When the FO refused to offer Darvish the opt out he wanted, Falvey said something to the effect of, "I don't imagine a scenario where I'd ever consider giving a player opt out."

To which the obvious rejoinder is, "then you are putting yourself at a negotiating disadvantage relative to other teams when targeting the very top-end talent, and you will have to compensate with more guaranteed money, or other inducements."

 

I don't much like the opt-outs either, despite repeated arguments they don't really hurt, but they're a necessary tool.

To which the obvious rejoinder is, "then you are putting yourself at a negotiating disadvantage relative to other teams when targeting the very top-end talent, and you will have to compensate with more guaranteed money, or other inducements."

 

I don't much like the opt-outs either, despite repeated arguments they don't really hurt, but they're a necessary tool.

Also not a fan of opt outs. You have a good thing going, you'd like to keep it going and not allow a fixture on your team from walking away and now you have a hole to fill all over again.

 

Then again, if your milb system is healthy, you may have an option ready or about ready to help plug that hole. Futher, let's say you get Wheeler for 3 great seasons and he opts out looking for that one final big deal. Theoretically, someone else now gets stuck overpaying for his final years.

 

Absolutely understand the negative impact and the FO mot cozying up to the idea. But I sure hope they re-consider because it really could be a useful tool.

 

Also not a fan of opt outs. You have a good thing going, you'd like to keep it going and not allow a fixture on your team from walking away and now you have a hole to fill all over again.

Then again, if your milb system is healthy, you may have an option ready or about ready to help plug that hole. Futher, let's say you get Wheeler for 3 great seasons and he opts out looking for that one final big deal. Theoretically, someone else now gets stuck overpaying for his final years.

Absolutely understand the negative impact and the FO mot cozying up to the idea. But I sure hope they re-consider because it really could be a useful tool.

I'm almost more concerned about the negotiation psychology, of getting sucked into committing to one extra year at too high a price, with the rationalization that "eh, he'll probably have opted out by that time anyway."

I'm almost more concerned about the negotiation psychology, of getting sucked into committing to one extra year at too high a price, with the rationalization that "eh, he'll probably have opted out by that time anyway."

Agreed. And that sounds almost exactly like the Darvish contract doesn't it? Extra year plus the opt out. Really, really puts FULL control in the hands of the pitcher.

What term would have been used if the Twins had chosen not to pay Cruz's option for 2020? I'm not arguing a point, I'm just trying to gets the term for when the team elects to sever a contract by not renewing the contract, or buys it out? Apparently, it would be incorrect for me to say that the team "opted out " of the contract in that scenario.

 

Buy out. It’s what the Twins did to Perez.

 

If they had picked up the team option on Perez he would have been paid 7.5M to stay on the team. If they chose to not keep Perez, which they did, the player gets an agreed on amount that was made when the contract was first signed. They bought him out for 500K, essentially paying him that to go away.