Thoughts about opt-out clauses?

[El Gordo]

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.

It seems to me that if the O's want CD they are better off giving him an opt out after 2 or 3 years than just locking him up for 7 years. He's bound to cost them later. The only option other than that is to not sign him in the first place, which is what they should do.

[Can_of_corn]

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

Dodgers got their monies worth out of Grienke and avoided his inevitable decline. Looks to me like the Dodgers got about 50M excess value out of his three years with the team.

That looks pretty good.

[awannabegeek]

Dodgers got their monies worth out of Grienke and avoided his inevitable decline. Looks to me like the Dodgers got about 50M excess value out of his three years with the team.

That looks pretty good.

1. They're is a very good chance he would have been worth the remaining THREE years of his contract.

2. They attempted to resign him..which would have required a longer more substantial investment

3. They're now attempting to replace his production..which because they're the Dodgers they can afford to do but most teams can't. And, even so it's difficult. (I.E. why the Yankees resigned Arod and CC).

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

They signed him.

They got ~50M excess value on a free agent contract.

They got a pick.

Would they have been better off letting someone else sign him?

[weams]

They signed him.

They got ~50M excess value on a free agent contract.

They got a pick.

Would they have been better off letting someone else sign him?

In retrospect. His Elbow could have let loose. And they could have paid the whole thing. OR another team if they had signed him. It certainly limits your upside.

[Can_of_corn]

In retrospect. His Elbow could have let loose. And they could have paid the whole thing. OR another team if they had signed him. It certainly limits your upside.

50M is a good bit of upside.

Multiple trips to the playoffs.

Better to have him for three years at that level then to let some other team sign him.

[weams]

50M is a good bit of upside.

Multiple trips to the playoffs.

Better to have him for three years at that level then to let some other team sign him.

Since the elbow stayed in the body. There were rumors that it might not. You don't know these things going in. It's statistically a bad gamble.

[Can_of_corn]

Since the elbow stayed in the body. There were rumors that it might not. You don't know these things going in. It's statistically a bad gamble.

All high end free agent contracts are bad gambles.

Ideally you build an organization that doesn't need those types of deals to be competitive.

[Chavez Ravine]

The gamble would have been just as bad with no opt out. The opt out limits the upside for the team. It doesn't change the down side.

That is true, and like salary inflation in general it hurts the flexibility of middling teams the most. Kazmir is a good example. The A's signed him for 2/22, got 1.75 years of good out of him then flipped him for some prospects. I can imagine a not too distant future where former pitching aces, but late of the Sugar Land Skeeters, start demanding one year opt outs.

[weams]

The gamble would have been just as bad with no opt out. The opt out limits the upside for the team. It doesn't change the down side.

And without a high upside, the risk of the downside becomes foolish.

[weams]

That is true, and like salary inflation in general it hurts the flexibility of middling teams the most. Kazmir is a good example. The A's signed him for 2/22, got 1.75 years of good out of him then flipped him for some prospects. I can imagine a not too distant future where former pitching aces, but late of the Sugar Land Skeeters, start demanding one year opt outs.

And then only teams who can afford to take shots, fail, and spend more to take more shots will be able to compete. It is an opportunity to circumvent the advent of parity once again.

[weams]

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?

Obviously the 7/140 with the opt out. There is no opportunity to have a five or six WAR season at age 33 or 34 as rare possibility may be.

[Can_of_corn]

Obviously the 7/140 with the opt out. There is no opportunity to have a five or six WAR season at age 33 or 34 as rare possibility may be.

How rare would the possibility be of him having a 5-6 WAR season at 33 or 34 after not having seasons at the front end of the contract that would cause him to utilize his opt out?

[weams]

How rare would the possibility be of him having a 5-6 WAR season at 33 or 34 after not having seasons at the front end of the contract that would could him to utilize his opt out?

If he is good, the chances of him staying good are better. Listen, I never advocate for these long contracts anyway. They always fail.

[Frobby]

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.

But you are ignoring the Marlins exception, which happened, and therefore belies your statement.

More to the point, opt-outs have been quite rare for both rich and poor teams, but now it appears they are happening more frequently. It won't surprise me if in five years it has become pretty commonplace, even for lower payroll teams. But that's just speculation.