Price not the first

Status
Not open for further replies.

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
8,211
Michigan
Herald's Scott Lauber notes today that the Sox [edit:] liked the fact that A-Rod had an opt out in the 2003 offer that fell apart, suggesting that the club saw some upside to giving Rodriguez the chance to opt-out at age 32.

"Even as the Red Sox endeavored to acquire Alex Rodriguez from Texas in a blockbuster 12 Decembers ago, they were thinking about how to get rid of him."

Article quotes Commish Manfred taking the "opt-outs make no sense" side of the argument.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2015/12/lauber_opt_out_clauses_dont_scare_off_red_sox_others?bc_em=davidhawkins42@gmail.com&s_campaign=108stitches:newsletter

(Mods: please move this thread to the MLB forum if you think it doesn't belong here.)
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,511
Maine
Wasn't the opt-out already part of his original contract with the Rangers? Or did the Yankees add that when they acquired him?

If it wasn't part of the Rangers deal, I'm not sure it was some altruistic offer so much as a way to reduce his salary while giving him something in return. That's the whole reason the deal fell apart, after all. They wanted him to give up too much money/value for the MLBPA's taste.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
26,626
Southwestern CT
Wasn't the opt-out already part of his original contract with the Rangers? Or did the Yankees add that when they acquired him?

If it wasn't part of the Rangers deal, I'm not sure it was some altruistic offer so much as a way to reduce his salary while giving him something in return. That's the whole reason the deal fell apart, after all. They wanted him to give up too much money/value for the MLBPA's taste.
It was absolutely part of the original deal. The Red Sox did not offer it to him. Indeed, the entire premise of this thread is false.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
8,038
Panama
The article makes no sense.

1. As previously stated, the opt out was there to begn with, it was part of the package the Sox were willng to take, not the Sox idea.
2. All this crap of the "Sox would have let him walk" is meaningless. It is the player who opts out and if he does, he is a free agent. That the Yankees were dumb enough to sign Arod for more money after nobody wanted him still baffles me, and that is another topic altogether, but the point is the club has no say in the opt out. If it is used the contract gets wiped out and everything starts from scratch.

It is also completely stupid to say the Sox were "thinking about how to get rid of hm". If he played poorly for any reason, and did not excert his opt out, the Sox would be stuck with the contract.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
8,390
Santa Monica
But it's another chance to argue over the value of opt outs! Zzzzzzz...
I'm not sure if its been mentioned, but if you feel that high-end player salaries and player budgets will increase greatly over the next few years then offering an opt out option isn't the worst strategy in the world.

After considering the implications of the next CBA, I've slightly changed my stance on opt-out options.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
937
Connecticut
I'm not sure if its been mentioned, but if you feel that high-end player salaries and player budgets will increase greatly over the next few years then offering an opt out option isn't the worst strategy in the world.
Why is this issue so difficult for some to understand? Actually if player budgets and salaries increase greatly then player opt out options are actually even worse from a team's perspective, since they are giving away a future asset. The issue is very simple, the only benefit a player opt out option has for a team is if they offer it to save them money on the contract itself or to close a deal, which they would not be able to close without the option. That is, a player won't sign 7/210, but will sign 7/200 (or 7/210) with an opt out. And no team is giving players' opt out options unless they are forced to by the negotiations by the player. I promise not to mention this subject again, since it has been beaten to death.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,987
Portsmouth, NH
Mods, can we just get a word filter for "option", like we used to have for Buchholz or is that not available on the new board? Maybe it could just be the little guy pulling out a gun and shooting himself in the head?
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
13,091
The gran facenda
I'm going to pull out a gun and shoot myself in the head if this thread turns into another argument about opt outs. We've been there and done that. No need to rehash.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
8,211
Michigan
The issue is very simple, the only benefit a player opt out option has for a team is if they offer it to save them money on the contract itself or to close a deal, which they would not be able to close without the option.
So a player opt-out can, after all, provide benefit to the team if, as you say, the opt-out is a deal-closer or is traded for something else, such as a lower overall payout. Isn't that ALWAYS the case?

In the article, it says the Sox wanted ARod for his prime age 28-31 seasons, but were leery about him after that. Doesn't an opt-out also greatly increase the likelihood, but obviously not guarantee, that a player will move on before his age-decline years begin? It seems to me that the "bet" the team was prepared to make in the ARod case and did make in the Price contract is that when the player reaches his option year, he and the market will overestimate the player's future performance and underestimate risk, so the player will move on and unburden the team of a high-price, high-risk contract during the player's expected age-decline years.

If the ARod Sox contract had not been nullified, would ARod have opted out in 2008? Probably. Would that have been a bad thing for the Sox?

Ideally, a team wants to sign a pitcher like David Price to a three- or four-year contract. Since no pitcher of his caliber is going to settle for a contract of less than six years, pretty much the only way to sign an age 30ish ace is to offer a six-, seven-year contract. Ideally, a team would want a team option in the age 34 year. If a team wants to avoid paying a fading ace big bucks, isn't the next best thing a player option?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
11,511
Maine
Stop. Just fucking stop. There is a thread for this opt-out bullshit. Stop starting new threads about it. Were two closed threads about Price not enough of a damn clue?
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
13,091
The gran facenda
So a player opt-out can, after all, provide benefit to the team if, as you say, the opt-out is a deal-closer or is traded for something else, such as a lower overall payout. Isn't that ALWAYS the case?

In the article, it says the Sox wanted ARod for his prime age 28-31 seasons, but were leery about him after that. Doesn't an opt-out also greatly increase the likelihood, but obviously not guarantee, that a player will move on before his age-decline years begin? It seems to me that the "bet" the team was prepared to make in the ARod case and did make in the Price contract is that when the player reaches his option year, he and the market will overestimate the player's future performance and underestimate risk, so the player will move on and unburden the team of a high-price, high-risk contract during the player's expected age-decline years.

If the ARod Sox contract had not been nullified, would ARod have opted out in 2008? Probably. Would that have been a bad thing for the Sox?

Ideally, a team wants to sign a pitcher like David Price to a three- or four-year contract. Since no pitcher of his caliber is going to settle for a contract of less than six years, pretty much the only way to sign an age 30ish ace is to offer a six-, seven-year contract. Ideally, a team would want a team option in the age 34 year. If a team wants to avoid paying a fading ace big bucks, isn't the next best thing a player option?
Use the opt out thread for this I was kidding about shooting myself in the head, I'll take it out on your ability to post.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
26,626
Southwestern CT
dhappy42, I don't know if you're trolling us or you are just begging to be suspended, but on the off chance that you are not trying to self-destruct, let me give you some advice.

You are being incredibly stubborn to the point where you aren't even considering whether your arguments have any merit. It's as if you believe there's some fundamental truth out there that is obvious but you are the only one who can see it, and so you have decided to reiterate that truth until someone else sees what you see or (more likely) you become a martyr to the cause. And unless you wish to be martyred, this is a bad strategy.

With that said, the A-Rod example is an odd one for you to bring up because it disproves your thesis. To be specific, the accelerated opt-out that was reportedly offered by the Sox was included to increase the value of the contract to A-Rod in an effort to offset the amount that A-Rod was giving up. The fact that the MLBPA did not agree that this package was worth the amount A-Rod was giving up is not the point. The point is that the offer was intended to provide value to A-Rod, not the team.

As has been pointed out to you many times, the team derives value from the services of the player in question. The player derives value from the consideration received form the team. The option is part of the consideration. Therefore it is not possible to argue that the option provides value to the team.

I would urge you to drop this.

Edit: abs, was composing this when you responded. Apologies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.