Another Surgery for Pedey

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
869
Maryland
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.
That's why I said it would have to be done in conjunction with an increase in revenue sharing, but tied to a condition that they actually have to spend the money.

Having teams with $50 million payrolls is really not in anyone's interest, except maybe the owners of those teams who are putting cash in their pockets at the everyone else expense. If small-market teams legitimately need money to compete, give it to them through revenue sharing, but they shouldn't be allowed to not spend it, or to underpay the good players they have, so that they can pocket the cash. That's not fair to the players or to the large-market teams who are subsidizing them these teams through revenue sharing. This type of approach to increase spending by these "small-market" teams helps avoid the need to instate a formal "floor" and "cap" system, which I don't think either party wants.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
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.
So every feeling you have about your own behavior is rational? You've never felt a scruple or inhibition about something that you knew perfectly well, on a non-emotional level, was morally justified? Congratulations on having escaped that particular form of neurosis. Not all of us are so lucky.

In other words, my argument wasn't "based on a moral dilemma", it was based on the possibility that a person might perceive a moral dilemma where there really isn't one. In my experience this is not a terribly uncommon thing, especially where our pesky work ethic is involved. YMMV.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
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.
I could see the owners and the union agreeing on something like that. As a fan, however, if the players are going to receive a larger share of revenues, it would be far better if that extra money went towards more fairly compensating players who are not yet eligible for free agency, rather than further increasing incentives to overpay veteran players.

Edit: And as others have said, increased revenue sharing would have to be part of the deal — most clubs are well below the CBT threshold and have no reason to make it even easier for large-market teams to outspend them. Large-market teams won’t benefit enough from any amnesty provision to make it worth their while to agree to increased revenue sharing, but if increased revenue sharing is going to happen anyway, amnesty might be a concession they could extract in return.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,536
So every feeling you have about your own behavior is rational? You've never felt a scruple or inhibition about something that you knew perfectly well, on a non-emotional level, was morally justified? Congratulations on having escaped that particular form of neurosis. Not all of us are so lucky.

In other words, my argument wasn't "based on a moral dilemma", it was based on the possibility that a person might perceive a moral dilemma where there really isn't one. In my experience this is not a terribly uncommon thing, especially where our pesky work ethic is involved. YMMV.
You're spiraling, man.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Do they usually do stuff like that?
I don't know whether it was officially a "week" or not, but they've done Pedro retrospectives and Ortiz retrospectives in the past. They were showing a bunch of old Pedro stuff this past week with the 20 year anniversary of his 1999 season (All Star Game, Game 5 ALDS, etc).

With the Sox not in the post-season, they've had some hours to fill that might otherwise be filled with pre/post game type stuff. I hope they do more of it.
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,371
Chicago
I don't know whether it was officially a "week" or not, but they've done Pedro retrospectives and Ortiz retrospectives in the past. They were showing a bunch of old Pedro stuff this past week with the 20 year anniversary of his 1999 season (All Star Game, Game 5 ALDS, etc).

With the Sox not in the post-season, they've had some hours to fill that might otherwise be filled with pre/post game type stuff. I hope they do more of it.
Back when the hockey was on strike and no postseason baseball, I loved watching the 67, 75 and 86 world series runs. Last time they showed them was 2005 IIRC
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
It’s Dustin Pedroia week on NESN. They’re showing classic Pedroia games all week. Set your DVR.
I’m not seeing one item related to Pedroia or the Red Sox (except for one Jim Rice thing I believe) in their schedule for the week.

Edit Looks like NESN+ , 1pm this week
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Only when SoSH wants a guy to retire.
I don't "want" him to retire. I want him to get healthy and play again. But if he cant play any more, than obviously, as a fan of the team, I'd love the salary flexibility back. But I dont expect him to unless there is another mechanism to get him the money owed, which there doesnt seem to be.
 

Boggs26

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
1,152
Ashburnham, MA
So this is really just hypothetical since Pedroia only had 2 years left and the Sox are basically at the top lux tax threshold, but related to the buyout talk from earlier in the thread - let's say a fairly low payroll team (50+ mil under the 1st lux tax threshold) had a player who suffered a career ending injury while still owed something like 4 years at 12m AAV - are there any rules that would prevent them from renegotiating that contact from 4/48 to 1/48 in order to free themselves from the tax implications? Theoretically that's a positive for both player and team, right?

It would take a fairly unusual set of circumstances for it to make sense, but a rebuilding team like the Astros of a few years ago might have seen some benefit of from that tax money before resigning a bunch of their young guys.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
So this is really just hypothetical since Pedroia only had 2 years left and the Sox are basically at the top lux tax threshold, but related to the buyout talk from earlier in the thread - let's say a fairly low payroll team (50+ mil under the 1st lux tax threshold) had a player who suffered a career ending injury while still owed something like 4 years at 12m AAV - are there any rules that would prevent them from renegotiating that contact from 4/48 to 1/48 in order to free themselves from the tax implications? Theoretically that's a positive for both player and team, right?

