Ramirez has opt-out clause in new contract!?...

[CardsFanInChiTown]

How can an opt out clause be a good thing? It'll only be used if he's being paid below full market value. Heck he could strong arm the Cubs in to giving him another 5 year deal before he really hits his decline. The opt out clause is a significant issue.

 

it could be used for any one of a variety of reasons. doesn't like the manager, the Cubs aren't winning, his mistresses are hiding around doorways with weapons, the crowds are on him or he thinks he's not getting full market value whether he is or not.

 

he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can part ways.

 

the way I understand it is at the end of four years, Aramis can decide if he wants to opt out. if he does, the Cubs can let an aging slugger walk or resign him. if he decides not to opt out, then the Cubs then have a regular team option. so he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can go to arbitration or part ways.

 

the only way he can hold the Cubs over a barrel is a terrible market for thirdbasemen in 4 years, no viable prospect or filler, and the Cubs are trying to remain competetive. nobody knows what the market for thirdbasemen will be in 4 years or if the Cubs will be trying to remain competetive.

 

The point is the Cubs would have to make a tough choice in that situation because it'd indicate he's playing well. On the other hand if he's not then he won't exercise it. That said, if it saved the Cubs 30m by giving it then it makes sense however overall the opt out is a bad thing for the Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

How can an opt out clause be a good thing? It'll only be used if he's being paid below full market value. Heck he could strong arm the Cubs in to giving him another 5 year deal before he really hits his decline. The opt out clause is a significant issue.

 

it could be used for any one of a variety of reasons. doesn't like the manager, the Cubs aren't winning, his mistresses are hiding around doorways with weapons, the crowds are on him or he thinks he's not getting full market value whether he is or not.

 

he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can part ways.

 

the way I understand it is at the end of four years, Aramis can decide if he wants to opt out. if he does, the Cubs can let an aging slugger walk or resign him. if he decides not to opt out, then the Cubs then have a regular team option. so he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can go to arbitration or part ways.

 

the only way he can hold the Cubs over a barrel is a terrible market for thirdbasemen in 4 years, no viable prospect or filler, and the Cubs are trying to remain competetive. nobody knows what the market for thirdbasemen will be in 4 years or if the Cubs will be trying to remain competetive.

 

The point is the Cubs would have to make a tough choice in that situation because it'd indicate he's playing well. On the other hand if he's not then he won't exercise it. That said, if it saved the Cubs 30m by giving it then it makes sense however overall the opt out is a bad thing for the Cubs.

 

It's not a bad thing for the Cubs. Not anymore than paying somebody millions of dollars is a bad thing at least. It's clearly a benefit to the player, but it doesn't hurt the Cubs necessarily. It's something that is easy to plan around (you now have 4 years to find somebody that could replace Aramis if/when he opts out). It's only a bad thing if the Cubs are mismanaged between now and then and are so desperate for talent that they feel force to overpay him to stay. Then, it's not the opt out that's the problem, it's the mismanagement.

 

Obviously the Cubs would prefer to have the player under their control until he dies for the minimum amount of money. But I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that a guy can go to free agency in 4 years if he wants to.

[BigbadB]

David Wright will be available in 4 years. :D

[cubs121]

David Wright will be available in 4 years. :D

well see in 4 years.... 4 years people!!!!!! :D

[hawkcub]

David Wright will be available in 4 years. :D

well see in 4 years.... 4 years people!!!!!! :D

 

Agreed, this issue should not even be thought about until after 3 years.

[NCCubFan]

The opt-out clause doesn't bother me a bit. All it means is that he was effectively signed to a four-year contract with a player option for a fifth year. I think we all would have been thrilled to death if it had been worded that way; we shouldn't be bothered because it's worded differently.

[Pinktermite]

I doubt he'll opt out this time. The contract calls for a salary in 2011 of 14.6 million. That's a lot of money and I doubt he'll get that at age 32. I think we'll have Aram for 5 years.

 

This is a dead issue.