John Lackey in 2015 and beyond

[Ed Hillel]

 
Why wouldn't he be?  He's under contract through 2014 right now, and through 2015 if the option is picked up.  If he's put on the restricted or disqualified list (a la Dempster) because he refuses to play for $500K, he's a free agent after the 2015 season concludes.  The Red Sox don't retain his rights in perpetuity, they own his rights for the term of his contract.  That contract ends, no matter what, at the end of the 2015 season.

 
People keep saying this, but:
 

A player on the restricted list cannot be signed by another team unless compensation is paid to the team who placed him on the list. The list is honored throughout organized baseball and in leagues that have working agreements to respect the contracts of organized baseball, such as Nippon Pro Baseball. The list is most often used today when a player retires at a young age without receiving his unconditional release. If he decides to return to playing, he must do so with his last team, unless a trade or other deal can be worked out. Salomon Torres is a recent case of a player who spent a number of years on the restricted list before returning to organized baseball.

 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list
 
I don't think you can just decide not to play and come back a free agent. What's unclear from above is whether the 500k salary would carry over.
 

Ok, can you explain why or provide any backup? Because everything I've seen suggests the exact opposite.
 
More importantly, please provide your credentials.

 
What have you seen that suggests the opposite, and what are your credentials? I still think Occam's Razor suggests we would have seen more holdouts in MLB by now if there weren't negative consequences to the player for doing so.

 

[JimD]

 
I'm one of the guys who's noted that he's adored in the clubhouse. But what's "making a public example of him" by expecting him to honor the contract he signed? I simply don't understand this line of thinking. And the Sox overpaid for him in the first place; free agents love to go to places that do that.

 
He'd be made an example of in front of his peers.  I could see some of them viewing an accomplished veteran pitcher with two World Series-clinching wins to his credit being forced to accept the same salary as a second-year scrub and taking exception to it.  I don't agree with this personally - I understand the position that 'He signed his contract, he should honor it no matter what', but we all know that the funhouse world of professional athletics doesn't always work the same way things work in our world. 
 
In any event, the option does have value to the Boston Red Sox as a negotiating tool.  Right now, an argument could be made that John Lackey could possibly be a more valuable pitcher over the next several years than Jon Lester.  It's not a high probability, of course, but Lackey should come much cheaper and at a far shorter contract term than Lester will.  If I'm Ben Cherington, I try to leverage the option and sign him up for two to three years at a below-market rate no matter what happens with Lester.

 

[Jaylach]

 
People keep saying this, but:
 
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list
 
I don't think you can just decide not to play and come back a free agent. What's unclear from above is whether the 500k salary would carry over.

 
What if Lackey were to retire before the Sox exercised their option for 2015? Since the option is for 2015, and he retired before they could exercise it, would he be considered a free agent when (if) he decided to come back to Baseball? He technically wasn't under contract when he left baseball, right? Or is he under contract until the Sox either pick up or decline the option?

 

[glennhoffmania]

 

 
What have you seen that suggests the opposite, and what are your credentials? I still think Occam's Razor suggests we would have seen more holdouts in MLB by now if there weren't negative consequences to the player for doing so.

 
First, the credentials crack was a joke referencing a comment P91 made.  I wasn't really asking Rip to provide his credentials. 
 
But to answer your question, this is what I was referring to, which Josh posted earlier:
 

 

Right, it is attachment 10 to the CBA: "A player who... has been properly put on the Disqualified List for failure to render his services to his Club, shall be eligible to become a Free Agent as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set forth therein."  Basically, if you already had the right to FA, then you can be an FA again even if you were on the disqualified list.  
 
Of course, I'd have really strong reservations on signing any player who basically called it quits b/c they didn't like the agreement they signed (without any reserve rights!), but teams have and will again.

 

 
Now I realize that there's a difference between the restricted list and the disqualified list, and I'm not sure which would apply to Lackey if he refused to show up next year.  Also, the main difference with Torres is that when he "retired" he hadn't yet accrued 6 years of service time so he wasn't eligible for free agency under Article XX.  This also assumes that the CBA in effect in 1997 contained the same relevant language as it does today.
 
