Don't know about you...but I want Cespedes

[MDtransplant757]

I didn't say over pay. I said pay more. If Davis is a good bet to be worth 8-12 WAR in the first 3 years of his contract then pay him 60-80 M. After that pay him a less for the net 4. He's more likely to opt out before he becomes an albatross.

That makes sense, but you run the risk of seeing bad CD get paid megabucks, which would epically stink.

[El Gordo]

That makes sense, but you run the risk of seeing bad CD get paid megabucks, which would epically stink.

How bad? The idea is to pay mega bucks up front while he's worth them. He's likely to be at least 2 WAR player for a few years after and that's 16 M AAV at least.

[El Gordo]

It's certainly good for the player but the risk of getting stuck with a bad contract is no more with the opt out or not. You could argue that the odds are less with the opt out.

Didn't mean to quote anyone's post.

If he puts up good numbers for two years, he's more likely to opt out to get more than the 16 M he's getting the next 5-6. If you don't think he's worth it for 2 years then go sign some one who is.

[MDtransplant757]

If he puts up good numbers for two years, he's more likely to opt out to get more than the 16 M he's getting the next 5-6. If you don't think he's worth it for 2 years then go sign some one who is.

I think he's worth at most 5 years, and even then i'm being really generous.

[El Gordo]

I think he's worth at most 5 years, and even then i'm being really generous.

I don't think you get the idea. You want to entice him to opt out before 5 years.

[MDtransplant757]

I don't think you get the idea. You want to entice him to opt out before 5 years.

Ohhhh... I got you now. My bad In that case then, 3 years, but load a chunk of money at the rear of the deal.

[weams]

It's certainly good for the player but the risk of getting stuck with a bad contract is no more with the opt out or not. You could argue that the odds are less with the opt out.

Didn't mean to quote anyone's post.

I see people try to argue that. But Unless you can show me a discernible discount, I don't believe it.

[Roll Tide]

Ohhhh... I got you now. My bad In that case then, 3 years, but load a chunk of money at the rear of the deal.

If you backload the contract the incentive to opt out decreases.

[weams]

If you backload the contract the incentive to opt out decreases.

As does the player's incentive to sign it.

[weams]

Yeh, I agree with you. Opt outs add a lot of risk to long term contracts. Babypowder is right that there is one sweet spot where it could work out well for the team, but it is a tough needle to thread IMO.

From the perspective of inherent fairness, it kind of amazes me that opt outs have become an acceptable contract mechanism in a land where contracts are guaranteed whether a player plays or not. I realize the team also buys insurance, but the team is mitigating that risk too. The player has no skin in the game at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I suspect that it was just an owner looking to save a couple bucks that started it all and now, you have the middling guys insisting on it. Maybe the next CBA will do away with contract guarantees. It's this year.

[weams]

There is potential upside for the team as I see it. Using Davis as an example maybe you are comfortable that he remains a very good player for the next 3 years but aren't very sure about the 4 years after that. You can sign him to a 7 year deal with an opt out after 3, he plays well for 3 years and opts out. Then signs elsewhere and declines on his next deal. That contract works out pretty great for the Orioles. You end up with a short term deal for a productive player, which is what every team really wants but cannot get.

I agree. That would work out well. Especially if the money were graduated. What if he declined right away? He already did once. They you still have a real long obligation. Instead of the shorter term loss which is why the teams want the shorter productive deals.

[weams]

I'm not talking about discounts. If you sign Davis to a 7/140 with 20 per year verses the same deal with an opt out after 2, you're stuck either way if he stinks over the next 2 years. If he's great and opts out it might not be the worst thing in the world not to have to pay the last 5 years.

I can see your point. It's like life insurance. It's still ok if you don't die. Happy New Year.

[El Gordo]

I'm not talking about discounts. If you sign Davis to a 7/140 with 20 per year verses the same deal with an opt out after 2, you're stuck either way if he stinks over the next 2 years. If he's great and opts out it might not be the worst thing in the world not to have to pay the last 5 years.

I agree with this. If you have to give a long term contract to a FA it's almost inevitable that you will be paying through the nose in the last years of it. The opt out gives you a chance of getting the most productive years with out dealing with the decline. It's something, a chance you wouldn't other wise have, and it may mean you can sign the player for a lower AAV.

[orioles119]

Looks like the White Sox only want to go 3 years on an outfielder. Cespedes is falling in the Orioles' lap if they go beyond 3 years.

#wishfulthinking

[Can_of_corn]

Looks like the White Sox only want to go 3 years on an outfielder. Cespedes is falling in the Orioles' lap if they go beyond 3 years.

#wishfulthinking

Aren't the Tigers still in on him?