Shark Signs w/ Giants - 5/$90M (Happy Derwood?)

[Banedon]

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

 

it was talked about yesterday with price. some posters liked it because if he's good, you get out of 2 expensive years in his mid-late 30's at the end of the contract. if he's bad or just ok, you would have had him for 5 years anyway.

But if he's good, those two years theoretically wouldn't be expensive, they'd be a bargain.

 

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

 

it was talked about yesterday with price. some posters liked it because if he's good, you get out of 2 expensive years in his mid-late 30's at the end of the contract. if he's bad or just ok, you would have had him for 5 years anyway.

But if he's good, those two years theoretically wouldn't be expensive, they'd be a bargain.

 

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

 

Tell that to a Yankees team who hypothetically didn't re-sign A-Rod or Sabathia.

[sneakypower]

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

 

it was talked about yesterday with price. some posters liked it because if he's good, you get out of 2 expensive years in his mid-late 30's at the end of the contract. if he's bad or just ok, you would have had him for 5 years anyway.

But if he's good, those two years theoretically wouldn't be expensive, they'd be a bargain.

 

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

if a player scales back his asking price to get the opt-out, then sure why not, but just adding it on top to be nice like Hendry was always assumed to do with NTCs is obviously pretty foolish negotiation

[Guest]

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

 

it was talked about yesterday with price. some posters liked it because if he's good, you get out of 2 expensive years in his mid-late 30's at the end of the contract. if he's bad or just ok, you would have had him for 5 years anyway.

But if he's good, those two years theoretically wouldn't be expensive, they'd be a bargain.

 

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

 

Except that you just might not really want to pay him for that long even if he is good.

 

Obviously it's faulty logic, because if he's that good, and he gets a read on the market and the expectation is that he'd get more in free agency, you would be better off having him under contract and trading him. I'm just telling you what their argument was.

[sneakypower]

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

 

it was talked about yesterday with price. some posters liked it because if he's good, you get out of 2 expensive years in his mid-late 30's at the end of the contract. if he's bad or just ok, you would have had him for 5 years anyway.

But if he's good, those two years theoretically wouldn't be expensive, they'd be a bargain.

 

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

 

Tell that to a Yankees team who hypothetically didn't re-sign A-Rod or Sabathia.

hypothetically they could have traded either one at the same point assuming they possessed the foresight to see both guys crumbling; they were ultimately valued on the open market higher than what their remaining contractual obligations were

Edited December 2, 2015 by sneakypower

[Bryants Disco Ball]

I guess i will have to be the only one to say, 'Oh, hell no" on giving the pitcher who gave up the most runs, hits and home runs in baseball last season $20 million per season and give away a first round pick, too.

 

Go get Grienke and spend more before doing this.

[SouthSideRyan]

Right...there's no scenario where the team comes out ahead with an opt out.

 

Tell that to a Yankees team who hypothetically didn't re-sign A-Rod or Sabathia.

hypothetically they could have traded either one at the same point assuming they possessed the foresight to see both guys crumbling; they were ultimately valued on the open market higher than what their remaining contractual obligations were

 

That assumes a perfect market. The same way we've seen multiple guys turn down QOs only to get less on the open market, the more prevalent these opt outs become, we'll see somebody opt out only to go home with a worse contract.

[davell]

If Shark is getting 100 and we can only give out 1 deal of that magnitude, I'm out. I'd much prefer Heyward and I'd rather have Gordon than Shark as well. Drop down to Leake, Chen, or even Lackey.

[JonJayCutler]

No way I'm shelling out 100+ for Shark. Heyward and Leake please.

[Backtobanks]

If you're going to sign a FA pitcher, hurry up and do it because the way this market is going Leake, Chen, and Lackey are going to start asking for $100 million too.

[davell]

My guess is its Arizona going to 100 on Shark.

[sneakypower]

If you're going to sign a FA pitcher, hurry up and do it because the way this market is going Leake, Chen, and Lackey are going to start asking for $100 million too.

http://www.21cpw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg

[KingCubsFan]

My guess is its Arizona going to 100 on Shark.

That would make a lot of sense. And the $100 million figure could be the result of a team giving him a sixth year.

[Backtobanks]

If you're going to sign a FA pitcher, hurry up and do it because the way this market is going Leake, Chen, and Lackey are going to start asking for $100 million too.

http://www.21cpw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg

 

It's starting to look like it. Every pitcher that signs seems to be jacking up the price the ones still out there.

[Guest]

If you're going to sign a FA pitcher, hurry up and do it because the way this market is going Leake, Chen, and Lackey are going to start asking for $100 million too.

http://www.21cpw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg

 

It's starting to look like it. Every pitcher that signs seems to be jacking up the price the ones still out there.

 

whose price has gotten jacked up aside from a huge AAV rumor about greinke and a rumor about samardzija?

 

zimmerman and price both got what was expected.

[Cubswin11]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

In this market? I don't think that's unreasonable. I'd do 5/$100 for him.

I would agree, give him an opt out clause and I'd be in on that deal. Have a feeling we are going to end up with Kazmir and Span/Jackson and we will hear the "we got these guys on such cheap deals, look at what everyone else went for!" narrative.

 

Why would you include an opt out? Opt outs are always going to be something that goes in favor the player, not the team.

My thinking is you hope you get good production in the first 2-3 years out of him, maybe get a little discount if you sell him on reuniting with Bosio can fix him and he can try and cash in one more time in the near future. Also helps protect against having him turn into a bad contract towards the end if you feel you can fix him and then in 2-3 years you get to see who's available in the SP market and spend money on a younger/better guy. I know that's an ideal scenario but that's my thought looking at it through the lense of "Bosio can fix him back to where he was 2-3 years ago."

[Guest]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

[jersey cubs fan]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money.

 

If you are willing to sign a guy to a 7/210 deal you should be willing to pay 3/90 and risk letting him walk for more money.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money

 

Yes. But in practice it never seems to work that way. The Red Sox didn't seem to get any appreciable discount for Price in exchange for that opt-out.

 

If you are willing to sign a guy to a 7/210 deal you should be willing to pay 3/90 and risk letting him walk for more money.

 

That's ... just *so* wrong.

[Guest]

uhoh... goony and kyle are about to collide...

[jersey cubs fan]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money

 

Yes. But in practice it never seems to work that way. The Red Sox didn't seem to get any appreciable discount for Price in exchange for that opt-out.

 

If you are willing to sign a guy to a 7/210 deal you should be willing to pay 3/90 and risk letting him walk for more money.

 

That's ... just *so* wrong.

 

You don't do it for the discount. You do it to get a guy without having to pay substantially more. Boston paid what everybody assumed, and not the $30m more than the market that was mentioned before. And they got him relatively early in the process.

[Guest]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money.

 

This paragraph reminded me of all the crap the Ricketts family agreed to in the sale of the Cubs.

[davell]

The Red Sox didn't get an appreciable discount because he didn't want to go there and they paid up knowing that.

[jersey cubs fan]

uhoh... goony and kyle are about to collide...

Yeah no.

 

There's no point in arguing an obvious situation. It's an easy add to a contract if you are a team that is serious about adding really good pitchers today.

[jersey cubs fan]

Opt outs offer zero protection to the team. They aren't some terrible evil to be avoided, but they're exclusively a player perk. Maybe it would be more clear if they were called multi-year player options.

They are a negotiating tactic that teams can and should offer to players to get them to sign with them and not another team without spending significantly more money.

 

This paragraph reminded me of all the crap the Ricketts family agreed to in the sale of the Cubs.

 

Purposefully tying your hands behind your back* is not close to the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*allegedly