Would you give Tex a 3 year opt out option???

[Sports Guy]

What has been accomplished is that you have had him under your control for the past 3 years…

If we are contending, or on the edge of contention… we are light years away from where we are now……

But so what if you have had him for 3 years?

Unless you win the World Series, then you haven't really accomplished much and he is just going to go elsewhere unless you put another 6-8 year deal on the table for 20+ million a year.

And yes, we would be much further ahead but how much will we be set back if he leaves?

Adrian Gonzalez and Ryan Zimmerman are FAs after that season, so I guess we could maybe sign one of them and keep things going?? But of coruse, that is if they are even available or want to sign here.

I am not sure...I guess if we get him and give him the opt out, I will be happy that we got him but I will also know that he is likely gone after 3 years because I don't believe the Orioles will bow down to Boras, after giving him a great contract 3 years earlier.

[davearm]

This is really not unlike shopping for a new car. The base price is $X, the nav system is another $Y, and the sport package is another $Z.

Here the "base price" for Tex is $X and it includes opt-out language and a full NTC.

You can buy back the opt out language for an additional $Y.

You can buy back the NTC for an additional $Z.

Without having better information on $X $Y and $Z it's difficult to have this conversation, but suffice it to say that you could move those figures around to make any particular choice seem optimal.

[Burg]

But so what if you have had him for 3 years?

Unless you win the World Series, then you haven't really accomplished much and he is just going to go elsewhere unless you put another 6-8 year deal on the table for 20+ million a year.

And yes, we would be much further ahead but how much will we be set back if he leaves?

Adrian Gonzalez and Ryan Zimmerman are FAs after that season, so I guess we could maybe sign one of them and keep things going?? But of coruse, that is if they are even available or want to sign here.

I am not sure...I guess if we get him and give him the opt out, I will be happy that we got him but I will also know that he is likely gone after 3 years because I don't believe the Orioles will bow down to Boras, after giving him a great contract 3 years earlier.

I would almost rather not have Tex if we have to give him an opt out clause after year 3.

Tex's true value to this franchise (competing NOT butts in the seats) won't be reached at least year 3 and likely not until years 4 and 5.

I'm not sure I want to pay a guy 20+ M to be on a losing team and then watch him jump ship right when his presence would actually help us compete.

[Burg]

The O's have not won 81 games since '97.. The fanbase is diminishing…

By your own admission in your previous post, you said, "If we are either contending or on the edge of contending …"

We won 68 games last year… if we are contending, or even on the verge of it… we are so far ahead of where we are as an organization right now….

The fan-base would be pacified, (and revived)… you might have had an easier time extending Markakis… (not to mention Jones, and Wieters)… and FA's such as the two you mentioned above, might be looking at us in a different light.

I do not understand the logic at all of worrying in Dec 2008, about the idea that we might lose Tex in Dec 2011…

The idea is to improve the product… there are other ways to compete, but with Tex, this team can compete in 2010 and 2011… the O's have a top-tier talent within their grasp… Losing him before you sign him is a far worse fate, vs having had him for 3 years and losing him then.

Tex or no Tex, we are not competing in 2010 barring a fluke year.

2011 is slightly more likely, but by no means a slam dunk.

So if you have Tex on a losing team, have you improved the product? Or have you pissed away 20+M a year on one player to win 75 games instead of 68?

[Sports Guy]

The O's have not won 81 games since '97.. The fanbase is diminishing…

By your own admission in your previous post, you said, "If we are either contending or on the edge of contending …"

We won 68 games last year… if we are contending, or even on the verge of it… we are so far ahead of where we are as an organization right now….

The fan-base would be pacified, (and revived)… you might have had an easier time extending Markakis… (not to mention Jones, and Wieters)… and FA's such as the two you mentioned above, might be looking at us in a different light.

I do not understand the logic at all of worrying in Dec 2008, about the idea that we might lose Tex in Dec 2011…

The idea is to improve the product… there are other ways to compete, but with Tex, this team can compete in 2010 and 2011… the O's have a top-tier talent within their grasp… Losing him before you sign him is a far worse fate, vs having had him for 3 years and losing him then.

All good points about reviving the fan base.

But how you can't see the logic here is mind boggling.

Why are we signing Tex? Hopefully to make us better for the long run and to win.

We aren't winning in 2009...So, that is one year out the window.

So, we are really signing Tex for hopes that we can contend for 2 years, 2010 and 2011.

If we don't, he walks....Now, if we have continued to build a great farm system and we can easily replace him and we can continue to win, that's great...If not, we could fall back a lot and start sucking again...if that happens, we are back to where we are right now.

I could either of those scenarios playing out.

