Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
A
The problem is that there is literally no way for them to truly come out ahead with the rise of opt-outs. Those are what is killing these deals and those are what teams are now fighting against. If the mega-agents would actually say "Sure, we'll take $300/10 with no opt-outs..." I'm betting these guys would get signed in a heartbeat. But they don't want to risk the possibility of the new CBA exploding the market and their clients being locked in long-term.
.
|
Sure there is. If someone like Harper tears it up for three years and then opts out you get his three best years and let someone else pay for his likely decline phase. Opt-outs are only a risk if you assume that the guy is going to underperform the contract and/or get hurt.
And if you're a team like the Dodgers that is always on the brink of a World Series, the risk of signing someone like Harper is more than obviated by the upside. After all, you're the guy that has repeatedly said, "flags fly forever" on here. For as much as you've chastised Mozeliak for being risk averse, I would think that you'd realize that fear of these long term deals is an overly conservative reaction that actually creates a market inefficiency in favor of signing these guys, because executives look at it only through the prism of what can go wrong.
If you sign Harper to 10/300 with opt-outs after years 3 and 6, and he ends up giving you 12+ WAR total over the first three years and opts out, you win.