It's the Major League Baseball PLAYERS Association.
That's not even remotely on the table. (not to mention how that could affect insurance payouts).
Another Surgery for Pedey
- Thread starter DanoooME
- Start date
- Status
That's not even remotely on the table. (not to mention how that could affect insurance payouts).
I'm really bad at this quoting thing. I'll use this opportunity to ask you to tell a co-worker they have nice shoes today. That would be a nice thing to do.
Does Pedey actually think he is going to play again? Or is he just not retiring to keep collecting on the contract? Which he has every bit a right to do, I am just wondering though, if in his mind, he still thinks he has a chance, or if he has mentally hung it up?
He did, but because the Yankees released him (as opposed to A-Rod retiring), the salary he was owed still counted against the luxury tax.
Last edited:
I'm sure it's possible to do it, and the idea has been tossed around before, but I expect there would be all kinds of push back from MLB and MLBPA. Especially if there's any whiff at all that the Sox were pushing for it as a way to save money on the payroll/luxury tax. I can't imagine they'd go anywhere near anything that appeared to be a work-around.
That said, if Pedey did choose to retire and forego the money he's still owed, I don't think there's a chance that the team wouldn't "make good" with him down the road. Maybe not a direct quid-pro-quo, but certainly a "he has a job with us any time he wants one" sort of thing. It's not like they have a limited number of "special assistant" or "special instructor" spots. David Ortiz, Pedro Martinez, Tim Wakefield, Jason Varitek, Jim Rice, Luis Tiant, Carl Yastrzemski, Dwight Evans, and Tommy Harper are all officially employed by the Red Sox in some capacity. And then there is the roster of ex-players on NESN's list of analysts. Surely Pedroia would be added to the list and paid more than a nominal salary.
I don't doubt that you're right (especially given your tagline), but the first part puzzles me. Are you implying that the MLBPA would be against this kind of transfer-the-salary-to-a-non-playing-position gambit? And if so, why? It would free up money to be spent on more players, without actually depriving current players of any expected money. Seems like a win-win for players and big-market teams, and a loser for small-market teams. So I would assume it would be ownership (at least, a significant subset of it) that would be interested in preventing this kind of move. Am I missing something?
Not sure. Maybe as long as it’s provable what they’re doing.
Dempster retired and he was owed 8 figures. If he was signed as a coach or something, I don’t know if that would be seen as fishy.
These situations highlight how bad 100% guaranteed contracts are.
From the player’s perspective, they are not bad at all.
Keith Foulke threw his arm off in the postseason 15 years ago and very likely sacrificed a good portion of his career to help our team win a championship. Is it “bad” that he did so under the protection of a guaranteed contract?
Didn’t he voluntarily leave a contract too? There is always going to be exceptions.
I just mean, you can handicap a franchise for half a decade or more because one player loses it over night (see: Chris David and Ryan Howard). We had it with Panda, and who knows what we have now with Sale and Price - hopefully they come back stronger.
but when it stops you from being able to retain a player like Mookie, it’s wild. It’s something that could be easily abused if there were no punishment - but having some ability to be flexible would be nice.
But unless something changes with service time and arbitration, I can't disagree with guys making as much as they possibly can. There are a lot of failed Dustin Pedroia's around that we never heard anything about. And how many guys only end up getting a cup of coffee or slightly longer before they are out of the MLB. I know it's a lot. For the guys that make it and can get that Free Agent money, all the power to them.
We all know Mookie is a special talent and he's the guy the Sox need to go all in on, but it's part of the game and it makes it a lot more interesting to watch, rather than the Yankees spend everyone out of water each year
In a reasonable contract, both sides take risk. In Pedroia’s case, he took a lot less money than he would have earned if his career followed a typical decline path as he aged; in exchange, the Sox gave him a long-term guarantee and (iirc) a no-trade clause. Unless you think the Sox should’ve known this would happen, I don’t think you can fault them because a risk that they knowingly took — and that all of us thought was reasonable at the time — came to fruition.
The long-term contracts that are bad are the ones where the player takes no real risk — i.e., there’s no real chance the contract ends up being a bargain for the club. (Contracts with opt-out clauses usually fall in this category.)
I think it's actually debatable that the risk came to fruition, at least more than trivially. Fangraphs says he's earned about $98M of a $110M contract. When signing or extending a guy into his late 30s, I'll take that outcome every day and twice on Sunday.
The issue with Pedroia's contract isn't that the Sox took a value hit on it. It's just that it's now dead money standing in the way of improvement.
