How many games will K-Rod finish next season?

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 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?

Perhaps the prohibition against stat based bonuses didn't exist in the mid-70's. I remember that Kingman's first contract with the Cubs included a bonus for breaking the franchise RBI record.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I still say the rule is more in the interest of the player. If I hit 44 homers, I'm going to demand a five-year contract that pays me as a 44-homer hitter. If the team can legally come back to me and say "Sure, here's this contract that pays you as such ---- provided you reach that threshhold every year," I'm kind of screwed (relatively). It's better for players if their salary is linked to the shiny, happy, perfect-world projections of their performances dripping off the tongues of their agents, rather than their actual performances.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 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? Perhaps the prohibition against stat based bonuses didn't exist in the mid-70's. I remember that Kingman's first contract with the Cubs included a bonus for breaking the franchise RBI record.

I think career milestones are different. A-Rod's got a new clause for passing people on the all-time list right?

$30M marketing agreement based on home run milestones ($6M each for reaching 660, 714, 755 and tying and breaking major league HR record)

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally?

My memory is horrible* but wherever it was I'd read about this, relatively recently, it was in the context of the contract even then flouting the rules governing such incentives but reached in an era where it was easier for employers to get away with such flim-flammery.

* - Yesterday while starting coals in for the smoker (ribs cooked with cherry smoke for 7 hours, fantastic) I peeled a Daily News page from 2009 with a giant picture of Livan Hernandez in a Mets uniform and I really had to think hard just to remember he was in fact ever a member of this team. I did confirm it, eventually, but it was one of those facts that went by the wayside of my brain in a such a maanner that when we faced Livan a few days ago I didn't once think we were opposing a former Met. That's f'ed up.

[G-Fafif]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I peeled a Daily News page from 2009 with a giant picture of Livan Hernandez in a Mets uniform and I really had to think hard just to remember he was in fact ever a member of this team. I did confirm it, eventually, but it was one of those facts that went by the wayside of my brain in a such a maanner that when we faced Livan a few days ago I didn't once think we were opposing a former Met. That's f'ed up.

You and I watched Livan throw his final Met pitch from the top of Promenade. So much for all those anchors who insist "nobody will ever forget where they were when" historic events take place.

[metirish]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: * - Yesterday while starting coals in for the smoker (ribs cooked with cherry smoke for 7 hours, fantastic) I

did the same myself minus the wood...what smoker do you have?, I have an offset which until the last few weeks I wasn't using properly(not using the offset firebox is what I mean)

low and slow , can't beat it.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I have a cheap Meko charcoal water smoker: Basically, a metal tube with a lid but gets the job done.



One father's day I want to move up to the Weber Smoky Mountain.

Hope Depot happened to have apple and cherry chips in stock when we were there the other day so I stocked up for the summer. Normally they just carry hickory and sometimes mesquite.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally?

My hunch is that it wouldn't matter whether K-Rod or the Mets suggested the clause. If K-Rod signed the contract (which he did) then he agreed to the terms. K-Rod agreed to the terms just as much as the Mets did, and that's what matters.

By the way, I also believe that those "milestone clauses" in A-Rod's contract should be voided. To illustrate: David Wright entered this season with 169 lifetime HR's as a Met, 23 HR's behind Hojo's 3rd place Met mark of 192 HR's. Wright must hit 24 HR's to pass Hojo in 2011. If a bonus clause in Wright's 2011 contract that vests if Wright hits 24 HR's is impermissible, the parties shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that prohibition by rephrasing the vesting condition as "passing Hojo's mark" instead of "hitting 24 HR's" -- no matter how that bonus is phrased, incentives would still exist for Wright to swing for the fences even when he shouldn't.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally? My hunch is that it wouldn't matter whether K-Rod or the Mets suggested the clause. If K-Rod signed the contract (which he did) then he agreed to the terms. K-Rod agreed to the terms just as much as the Mets did, and that's what matters. By the way, I also believe that those "milestone clauses" in A-Rod's contract should be voided. To illustrate: David Wright entered this season with 169 lifetime HR's as a Met, 23 HR's behind Hojo's 3rd place Met mark of 192 HR's. Wright must hit 24 HR's to pass Hojo in 2011. If a bonus clause in Wright's 2011 contract that vests if Wright hits 24 HR's is impermissible, the parties shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that prohibition by rephrasing the vesting condition as "passing Hojo's mark" instead of "hitting 24 HR's" -- no matter how that bonus is phrased, incentives would still exist for Wright to swing for the fences even when he shouldn't.

