How many games will K-Rod finish next season?

[duan]

just a point of reference if K-Rod gives up the winning run does that make it that he 'finishes' the game?

[Guest The Second Spitter]

That is correct.

The "Games finished" stat as useless as it is, makes more sense for middle relievers and borderline closers, rather than established "elite" closers. It is more commonly used as a performance bonus (because of Rule 3((5)) rather than a vesting options.

To give you an idea how ridiculous Frankie's vesting option is, this is the GF based incentives clause in J.J Putz's current contract:

performance bonuses based on games, games finished: $0.125M each for 60, 70 games $0.45M for 40 GF, $0.525M for 45 GF, $0.6M for 50 GF, $0.675M for 55 GF, $0.75M for 60 GF

[Ceetar]

Who knows how really ridiculous it is? The Mets wanted a closer. Frankie may have been pushing for a 'highest paid closer' tag, which for some reason seems to be a thing. (Look at C.C's contract. conspiracy aside: I wonder if they didn't offer Lee the extra bit because it would've eclipsed CC and maybe they thought he'd leave next year?)


Maybe Omar negotiated it this way to get his services at a "reasonable" rate and added the easy option as a way for him to get the highest closer thing, specifically in a year when he knew they'd have more money to spend. Which has been why I really don't care. I'd rather have Frankie than not and I don't think the 13 million prevents the Mets from doing what they need to do to get better.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Frayed Knot wrote: Cora was an aging player and the 25th man (or close to it) on the roster; guys like that get released all the time. And while he certainly could have taken his case to a grievance I suspect he was quite possibly advised that the odds on that one were long.

They don't get released at 11:00 the night before triggering a vesting option, when the guy replacing him is hitting .212 / 297 / .250 // .547, more or less the same as him.

That was a deliberate option dodge and everybody knows it, which suggests that using a player in a manner so as to dodge an option isn't such an established rule as all that.

[Frayed Knot]

Cora's vesting option was due to kick in if/when he appeared in 80 games. Instead, he was released on Aug 7 (season 68% complete) having appeared in 62 of the 80 games needed (77%). So while he looked to be on his way to reaching that number (though certainly not assured of it) that's hardly the same thing as claiming he was dumped on "11:00 on the night before".

Plus, I'd maintain that releasing a back of the roster player for essentially a younger version of the same thing is a lot less out of the ordinary than would be taking a nine year closer who has finished nearly 90% of the games he's appeared in over the last six seasons and suddenly "deciding" you don't want him to close anymore just as it becomes virtually certain that such an option is about to kick in.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think it's different, certainly. I think what the Cora case is illustrative of is to suggest that a team doesn't have an obligation to deliver a player oppurtunities to meet his vesting level, something that I think hasn't been established.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I think it's different, certainly. I think what the Cora case is illustrative of is to suggest that a team doesn't have an obligation to deliver a player oppurtunities to meet his vesting level, something that I think hasn't been established.

That's how I see it. Otherwise, what's the point of making the bonus conditional in the first place? I think that the "if" in the contract ("if" K-Rod finishes x number of games) should also encompass the opportunity --- "if" K-Rod finishes X number of games and "if" the team affords K-Rod the opportunity to finish X number of games, which may be given solely at the team's discretion. The team has to have full autonomy, free of interference and influence from its players and free of worry and risk of incurring monetary damages when it determines lineups, playing time and strategies. It's one thing for Jeff Francoeur to politic for more playing time behind the scenes, but his gripes should never amount to a valid legal cause of action or grievance against his team, no matter how logical his case for playing time might be. Otherwise, you'll eventually have a player filing a grievance because he was asked to sac bunt on his last AB and missed his HR bonus by one HR.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: Frankie will argue, he was employed as specialist. The denial of the opportunity to finish 55 games is a repudiatory breach of contract by the Mets, designed solely to prevent the option from vesting, especially if his KPI's are on-par with previous years, where he consistently finished 60 plus games, when healthy. He can point to things like being used inconsistently to the previous years of his contract and the fact the Mets tried to convert his contract to non-guaranteed, last year (which was a really dumb thing to do). All of this amounts to a consistent attempt to undermine his employment. I could easily see this going against the Mets.

