Imagine signing a massive contract, only to have a lockout potentially derail your plans. That’s the reality Cody Bellinger and the Yankees faced when negotiating his recent five-year, $162.5 million deal. But here’s where it gets controversial: they’ve included a lockout-proof provision that could change the game for future baseball contracts.
Here’s the deal: Bellinger, represented by the ever-innovative agent Scott Boras, wanted the option to opt out after the second and third years of his contract to retest the market. Sounds straightforward, right? Wrong. With the looming possibility of a lockout in December—a near-certainty if the league and union can’t agree on a new collective bargaining agreement—the timeline becomes murky. If a lockout occurs, would those opt-out years still align with 2027 and 2028? Or would they be pushed back, leaving Bellinger and the Yankees in a tricky situation?
Enter the lockout-proof clause. Instead of tying the opt-out to specific calendar years, Bellinger’s contract links it to “the second and third Championship played.” This clever wording ensures that both parties get what they bargained for: Bellinger gets his chance to retest the market after two full seasons of play, and the Yankees avoid the risk of paying for a season that might never happen. And this is the part most people miss: while this clause seems to favor the team, Bellinger isn’t left empty-handed—he secured a $20 million signing bonus upfront as part of the deal.
This isn’t the first time Boras has pushed the boundaries of contract language. Remember the player opt-out clause, which debuted in Alex Rodriguez’s 2000 contract? That one clearly benefited the player. But this lockout-proof provision feels different. It’s a hedge against uncertainty, and it raises a thought-provoking question: Who actually proposed it—Boras or the Yankees? Neither side is spilling the beans, but the result is a win-win for both parties, at least on paper.
For now, Bellinger’s contract stands alone in its use of this language. It’s a niche solution, applicable only to players with multi-year deals and specific opt-out structures. Don’t expect to see it widely adopted this offseason, but keep an eye out next winter as the CBA expiration looms. Players and teams may scramble to lock in deals under the old rules, and this lockout-proof clause could become a hot commodity.
Here’s the bigger question: As labor disputes continue to shape the sport, will we see more creative contract language like this? And if so, who will it benefit more—players or teams? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. The future of baseball contracts might just depend on it.
