SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
6/9-6/11 Red Sox @ Orioles Series Thread
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 10, 2014 14:12:03 GMT -5
I don't want the Sox to give up on this season yet. The division is weak. But yes the guys saying the sox are in bad shape are right.Not much chance they can play well enough to make the playoffs.I owe godot an apology for a post I made weeks ago. But I still think they need to wait until July to start moving players.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 14:13:50 GMT -5
Well, I totally understand that they want to play Nava and Holt, they want to see more of Sizemore because they want to make a decision on him soon, and Camden Yards is one of the better places to sit JBJ and let Sizemore play center. Personally I'd rather see Holt at SS but it feels like I'm flogging a dead horse there. On John Lackey, offering to rework his option to 2yr/$10m would basically be an insult. The way he's pitching I would feel we got a great deal if we managed to get 3yr/$24m instead of the option. Trade him then if he doesn't look like he is going to follow his contractual obligations next season. The Sox have the upper hand in these negotiations. Some GMs would say take it or leave it. ...the problem is, based on his quotes last night, he very well might just leave it. The Red Sox have the leverage of saying either pitch for us or retire, but Lackey has the leverage of calling their bluff and just retiring (think the Brian Waters situation with the Patriots). I increasingly think that, given how well Lackey has pitched over the last year and a half, they're going to have to work out an extension. 2/$10m is obviously too low; something like 2/$14m or 3/$24m sounds more realistic. Trading Lackey is not really a solution to this problem, by the way. If he's credibly threatening to retire in Boston rather than play the minimum-salaried year, he'll definitely retire if he's traded elsewhere, at least unless he can work out a suitable extension with his new team. (This dynamic is also why I think a midseason trade of Lackey is very unlikely-- the Red Sox will want a premier package for him, but other GMs will be hesitant to offer one without assurances that he'll play at the league-minimum next year. Other GMs could see Lackey as a one-year rental or work out an extension with him, but either of those scenarios hurts Lackey's trade value because he's no longer a four win player paid at the league minimum next year, which is the real hypothetical draw.)
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 10, 2014 14:17:03 GMT -5
Well, I totally understand that they want to play Nava and Holt, they want to see more of Sizemore because they want to make a decision on him soon, and Camden Yards is one of the better places to sit JBJ and let Sizemore play center. Personally I'd rather see Holt at SS but it feels like I'm flogging a dead horse there. On John Lackey, offering to rework his option to 2yr/$10m would basically be an insult. The way he's pitching I would feel we got a great deal if we managed to get 3yr/$24m instead of the option. Trade him then if he doesn't look like he is going to follow his contractual obligations next season. The Sox have the upper hand in these negotiations. Some GMs would say take it or leave it. I think he is good trade bait D.C., but I think Lackey has the upper hand, he doesn't need the money. He can sit a year and someone will pay him big time for 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:17:24 GMT -5
LF Holt 3B Bogaerts 2B Pedroia DH Ortiz 1B Napoli RF Nava C AJP CF Sizemore SS Herrera RHP Workman Glad to see Nava inching up in the lineup. No Drew again -- could be a few days. I see they're giving JBJ back-to-back days off, but honestly, give me his upside and defense over Grady Sizemore. Both have the same OBP, and Sizemore's been only marginally better overall with the bat. I suspect the Sox are nearing the end of the Sizemore experiment, but he's getting some last chances. With Victorino and Middlebrooks coming back before too long (I think), an OF has to go along with someone else, probably Herrera. Since Victorino can play CF - and Holt probably can - Siezmore isn't needed for that purpose, and without that purpose, he has to hit, and he isn't, and doesn't even look like he will. Sizemore's contract calls for him to receive $10,000 per plate appearance for plate appearances 225-500. By my count, he's currently at 191 plate appearances. In addition, he's set to receive an additional $250,000 upon reaching 90 days on the active roster. He'll be gone by the end of June.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jun 10, 2014 14:18:35 GMT -5
They gambled on youth and lost, I think it's at least as accurate to say they gambled on health and lost, or they gambled on Buchholz and lost. Or even that they gambled on veterans and lost. Bogaerts is having a very nice year and even JBJ is at 0.0 fWAR. Middlebrooks has 82 plate appearances and 0 fWAR - young, mediocre, or just hurt off and on all year? Carp got hurt. Holt has been great. The rest of the offensive cast is on the wrong side of 30 and has been hurt, declining, regressing, or slumping.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 14:20:48 GMT -5
