Jump to content

Thoughts about opt-out clauses?

Frobby

By Frobby
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Crazysilver03 Hangout Grand Counsel

Crazysilver03

Posted
Posted
Probably because they don't want Kazmir for more than one year. He gives them stability in the rotation,something that shouldn't be an issue in 2017 when 4 additional starters are scheduled to pitch from day one. Not to mention that they'll probably land Strasburg to slide behind Kershaw.

Exactly. At least in this specific case, the opt out has a very clear purpose for the Dodgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted

The odds of a contract with an opt out being favorable to a club are very small. None of the options that it affords are in the club's favor. That does not mean that luck can't make it work out in a positive manner for a club. It's just not set up to go that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tntoriole Hangout Grand Counsel

tntoriole

Posted
Posted
Exactly. At least in this specific case, the opt out has a very clear purpose for the Dodgers.

Unless Kazmir sucks, of course, or his arm goes south, as the Dodgers have ALL the risk. Opt outs are players being allowed to have long term guaranteed pay for past performance AND to return to the market whenever they choose.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thezeroes Major Leaguer Rising Star

thezeroes

Posted
Posted

The players association needs to accept all provisions that are placed within the contracts of players within the Union. This is the reason that I do not see a chance for Owners to ever be able to get a player’s contract through the Union that has a provision within it that allows a ball club from paying FULL VALUE of a signed agreement/contract. With that said, there will be no “OPT OUTS” for owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thezeroes Major Leaguer Rising Star

thezeroes

Posted
Posted

"Opt outs for teams are called team options. "

Usually associated with a certain percentage of dollars to buyout the option that is not secured. Also they are usually for a single added season. Seldom do players "Buy Out" an option with dollars and NEVER have they had to "BUY OUT" an "Opt Out".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
"Opt outs for teams are called team options. "

Usually associated with a certain percentage of dollars to buyout the option that is not secured. Also they are usually for a single added season. Seldom do players "Buy Out" an option with dollars and NEVER have they had to "BUY OUT" an "Opt Out".

It is the way the collectively bargained agreement works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tntoriole Hangout Grand Counsel

tntoriole

Posted
Posted
"Opt outs for teams are called team options. "

Usually associated with a certain percentage of dollars to buyout the option that is not secured. Also they are usually for a single added season. Seldom do players "Buy Out" an option with dollars and NEVER have they had to "BUY OUT" an "Opt Out".

Unions are wonderful institutions.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Unions are wonderful institutions.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The owners have already been found guilty of collusion. Maybe the minor leagues should be cut loose and all players not on a 40 man roster and part of the union able to sign where they wish and join the union if they choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aristotelian Hangout Grand Counsel

Aristotelian

Posted
Posted

Duquette has it right. You can't guarantee ll those years and dollarat the risk of a player getting injured or regressing while giving the player an opt out after a couple years. That is just a win win for the player.if the player believes in himself and wants to test thearket again, then make it a mutual option or just sign a two year deal. I predict one of these deals will go south and this won't be the trend any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
Duquette has it right. You can't guarantee ll those years and dollarat the risk of a player getting injured or regressing while giving the player an opt out after a couple years. That is just a win win for the player.if the player believes in himself and wants to test thearket again, then make it a mutual option or just sign a two year deal. I predict one of these deals will go south and this won't be the trend any more.

Vernon Wells

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
Its not about a deal going south. The downside of a bad deal is the same with or without the opt out. Would the Ryan Howard deal be any worse if he had an opt out after year 2 or 3?

I agree with you, I was just showing how a deal with an opt out has already "gone south". Folks are acting like these types of contract provisions just started this offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awannabegeek Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

awannabegeek

Posted
Posted
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.

Every decision is about risk/reward. The Dodgers lost Greinke and tried to resign him for a larger contract than what he would have gotten if he didn't opt out..

Dude I'm not sure what the bullet point is when you say teams choose to accept the higher risk. I know this...my argument quite simply is it is by far more beneficial to the player.

Your criteria for working out seems to be..well the player signed another contract with another team...which isn't really a good definition of "working out".

