Thoughts about opt-out clauses?

[weams]

Livable wage? These guys are millionaires.

I think that was the point. I read it as a tongue in cheek post.

[Tx Oriole]

I think that was the point. I read it as a tongue in cheek post.

Oh I see. I am old an slow on the pickup.

[Number5]

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).

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It is very clear that the teams using opt outs are the wealthy teams. The bizarre things the Marlins do - whether it be totally cleaning house or signing a player to a wild contract - are complete outliers. That is equally clear. Talk to me when the Orioles, Pirates, etc. start risking many millions on these kind of deals. Even the Cardinals are very unlikely to sign such foolish contracts. Are you really attempting to cite the Marlins as proof as to what most MLB teams will do?

[BohKnowsBmore]

I'm not so sure you can make a blanket statement like that. Think of a player like a stock. It is entirely possible that he can be hugely overvalued when he exercises his opt-out. Yes, you may have to pay more to replace his production, but there is no guarantee he would continue to produce. You'd have the funds freed up to seek out younger and potentially cheaper alternatives.

You're working under one very special set of circumstances though. The majority of the time the opt out is 100% favorable to the player. Holding all variables constant (length, AAV, etc) the opt-out gives the player more options and gives the team nothing additional. It is safe to say that a player opt out is favorable to the player.

Now, as frobby posits, there are other factors that can change the math (I.e. A lower dollar amount on the contract, but with an opt out, etc) but in a vacuum, it's pretty safe to say an opt out transfers risk from one party (the player) to another (team).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

You're working under one very special set of circumstances though. The majority of the time the opt out is 100% favorable to the player. Holding all variables constant (length, AAV, etc) the opt-out gives the player more options and gives the team nothing additional. It is safe to say that a player opt out is favorable to the player.

Now, as frobby posits, there are other factors that can change the math (I.e. A lower dollar amount on the contract, but with an opt out, etc) but in a vacuum, it's pretty safe to say an opt out transfers risk from one party (the player) to another (team).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it does.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It is very clear that the teams using opt outs are the wealthy teams. The bizarre things the Marlins do - whether it be totally cleaning house or signing a player to a wild contract - are complete outliers. That is equally clear. Talk to me when the Orioles, Pirates, etc. start risking many millions on these kind of deals. Even the Cardinals are very unlikely to sign such foolish contracts. Are you really attempting to cite the Marlins as proof as to what most MLB teams will do?

So the Rangers are a "wealthy" team?

The common denominator isn't wealthy teams.

The common denominator is trying to sign talented players to contracts.

The fact that "wealthy" teams sign a preponderance of these players is obfuscating the issue.

As these types of deal become more common I suspect you will see more teams like the Rangers and Marlins adding opt outs in order to extend their young talent.

[Number5]

So the Rangers are a "wealthy" team?

The common denominator isn't wealthy teams.

The common denominator is trying to sign talented players to contracts.

The fact that "wealthy" teams sign a preponderance of these players is obfuscating the issue.

As these types of deal become more common I suspect you will see more teams like the Rangers and Marlins adding opt outs in order to extend their young talent.

You keep bringing up the Rangers. Are you talking about the ill-advised AROD deal from a decade-and-a-half ago? The one they desperately worked to get out from under? Really? That one? I'd prefer to discuss things that don't predate 9/11, if you don't mind. Besides, I think you might actually be surprised at the resources the Rangers have. In any case, there is no relevance here. The contracts being signed this off-season that include opt-outs are all by the wealthiest of teams. that is clear and cannot be disputed, no matter how far you try to reachl

[Can_of_corn]

You keep bringing up the Rangers. Are you talking about the ill-advised AROD deal from a decade-and-a-half ago? The one they desperately worked to get out from under? Really? That one? I'd prefer to discuss things that don't predate 9/11, if you don't mind. Besides, I think you might actually be surprised at the resources the Rangers have. In any case, there is no relevance here. The contracts being signed this off-season that include opt-outs are all by the wealthiest of teams. that is clear and cannot be disputed, no matter how far you try to reachl

Did you not see where I mentioned the Andrus extension?

Here, let me quote myself.

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).

This is about premium (or thought to be premium) talent, not about wealthy teams.

These conversations would go a lot smoother if you would pay closer attention to what is said. Like last night when you had difficulty figuring out that I was talking about something Redskin Rick said when I replied to something you said.

[Number5]

Did you not see where I mentioned the Andrus extension?

Here, let me quote myself.

This is about premium (or thought to be premium) talent, not about wealthy teams.

These conversations would go a lot smoother if you would pay closer attention to what is said. Like last night when you had difficulty figuring out that I was talking about something Redskin Rick said when I replied to something you said.

Everything I have said remains true and undisputed. The wealthy teams are the only teams signing free agents to contracts with opt-outs. The total number of those types of contracts from non-wealthy teams is zero.

[Can_of_corn]

Everything I have said remains true and undisputed. The wealthy teams are the only teams signing free agents to contracts with opt-outs. The total number of those types of contracts from non-wealthy teams is zero.

So now it's free agents with opt outs?

That isn't how your argument started.

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

No mention of free agents there at all.

How often, historically, would non-wealthy teams be signing these players?

Exactly.

Wealthy teams are more likely to be signing these types of players.

These types of players are demanding opt outs.

Wealthy teams are signing these types of players to contracts with opt outs.

If baseball were to outlaw opt outs in the next CBA would you expect the percentage of "premium" free agents going to non-wealthy teams to go up?

Has it gone down since opt outs were introduced?

[backwardsk]

I'd give Machado an opt out. But I'd give him a ton of deferred money that gets lost if the opt out is exercised.

I'd offer him a half billion dollars, very publicly.

2016- $6M

2017- $14M

2018- $21M

2019 -$25M

2020- $25M (opt out)

2021-2029 $225M

$5M a year for every year from age 40-79 (200M)

Total of $516M. Make him turn it down.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

I'd give Machado an opt out. But I'd give him a ton of deferred money that gets lost if the opt out is exercised.

I'd offer him a half billion dollars, very publicly.

2016- $6M

2017- $14M

2018- $21M

2019 -$25M

2020- $25M (opt out)

2021-2029 $225M

$5M a year for every year from age 40-79 (200M)

Total of $516M. Make him turn it down.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How far back you pushing the payments?

[weams]

How far back you pushing the payments?

He is crashing the debt service of the company. Waddling right into Frank McCourt area. Creative idea though. The company actually has to have the cash accrual to stay off the list.

[backwardsk]

How far back you pushing the payments?

Not sure I follow. I'd pay him $5M a year from age 40 to age 79...if he chooses not to opt out. After paying him $300M+ to keep him an Oriole through his age 37 season (I think I counted that correctly).

It's kind of Bonilla-esque.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

He is crashing the debt service of the company. Waddling right into Frank McCourt area. Creative idea though. The company actually has to have the cash accrual to stay off the list.

They have the Mets to worry about right now. I am sure Peter could slip this by them.