Trade him then if he doesn't look like he is going to follow his contractual obligations next season. The Sox have the upper hand in these negotiations. Some GMs would say take it or leave it. I think he is good trade bait D.C., but I think Lackey has the upper hand, he doesn't need the money. He can sit a year and someone will pay him big time for 2016. He can't just sit out for a year and be a free agent in 2016. If he ever comes back to the league, he'll still be property of the Red Sox for the league minimum.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 10, 2014 14:23:42 GMT -5
I think he is good trade bait D.C., but I think Lackey has the upper hand, he doesn't need the money. He can sit a year and someone will pay him big time for 2016. He can't just sit out for a year and be a free agent in 2016. If he ever comes back to the league, he'll still be property of the Red Sox for the league minimum. Thanks, I didn't know that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:26:37 GMT -5
The Sox have actually messed up a couple of contract negotiations over the last few several years. Last offseason, instead of working Napoli down to a one year contract with incentives that could reach $13 million, they should have worked him down to the same one year incentive laden contract BUT with an additional vesting option that would have guaranteed two more years at $13 million per. Napoli would have been happy with that considering he had initially agreed to 3 years / $39 million. The ridiculous degree of risk aversion on the part of the Sox ended up costing them $6 million.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 14:30:05 GMT -5
Trade him then if he doesn't look like he is going to follow his contractual obligations next season. The Sox have the upper hand in these negotiations. Some GMs would say take it or leave it. I think you misunderstood my point. Lackey is likely to be worth significantly more than the $9.5m you want to offer him in 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:42:11 GMT -5
He can't just sit out for a year and be a free agent in 2016. If he ever comes back to the league, he'll still be property of the Red Sox for the league minimum. Thanks, I didn't know that. I'd like to see a link confirming your position on this jmei. Retirement would be viewed as an interceding event that terminates the obligations of both parties to perform under the contract. As such both parties would be without the benefit of the others performance. The Red Sox would be without Lackey's services while Lackey would be without compensation. Add in the fact that the contract carried with it a term of years set to expire at the end of the 2015 season and I can't see, from a legal standpoint, why the team would have any lingering claim of contract over Lackey into the 2016 season or beyond for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 14:53:53 GMT -5
I'd like to see a link confirming your position on this jmei. Retirement would be viewed as an interceding event that terminates the obligations of both parties to perform under the contract. As such both parties would be without the benefit of the others performance. The Red Sox would be without Lackey's services while Lackey would be without compensation. Add in the fact that the contract carried with it a term of years set to expire at the end of the 2015 season and I can't see, from a legal standpoint, why the team would have any lingering claim of contract over Lackey into the 2016 season or beyond for that matter. I'm pretty sure this is set out in the CBA. Your argument might allow Lackey to play in Japan after sitting out a year, but MLB is a cartel.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 10, 2014 14:57:57 GMT -5
I think he is good trade bait D.C., but I think Lackey has the upper hand, he doesn't need the money. He can sit a year and someone will pay him big time for 2016. He can't just sit out for a year and be a free agent in 2016. If he ever comes back to the league, he'll still be property of the Red Sox for the league minimum. I highly doubt Lackey would ever sit out a year. It's a thinly veiled threat...at best. This guy would go nuts not pitching...when he is pitching so well. It's all the beginning of a dance that none of us know how will end. But I would literally bet my last dollar, that he will be pitching next year...even at the 500K. My thought is that he has earned a 3/30 million extension. I am most interested in trading him as the deadline nears....would be contenders would be salivating to have him on their roster...that is as long as we are out of it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 15:08:36 GMT -5
