20Contract,a%20total%20salary%20of%20%2415%2C333%2C334.
All Extensions > 2014: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/extensions/
Big differences. Last year of control and the deal added 3 more years of control than the Rockies had with Blackmon. The Bucs still have 3 years control and would only add 1 more. I would consider the opt out with Reynolds after the 28 season but Reynolds rightfully would refuse such a contract.
Swaggerty with the double.
An Endy blast.
It’s a very reasonable contract offer – give the opt out and plan to have Reynolds for 4 years. In 3+ years he has logged +12.5 fWAR for this club. His fWAR was only +2.8 in 2022 because he posted a -9 Def. His Def numbers in 2021 and 2020 were much better, so the -9 looks like an outlier.
The Pirates should be thrilled to have a player of his talent level who is betting on himself to possibly put himself in the position to exercise an opt out in 4 years.
what are you smoking? You’d be paying him 13 million for years he wouldn’t make a 1/3 of that, simply to get 1 extra year of control….noone would EVER do that. an opt out after 5 giving us 2 extra years of control would be reasonable.
I think we are still using $8 mil per point of fWAR. The 12.5 fWAR in his first 3+ years is already a value received of $100 mil. He is 28 and I watched Nimmo, 30, get 8/$162 mil. In Nimmo’s 6+ years in MLB he has a total of 17.9 fWAR. 3 years more than Reynolds, but only 5.4 fWAR higher. He had a big year in 2022 and cashed in.
I made the example of last year’s 2.8 fWAR (Value of $22.4 mil) as an example that it was only that low because the Def number was -9. His Def in 2020 was +0.8 and in 2021 it was +2.9. A bad year defensively, but still a big value overall, and based on past years, we should see an improvement defensively in 2023.
Put yourself in his place – he has watched this team sink to the depths of MLB competitively, and he is being asked to trust that things will get better? Nope, that dog won’t hunt! OTOH, the Pirates desperately need a signing of a star that sends a positive message to their young players. This team has to start somewhere, and frankly, I was surprised he was willing to give the Pirates the 4th year, which is his first year of FA!
Preach Emjay! And Bob can actually afford the 4-year deal. It doesn’t put a long-term liability on the books. I’m just thinking the way Bob does. I’d be very happy with an 8 year deal too. Reynolds production will continue into his mid 30’s, I believe.
Yeah, but him playing well and opting out after four years is the best-case scenario with this contract structure. There’s also real risk that the team is stuck with a not-very-good player for four extra years at a high AAV. Every contract looks good if you assume the best-case scenario, and no team should “plan” for that best-case scenario.
And this contract structure does not represent Reynolds “betting on himself.” Betting on himself would be going year-to-year through arb to get to FA as soon as possible. This contract structure is just a safety net. If he’s good he only delays FA by a year; if he sucks he has a cozy four-year landing spot.
Honestly, just give him an opt out after year 5 and call it a day. I’d be fine with that. Buying one guaranteed year? Good luck, Bryan.
From what a lot of the reporters are saying, the money they’re agreeing to is around $14-15m a year, which I think is extremely reasonable if I was an owner, but not so much if I’m the player. Reynolds I think is worth a lot more than that. So I can understand why Bryan would want an opt-out option. It’s not to hard to fix…you up the money on the front years of the contract to pay for his “better” years in his younger age (maybe 15-16m) and less at the end ($14-15m)…or something like that. The positive thing about this is that they really are trying to work out a deal. A month ago my opinion was there was no way this would happen and he would be gone at the trade deadline in the summer.
Anyways, it’s pretty hilarious that after years of soapbox griping in articles and comments on this site the MLBPA has accepted minor leaguers into the Union and successfully negotiated a great opening contract without it getting a single mention.
Extremely, extremely predictable.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-minor-league-labor-relations/
If it’s any consolation I have a notes file started for an article. It’s just that between this topic (Reynolds), that topic (MiLB CBA), a possible RSN update, reporting OD payroll, and the other articles I had planned on my schedule, my head is spinning.
I’m not a full-time writer, no matter whether I would like to be or not. I can’t handle it all at once!
what does this have to do with bryan reynolds?
