Few notes, sorry I fell off the planet. I wasn't trying to dump the conversation.

I agree with any mutual option and any extension options. Why? It keeps players playing for the same teams, which I like. I root for teams as well, not players. So having a 5 year contract with an additional club option year is fine. A mutual option is fine. Why? Because the club pays the player, not the other way around. There are no deals where the club gets to terminate a contract. You'll never find a 7 year deal where there last 4 seasons are "club options". 

The ability to put rose colored glasses on a situation and make the best of it, doesn't change the outcome. If heyward outperforms, and walks out, the Cubs got 3 years of value for the money spent, but that walkout hurts their club. They lose 4 years of value when someone else steps in and offers him more and he leaves. They get a draft pick, but then they are looking for a vet free agent outfielder which will cost them that draft pick, and more money than they were spending. So the team just got more expensive to maintain, or it just got worse for the same or less money. I don't consider this a win for fans or clubs. If a team locks themselves into 7 years of commitment, then I think the player should as well. 

To make it fair, I think any walk out clause needs to be changed. Any other team can pick you up, but they must pay off the remainder of your deal. This would push walk outs farther to the end of the contract, and cause a player to seriously stop and ponder whether the move is worth it. Maybe Grienke doesn't shit on the dodgers if the next team up has to give LA 77 million dollars for poaching.

APIAD wrote:

"What I'm saying is that the team has no ability to know when those circumstances are more likely than not."

Sure they can. As you said heyward's likelyhood of serious decline is minimal. Therefore he is likely worth his 3 year opt out contract as well as the 8 year full contract. If there is minimal risk in one, there is minimal risk in both. Likely he walks in 3 years but ill repeat myself in saying that doesnt mean the first 3 years were not cost effective. I do see your point on the matter and it is valid but I believe mine is as well. Contract are not horrible just because they have opt out clauses and shouldn't be advoided. I do believe the cubs will come out ahead on heyward. 3 years will tell.

One of the hang ups I have with your position is you keep saying the player walks as if the current team won't try to re-sign him. Even if Heyward opts out, the Cubs are likely to re-engage and try to work out a new deal. In essence, that's forcing the team to negotiate an extension mid-contract when it's not necessary.  History has shown those rarely work out for the team.

You keep saying the Cubs come out ahead over 3 years, but wouldn't they rather come out ahead for 6, 7 or 8 years? The only way to do that will be to extend the existing contract which, in Heyward's case, probably means adding years 9-11.

On cespedas it is a clear win for the club. They wanted him back anyway and they got him for a very predictable one year at a very reasonable price. We will see if im right there in just a year.

It's only a 1 year deal if Cespedes decides it is.  What if Cespedes blows his achilles in spring training?

As for grienke the dodger got 3 great years of his service. They were a better team because they signed him. If they didnt offer an opt out who know if they have 3 years of his service.

Those 3 great years got the Dodgers the same number of World Series appearances as you and I had in the last 3 years. And Greinke's decision to bolt to Arizona left the Dodgers scrambling to fill his rotation spot.

Before you ask "but how did that benifit the dodgers". Ill admitt that it didnt benifit them, it didnt cost them either.
Sure it cost them.  The Dodgers will be starting Scott Kazmir instead of Zack Greinke this season.  That's a negative.

A quick google seach shows im not the only dumb sob to enjoy this conspiracy.   To even further my line of thinking that the cubs want to see heyward opt out this article points out two other things I think interesting.

1. The PA requirements push heyward to make his decision the 3rd year not the fourth.

2.  The full no trade clause switches to a limited no trade clause if he doesnt opt out. 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/16/breaking-down-jason-heywards-complicated-contract-and-his-likelihood-of-opting-out/

APIAD wrote:

A quick google seach shows im not the only dumb sob to enjoy this conspiracy. To even further my line of thinking that the cubs want to see heyward opt out this article points out two other things I think interesting.

1. The PA requirements push heyward to make his decision the 3rd year not the fourth.

2. The full no trade clause switches to a limited no trade clause if he doesnt opt out.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/16/breaking-down-jason-heywards-complicated-contract-and-his-likelihood-of-opting-out/

I'm not sure how closely you read the article, but it doesn't really support your position.  In fact, here's the author's conclusion: 

"No, I haven’t changed my mind about opt-outs. They’re still designed to be player-friendly, and, indeed, I hope you can see here in this very post why that’s the case – Heyward has locked in an absolute minimum of $184 million for himself, but has also retained the ability to score much, much more (and take away that valuable contract asset from the Cubs in the process). The opt out, as a contract provision, is of no value to the team. It is of enormous value to the player."

 

You and alz see to be hung up by the fact that certain players are not going to signing without opt out clauses.

I think you belive my position is that free agent X comes to the gm office and says they want a 8 year 210 million dollar contract and the gm says how about a 8 year 184 million contract with some opt outs.  That is not my position.  My position is that free agent x wont sign without the opt out.  The cardinals need to learn to deal with it and minimize their risk by signing the right players.  Imo players who will more likely opt out then stay.  Theo was cleaver beyond what I even relized by structuring this contract in a way it either pushed heyward to opt out year three or lose his second opt out chance.  The cubs actually have control on if he opts out the second time by limiting his PA if they wanted to be shitty.  And then if the cubs have to keep heyward and later decide they dont want him the allowed themself an Avenue by lowering heywards ablity to fight a trade.

"If your point is that offering an opt out gives a team an advantage in signing the player versus a team that doesn't, of course it does. Why? Because the contract is advantageous to the player"

Yes and that it allows the club some bargaining power to insert things into the contract.  For example, structure, favorable trade limitations, performance quotas and a lower overall contract.  It would be interesting to know the length of the cards offer.  It is said to be 200million.  If that was for 8 years like the cubs offer heyward agreed to played for at least 15 million less.  All these things may not equal the over all avantage of having heyward for a true 8 year contract but they do offer some offseting value.  I bet if you looked at the cubs contract vs the cardinals contract and weighted the opted out clauses in the cubs and whatever the cards offer they would be closer in risk vs reward then you think. 