I'd rule that K-Rod was signed to be used as the Mets saw fit. Are you saying that K-Rod has to finish games even if Parnell emerges as a better pitcher? Or what if Parnell is as good as K-Rod? Or almost as good as K-Rod? Or what if the Mets had a good faith but mistaken belief that Parnell was the better pitcher? Do you think that it's healthy for an arbitrator to decide how good Parnell had to have been for the Mets to have used him as the closer without incurring penalties? The Mets have to be able to make in game decisions free of oversight from an arbitrator, and any ruling on this hypothetical K-Rod grievance should preserve that principle.

[smg58]

Ceetar wrote: Who knows how really ridiculous it is? The Mets wanted a closer. Frankie may have been pushing for a 'highest paid closer' tag, which for some reason seems to be a thing. (Look at C.C's contract. conspiracy aside: I wonder if they didn't offer Lee the extra bit because it would've eclipsed CC and maybe they thought he'd leave next year?) Maybe Omar negotiated it this way to get his services at a "reasonable" rate and added the easy option as a way for him to get the highest closer thing, specifically in a year when he knew they'd have more money to spend. Which has been why I really don't care. I'd rather have Frankie than not and I don't think the 13 million prevents the Mets from doing what they need to do to get better.

It was not clear that, once the bidding got to three years at over $10M per, anybody else was even competing for his services.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: I'd rather have Frankie than not and I don't think the 13 million prevents the Mets from doing what they need to do to get better.

There's a difference between optimism and willful ignorance. If you really believe the above, then you're due for a name change.

13 million on the open market-- added to, say, what's already been spent on the back end of the rotation-- gets the team a Peavy/Carpenter/Lackey/Oswalt-sized Band Aid. In-season, it nets an enterprising GM something like a Cliff Lee or a Halladay at reduced cost. It's the difference between starting shortstop Jose Reyes and starting shortstop Justin Turner. It's valuable.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

smg58 wrote: Who knows how really ridiculous it is? The Mets wanted a closer. Frankie may have been pushing for a 'highest paid closer' tag, which for some reason seems to be a thing. (Look at C.C's contract. conspiracy aside: I wonder if they didn't offer Lee the extra bit because it would've eclipsed CC and maybe they thought he'd leave next year?) Maybe Omar negotiated it this way to get his services at a "reasonable" rate and added the easy option as a way for him to get the highest closer thing, specifically in a year when he knew they'd have more money to spend. Which has been why I really don't care. I'd rather have Frankie than not and I don't think the 13 million prevents the Mets from doing what they need to do to get better. It was not clear that, once the bidding got to three years at over $10M per, anybody else was even competing for his services.

It was a stupid, unimaginative, dangerous deal the day they made it.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'd rather have Frankie than not and I don't think the 13 million prevents the Mets from doing what they need to do to get better. There's a difference between optimism and willful ignorance. If you really believe the above, then you're due for a name change. 13 million on the open market-- added to, say, what's already been spent on the back end of the rotation-- gets the team a Peavy/Carpenter/Lackey/Oswalt-sized Band Aid. In-season, it nets an enterprising GM something like a Cliff Lee or a Halladay at reduced cost. It's the difference between starting shortstop Jose Reyes and starting shortstop Justin Turner. It's valuable.

They already have a ton coming off the books. I haven't heard anything remotely related to not wanting to have a closer and buck that trend, so they're very likely going to put a fair portion of it back into the same position. I don't want them winging money at guys just to spend money. Sandy's already on record saying he'd like not to spend all the money coming off anyway, meaning he, as of right now, suspects he'll be able to fill the holes on the teams without maxing out the budget. There is no evidence that the extra money on a one year deal for an elite relief pitcher is going to prevent anything, and that money would likely be reinvested in a way that actually raises the budget for 2013 and 2014. In essence, the 17.5 million is something that we can bank on to be available for 2013 to fix problems that arise before then.

Regardless, barring anything bad happening(i.e. losing games, losing our best relief pitcher to injury) his option is going to vest. So there isn't really reason to get worked up about it. There are certainly scenarios where his usage would be better for the team, but they're far fetched. He's going to be used primarily in a closers role. Anything else is rooting against the team and I don't care what he's making, and Terry better not either.


also, just because we don't know who else may have been offering anything, doesn't mean no one was. Reporters always say no one else is interested when they might mean thety don't know of anyone else interested. some teams and offers and agents are more secretive. Some never make an official offer but keep negotiations open.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: They already have a ton coming off the books

On this point, I agree.

I haven't heard anything remotely related to not wanting to have a closer and buck that trend, so they're very likely going to put a fair portion of it back into the same position.

