That's false.
The pro-opt out side is simple.
1) It can mean the difference between signing the player and not.
2) The most likely outcome is that Price pitches well and opts out making this likely a 3/90 contract.
3) As long as the Sox aren't stupid enough to sign Price after he opts out, they're not going to be paying for his horrible decline phase.
No, the only pro to the opt-out is your #1, the possibility that the player might not sign without it. The other two are purely a product of how painful it is to sell high. It's very easy for most people to look at a guy who should be good but hasn't been playing well and identify him as a "buy low" candidate, but it is extraordinarily hard to look at a guy who's kicking ass and say: "time to trade him!"
Case 1: After 3 years, Price has declined or gotten hurt and is not worth 4/127: then he'll stay regardless of whether he has an opt-out or not, which is a loss for the Sox.
Case 2: After 3 years, Price is worth more than 4/127 to another team and he has an opt-out: he leaves, which we'll call a break-even for the Sox
Case 3: After 3 years, Price is worth more than 4/127 to another team and he doesn't have an opt-out: he's under contract, and the Sox come out ahead - either by keeping him, or trading him to a team that believes he has positive value over his remaining contract.
The difficulty is that most of these big contracts appear to fall into Case 3 at the end of 3 years, but in reality that player is going to decline and not actually earn the remainder of his contract. So the smart move is to trade the player while they're still good enough to appear valuable on the open market - i.e., to sell high. Most GM's don't have the nerve to do so, and wait until the player is obviously declining to make a move.
The whole argument surrounding opt-outs on this board is a result of the Yankees failing to properly value A-Rod and Sabathia. At the time of each of their opt-outs they appeared to have positive value over their remaining contracts, which is why they opted out. That's also why they were each able to secure even larger contracts, which have both proven to be mistakes. We all acknowledge that letting them walk would've been better for the Yanks than re-signing them; we're all in agreement there. But the discrepancy comes from the fact that if neither player had an opt-out clause, AND THE YANKEES HAD HAD THE BALLS TO TRADE THEM, the team would be even *better* off than letting them walk via opt-outs. And yes, there was definitely a trade market for both players, as the Yankees had to outbid other teams to re-sign each of them.
TL/DR: Escaping a big pitching contract after 3 years is usually a good thing, but it's even better if you have the balls to trade the player for value halfway through than to let them opt-out and get nothing in return.
Last edited: