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

[vab]

I think anybody who signs him will have to give him an opt out. The Angels and Red Sox might not have to give it as soon as the Nationals and Orioles would but he'll have one in there no matter where he signs.

[Stotle]

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.

If I understand SGs point, I agree with it. If BAL feels that 2010 would be the first real "push year" and 2011-14 is the serious window, then you are giving your Boras-advised middle-of-the-order bat free reign to walk away in the middle of your "window". That doesn't set you up well. That's why I'd have to tie the opt-out to something performance-related with regards to the BAL organization. If Teix's concern is that the team won't get to where it needs to be, you can work triggers into the opt-out. If he really just wants the chance to opt out if the market is better, well that's a no go for me.

[Ruzious]

If I understand SGs point, I agree with it. If BAL feels that 2010 would be the first real "push year" and 2011-14 is the serious window, then you are giving your Boras-advised middle-of-the-order bat free reign to walk away in the middle of your "window". That doesn't set you up well. That's why I'd have to tie the opt-out to something performance-related with regards to the BAL organization. If Teix's concern is that the team won't get to where it needs to be, you can work triggers into the opt-out. If he really just wants the chance to opt out if the market is better, well that's a no go for me.

I think that's awfully narrow thinking. He can be replaced. And the worst case scenario I mentioned is a helluvalot better than doing nothing. If he wants a 3 year opt out, he'll get someone to give it to him.

[Sports Guy]

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.

Well, we better make sure we put in the contract that we offer arb and get picks if he does leave...That is a MUST.

[Ruzious]

Well, we better make sure we put in the contract that we offer arb and get picks if he does leave...That is a MUST.

Very good point.

[Stotle]

I think that's awfully narrow thinking. He can be replaced. And the worst case scenario I mentioned is a helluvalot better than doing nothing. If he wants a 3 year opt out, he'll get someone to give it to him.

I don't know that it's "narrow" thinking. Decisions you make today determine whether or not you will be successful 4-5 years from now. That's just a reality.

[geschinger]

I think that's awfully narrow thinking. He can be replaced. And the worst case scenario I mentioned is a helluvalot better than doing nothing. If he wants a 3 year opt out, he'll get someone to give it to him.

If the team is a legitimate contender at that point having your biggest asset walk away is hard to recover from. You can't really plan ahead and have a replacement ready since if he stays it is not needed. And you are setting yourself up where you have to drastically overpay because you are between a rock and a hard place or you maybe fail to contend after not being able to find a suitable replacement.

[Carroll County]

Come on guys, we're talking about a Boras client here. The opt-out has absolutely nothing to do with winning, or anything other than money.

He's looking for another big deal in 4 years (he'll be 32 so he'll still get it), while still guaranteeing himself his $160M plus over 8 years.

That being said, I think that's what it's going to take to get it done. If we're still struggling in 4 years and none of our pitching has come through, we won't be able to show him the door fast enough.

I think you give him 8/180 with an opt out after 4. If he can do better, let him walk. This is essentially signing him to a 4/90 deal, which I don't think anyone here would have a problem with. The odds that his numbers regress enough for him to not opt out are very slim. Of course, if they do, we're stuck, but it's a risk we have to take.

[JTrea81]

The thing with the opt out clause for Tex is, how much more money is he really going to get? A-Rod only really got 2 million per year more than his original contract granted he did get a signing bonus and incentives to push the value to 30 million a season, but Tex while he's an elite player isn't A-Rod. He doesn't have a shot at Bonds' record.

I could see him wanting to opt out to go play for a contender, however, but he'd have to give the Orioles time to take a shot. A three year opt out probably only gives us two years. And is the playoffs enough, or will we have to win the WS for him to stay?

I'd agree to a 5 year opt out or maybe a 4 year, but a three year just seems too soon.

We might as well just sign him to a three year deal then with 5-7 player options...

[geschinger]

The thing with the opt out clause for Tex is, how much more money is he really going to get? A-Rod only really got 2 million per year more than his original contract granted he did get a signing bonus and incentives to push the value to 30 million a season, but Tex while he's an elite player isn't A-Rod. He doesn't have a shot at Bonds' record.

I could see him wanting to opt out to go play for a contender, however, but he'd have to give the Orioles time to take a shot. A three year opt out probably only gives us two years. And is the playoffs enough, or will we have to win the WS for him to stay?

I'd agree to a 5 year opt out or maybe a 4 year, but a three year just seems too soon.

We might as well just sign him to a three year deal then with 5-7 player options...

It's not really as much about the money per year, it's about extending the number of years he gets paid the salary. Sign him to 10/200 contract now with a 3 year opt out and he'll be looking for another 10 year deal.

[Sports Guy]

If the Boras counter was 10/$200 with a 3 year opt-out* … it comes down to this…

You might not be able (really willing) to go to 10yrs $200M… but you can certainly offer the 3 year opt-out.

You can not compare the situation Wieters was in as a broke college kid, who either had to sign with us, or go back to school and risk injury… with Tex having mulitiple options to sign with, including Boston which he probably holds in at least equal regard.

Regarding your last point, your own source says we will not pursue Sheets… and Dunn is nowhere on the radar… so if they do not sign Tex, maybe they get younger and go that way… but I see them being interested in the Byrds, Garlands, Browns of the world.

If they do what is necessary to bring Tex to Baltimore, I think they can win based on the preexisting core, and upcoming payroll flexibility afte 2009 when Mora, Huff, Baez,Walker, and Gibbons' contracts no-longer hang on the organization.

Nobody will debate that point that the young pitching has to peform (with or without) Tex for this team to win in the near-term (2-3years)

*On the other-hand, maybe this entire thread is just conjecture… and this talk of an opt-out is a non-issue.

I am willing to sit-back and see where it goes… I still like our chances to obtain Tex.

I wonder if this will change..Not losing a draft pick if we sign Dunn probably puts him on the radar if we do not get Tex.

[Rex Thunder]

Of course you would give him an opt-out clause.... you do what is necessary to obtain him now, and you spend the next 3 years making it good enough around him that he wants to stay.

Tex has talked about wanting security, wanting to build a home for him and his wife.... Texas, Atlanta, LA.... opt-out clause or not, he is not going anywhere after he signs this contract.

I agree... it'd be a show of good faith. The opt out clause would be conditional upon us reaching certain standards of success. If the Orioles are not a contender (by whatever measuring stick they come up with) after 3 years, then the opt out clause kicks in.

I also agree that the original post is entirely misleading. It kinda seems intentionally sensational in a way to get people all stir crazy wondering what happened- as if he signed over night. not cool

[geschinger]

I agree... it'd be a show of good faith. The opt out clause would be conditional upon us reaching certain standards of success. If the Orioles are not a contender (by whatever measuring stick they come up with) after 3 years, then the opt out clause kicks in.

I also agree that the original post is entirely misleading. It kinda seems intentionally sensational in a way to get people all stir crazy wondering what happened- as if he signed over night. not cool

While Team Boras might say the opt out is to allow him to go elsewhere if the O's are showing signs of contending reality is that it has absolutely nothing to do with winning. I am confident in saying that Boras would be demanding an unconditional opt-out.

[Pruke]

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

Absolutely - that's good faith IMO, given we're telling him we're going to be competitive within the near future and the fact we're asking him to forgo winning in the short term for winnin in the long term.

I don't see that as a deal breaker IMO. At least it should not be.

[Ruzious]

I don't know that it's "narrow" thinking. Decisions you make today determine whether or not you will be successful 4-5 years from now. That's just a reality.

Thanks for clearing that up.