But you are guaranteeing those years. You're acting as though the player is definitely going to opt out, but he only does that if he can exceed the value of the remainder of the contract.
I get what you're saying about prefering younger players, there's no doubt that's beneficial. But it almost seems as if you're assuming the player opts out, with no risk to the club. You're also assuming all pitchers break down at some point, which seems counterintuitive to your previous point.
And the other thing you're missing is that, although personally you don't like signing aging pitchers, teams are clearly willing to do it. The fair market value for Greinke far exceeded what was remaining on his Dodgers contract. Therefore, without that opt-out clause, the remainder of the Greinke contract is an asset to the Dodgers.
The team is guaranteeing them, but it's not guaranteed to the team. Player options! The thing is, if the player in question breaks, well, without the opt-out you'd be paying them anyways. An opt-out just gives a lucky team the potential to escape a long-term contract before the player breaks.
And well, yeah, I think every player (sans Bonds) will break
eventually. It's a matter of when, and a team can assess this on a case by case basis when deciding how to offer an opt-out structure. I don't think it's counter-intuitive to my argument though because without opt-outs, teams are taking on the risk of a broken player in every deal. With opt-outs, they have a slightly better chance of not getting bogged down with a big money, no value player.
Teams are willing to sign guys to long-term deals into their late 30s because collusion is illegal and the prisoner's dilemma insures that
some team is going to make a deal like that, so they basically all have to. They've also done such a good job of limiting the salaries of younger players that most of them can afford an albatross or two and be fine. That doesn't mean that smart teams can't take advantage of teams like the Diamondbacks by letting them absorb the expensive 32+ year old players.
And the market value of Greinke's contract for the next 3 years was only valuable to the Dodgers if they were going to trade him, which seems doubtful. Sure it helps their $/WAR ratio compared to the market rate, but since there isn't a direct correlation between spending (or spending efficiency) and winning, I'm not sure this matters? [Edit: So I was a few beers in when I wrote this and another beer later I'm realizing I kind of contradicted myself here. Spending efficiency is basically the entirety of what I'm arguing for. That being said, I think what I'm trying to say is that I believe that avoiding the risk attached to the post opt-out years of a contract is more valuable to a team than the savings differential between the remaining balance of the original contract and the cost of either re-signing the player or replacing them.]
You are completely discounting the fact that having an elite player under contract, even if he's 32, is an extremely valuable asset. Look at what the Phillies were able to do with Hamels when they decided he didn't fit into their plans anymore. If Grienke had no opt out, and the Dodgers decided they were too scared his elbow was going to explode, they could have traded him for a haul this offseason.
I tried to address this with my last paragraph in the post that you quoted. I waffle on this point. Trading the player for prospects is definitely better than letting them walk into free agency, but figuring out *when* to trade them is basically going to be impossible, and I think there are other factors to consider (which, again, are in the post you quoted). It's going to be easier for teams to just say to their fans "Well, he left on his own," then justifying trading him if he's still producing at a high level.
I'm sure the Dodgers would like to have Greinke next year, but they were fine to bid for his services again and they're also fine without him. There's less risk without him (going forward given his age) and I think that has value on its own that makes up for the differential caused by downgrading from him to a lesser player in his roster spot/payroll space.
Edit 2: Also Keith Law kind of agrees with me FWIW:
Keith Law said:
That said, Cueto also didn't throw enough strikes after he arrived in Kansas City, and the reason isn't known, at least not to us. The Giants seem to be betting that the True Cueto will return for 2016 and beyond, and they might be placing a particular bet that he'll be healthy and effective enough in Years 1 and 2 that he'll opt out and spare them what could be some ugly subsequent years. Player opt-outs are bad deals for teams on paper, but in Cueto's specific case, in which he might be a terrible long-term risk but an acceptable short-term one, I can at least see San Francisco's argument in favor of giving him the opt-out and making it fairly early within the deal.
