New York Times talks about opt-outs

Player opt-outs have been all the rage this offseason, and the New York Times has a big piece, with quotes from folks like Rob Manfred and Scott Boras, on the trend and why it has become the new thing.

There have been arguments about whether player opt-outs really benefit the player or the team, but Manfred explains pretty well why it is properly evaluated as a benefit to the player:

Once an exception, the opt-out clause has become the norm. In a telephone interview, Commissioner Rob Manfred credited agents for skillfully using leverage but emphasized the "disproportionately pro-player" aspect of the clause.

"The only scenario where you can say, with certainty, that the player is not going to opt out is if he’s had a career-ending injury or he has performed at a level that is so far beneath the value of those out-years that nobody’s going to duplicate it," Manfred said. "That’s the only time the player is going to stay in that contract. Otherwise, you’ve lost control of the player."

Manfred added: "If the player’s been good, the club’s going to want to keep him. So you end up either losing him or paying him even more than you originally paid him. Neither of those are good outcomes."

Anyway, its a good piece on the subject...check it out...