With Major League teams increasingly adding opt-out provisions to free-agent contracts as a means of incentivizing players to sign, there are now a handful of those decisions that impact the free-agent market every offseason. With nearly 90 percent of the season already in the books, many of the opt-out decisions/player option decisions look pretty clear cut.
Things could change over the final month, but here’s a look at where things currently stand…
Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers (Two years, $65MM remaining): Truthfully, Kershaw is the only player with an opt-out provision in 2018 who could be called likely to exercise the clause at present. While he hasn’t been quite as dominant as usual and has spent time on the DL for a third straight year (back issues, biceps tendinitis), it’s difficult to imagine him having to take less than that $65MM sum in free agency.
In 131 1/3 innings this season, Kershaw is sporting a 2.40 ERA with 8.7 K/9, 1.4 BB/9, 0.89 HR/9 and a 48.9 percent ground-ball rate. He hasn’t topped 200 innings since 2015, but he’s still a clearly elite starter. If he does formally opt out, the Dodgers can issue a qualifying offer, though perhaps the easiest scenario would be for Los Angeles to simply extend Kershaw’s current contract to prolong his already historic Dodgers career.
David Price, Red Sox (Four years, $127MM remaining): Price is having his best season with the Red Sox, having notched a 3.60 ERA with a strikeout per inning and 2.4 walks per nine innings pitched through 152 1/3 frames. His results have been solid, but it’s nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where he exceeds $127MM in free agency at the age of 33. Price’s Boston tenure has been rocky at times, but it seems likely that he’ll be back in the rotation next season.
[Related: Club option decisions on starting pitchers, relievers and position players]
Jason Heyward, Cubs (Five years, $106MM remaining): Declining to opt out is little more than a formality for Heyward at this point, as he hasn’t come close to living up to his $184MM contract in Chicago through the first three seasons. To his credit, though the 29-year-old has had a nice rebound effort, hitting .275/.342/.399 with above-average defense in right field. That might make the Cubs feel better about his contract moving forward, but it won’t be enough to prompt Heyward to test free agency. His contract contains a second opt-out clause following the 2019 season, at which point he’ll have four years and $86MM remaining, but that also seems like a long shot.
Elvis Andrus, Rangers (Four years, $58MM): Andrus could be considered more of a borderline call than some on this list, but he seems likelier to stay with Texas than to opt out. The 30-year-old hasn’t had a bad season, hitting .270/.322/.396 with quality defense, but his bat hasn’t been as potent as it was in 2016-17 when he hit a combined .299/.348/.457. The downturn in offensive output might not be entirely Andrus’ fault; he did incur a broken elbow when he was hit by a pitch earlier this season — an injury that caused him to miss just over two months of action. It’s easy to imagine that injury having a lingering effect on Andrus’ swing, too.
Like Heyward, Andrus has a second opt-out clause in his contract after the 2019 season. At that point, he’ll have three years and $43MM remaining on his contract. If his bat returns to its 2016-17 levels, surpassing that $43MM mark in free agency could be plausible. If Andrus opted out, he’d certainly be issued a qualifying offer — there’s no reason for the team to worry about him taking a one-year deal worth about $18MM when he just walked away from $58MM — which would only further hinder his earning power.
Yasmany Tomas, D-backs (Two years, $32.5MM remaining): Tomas clubbed 31 homers with the 2016 Diamondbacks but did so with a .315 on-base percentage and some of the worst defensive ratings of any player in the Majors — regardless of position. He’s since been outrighted off the 40-man roster and, in 371 Triple-A plate appearances this season, has 101 strikeouts against 11 walks with a .280 OBP. Suffice it to say: he’s not going anywhere.
Mark Melancon, Giants (Two years, $28MM remaining): Injuries have ruined Melancon’s first two seasons with the Giants, though he’s been excellent since returning in 2018: 2.64 ERA, 7.9K/9, 2.4 BB/9, 53.1 percent ground-ball rate in 30 2/3 innings. That performance is encouraging for the Giants as they look to 2019, but it won’t be enough to make Melancon’s camp think he can top $28MM heading into his age-34 season.