That's the Sox' problem, not Pedroia's. I see no reason why Pedroia should walk away from the millions he's owed merely because he's injured due to a baseball play. It sucks for him because he can't play, and it sucks for the Sox because they could use the room to get under the luxury tax, but them's the breaks.
The Sox are about to have the same issue with Sale's and Eovaldi's dreadful extensions too.
How much money and how many years does Pedey have left on this contract? Could they buy him out?
B-Ref has it as 2 more years and a total of $25 million. $13 million for 2020 and $12 million for 2021.
I suppose they could try, but what's Pedroia's incentive? They offered him that contract. He signed it. He deserves that money and he should get every cent of it.
People used to say this all the time about ARod as well, and it's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why the player should take a buyout for less than his contract amount. Or would.
Why would he accept even a penny less then he is owed?
It seems like people here aren't looking at this from the union's or Pedoria's perspective. As I mentioned earlier, there are insurance elements in cases like these. Take David Wright or Albert Belle. If they retired or took a buyout, it would have actually hurt the clubs because they were getting insurance payouts based on them being employed as players (but unable to perform that task). I know in David Wright's case, it's 75%. I don't know Pedoria's situation.
I know there are exceptions like Dempster, McGwire and Gil Meche but those are exceptions and I'm sure they got a lot of blowback from the union and their agents.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Foulke walking away from a contract with Cleveland because he felt he wasn't healthy enough to pitch. Hot take: that was stupid of him. He should have taken the money they agreed to pay him when they signed him to that deal.
I'm for players getting every last cent of their deals. if it hurts the team's ability to compete....boo damn hoo.
I'm for players getting every last cent of their deals. if it hurts the team's ability to compete....boo damn hoo.
Not suggesting he should take anything less.
Which other sports have buyouts? Is it the NBA? Is the idea there that the “incentive” for the player is to be able to be signed by another team because the current contract is immovable? Obviously that’s not the case in this situation.
Which other sports have buyouts? Is it the NBA? Is the idea there that the “incentive” for the player is to be able to be signed by another team because the current contract is immovable? Obviously that’s not the case in this situation.
Does a buyout necessarily mean he'd be taking less money? Couldn't they offer the whole $25M right now, up front, in order to be done with the contract and free up the roster spot? That's arguably a better deal for Pedroia as $25M now is worth more than $13M next year and $12M the following year. Then he has his money, he can officially retire (if he wants), get the clock started on his Hall of Fame candidacy (outside chance but still a chance), and otherwise move on with his life.
The team doesn't really gain anything out of it other than the roster spot, but it would be a clean break along the lines of what the Mets did with David Wright.
I don't know the answer to that question. I would guess that the MLBPA wouldn't want that offer to be made because they wouldn't want buyout offers to become common throughout the league. But that's just a guess.
Keith Foulke walked away from $5M. Dempster walked away from $8M, but he had already earned $89M over his career.
Pedroia would be walking away from $25M. There is no way he is going to do that, nor should he.
The problem is not Pedroia's contract. The Sox knew all about his contract, and still failed to plan accordingly for 2020 when they extended Sale and resigned Eovaldi.
As for any side agreements regarding retirement for future coaching positions, don't expect that would fly at all for a number of reasons. If they tried that, I wouldn't be surprised if Manfred docked them a draft pick for attempting to circumvent the CBA. I assume the CBA has clauses in it that deliberate attempts at circumvention will be punished, and it's something that has happened in the NBA (Timberwolves) and NHL (Devils).
Maybe there would be nothing to easily prevent the Sox from saying to Pedey: "Why don't you wait 4 years, and we'll hire you as a coach for $25M over 5 years." But why would Pedroia agree to that? He's already seen 3 GM's either leave or get fired during his career. What happens if the team gets sold in the interim?
Pedroia would be walking away from $25M. There is no way he is going to do that, nor should he.
A buyout doesn't solve the AAV problem that is used in the luxury tax calculation. Also, the roster spot is a non-issue, as he will go on the 60-day DL. If there was an offseason roster crunch on the 40-man, they could always designate him for assignment (which is essentially the buyout option).
The problem is not Pedroia's contract. The Sox knew all about his contract, and still failed to plan accordingly for 2020 when they extended Sale and resigned Eovaldi.
As for any side agreements regarding retirement for future coaching positions, don't expect that would fly at all for a number of reasons. If they tried that, I wouldn't be surprised if Manfred docked them a draft pick for attempting to circumvent the CBA. I assume the CBA has clauses in it that deliberate attempts at circumvention will be punished, and it's something that has happened in the NBA (Timberwolves) and NHL (Devils).
