Originally Posted by mth123
So, if it was a mutual option (it was per Cots), why would the Reds have to "buy out" an option that the player declined? It seems like the Reds would only be on the hook for $2.5 Million if the team was the declining party.
Simply put, those are the terms of the contract. Had Madson been eligible for arbitration, the Reds could've offered. There's also the likely possibility that the Reds were planning on turning down the option but let Madson save face by turning it down first. And although Madson might face competition for the closer role elsewhere, his odds are much better if Aroldis Chapman isn't his competition.