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Its not about a deal going south. The downside of a bad deal is the same with or without the opt out. Would the Ryan Howard deal be any worse if he had an opt out after year 2 or 3?

No. And the possible upside for the club was removed. Even if it was improbable. You get to gamble but if you win you get what you paid for. If you lose, you lose treble damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted

It's the long term contract that's stupid in most cases, unless the player is a young super star type like Many/Harper/Trout. etc. A long term contract will almost always go south. So IMO the opt out gives you a chance to avoid paying for poor production at the back end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Every decision is about risk/reward. The Dodgers lost Greinke and tried to resign him for a larger contract than what he would have gotten if he didn't opt out..

Dude I'm not sure the bullet point is when you say teams choose to accept the higher risk. I know this...my argument quite simply is it is by far more beneficial to the player.

Your criteria for working out seems to be..well the player signed another contract with another team...which isn't really a good definition of "working out".

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

These very affluent clubs don't need to win on a deal. Just get what they pay for. The Orioles unfortunately have to make good decisions. And they haven't always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Frobby
      Offense is down in MLB this year — but not in Baltimore

      By Frobby · Posted

      This is probably as close to clicking on all cylinders as most teams get.  In any given 24-game period, some guys will be up and others down.  We have 9 players with an OPS+ of 116 or higher.  The four guys you mentioned will have hotter periods, and someone else will be cold then.  That’s baseball.  But the ratio of hot players to cold ones is really good right now. 
    • Sports Guy
      2024 NFL Draft Discussion

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      I don’t see it.  Project guy.  Good upside but can’t see that in the first round. I think they go corner with the first pick unless someone unexpectedly drops. The assumption has been Oline but I think the draft is so deep and so many teams will be taking tackles that the Ravens will elect to wait until later in the draft to get Oline and WR help. Its not a deep corner draft, so getting one early makes sense. If they trade up, I wouldn’t think they trade anything higher than a 4th..could move up 3-6 spots. Trade back will likely get them a pick for next year.
    • Sports Guy
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      Gunnar is our Kyle Tucker but at a more premium position.  
    • Moose Milligan
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By Moose Milligan · Posted

      I said Gunnar earlier. Before this season, I could have seen a case for Adley.  And I love Adley, great hitter (I don't think he's ever going to be a big power guy, but plate approach, contact, key hits, he's great) leader, heart and soul, etc.   But it's clearly Gunnar.  I didn't expect him to be this good, this fast.  He's separating himself from the rest of the pack, not only on this team but throughout the league. Whether or not an extension can happen is a different story altogether.  But Gunnar's the guy I'd go with first.
    • DirtyBird
      Who is "selling" this year?

      By DirtyBird · Posted

      It is early, but the O's have some clear holes that will prevent a World Series run this season. And it looks like there are some teams playing there way out of contention already, barring a massive improvement in performance, making them likely sellers. At a quick glance, here are the teams that already could be looking to sell at the deadline. Some teams on the list made some offseason moves that signaled they are looking to compete. But early returns aren't looking good, and now they have an old team with pieces someone may find helpful, and without much talent in the pipeline. Tier 1 Losers Rockies White Sox Marlins Tier 2  - Not Looking Good Oakland Giants Angels Astros Cardinals Nationals I haven't really taken much look at the rosters to see what pieces could help us. So, who is selling? And Which of their pitchers have a chance to be on the market?  
    • Bahama O's Fan
      Offense is down in MLB this year — but not in Baltimore

      By Bahama O's Fan · Posted

      I still feel like our offense isn't clicking on all cylinders yet. Santander has been down, Adley hasn't found alot of extra base power, Holliday has been a black hole so far, Hays was bad and now injured, Urias hasn't hit well.
    • Fiver6565
      Angels series 4/22-24

      By Fiver6565 · Posted

      It should be noted that it was the 8-9 hitters up at the time of that call.  So while it was the wrong call, its not like the Angels definitely tie it if he's called safe.  There is a very good chance Rengifo makes an out a pitch or two later anyway. So yes, bad call, but we didn't steal the game away because of that one call.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...