Bottom line, you could be right.  But I don't think what you posted is dispositive.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

If sitting out the option year was a viable path to free agency for Lackey, why would the Sox have included it in the contract? It's a toothless clause otherwise. Sure, Lackey has to sit out a year, but he's only missing out on $500K, it wouldn't be that hard of a decision for him.

 

[EvilEmpire]

If sitting out the option year was a viable path to free agency for Lackey, why would the Sox have included it in the contract?

 
Because it gives them leverage to work out a below-market extension if he is pitching well and they want him beyond the last year of his current contract.

 

[Stitch01]

Its not a toothless clause even if Lackey can sit out and become a free agent.  It gives the Red Sox leverage in a negotiation.
 
There aren't more holdouts because, in most cases, its not beneficial to the player to give up a year of earning power.  You need something close to as extreme as the Lackey situation to be able to credibly threaten to do so.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
First, the credentials crack was a joke referencing a comment P91 made.  I wasn't really asking Rip to provide his credentials. 

 
Oh, ok. My bad.
 

There aren't more holdouts because, in most cases, its not beneficial to the player to give up a year of earning power. You need something close to as extreme as the Lackey situation to be able to credibly threaten to do so.

 
While that is generally true, I am still surprised there hasn't been a few more FA along the way to have a somewhat similar situation. It doesn't have to be 500K, but someone making even 5 million or so who has a breakout year and another year left on their contract.

 

[Reverend]

 
Bottom line, you could be right.  But I don't think what you posted is dispositive.

 
 
MLC-PBA-MLR

Rule 15 
 
RESTRICTED, DISQUALIFIED AND INELIGIBLE LISTS 
 
(a) RESTRICTED LIST. If, without permission from a player's Major or Minor 
League Club, a player fails, within 10 days of the opening of the player's Club's 
championship season, to report to, or contract with, the player's Club, the player may be 
reported by the Club to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee for 
placement on the "Restricted List." A player on the Restricted List shall not be eligible 
to play for any Major or Minor League Club. 
 
 Before the start of the championship season but not before January 1, a Major or 
Minor League Club also may report for placement on the Restricted List any player, 
whether or not under contract for the current season, who has given the Club written or 
telegraphic notification that the player will not report until 30 days or more after the 
opening of the championship season. Requests to the Commissioner or the 
Commissioner's designee shall be accompanied by the notification which the Club 
received from the player. 
 
 The Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee may place a Major or Minor 
League Reserve List player on the Restricted List if the player's Club certifies that 
unusual circumstances exist.
 
. . .
 

(g) RESERVATIONS. A player on the Restricted, Disqualified or Ineligible List 
may be reserved as such for two consecutive years. At the expiration of that two-year 
period, the player need not be reported on the player's Major or Minor League Club's 
annual Reserve List and will automatically be transferred to a General Restricted List, 
General Disqualified List or General Ineligible List. 

 

 
 

 

[Joshv02]

The same part of the CBA deals with restricted list players the same way, I just cut it out of the quote.

 
People keep saying this, but:
 
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list
 
I don't think you can just decide not to play and come back a free agent. What's unclear from above is whether the 500k salary would carry over.
 
 
What have you seen that suggests the opposite, and what are your credentials? I still think Occam's Razor suggests we would have seen more holdouts in MLB by now if there weren't negative consequences to the player for doing so.

Torres couldn't be a FA - he didn't have service time.  The restricted list just stops your service clock.
The uniform contact speaks to playing for specific years, and it is clear that it is a chronological year not a "service time" year (which isn''t a thing, anyway) from the context of the paragraph.  
 
There are negative consequences - they just aren't found in the CBA.  I wouldn't sign a guy who held out for a new contract, personally; and he is going to take a year off.  Anyway, players don't usually play for the minimum the year prior to being a FA, if they could be a FA for significantly more, so it doesn't present an issue typically. 
 
