Players very wisely make a point of securing player-options when they sign free agent deals. I’d be less inclined to offer player-only options for fear of bad deals. I’m of the belief that most players require incentives to continue to perform at a higher level.

Call me a skeptic or cynic, but I’ve seen too many guys sign big (first deals) and then flounder immediately. Some “put too much pressure on themselves” and recover during the second season (often too late) and others merely coast, never to meet expectations. The player, opt-out deal is akin to the one-year make good contract or the final year of a contract. At what point does a team give up on the player and flip him, or do you keep him for the playoff run?

Even in the case when the team holds an option, they have to consider if the player is worth bringing back the following year at that fixed cost. At least with a fixed cost, the team can figure if they have a better alternative at a better price (value). I can think of at least three players in Chicago that fall in both categories.

The first thing every teams needs to do at this point is self-scout. Meaning they have to figure out what their legit chances are of making the postseason and what players are essential to the outcome.