Maybe there would be nothing to easily prevent the Sox from saying to Pedey: "Why don't you wait 4 years, and we'll hire you as a coach for $25M over 5 years." But why would Pedroia agree to that? He's already seen 3 GM's either leave or get fired during his career. What happens if the team gets sold in the interim?
Last edited:
Pedroia’s contract really won’t be hurting them that badly relative to a declining Pedroia able to go out and play 100 games a season. They’ll be able to cover second base with Chavis at the major league minimum next season anyway. Where it would really hurt is if they had to go pay $8 million for a starter at 2B in free agency.
Of course it would be better if they didn’t have the contract at all, but it’s just not a dealbreaker. The dealbreaker is the sudden need to get under the cap 6 months after you paid $30 million a season for an injured ace.
Of course it would be better if they didn’t have the contract at all, but it’s just not a dealbreaker. The dealbreaker is the sudden need to get under the cap 6 months after you paid $30 million a season for an injured ace.
I think they should modify the CBA so that if a player if not able to perform due to injury for an entire season, then only 50% of his salary counts toward the luxury tax calculations. And maybe only 75% of it counts if the player on the IL for more than 130 games. Not complete relief, but not a full hit either.
Such a modification would seem to be in the interest of both teams and the union, as it would slightly reduce some of the risks of long-term guaranteed contracts.
Such a modification would seem to be in the interest of both teams and the union, as it would slightly reduce some of the risks of long-term guaranteed contracts.
Of course. No one's suggesting that Pedroia has any obligation to retire just to do the franchise and the fans a favor. (And if they are, they're an idiot.) I hold out some slight hope that he may, because he strikes me as the kind of personality who might be uncomfortable collecting a check for services he can't render, even if in a strict moral reckoning he's perfectly entitled to it. But it seems pretty unlikely, and I'm certainly not expecting it, in either sense of that word.
Do you know Dustin Pedroia? What makes you think he's "the kind of personality who might be uncomfortable collecting a check for services he can't render"?
Like SJH said, he signed a contract with the Red Sox, he got hurt doing baseball activities, he's made every possible attempt to come back and now he would be considered "morally repugnant" if he collected on the last two years of his contract, that was negotiated in good faith by two lucid and competent parties? I know that the Sox have backed themselves into a corner money wise (completely their fault, BTW) but get out of here with this stuff.
Other leagues (NHL, NBA) have offered buyout windows that allow teams to reduce or spread out cap hits. NBA players often get bought out after trade season so they can move to other teams for the playoffs, but they have new money coming to them, so they have motivation to take less money than is remaining on their contract in order to leave. The MLB has no such provisions or windows. If you buy out a player, I don't know what the effect would be, but it would probably just count as a contract revision and move all of the cap hit into one season. Or maybe not. It certainly isn't going to make things better.
Maybe they could offer small market teams a little more revenue sharing money when it happens to them to get them to agree to it counting less against the CBT.
The only wrinkle to this is that a chunk of the money was deferred, so if they wanted to negotiate a buyout it would be less than 25m. Also we don't know how much, if any, of past years' salaries were deferred, so they very well may owe him a lot more than 25m right now. But all of this is a cash flow issue, not a luxury tax issue.
The key difference is that the NHL and NBA have salary caps. Granted, the NBA has a soft cap, but it is still a cap in which the exceptions are tightly regulated.
The luxury tax was never intended to be a salary cap. And unless the players association ever agrees to an actual salary cap (highly unlikely), there is probably little or no desire among the owners to allow for buyouts. After all, the owners can simply fire their GM's if they end up in luxury tax hell.
I was just explaining why we can't "just buy him out" and make the issue better, not suggesting the MLB should start having buyouts.
IIRC part of the reason players have retired is that they are otherwise required to show up for spring training and do everything in their power to get healthy and into game shape and they would rather not put on the show when they know they’re not getting back, and would like to be free of these obligations. (I believe there was an example a few years ago where a team attempted to strong arm a pitcher into a questionable surgery to either get him back or to get him to retire and they ended up compromising on a reduced buy out.) given the amount of money on the table, it’s not a surprise that most athletes decide to faux-rehab as a high paying transition job, but there may be cases where it’s not worth it to the player.
That Pedroia’s contract turned out this way shouldn’t be a surprise; the comps and outlook always look better when the deal is signed. Does anyone think that if the Sox sign Mookie to a 10 year deal, we won’t be starting to talk about Regis in 2027?
That Pedroia’s contract turned out this way shouldn’t be a surprise; the comps and outlook always look better when the deal is signed. Does anyone think that if the Sox sign Mookie to a 10 year deal, we won’t be starting to talk about Regis in 2027?
if they let teams do this Keuchel would be pitching for the yankees right now. that would have given them like 30-40 mil in salary relief with the Stanton and Ellsbury deals.