If you read attachment 10 to the CBA I don't see how you can come up with a different conclusion, but I'm happy to read your take.  There is no need for credentials; there are 1 billion lawyers on this board, but we don't corner the market on reading comprehension (we just charge for it).
 
So you don't have to look it up:
 

ATTACHMENT 10
This will set forth the understanding of the Parties regarding the last
paragraph of Article XX(A) of the Basic Agreement and, specifically,
the exercise of free agency rights by Players on the Restricted, Suspended,
Disqualified, Ineligible, Voluntarily Retired or Military Lists:
1. A Player who properly has been placed on the Restricted List,
or who properly has been placed on the Disqualified List for failure
to render his services to his Club, shall be eligible to become a
free agent as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set
forth therein. Upon becoming a free agent, such Player shall automatically
be removed from the Restricted or Disqualified List and
reinstated to active status. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Player
who properly has been placed on the Restricted List for a violation
of the Joint Drug Program shall be eligible to become a free agent
as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set forth
therein, but shall remain on the Restricted List until he completes
his suspension.
2. A Player who properly has been placed on the Disqualified
List for a reason other than that stated in paragraph 1 above, or who
properly has been placed on the Suspended, Ineligible, Voluntarily
Retired or Military List, shall also be eligible to become a free agent
as provided in Article XX, but he shall not be eligible to sign or play
with a new Club until removed from such List and reinstated to
active status.
 

 

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
 
MLC-PBA-MLR

 
 

 

 
That's interesting but I'm still not sure it resolves the issue.  I'm not trying to just argue for the hell of it- I'm sincerely curious about this question because I've never seen it come up before.  My question about what you posted is, does that apply to all players or just players who aren't eligible for free agency under article XX (ie., players with less than 6 years of service time)?  Because the post below still makes more sense to me, although I understand that MLB and CBAs don't always have to make sense.
 

The same part of the CBA deals with restricted list players the same way, I just cut it out of the quote.
Torres couldn't be a FA - he didn't have service time.  The restricted list just stops your service clock.
The uniform contact speaks to playing for specific years, and it is clear that it is a chronological year not a "service time" year (which isn''t a thing, anyway) from the context of the paragraph.  
 
There are negative consequences - they just aren't found in the CBA.  I wouldn't sign a guy who held out for a new contract, personally; and he is going to take a year off.  Anyway, players don't usually play for the minimum the year prior to being a FA, if they could be a FA for significantly more, so it doesn't present an issue typically. 
 
If you read attachment 10 to the CBA I don't see how you can come up with a different conclusion, but I'm happy to read your take.  There is no need for credentials; there are 1 billion lawyers on this board, but we don't corner the market on reading comprehension (we just charge for it).

 

[Reverend]

The same part of the CBA deals with restricted list players the same way, I just cut it out of the quote.
Torres couldn't be a FA - he didn't have service time.  The restricted list just stops your service clock.
The uniform contact speaks to playing for specific years, and it is clear that it is a chronological year not a "service time" year (which isn''t a thing, anyway) from the context of the paragraph.  
 
There are negative consequences - they just aren't found in the CBA.  I wouldn't sign a guy who held out for a new contract, personally; and he is going to take a year off.  Anyway, players don't usually play for the minimum the year prior to being a FA, if they could be a FA for significantly more, so it doesn't present an issue typically. 
 
If you read attachment 10 to the CBA I don't see how you can come up with a different conclusion, but I'm happy to read your take.  There is no need for credentials; there are 1 billion lawyers on this board, but we don't corner the market on reading comprehension (we just charge for it).

 
p. 177 here, for anyone interested. It won't allow copy, which is stupid.

 

[Reverend]

 
That's interesting but I'm still not sure it resolves the issue.  I'm not trying to just argue for the hell of it- I'm sincerely curious about this question because I've never seen it come up before.  My question about what you posted is, does that apply to all players or just players who aren't eligible for free agency under article XX (ie., players with less than 6 years of service time)?  Because the post below still makes more sense to me, although I understand that MLB and CBAs don't always have to make sense.
 