Its a huge deal for all these young guys getting some more money!
This is a ridiculous ask from Reynolds. It’s basically a trade demand all over again. See ya, Bryan.
Arguably worse; if the Pirates capitulated and he doesn’t opt out, it’ll almost certainly mean they won’t even be able to trade him.
The upshot for the club here is like 5 minutes of good publicity.
Fans ran the best player in a generation and face of the franchise out of town on a rail for having one bad season.
The chances of anyone giving the Pirates any amount of good will by the end of this hypothetical deal are almost zero.
I mean tbf Cutch _was_ done being anything but a role player when they traded him and he was unlikely to take role player money but yeah.
This is precisely what I’m talking about.
He was a 4 WAR player his last full year with the club and 2 WAR – average big league starter – the year he was traded!
The chances of Reynolds ever living up to the insane expectations fans will have is absolutely zero.
The dumbest thing this owner can do is extend players for good publicity. It will backfire every single time.
This will end tonight one way or another. A deal gets done or he is traded with in the next week.
If he does opt out then it was never a team-friendly contract to begin with, and if he doesn’t opt out then it won’t be a team-friendly contract in the end.
He’s really got them over a barrel on this one.
Just pay him more and front load it, they’re not gonna be spending any money over the next few years anyways.
Or don’t and enjoy Bryan Reynolds for the next two years, that’s probably best all around.
My stance has been to just keep him until his arb years are up, he might force them to do just that!
If the opt out comes after year 4, why would the Pirates make this deal? There is more to lose, than to gain. I’m cool with keeping him for 3 years and extending a QO in his walk year.
If the Pirates are supposed to be building a longer term contender with multiple waves, why would you over pay an aging player that plays left field 4 years from now?
Four years ain’t bad. If Reynolds has a monster year or two in 23-25, what do you think he his arb payroll will go to? $20M definitely in play. Take the 4 year certainty now.
no….do the math. This is a horrible deal for the pirates. Over 3 years, there is no chance he makes an average of 13 million based on where he is now. Plus, remember inflation….18 million today is 20 million in 2 years. Either way. As others have said, the opt out needs to be after year 5, with a club buyout option at year 6. both sides get a little protection.
To clarify, which I failed to do, is to do a 4 year deal, maybe $50 mil. That’s buying out 3 arb years, 1 FA year. Keeps him for the window of contention.
I’ve always believed opt-outs are a lose/lose for the club in a league like MLB with guaranteed contracts; even more so in a situation like this where much of the non-opted years are controlled already anyway. But like most things in the game and in life, it’s a market, and once a few owners wanted a few guys bad enough to crack that door open, it wasn’t gonna get pushed back shut, and has become a pretty common element of larger deals. Gotta pay to play, I suppose. 🤷♂️
As I mentioned below, it is not at all a common element of pre-FA extensions. I can’t think of a single pre-FA extension that contains an opt-out clause (though it’s certainly possible I’m forgetting one). Giving Reynolds an opt-out halfway through an eight-year extension would be a precedent-setting, player-friendly deal.
True, and a good point.
Don’t understand how a player can ask the club to carry the risk of being ‘stuck’ with a bad contract, but be unwilling to accept any risk themselves of being ‘stuck’ in a deal they no longer like. (Well, I do understand, I guess — you can always ASK for anything — I guess I more don’t think it’s fair or get why the clubs have gone there.)
Hopefully the Pirates don’t let their desire for some good PR push them into starting this precedent. Heck, take that money and see what you can get done with Cruz instead, and go year by year with BR if he won’t share risk.
In FA contracts it makes more sense. It’s not good for the team, but if doing it gets the star player to sign with your team, then maybe the benefits outweigh the risks. In a pre-FA extension, where you already have the player on your team for multiple seasons, it really doesn’t make any sense that I can see.
Now, why would Reynolds want to opt-out after 4 yrs…How about the team still stinks a real possibility…winning solves everything if they start to actually compete there is no way he would leave…IMHO…
Same but not the same Ohtani if the Angels suck again he is gone, but if they get into the postseason probably be a difference maker…
On one hand, I really hate the idea of an opt-out. On the other hand, he seems to really like to be here, so maybe just don’t p*** him off and it’ll be fine?