Thanks, I didn't know that. I'd like to see a link confirming your position on this jmei. Retirement would be viewed as an interceding event that terminates the obligations of both parties to perform under the contract. As such both parties would be without the benefit of the others performance. The Red Sox would be without Lackey's services while Lackey would be without compensation. Add in the fact that the contract carried with it a term of years set to expire at the end of the 2015 season and I can't see, from a legal standpoint, why the team would have any lingering claim of contract over Lackey into the 2016 season or beyond for that matter. The CBA pretty precisely defines how this works, and I'm pretty sure how I described it was accurate. If Lackey retires, he'd be placed on the Voluntary Retirement List and would have to get consent from the Red Sox if he wants to play for any other team. If he wishes to unretire, he would file for reinstatement, after which the Red Sox could effectively hold him to the terms of his previous contract. See page 178 of the CBA: This is basically what's happening with the Ryan Dempster situation-- if he chooses to return and is tendered a contract by the Red Sox, he'll be on the books for $13m. (The two parties do also have the option of negotiating a new contract, but if they fail to agree to terms, the default result is to return to the terms of the previous contract.) EDIT: nevermind, I think I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 10, 2014 15:11:00 GMT -5
LF Holt 3B Bogaerts 2B Pedroia DH Ortiz 1B Napoli RF Nava C AJP CF Sizemore SS Herrera RHP Workman Glad to see Nava inching up in the lineup. No Drew again -- could be a few days. I see they're giving JBJ back-to-back days off, but honestly, give me his upside and defense over Grady Sizemore. Both have the same OBP, and Sizemore's been only marginally better overall with the bat. I suspect the Sox are nearing the end of the Sizemore experiment, but he's getting some last chances. With Victorino and Middlebrooks coming back before too long (I think), an OF has to go along with someone else, probably Herrera. Since Victorino can play CF - and Holt probably can - Siezmore isn't needed for that purpose, and without that purpose, he has to hit, and he isn't, and doesn't even look like he will. I think I read that Victorino isn't close to coming back yet and they are still working on him running and cutting (like he would do taking bases or changing routes to the ball). Middlebrooks is swinging a bat but still cannot throw.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 10, 2014 15:16:06 GMT -5
I argue with jmei on some of his conclusions. But I take his word on the rules of the game. If he's wrong ,it's a misinterpretation of some complex language.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 10, 2014 15:16:16 GMT -5
JIM BOWDEN ?@jimbowdenespnxm 2m Ben Cherington told us on #InsidePitch XM89 that if they were to add a piece between now and the trade deadline it would be an outfielder
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 10, 2014 15:16:35 GMT -5
He can't just sit out for a year and be a free agent in 2016. If he ever comes back to the league, he'll still be property of the Red Sox for the league minimum. I highly doubt Lackey would ever sit out a year. It's a thinly veiled threat...at best. This guy would go nuts not pitching...when he is pitching so well. It's all the beginning of a dance that none of us know how will end. But I would literally bet my last dollar, that he will be pitching next year...even at the 500K. My thought is that he has earned a 3/30 million extension. I am most interested in trading him as the deadline nears....would be contenders would be salivating to have him on their roster...that is as long as we are out of it. This is likely being motivated in large part by his agent. Has all the earmarks where reporters started bringing this up about the same time about 3 weeks ago, and none wrote from the perspective of "Shrewd deal by the Sox, and Lackey seems like a man of his word." It was all from the same talking points of "The Sox have to do something for Lackey to keep him next year." "Why wouldn't he just retire?" "What is his incentive to pitch." No one, btw, spending too much time following up that last one with, 'Well, he signed the contract and got $16+M while not pitching one year because of injury, which was all part of the deal..."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 10, 2014 15:17:43 GMT -5
JIM BOWDEN ?@jimbowdenespnxm 2m Ben Cherington told us on #InsidePitch XM89 that if they were to add a piece between now and the trade deadline it would be an outfielder WHAT A SCOOP JIM BOWDEN! I wish this guy was still a GM because, if he had that outfielder, we could get him for so-so prospects and a bag of Fenway popcorn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 15:26:33 GMT -5
I still take issue with this wording from the CBA:
"Thereafter, should the Club and the Player fail to agree upon the terms of a new Contract within 10 days after the Player’s receipt of the tendered contract, the Club shall be obligated, within the next 5 days, to renew the Player’s prior Major League Contract."
In Lackey's case, the prior contract only carries through 2015. Once you're into 2016, the term of years has expired. Holding him to the contract at that point isn't a renewal of the contract so much as it's a unilateral extension.