And I would say-- granted, without much more by way of evidence; Alderson's not much for answering hypotheticals in great detail-- that it's highly unlikely. The last two contracts the Mets have given closers have burned them; Ricciardi-- their major-league talent scout-- had the same experience in Toronto. With guys like Parnell and others (Harvey?) lurking in the minors, I feel somewhat comfortable that they're not going down the same route.

I don't want them winging money at guys just to spend money.

Again, I disagree. If this team isn't gon' win, we gon' shine. They shall know us by the trail of ice, bitchezzzzzz. BULEEDAT.

Sandy's already on record saying he'd like not to spend all the money coming off anyway, meaning he, as of right now, suspects he'll be able to fill the holes on the teams without maxing out the budget.

So... you're saying... in this frugal environment, an environment crafted to maintain maximum "payroll flexibility"... that 13 million is relatively meaningless? Are you sure you're arguing for YOUR point here?

There is no evidence that the extra money on a one year deal for an elite relief pitcher is going to prevent anything, and that money would likely be reinvested in a way that actually raises the budget for 2013 and 2014. In essence, the 17.5 million is something that we can bank on to be available for 2013 to fix problems that arise before then.

I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'm not sure-- my comprehension isn't what it once was, in my reading prime-- but I think that's on your end.

Regardless, barring anything bad happening(i.e. losing games, losing our best relief pitcher to injury) his option is going to vest. So there isn't really reason to get worked up about it. There are certainly scenarios where his usage would be better for the team, but they're far fetched.

"So lie back, dear, open wide, and think of Flushing."

Sadly, you may be right about the vest. It would be kind of crappy, though... for the reasons that virtually everyone else has spelled out here and more or less agreed on as points granted. (See: "payroll flexibility.")

He's going to be used primarily in a closers role. Anything else is rooting against the team and I don't care what he's making, and Terry better not either.

Not necessarily, dud-- Holy shit. You're planning to murder Terry Collins, aren't you?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I certainly don't expect things to change, but I disagree about the pointlessness of discussing it. Hashing out points in (semi-)public fora like this gain them ever greater cultureal currency until that currency helps tip the scales for those in authority.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'd rule that K-Rod was signed to be used as the Mets saw fit. Are you saying that K-Rod has to finish games even if Parnell emerges as a better pitcher? Or what if Parnell is as good as K-Rod? Or almost as good as K-Rod? Or what if the Mets had a good faith but mistaken belief that Parnell was the better pitcher? Do you think that it's healthy for an arbitrator to decide how good Parnell had to have been for the Mets to have used him as the closer without incurring penalties? The Mets have to be able to make in game decisions free of oversight from an arbitrator, and any ruling on this hypothetical K-Rod grievance should preserve that principle.

In my view, in order to give efficacy to a vesting option, there must be an implied duty to act in good faith. Otherwise, a vesting option is, in substance, indistinguishable from a unilateral (club) option. Exercising a vesting option in good faith is realization on the criteria it sets-out (performance, health, etc).

Of course, an arbitrator will not dwell whether or not Parnell is a better pitcher. The question of whether the Mets acted in good faith should be adjudged on the overall course of conduct of the Mets over the relevant period.

In the Frank Thomas/Blue Jays grievance, it was much easier for the Blue Jays adduce bona fide reasons for benching Thomas, than it was for Thomas to prove that had acted in bad faith. It is unlikely an arbitrator could have questioned this, given Thomas' circumstances and the timing of his release.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Second Spitter wrote: I'd rule that K-Rod was signed to be used as the Mets saw fit. Are you saying that K-Rod has to finish games even if Parnell emerges as a better pitcher? Or what if Parnell is as good as K-Rod? Or almost as good as K-Rod? Or what if the Mets had a good faith but mistaken belief that Parnell was the better pitcher? Do you think that it's healthy for an arbitrator to decide how good Parnell had to have been for the Mets to have used him as the closer without incurring penalties? The Mets have to be able to make in game decisions free of oversight from an arbitrator, and any ruling on this hypothetical K-Rod grievance should preserve that principle. In my view, in order to give efficacy to a vesting option, there must be an implied duty to act in good faith. Otherwise, a vesting option is, in substance, indistinguishable from a unilateral (club) option. Exercising a vesting option in good faith is realization on the criteria it sets-out (performance, health, etc).

I agree that the team ought to act in good faith. But what is good faith? The devil's in the details. Keep in mind that what might constitute bad faith in labor relations in one industry may not necessarily constitute bad faith in the unique world of Major League baseball.