Brandon Kintzler, Cubs ($5MM player option): Kintzler’s contract technically contains a $10MM club option or a $5MM player option, but it’s clear given his dismal performance since being traded to Chicago that the team won’t be opting for that $10MM sum. Kintzler was very good with the Twins and Nationals from 2016 through this past July, but his typically excellent control has evaporated in Chicago while his hard-contact rate has skyrocketed. It’s only a sample of 11 2/3 innings, but his struggles make the option seem a fairly straightforward decision.
Eduardo Nunez, Red Sox ($5MM player option): Nunez’s deal comes with a $2MM buyout, making this effectively a $3MM decision for his camp. He’s struggled to the point that he may not even want to take that risk, though, hitting just .258/.282/.384 through 473 trips to the plate.
Rob Bradford of WEEI.com reported this week that Nunez’s option increased from $4MM to $5MM once he reached 400 plate appearances. Bradford spoke to Nunez, who acknowledged that the knee that gave out on him in the postseason last year has been a problem for him throughout 2018, though he believes he’s finally “close” to 100 percent. Perhaps a strong month and a big postseason could prompt him to again test the open market, but his overall production to this point makes the player option seem a likelier outcome.
I’m surprised the Red Sox gave Nunez a player option.
For all his faults, Nunez was an underpay at the time.
Forget what WAR says, He passes the eye test even if he never walks and WAR hates him because of that.. He has delivered a sizable number of timely hits and plays a decent third base. Pretty shaky at second though.
GMs don’t use the eye test because it’s inconsistent and biased based on the viewer.
Stats follow a set formula and are objective and unbiased.
If this hypothetical GM is unfamiliar with the player, I’d agree.
Dude you don’t get it,the eye test is not with your heart it’s with your brain unlike numbers,it’s like the Shift for hitters doesn’t always work and it only works because they are stubborn.I understand about Nunez,watched him a lot in his career,unlike others apparently?
Kershaw might opt out but he isn’t leaving the Dodgers.
I don’t see LA going beyond 5 years…….so never say never.
Opting out is almost a promise. With his health history he will need a longer contract. It’s extremely likely he won’t leave the doyuers but the Yankees could try and snag him or something like that
His health history argues against the longer contract. The way he gets a bunch more years with a high earning ceiling is if he takes on some of the risk.
I think the person you are replying to is implying that Kershaw will desire a longer guarantee due to his health issues (wanting to get a big payday because if these injuries continue then it will be his last). Thus he may push for more years in negotiations and will opt out for leverage
I’m sure he’d love to be signed until age 40, but as in all free agent situations, it’s a matter of who will pay how much for how long. Kershaw has pitched over 200 innings only once in the last five years, mainly the result of a chronic back problem that isn’t going to get better as he ages. Any team that is willing to pony up for Kershaw into his late 30s is going to take that history into consideration.
To paraphrase the great P.T. Barnum, “You never lose money underestimating the intelligence of baseball General Managers.” I offer up the contracts as Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols, Chris Davis and the evergreen contract the Mets gave to Bobby Bonilla, the deal that keeps on giving as evidence to support my position.
If the Dodgers want to extend him before other teams can sign him, they might have to overpay.
Would you rather overpay for a future HOF, or not overpay and compete with other big spending teams?
An extension is highly unlikely at this point, especially given the way this FO does business. The far more likely scenario is he opts out (assuming he does) and the Dodgers sign him to a new contract. Anyone who thinks the Dodgers could as a practical matter overpay to keep Kershaw in Dodger blue probably has never set foot inside Dodger Stadium.
Half of these are horrible
Best case scenario for Kershaw and Dodgers is for him to opt out and sign a longer term contract with team that substantially reduces his AAV while putting significant total dollars in his bank account. Immediate help to Dodgers to retain Machado plus sign Seager, Bellinger, et al in future years.