Has this issue ever occurred before in MLB where a player threatened retirement and actually did sit out?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 15:27:41 GMT -5
I highly doubt Lackey would ever sit out a year. It's a thinly veiled threat...at best. This guy would go nuts not pitching...when he is pitching so well. It's all the beginning of a dance that none of us know how will end. But I would literally bet my last dollar, that he will be pitching next year...even at the 500K. My thought is that he has earned a 3/30 million extension. I am most interested in trading him as the deadline nears....would be contenders would be salivating to have him on their roster...that is as long as we are out of it. This is likely being motivated in large part by his agent. Has all the earmarks where reporters started bringing this up about the same time about 3 weeks ago, and none wrote from the perspective of "Shrewd deal by the Sox, and Lackey seems like a man of his word." It was all from the same talking points of "The Sox have to do something for Lackey to keep him next year." "Why wouldn't he just retire?" "What is his incentive to pitch." No one, btw, spending too much time following up that last one with, 'Well, he signed the contract and got $16+M while not pitching one year because of injury, which was all part of the deal..." I agree with this-- I'm pretty confident his agent is the one really pushing the possibility of retirement, doing so to gain some leverage for an extension. Lackey probably wants an extension as well, and so doesn't mind bringing up the specter of retirement, but I think he's exaggerating the extent to which he'd actually considering retiring this offseason if the Red Sox just told him to take it or leave it. Still think an extension is the best way to go, though. Playing hardball with a veteran player is a good way of pissing him off, and angry players do all sorts of whacky things (see: Kyle Farnsworth).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 15:50:42 GMT -5
I still take issue with this wording from the CBA: "Thereafter, should the Club and the Player fail to agree upon the terms of a new Contract within 10 days after the Player’s receipt of the tendered contract, the Club shall be obligated, within the next 5 days, to renew the Player’s prior Major League Contract." In Lackey's case, the prior contract only carries through 2015. Once you're into 2016, the term of years has expired. Holding him to the contract at that point isn't a renewal of the contract so much as it's a unilateral extension. Has this issue ever occurred before in MLB where a player threatened retirement and actually did sit out? Like I alluded to above, this is what would happen if Dempster decided to return. If the Red Sox tendered him a contract, he'd be on the books for $13m, as teams retain the rights to players put on the Restricted List. The CBA treats players on the Restricted List basically identically to players on the VRL, so the same result should occur with Lackey. Note that MLB contracts don't work the way you describe it here-- they're not tied to the specific dates and almost certainly contain a clause which rolls over the contract if the player retires or is put on the Restricted List. Remember, players in baseball (or any other professional sports league, for that matter) can't just sit out a season if they don't like their team/contract and become a free agent when their contract would have expired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 15:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 16:01:23 GMT -5
Right, but they also contain a clause letting the club renew (i.e., roll over) the contract unless the player is declared a free agent. See section 10(a) of the contract you posted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 16:10:04 GMT -5
I haven't seen any such renewal clause language that you are referring to. The problem that I see here is that any contract, in order to be contractually binding, requires a term for performance. When the player performs services during that term, return consideration is obviously required of the team. When he does not perform services due to retirement, then return consideration is not required. Where, in the player contract, do we get this additional concept of extending the period of performance? You've cited language from the CBA that suggests the team is obligated to tender a contract offer to Lackey but, after the term of his contract has expired, he is free - as are all free agents - to decline that offer. This may seem unfair to the ballclub but remember that if Lackey were to actually sit out the entire 2015 season, he too has suffered a loss - the contractually agreed upon salary for 2015. This is why I see Lackey as having, at the very least, an interesting argument to take before the player's union.
One thing that has been discussed in other forums is that, regardless of the outcome of Lackey's case, by threatening retirement he has essentially diminished the value the Sox can get for him in trade. So, one thing is for certain here, whether Lackey wins or loses, the Sox have already begun the process of misplaying this hand.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 16:17:49 GMT -5
Bottom of page three, top of page four. "Unless the Player has exercised his right to become a free agent as set forth in the Basic Agreement, the Club may retain reservation rights over the Player... to renew this contract for the period of one year on the same terms."
|
|
|