In 1991 in an attempt to sign Jack Morris Andy Macphail gave him the very first OPT-OUT CLAUSE. Since then players from Sammy Sosa to Vernon Wells, & from A-Roid to Sabathia have signed such clauses to name a few. Here's a few current big names with opt out clauses...... Kershaw (2014- 7 yrs@215M) can opt out after 2018 Tanaka (2014- 7 yrs@155M) can opt out after 2017 Stanton (2015- 13 yrs@325M) can opt out after 2020 Andrus (2015- 8 yrs@120M) can opt out after 2018 And this years new members....... Heyward (8 yrs@ 184M) can opt out after 2018 Price (7 yrs@ 217M) can opt out after 2018 Upton (6 yrs@ 132M) can opt out after 2017 Cueto (6 yrs@ 130M) can opt out after 2017 Cespedes (3 yrs@ 75M) can opt out after 2016 Kazmir (3 yrs@ 48M) can opt out after 2016 Kennedy (5 yrs@ 70M) can opt out after 2017
If I were a GN offering what I thought to be a fair contracts given the state of todays game and the player wanted an opt out clause I'd opt his ass out on the spot. MLB needs to put a stop to that spoiled guppy pool.
...personally, I don't have a problem with "opt out clauses" IF they are structured properly...I have yet to see it hurt a team. ...you can't really count ARod and CC because Hank screwed things up by getting drunk and sticking his nose in the ARod negotiations and gave him that ridiculous contract over the phone...as far as CC, Cashman needlessly outbid himself because CC never actually opted out...instead he bluffed Cashman and as Cashman has been known to do, he simply whipped out the old checkbook and gave CC more money and years than he was already under contract for.
My problem with the OPT-OUT is that its to one sided that only benefits the player. EXAMPLE: Take someone like Elvis Andrus who signed that crazy contract in 2015 & had a 7/62/258 season in 2015. You know that no matter how bad his numbers may be there's no way he's opting out so the Rangers are stuck with his over paid ass.. BUT..........if he has a great season in his opt out year of 2017 you know he's going off to the highest bitter & the Rangers end up with shit. I'm with Michael on this one, I think the opt out clause should be stopped, you either want to play for the team for 5 years at 15-20M per or you don't. Take it or leave it.
... the "opt out" craze is not going to end any time soon...and like I said a week or 2 ago it can in certain situations, help a team. And like I said, I don't recall an instance of the clause itself, hurting a team. ...as far as the Elvis Andrus deal, whether or not there was an opt out clause included in his deal, it would not have changed anything...the Rangers would still be on the hook for that money even if there was no opt out clause. ...plain and simple, opt out clauses can hurt the player or the team...or they can help the player or team. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on...t-out-clause-mlbs-biggest-star-in-free-agency
I hear ya but at the risk of sounding naive, how do "we" know CC didn't have some other offer on the table from some other team.....he had just completed an excellent (all-star) 2011 season: 19-8, ERA 3.00, 237 IP, 230 K. Sure, Cashman may have probably panicked, but wasn't there a fair chance he could've lost him if he let him "walk"? ....after having a GOOD season? Water under the bridge - Yanks are big boys and are dealing with their past "mistakes" and while they certainly haven't been a powerhouse (lol) the past three years, they have been competitive and did qualify for a ticket to the post season tournament last season having the 4th best record in the league, and NO, of course this isn't something to hang your hat on but they certainly weren't "pathetic" or hopeless as someone previously said.
exactly. there's no issue with an opt-out clause if its properly structured. sports are notorious for bad deals.
How does an OPT-OUT clause get properly structured where it can also benefit the team instead of just the player.
...because like a few teams have done already, you can "backload" the contract ...this usually gives the team likely the very best years from a player at a relatively discounted price, and if the player still opts out and signs on with another team, well that other team gets the latter years of the contract which are nowhere near as desirable. ...the originating team is now free of it's obligation to this player and is also able to spend the freed up money elsewhere.
I follow your thinking Ron but if the player opting out had a great year then the original signing team loses out on the benefits of what that player could have done for them going forward. IMO, he should not have been given that option.
...but "going forward" can also just as easily be a bad thing, especially if a team is contractually obligated to a long term deal with that player...and like I said, that team will still have had the good fortune of having that same player's production for those years. ...the last part of multiyear contracts are never as good as the first part. And just because a player does opt out it doesn't mean his old team still can't sign him. ...again, can you imagine what the Yanx' roster might look like and what their starting rotation might look like today if they had allowed ARod and CC to opt out and both ended up signing with another team ?
...yeah, granted that ARod was an integral part of the 2009 WS, the Yanx could have really used that extra money and roster spot...not to mention that we would have been spared the whole PEDs thing and the ARod circus that follows him...I don't think there's any way he'd ever admit it in public but I kinda got the impression that Jeter and a few of the other Yanx players could not stand ARod.
He always gets back to me and he can't wait to meet me on March 25th. I hope they televise the game so you can see us together. Don't be jealous.