The Second Spitter wrote: Of course, an arbitrator will not dwell whether or not Parnell is a better pitcher. The question of whether the Mets acted in good faith should be adjudged on the overall course of conduct of the Mets over the relevant period.

But isn't this kind of analysis inevitable and unavoidable? No matter how you choose to explain the process, according to your view, the arbitrator will still be required to determine whether K-Rod was too good to be benched, or whether one of K-Rod's teammates (e.g., Parnell) was good enough to finish those games that K-Rod will claim he was entitled to finish. How else can the arbitrator judge the team's "overall conduct" without ultimately comparing K-Rod to some of his other pitcher teammates? You certainly can't be suggesting that K-Rod is legally entitled to finish 55 games solely because he's done so in the past. And it's usually more complicated than to simply say that Parnell was better, or that K-Rod didn't have it. The real world is never so fluid. What is likely to happen is that both K-Rod and Parnell will have ups and downs, thus further complicating this analysis. To me, this is a slippery and dangerous slope that would burden a team without justification. A team should be allowed to make in-game decisions without having to weigh their decisions against the effects those decisions might have on a player's individual statistics. I think that the historical custom in baseball is that the team has the final say --the only say-- in allocating playing time. A performance bonus should not be the equivalent of voting stock. A team's right to make in game decisions without outside interference should be superior to any player's desire for more playing time, and should, therefore, be afforded greater protection.

I would simplify this type of grievance by ruling that the team is under no obligation whatsoever to enable the player to reach his performance bonuses, and that to the extent that the team does afford the player the opportunity, the team does so voluntarily and at its sole discretion.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd guess that now that Obama's appointed those Freedom-Hating Communists* to the NLRB, it'll be tougher for the club to prove avoiding the option was "good faith."


* - That's what Big Biz would tell ya.

[Vic Sage]

there may be, quite literally, a ton of scholarly research and analysis on the inefficacy of limiting your best reliever to the last inning, instead of using him in the highest leverage late-inning situations as they arise. whether the new Met management team subscribes to this philosophy is currently unknown but is quite likely, given that Alderson is seen as the granddaddy of the "moneyball" gm movement, which included his Lieutenants DePodesta and Ricciardi.

It wouldn't be about F-Rod becoming less effective or Parnell being more effective; the strategy would rely on F-Rod's effectiveness being employed at more important moments in the game. Now sometimes this would mean using F-Rod in the 9th, and sometimes not. It's not a strategy being employed to void a contract, it's being employed to maximize the team's chances of winning (a claim they could easily back with that ton of sabrmetric research i mentioned.)

If they decide to adopt that philosophy, and F-Rod happens to fall short of an incentive clause as a result, you think F-Rod wins a lawsuit against them? I don't. The "good faith" of the parties at the time the contract was negotiated and entered into is not an issue. But this is a new management team with a new philosophy. Are you saying the F-Rod contract prohibits the ownership from hiring smarter management? Surely, that was a forseeable possiblity by BOTH SIDES when the deal was entered into. The Mets were stupid then, but surely their getting smarter (however unlikely) was at least a forseeable possibility by F-Rod's agent, no? And so, by settling for non-guaranteed option, they bear the risk of that forseeable possibility.

Now if F-Rod is the closer all year and they then suddenly switch him to a setup role (or bench him) on the virtual eve of his vesting option, that would look bad to an arbitrator. But if they state going into ST that this is going to be their BP approach, and that starters betters stop walking guys, and their hitters better stop hacking at pitches out of the zone, or they too will find their roles changing, I think an arbitrator will be hard-pressed to hold the Mets liable.

the fact is, using your best reliever in highest leverage situations is a valid baseball strategy to employ, and the Mets have 17.5 million reasons to employ it this season. If i'm sandy, i like those odds.

Of course, if Collins actually tried to use F-Rod this way, with F-Rod's emotional instabiliy, he's more likely to implode than actually go along with it. Which would be ok, too, cuz this team ain't winning this year anyway, and shedding bad deals should be the highest priority, to build us for the future.

[metsmarathon]

keep poking the angry bear to get him kicked out of the zoo. i like it.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, that's kind of a side effect-cum-failsafe.

But, yeah, me too.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: the fact is, using your best reliever in highest leverage situations is a valid baseball strategy to employ, and the Mets have 17.5 million reasons to employ it this season. If i'm sandy, i like those odds.

That's the logical solution. But what are your thoughts on whether a team should even have to justify in the first place, to an arbitrator, the playing time it allocates to a grieving player?

