Bedard contract extension?

[nyjimbo]

If he wouldn't take 5-75 I hope he don't let the door hit him the arse on the way out.:002_stongue:

[Lucky Jim]

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.

Exactly my thinking.

[O no]

Short term help-#1 draft pick, long term help-payroll flexiblity and 3/ major league ready prospects we rec'd filing our major holes.

[RShack]

(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.)

If you want to rebuild, you generally don't want to get rid of everybody who's good. That's not what good franchises do. The fact that so many people around here believe that is mainly the effect of SG and his 50,000 posts.

Bedard ain't past his prime, he's just now entering his prime. He's only now got it figured out. The next several years is exactly when you want him.

[davearm]

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.

I understand all of that.

You should also be able to understand that the benefit for the O's is 1) the extra year of control beyond what they have now, and 2) the $$$ savings over a standard 5-year deal.

My point is, and has always been, that there exists a price point at which the contract I outlined is better for the O's than a standard deal.

Allow me to illustrate. A few posts up Belkast mentioned Bedard would be seeking 5/90 in a standard deal.

Would you rather,

a) give Bedard that 5/90, with no opt-out, or

b) give Bedard the 5/64 deal I laid out, with the opt-out?

For sake of argument, that's the complete universe of options, and Bedard will take whichever one you offer. So essentially you can buy out the opt-out clause for $26M.

You gotta take a) or b). Which one do you pick (and don't say, c) trade him )?

Is having Bedard 100% locked up for those last two years worth an additional $26M to you?

If you answer yes, my next question will be, is it worth $36M? How about $46M? and so on...

[El Gordo]

Exactly my thinking.

Depends on your time frame for rebuilding. If you think you can have a greatly improved club with a chance for the playoffs. in 3 years, he might be willing to stay for the extra 2 years at what would be market value if he were a FA.

[square634]

An opt-out contract makes no sense to me. Rather than the Orioles and Bedard sharing the risk like in a normal extension (Bedard risks losing money he could have gotten in free agency and the Orioles risk injury and/or ineffectiveness), only the Orioles have risk. If Bedard does well, then he opts out and it was as if we never extended him. If he blows out his arm, then we are on the hook for all that money. Even if the Orioles are good by then, Bedard would opt out and say "I don't mind staying but pay me if you want to keep me." A player that will leave guaranteed money on the table is a rare exception.

[RShack]

An opt-out contract makes no sense to me. Rather than the Orioles and Bedard sharing the risk like in a normal extension (Bedard risks losing money he could have gotten in free agency and the Orioles risk injury and/or ineffectiveness), only the Orioles have risk. If Bedard does well, then he opts out and it was as if we never extended him. If he blows out his arm, then we are on the hook for all that money.

So what about making the opt-out conditional based on whether the O's get good or not? It let's him avoid being painted into a corner about staying with a loser, it let's the O's keep him if they follow thru on building a powerhouse (like the didn't do with Miggi), and it let's Bedard relax about being a rich guy. What's wrong with that?

[square634]

So what about making the opt-out conditional based on whether the O's get good or not? It let's him avoid being painted into a corner about staying with a loser...

That would work, if it is allowable in the CBA. The option years kick in if the Orioles win a certain number of games. The only problem then would be that we aren't going to win.

[hoosiers]

If you want to rebuild, you generally don't want to get rid of everybody who's good. That's not what good franchises do. The fact that so many people around here believe that is mainly the effect of SG and his 50,000 posts.

Bedard ain't past his prime, he's just now entering his prime. He's only now got it figured out. The next several years is exactly when you want him.

I think of Beane dealing Hudson and Mulder and not looking back - when I make posts like the one being quoted. (If you think I am swayed by SG's opinion on this topic, that's a poor assumption.)

Bedard is entering his prime, but I never said I though Bedard's production would decline - as your post hints I did. Bedard is, however, also entering the final two arbitration years and his free agent years and will be due some significant raises.

When I said to "re-cycle the assets", I meant that I thought Bedard's value" - his production relative to his contract in a four or five year deal - is peaking and would decline with a new contract and we should deal him before his value falls precipitously.

[davearm]

I think of Beane dealing Hudson and Mulder and not looking back - when I make posts like the one being quoted. (If you think I am swayed by SG's opinion on this topic, that's a poor assumption.)

Bedard is entering his prime, but I never said I though Bedard's production would decline - as your post hints I did. Bedard is, however, also entering the final two arbitration years and his free agent years and will be due some significant raises.

When I said to "re-cycle the assets", I meant that I thought Bedard's value" - his production relative to his contract in a four or five year deal - is peaking and would decline with a new contract and we should deal him before his value falls precipitously.

Mulder is a cautionary tale for all involved here -- Bedard, the O's, and whoever might shell out several young players in a trade.

[RShack]

I think of Beane dealing Hudson and Mulder and not looking back - when I make posts like the one being quoted. (If you think I am swayed by SG's opinion on this topic, that's a poor assumption.)

The A's have way more money issues than the O's do.

I wasn't talking about you. I just meant "in general".

[Sports Guy]

If you want to rebuild, you generally don't want to get rid of everybody who's good. That's not what good franchises do. The fact that so many people around here believe that is mainly the effect of SG and his 50,000 posts.

Bedard ain't past his prime, he's just now entering his prime. He's only now got it figured out. The next several years is exactly when you want him.

This is beyond ridiculous....I am not making people think the same way I am because I post a lot.

These are smart people who have their own thoughts.

[os1971]

This is beyond ridiculous....I am not making people think the same way I am because I post a lot.

These are smart people who have their own thoughts.

Thats laughable.

[RShack]

This is beyond ridiculous....I am not making people think the same way I am because I post a lot.

These are smart people who have their own thoughts.

Well, I just figured that there had to be some reason why a bunch of people buy-in to extremist approaches despite the fact they usually fail. Maybe there's just a lot of extremists around here. Too bad extremism doesn't work.

You just seemed like the most obvious cause. Forgive me if I gave you too much credit for influencing people ;-)