There is an article up on Fansided.com authored by someone named Zachary Rotman who quotes former GM Jim Bowden from a podcast called Foul Territory. Here is the Bowden quote: "Buster Posey is completely opposed to opt-outs. He does not want them. That's a real, philosophical, in-cement viewpoint that he has right now in his first year running the Giants."
I wish I had a more reliable source for this but it does fit with the tea leaves I am reading, so am not at all surprised. Since Scott Boras seems to insist on opt-outs for almost all of his free agent contracts and since a high percentage of top-talent free agents are Scott Boras clients, this may play a bigger role in the Giants relative lack of free agent activity than penurious owners or negative player perceptions of the organization.
BTW, if this is truly Buster Posey's position, I fully support it. IMO, opt-outs are a big reason why the Giants as an organization failed to gain traction in the FZ era.
Like you said I don’t fully believe this is true. But I do disagree with you and possibly buster on the opt outs. This is the new market reality. Opt outs are the way you sign players to “bounce back deals” and I think that is generally where the market upside is to be found. The dollar to WAR ratio for the giants on these opt outs deals has been tremendous.
ReplyDeleteThe flaw Farhan had is he was desire to let all of the opt out guys walk (except Chapman? Not sure if it was really him). If he resigned the right ones we would think differently.
I think not a good move for Buster here to rule out a tool or heck even a market reality just on principles sake.
- Fan
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Opt-outs are a scourge. If they are bad for your team, which I believe they are, saying no has to start somewhere and I applaud Buster for having the courage to let it start with him. He got two really good cornerstone players signed without opt outs and got a "bounce back" option signed for just one season with no opt-out. That's a pretty darn good offseason in my book. And yes the team is better off today than it was when Buster took the reins. His next big task is sorting out which of the younger players are keepers. Adding another free agent cornerstone can happen next offseason.
DeleteWhen opt-outs first started showing up in contracts I was kind of soft on them while practically everybody else was saying they have no redeeming features for the team. After watcing the results of several op-out contracts over the course of the last 3-4 seasons, I am firmly in the camp that there is nothing good in them for the team. If the player performs well, you almost certainly lose him and if he performs poorly or gets hurt, you are stuck with a bad contract.
DeleteOh! And I did not say I don't fully believe what Bowden is saying. In fact, it fully agrees with all vibes I am picking up from my own observations. I was just commenting on the fact that Bowden might not be the most conclusive source for any MLB rumors or inside information.
DeleteEvery case is different. I would tend to avoid giving a player an opt-out of a qualifying offer is attached. I might go for an opt-out if the AAV is low. Otherwise, most of the opt-outs tend to favor the player and its a lose-lose scenario for the team.
DeleteI was pretty glad Rodon opted out and stuck yanks with all that cost...and opt outs lead to lessened team loyalty/cohesion
DeleteThe opt-out impairs the ability of the team to trade because the other team does not want to assume the risk (Rodon)
Delete...If the player performs well, you almost certainly lose him...
DeleteIf you do get one good year, is it a complete loss?
Maybe you got what you paid for before he opted out, although that was NOT true for SF with Snell, they got half a good year for full price. And apparently the Giants are still paying him! See
https://dodgersnation.com/giants-will-pay-blake-snell-while-he-plays-for-dodgers-due-to-deferred-contract-with-sf/2024/12/08/
However, this is not verified by roster-resource
The Giants made a big mistake not trading Snell for something at the trade deadline. They paid a steep price $30:mil + salary 2 draft picks, internationall bonus pool $ to sign him. FZ was trying to save his job.
DeleteSnell also has a deferred bonus to be paid either in 2025 or 2026 (not sure which) that did not count against Farhan's CBT but will count against Buster's. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.
DeleteThis has nothing to do with Opt-Outs!
DeleteIt's about Tyler Fitzgerald not getting a single vote — 1st, 2nd or 3rd — for Rookie of the Year.
Fitz was not Skenes, who deserves winning.
It's about 1 or maybe 2 position players who received votes and Fitz did not. None.
Merrill was probably better with a 4.4 bWAR in 156 games but Fitz beat him in OBP, OPS, and OPS+.
Chourio had 50% more PAs so his numerical numbers were higher, but Fitz beat him in all % measurements: BA, OBP, OPS, and OPS+, even SB%.
Fitzgerald played SS. Chourio was mostly a LFer with some RF.
Distinctly in Chourio's favor, he is 6½ years younger — you'd probably rather have him, but an up-the-middle fielder who can hit is valuable.
Cot's Contracts shoes a CBT charge of $1.875 M in 2025 and 2026 somehow related to Jorge Soler. It does not show any future charges for Blake Snell.
DeleteIs that Farhan replying in your comments defending the opt-outs?? Opt-Outs are no different than one year contracts. And you say you prefer opt-outs because it allows you to find value but then you contradict yourself by saying that Farhan went wrong by not extending the guys, which would’ve required actually paying the guys which is not good value according to you and also Farhan never wanted to pay anyone for long term deals which is why he went the silly opt-out route. Opt-outs are cool when you already have a core and foundational players. But if you don’t have that then signing lot-out players are pointless because your team clearly isn’t going to be seriously contending this year and you lose the player next year if he’s good or you’re stuck with him if he sucks. And for the record, Carlos Rodon was good this year and if the Giants would’ve signed him to a 4 year contract in the first place instead of the stupid opt out, then 2 out of 3 seasons would’ve been good (great one year with us and a poor injury plaqued year last year). Last year he was 16-9 in 32 starts with a 3.96 era, 1.22 whip, 195 ks in 175 innings. You know those numbers would’ve been better in our ballpark. While he didn’t pitch like an ace this year, there’s strong incredible value in a starting pitcher who performs at the level he did last year, still very productive.
DeleteFan: The Snell signing was a triple whammy: it had the qualifying offer, the opt-out, and is a Boras client. My rule of thumb is that if there is an opt-out and involves a Boras client, the contract would favor the player.
DeleteI never read Bowden's stuff anymore.
ReplyDeleteHe's the 'writer' equivalent of a player who can't hit, run, throw, or field.
Also boring and misinformed about everything.
Other than that.....
Opt-out clauses work against building a sense of camaraderie and putting the good of the team first. I know it’s professional baseball, but I’m firmly with Buster on this one — avoid loading up on these sort of mercenary contracts! (When Snell refused to pitch his last scheduled start of the season, to me that was an embarrassment to the game and all of the other unsung players who’d worn a Giants jersey.)
ReplyDeleteAn opt out AND a QO is a French Kiss of Death: AVOID
ReplyDeletePer Dodgers Nation: The $17 million signing bonus remains in effect despite Snell’s departure from the Giants. He will receive this payment in Jan. 2026. I'm not sure if a signing bonus affects the CBT.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of things about CBT calculations I don't understand. Per Google AI Overview, Snell's signing bonus does not count toward the CBT threshold. I was not able to find why they are taking a $1.875 M hit for Solar in 2025 and 2026.
DeleteI would suppose Soler's CBT hit is a small deferral. No other details on COTs.
DeleteZaidi felt that a lot of the players who signed with an opt-out contract would not sign with the Giants without an opt-out. Even J-H Lee has an opt-out in his contract. Boras liked having Zaidi as a POBO because he felt Zaidi might sign them when others would not. That's how they ended up with Conforto and Manaea.
ReplyDeleteTrue re. Jung Hoo Lee but his opt out is after year 4(2027) with 2 years remaining. His salary for those final two years is about $2 M less per year than years 3 and 4. Unfortunately the least expensive year, 2024 at $7 M is already a lost season. Hopefully he plays great over the next 3 seasons and opts out.
Delete