Just thought I'd throw this out for discussion.
Currently, we can only add options (player, team, mutual) to the final season of a player's contract. If it's a team or mutual option, and the team decides to decline it, it comes with a 25% buyout penalty.
I was playing "what if" on my drive home from work today with the following idea.
What if we could also add options to intermediate seasons of a player's contract?
Here's how I would envision it working:
Obviously, you cannot have an option on a one season contract.
Two season contracts would continue to work the same as they work today. An option can be added to the second year, and would incur a 25% buyout if declined by the team in the second year for a team or mutual option.
Here's where things would change.
For a three season contract, an option can be added to the second year as well as the final year. If a player declines it (for a player or mutual option), he walks away and becomes a FA. No penalty to the owner. But if the team declines the option on the second season, he incurs a 50% buyout penalty in that second season, as well as a 25% buyout for the third (final) season.
For a four season contract, an option can be added to the third year as well as the final year, and would also work as described above. A buyout on the part of the team (for a team or mutual) would cost 50% in year 3 and 25% in year 4.
For a five season contract, options can be added to the third AND fourth year, as well as the final year. A buyout on the part of the team would incur a 50% buyout penalty for the remaining intermediate seasons, and 25% for the final season.
Note that for 4 and 5 year contracts, the first two seasons are always guaranteed.
The pros for doing this:
1) It will model "real life" a little more accurately, as options in MLB can occur in the middle of contracts and not just in the final season. Remember when ARod opted out in year 7 of his first 10 year deal around 8 or 9 years ago?
2) It gives owners more flexibility in getting out of bad contracts (important for new owners taking over a team and inheriting the previous owner's bad contracts, assuming the previous owner added intermediate year options), but it also comes at a higher cost than a final season buyout. In other words, it ain't free.
3) It allows for more creativity on the parts of owners in structuring contracts.
The cons for doing this:
1) It's a change that the HBD developers would have to code. Not just the logic in coding the new option logic, but also on how to compare different and possibly more complex contract offers during free agency. Not a whole lot of HBD development seems to be going on these days, which may make this "suggestion" more of an intellectual exercise.
2) ???
Looking for thoughts and constructive feedback.