Makes sense to me. It'd be easy enough to put phrase the bonus as "Passing Carlos Delgado's career HR mark" instead of "hitting 100 home runs over the next three years" or something.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Is there a chance that if he kicks major butt this year, he's worth the $17 million next year? I mean, we're paying a guy $12 million to pitch for the Nationals Triple-A team this year.

[Gwreck]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Is there a chance that if he kicks major butt this year, he's worth the $17 million next year?

Nope. No way. His MARKET value is probably closer to $10M, if he kicks major butt. His TRUE value is even lower.

For comparison's sake, here are some 2011 Salaries:
Rivera $15M
Cordero $12M
Papelbon $12M (arbitration)
Rodriguez $11.5M
Lidge $11.5M
Nathan $11.25M
Bell $7.5M (arbitration)
Street $7.3M
Broxton $7M
Valverde $7M
Soria $4M

[Ceetar]

on a strict performance to dollar ratio, no way he's worth the $14 more they'd pay him if he vests, however there are other factors. If he presents himself as the best closer available, then that extra money becomes money that makes the team better. The problem is determining if making the team X amount better is worth spending Y, and if spending Y keeps you from acquiring Z which might be greater than X.

then you have to factor in A. if you'll get draft picks for him. (something that's possibly going to be taken away via collective bargaining) and B. if getting those draft picks is enough to tip the scales in favor of letting him walk.

Then of course, there is the possibility that you don't need to spend any money to reacquire a different closer that will be somewhat lesser than Frankie, and might be able to use a guy like Parnell or Beato. or whoever from within. This is somewhat predicated on Alderson and Collins not being married to the idea of having to have an established closer, something they haven't really shown any inkling of lately.

I still feel like if the Mets never get above .500 he'll probably not get enough opportunity to close games and won't vest, and if they are indeed competing for a playoff spot in August-September, the increased revenue and interest and whatnot in the team will result in more revenue taht will mitigate the hit in overpaying him.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Is there a chance that if he kicks major butt this year, he's worth the $17 million next year? I mean, we're paying a guy $12 million to pitch for the Nationals Triple-A team this year.

Also, we're NOT paying that guy-- nor the other guy-- BEYOND this year.

You're basically swapping in a $13M debit ($17M, minus the $3M buyout and, say, .5-1M you might use to address the hole on the cheap by, say, using Parnell or Mejia to close) in a year when you've got $60M coming off the books. May not sound significant, but if you're letting the payroll come down another $20-$40M, then your K-Rod just bought you an austerity package of FAs (including a SS replacement) once again.

[Ceetar]

Is he even pitching for AAA? i think he's in extended spring training. at the very least, I briefly looked last week sometime and couldn't find a professional apperarance for him the Nats minor leagues.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm telling you, folks. It's the union that keeps performance-based incentives out of contracts.

[smg58]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: "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."

The key word in that phrase is "skill." An incentive for games played (or finished) does not depend on how "skillfully" those games were played (or finished).

The simple fact that K-Rod's contract gives him a financial motivation to throw gopher balls in tie games on the road should give the league sufficient justification to outlaw that kind of incentive as well. But that's not going to happen retroactively.

[nymr83]

Such a ban should happen going forward, imo. Who exactly is this situation good for?
Not the Mets, who are incentivized to keep their "best" pitcher from closing.
Not Rodriguez, who should probably throw one 80 miles an hour down the middle on the road if he wants his money, and whose NEXT contract could be negatively effected if he is traded and used as a setup man to avoid the contract vesting as opposed to finishing the year as a closer with the Mets or another team.
Not the fans, who root against their own team in hopes of the team saving money that could help keep Reyes.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Let's not overthink this.

A man deliberately grooves pitches to secure "games finished" stats, he won't get too many more opps.

[nymr83]

Even if he doesn't do it, nobody should want him to have incentive to.

[Guest Edgy DC]

My point is that he wouldn't have incentive to.

