Thoughts about opt-out clauses?

[Can_of_corn]

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

I bet the Rays are wishing Longo had demanded an opt out.

[El Gordo]

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

Maybe for another year, but the chances of his being bad the next three are much more likely.

[awannabegeek]

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?

You do realize that bad (not that I would say it was a bad decision, there's a whole spectrum of gray) decisions can have good outcomes right?

They signed him

They got value

You're evaluating in hindsight. If Greinke went Brandon Webb on the Dodgers they're stuck with all six years.

Even in hindsight the Dodgers obviously thought they could continue to get value for him as they were willing to forfeit the pick (5-8 million dollar value within itself) and 5y/155m. They weren't satisfied with the outcome, they just got outbid.

The team is going to get stuck with an albatross or they are going to lose a player performing at a high level--because no one is opting out if they're not getting more on the open market.

It's easy to say the Yankees for example should not have resigned AROD after he opted-out (it's easy to say they probably shouldn't have given him ten years even at the time) in hindsight. But at the time they would have been letting a 9.6 WAR player walk and then would need to allocate resources to replace that 9.6 WAR (which would have cost more because a 9.6 WAR player will cost less in free agency than two 5 WAR players...)

Yes, could it benefit teams--I'm not talking about it allowing teams to sign the player...--but I wouldn't necessarily say it is "smart" teams, just lucky ones.

[Can_of_corn]

How was signing Grienke, with or without an opt out an example of bad process when it was the Dodgers, who have an enormous budget, that signed him?

Might it have been a bad process for the Rays to have signed him? Sure.

But not the Dodgers.

[weams]

How was signing Grienke, with or without an opt out an example of bad process when it was the Dodgers, who have an enormous budget, that signed him?

Might it have been a bad process for the Rays to have signed him? Sure.

But not the Dodgers.

Good process for them is utilizing their best asset. Hedge Fund Billions.

[awannabegeek]

I bet the Rays are wishing Longo had demanded an opt out.

Why? They're paying him like a two win a year player for the length of his contract...

That's said, let's use him as an example. Let's say he had an opt-out after three years (this requires a bit of revisionist history since he had four years remaining before the extended\restructured his contract as it is today, but let's roll with it). I'll address the reality of his contract at the end of my post..

He just put up 4.2 WAR. But, he's 30. Let's say he declines a half of war each year--though I don't think he does.

2016 3.5 WAR

2017 3.0 WAR

2018 2.5 WAR

2019 2.0 WAR

2020 1.5 WAR

2021 1.0 WAR

2022 0.5 WAR

How are the Rays replacing his production in 2016-2019? Because free agency wouldn't be cost effective. There's a money aspect here, but there's a talent aspect as well. Replacing the talent is a bit easier said then done. And, unless you have in house options, it will cost you as much or more the replace said individual after they opted out.

In the end if you want to use Longoria as example, the better option would have simply been not to extend him. He had four years remaining on his first contract. If they gave him an opt-out let's say in year two, it's likely he would already have been in the decline phase and wouldn't have seen the benefit in opting out, thus the Rays are stuck with the contract.

The contract is great for the Rays anyway....

[weams]

Why? They're paying him like a two win a year player for the length of his contract...

That's said, let's use him as an example. Let's say he had an opt-out after three years (this requires a bit of revisionist history since he had four years remaining before the extended\restructured his contract as it is today, but let's roll with it). I'll address the reality of his contract at the end of my post..

He just put up 4.2 WAR. But, he's 30. Let's say he declines a half of war each year--though I don't think he does.

2016 3.5 WAR

2017 3.0 WAR

2018 2.5 WAR

2019 2.0 WAR

2020 1.5 WAR

2021 1.0 WAR

2022 0.5 WAR

How are the Rays replacing his production in 2016-2019? Because free agency wouldn't be cost effective. There's a money aspect here, but there's a talent aspect as well. Replacing the talent is a bit easier said then done. And, unless you have in house options, it will cost you as much or more the replace said individual after they opted out.

In the end if you want to use Longoria as example, the better option would have simply been not to extend him. He had four years remaining on his first contract. If they gave him an opt-out let's say in year two, it's likely he would already have been in the decline phase and wouldn't have seen the benefit in opting out, thus the Rays are stuck with the contract.

The contract is great for the Rays anyway....

Tampa can not afford to pay for actual production. That is not their model.

[awannabegeek]

How was signing Grienke, with or without an opt out an example of bad process when it was the Dodgers, who have an enormous budget, that signed him?

Might it have been a bad process for the Rays to have signed him? Sure.

But not the Dodgers.

Okay I'm going to simply say, maybe I'm not articulating myself well, which is definitely a possibility as that is an issue I have in general...

With that said....you're entire argument is it worked out, my counter is just because something works does NOT mean it was a good decision. I'm not arguing about the Dodgers and Greinke alone when I say that, I mean that in ALL instances. Just because it worked for them doesn't mean opt-outs benefit the team. It can. Jimmy Clausen can throw a Hail Mary TD at the end of the half, it doesn't mean that he should throw Hail Mary's every down (yes, this is hyperbolic I know).

[awannabegeek]

Tampa can not afford to pay for actual production. That is not their model.

I know...and they're not if you look at that contract.

[Can_of_corn]

The contract isn't great for the Rays.

When your projected 2016 budget in 70M you can't have over 17% of your budget tied up in someone who is rapidly turning into a very nice player.

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/longoria-losing-power-patience/

[Can_of_corn]

Okay I'm going to simply say, maybe I'm not articulating myself well, which is definitely a possibility as that is an issue I have in general...

With that said....you're entire argument is it worked out, my counter is just because something works does NOT mean it was a good decision. I'm not arguing about the Dodgers and Greinke alone when I say that, I mean that in ALL instances. Just because it worked for them doesn't mean opt-outs benefit the team. It can. Jimmy Clausen can throw a Hail Mary TD at the end of the half, it doesn't mean that he should throw Hail Mary's every down (yes, this is hyperbolic I know).

But it isn't true in all instances.

If the team is capable of absorbing the extra risk then it allows them to acquire a player they might not have otherwise had.

You must accept that certain teams can take on substantially riskier contracts then other teams and what might be bad process for one isn't for another.

It isn't a cut and dried issue.

[awannabegeek]

The contract isn't great for the Rays.

When your projected 2016 budget in 70M you can't have over 17% of your budget tied up in someone who is rapidly turning into a very nice player.

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/longoria-losing-power-patience/

So why include an opt-out again....?

[Can_of_corn]

I know...and they're not if you look at that contract.

They are...if you look at how Longo is trending.

[Can_of_corn]

So why include an opt-out again....?

Huh?

I was saying that it would have been good for the Rays if, when they did the extension, they had included an opt out that would have given them a chance to get out from under the contract while spinning it to the what they have of a fan base.

[awannabegeek]

But it isn't true in all instances.

If the team is capable of absorbing the extra risk then it allows them to acquire a player they might not have otherwise had.

You must accept that certain teams can take on substantially riskier contracts then other teams and what might be bad process for one isn't for another.

It isn't a cut and dried issue.

COC you're making a lot of arguments that don't refute my overall point...I don't disagree with anything you said in this post, nothing, but again it still benefits the player more while pushing the pendulum of risk to the team.

Can large market teams absorb the risk, yes, they're still absorbing more risk than what they would have if they didn't include an opt-out. If we agree on that, then the back and forth at this point is moot.