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

[markpolis]

If the Orioles would have signed Tex would you have offered him a opt out option after say three years???

If that's the difference on whether or not he signs with the Orioles then absolutely. Are you suggesting the Orioles refused to agree with an opt out clause?

[glenn__davis]

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.

I agree with that, and I think the things I mentioned are very valid reasons to not sign him. I'd still sign him anyway, becuase I think the positives that he brings outweigh the negatives. I'm just pointing out there could be some positive angles from an O's standpoint if he were to choose to opt out. No doubt I'd rather try to make it 4 years or 5, but if 3 were what it would take to get him here, I'd do it.

[Sports Guy]

You are signing Tex because he is a premier talent that can help you now, and is as good a piece as any to build around…

To think that he would play here for 3 years, and that we would have no chance to resign him is illogical.

Would he opt-out… most likely… but that is a variable… what is known is that signing him now improves you now… you deal with Dec 2011 then…

If we lose them then, we are not in the same position as we are now, because he already improved for us 2009, 10, and 11… the perception of the franchise would be different.

You honestly think that PA and AM are going to give him some kind of 8-10 year deal for 20+ million a year, then turn around and re-do the contract, just 3 years later and give him even more money and perhaps, more years than he is already owed? I am sorry but that is very naive to that they will do that IMO.

Boras is already not their favorite guy and if Tex is happy here and we are contending and him being a hometown guy, i think PA is going to be very pissed if he would opt out after just 3 years with all of those things going on for him.

Yes, perception should be changed..Fans should be happier...But the fact of the matter is that a big reason why you are in contention will then be gone and you will be left with a huge void on the team.

Lots of things could happen where this may not matter but other things may happen where this just destroys the franchise.

Again, just not after 3 years...4 or 5...Give us more time to win and then if he wants to walk, fine.

[Sports Guy]

Whether signing Sheets is a dream or not, it is something that is plausible… was simply pointing out you could sign him with Tex, and win 85-88 games in 2009.

The point is to improve at some-point, Tex accomplishes that… the point is to win at some-point, Tex makes that possible…

Mackus is 100% right… he is more likely to be here in 2012-2016, if we sign him and give him an opt out, than if we don't sign him.

If I should get over the dream of Sheets, you should get over the dream of thinking the O's are in position to hold-out for exactly the ideal contract they would want with Tex, if they do in fact want to obtain him.

The Red Sox aren't going to give him the opt out clause.

The Nats may though.

Obviously I am over the dream of the operfect contract since I wanted him to signed to a 6/132 deal....and that ain't happening.

But I do think a contract has to be signed that will benefit the Orioles for the long term. Having him for 3 years may or may not accomplish that..Having him for 4 or 5 years, assuming health, does accomplish that.

We can be a winning team over the next few years without Tex.

[SouthRider]

I give him the out clause after 3 years. It's only fair after what they put Tejada through. However, I make it financially beneficial to the Orioles in some way. Something like Tex gives back 20 million to opt out - something like that.

[Sports Guy]

I think there are so many variables there it is pointless to discuss, and a non-issue to the O's in Dec 2008.

You have an opportunity to sign a top-tier talent now… you bring him in, and you deal with those variables later.

The only thing that is naïve is thinking the O's are positioned to operate on their terms with Tex right now, with the perceptions that currently exist with the franchise.

The O's have to decide what their goal is… getting Tex on their terms, or getting Tex.

Signing Tex is the goal, signing him to the best deal is not…

The O's are not going to receive a medal for best negotiation, if they do not obtain Tex…

What are you saying here Rob, that you would definitively not give Tex the ability to opt-out at 3years? You would stand on principal and say you would only give that ability after 5 years?

If the goal is doing everything that is possible to actually obtain Tex, that is absurd.

I am saying that I don't want to give Tex a contract where we are bent over, getting rammed hard and not even being asked nicely if it can be done.

In other words, the Orioles have to get something out of the contract.

The contract is obviously not going to be on our terms, so why you even keep saying that makes no sense. But if you are the Orioles, you have to sign him to a deal that still makes sense. You don't bend over and give into every one of Boras' demands...That is a terrible way to negotiate anything.

Something has to be in it for you...You talk about changing perception by winning...Well, that can be done without Tex...You can sign some pitching, get Dunn and maybe add another bat somewhere and still win.