 
I just posted a link to the CBA. Looks like the Restricted List would apply to 2015 if the Red Sox invoked it and then he's be a free agent.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Right, that's what Josh and I have been referencing and why I think he's a FA after 2015 no matter what he does.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I just posted a link to the CBA. Looks like the Restricted List would apply to 2015 if the Red Sox invoked it and then he's be a free agent.

 
Yup. The money quote being:
 

 
[SIZE=11pt]A Player who properly has been placed on the Restricted List, or who properly has been placed on the Disqualified List for failure to render his services to his Club, shall be eligible to become a free agent as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set forth therein. Upon becoming a free agent, such Player shall automatically be removed from the Restricted or Disqualifed List and reinstated to active status.[/SIZE]

 
...with some caveats basically saying that if you're on the restricted/disqualified list because you've been suspended, becoming a FA doesn't end your suspension.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
If you read attachment 10 to the CBA I don't see how you can come up with a different conclusion, but I'm happy to read your take.  There is no need for credentials; there are 1 billion lawyers on this board, but we don't corner the market on reading comprehension (we just charge for it).
 
So you don't have to look it up:
 

 
The credentials bit was responding in kind to Glenn, who apparently was just making a joke, so not a big deal. I missed your original post, so apologies for that. Thanks for the information, I was genuinely curious and I'm kind of surprised it's worked out that way.

 

[Reverend]

 
The credentials bit was responding in kind to Glenn, who apparently was just making a joke, so not a big deal. I missed your original post, so apologies for that. Thanks for the information, I was genuinely curious and I'm kind of surprised it's worked out that way.

 
Major League Baseball players have one of if not the most effective union in the country.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

BTW, assuming that Lackey and Lester are friendly, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Lester will say that any chance of a hometown discount goes out the window if the Sox don't treat Lackey well. 

 
I bet he won't. He can think it. He can vent about it to his agent. But his agent should tell him NOT to say such a thing in public, because it would raise this issue of "collusion," which would not be a good word to be attached to Jon Lester. Clubs got royally ticked off at the Drysdale/Koufax collusion in 1966, which is why there is anti-collusion language in the CBA.
 

 
Major League Baseball players have one of if not the most effective union in the country.

 
Let's go with the until someone can name a more effective one.

 

[nattysez]

Thanks for providing this information.  I'm surprised that Lackey can actually sit out a year and then become a FA.  I was thinking that this should be a more common occurrence, but I suppose that this is a fairly unique situation given how little money Lackey would be giving up and that he would be a FA after only a year. 

 

[Bone Chips]

From the EEI article on Ben's press conference this afternoon at Baltimore: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/06/10/ben-cherington-takes-stock-of-red-sox-were-obviously-not-happy-with-where-we-are/

– While right-hander John Lackey said that he “would have some things to think about” regarding his desire to pitch for the major league minimum in 2015 (the Red Sox have an option for his services at that salary as a result of his missing all of 2012 while recovering from Tommy John surgery), Cherington said that such concerns weren’t on his radar.

“I have not heard anything about it,” said Cherington. “This is more of a question for John, I guess. But I know that, the way he’s pitching right now and what I know of him as a competitor and how much he likes being in the clubhouse and how important it is for him to compete and be a guy, I would certainly expect him to want to keep playing, and he certainly looks like a guy who’s going to keep pitching for quite some time. I haven’t heard anything about that, and obviously our expectation is that he’s going to be here.”

Wow.

 

[Plympton91]

It's not common because veterans don't generally sign deals that have the final year with a 95% paycut. Deals are almost never signed that have years at the end valued at less than the years in the beginning.

