I still don't understand this point of view.
Okay, people make the point that the only guys who don't opt out are guys who get injured/start to suck. Well yeah, but aren't all baseball contracts fully guaranteed, besides the odd option year? So even if there isn't an opt out, you're not insured against having to pay the albatross contract of a pitcher who gets injured.
And second, who's to say it'll make sense for the Nats to re-sign him in 3/4 years? There are plenty of scenarios I could envision where you let a 30/31 year old pitcher walk instead of re-signing him. All you need it pitcher development, team regression, or a combination of both to make it make sense.
Third, what's the alternative - that we DON'T SIGN HIM AT ALL? That's BETTER?
I'm against signing pitchers to 7 year deals. Outside of Felix (Kershaw was an arbitration buyout too), we haven't seen a long-term deal be a great (hell, even good) idea. I guess the Grienke deal was a good one, but he also opted out, so there's that.
