How many games will K-Rod finish next season?

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: 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.

The second is true because the first is true.

There's a greater issue than baseball there; it goes to the nature of the employer-employee relationship. Rodriguez has proven himself to be a disruptive and insubordinate employee who committed a felony in the workplace. In the real world, if you do that at your job, you no longer get to work there anymore.

---

Going back to your original question as to why the Mets don't work out a contract extension with Rodriguez, the answer is all of the above, plus the fact that any extension worked out with him would still probably be overpaying for the quality he brings to the team.

Your comment that "the Mets are still better with a good closer than trying to replace him" is flawed because it fails to consider the potential lower cost of a replacement player of similar value.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: 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. The second is true because the first is true. There's a greater issue than baseball there; it goes to the nature of the employer-employee relationship. Rodriguez has proven himself to be a disruptive and insubordinate employee who committed a felony in the workplace. In the real world, if you do that at your job, you no longer get to work there anymore. --- Going back to your original question as to why the Mets don't work out a contract extension with Rodriguez, the answer is all of the above, plus the fact that any extension worked out with him would still probably be overpaying for the quality he brings to the team. Your comment that "the Mets are still better with a good closer than trying to replace him" is flawed because it fails to consider the potential lower cost of a replacement player of similar value.

Lower cost relievers are not better relievers, they're just cheaper. We don't know that the 14million-newguy money is going to significantly make the team better, or that they desperately need it to fill all the holes and won't be able to do so without it. There's a chance that they fill it internally, but there is no telling if anyone will show themselves worthy of that either. I'd rather have the overpaid K-Rod for one year versus a less guy for 2 or 3. None of these are absolutes obviously, maybe they can sign a guy cheaply, maybe for only 1 year. It should all play in, but it's not a given that this team is better off without him.

To the other point. Who knows. He's hardly the only guy employed in the world that's had a domestic dispute, even at work. And there are plenty of situations where they remain working where they're working, from favortism to money, such as this case. Just because the guy may not be the best human being doesn't mean that his teammates hate him or hate having him around. Josh Thole for example apparently likes him enough to talk him through setting up a Twitter account.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: Lower cost relievers are not better relievers, they're just cheaper. We don't know that the 14million-newguy money is going to significantly make the team better, or that they desperately need it to fill all the holes and won't be able to do so without it. There's a chance that they fill it internally, but there is no telling if anyone will show themselves worthy of that either. I'd rather have the overpaid K-Rod for one year versus a less guy for 2 or 3. None of these are absolutes obviously, maybe they can sign a guy cheaply, maybe for only 1 year. It should all play in, but it's not a given that this team is better off without him.

Nobody's arguing that the next guy in the closer role ('cause, y'know, if you're thinking we're revolutionizing that, really, who's kidding who?) will be better than Rodriguez at pitching/"closing" (necessarily), or that the team will be better off without him in general (save, perhaps, GWreck; even then, I suspect he hates what Frankie represents more than hating Frankie himself). Most of us seem to be arguing that $17M is too damn much to lock up in a reliever, whose value is SEVERELY limited by workload. An okay-producing outfielder for $17 million is worth more in terms of winning ballgames than the bestest closer having a career/HOF-type year; put another way, there's virtually no fucking way that Francisco Rodriguez will earn $17 million in onfield contributions.

Additionally, it's that Overpaid K-Rod ramps up the odds significantly that guys like Reyes never get to become MarketValue Reyes in a Mets uni. I mean, there's no guarantee that you'll spend your tax refund check wisely, either, but wouldn't you rather have a bigger one with which to work?

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Additionally, it's that Overpaid K-Rod ramps up the odds significantly that guys like Reyes never get to become MarketValue Reyes in a Mets uni. I mean, there's no guarantee that you'll spend your tax refund check wisely, either, but wouldn't you rather have a bigger one with which to work?

And that's where my disagreement is. I'm not convinced that it will. If it does, yes, ship him out. release him if they're out of it. Pull him with 2 outs and 2 strikes. I don't believe the union should be able to dictate in-game usage, and I'd be in favor of the Mets telling them to bugger off, we'll use our guys how we want.

But this is not my decision. It's Alderson/Owner's. It's their job to figure out what they're going to need to spend on other parts, and if that 14mllion is desparately needed to keep Reyes and get another pitcher/OF/etc. Obviously him not vesting gives maximum flexibility and doesn't prevent them from resigning him from there either. But I just don't believe it's a big deal.


Either

A. The Mets need him not to vest, and in which case they'll make sure he doesn't.
B. The Mets will be fine even if he vests, and having 17.5 million coming off the books in 2013 helps flexibility in that year too.
C. The Mets are "in it" into September, and the added revenue from being in a pennant race and walk-up sales and next year projections based off that more than pays for Rodriguez if he ends up getting al ot of opportunity to close games in the persuit of staying in a pennant race.