 
That's a good point.  I wonder if this is actually why they aren't structured that way more often.  It takes away the benefit to the club of doing so.  For instance, suppose the Yankees had structured Ellsbury's contract as $30, $30, $25, $25, $15, $15, $10; This would match his projected aging curve better than the flat rate, but if he's still productive in year 7, then he holds out and they don't get the benefit of the final year discount for their risk.

 

[MakMan44]

Wow.

Wow at what he said? Because I think that was a very good answer. It was non committal enough that it left the door open for an extension while also chastising him for using the media to attempt to bully the Red Sox into doing something. 

 

[Reverend]

Wow at what he said? Because I think that was a very good answer. It was non committal enough that it left the door open for an extension while also chastising him for using the media to attempt to bully the Red Sox into doing something. 

 
It also almost exactly what he said in frickin' April.
 

“John’s one of the most accountable, reliable guys in our clubhouse,” Cherington said. “And one of the things, even when things weren’t going as well for him in Boston, he was always one of the most reliable guys. … He already has a high degree of accountability, and I think he understands the contract he signed.
 
“It’s also clear the way he’s throwing right now that in all likelihood he’s going to keep pitching past 2015, so he’s got a lot of reasons to keep pitching. He certainly looks more than capable of pitching for a while, and he’s got the kind of body and delivery and command. He’s the type of guy that could pitch for a while longer if he wants to, so it is a bit of an unusual situation, but it was part of the contract that was agreed to, and I think the way it looks like right now, we would all expect for John to sign another contract at some point and continue through 2015.”
 

 

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

My goal in this thread has been to serve as proxy for the vast uneducated masses out there, a Greek chorus for the math deficient, if you will.

I am the all-important foil. You need me on that wall. Some thanks are in order, although I am conveniently a patient man.

 

[radsoxfan]

From the EEI article on Ben's press conference this afternoon at Baltimore: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/06/10/ben-cherington-takes-stock-of-red-sox-were-obviously-not-happy-with-where-we-are/


Wow.

 
I'm not sure what's surprising about that quote at all.  The team expects Lackey to pitch next season, as they should. if they work out a mutually beneficial extension, so be it. If they can't work something out, enjoy your 500K salary John.
 
There is no reason to think the Red Sox expect him to retire and not pitch for that salary.  If the thought was so insulting, Lackey and his agent should have asked for the team option to be higher (with the understanding that the 5/82.5 number would go down a bit in return).
 
FWIW, that Lackey elbow MRI must have been a disaster.  For him to accept such a clause, and for the Red Sox to demand it, the MRI must have scared a ton of teams off, or at least prevented them from making any reasonable long term offers. 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

 
That's a good point.  I wonder if this is actually why they aren't structured that way more often.  It takes away the benefit to the club of doing so.  For instance, suppose the Yankees had structured Ellsbury's contract as $30, $30, $25, $25, $15, $15, $10; This would match his projected aging curve better than the flat rate, but if he's still productive in year 7, then he holds out and they don't get the benefit of the final year discount for their risk.

 
Perhaps they aren't structured that way more often because the people writing the paychecks are rational economic actors and understand the time value of money.

 

[Plympton91]

 
 
Perhaps they aren't structured that way more often because the people writing the paychecks are rational economic actors and understand the time value of money.
 

 
Presumably player agents do as well, though.  If the player wants to maximize net present value and the owner wants to minimize it, we should see more than a handful of negotiations that sometimes result in something other than a flat rate contract.  I suppose the use of a signing bonus is the way agents have gotten upfront money for their client, but even then, it's not clear why the equilibrium is nearly universally first-year bonus + flat rate for duration.
 
And, with the luxury tax minutia not always resulting in the straight AAV being charged to the payroll tax base and risk-free interest rates near zero, it could make sense for the owner as well in that calculation.

 

[mpx42]

Olney says Lackey would not be a FA:
 

Back in April, ESPN had a Wednesday night broadcast in Boston, and colleagues Rick Sutcliffe, Aaron Boone and others wondered how a player who has had that much success, with that much experience, could pitch an entire season for the minimum. Something would change, Aaron said. 

He may well be right. 