[metirish]

Rodriguez will tell you he actually pitched nearly 500 innings last season Manuel had him up so often.

[Vic Sage]

That's the logical solution. But what are your thoughts on whether a team should even have to justify in the first place, to an arbitrator, the playing time it allocates to a grieving player?

i disagree with your premise.

I don't think an arbitrator would require a team to justify its playing time per se, but only as a factor in determining whether the intent of the contract's option provision was frustrated by subsequent bad faith practices by the Mets. My point is simply that (1) its not "bad faith" to engage in baseball decisions that increase your team's chance of winning, and (2) the possiblity that this could be a strategy for a "closer's" use was known at the time the contract was entered into, and should have been known by the parties, and was forseeable, so F-Rod bears the risk that the Mets might subsequently adapt such a strategy. If he wanted to negotiate a clause for "appearances" instead of games finished", he was able to do so (and Omar probably would've agreed, since he was stupid enough to agree to the clause in the first place), and would've been protected. He didn't do that. The Mets are under no obligation to renegotiate his deal to protect him from his own agent's ineptitude.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: That's the logical solution. But what are your thoughts on whether a team should even have to justify in the first place, to an arbitrator, the playing time it allocates to a grieving player? i disagree with your premise. I don't think an arbitrator would require a team to justify its playing time per se, but only as a factor in determining whether the intent of the contract's option provision was frustrated by subsequent bad faith practices by the Mets. My point is simply that (1) its not "bad faith" to engage in baseball decisions that increase your team's chance of winning, and (2) the possiblity that this could be a strategy for a "closer's" use was known at the time the contract was entered into, and should have been known by the parties, and was forseeable, so F-Rod bears the risk that the Mets might subsequently adapt such a strategy. If he wanted to negotiate a clause for "appearances" instead of games finished", he was able to do so (and Omar probably would've agreed, since he was stupid enough to agree to the clause in the first place), and would've been protected. He didn't do that. The Mets are under no obligation to renegotiate his deal to protect him from his own agent's ineptitude.

I'm not sure that you answered my question. Or maybe you did and I missed it. So let me break down your answer and try again.

Vic Sage wrote: My point is simply that (1) its not "bad faith" to engage in baseball decisions that increase your team's chance of winning, and (2) the possiblity that this could be a strategy for a "closer's" use was known at the time the contract ....

Agreed. There's no question but that employing winning strategies cannot be reconciled with "bad faith" and should trump a player's right to accumulate individual statistics. The team's paramount goal is to win games. I need no convincing here. Besides, we already had a lengthy thread on relief pitcher usage where the forum consensus was that using your best relief pitchers in high leverage situations is tactically preferable to a rigid and virtually inflexible rule that prevents the team's best reliever(s) from entering a game before the 9th inning. I can't find that thread, but I remember posting an image of a 1972 Sporting News cover featuring McGraw and Frisella sitting in the Mets old golf/bullpen cart.

But what if the facts were that K-Rod was used in low-leverage situations? Or that K-Rod's appearances were micro-managed subtly so, mainly so that his bonus wouldn't vest? I'm not talking about K-Rod averaging a dozen appearances or so per month during the first half of the season and then dropping precipitously. What if K-Rod was managed so that a chart of his appearances would be smooth? These are mostly academic exercises, because the Mets need to make money, and need to win to make money, and didn't invest millions of dollars in K-Rod*, to use him as a middle inning mop-up man in lost causes. So it's unrealistic that the Mets would waste an effective K-Rod so long as the Mets are in contention. But my question is, what if they did?

*Putting aside the soundness of that deal. For K-Rod to be worth $17.5M/season, he'd have to be the best reliever in baseball. And hit 25 HR's.

[Vic Sage]

baseball salary arbitrations are loaded with discussions of a player's use, and teams justifying their usage and denigrating the player, all in order to keep salary low -- and players are making arguments to these same arbitrators about their relative value. Their agents create the equivalent of private placement memoranda for these arbitrators, who are no more qualified to assess these matters than an arbitrator hearing the theoretical grievance F-Rod would make in this situation.

to say that arbitrators have no right, or should not be required, to hear such evidence, would throw out the salary arbitration system along with bath water (not that that's necessarily a bad thing).

so i don't get why you think an arbitrator can't hear such evidence to determine whether a contract has been breached because of "bad faith". If, in fact, the Mets did use F-Rod in low leverage situations, that would be pretty strong evidence that they were just acting to void his deal. And yeah, players (and anybody else entering into a contract) has a right to expect the other party to behave in a way that doesn't render the contract void. It undermines the very notion of a contract.

