There is risk in signing any player to any contract. I didn't say there was no risk in an optout. You ARE saying though that there is no scenario where an opt out benefits the club. That is incorrect and there are real life examples of it.
You still don't understand and this fact is frustrating me. I think I've already been rude and will probably be so more and I apologize, but it bugs the shit out of me when people can't or won't understand things that are very simple.
There are some situations where a team can offer an opt out, the player can take it, and the team come out of it just fine. In those situations and all the others, the benefit of including the upside in the contract is all on the player's side when compared to the same contract without the opt out clause. Including the opt out clause might be worth it to the team if it means getting the player they want or getting the player for fewer dollars.
A team has a hole in their roster whether a player opts out or whether a "normal" contract ends. What sort of argument is this?
A normal contract doesn't put risk on the team beyond the end of the contract. What we're looking at here is a 3/90 contract with a player option for 4/127 that is activated if the player performs poorly.
If Robinson Cano had an opt out this year and exercise it the Mariners would have a hole at 2b. I don't think they would be too upset about it though.
If Robinson Cano had an opt out this year, he wouldn't exercise it.
The dodgers have a hole because Greinke opted out, Toronto have a hole because Prices contract ended. Whats the difference?
The difference is that if Greinke's arm had blown up in June, his contract wouldn't have ended and Price's still would have. Oh, and if he didn't have the opt out clause, he's still under contract and they aren't looking to sign a big free agent pitcher.
Let me reframe this a bit.
Player A is signed for a seven year deal with an opt out after three years. Player B is signed for a seven year deal with no opt out.
Both players perform very well for their first three years.
Player B dies. Car crash, plane crash, whatever, he dies. The team has insurance to cover the remaining salary so they aren't out of pocket any of that money. This is a bad thing for the team, right? They have to scramble around to replace that player.
When Player A opts out, it's the same thing. It's a bit more forseeable, and it means the supply of players to replace the player with is precisely one player deeper than if he'd died, but the effect is the same.
When you sign anyone to a contract, there's a range of things that can happen. They can perform poorly and be massively overpaid for a long time. They can perform excellently and be massively underpaid for a long time. When you sign someone to a contract with an opt out, you're accepting the risk of potentially massively overpaying them for a long time and giving away any possibility of massively underpaying them for a long time. When it's a free agent contract like this where the guy is being paid top dollar, you're also giving away any possibility of paying them about what they're worth for a long time.
It's seven years worth of risk for three years worth of upside. It's a massive risk to take on. Sometimes those risks are worth taking. Often, they are not.