December 30, 201510 yr FOX Sports Live @FOXSportsLive 1m1 minute ago JUST IN: Dodgers sign LHP Scott Kazmir to a 3-year deal. (via @kengurnick)
December 30, 201510 yr Saw this update from my MLB app and immediately thought it was Cespedes to the Sox. If we don't sign him now, I'll always resent Scott Kazmir.
December 30, 201510 yr Author Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS 5m5 minutes ago kazmir gets 48M for 3 years. opt out after 1st year.
December 30, 201510 yr So is this the new era of the opt-out clause? Edited December 30, 201510 yr by OmarComing25
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 08:35 PM) So is the new era of the opt-out clause? Yep, and it sucks as a fan
December 30, 201510 yr It just occurred to me that they will have what, 5 draft picks in the first 2 rounds?
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) So is the new era of the opt-out clause? As a fan, I like opt out clauses. But to each their own I guess. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by soxfan2014
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) As a fan, I like opt out clauses. Not trying to sound snobby, but why?
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) $16 million a year for Scott Kazmir. OK then. As contracts go up, Danks looks less bad.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) $16 million a year for Scott Kazmir. OK then. Because Dodgers. It was bound to happen once Happ got what, 3/39?
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) Not trying to sound snobby, but why? I like it from a team's standpoint. You don't have to pay a guy in his possible declining years and not be tied up into bad money.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:44 PM) I like it from a team's standpoint. You don't have to pay a guy in his possible declining years and not be tied up into bad money. Yes. You get really motivated years, and an out for when they get older. The problem is,teams haven't used their built in escape clause, signed them to another long term deal and regretted it. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by Dick Allen
December 30, 201510 yr Author QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:44 PM) I like it from a team's standpoint. You don't have to pay a guy in his possible declining years and not be tied up into bad money. IF he opts out. It is the worst of both worlds. A guy who outperforms you either have to pay more to, or let go. A guy who sucks, you are stuck with.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:44 PM) I like it from a team's standpoint. You don't have to pay a guy in his possible declining years and not be tied up into bad money. It's an opt out for the player, not the team. If he sucks next year he won't opt out.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:44 PM) I like it from a team's standpoint. You don't have to pay a guy in his possible declining years and not be tied up into bad money. Unless he underperforms and then doesn't opt out (Vernon Wells). Yes it can help out a team, like what happened with Belle and the Sox, but it still favors the player more than the team.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 03:27 PM) Saw this update from my MLB app and immediately thought it was Cespedes to the Sox. If we don't sign him now, I'll always resent Scott Kazmir. Haha that was me last night when I seen breaking news and it was Chip Kelly fired.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) IF he opts out. It is the worst of both worlds. A guy who outperforms you either have to pay more to, or let go. A guy who sucks, you are stuck with. Ask the Yankees if they would have re-sgned ARod and CC Sabathia if they had a re do. Even the Marlins were bragging about how they will never pay Stanton anywhere near $300 million. They fully expect him to opt out, and they will either trade him or let him walk.
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:46 PM) Unless he underperforms and then doesn't opt out (Vernon Wells). Yes it can help out a team, like what happened with Belle and the Sox, but it still favors the player more than the team. Technically yes. But unless you can't live without him, if he is opting out, you get productive years and let some other team pay him even more for the decline. The thing is, even without an opt out, you are going to have to guarantee what should be declining seasons. How many $16 million a year years does a guy like Kazmir have in him? It's probably less than 3. If the Dodgers get one, I'm sure they will be happy. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by Dick Allen
December 30, 201510 yr But in this scenario it's the Dodgers and their seemingly unlimited amount of money and they can absorb the hit of him picking up his option. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by soxfan2014
December 30, 201510 yr QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:53 PM) But in this scenario it's the Dodgers and their seemingly unlimited amount of money and that can absorb the hit of him picking up his option. Supposedly they were in the process of chopping about $100 million from the payroll.
December 30, 201510 yr Either way guys, to each their own. I like having that chance of not paying them for their declining years in the contract. The alternative being not having any chance at all. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by soxfan2014
December 30, 201510 yr The trade off to me is for a possible year or two of worth the money production, you don't have to pay for at least as many years, if not more, of decline. I would give all these 30 year old and over free agents an opt out. Edited December 30, 201510 yr by Dick Allen
December 30, 201510 yr Somebody is pissed: Brandon McCarthy @BMcCarthy32 5m5 minutes ago .@Dodgers This is blatant handism and I'm filing a hostile workplace grievance
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.