But it doesn’t have to change, if Boston doesn’t want it to; the Red Sox are on rock-solid contractual ground. In spite of some speculation that Lackey could pitch in Japan next season, the working agreement between MLB and the Japan League would make that impossible. Players cannot simply walk out of their contractual obligations to go play in Japan, or leave Japan to play in Major League Baseball. 

If a player in Lackey’s situation decided he would rather retire than pitch for the minimum, the Red Sox could simply place the player on a restricted list -- and the last year of the deal would remain in place in the event that the player changed his mind. So it’s not as if Lackey has the option of walking away from baseball until his contract runs out. He owes the Red Sox one year at $500,000. 
 

 
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post?id=6654

 

[soxhop411]

Olney says Lackey would not be a FA:
 
 
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post?id=6654

Thought so… Otherwise it would happen more often (sit out a year and then become a FA)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

So if Dempster wants to come back next year, the Sox owe him $12M? (Or $13m or whatever).

Olney is right that lackey can't pitch for anyone else next year, but there is nothing suggesting if he comes back in 2016 or after, that he has to pitch for them, or for $500k.

No .. that's not what that article is claiming. If. Lackey retired for 10 years and came back .. he would still have a one year contract at the minimum

 

[Plympton91]

No .. that's not what that article is claiming. If. Lackey retired for 10 years and came back .. he would still have a one year contract at the minimum

 
 
Right, so the logical extension to that would be that if Dempster wants to come back next season, he has to play for the Red Sox and the Red Sox have to pay him $13 million.  Olney's wrong.

 

[soxhop411]

 
 
Right, so the logical extension to that would be that if Dempster wants to come back next season, he has to play for the Red Sox and the Red Sox have to pay him $13 million.  Olney's wrong.

Dont think so
 

 
The Restricted list is a compendium of players who are out of organized baseball but are not free agents. A team can request that a player be placed on the restricted list if that player has left the team without a valid reason, or has announced his intention to retire but is still of an age or level of skill that could allow him to return to professional baseball in the future. In effect, the team states that it retains rights to the player if and when he becomes active again. The list is also used to place a player who is unavailable to play for non-baseball reasons, such as personal issues or trouble with the law.
A player on the restricted list cannot be signed by another team unless compensation is paid to the team who placed him on the list. The list is honored throughout organized baseball and in leagues that have working agreements to respect the contracts of organized baseball, such as Nippon Pro Baseball. The list is most often used today when a player retires at a young age without receiving his unconditional release. If he decides to return to playing, he must do so with his last team, unless a trade or other deal can be worked out. Salomon Torres is a recent case of a player who spent a number of years on the restricted list before returning to organized baseball.
In the past, the list was used for players who jumped from their contract to sign with an outlaw or independent league. The move signaled to other teams in organized baseball that this player was not free to return to another team and that the provisions of the reserve clause were still in effect in his case. The restricted list is also used on International free agents pending standard MLB investigation.
The restricted list is sometimes confused with the disqualified list, which is used as a form of disciplinary action.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list

 

[Bigpupp]

Torres didn't have enough service time to become a FA, though.

Keith Foulke signed with the Indians a few years ago, then retired. Came back a year later, signed with Oakland as a FA.

If Olney is right, wouldn't Foulke have returned as an Indian?

Not if the Indians didn't place him on the restricted list. They could have also waived their rights to him when he came back.

 

[Plympton91]

Torres didn't have enough service time to become a FA, though.

Keith Foulke signed with the Indians a few years ago, then retired. Came back a year later, signed with Oakland as a FA.

If Olney is right, wouldn't Foulke have returned as an Indian?

 
Right.  I mean, folks, the source document for this situation is posted above.  Read it.

 

[NDame616]

Torres didn't have enough service time to become a FA, though.

Keith Foulke signed with the Indians a few years ago, then retired. Came back a year later, signed with Oakland as a FA.

If Olney is right, wouldn't Foulke have returned as an Indian?

