Report: Giants offering Bryce Harper ten-year contract

Getty Images

Earlier today we learned that the Giants brass met with Bryce Harper in Las Vegas for the second time in a matter of weeks. For some time they have been connected to Harper, but the thinking has been that they are offering a short-term deal, not a long-term deal. Harper’s choice, then, would be between big money in Philly, where the Phillies are reportedly offering him a contract in the offer of ten-years and $300 million, and something with a high average annual value but nowhere near as long and large a commitment in San Francisco or, perhaps, Los Angeles.

Not so. Alex Pavlovic of NBC Bay Area reports that the Giants are going big:

All along, the Giants have been viewed as a short-term solution for Bryce Harper. That’s not actually the case.

The Giants and Harper’s team have discussed a 10-year contract, NBC Sports Bay Area has learned. That would match the deal the Padres gave Manny Machado earlier this month and likely give Harper a chance at the record dollar figure he has been looking for.

That could certainly change the calculus.

While some may think it’s odd for the Giants to do this given that they (a) are aging; (b) are not expected to be competitive in the short term; and (c) have a lot of money committed to other players already, such considerations may not be as big a deal as they’re made out to be.

For one thing, Harper is young and even if it took a couple of years for the Giants to reshuffle, Harper would still be in his prime when they finally got things in order. In some ways it’s not terribly different than what the Padres are doing with Manny Machado, though the Giants and Padres would be expected to rebuild in very different ways.

For another thing, a big part of the Giants’ financial strength comes from a very supportive hometown crowd which has kept their park sold out or mostly sold out for some time. While attendance and revenue are not nearly as connected as they used to be, it’s particularly important in San Francisco where fans have come to expect the team to go big, always. There are other things to do in that town, after all, and the notion of a teardown rebuild is far harder to imagine with the Giants than with other teams.

Finally, there’s precedent. The first big act of the current Giants ownership group after taking over in 1992 was to sign Barry friggin’ Bonds to a big deal. There was not some master rebuild plan involved. There was not a lot of consideration of where the 1992-93 Giants were on the success cycle. They went out and got the best available player in the game and decided that they’d be better and more interesting with him than without him. The same would apply here, even if 2019 Harper is no 1992 Barry Bonds.

Will they get him? No idea. But I like that they’re trying The worst case is they lose out and don’t have to spend $300 million. Or maybe they win out, Harper doesn’t quite live up to the deal and, in the meantime, fans are pretty happy to see a really good and exciting player in Giants colors.

Whaddaya got to lose? You can’t take it with ya.

New bill to build Athletics stadium on Las Vegas Strip caps Nevada’s cost at $380 million

D. Ross Cameron-USA TODAY Sports

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature would give the Oakland Athletics up to $380 million for a potential 30,000 seat, $1.5 billion retractable roof stadium on the Las Vegas Strip.

The bulk of the public funding would come from $180 million in transferable tax credits from the state and $120 million in county bonds, which can vary based on interest rate returns. Clark County also would contribute $25 million in credit toward infrastructure costs.

The A’s have been looking for a home to replace Oakland Coliseum, where the team has played since arriving from Kansas City for the 1968 season. The team had sought to build a stadium in Fremont, San Jose and finally the Oakland waterfront, all ideas that never materialized.

The plan in the Nevada Legislature won’t directly raise taxes. It can move forward with a simply majority vote in the Senate and Assembly. Lawmakers have a little more than a week to consider the proposal before they adjourn June 5, though it could be voted on if a special session is called.

The Athletics have agreed to use land on the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip, where the Tropicana Las Vegas casino resort sits. Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao has said he is disappointed the team didn’t negotiate with Oakland as a “true partner.”

Las Vegas would be the fourth home for a franchise that started as the Philadelphia Athletics from 1901-54. It would become the smallest TV market in Major League Baseball and the smallest market to be home to three major professional sports franchises.

The team and Las Vegas are hoping to draw from the nearly 40 million tourists who visit the city annually to help fill the stadium. The 30,000-seat capacity would make it the smallest MLB stadium.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said a vote on the Oakland Athletics’ prospective move to Las Vegas could take place when owners meet June 13-15 in New York.

The plan faces an uncertain path in the Nevada Legislature. Democratic leaders said financing bills, including for the A’s, may not go through if Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoes the five budget bills, which he has threatened to do as many of his priorities have stalled or faded in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Under the bill, the Clark County Board of Commissioners would create a homelessness prevention and assistance fund along the stadium’s area in coordination with MLB and the Nevada Resort Association. There, they would manage funds for services, including emergency rental and utility assistance, job training, rehabilitation and counseling services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

The lease agreement with the Las Vegas Stadium Authority would be up for renewal after 30 years.

Nevada’s legislative leadership is reviewing the proposal, Democratic state Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager said in a statement.

“No commitment will be made until we have both evaluated the official proposal and received input from interested parties, including impacted community members,” Yeager said.