I would just hope to get him to agree to an opt out clause after 4 or 5 years...In fact, I may even prefer him to have the opt out clause after 4 or 5 years. But 3 years? That may be too early.

Oh well, if PA ends up giving him 9 or 10 years at over 20 million a year, the opt out clause may be meaningless anyway.

[mweb]

But if/when he leaves after 3 years, what has been accomplished?

If we are either contending or on the edge of contending and he leaves, it may really set us back.

That is the problem....5 years? No biggie...3 years? I have a problem with that.

I agree. 5 years would be good with me, in fact if he opts out after 5 years, I might actually prefer that. Would get us out of the bad part of his contract, being the last 3-5 years. Not into the idea of an opt out clause after 3 years for reasons you and others mention.

[Sports Guy]

You sign Tex, and Sheets this year, the team would win 85-88 games...

In 2010, Wieters, and Jones will that much further established... Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta all become legit rotation options...

The bullpen is going to remain deep... there is no reason why this team can not be on the verge of contending in 2010, and they should be contending in 2011.

We aren't signing Sheets, so get over that dream.

I agree that we could contend in 2010 but it is more likely that we really contend in 2011.

I think next year is a 76-83 win type team....2010 is high 80s....Right on the edge.

2011 we can contend.

2012, Tex is on another team.

[geschinger]

I would just hope to get him to agree to an opt out clause after 4 or 5 years...In fact, I may even prefer him to have the opt out clause after 4 or 5 years. But 3 years? That may be too early.

I like that a lot. Get the end of his peak and only the begin of his decline and then hope like hell he opts out. The perfect scenario!

[Burg]

You sign Tex, and Sheets this year, the team would win 85-88 games...

In 2010, Wieters, and Jones will that much further established... Tillman, Matusz, and Arrieta all become legit rotation options...

The bullpen is going to remain deep... there is no reason why this team can not be on the verge of contending in 2010, and they should be contending in 2011.

Given the Orioles history, this is by no means a slam dunk.

And even in your scenario, we get one year of competing with Tex.

That's not worth the 70 or so million we'd have spent IMO.

[Sports Guy]

I agree. 5 years would be good with me, in fact if he opts out after 5 years, I might actually prefer that. Would get us out of the bad part of his contract, being the last 3-5 years. Not into the idea of an opt out clause after 3 years for reasons you and others mention.

This is also my thinking...I really would like to us sign him for 6 years...maybe 7.

So, if we have him for 5 years, we should have him for the best 5 years of this contract.

[glenn__davis]

We aren't signing Sheets, so get over that dream.

I agree that we could contend in 2010 but it is more likely that we really contend in 2011.

I think next year is a 76-83 win type team....2010 is high 80s....Right on the edge.

2011 we can contend.

2012, Tex is on another team.

But by 2012, we may have someone like Snyder or Rowell or someone who's not even in the system yet who can produce at a respectable level for a minute fraction of the price. You'll also likely need the Tex money to pay Markakis, Jones and Wieters. It would also free up more money to add "final pieces" to the puzzle.

Not saying losing Teixeira at that point wouldn't hurt the team, because I think it would, but I would still gladly give the option.

[33rdst]

I think we have to agree to an opt out. The timing of the opt out is a functions of the duration of the contract. If he signs for ten i would go for a five year opt out, the problem is he would be 33. Therefore, I think his reps will want a three year opt out where, at 31, he is still very young and in the middle of his prime. That 's not a deal breaker if they're willing to sign for 6-7years.

[GuidoSarducci]

Perhaps if you made it dependent on the team's win total. Say if we don't reach playoffs in the next 3 years. Then Teixeira could opt out.

[geschinger]

But by 2012, we may have someone like Snyder or Rowell or someone who's not even in the system yet who can produce at a respectable level for a minute fraction of the price. You'll also likely need the Tex money to pay Markakis, Jones and Wieters. It would also free up more money to add "final pieces" to the puzzle.

Not saying losing Teixeira at that point wouldn't hurt the team, because I think it would, but I would still gladly give the option.

If you think there is a chance that the Teix contract will make it harder to do any of those things it becomes an argument not to sign Teix.

[Sports Guy]

But by 2012, we may have someone like Snyder or Rowell or someone who's not even in the system yet who can produce at a respectable level for a minute fraction of the price. You'll also likely need the Tex money to pay Markakis, Jones and Wieters. It would also free up more money to add "final pieces" to the puzzle.

Not saying losing Teixeira at that point wouldn't hurt the team, because I think it would, but I would still gladly give the option.

If this is the thinking, that you need that money to do many more things, then why sign Tex to begin with?

We should be signing Tex to a price that we can afford him and everyone else.