Jump to content

Thoughts about opt-out clauses?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

The team didn't "have to resign". They made a bad decision and chose to retain a player.

If a team is prepared and does the proper work then they can avoid that pitfall.

The argument can be easily made that they made the bad decision to give them an opt-out...

How do teams prepare for injury? How do teams prepare for the player that simply declines precipitously?

It's not good for the team. They are absorbing a tremendous amount of risk and the player a tremendous amount of financial upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The argument can be easily made that they made the bad decision to give them an opt-out...

How do teams prepare for injury? How do teams prepare for the player that simply declines precipitously?

It's not good for the team. They are absorbing a tremendous amount of risk and the player a tremendous amount of financial upside.

The Yankees didn't give Arod the opt out.

You want the player, you have to do something to entice the player.

If it's an opt out that gets it done so be it.

It was well known that CC didn't want to pitch in the AL. The Yankees had to overcome that reticence.

They got a ring out of it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees didn't give Arod the opt out.

You want the player, you have to do something to entice the player.

If it's an opt out that gets it done so be it.

It was well known that CC didn't want to pitch in the AL. The Yankees had to overcome that reticence.

They got a ring out of it right?

..I know the Yankees did not give Arod an opt-out...that is pretty irrelevant to my point...though I will add they traded for the contract so they assumed the risk of it. Still I think that's not really relevant to the argument, but yeah...

Your points don't change the fact that opt-outs are by far more beneficial to the player. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make...opt-outs have value...I know that or I wouldn't be arguing the value of them to the player. My retort is simply to the "if" the Yankees didn't resign said players it would have worked out for them..it's not a retort to the value in negotiations.

Again, there is a much larger share of risks being pushed to the teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..I know the Yankees did not give Arod an opt-out...that is pretty irrelevant to my point...though I will add they traded for the contract so they assumed the risk of it. Still I think that's not really relevant to the argument, but yeah...

Your points don't change the fact that opt-outs are by far more beneficial to the player. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make...opt-outs have value...I know that or I wouldn't be arguing the value of them to the player. My retort is simply to the "if" the Yankees didn't resign said players it would have worked out for them..it's not a retort to the value in negotiations.

Again, there is a much larger share of risks being pushed to the teams.

The point is, while the opt out is clearly beneficial to the player, a smart team can utilize the player's decision to opt out to their advantage.

This stuff about "have to resign" is nonsense.

If a team has a better gauge on a player then the perceived market does they can ultimately come out ahead.

Obviously there is not much a team can do if the player declines precipitously and declines to opt out.

Edit-

Of course the main benefit of opt outs for the team is...

They allow you to sign the player.

As I said earlier, CC helped get the Yanks a ring.

You agree to something that increases your risk because you think the player is worth it.

If you don't want to accept the higher level of risk, fine. You can't play in the deep end of the free agent pool because unless the CBA is changed they are not going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, while the opt out is clearly beneficial to the player, a smart team can utilize the player's decision to opt out to their advantage.

This stuff about "have to resign" is nonsense.

If a team has a better gauge on a player then the perceived market does they can ultimately come out ahead.

Obviously there is not much a team can do if the player declines precipitously and declines to opt out.

Dude..."have to resign" meaning they wouldn't have to do what they did...not that they didn't have choice...it wouldn't have been necessary is my point not that there wasn't a choice. You're nitpicking irrelevancy.

If there is nothing a team can do if a player declines precipitously how is said smart team going to come out ahead, it is a bad gamble...

Could it work out for a team? Sure. That's a good result, not good process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude..."have to resign" meaning they wouldn't have to do what they did...not that they didn't have choice...it wouldn't have been necessary is my point not that there wasn't a choice. You're nitpicking irrelevancy.

If there is nothing a team can do if a player declines precipitously how is said smart team going to come out ahead, it is a bad gamble...

Could it work out for a team? Sure. That's a good result, not good process.

It is about risk/reward.

The team isn't forced to hand out the opt outs.

They choose to accept the higher risk.

They think it is worth it.

Dodgers did fine with Grienke.

Yankees could have done fine with Sabathia and Arod.

Only player I can think of that really cratered after signing one of these deals is Wells, and the signing team still managed to unload the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing Chris Davis for 7/150$ and having him opt-out after 3 years sounds IDEAL to me.

Let some other ballclub get stuck with his 33-36 seasons.

Making huge financial commitments on the premise that the best possible scenario will come to pass is a recipe for disaster. In offering such a contract, a team must be prepared for the possibility that things won't work out perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is about risk/reward.

The team isn't forced to hand out the opt outs.

They choose to accept the higher risk.

They think it is worth it.

Dodgers did fine with Grienke.

Yankees could have done fine with Sabathia and Arod.

Only player I can think of that really cratered after signing one of these deals is Wells, and the signing team still managed to unload the contract.

Notice anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the Rangers actually signed Arod to that contract?

The teams with the most ability to spend will always have an advantage, with or without opt outs.

Think what you want. It is clear to me that only the wealthiest teams can play the opt-out game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Your kidding, right? Absolutely!

2. Yes, definitely.

3. Very hard to gauge anything the Marlins do.

I will admit the Giants produce more revenue then I thought but that does not allow you to just dismiss the Marlins being part of the opt out crew. You would also need to account for the Rangers since they have included opt outs in multiple deals (Andrus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...