[nymr83]

he has incentive to do it once or twice, even if he throws the straight-as-an-arrow meatball at 88 instead of 80, as long as he doesnt lose the "closer job" in the process, which is unlikely

[Guest Edgy DC]

Come on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

smg58 wrote: The simple fact that K-Rod's contract gives him a financial motivation to throw gopher balls in tie games on the road should give the league sufficient justification to outlaw that kind of incentive as well. But that's not going to happen retroactively.

If the validity of K-Rod's bonus clause ever becomes the subject of a grievance, the arbitrator hearing that case would have the authority to render a ruling that has retroactive effect. In other words, the arbitrator could, if he or she sees fit, declare the clause unenforceable. This wouldn't be unusual. In fact, even in the world of MLB, the most well-known ruling -- Peter Seitz's decision to interpret the reserve clause narrowly --consistent with the MLBPA's interpretation of the clause -- had retroactive effect. The owners rights over their players were instantly diminished after Seitz's ruling and not one single reserve clause was ever grandfathered in.

I agree, though, that the league, by itself, couldn't void that clause retroactively -- not without the MLBPA's acquiescence, an unlikely scenario.

[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
5/1/11	28 (12-16)	8	46
5/3/11	29 (12-17)	8	45

I'm flip-flopping: I now root for K-Rod's option to vest. Because more Mets liabilities will make it harder for the Wilpons to retain majority ownership of the franchise. I've got priorities.




*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
5/1/11	28 (12-16)	8	46
5/3/11	29 (12-17)	8	45
5/6/11	32 (14-18)	10	50

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Interesting idea, BML. Precedent-breaking aside... would it matter that the Mets had proposed the "illegal" contract clauses originally? My hunch is that it wouldn't matter whether K-Rod or the Mets suggested the clause. If K-Rod signed the contract (which he did) then he agreed to the terms. K-Rod agreed to the terms just as much as the Mets did, and that's what matters.

On second thought -- although it wouldn't matter in the world that me and you live in, it might matter in the world of Major League Baseball. The Commissioner has to approve or disapprove of that performance bonus, ("a special covenant, in MLB jargon). The CBA outlines the procedure for filing a grievance whenever an aggrieved party objects to the Commissioner's disapproval of a special covenant. Understandably, the CBA is silent on what an objecting party is required to do if the Commissioner approves the clause, because, you know, why would a party object to getting what they bargained for?




Therefore, in light of the CBA's silence on this issue, I can see two possible answers to your question; a) any objections are waived if the commissioner approves the clause; or (and this is the one I'm leaning towards) any objections are preserved and an arbitrator has the right to rule that the clause in question is inconsistent with other baseball rules or contract law.

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
5/3/11	29 (12-17)	8	45
5/6/11	32 (14-18)	10	50
5/7/11	33 (15-18)	11	54

K-Rod [crossout]saves[/crossout] Saves all three games of the Mets current win streak.

The Mets are 4 1/2 games out of the Wild Card.



*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
5/1/11	28 (12-16)	8	46
5/3/11	29 (12-17)	8	45
5/6/11	32 (14-18)	10	50
5/7/11	33 (15-18)	11	54
5/9/11	35 (15-20)	11	50

Though the Mets are just 5 1/2 games out of the Wild Card, Baseball Prospectus' assigns odds of less than 1% -- 125 to 1 to be precise -- for a Mets 2011 post-season berth. Not likely. But way likelier than going 7-0 with your first seven picks in a Klassic Rawk Kontest.



*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
5/1/11	28 (12-16)	8	46
5/3/11	29 (12-17)	8	45
5/6/11	32 (14-18)	10	50
5/7/11	33 (15-18)	11	54
5/9/11	35 (15-20)	11	50
5/10/11	36 (16-20)	12	54

K-Rod's last outing was his most dominant of 2011. Will K-Rod's contract be the straw that finally breaks the Wilpons' grip on the franchise?

Go K-Rod!

(Mets revised odds of making the playoffs -- 74-1)


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

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: K-Rod's last outing was his most dominant of 2011. Will K-Rod's contract be the straw that finally breaks the Wilpons' grip on the franchise? Go K-Rod!

That would be funny, since I'm sure Omar didn't go and buy Rodriguez without a strong vote of CAHNfidence from Jeff.