Giving in to him to keep him happy will not keep him from leaving if he plays like most of us thinks he can. He plays like he can he will leave for the highest bidder with the happy smile still on his face in 4 years.
or he just gets traded which is more likely
Yes, it is more likely as soon as the Bucs get a good enough offer. Just was just pointing out there was no real advantage for buying only one more year of control and would receive nothing when he opts out after,that year.
And that’s the best-case scenario! The worst case is that he plays poorly and we’re stuck with him for another four years at “backloaded” prices. There’s really no upside for the team with an opt-out clause. In this case, the Pirates are giving up a four-year player option for just one year of extra team control. That doesn’t seem like a very sensible trade-off to me.
Yes, not really as team friendly as people think.
Who is reporting this is a back-loaded contract? To me, the term and total dollar amount would align with a heavily front-loaded deal.
Mackey for one.
This is kind of smart getting these details out their for other teams who might want to trade for him, and they just swoop in with an offer right now.
simply do 7 yrs, 106, with no opt out. that’s the contract i determined to be fair this entire time.
or go year to year with arb and QO. idgaf anymore.
and if Reynolds throws a fit, then do a “baseball trade” for a pitcher.
Hey Jay, for clarification, could you spell-out idgaf. I’m stumped. Thank you!
“I dont give a f***”
I don’t give a fly, no, I don’t give a flute, can’t be that, I don’t give a ohhhhh, I get it now!
Based on the reported details, including the opt out coming after 2026, Reynolds is offering the team a great deal. Will BC’s record of failure continue?
an opt out after year 4 makes the exercise pretty pointless IMO.
Reynolds plays well? he just leaves when he’d leave anyway.
Reynolds ages poorly? locked in.
with the opt out, i cant really figure out why the team wouldnt just prefer to go year to year with Arb + Qualifying offer with him
Simply trade the opt out for a year.
7 yrs, 106, no opt out. everyone wins a little. everyone loses a little. everyones happy. everyones mad. it’s the perfect offer.
7/120 would be way more fair. or an opt out after year 5 but also a team buyout (call it 5 mil) after year 6. its fair
Various problems here.
— Long term deals always entail risk. You never get a guarantee that you pay the player only if he plays well. And if the deal is heavily backloaded, as reported, it’s far from certain that Reynolds will leave if he plays well. He’ll be 31 in 2026. He’ll be past his peak market value. Based on the reports, Reynolds has structured his ask to be eminently fair to the team.
— If they get four definite seasons, that’s one beyond free agency, and the Pirates get cost certainty in three arb years, which may be valuable based on the backloading. So there is value to the Pirates.
— Nutting has an unbroken history of refusing to invest in the team. Any halfway sane player would want some protection against Nutting letting the team wither over the full course of his deal. That’s part of the cost of Nutting’s way of doing business.
— 7 yrs, 106, no opt out heavily favors the team. “everyone wins a little, everyone loses a little” isn’t an accurate statement at all. It’s a huge win for the Pirates.
if you are worried about nutting not putting money back into the team, you take the money early when he has the extra money and noone to extend. backloading it actually puts the team in a worse financial position to keep the young talent here.
Is there a precedent for an opt out in a arb extension? I think it’s only been done in free agent contracts. The other owners are likely insisting Bob not allow this. The pirates setting that precedent already seems unlikely but man, the owners will roast him.
It would be about time that owners would get mad at Nutting for signing a long-term deal. They might just get mad at him for signing two long-term deals in two years. That’s just not Nutting-like and might signal some sort of competitive streak.
The current offer from Reynolds is 8 106 with opt out.
Cutting the labor by 12 percent for equal pay feel pretty close to a good tradeoff to eliminate the opt out
What do you think would be a good trade to get the opt out out of this?
Or do you just think they should do 8 106 with the opt out?