The first guy I remember who did something like this was Gil Meche, who walked away from $12M with the Royals because he couldn't pitch anymore. But the idea that there's less than a handful of such cases just re-enforces how unlikely it is.
You're right, there probably does need to be something in this for the "small market" (low-spending) team. But I think there needs to be more significant revisions to revenue sharing to incentivize these teams to spend more, like reducing their revenue sharing if they don't above a certain threshold. And part of getting them to spend more will involve raising minimum salaries and salaries for other player still under team control (pre-FA), to pay these players closer to their true value and reducing the salary differential between veteran FAs and younger players.
The ultimate deal on the new CBA will have to be something that offers a bit of something for everyone.
I'm all for the player getting their money, not saying there should be x dollars guaranteed, but a player on the DL for 3-4 years yet still affecting the payroll cap is kind of silly. Like, keep the money, keep getting paid, but allow the money for a player or two to be shifted into a reserve pool (similar to Rusney and Allen Craig, even though they were in AAA) where they get paid - just not affecting luxury tax purposes.
The small market teams will not want this. As it would make it less risky for the big market teams to sign players to long term contracts that the smaller market teams could not hope to match, even with luxury tax amnesty provisions.
Implement a salary floor?
The small market teams already are forcing big money players to the bigger teams. They can restock via the draft, and then have a small window where they can compete if the picks work out, but otherwise they are dormant for years.
Purely the picture of him that's been filtered through the media lens over the years, as further filtered by my own experiences and expectations, which obviously adds up to highly limited and unreliable knowledge.
I've said unequivocally in more than one post, I think, that he has absolutely no moral obligation to retire as a favor to management or fandom. Zero. Zilch. Bupkis. But sometimes people are driven by scruples or considerations of pride to do things that are entirely unnecessary from an ethical POV, and it would be awfully convenient for Sox fans if that turned out to be the case here, is all I'm saying.
And I don't know where the hell "morally repugnant" came from, but it certainly didn't come from me in connection with this topic, so I'd appreciate you not putting it in quotation marks in what appears to be a direct response to something I've said.
Last edited:
If the limits on salaries of players under team control were significantly increased it would bury the small market teams. They would become like the old Washington Senators that had zero chance of making the playoffs year after year.
I'm sure that's right though the small market teams have skin in the game as well even though it's all just a question of scale. In fact, the small market teams have maybe more. If Kevin Kiermaier were to have a problem the Rays would be in very difficult shape for three years and maybe less able to deal with it like the big market teams could, even though his contract is a bargain.
I'm sure the players would be great with some sort of limited right to petition for cap/tax relief for injury since my guess is it would make teams open the checkbooks a bit more. A significant problem though would be potential abuse. Chris Davis suddenly getting back trouble.
I've posted this before, but like Prince Fielder was, Pedroia should be declared as medically unfit to play. There is close to a zero percent chance that he'll ever play for the Sox again and I read that just pitching batting practice to his kids caused him excruciating pain in his knee. It wouldn't change the contractual payments but expecting Pedroia to limp through rehab for two years is not the right thing to do.
I don't know Pedroia either, but my hunch is actually that you're partly correct that he probably does feel bad about taking up cap space that the team could use to be more competitive. I mean, he might totally be like "fuck them, they made the contract and I did my part," but I seriously doubt it. I would fully expect that he's bummed about it. But that doesn't mean he's going to give away $25 million and nobody in their right mind should expect that anyone in his position would.
Where I disagree though is when you use words like "scruples." It kind of implies that it's the right thing to do. I feel like you're saying two different things -- agreeing that he has no obligation to consider retirement but also suggesting that a person of scruples or pride might consider doing so. That's kind of a mixed message.
You're the one that's talking out of both sides of your mouth and somehow making this a moral dilemma, " because he strikes me as the kind of personality who might be uncomfortable collecting a check for services he can't render". It's not. The guy signed a contract, the team signed a contract. There are no good guys or bad guys here, just a deal that went bad through no one's fault.
I did not make it a moral dilemma. I specifically said it wasn't a moral dilemma. Three times now. I'm not "talking out of both sides of my mouth," I'm making a point that seems simple enough to me but apparently is too nuanced for you. Oh well.
But you did do that when after you said it wasn't a moral dilemma, you turned around and made an argument based on a moral dilemma. Because a person who might be uncomfortable collecting a check for services he can't render is another way of saying that Pedroia is stealing. The act of stealing is a moral dilemma, am I stealing to feed my family or am I stealing for fun.
A point so nuanced it was lost on the person making it. Oh well.
- Status