Under the De La Hoya precedent, Trout can now potentially elect to opt-out of his contract at any time (Fangraphs)

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

20 hours ago, Junkballer said:

Trout wouldn't be the one to be the test case for this and its hard to envision all the headache and uncertainty one would have to go through to make it worthwhile, but some players, not Trout, have enormous egos. 

Curt Flood was the test case that changed the way players were tied to teams, essentially starting the free agent era. Curt Flood never got another MLB contract for his trouble.

[Ohtaniland]

I wonder how many players that are signed by California teams that are in a position that this opt out would actually benefit. My guess is not too many.

If this test missile ever fires and succeeds I wonder if there would be any type of compensation to the opted out team. 

[Stradling]

Any quality player still producing that qualifies and isn't a free agent.  That's who it benefits.  This is all to do about nothing, it isn't something that will affect professional sports. 

[Inside Pitch]

47 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This is all to do about nothing, it isn't something that will affect professional sports. 

There is already an interview with Scott Boras where he states he wouldn't recommend any of his clients try to opt out using this loophole.   When Boras takes a stance like there there is likely a pretty good reason.

1 hour ago, CALZONE said:

If this test missile ever fires and succeeds I wonder if there would be any type of compensation to the opted out team. 

Unless they redo the CBA or do something to alter it the answer is no.   

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

So for it to work they would have to redo the CBA -- is that what you're saying?  Because in a system with a luxury tax, a CA team that front loads a contract to stay competitive could suddenly find themselves in luxury tax hell if a player opts out and that 10/300 contract is suddenly a 6/240 contract.  That 10 mil per year difference hit to the CBA tax figure could be a huge issue.   That's a concern teams in every other state wouldn't have.   So again, if the end result is that CA teams stop making offers that could punish them down the road then there's a good chance it impacts salaries in a negative way

 

Ya they would have to redo the CBA because it would literally destroy CA teams. There is no way they could even draft high school talent let alone offer top contracts. I don't think the contract side of it is a big deal really, as most top players are getting opt out clauses anyway, and the rest aren't getting 7+ year contracts. While I could see top individual players taking a hit, overall it's a big win for players as a group. When total team control maxes out at 6 seasons you will see the number of free agents blow up. Teams aren't just going to stop spending money - It's the artificial limit on free agency that drives these salaries up anyway - so that money will just get passed around to a larger pool. 

In the end the result is essentially a loss of the artificially limited arbitration years, and the end the the contract extension - two things that limit player salary. This is not something I think is good for the game though.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Inside Pitch said:

There is already an interview with Scott Boras where he states he wouldn't recommend any of his clients try to opt out using this loophole.   When Boras takes a stance like there there is likely a pretty good reason.

 

It means he anticipates money out of his clients and therefore his pocket.  3 of the top 7 markets are in california.  You take three teams out of the mix to go 7 years on a contract, you are shooting the market in the foot.  The new standard would be a 6 yr deal with a higher AAV.  Something that always benefits the team.  Anything over that length will have to include some concessions to the team.  

The other thing it does is create a lack of incentive for the developing team to not bring back their own player.  While we don't see a lot of extensions with Boras clients, that takes an important bidder out of the mix.  Also, Boras uses the existing team to set the market to some degree.  The dogs wanted Greinke back.  So when he opts out after 3yrs then the max other teams are bidding against is a 3-4 yr extension.  I know Greinke is not a boras client, but it applies across the board.  

If there are potential surprises that could happen to a contract but might not, the Owners are going to want compensation for that.  If the halo attorneys saw the JDA loophole that Hamilton used, they would have built in compensation for that.  There is no way the players and agents would want a suddenly uneven playing field for some of the large market teams to decrease the amount of competition.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

52 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

The other thing it does is create a lack of incentive for the developing team to not bring back their own player.  While we don't see a lot of extensions with Boras clients, that takes an important bidder out of the mix.  

The player only needs to reach free agency for the law to become irrelevant. Re-signing with the original team would represent the beginning of a new time period.

[Ohtaniland]

5 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

There is already an interview with Scott Boras where he states he wouldn't recommend any of his clients try to opt out using this loophole.   When Boras takes a stance like there there is likely a pretty good reason.

Unless they redo the CBA or do something to alter it the answer is no.   

I wonder how many existing California based Scott Boras clients there are that feel they are underpaid and could actually benefit from this opt out. My guess is None!

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

There is no way the players and agents would want a suddenly uneven playing field for some of the large market teams to decrease the amount of competition.  

Yep -- it would never fly with the union.   The one constant you hear EVERY off-season is that the market is waiting for the top to get established so that the second tier guys start signing deals -- impacting that ONE top player dings everyone.

[Ohtaniland]

6 hours ago, Stradling said:

Any quality player still producing that qualifies and isn't a free agent.  That's who it benefits.  This is all to do about nothing, it isn't something that will affect professional sports. 

Unless you are Oscar De La Hoya.