[duan]

the basic premise comes down to this.
is there any reason why you should pay nearly as much as you would a top tier starter to a top tier reliever.

if you agree with this what you're saying is you're valuing the leverage of the innings that a closer pitches at roughly 3 times the amount that you do a starter. Now, that's fine, but if it's the case you damn sure better be sure those innings mean something and you have a better chance of that happening if you've got a rotation rather then a relief corps. Dominant relievers are what a very good team need to put them over the top, not what a okay team needs to be good & therein the problem of the brittleness of the latter end of the Omar era mets, they needed everyone to be healthy to be good and whatever black cat he ran over sure as hell came back to bite his ass on that.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Even if Frankie Rodriguez is the best closer in baseball (which I doubt, but let's assume that) I still think you could get a guy 80 per cent as good for about half the money.

And I believe that it's better to do that, and use the savings to improve at another position.

[metirish]

I'm fairly sure that Alderson and his crew won't overvalue a "closer".

[Ceetar]

duan wrote: the basic premise comes down to this. is there any reason why you should pay nearly as much as you would a top tier starter to a top tier reliever. if you agree with this what you're saying is you're valuing the leverage of the innings that a closer pitches at roughly 3 times the amount that you do a starter. Now, that's fine, but if it's the case you damn sure better be sure those innings mean something and you have a better chance of that happening if you've got a rotation rather then a relief corps. Dominant relievers are what a very good team need to put them over the top, not what a okay team needs to be good & therein the problem of the brittleness of the latter end of the Omar era mets, they needed everyone to be healthy to be good and whatever black cat he ran over sure as hell came back to bite his ass on that.

I think the Mets could be classified as a good team needing to be put over the top with both the Santana and K-Rod moves. It was from there that he really failed, desperately trying to plug holes rather than work on building depth and backup plans with all the injuries.

But regardless, i think the Mets problem has not been that they paid good players more than they're worth, ala K-Rod and Castillo, but that they paid some players and got virtually nothing out of them. Perez, Putz, Beltran, Reyesand to a lesser extent guys like GMJ and Francouer. Santana this year. The team needs to get better, and there are enough holes to target. If the Mets are in dire straits enough that they need to shuffle around players to create more funds, I don't know that they'lll have enough to make the team competitive anyway. After all, regardless of how much value K-Rod actually provides, getting rid of him is still going backwards to go further. Personally, I don't believe the Mets should, or need to, do that. I odn't believe there is a 2-3 year window before the Mets can be competitive, and that's part of the reason I'm not real concerned with his option vesting.

I don't agree with the idea of paying a 80% guy half of that. (Even if we paid the replacement 8million, how sure are we that the 6million difference is going to make up that 20% value? It is only like half a WAR we're talking about here though. And where? )

I just have a problem with filling roster slots with subpar guys when better ones are available. If you can conclusively need that extra couple of million to say woo Cano over here (just picking a big hole and a big replacement for it) then I'm all for it, but I'm just not convincd that his contract is going to be what keeps Alderson from doing what he needs to.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I can hardly believe we are wasting so much energy on this question. It's obvious to everyone except maybe Ceetar that the Mets can't afford and won't allow that option to vest; that K-Rod is a douchebag; and that the Mets were retarded for ever giving out that deal in the first place.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: After all, regardless of how much value K-Rod actually provides, getting rid of him is still going backwards to go further.

It's difficult to locate logic in this sentence. I think this argument fails in that it incorrectly presumes that removing Rodriguez from the Mets automatically makes them a weaker team.

Also: The Yankees hold options on Robinson Cano for both the 2012 and 2013 seasons at $14 and $15 million, respectively.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I can hardly believe we are wasting so much energy on this question. It's obvious to everyone except maybe Ceetar that the Mets can't afford and won't allow that option to vest; that K-Rod is a douchebag; and that the Mets were retarded for ever giving out that deal in the first place.

I just jumped in today, or yesterday, or whenever. I haven't commented on this thread since early March.

Tell me where it's obvious that they can't afford his option vesting? Vague finance reports about the lawsuit by beat writers? Alderson said he hoped to have 2012 payroll somewhat lower than the ceiling, to provide flexibility. Well, I can't see that it'd be the end of the world if it were 6-7 million higher closer to that cap if he got a 17.5 boon of flexibility the following year.


It boils down to his numbers though. I, as of right now, am going to trust him. If he feels they need the money by moving K-Rod, he will. If not, he won't. I don't root based on money. I root based on the name on the front of the jersey. so if K-Rod comes in the 5th, or the 9th, of a save situation or a blowout, i'm rooting for him to close out the inning cleanly.