Now, the good thing is it looks like the Red Sox will not give him the opt out clause...But DC may and that could be a problem.

Again, I am not against the opt out clause..In fact, I prefer it...Just want that extra year or 2 of him.

[Sports Guy]

What does the Red Sox not offering the opt clause have to do with the O's?

BEcause if no one else is going to give it to him and we are offering the most money, he will sign here anyway.

He wants the opt clause from us, because he is afraid our organization will still be in shambles 3 years from now, and he wants to make sure he can spend his prime playing for a contender.

Boras has provided a counter-offer to the O's… clearly if bigbird's source has accurate information, the clause is part of what it will take to get him to Baltimore

Bigbird never said we have to give him this opt out clause...It is being assumed since BB is asking it but BB is also saying he will go to Boston. Bigbird may just be asking this question for discussion purposes.

[Stotle]

I am saying that I don't want to give Tex a contract where we are bent over, getting rammed hard and not even being asked nicely if it can be done.

In other words, the Orioles have to get something out of the contract.

The contract is obviously not going to be on our terms, so why you even keep saying that makes no sense. But if you are the Orioles, you have to sign him to a deal that still makes sense. You don't bend over and give into every one of Boras' demands...That is a terrible way to negotiate anything.

Something has to be in it for you...You talk about changing perception by winning...Well, that can be done without Tex...You can sign some pitching, get Dunn and maybe add another bat somewhere and still win.

Now, the good thing is it looks like the Red Sox will not give him the opt out clause...But DC may and that could be a problem.

Again, I am not against the opt out clause..In fact, I prefer it...Just want that extra year or 2 of him.

I'm fine with an opt out in three years, just tie it to certain organizational benchmarks and take something back three years later (team option). I'd have to think harder on what my benchmarks would be but something along the lines of being triggered by fewer than X number of wins over the first three years or something like that. If Boras/Teix want an absolute player option, fine, but then they have to give back in the form of a team option or punting on the no-trade clause.

I'd probably make the fifth year a team option and the 6-8 years player/team option based on games played (more than X games, player option; X or fewer games, team option). That would get turned down, but you move a little closer and find the middle ground somewhere in there. Just a quick 30 second thought during lunch.

[Mackus]

There are 2 reasons why he will be here in those years:

1) He has sucked or been injured and can't get more money if he opts out.

2) We give him a big raise.

If he is still producing at a 35+ homer, 900+ OPS level while still getting GG, he will want and get more money. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Zero chance he doesn't opt out in that scenario, whether he is happy here or not.

If we were only signing him for 3 years, I wouldn't want to give up the pick and spend the money...We need him here for at least 5 years.

But there is a decent chance he won't come here without the opt out clause. I know that opt outs are to the strict benefit of the player, there is no potential benefit to the signing team. However, I'd give it to him if that is a deal-breaker. Like you, I'd try to push it back as far as possible, but I'd give it to him if its the difference between signing him or not signing him. If he shows that in 3-4 years he's still worth the money and a raise, then give him more money after he opts out.

[Sports Guy]

I'm fine with an opt out in three years, just tie it to certain organizational benchmarks and take something back three years later (team option). I'd have to think harder on what my benchmarks would be but something along the lines of being triggered by fewer than X number of wins over the first three years or something like that. If Boras/Teix want an absolute player option, fine, but then they have to give back in the form of a team option or punting on the no-trade clause.

I'd probably make the fifth year a team option and the 6-8 years player/team option based on games played (more than X games, player option; X or fewer games, team option). That would get turned down, but you move a little closer and find the middle ground somewhere in there. Just a quick 30 second thought during lunch.

Well, if we can set up where it is beneficiary to us in some way, that makes it much easier to swallow.

I suggested before allowing him to opt out after 4 or 5 years if we haven't made the playoffs and if he does stay, we can tack on 2 million a year to his contract. I don't mind that idea...that is a little extra money for him but the years don't change and 2 million a year won't hurt us and that may be the difference between him staying and going.

[Sports Guy]

But there is a decent chance he won't come here without the opt out clause. I know that opt outs are to the strict benefit of the player, there is no potential benefit to the signing team. However, I'd give it to him if that is a deal-breaker. Like you, I'd try to push it back as far as possible, but I'd give it to him if its the difference between signing him or not signing him. If he shows that in 3-4 years he's still worth the money and a raise, then give him more money after he opts out.

