Commissioner Rob Manfred recently spoke out against player opt out clauses. The issue, if you want to call it an issue, came about, in part, due to the Jason Heyward and David Price signings. Here’s the Commisioner’s take:

The logic of opt-out clauses escapes me. You make an eight year agreement with a player. He plays well, and he opts out after three. You either pay the player again or you lose him. Conversely, if the player performs poorly, he doesn’t opt out and gets the benefit of the eight year agreement. That doesn’t strike me as a very good deal. Personally, I don’t see the logic of it. But clubs do what they do. 

Keep in mind, the Commissioner could’ve said the same thing about teams carrying player options, but he didn’t say that. No, he essentially said these opt out agreements are bad for teams. I couldn’t disagree more. 

First, let’s keep in mind who is getting opt out clauses in their contracts. In this offseason, it was a former Cy Young Award winner in Price and a young three time Gold Glove winner in Hayward. They were the two top free agents. Accordingly, they had the leverage to get the clauses inserted in their contracts. Without those clauses, it’s reasonable to assume those players go elsewhere. 

With that in mind, let’s also keep in mind the opt out clause is a way to get a player you might not have otherwise obtained. The Marlins have one to Giancarlo Stanton as an attempt to keep a budding superstar around longer than they usually could. The Yankees used the provision to lure CC Sabathia to the Bronx. It was reported Sabathia didn’t want to come to New York, but rather, he wanted to return home to California. The opt out clause allowed the Yankees to offer an out in case Sabathia hated New York. Without the clause, it’s very possible the Yankees didn’t get him. 

Speaking of Sabathia, the opt out clause protects the team from having to pay a player on the downside of his career. Sabathia had an opt out after his third year. To that point, the Yankess paid Sabathia $48.5 million over the course of three years. Sabathia was good for them goimg 50-23 a 3.17 ERA.  In two of the three years, he was an All Star. The Yankees won the World Series. In all three years, he was top four in the Cy Young voting. He was also turning 32. 

Sabathia never really officially opted out. Instead, he renegotiated his deal.  The five year contact became an eight year contract. In the first four years, Sabathia has earned $92 million. For that $92 million, he has been 38-33 with a 4.35 ERA. He’s had one All Star appearance and no Cy Young votes. It’s been a disaster, especially when you consider the extenuating circumstances.

If the Yankees walked away when they should’ve, Sabathia gets a huge deal elsewhere. Sabathia’s down years happen elsewhere while the Yankees have free up cash to get whatever else they needed. Instead, they signed Sabathia to another deal, and Sabathia is taking up a roster spot for more money than he’s now worth. 

Overall, if you want a top player, you don’t want to pay him during his decline, and you can show restraint not to re-sign an older player, the opt out clause is the way to go. Therein is the logic in the deal.