"Yes, the Cubs and not the Cardinals have him for the next 3 years, and if the Cubs aren't the ones who re-sign him, that may be a benefit. But if they are the ones who re-sign him..."

Then they would be taking a calculated risk that has nothing to do with the expired contract.

It was a good debate anyway

I don't know how long ago it happened, but Brandon Phillips apparently also blocked a trade to the Diamondbacks, again because he wanted his new team to sign him to an extension.
Brandon Phillips needs to either find a new agent or stop using hallucinogens. Or both.

alz wrote:

AP, here's what I don't get. You yourself said this.
"opt outs can workout in the club favor"

Of course they can, nobody is arguing that. If Grienke's arm falls off, the Dodgers make out like geniuses.

"My position is that free agent x wont sign without the opt out."

Also agreed, but that's a major part of fors/my point here, and here's where you make a logical jump that I do not follow. If a player won't sign without the opt out, shouldn't that be a clear indicator this is something that benefits the player and not the club? Here's why it hurts all clubs.

An outfielder costs 15 million a season. Boom huge long term contract for more money (7/184). Why? It's a long term investment and Heyward can't be working for league minimum in 7 years, even though it's big money now, so 15 million a year (which is what he's actually worth) is not enough. 3 years go by. He did well, so he restructures. Now he signs for 7 years/235 million.

Every outfielder just got a raise on their value based on over-paying Heyward.... Twice. The run of the mill starting center fielder will no longer cost you 11 million, but closer to 15, and then closer to 17 when he restructures. Why? Well if Heyward is worth _____ for these numbers, then I am worth _____  for mine.

That's an overall league view however. To make it much more simple... If the opt out was not advantageous for Heyward, he wouldn't have had them in there. So there's no way it can be seen as beneficial to the club. The club will either pay the full 184M, or get decent value for 3 years and watch a superstar fan favorite hold a second "highest bidder" auction and probably leave town after that. This is not a plus, for anyone. 

 

My opinion is pretty simple as well.  The cubs plan on heyward being there for 3 years, not 8.  Why?  Because 3 year contracts are less risky then 8 for financial and productional prediction reason that are so obvious they dont need discussed.  I back my opinion up with several facts.

1. The cubs made his opt out years cheaper to temped him to opted out
2. His no trade clause turns to a limited no trade clause tl temp him to leave and to allow the cubs an escape clause if he doesnt. 
3. A plate appearance requirement that forces heyward to be used full time and be completely healthy in his fourth year.  Two things that are out of his control and thus causes him to lean towards opting in his 3rd year.


Are opted out clauses in the players favor?  Yes certainly.   Did the cubs bend the odds in their favor causing them to break even on the risk vs reward or come out ahead, yep, clearly.  They fucked the cardinals and got a player at minimal risk of long term commitment.  These are all things that happend.
 

APIAD wrote:

My opinion is pretty simple as well. The cubs plan on heyward being there for 3 years, not 8.

Well this we just have to disagree on. The Cubs could have found a better outfield option if their goal was 3 years. Heyward being able to be around for 8 without much worry of him getting too old was a big part of his appeal. 

So ... Why would they commit 200 million dollars in order to effectively plan for an outfielder for 3 years? I believe the Cubs gave him whatever he wanted in the contract because he was the prime free agent in the market, but I believe they are counting on him being there for the full term. At this point so is Heyward, we'll just see how it falls out. If he outperforms he'll dump it and want more money. If he doesn't the Cubs will pay every overpriced dime.

alz wrote:

Well this we just have to disagree on. The Cubs could have found a better outfield option if their goal was 3 years. Heyward being able to be around for 8 without much worry of him getting too old was a big part of his appeal. 

So ... Why would they commit 200 million dollars in order to effectively plan for an outfielder for 3 years? I believe the Cubs gave him whatever he wanted in the contract because he was the prime free agent in the market, but I believe they are counting on him being there for the full term. At this point so is Heyward, we'll just see how it falls out. If he outperforms he'll dump it and want more money. If he doesn't the Cubs will pay every overpriced dime.

Who and what were these other 3 year center field options?  There are none.  Thats why, in part, the cubs did what they did.  There is no better 3 year option at center field for them in the free agent market.  They are converting a rf into cf because of such thin options.

They didnt commit 200 million if there plan works out.  That is what ive been saying for a week.  And even if heyward stays they allowed themselfs a window to trade him.  For them to even put that in the contract is proof that they may not want heyward in 3 years.

If you are so cofident the cubs really want heyward for 8 years the why did they set the contract up the way they did?
 

JV, sticking it to your rival is important, but not 8 years/186 million worth... I mean I'm sure we could have enticed a few of their guys to jump the fence for 24 million a year too, but that's suicide. Nobody is that crazy.

AP, I don't believe for a moment they gave him an 8 year deal banking on him feeling undervalued and leaving after 3. Sorry man, I just don't believe that. I'm sure there are contingency plans for what-if, but the Cubs are all-in on Heyward.

Without jumping back into this issue, there were other CF options, starting with Dexter Fowler who was the Cubs starting CF last season.  Cespedes played CF for the Mets and will likely do so again this season.

Denard Span was another option that the Cubs were reportedly interested in at one point.

As far as the set up of the contract, you can't say that supports your argument without knowing who proposed it.  If the Cubs proposed it, you could be right, but if it was proposed by Heyward's people and agreed to begrudgingly by the Cubs, then it supports what Alz and I have been saying.  Obviously there's no way we'll ever know that.