southsider2k5 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 FOX Sports Live @FOXSportsLive 1m1 minute ago JUST IN: Dodgers sign LHP Scott Kazmir to a 3-year deal. (via @kengurnick) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The NL version of ALL.THE.LEFTIES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS 5m5 minutes ago kazmir gets 48M for 3 years. opt out after 1st year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) So is this the new era of the opt-out clause? Edited December 30, 2015 by OmarComing25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 It just occurred to me that they will have what, 5 draft picks in the first 2 rounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruth05 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 02:39 PM) As a fan, I like opt out clauses. Not trying to sound snobby, but why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 $16 million a year for Scott Kazmir. OK then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsoxhurt35 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 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, 2015 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Somebody is pissed: Brandon McCarthy @BMcCarthy32 5m5 minutes ago .@Dodgers This is blatant handism and I'm filing a hostile workplace grievance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.