 
EDIT: asked and answered

 

[Stitch01]

Would be great if Olney's right, but would bet heavily he's wrong (about the '16 contract, Lackey clearly cant pitch in Japan next year if the Red Sox don't want him to) given the CBA clause posted earlier.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

So it seems like the Club has all the leverage in this kind of scenario. If a player retires in the middle of a multi year contract he can't simply come back 10 years later to claim the rest of his contract. He has to be on the Restricted List .. and then It's completely at the discretion of the Club.

 

[radsoxfan]

Given the competing arguments above, I honestly have no idea what to think.  I admit my initial gut reaction was that the team has all the control in this situation, and if they want to retain the player on their contract when they return, they can.
 
Those Keith Foulke and Ryan Dempster scenarios really aren't equivalent or useful examples.  In those cases, the team likely did not or would not want the player back, after a year off, at their contracted salary.  Foulke got 700k from the As (not 5M) and Dempster, if he comes back, wouldn't get remotely close to 13M.  
 
The fact that Foulke went to another team, or that Dempster likely would, doesn't automatically tell me that Lackey would be a free agent in 2016 (unless the Red Sox for some reason didn't want him at 500k). 

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

One would think that the player would have to be put on the Restricted List immediately when the player "retires" .. Probably when he misses his first mandatory attendance ..

And another wrinkle .. Is the club obligated to honour the contract if the player returns? For example, if Dempster is on the Restricted List and he decides to come back .. Do the Sox have to pay him?

 

[Reverend]

Given the competing arguments above, I honestly have no idea what to think.  I admit my initial gut reaction was that the team has all the control in this situation, and if they want to retain the player on their contract when they return, they can.

 
To me, it looks like Olney read the rules in the constitution, figured that was enough, and stopped as it sounds like the end of the story. If you go further and read the statement in the CBA, though it changes the reading of the rule, which is probably why they added the statement to the CBA.
 
I think Olney is incompletely informed here.

 

[MakMan44]

One would think that the player would have to be put on the Restricted List immediately when the player "retires" .. Probably when he misses his first mandatory attendance ..

And another wrinkle .. Is the club obligated to honour the contract if the player returns? For example, if Dempster is on the Restricted List and he decides to come back .. Do the Sox have to pay him?

This is where I'm confused as well. Everything I've read suggest that Dempster was placed on the Restricted List, to avoid paying him this year, so what happens when he comes back next season? Are they allowed to waive those rights?

 

[glennhoffmania]

This discussion is still going on? It makes zero sense. Under Olney's interpretation the contract is valid indefinitely until a player unretires. So for example, 30 years from now Dempster gambles all of his money away. He unretires and tells the Sox he's ready to pitch again for 13m. They obviously waive him or whatever, but they'd still owe him 13m.

How does that make any sense?

 

[Joshv02]

If you go further and read the statement in the CBA, though it changes the reading of the rule, which is probably why they added the statement to the CBA.

Agreed, which is why it was a letter agreement and not part of a CBA body. If Olney asked the mlbpa, I assume he would have told us so. I think he is wrong but if not if love to know why.

 

[nattysez]

But GM Ben Cherington doesn't seem worried. He was asked on WEEI's Dennis and Callahan Show on Thursday if he envisions Lackey pitching for the Sox next season for $500,000.

"Certainly, yeah," Cherington said. "I think that it's just a function of the times we live in that just how much time and space there is to talk about these things. My feeling about John is that he's an outstanding competitor, outstanding teammate, he's been an excellent pitcher and a huge part of our success last year and he's been outstanding this year and given the way he's pitching, and given what I know of him as a competitor and as a teammate, how much he likes being in a clubhouse, playing this game and competing, I would expect he's gonna want to continue doing that. 

