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

[Stotle]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Eh, all I meant was you have to plan more for the future than simply "we'll cross that bridge when we get there." I think potentially allowing the heart of your order to walk in the middle of the years where you want to be competitive is short-sighted. Who knows -- I don't feel passionately about it.

[geschinger]

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.

The only problem is that the reason for the opt-out has nothing to do with winning.

[Stotle]

The only problem is that the reason for the opt-out has nothing to do with winning.

And if it did, then tie it to team performance.

[Ruzious]

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.

Baseball simply is not a sport where 1 player is going to make or break you - not even close. And while I'm not saying Teix would be easy to replace, he is definitely replacable. Wieters might not be replacable, but there are lots of good hitting 1st basemen around.

And again, even the downside that I mentioned is better than doing nothing with him - which is what you do if he's determined to get a 3 year opt out.

[Ruzious]

Eh, all I meant was you have to plan more for the future than simply "we'll cross that bridge when we get there." I think potentially allowing the heart of your order to walk in the middle of the years where you want to be competitive is short-sighted. Who knows -- I don't feel passionately about it.

You'd prefer that we don't get him at all, so we don't have to worry about him possibly leaving... because if he left, there would be no way of getting a replacement. Gotcha.

[jcumansky28]

No question you give him the opt-out. It gives the O's the perfect chance to rejigger their finances, if they need to. If Tex and Boras want to shake them down for more money, the O's have the option of saying no. If we can't develop a power hitter in the next 3 years, we don't deserve to win, anyway.

[Sports Guy]

Baseball simply is not a sport where 1 player is going to make or break you - not even close. And while I'm not saying Teix would be easy to replace, he is definitely replacable. Wieters might not be replacable, but there are lots of good hitting 1st basemen around.

And again, even the downside that I mentioned is better than doing nothing with him - which is what you do if he's determined to get a 3 year opt out.

Then why sign him to begin with?

[geschinger]

Baseball simply is not a sport where 1 player is going to make or break you - not even close. And while I'm not saying Teix would be easy to replace, he is definitely replacable. Wieters might not be replacable, but there are lots of good hitting 1st basemen around.

I agree completely. You've nailed some of the reasons as to why I don't think offering ~$200m to Teix is a good idea.

[Ruzious]

Then why sign him to begin with?

You're going to have to tell me how you got to that question from my post.

[Stotle]

You'd prefer that we don't get him at all, so we don't have to worry about him possibly leaving... because if he left, there would be no way of getting a replacement. Gotcha.

Man, you're not one for nuance. I'm talking about larger organizational philosophies. If you want to keep it at your "black and white" level, fine. To be clear, you are saying you'd rather spend 60 million on Teix for three years, at least one of which (and probably two) BAL will not be a playoff contender. Then, negotiate a more expensive contract when he's three years older or hope there is an equivalent bat available.

In essence, BAL spends 60 mil for a shot at the playoffs in 2011 and then figures something else out. Gotcha. Great team planning -- exactly the type of move teams like BOS have done over the past five years...

And, to respond to your post specifically, I may feel that a three year deal isn't worth the investment of resources -- I'd have to think on it. Essentially $60-70 million (minus any increase in profits solely attributable to Teix) for a one year run?

[Ruzious]

I agree completely. You've nailed some of the reasons as to why I don't think offering ~$200m to Teix is a good idea.

That's a fair point. I'd go high, but I probably wouldn't go that high.

[Sports Guy]

You're going to have to tell me how you got to that question from my post.

1) He is replaceable.

2) Lots of good hitting first baseman out there.

3) One player doesn't matter.

So, if you think this way, why spend that much money and sign him?

[psk3170]

I have no problem with a compromise position. I would give Tex the opt-out at 4 years (3 years does nothing for the team) but the Orioles should get an opt-out after 5 years. Why? If he is healthy and performing after year 4 then he will take the opt-out no matter what I can guarantee it and then it is the O's decision whether he is worth the additional investment to re-sign him or their is a better or equal cheaper option out there.

If he does not take the option then then he is likely hurt, not worth the money or underperforming so the team should have the same ability to opt-out on him and recoup some of their money after year 5 when he is declining.

If he just likes being home, is performing up to the contract terms and money does not matter then my guess is both parties will be fine to let the contract run its course. This last scenerio is fantasy land in my opinion which is why the opt-out has to go both ways.

A strict player opt-out only benefits the player and offers nothing but hurt feelings or a bad contract to the team and bum deal to the fans. It is a lose-lose scenerio for the Orioles. It has to have risk on both sides to work. Think Albert Belle here.

[Ruzious]

Man, you're not one for nuance. I'm talking about larger organizational philosophies. If you want to keep it at your "black and white" level, fine. To be clear, you are saying you'd rather spend 60 million on Teix for three years, at least one of which (and probably two) BAL will not be a playoff contender. Then, negotiate a more expensive contract when he's three years older or hope there is an equivalent bat available.

In essence, BAL spends 60 mil for a shot at the playoffs in 2011 and then figures something else out. Gotcha. Great team planning -- exactly the type of move teams like BOS have done over the past five years...

And, to respond to your post specifically, I may feel that a three year deal isn't worth the investment of resources -- I'd have to think on it. Essentially $60-70 million (minus any increase in profits solely attributable to Teix) for a one year run?

You haven't been listening to what I said. First thing I said was - I'm not buying into it being a fact that he'd opt out. It's not a fact - especially with the economy declining.

And as I said there are benefits even if he does leave. Oakland certainly has used the extra picks strategy well. I don't have a problem with the worst case scenario meaning 3 years of getting your monies worth, having an extra $20 mil to play with every year, and getting 2 extra good draft choices.

And again, you have to plan all the time for contingencies. There are always alternatives out there. Call me what you want, but I feel confident that with $20 mil a year to play with, a good GM can find a good hitting 1st baseman.

[Ruzious]

1) He is replaceable.

2) Lots of good hitting first baseman out there.

3) One player doesn't matter.

So, if you think this way, why spend that much money and sign him?

You're going to have to show me where did I say one player doesn't matter. Every player matters. What I said was one player won't make or break you.