Today I listened to the entire damned AFBI podcast from a couple days back, and noted that there was a series of comments about player options, and how bad they were—specifically they were talking about the 2049 opt-out that Alaric Wullenweber has on his contract this time, but really, I’ve heard a wide swath of discussions about why player options are bad.
Wullenweber’s case is probably a fair one, simply because the existence of that option affects his trade value. If, however, Hawaii does not plan to trade their superstar, that is essentially meaningless.
The conversation reminded me of a PM I received some time back, and that due to my general life situations I hadn’t responded to. First and foremost—to that GM, I apologize. I wasn’t blowing you off…at least not on purpose. Life just moved on and I left it behind until now.
Anyway, I’ll re-post that note here:
Between these two items, I thought it would be worth a little time to jot down some thoughts on things I’ve heard people talk about regarding Player Options and how I’ve used them.So I notice that a number of players on your team have contracts with player options. This is something I always avoid because I fear that if a player turns out better than expected, then I lose him, if worse, I am stuck with him. But obviously you succeed with this strategy. I am wondering if, in your experience, players rarely take the option, even when it would benefit them?
For example, Rex Foster is on your team has an opt out after this season. With 10 CON, 9 POW (80 OVR) he could clearly make more than the $6 million a year you are paying him if he entered free agency. But do you expect him to not exercise his option?
Just curious what your insight is.
ARGUMENT #1
The first argument I hear against Player Options is the one listed in that note above. And to a degree, it’s true. If a player on a Player Option turns out to be more valuable than the contract, he’ll leave, and if he’s not as good as his contract I’m stuck. A bit of a counter-point then is that I also often hear them then say they would just turn that last year into a guaranteed year—which “simply” locks in the downside if the player tanks. Not that it really matters, I suppose. Either way I have to face the decision of trading the player at a loss or releasing the player and eating his contract.
My view here, however, is that the world of player options is a little more complicated than this. Let’s look at various ways a straight option can actually turn out—or at least look at such deals from the bigger picture.
I tend to start at the point of the original signing. To me the issue is whether I get value from the player or not over the life of the contract, regardless of the option. I mean—if the player winds up being better than the contract—the upside is that I had a player who performed above cost for as long as I had him. So, good for me! It might suck that I lose the player later, but it could still have been a great value during the run.
My second thought here is this: if a guy opts out because he thinks can get more elsewhere, I still get one exclusive sim to offer the player something I think is market value. Sometimes that works, other times it doesn’t, but it’s not cut-and clear that the player will leave simply because he opts out.
Then there’s a third possible path, which is that the player’s contract is properly priced for his performance (rather than over or under performed). In those cases, the player will likely stay, unless he’s of an age where it’s better to go to free agency.
My point here is that assessing deals with player options are more complicated than a simple binary decision of does he stay or does he go, and it’s like the Monty Haul game in that you’re making decisions at the beginning of the process without knowing where the end is going to go … which leads me to …
ARGUMENT #2
A second complaint I hear is that a player will almost always leave on an option in the last year of a contract, specifically because they want more years of security. First, I say, of course they will—wouldn’t you? But I suppose that doesn’t make an argument that sways an argumentative one.
I agree that a GM might find that a bit distressing. But again, I suggest a GM look at that not from how it will look at the moment, but instead look from the point of view of when you actually sign the deal.
For example, say I sign a player for three seasons, the last being a player option. We get to the last year and he leaves. That means I got two years at what I’ll assume is a good rate, and then possibly a comp pick (assuming the player was actually good). If the player wasn’t good enough to earn a comp pick, then the chances are I can get just as good as that player on the market for the same cash that would have gone to the player anyway. I mean, the guy left for security/years, not cash. In that case, I may well be able to sign him during that one sim I get to negotiate exclusively anyway—assuming I actually want the player, anyway.
There’s also a question of what else is in your organization. I had reliever Angel Hernandez opt out on the last year of his $5M contract. He got the same money for more years from Long Beach. I had the option to offer him first, but did not do it. I’ve got guys to take his place and given the structure of my team at this time I preferred the comp pick.
So, yes, it’s true the guy will probably opt-out in that last year but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
It Really Boils Down To This?
Basically, what I think people are really getting to here is that it can be harder to plan around an opt-out. It’s more complex, and that complexity can cause anxiety.
When I give a player option, what I’m basically thinking is that “In order to put this player on my roster now, I’m willing to deal with any issue the player’s decision causes me.” I don’t know what issue that decision might actually be at the time I sign the deal, but I’m willing to deal with it.
Shrug.
And, in reality, there is a certain stability that a player option can give you.
More on the Upsides
There are a couple other values to the idea behind a player option that can (but don’t always) come into play.
In the case of Rex Foster—who was noted in the PM to me—I signed that deal early in his arbitration cycle, and that $6M player option was in the last year of his arbitration. $6M was considerably less than he was worth, so it was literally guaranteed he was going to opt out unless he was massively hurt or something that would have resulted in his arbitration value being dropped substantially. On the other hand, I was guaranteed to keep him. In his case, when he opted out, he opted for arbitration…which cost me $12M.
So, why give the player option?
For me it was about locking a number into my out-year plan. Being in his arbitration years, Foster’s salary projection was constantly changing. As soon as Foster signed the deal, my out-season payroll as far as the owner was concerned was set at $6M for Foster. If I hadn’t don’t that, the estimated cost of his contract would have risen, and my owner would have forced me to set as much as $12M aside to cover Foster. Instead, I could use that extra $5M to sign extensions. $5M just so happens to be what it cost me to keep Angel Hernandez (the example above) on the team that extra year or two before he opted out.
In this way, the Player Option actually made planning considerably less difficult. I could sign players around him, understanding that eventually I was going to have to deal with an $12M (ish) price tag for his last year rather than the $6M tag my owner saw.
Another Upside:
This is my opinion, but I think players tend to like having control of their situation. As a general rule it seems to me that the basic decision code has gotten more “realistic” in that players on the whole seem to often behave like I would. Would Angel Hernandez have signed the 3-year, $5M/per (plus bonuses) deal if I hadn’t offered him an option in that last year? I don’t know. But my guess is it helped.
I can say that—especially given the construction of my team at the time—I greatly preferred signing that contract with the option on it rather than have him walk to Free Agency at that point.
If the option makes my organization more attractive in the short-term, then I’m willing to consider that a benefit.
Team Option/Player Option
One issue I see happening is GMs who try to ploy of dropping a big player option after a team option. There was a time in OOTP when that would actually make a difference—that players weren’t smart enough to devalue that last big balloon payment that the team was clearly going to cut. I think those days are gone. Players, in my opinion, essentially ignore that kind of Player Option—and if I’m right then the only thing these GMs are doing is shackling their own hands with a big contract on the books. If that keeps them from signing another player it can actually hurt them.
So the real issue here is optics. Even if it doesn’t really matter, It doesn’t look good and it pisses other GMs off because there is no way to know for certain that the player option was actually ignored.
I don’t know what to say about that. I wish people would stop doing it. Since the game doesn’t hard-code these things, there’s no way to fix it that doesn’t require manual enforcement…and I don’t want to put that on Matt and us GB folks. It’s just a pain in the butt, and if you miss things, it can go on for a long time.
Bottom line, though, I have become pretty comfortable with saying that this is not a real problem beyond those optics.
Summary
Anyway, I do agree that Player Options carry risk—or at least carry uncertainties that you should be cognizant of as you’re agreeing to them. But I don’t look at them and immediately shy away like a vampire on garlic. I don’t use them too, too often, but at the right times, they have value.
