Wailing and Bailing

With Aramis Ramirez and J.D. Drew jumping into the free agent pool, there has been a lot of gab among the punidtocracy about how dumb it is for teams to give players those kinds of opt-out clauses. But how dumb is it?

Yeah, it sucks for the Cubs and Dodgers, who seem unlikely to keep their players. But look at the other choices the teams had if they didn’t include those opt-out clauses:

1. If the teams held firm and did not include the opt-out clause, there was a risk that the players would not agree to sign at all.
2. Or perhaps the team offered a shorter contract in lieu of the opt-out clause. Which winds up making the players free agents after a year or two anyway.

Is losing Ramirez to his opt-out clause this year better or worse than losing him as a free agent two years ago? Is losing Drew to his opt-out clause this year better or worse than signing him to a one-year deal and watching him leave in a more conventional fashion?

It seems like a wash to me.

Update: Of course, I write this before I check the news. A-Ram re-upped with the Cubs for a huge-ass contract. I’m sure Sully and Dr. Phil will wail and gnash their teeth about the foolish expense…just a few days after wailing and gnashing their teeth at the thought of Ramirez leaving…