"And the contract is the contract and we agreed to a contract back in 2010 whenever it was and you know when you agree to a contract, both sides venture into it and so we- there's really not that much more to say about it. We're glad he's with us and we expect him to come in and continue pitching next year."
 

http://www.csnne.com/blog/red-sox-talk/cherington-expect-lackey-sox-2015-500000
 
Edit:  Of course, what else would you expect him to say?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

This discussion is still going on? It makes zero sense. Under Olney's interpretation the contract is valid indefinitely until a player unretires. So for example, 30 years from now Dempster gambles all of his money away. He unretires and tells the Sox he's ready to pitch again for 13m. They obviously waive him or whatever, but they'd still owe him 13m.

How does that make any sense?

I don't know if the discussion makes sense or not but I am just over 100% certain that John Lackey is not pitching in 2015 for $500k.

 

[Bone Chips]

I would expect the Sox to just get a deal done now extending him another year before this thing starts to get ugly.  Ben has me completely confused right now.  He's had the ideal scenarios presented to him for extending his two best pitchers, with all the leverage you could possibly hope for, and he appears to have whiffed in one instance and who knows what's going on in the second.  Maybe there's a grand plan behind this and he's a genius.  Maybe he's great at playing brinksmanship.  Or maybe he's just floundering.  If nothing else it's interesting.

 

[BosRedSox5]

I think Ben's making the right play here. If Lackey didn't see this coming and start financially planning for it, he's a fool. He agreed to this contract and there's not really a way out of it. Is he going to pull a Rickey Williams and walk away?

He owes the Red Sox a year at 500k. It sounds to me like that deal will be at the team's discretion and not the players. So the comparisons to Dempster seem way off base. If a player is on the restricted list they can deal with their original team until their terms are completed. Lackey can:

1.) Request a trade where there's time to discuss an extension.
2.) Retire
3.) Man up and live out his contract
 
Lackey was nothing short of awful in 2011, he didn't pitch at all in 2012 and he was one of the key instigators in the beer and chicken club. Is playing for the league minimum (which is about 10 years of a damn good salary for us regular folks) really that hard for him to swallow when he basically gave us no return on like 30.5 million? 

Ben should absolutely strong arm him. I'm sure none of the players are going to be that upset over it. No one held a gun to his head when he was signing the dotted line. 

 

[HillysLastWalk]

It annoyed me when this subject first started being discussed recently, but let's be clear ...
 
1. This is media driven.  They are the one's creating this story.  They are the one's asking the questions.
2. John Lackey has not said, or hinted at, not playing for $500K next year.
 
Just wanted to add that.

 

[Drek717]

I would expect the Sox to just get a deal done now extending him another year before this thing starts to get ugly.  Ben has me completely confused right now.  He's had the ideal scenarios presented to him for extending his two best pitchers, with all the leverage you could possibly hope for, and he appears to have whiffed in one instance and who knows what's going on in the second.  Maybe there's a grand plan behind this and he's a genius.  Maybe he's great at playing brinksmanship.  Or maybe he's just floundering.  If nothing else it's interesting.

Lackey is 35 this year and is under team control for league minimum at age 36 next year.  He was god awful bad at 32, not very good at 31, and missed his entire age 33 season to the very injury that activated this option.
 
Is he REALLY the guy we want to give guaranteed money for 2016 to now, in the middle of 2014?  I don't think so.  Lackey got his 2015 salary in advance when he didn't pitch all of 2012.  He's getting a free half million thrown on top as a bonus.  That should be the Red Sox stance, it sounds like that is Cherrington's stance, and if Lackey has a problem with that (which he has never vocalized to my knowledge) he can retire or ask for a trade (that the FO may or may not grant).
 
Extending Lackey is insane.  This isn't David Ortiz folks.  He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in his late 30's that two years from now he's still worth a roster spot, let alone more than league minimum.

 

[joe dokes]

 
 
Extending Lackey is insane.  This isn't David Ortiz folks.  He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in his late 30's that two years from now he's still worth a roster spot, let alone more than league minimum.

 
Extending him right now might be insane.  But if the rest of the year is anything like the beginnning of the year and last year, then replacing the option year over the winter with a 2-yr plus an option deal would not be insane.