He's hardly the only douchebag in the game. That just doesn't factor in for me. I'd take Miguel Cabrera on the team right now, and I think what he did was worse.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: After all, regardless of how much value K-Rod actually provides, getting rid of him is still going backwards to go further. It's difficult to locate logic in this sentence. I think this argument fails in that it incorrectly presumes that removing Rodriguez from the Mets automatically makes them a weaker team. Also: The Yankees hold options on Robinson Cano for both the 2012 and 2013 seasons at $14 and $15 million, respectively.

Sorry if i bundled the wording, trying to type in this box in IE is infuriating. It's hard to see how removing one of better relievers in the game from a team does not make them worse. It most certainly does. the team is going to have a closer, so if you remove him, it's one more piece Alderson has to acquire. You may get a little more money, but you also get a longer shopping list.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: The Mets will be fine even if [K-Rod] vests, and having 17.5 million coming off the books in 2013 helps flexibility in that year too..

Why don't the Mets guarantee K-Rod a hundred million dollars for next season? Because, think of all the money that'll then come off payroll for 2013. And us fans won't have to worry about the number of games K-Rod finishes this season.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: The Mets will be fine even if [K-Rod] vests, and having 17.5 million coming off the books in 2013 helps flexibility in that year too.. Why don't the Mets guarantee K-Rod a hundred million dollars for next season? Because, think of all the money that'll then come off payroll for 2013. And us fans won't have to worry about the number of games K-Rod finishes this season.

I don't really care what they do with their extra money. If they fill all the other holes and then want to give Frankie all the surplus, fine by me. Would seem a little stupid, but sure..

I wouldn't be surprised of Alderson approaches Frankie's agent later in the year and proposes an extension at current rate in lieu of the extension. then you get the player, AND 5-6million dollars of additional working money.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be surprised of Alderson approaches Frankie's agent later in the year and proposes an extension at current rate in lieu of the extension. then you get the player, AND 5-6million dollars of additional working money.

"Honey, look-- if we buy two more timeshares, we get them for 40% off each! Think of how much we'll save!"

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: I wouldn't be surprised of Alderson approaches Frankie's agent later in the year and proposes an extension at current rate in lieu of the extension. then you get the player, AND 5-6million dollars of additional working money. "Honey, look-- if we buy two more timeshares, we get them for 40% off each! Think of how much we'll save!"

That doesn't even make sense.

[Benjamin Grimm]

You're the one talking about "all the surplus" for a financially strapped team.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're the one talking about "all the surplus" for a financially strapped team.

was tongue in cheek to the stupid give Frankie 100 million comment.

no one knows how much money they're going to spend next year, and certainly no one here knows better than Alderson.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ceetar wrote: That doesn't even make sense.

Granted.

Neither does proposing that an extension that will cost at least $9-10M above current salary obligations will actually "save" $5-6M (that isn't locked in, by the way) next year. (And I'm leaving aside for the moment that if said extension is more than a one-year job, you're increasing salary obligations, temporally and dollar-wise.)

[TransMonk]

Unfortunately, with K-Rod the debate goes beyond baseball skills and financial options.

I think even if Frankie was the best closer in baseball (which he is not) and Sandy worked out a steal of a deal on an extension (which I doubt he would be able to do), Alderson would be run out of town because the majority of the fanbase dislikes K-Rod so much for his off the filed incident.

I think they cut and run from K-Rod as soon as the first opportunity presents itself. I don't see many possibilities where K-Rod wears a Mets uni in 2012.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: Unfortunately, with K-Rod the debate goes beyond baseball skills and financial options. I think even if Frankie was the best closer in baseball (which he is not) and Sandy worked out a steal of a deal on an extension (which I doubt he would be able to do), Alderson would be run out of town because the majority of the fanbase dislikes K-Rod so much for his off the filed incident. I think they cut and run from K-Rod as soon as the first opportunity presents itself. I don't see many possibilities where K-Rod wears a Mets uni in 2012.

It's certainly possible, but it's one thing to cite fan opinion to ditch Castillo, although so far I'm kinda wishing they hadn't, quite another to actively avoid keeping a contributing player because of it.

[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
4/24/11	22 (9-13)	6	44

In winnable games, Terry Collins apparently prefers to use his relievers based on the inning number rather than the game situation. For now, Beato is the 7th inning guy, Izzy the 8th and K-Rod is the closer instead of the ace reliever. K-Rod's most recent finish presented Collins with ideal conditions for using K-rod in the 8th inning: the Mets were up by one run and the D-Backs heart of the lineup was due up. Instead, Izzy pitched the 8th and K-Rod came on in the 9th to protect a two-run lead (the Mets added an insurance run in their half of the 8th) against the bottom of the D-Backs lineup.

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

[Vic Sage]

between his bullpen use and willingness to give up outs, i'm beginning to really dislike Ye Olde ****bunter.

