Jump to content

Thoughts about opt-out clauses?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Depends on the case. What's a worse contact for the Orioles, Chi's Davis at 7/150 guaranteed or 7/140 with an opt out after year 3?

The first is the worse. Statistically speaking, the value is going to be centered on the front end of a contract. In any circumstance you are essentially hoping for the player to be productive early in a long term deal. If you get the aging player to opt out that is not a bad outcome. It most likely means you got everything you wanted out of the *good* portion of the contract and you don't have to worry about the increased likelihood of decline on the back-end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Duquette not signing players that want opt out is lunacy. Up there with not paying for top dollar Cuban or Japanese players. Or not signing pitchers to 4 year deals. Or only allocating big money for Chris Davis and no other top tier free agents. Sorry, this is a crappy way to run a team. Just like trading away your farm system. Or banking on a bunch of AAAA free agents to buoy your outfield.

It's their money. I happen to agree with the Orioles here. Opt outs, top dollar, 4 year deals are all for franchises that can afford to take risks. The Orioles can't do that. We are not the Yankees/Dodgers. Since we aren't, you need to take risks in trades. That's how things work.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's their money. I happen to agree with the Orioles here. Opt outs, top dollar, 4 year deals are all for franchises that can afford to take risks. The Orioles can't do that. We are not the Yankees/Dodgers. Since we aren't, you need to take risks in trades. That's how things work.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

It would be nice if we were one of the privileged few teams that can just pay for all their mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only in that he was a star. That they kept a place for.

I disagree.

Not only did he take up a roster spot but he also kept the O's from actively pursuing a long term answer at second.

He was also guaranteed at bats and time in the field whenever he was healthy enough to play.

Hopefully the Hardy deal won't be as damaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Not only did he take up a roster spot but he also kept the O's from actively pursuing a long term answer at second.

He was also guaranteed at bats and time in the field whenever he was healthy enough to play.

Hopefully the Hardy deal won't be as damaging.

How can you disagree? That is what I said. It wasn't the money. Like it is for Hardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes such a small difference. So small.
The Roberts' impact was not what I would call small.
Over 10% of the payroll is small?

Hey, I'm right with both of you. I wish Schoop had not played out of position and killed him in a practice game. It's not like it was degenerative or anything. Or poor physical. He got hit by a linebacker and we all know that football is a very violent destructive sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm right with both of you. I wish Schoop had not played out of position and killed him in a practice game. It's not like it was degenerative or anything. Or poor physical. He got hit by a linebacker and we all know that football is a very violent destructive sport.

Except he already had back issues and a limited offensive game.

Schoop's hit just accelerated the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...