Email a copy of 'Another Bite At The Apple: Opt-Out Clauses In MLB' to a friend
Loading ...
By Tim Dierkes | at
Email a copy of 'Another Bite At The Apple: Opt-Out Clauses In MLB' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
Ben Weihrauch
Basically, if I’m a player and I over perform my contract I opt out. If I stink/get injured, I stay in the contract. Either way the player has most of the leverage. For GM’s, you hope the player performs, opts out, and stinks/injured for someone else. The Yankees to not only sign these kids of deals but also bid against themselves when the player opts out. Dumb. Very risky for the teams–I wouldn’t do these if I were a GM.
martinfv2
It hasn’t happened too often where a guy opted out and then was so good in the next 2-3 years that the first team was upset he left. If the Yankees had let A-Rod and CC walk, it would have been to their benefit.
As for the Vernon Wells scenario, it’s only come up once where the player performed too poorly to want to opt out. The end result of that was the same as if he didn’t have the clause – you’re stuck with him.
Mikenmn
The most logical mix to balance the interests would be a player opt-out with a back-loaded deal.
sergio
yeah, but if he stinks, he stays, and he becomes untradeable; no one wants the latter part of a long backloaded deal
Mil8Ball
These agents are pretty smart man…I think they’d catch something like that.
pustule bosey
I would think the better way to go would be to backload and give the club an opt out later – say a 10 year has a 5 year opt out for the player and a 6 or 7 for the club with an early retirement bonus (for a later year player)
that way the player is movable, they can go if they like but if they have a bad year they have rebound time for the club to consider before making a trade with cash or some such.
start_wearing_purple
The opt out clause is going to be a major thing among star players. It gives them negotiation leverage half way into their contract to increase their years at the same money. Millionnaires v.s Billionaires. Gotta give credit to the agents for finally realizing it.
dmm1047
Any opt-out clause should work both ways, so a player who falls on his face after signing a big contract pays the penalty.
T.J. McFarland's Mustache
That’s never going to happen, because the top players who command the most player-friendly contracts, would never agree to the club being able to opt-out. And non-elite players, who lack the bargaining power of top players, don’t receive long deals that would necessitate an opt-out.
bigb69
Like Senior Mustache said, it won’t happen. Player opt-outs only happened with super-mega-stars and I bet the players association would have an absolute cow and push a strike if a team opt out was ever breathed out of an owners mouth.
pft2
Team options are pretty much the same thing. If the player is still good the team exercises it, if not pffft
Flash Gordon
Yeah but their is a difference between one year and four years.
LazerTown
And that is basically a mutual option which is pointless. Free agents are worth more in their younger years than their aav, but worth less than that in their older years.
pft2
And multi-year deals take that into consideration which is why a player like Cano will make only 4 million per WAR this year and not 6 million per WAR.
LazerTown
But if opt outs worked both ways then the teams would opt out when players fell below a threshold.
Rally Weimaraner
An opt-out is meant to make the contract more player friendly not less.
pft2
Generally teams take something off the AAV so the player ends up paying for some of it. Its meant as a hook to get a player who otherwise might sign elsewhere. In a sellers market, the player can dictate the terms.
randomkeys
Former Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi: “Everything is great about Toronto, but it’s still foreign to a lot of players.”
Well, yeah. Of course it’s foreign to a lot of players. It’s in Canada.
Clayfield
Didn’t Aramis Ramirez have an opt-out in his contract with the Cubs after the 2006 season, choosing to opt-out before eventually re-signing for more money? I didn’t see him mentioned in the article and now im wondering if my memory is failing. Maybe a Cubs fan can help me out?
roscoe88
this article shows how incredibly ridiculous the GMs and the owners are. NO is a word they are afraid to use. If used enough they wouldn’t need a salary cap or a luxury tax.
Baseball Realism
Say no and lose the star player. Good luck keeping your GM job
bigb69
Correct, the ultimate goal is to put a product on the field which brings the fans out to pay for everything either via spending 20 bucks to park, 50 bucks a seat, 10 bucks a beer etc or watch it on TV which subjects you to dozens of ads to pay the owners to keep paying the GM.
goat 2
Easy fix, mutual opt out. Either the player or the club can opt out a a certain point. Better yet have a contract completly incentive based. Give a standard amount per year and for each level reached, the player automatically gets that monies. Plus have team incentives for wins and such.
tcostant
Why doesn’t anyone ever mention Albert Bell, who has a kind of opt out. Here is how wikipedia explains it
“…the winter of 1996, he signed a 5-year, $55 million deal with the Chicago White Sox as a free agent. This contract made him the highest paid player in baseball for a brief period. He enjoyed two great seasons in Chicago, including a career-high 27-game hitting streak in May 1997, and came close to another 50/50 season in 1998 with 49 home runs (a White Sox team record that still stands) and 48 doubles. He also drove in 152 runs to break Zeke Bonura’s single-season franchise record of 138 in 1936 (to date, the RBI total also remains a White Sox single-season record). Additionally, when Cal Ripken, Jr. ended his record consecutive game streak at 2,632 in September 1998 on the last day of the season, it was Belle who took over as the major leagues’ active leader in the category.
His White Sox contract had an unusual clause allowing him to demand that he would remain one of the three highest paid players in baseball. In October 1998 he invoked the clause, and when the White Sox declined to give him a raise he immediately became a free agent. He again became the game’s highest paid player, signing a five-year, $65 million deal with the Baltimore Orioles.”
go_jays_go
The idea of opt-outs have existed a long *LONG* time now. It’s just that the clubs had the power; they were called Club Options.
I don’t know why the media is making such a big fuss that players are asking for the same leverage that clubs use to hold.