Email a copy of 'Scott Kazmir Does Not Exercise Opt-Out Clause' to a friend
Loading ...
By Connor Byrne | at
Email a copy of 'Scott Kazmir Does Not Exercise Opt-Out Clause' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
AndreTheGiantKiller
Shocking…
BlueSkyLA
Yup, like I’ve been saying all year, the Dodgers will be stuck with this hunk of meat for two more seasons unless they opt to take a bath.
Frozen rope
One of many bad contracts in the last 2 seasons McCarthy, Anderson, Kazmir, Norris etc……..,,,
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
So McCarthy and Kaz yes. Norris was a trade so that doesn’t count. Anderson was a QO that no one expected him to take. On that note there’s never a bad one year contract. But McCarthy and Kaz yes bad ones.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
And if you’re referencing this regime vs the old regime let’s not stack those together because it’s not close
JohnnyDodger
Norris was acquired for basically nothing and then released
JohnnyDodger
100000000% the TRUTH
Take the good with the bad and there’s been far more good
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Frozen is on his pro Ned Colletti trip but there are so many bad contracts on that regime.
MB923
Actually A Lot of people expected Anderson to take it, and surely enough he did.
BlueSkyLA
The Anderson QO is one I would actually defend. He was given only a small chance of his back issue recurring. They threw the dice and got snake eyes. I have a lot less problem with risking one year of Anderson at the bottom of the rotation than I do with three years of Kazmir at the top of the rotation. Even worse his contract guaranteed that if he stunk they’d be stuck with him for another two years. And did he ever stink. Been saying since the early part of the summer that he was going to be roster dead weight for two more years, and took a lot of guff for saying it then. So more of the same now when it turns out to be true. Why am I not surprised.
Cam
Could be a good opportunity to turn Kazmir into a hotly-talked about fireman reliever. Pretty hard to rely on this guy for consistent innings in the rotation – might as well maximize his arm and be at the forefront of changing bullpen philosophies.
arcadia Ldogg
A logical move for Kaz. Ouch for the Dodgers.
woodhead1986
jesus you dodger fans are the worst! you make the playoffs year after year, you have infinete money, amazing depth at both the mlb and minor league level and all you do is criticize Friedman and complain about the org in general. Kazmir had a subpar year on the heels of several good ones. he absolutely could return to form, and its not like he’s killing their poor meager payroll…jeez, i’d love to have the Dodger’s “issues”
socalblake
After having to deal with McCourt, Dodgers fans welcomed Friedman, but making the playoffs 4 years in a row with no results gets old.
AddisonStreet
You would prefer to be a Mariners fan? Nearing 2 decades without even making the post season.
skip 2
Haha couldn’t have said it better Addison!!
astros_fan_84
Lame
BlueSkyLA
Ten postseason washouts in 28 years is the really getting old part.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Not all Dodger fans are. I actually like the direction of this team.
NJASTROFAN
There will always be winners and losers in any free agent and/or trade of players. You can’t win them all, but isn’t it time that the owners get smart and start to plan and use the “opt out” clause to their advantage.
First, Kazmir should get on his knees and kiss the feet of Dodger’s upper office elite for giving him that contract in the first place. I’m sure the Dodgers were hoping for a good performance out of him so that he would take the bait and leave. Instead they got a too typical outcome from Kazmir as he seemingly got tired at the end of the season and wasn’t worth the salary he had gotten.
Owners have to start putting in their own “opt out” clauses should the player they are trying to sign demands one in the negotiations. So should you not (as a player) perform to the level of the original contract you (the owners/GMs) can say this is no longer viable. As long as the owners/GMs continue to provide players with these opt outs, they will continue to sign with those teams that offer them. I would imagine that there would be a different scenario should the owners insist that they too have an opt out clause. Bottom line, you either want to play for my team at this agreed salary or you don’t. An opt out clause indicates that “I love you, until something better comes along”. Personally, I don’t want that player on my team.
ssowl
Yeah, it’s called a “club option”. Kazmir got market value for his performance from 2013 – 2015. With your logic you would never win. Players will have at least one club give them what they want regardless of whether that be with a winner or not. If you don’t like it, then please apply for a general manager position and inform them of how you would spend the owners money.
Bluesman
Not that I feel sorry for the owners, but I agree with njastrosfan, these opt out clauses after the first or second year need to go both ways, so teams can get out of bad contracts, just like players can stay in them, even though they had a bad year. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again though, all sports need to adopt a performance based salary structure.
tommyLA
I don’t think Dodgers see this as a bad move, the depth of the bench is what got them to the championship series. Having him assume a role of a swing man, 4/5 starter is insurance in my eyes.