Bedard contract extension?

[davearm]

I think the point at which an opt-out deal becomes more reasonable than an expensive contract is past the point when the expensive contract becomes a poor idea.

Meaning, I think the best options would be: fair deal, overpaid deal, vastly ovrepaid deal, underpaid deal w/ opt-out.

If we were competing in 2008-2010, then the opt out is a much better option, but since we are signing him to be valuable in '10-'12, giving him to right (and pretty much guarantee that he opts out) after '10 doesn't help the team that much.

And my point is, "underpaid deal w/ opt-out" moves up the list, eventually all the way to the top, depending on exactly how underpaid we're talking about.

The other thing to consider is that, in theory anyway, Bedard's motivation to opt out is inversely related to the O's progress toward contending in the final two years -- if the O's hold up their end of the deal and build a winner, then the opt-out becomes less likely.

[TGO]

I like dave's and clapdiddy's 4/54 deal (let's say 7/11/18/18), and I'd tack on a team option for the fifth year at 19 with a buyout of 2. So 4/56 or 5/73.

That's fair and smart for both sides, but I don't think Bedard would sign it.

[RShack]

And my point is, "underpaid deal w/ opt-out" moves up the list, eventually all the way to the top, depending on exactly how underpaid we're talking about.

The other thing to consider is that, in theory anyway, Bedard's motivation to opt out is inversely related to the O's progress toward contending in the final two years -- if the O's hold up their end of the deal and build a winner, then the opt-out becomes less likely.

I don't know about the details, but your basic idea makes a lot of sense.

[BRob51]

Maybe include some type of "out" clause, with some type of option out for Bedard that is the team doesn't "improve" in 2 out of the first three years, he can opt out. Defining improvement could be something like more wins or higher in the standings. Anything that could show him the team was serious about really improving, kind of putting the money where the mouth is.

I agree, he'd be getting press almost like what A Rod had this year and JD Drew last year, and both got or will get huge inflated contracts potentially

[Scribo]

Maybe include some type of "out" clause, with some type of option out for Bedard that is the team doesn't "improve" in 2 out of the first three years, he can opt out.

Presumably, the reason they are giving him the five years is so that they will have him when they start to contend. If his services when healthy are not guaranteed, what's the point?

The team is going to suck in his first year even if he is great.

Probably the team will suck in his first two years, even if he is great. Remember, holes that would have been plugged if he had been traded may still be holes. (Signing him retards the rebuilding process).

If that happens and then the team starts to contend after two years, then Year Three turns into his FA year just at the time he really starts being useful to them. Great for him, lousy for the Birds.

For this kind of money, he needs to make a commitment. I don't think he wants to make that commitment, and if that's the case then he shouldn't be here.

[B-more]

And my point is, "underpaid deal w/ opt-out" moves up the list, eventually all the way to the top, depending on exactly how underpaid we're talking about.

The other thing to consider is that, in theory anyway, Bedard's motivation to opt out is inversely related to the O's progress toward contending in the final two years -- if the O's hold up their end of the deal and build a winner, then the opt-out becomes less likely.

I still do not see any benefit for the O's to even consider an opt-out for Bedard.

The O's want to lock him up now so they know for sure he will be around when they have a chance of competing. He's locked in under arbitration money for two years. The point is so we can have at least 2 years of his free agency years. So therefore, there is almost no reason for the O's to give him an opt out after the third year. Bedard will be reasonably cheap the first two seasons anyway...it is his free agency years that are expensive. Any savings on the contract by giving him an opt out is negated by his ability to opt out.

If he does well in the first couple years and stays relatively healthy, it is almost guaranteed he opts out of the last two years because he can make a ton more in free agency. I'm sure that even if he sees the team is progressing and competing, he wil use the opt out as a means to renegotiate a longer and more expensive deal if the O's want to prevent him from opting out. Either way it does not help the O's one bit. The O's only want to lock him up so that they know they have control of him when we have a chance to compete.