Lots of problems with this scenario, the first being Kershaw not made a Dodger for life, which is what every Dodger fan expects. It’s difficult to imagine that ownership has such a tin ear to fan expectations as to allow him to play out his career elsewhere. The second is Machado is a huge long shot signing for a team that has never guaranteed anybody for over $100m and would require a realignment of the infield to accommodate him. Going after Dozier in free agency is a much more likely infield scenario. Third, this FO has never extended anybody. They don’t seem to believe in it, so I would not count on them spending anything they’ve saved by not keeping Kershaw on hanging onto anyone beyond their current team control windows.
When you write “…FO has never extended anybody…” are you including or excluding the signings of Jansen, Hill, and Turner after becoming free agents? I certainly see their situations as parallel with that of Kershaw if he opts out. Second, Kershaw said in ST that Dodgers and his agents have been and would continue to talk about extension. I believe both sides want Kershaw to remain with team and will be inventive on how that would work to the benefit of both parties. Dozier? I don’t see Dodgers gambling on another 31/32 year old second baseman with other options currently within the organization.
I am definitely including them because all were allowed to go to free agency. So basically I agree, the way it plays out with Kershaw is probably not so different than it did with Jansen, Hill and Turner. As for Dozier, it’s just a guess, because the FO seems to like him, and because of his age, he won’t command the massive longterm contract Machado will get, no doubt. Sort of a repeat of the Turner situation. The internal 2B options don’t look really appealing to me, but maybe I’ve missed something.
2b options that I see as real possibilities for Dodgers in 2019: Muncy, Taylor, Hernandez, and possibly Seager if Dodgers are concerned with his throwing elbow after TJ surgery. And, I believe Gavin Lux will be in the picture by late 2019 season, or 2020 at the latest. Then there is Omar Estevez, Deacon Liput, and Devin Mann a couple of years away. Dozier will likely get a 3 year deal, perhaps with a 4th year option — I just don’t see a fit with Dodgers.
Except for shuffling the cards they hold already, the options are a year or more off. That was my point. Not saying Dozier is a slam dunk by any means only that he makes a lot more sense than Machado. I don’t see the Dodgers making a play for him at all.
No one is giving Dozier 4 years. Even 3 is a stretch. Other than Lux non of those prospects are long term 2B options. Taylor and Hernandez are not good enough to ppay everyday. Muncy is a butcher at 2B. They are going to re sign Dozier or bring in an outside 2B forsure
Dozier continues to be more or less the player he’s always been, low average, high OBP and OPS, with at least average defensive skills and speed. I would not rule out four years, or three plus an option, for his age 32-35 seasons. That’s almost exactly what Turner got.
They extended Kersh
Dodger for life…a silly concept. Only a guy who gives his team a discount deserves this. If they want top dollar ….goodbye
You think Kershaw (or most free agents) care about the best case scenario for the team?
It’s too early to be talking about signing Seager & Bellinger to long term deals because they both have not reached their arbitration years
It’ll be more expensive if they wait until then.
Kershaw should opt out and sign with the Rangers.
He wants to win. He is not going to the Rangers, and it doesn’t matter if he is from there.
I think Kershaw will opt out, Dodgers will sign him to a long we contract with less money annually since he is at the back end of his career and is having a hard time staying healthy, even if it mean backloading the contract for years he’s not even playing I think they’ll try something like that so they can bring back Dozier at 2nd and go after Harper. Regardless I think they are going after Harper and possibly might bring back Dozier. I just can’t see Kershaw leaving but at the same time I don’t see management all of a sudden giving it a foolish contract when they’ve been pretty smart about that since they’ve arrived.
A contract that could work for both player and team is a base salary close to what he is making now, plus a substantial bonus for games started or innings pitched beyond some nominal number. A contract structured this way would allow him to make more than any player in the history of the game, but only if he’s healthy.
that is only one option. There are numerous ways to pay Kershaw a large total contract amount yet reduce his AAV well below the current $35MM per season.
If you mean guaranteed AAV, then yes, that’s what I am suggesting. Just to play with numbers, say a base of $30m plus $1m for every start over 25, through his age 33-37 seasons. Something like that.
Many ways to get to a deal, one would be a substantially lower salary the last couple of seasons that brings AAV down but give Kershaw another opt out.