I just doubt the Orioles will even bother with him if he opts out.

If PA is still alive and owning the team, I think this will really piss him off if Tex were to leave, assuming happiness and that we are competitive.

[Sports Guy]

I find this reasoning to be contradictory….

"The contract is obviously not going to be on our terms."

"… I want that extra year or 2 of the opt-out clause."

Tex/Boras have told the Orioles what it will take for him to come to Baltimore.

The O's have 4 options, and 4 options only…

1) Pull their initial offer, and end negotiations…

2) Stand-pat with their initial offer…

3) Make an offer that is between their initial offer, and the counter-offer from Boras… I suggest 8yrs $172.5, and a 3 year opt-out…. You would suggest basically the same money, and a 5 year opt-out…. Either one puts you in the game, makes him coming here a possibility.

4) Accept the counter-offer as received.

Only one of those four options, definitively makes Tex an Oriole… if the O's are not going to accept the counter-offer, but are willing to up their initial offer…. Option 3 becomes their likely course of action.

You and I both believe the team could do other things without Tex to contend…. I believe without Tex, it is unlikely they do those things…

You believe that after 3 years he is definitively gone, and the benefit he has provided was limited… I believe he would have provided great benefit for 3years, and could be gone after that time.

You are willing to stand-firm, and stick to getting him to sign with us with a 5 year opt-out…

I think it is possible that could work, but I think that shows you operating with a different goal….

You want to sign Tex, if you can get him to the best possible deal….. That is your goal. My goal is to do what is necessary to obtain Tex.

I do not think the O's are going to get a medal from anyone, if Tex is not obtained… and they stood on their principals.

The O's will not always be in this position, but they are now…

Let's assume that Boras had countered with the idea that 10/200 and a 3 year opt out is what it will take.

That is what he wants...In any negotiation like this, you go high, they go low and you meet in the middle.

So, ASSUMING NO ONE ELSE BEATS OUR OFFER, an 8-9 year deal for 170-185 million and an opt out after 4 or 5 years should be able to be agreed upon.

We didn't bend over for Boras in the case of Wieters and we still got him...so I doubt we need to bend over for Boras to get Tex.

Now, perhaps things chance if the Nats are willing to do all of these things...because I can guarantee you that the Red Sox will not.

So, unless the Nats are willing to do these things or the Yankees decide to get involved and do these things(like they did for CC), then we won't have to bend over and take his demands.

BTW, if you think they will not do the smart things it will take to win without Tex, I have no idea who you can think they will all of a sudden do the things it will take to win with Tex...That is poor logic IMO.

You think we are going to win in large part because of the young pitching...Whether Tex is here or not, they need that young pitching to win.

[Mackus]

I just doubt the Orioles will even bother with him if he opts out.

If PA is still alive and owning the team, I think this will really piss him off if Tex were to leave, assuming happiness and that we are competitive.

I don't know, opting out doesn't mean he'd definitely leave. Just that he realizes he is worth more money to the team.

Of course, if he's got a 8-10 year deal, maybe he doesn't opt out. ARod opted out 7 years into a 10-year deal. Burnett 3 years into a 5-year deal. My guess is that if he gets an opt-out clause, it'll be later in that contract than 3 years.

The only opt out that I can think of that was less than halfway through the deal was JD Drew opting out 2 years into a 5-year deal. Are there others that I am not remembering?

[Ruzious]

Okay, here's another reason why this is no more than a small issue. Suppose the worst case scenario is that he does opt out after 3 years. That means:

1. We probably got our money's worth for 3 years, and

2. There's theoretically $100 million freed up over the next 5 years, and

3. We probably get 2 extra draft picks.

That's your... downside.

[Sports Guy]

I don't know, opting out doesn't mean he'd definitely leave. Just that he realizes he is worth more money to the team.

Of course, if he's got a 8-10 year deal, maybe he doesn't opt out. ARod opted out 7 years into a 10-year deal. Burnett 3 years into a 5-year deal. My guess is that if he gets an opt-out clause, it'll be later in that contract than 3 years.

The only opt out that I can think of that was less than halfway through the deal was JD Drew opting out 2 years into a 5-year deal. Are there others that I am not remembering?

And they probably didn't care about the opt out for Drew because of his injury history.

Again, opting out after 4 or 5 years is fine with me...I like that idea.

After 3 years though? I don't like it.