I see no positive in the O's giving the opt out provision. If the O's actually were in a position to contend this upcoming season and the next, then it makes sense for the O's to use the opt out to get a cheaper front end of the deal.

Instead of the opt-out, just going year by year with arbitration is better than giving the opt out. However, the O's are not in a position where they should wait on extending or trading Bedard. This offseason is the time that keeping him long-term or trading him for a number of young talent should happen. The only way an opt-out is a good decision is if it is after year 4.

[Mackus]

if the O's hold up their end of the deal and build a winner, then the opt-out becomes less likely.

no it doesn't. If Bedard is pitching well enough to get more money than the remainder of a deal with an "opt out" (a practical certainty, IMO) then he'd opt out. He's not going to pass on his opt out because the Orioles are a legit contender. He'd just opt out and then renegotiate.

[Sports Guy]

no it doesn't. If Bedard is pitching well enough to get more money than the remainder of a deal with an "opt out" (a practical certainty, IMO) then he'd opt out. He's not going to pass on his opt out because the Orioles are a legit contender. He'd just opt out and then renegotiate.

Of course he would opt out...Look at Burnett right now.

Look at AROD.

He opts out because he could get a guaranteed 4-6 years elsewhere(or maybe even here).

If that is what you are going to do, you mine as well not get locked into guaranteed money and just pay him the next 2 years in arbitration.

[RShack]

no it doesn't. If Bedard is pitching well enough to get more money than the remainder of a deal with an "opt out" (a practical certainty, IMO) then he'd opt out. He's not going to pass on his opt out because the Orioles are a legit contender. He'd just opt out and then renegotiate.

OK, then... can you do an opt-out that's conditional on how the team does? Or is that somehow illegal?

[Belkast]

After reading this thread, I really don't understand how anyone can believe it makes sense for the O's to extend Bedard.

He is a valuable commodity, on a team that did not even win 70 games, and finished 25 games out of the Wild Card.

There is no scenerio in which he should be brought back... trade him now, coming off his monster year, where he is signed for the next two seasons... he will never command more in the trade market.

Well said. I don't think there is a better time then now to trade him.

[TyCobb]

After reading this thread, I really don't understand how anyone can believe it makes sense for the O's to extend Bedard.

He is a valuable commodity, on a team that did not even win 70 games, and finished 25 games out of the Wild Card.

There is no scenerio in which he should be brought back... trade him now, coming off his monster year, where he is signed for the next two seasons... he will never command more in the trade market.

Getting rid of Bedard is going to hurt us in the long and short run.

[RShack]

After reading this thread, I really don't understand how anyone can believe it makes sense for the O's to extend Bedard.

He is a valuable commodity, on a team that did not even win 70 games, and finished 25 games out of the Wild Card.

There is no scenerio in which he should be brought back... trade him now, coming off his monster year, where he is signed for the next two seasons... he will never command more in the trade market.

There's lots of scenarios in which it makes sense. Most if them are predicated on the O's not sucking for more than another year or two.

Short-term thinking is a big part of how we got in this mess. We don't need to use short-term thinking as the basis for getting out of it.

[Belkast]

So then why did you say 5/90? Is that what he wants?

I think it would be reasonable to say he wants somewhere along those lines.

[hoosiers]

Must ..... Not .... Extend .... Bedard. (My favorite O for five years now)

There's so little value at the numbers we would need to pay.

Grab two premium prospects and two more good ones and start the re-building process.

(I understand there are pros and cons to keeping and dealing him, but it's really quite simple. There's some gray here. It's not black and white. But if you want to re-build, you don't do it half-way and keep your players past their prime - you re-cycle your assets.)

[clarence]

Bedard offers the best hope for a speedy rebuilding process. Trading him is the only thing that makes sense. He hasn't proven he can stay healthy for a full season and giving him four or five years of guaranteed money is insane. There is no guarantee that anyone we trade him for will be an all-star in their careers, just like there is a chance that Bedard will never be one in his. I take the four players he can bring and start looking towards the future.