Kershaw has all of the leverage here. He’ll likely play the big market teams against each other and sign with the Dodgers. I really don’t see him taking some incentive-laden contract. This isn’t his hometown team that he grew up rooting for that has a small payroll. They have the biggest payroll in the game, I doubt he’s going to do them any big favors in free agency
Nobody is talking about him doing anyone any favors.
Kershaw has indicated he wants to stay. He clearly has enjoyed his time here. At the same time, he will field offers to make it interesting. In the end, he wants to play for a winner. And he really likes to bat, also. I am sure he would prefer the NL, if other things were equal.
It’s rare for a player to indicate otherwise, but yeah, I suspect he wants to remain a Dodger, in spite of the some decisions made by the FO that he clearly did not like.
I think he will either resign with the Dodgers or sign with the Astros for less
No way Chicago feels any sort of good towards Heyward’s contract. He’s been a bust, period.
Watch kershaw opt out and sign with the Yankees. Everybody would be beyond pissed. (I’d rather see him stay with the dodgers)!
In a homer happy era it is amazing that a guy like Heyward at 6’5 240lbs can barely hit 10 homers in a season.
Considering Kershaw’s career 4.35 post season era, the Dodgers might be better off if he opts out.
The Dodgers need pitchers like Kershaw to reach the postseason. If they let him go, they will not find anyone better among this year’s free agents.
Year after 2020 dodgers can sign
Mad bum
Assuming mad bum not get traded to Yankees first
I don’t think giants will give him a supermax contract
See? This is why opt outs don’t benefit the team. Some guy a few months ago said that they do and cited some article that said it would benefit the Cubs and Red Sox if Heyward and Price opted out but they were never going to.
Teams offer opt-outs because they save them money on the front end.
That’s not what’s being argued. Of course the opt out allows the team to sign a player for less money because it’s an inherently player friendly clause. But a team can never benefit from a player opting out.
I can only read what you wrote and won’t try to guess at what you meant.
So to complete my thought, the team benefits on the front end. If the player exercises the opt out that doesn’t necessarily mean the team lost that bet, because they would have had to pay the player more for the seasons before the opt out. In this case, the discount stays in their pocket. Where the team really stands to lose is when a player declines or is injured and doesn’t opt out. Now they are stuck with an underperforming or nonperforming contract that might well run longer than a contact without the opt-out.
The important thing to keep in mind here IMO is that both sides go into this with their eyes open.
But if he doesn’t have an opt out they would benefit even with having to pay him more for the front-end because they would now have a contributing player signed for below market value. If the player can opt-out, they now have to pay more money to replace his production or risk regression.
Why are you concluding that the early year AAV is lower because of an opt-out? Early AAV is often lower because teams have more committed dollars to other players, luxury threshold will likely be higher in the future, etc, etc. There are far more compelling reasons to back-load a deal than an opt-out clause.
Whatever the player gets at signing is his market value at that point in time, by definition. The team only gets a discount on this market value by giving the player back something of value, in this case, the ability to opt out of the contract if his market value increases. It’s also reasonable to ask whether players who negotiate opt-outs in their contracts aren’t getting more years than they might have in a straight contract. I suspect so, and that too is valuable to the player.
But some people on here argue that the team benefits from the player opting out of the contract if his market value increases. That is what I’m arguing against, not the idea that opt-outs allow you to sign a player for less money than you would without them.
Okay, well you can take that up with someone who believes that. 😉
Jason Heyward is not opting out. He recently bought a house in Chicago. Not sure if he’s married with children. Either way. Normally an player or athlete wont buy a house in the city they rep unless they plan on staying with that team. He’s improved greatly. I love his offense. He was never the best offensive player anyway. People act like his contract is the worst ever. Theres been at least 10 contract worse than his.
Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton and ARod come to mind as worse.
I agree. This year, he has been a very solid hitter, and his defensive is All-Star caliber. Far too many people don’t realize that he has turned it around, and are stuck on the past few years. If he can keep hitting like this, the deal is just fine.