[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
4/24/11	22 (9-13)	6	44
4/26/11	23 (10-13)	7	49

Misallocated Resources?

Once again, Izzy is asked to do the heavy lifting: he comes on in the eighth to face the heart of the opponent's order with the Mets up by two.

K-Rod - presumably, the Mets best reliever - then closes out tonight's Mets win by holding the Nats 7-8-9-1 hitters to less than two runs (zero runs, to be exact). K-Rod saves the game. Hooray. K-Rod saves the game. Hooray.

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

[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
4/24/11	22 (9-13)	6	44
4/26/11	23 (10-13)	7	49
4/27/11	24 (11-13)	8	54

... on target, just about.



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

[Benjamin Grimm]

Too bad you can't make the background bright red for any row in your table where the projected number is at 55 or above.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Too bad you can't make the background bright red for any row in your table where the projected number is at 55 or above.

It's not my table. I just post here. Feel free to contribute as you see fit. But I was thinking along the same lines. I never considered the background color, or even knew that the background color couldn't be adjusted. But I thought about making K-Rod's "on-pace" numbers black when over 54 and red when under 55.

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
4/24/11	22 (9-13)	6	44
4/26/11	23 (10-13)	7	49
4/27/11	24 (11-13)	8	54
5/1/11	28 (12-16)	8	46

In the not-embarrassed-to-admit thread, I learned that in a MLB contract, performance bonuses cannot be based on statistics. I did a little bit of research, and was able to trace this to Major League Rule 3((5), which states:

"No Major League Uniform Player's Contract or Minor League Uniform Player Contract shall be approved if it contains a bonus for playing, pitching or batting skill or if it provides for the payment of a bonus contingent on the standing of the signing Club at the end of the championship season."

As was correctly pointed out by a few posters, an athlete might play selfishly, to the detriment of his team, in the self-centered pursuit of his performance goals. Hence the rule. Thus, for example, a player with a performance bonus based on the number of doubles he hits in a season might purposely play a triple into a two-base hit. The rule has developed to allow bonuses based on games played, innings pitched, and apparently games finished, presumably on the theory that a player cannot purposely compromise his team's ability to compete in the pursuit of those particular statistics. I say "presumably", because I was unable to find the specific language that created any of those exceptions.

In light of all of this, if K-Rod finished more than 54 games this season, I would recommend that the Mets file a grievance on the theory that K-Rod's vesting option violates MLB Rule 3((5) and is therefore unenforceable. Or file the grievance right now instead of waiting to see how many games K-Rod might finish.

As we saw from last night's game, a road pitcher in the 9th inning of a tie game with a vesting option based on games finished -- like K-Rod-- might be inclined to blow the game intentionally in order to ensure another finish for himself, especially where that pitcher would likely be removed from the game once it goes into extra innings. Whether K-Rod himself would actually blow a game intentionally under those circumstances is irrelevant. The mere possibility that a player could do that should be enough to void performance bonus clauses based on games finished, for the same reason that most other stats can't be used to trigger bonuses.





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

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: As we saw from last night's game, a road pitcher in the 9th inning of a tie game with a vesting option based on games finished -- like K-Rod-- might be inclined to blow the game intentionally in order to ensure another finish for himself, especially where that pitcher would likely be removed from the game once it goes into extra innings. Whether K-Rod himself would actually blow a game intentionally under those circumstances is irrelevant. The mere possibility that a player could do that should be enough to void performance bonus clauses based on games finished, for the same reason that most other stats can't be used to trigger bonuses.

Yeah, I kinda think these clauses, all around baseball, are skirting the line of this rule. I'd prefer none of them be allowed, including games played/started. Who's to say pitchers can't lie about injury/fatigue and start the game? Even if they get pulled after a batter, or 3IP when they tire, they get the statistic. A guy that's got a hurt knee or something could say he can't play the field but it doesn't hurt to swing and go up there and just take take take because it DOES hurt to swing, but he gets a GP anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: As we saw from last night's game, a road pitcher in the 9th inning of a tie game with a vesting option based on games finished -- like K-Rod-- might be inclined to blow the game intentionally in order to ensure another finish for himself, especially where that pitcher would likely be removed from the game once it goes into extra innings. Whether K-Rod himself would actually blow a game intentionally under those circumstances is irrelevant. The mere possibility that a player could do that should be enough to void performance bonus clauses based on games finished, for the same reason that most other stats can't be used to trigger bonuses. Yeah, I kinda think these clauses, all around baseball, are skirting the line of this rule. I'd prefer none of them be allowed, including games played/started. Who's to say pitchers can't lie about injury/fatigue and start the game?

Good point.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Seaver's controversial 1976 contract was loaded with performance boosters that resided on the very edge of legality. I do believe Seaver in an interview (where did I see this? I can't remember) said it was based on wins. Am I remembering this right?