How many games will K-Rod finish next season?

[batmagadanleadoff]

What was the strategic advantage to having K-Rod pitch the 8th? That K-Rod's option is based on the number of games he finishes doesn't, by itself, entitle him to finish games.

[Gwreck]

The presence of the incentive clause at a minimum suggests that he will be given that opportunity.

My analysis of the risk/reward calculus here is that it was fine to use him as the last pitcher in this game and that the Mets, if they really are tracking this thing with the same diligence that we are, may well have reached the same conclusion.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I would like to think that relief pitcher usage would be based on the game situation and on the abilities of the available pitchers. And if those variables or factors are alike, then K-Rod shouldn't have any extra entitlement to finish a game over any other pitcher just because his option is based on games he finishes.

The contract, by itself, shouldn't dictate usage. Otherwise the Mets would be bound to give K-Rod preferential treatment in finishing games even if other pitchers emerge as more qualified or if K-Rod's abilities suddenly diminish. I don't see why the contract should prevent other relievers from finishing a game. And of course, this all assumes (unfortunately) that the Mets will use their best reliever to finish games primarily, instead of in high-leverage situations, inning number be damned.

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I would like to think that relief pitcher usage would be based on the game situation and on the abilities of the available pitchers. And if those variables or factors are alike, then K-Rod shouldn't have any extra entitlement to finish a game over any other pitcher just because his option is based on games he finishes.

I might like to think that too, but there's clearly more to the issue than baseball strategy. The presence of the clause in the contract clearly implies that Rodriguez will have an opportunity to finish games. No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers. The extent of that entitlement is the risk/reward calculus I referenced.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Gwreck wrote: The presence of the clause in the contract clearly implies that Rodriguez will have an opportunity to finish games. No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers. The extent of that entitlement is the risk/reward calculus I referenced.

Your analysis is correct. Somewhere in this thread I referenced a SABR article that analyzed vesting options from a legal perpective. It suggested a similar standard ought to be applied as in constructive dismissal cases and cases involving the denial of employee stock options. D-Dad's a labor lawyer, maybe he can provide us with an insight?

[batmagadanleadoff]

So what if four Met relievers had a bonus in their contract that vested when they finished 55 games? Then what? The contract does not, cannot, entitle K-Rod to preferential treatment in getting finish opportunities. Whether K-Rod might have a grievance if the Mets compromised competitiveness to thwart K-Rod's option from vesting is one issue, but the Mets, without doubt, are not required to go out of their way to give him finish opportunities when to let another pitcher finish a game, (i.e., Beato last night) would've been just as sound tactically. Any other interpretation is crazy. The Mets should be able to allot playing time as they see fit so long as they are not intentionally compromising their ability to compete.

What if the Mets fall 30 games behind the division leader by mid August? Are you saying that the Mets can't then give Parnell most of the late inning work in hopes of developing him for the future, a future that certainly won't include K-Rod?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gwreck wrote: No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers.

I think that's irrelevant.

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What if the Mets fall 30 games behind the division leader by mid August?

I think, under that circumstance, the Mets should just release Frankie. They'd certainly be entitled to do that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Gwreck wrote: I would like to think that relief pitcher usage would be based on the game situation and on the abilities of the available pitchers. And if those variables or factors are alike, then K-Rod shouldn't have any extra entitlement to finish a game over any other pitcher just because his option is based on games he finishes. I might like to think that too, but there's clearly more to the issue than baseball strategy. The presence of the clause in the contract clearly implies that Rodriguez will have an opportunity to finish games. No other pitcher has that clearly implied opportunity in their contract. Hence, Rodriguez does have a certain extra entitlement to finish games over other Mets pitchers. The extent of that entitlement is the risk/reward calculus I referenced.

I think sound strategy should justify anything the Mets do here. Here's a hypothetical to test your theory: What if the Mets acquired Mariano Rivera tomorrow? Would the Mets then be obligated to choose K-Rod over Rivera whenever a Save opportunity materializes? If your answer is no, then you're conceding that pitcher ability is a legitimate factor that the Mets may consider when allotting playing time. Otherwise, you'd be saying that the Mets cannot, or should not, seek out in the market, a reliever that is clearly better than K-Rod because the team wouldn't be able to use that pitcher as they see fit. Your contract interpretation would mean that the Mets cannot improve the high end of their bullpen because they are legally obligated to facilitate the vesting of K-Rod's option. And that makes no sense to me.

[Gwreck]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Your contract interpretation would mean that the Mets cannot improve the high end of their bullpen because they are legally obligated to facilitate the vesting of K-Rod's option. And that makes no sense to me.

Incorrect.

1. I'm wasn't addressing hypothetical situations.
2. You are misstating what I wrote.

There are obviously about a million different things that could happen, including injury, decline in skills, the Mets acquiring a better player or even green space aliens abducting Francisco, all of which may affect the Mets' obligations.

[TransMonk]

Watching Frankie warm up last night, I was wondering if the taunts and insults he got from the fans in Philly would be as plentiful and biting as the ones he will receive when he warms up in New York.

I don't think so.

[nymr83]

I thought bringing him in last night was foolish. He shouldn't be allowed to finish any game that isn't a save (except bringing him in to a tie game in extra innings or something like that.) Letting him pitch 3 runs down is just asinine.

