OK but wasn't the issue his having an option for the last 3 years? So let's suppose we had got him for the 5 years with no player option ( insert everyone cheering emoji here) . He stiffs and exercises his option and stays ( your fear)...he stiffs and he's locked into a contract and stays....what's the difference?!
Worst case - you are correct. Worst case he stays and we pay top dollar for an under performing player for 5 years. The option makes no difference.
In all other scenarios though we may be screwed. I'm not saying we will either. It's just a possibility.
It's an option but it's a stupid option because Luai is completely covered and he has given up nothing at all to be completely covered.
I seriously think it's the dumbest contract I've seen in my life and there is no excuse for it other than incompetence.
Did you read about the Bula contract. That makes sense to me but the pay seems too high and the difference between Bula exercising it and us exercising it isn't much. So that contract isn't a good deal. At least that contract makes sense though in that Bula gives up something for an additional year and we get covered as well.
If you though want to believe it's a good contract it's cool. I just can't see how anyone can rationally justify that contract.
The only arguable thing to worry about is he demonstrably SUCCEEDS in the first 2 years without winning a comp and he leaves with his promise to everyone and himself unfulfilled ....not likely
I don't believe this at all. He can choose to leave for any reason. He can request for more money. He can go to market. Lot's can happen. It's not an either/or situation.