but thankfully Mets management is not this stupid... well, not anymore anyway. They could simply use F-Rod in the best way possible to make use of him to win games, and as a side benefit, end up getting out from under one of Omar's dumber moves.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: baseball salary arbitrations are loaded with discussions of a player's use, and teams justifying their usage and denigrating the player, all in order to keep salary low -- and players are making arguments to these same arbitrators about their relative value. Their agents create the equivalent of private placement memoranda for these arbitrators, who are no more qualified to assess these matters than an arbitrator hearing the theoretical grievance F-Rod would make in this situation. to say that arbitrators have no right, or should not be required, to hear such evidence, would throw out the salary arbitration system along with bath water (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). so i don't get why you think an arbitrator can't hear such evidence to determine whether a contract has been breached because of "bad faith". If, in fact, the Mets did use F-Rod in low leverage situations, that would be pretty strong evidence that they were just acting to void his deal. And yeah, players (and anybody else entering into a contract) has a right to expect the other party to behave in a way that doesn't render the contract void. It undermines the very notion of a contract. but thankfully Mets management is not this stupid... well, not anymore anyway. They could simply use F-Rod in the best way possible to make use of him to win games, and as a side benefit, end up getting out from under one of Omar's dumber moves.

You're right to write that an arbitrator would be qualified to hear K-Rod's hypothetical grievance. I should've chosen my words more carefully, because I know this to be true. Matrimonial judges decide divorce cases even though some of them never married. And a judge that never changed a flat tire in his life and wouldn't know where to pour the antifreeze gets to decide a $20M products liability suit that turns on the soundness of an automobile engine, etc., etc., etc.

We obviously disagree on what the outcome of that grievance would be. I believe that a team should have the right to allocate playing time as it sees fit, without any outside oversight, for reasons I've already stated.

[Vic Sage]

someone's been reading my posts...

http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/1/13/1930768/the-k-rod-plan

Because there's a new regime in town, they have an advantage: the ability to frame the changes as part of an overhaul of how the team is run, all the way down to how the Closer is used. Just call him a "Moneyball Closer," and maybe people will nod sagely and miss the point.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Union will monitor Mets' use of K-Rod with option pending

Just give Francisco Rodriguez the damn ball. That is the sentiment of MLB players� association head Michael Weiner, who indicated Tuesday the union will be paying attention to whether the Mets try to prevent K-Rod from getting the 55 games finished he needs this season to trigger a $17.5 million option for 2012. �A club�s decision for using a player has to be motivated by trying to win,� Weiner said. �There is arbitration precedent that says a team cannot sit a player down or decline to use him in order to prevent him from earning a bonus or have a year vest. I have every expectation the Mets are going to fully honor the basic agreement.� Weiner, who is making the rounds to all 30 spring training camps � the basic agreement between the players and owners expires after this season � said he�s confident the Mets will continue to operate as usual as they face a lawsuit for up to $1 billion from the Trustee for Bernie Madoff�s Ponzi scheme victims. �We want to make sure contractual obligations to the players are honored, and we�ve been assured through the commissioner�s office that is the case,� Weiner said. �There are no concerns there. It�s in the interests of everybody associated with baseball that the National League franchise in New York be a strong franchise. The Wilpons have always attempted to field a competitive team, they�ve had success at doing that in their tenure and we certainly hope they continue to do that.�

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/metsblog/mlbpa_will_monitor_mets_use_of_rod_UEMAKvGuapjuz1v50ij3eI

[Benjamin Grimm]

I read something today that indicates that even if Frankie finishes his 55 games, if he's on the DL during the last 30 days of the season, the contract won't vest.

Obviously, the Mets won't be able to get away with stashing him on the DL with a phony injury, but it's interesting to know that the 55 won't necessarily close the deal. (I also have to wonder if, perhaps, Sandy Alderson has Tonya Harding's phone number on his speed dial.)

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I read something today that indicates that even if Frankie finishes his 55 games, if he's on the DL during the last 30 days of the season, the contract won't vest. Obviously, the Mets won't be able to get away with stashing him on the DL with a phony injury, but it's interesting to know that the 55 won't necessarily close the deal. (I also have to wonder if, perhaps, Sandy Alderson has Tonya Harding's phone number on his speed dial.)

He has to be 'declared healthy' by doctors. I believe this means even if he exits the last game healthy and beats up someone and breaks his thumb he wouldn't vest