8/120 even 125
How many other pre-FA extensions contain a four-year player option? Can you think of any? Does that give you even a tiny bit of pause in claiming that the proposed deal is “eminently fair to the team?” A precedent-setting player-friendly deal wouldn’t typically be thought of as “eminently fair to the team,” I wouldn’t think.
It’s one thing to have horrible opinions; it’s another to frame disagreement with those horrible opinions as “failure.”
Having easily the worst record in MLB in his tenure as GM — that’s failure. Unless you’re a Pirates intern or something.
They were tanking. We’ll see in the next few years if it was worth it.
So, IOW, BC has been running a fraud for three years. Great defense.
It takes years to rebuild a team in MLB. This isn’t the NFL.
It doesn’t have to be that way. It takes years when you tank – yes.
How is it fraud? He said he was looking to do a total rebuild, to rebuild the system first. He has don that.
13.25, a yr is a steal. Reynolds agrees to back load, so he is opt out of highest salaries. This is a know brainer for the pirates.
The other owners will roast Nutting’s if he sets this precedent assuming the other poster is right. It ain’t happening.
So they will only gain 1 year and no QO option so no compensation whe he leaves after,2026.
$13.25M AAV is a team friendly contract. I get why Reynolds wants an opt-out. 1) If his production is very good, he gets another bite of free agency apple 2) If BC fails at his rebuild and team continues to flounder as 90 Loss team he can try and go to a contender.
he would have been traded if the rebuild fails so thats not particularly important.
Opt out clauses are becoming the norm. Pirates brass should be willing to let him have an opt out as long as they gain at least a couple years more control. Especially if he’s willing to backload his deal, as has been reported.
No; this has never been done it seems. Pre-FA opt out would get the other owners up in arms. Hitting is not going to do this.
Opt-outs are not the norm for pre-FA extensions, and for good reason. If you already control a player for multiple years, why would you bother signing him to an extension that includes an opt-out? The whole point of a pre-FA extension is to get team-friendly prices on FA years. An opt-out clause removes most of the potential for realizing those team-friendly prices, since the player will just opt out if those years look team-friendly. Reynolds backloading the deal does not change that equation in the slightest.
In actuality, the norm in these types of contracts are team-option years, not player-option years. Reynolds would have to make major concessions elsewhere to make an opt-out clause palatable. Though if the 8/106 structure is accurate, he might feel that he’s already done that.
The reason why this should be on the table is that the Pirates are not a “norm” team. They would trade the player before his walk year, maybe even one or two years (this site thought even 3) before his walk year in order to supposedly get value in return. Therefore, one free agent year is like 2-3 extra years due to the “dump” precedent of the regime.
I don’t understand. Can you explain how a year is equivalent to 2-3 years?
The Pirates have begun to trade “good” players with one or two years of control left supposedly to get more value in return. Thus giving an opt out after one free agent year would keep a player that free agent year plus the couple years after they would normally trade them.
um no…. it literally just moves back the current slate by a single year.
If the Pirates trade good players with 1-2 years of control left, how does an extra year of control change that? Like, won’t they still trade the player with 1-2 years of control left? The extra year only gives them one extra year before they need to trade him with 1-2 years of control left. Maybe I’m still not understanding.
no you are- he isn’t lucid.
why would we include an opt out if we already have 3 years of control remaining?
trade this bum
Sure, because losing our best player now sure beats losing him after four prime years.
ideally we get other bums in return for him
who said anything about losing him now?
“trade this bum”
Oh right. Jeez lol
Past practice says he’ll be gone by trade deadline or this off-season.
The timing of the opt out is key here. We need to gain at least one extra year of control before the opt out to make this worthwhile. We also shouldnt front load the contract and then give him an opt out. A normal scale or backloaded contract with an opt out at least one year of extra control makes sense to me
A backloaded contract when we are going to have……pretty much the whole roster in arbitration is pretty F’ing stupid. You need a more front loaded contract because current payroll is ridiculously low and you can afford it now. Nutting isn’t going to triple payroll later so we need to balance it out now
Appreciate the kind words, but front loading a contract with an opt our pretty much negates any benefit to us as he will opt out of the cheap years