[batmagadanleadoff]

DATE	METS GAMES PLAYED	GAMES K-ROD FINISHED	ON PACE TO FINISH...
4/1/11	1	0	0
4/3/11	3	0	0
4/6/11	5	1	32*
4/8/11	7	1	23

Gwreck wrote: 1. I wasn't addressing hypothetical situations.

Don't you think you should be? If you're going to create a rule, you ought to be applying that rule to hypothetical situations, facts that are analagous, and slightly nuanced from the real facts in order to see how your rule would fully play out. You can't create a rule without considering how it would hold up to slightly dissimilar situations. Otherwise your rule might lead to unanticipated and undesirable consequences.

I've been doing just that throughout these K-Rod option discussions and I feel as if I'm running into opposition -- not on the merits of my ideas, but for supposedly changing the nature of the topic without reason ... as if I'm playing a game of three card monte with the relevant facts.

[Gwreck]

I didn't create a rule. It's an analysis of the current situation (or the situation as it was in Wednesday's game).

Note that I don't disagree with everything you wrote; I was just going for the pragmatic approach to analyzing the situation.

[Fman99]

I think that he should be used exactly as he always had, but then, with two strikes and two outs, bring in any other guy from the bullpen to throw the last pitch.

And when he bitches, tell him he shouldn't have punched his baby's granddaddy in the mouth last year.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Tonight made sense.

[nymr83]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Tonight made sense.

Tonight was good.
You probably didn't want to use him for very long tonight after 4 outs yesterday, so bringing him to get 1 key out and get out of there (with the PH coming next inning) was good.
Only his one appearence coming in down by 3 has bothered me so far.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

I started an exchange of emails with a friend at SABR in the hope of obtaining the article I mentioned earlier in this thread. In the course of this, he revealed to me the Mets strategy with respect to Frankie:

1. Minimize his GFs between now and June (duh).
2. Start shopping him to teams in June: His tradability (he used the expression "fungibility") will be greatly enhanced if the team that trades for him determines whether the option vests.
3. If that team falls out of the playoff contention they can exercise the same caution the Mets have so far.
4. Otherwise the option will vest with the new team, something they'll care less about if they're in a playoff race.
5a. [u:r1r8jo8a]Specific MFY scenario[/u:r1r8jo8a]: if his option vests while on the MFY, I'm sure he can swallow a year of being Mo's set-up man for $17.5M OR
5b.The MFY may work-out an extension in lieu of the option making him their future closer with the final year(s) being backloaded, in effect deferring the high premium of the 2012 option.

[batmagadanleadoff]

DATE	METS GAMES PLAYED	GAMES K-ROD FINISHED	ON PACE TO FINISH...
4/1/11	1	0	0
4/3/11	3	0	0
4/6/11	5	1	32*
4/8/11	7	1	23
4/14/11	13	3	37

[duan]

The Second Spitter wrote: I started an exchange of emails with a friend at SABR in the hope of obtaining the article I mentioned earlier in this thread. In the course of this, he revealed to me the Mets strategy with respect to Frankie: 1. Minimize his GFs between now and June (duh). 2. Start shopping him to teams in June: His tradability (he used the expression "fungibility") will be greatly enhanced if the team that trades for him determines whether the option vests. 3. If that team falls out of the playoff contention they can exercise the same caution the Mets have so far. 4. Otherwise the option will vest with the new team, something they'll care less about if they're in a playoff race. 5a. Specific MFY scenario: if his option vests while on the MFY, I'm sure he can swallow a year of being Mo's set-up man for $17.5M OR 5b.The MFY may work-out an extension in lieu of the option making him their future closer with the final year(s) being backloaded, in effect deferring the high premium of the 2012 option.

the specific motherfucking yankee scenario is unlikely even for them, as essentially that's what they did with Rafael Santana. Overpay a guy so that he'll be closer after 'mo' finishes.

[nymr83]

the specific motherfucking yankee scenario is unlikely even for them, as essentially that's what they did with Rafael Santana. Overpay a guy so that he'll be closer after 'mo' finishes.

who is Raphael Santana?


Oh and add another "finish" for Rodriguez today, his 6th.

[Gwreck]

Nymr83 wrote: Oh and add another "finish" for Rodriguez today, his 6th.

4th

[Benjamin Grimm]

Nymr83 wrote: who is Raphael Santana?

[Gwreck]

In this context duan was probably thinking of Rafael Soriano, however.

[Ceetar]

The Second Spitter wrote: 5b.The MFY may work-out an extension in lieu of the option making him their future closer with the final year(s) being backloaded, in effect deferring the high premium of the 2012 option.

Why don't the Mets do this? I brought it up in the winter when there was nothing else to talk about.. I mean, The Mets are still better with a good closer than they are trying to replace him. It's not like he's old.

[Gwreck]

Because he committed felonious assault in the workplace and he's a generally undesirable person to have around.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Because he committed felonious assault in the workplace and he's a generally undesirable person to have around.

I don't see what the first has to do with baseball, and I somehow doubt the second is true.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

The better answer would have been: there's no ponzi scheme that would make it advantageous for the Mets to defer salary.

[duan]

Gwreck wrote: In this context duan was probably thinking of Rafael Soriano, however.

indeed i was. sorry about that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

DATE	METS GAMES PLAYED	GAMES K-ROD FINISHED	ON PACE TO FINISH...*
4/1/11	1	0	0
4/3/11	3	0	0
4/6/11	5	1	32
4/8/11	7	1	23
4/14/11	13	3	37
4/17/11	16	4	40

*Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.