It would take a fairly unusual set of circumstances for it to make sense, but a rebuilding team like the Astros of a few years ago might have seen some benefit of from that tax money before resigning a bunch of their young guys.
https://www.dol.gov/OLMS/regs/compliance/cba/2019/private/30MajorClubs_K9831_060122.pdf
CBA Article XXIII, Section C "Determination of Actual Club Payroll," pargraph (1) (c) says that you adjust the team's payroll by:
any other amount includible in or deductible from Actual Club Payroll ... as a result of any Club, any Player and/or either of the Parties hereto having engaged in a transaction contrary to Section G(1) below...
Section G "Other Undertakings," paragraph 1:
(1) Neither the Parties hereto nor any Club or any Player shall enter into any agreement, Uniform Player’s Contract or other transaction, that includes any terms designed to defeat or circumvent the intention of the Parties as reflected by this Article XXIII.
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
I don't "want" him to retire. I want him to get healthy and play again.
He'll turn 37 before next season ends and he has a total of 34 games played and 55.0 innings played at 2nd base over the last two seasons. At what level do you think he would come back if he is healthy again? I know it's your hope but I don't think it very realistic.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
He'll turn 37 before next season ends and he has a total of 34 games played and 55.0 innings played at 2nd base over the last two seasons. At what level do you think he would come back if he is healthy again? I know it's your hope but I don't think it very realistic.
Of course its not.

But yes, in the fantasy land world, my fantasy #1 would be him to come back healthy. Fantasy #2 would be a retirement that would bring cap relief. Fantasy #3 would be figuring out a way to convert the salary into some sort of payment for a coaching gig.

All 3 of the above I have been told are impossible for one reason or another. But fantasies usually are. At the end of the day, we really have no good options.
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,371
Chicago
So this is really just hypothetical since Pedroia only had 2 years left and the Sox are basically at the top lux tax threshold, but related to the buyout talk from earlier in the thread - let's say a fairly low payroll team (50+ mil under the 1st lux tax threshold) had a player who suffered a career ending injury while still owed something like 4 years at 12m AAV - are there any rules that would prevent them from renegotiating that contact from 4/48 to 1/48 in order to free themselves from the tax implications? Theoretically that's a positive for both player and team, right?

It would take a fairly unusual set of circumstances for it to make sense, but a rebuilding team like the Astros of a few years ago might have seen some benefit of from that tax money before resigning a bunch of their young guys.
in terms of present value, that works out for the player
MLB needs a rule similar to the NBA's where if a player can't play for a calendar, they are taken off for cap purposes
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
in terms of present value, that works out for the player
MLB needs a rule similar to the NBA's where if a player can't play for a calendar, they are taken off for cap purposes
Why should they be taken off for cap purposes? The Red Sox are paying Pedroia, and he played for them. This would imply that they should have included more of his salary in previous years, when he was playing and producing value, if he shouldn't be on there now.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
So Ive been out of the loop for a while. Are all of these machinations 100% procedural and purely about moving $ around on both sides at this point or is there still a scenario where he could actually play again?
 

barbed wire Bob

crippled by fear
SoSH Member
So Ive been out of the loop for a while. Are all of these machinations 100% procedural and purely about moving $ around on both sides at this point or is there still a scenario where he could actually play again?
From what I have read, no. This is from our resident expert.
Dr. Christopher Geary, an orthopedic surgeon at Tufts Medical Center who has not treated Pedroia, described this type of operation as “a much bigger procedure’’ than anything Pedroia has had to this point.

“If he was 16, they do either knee replacement or a partial knee replacement,’’ said Geary. “But because of his age [35], there’s a relatively newer technique where they take what’s called a mega allograft. They take it from a cadaver and plug it in where the cartilage is no good.

It’s a day-to-day-life procedure; it’s not a going-back-to-playing-sports procedure.

“It’s not compatible with playing high-impact sports.’’
At this point, I just hope Dustin is fit enough to play with his kids and live a fairly normal life without excruciating pain. What a sucky way to end a career.
https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2019/08/07/dustin-pedroia-knee-surgery-2
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
So Ive been out of the loop for a while. Are all of these machinations 100% procedural and purely about moving $ around on both sides at this point or is there still a scenario where he could actually play again?
In terms of the roster procedures, all the Red Sox did was move him from the 60-day injured list back to the 40 man roster. As the baseball season is now officially over, all players on the 60-day IL have to be moved back onto the 40-man roster or be designated for assignment. Chris Sale was similarly activated.

I counted 34 players currently on the Sox 40-man roster, so Pedroia's presence on the roster is not causing any issues for them at the moment. He will be moved back to the 60-day IL when it opens up again at the start of Spring Training. The financial implications of these moves are zero.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
In terms of the roster procedures, all the Red Sox did was move him from the 60-day injured list back to the 40 man roster. As the baseball season is now officially over, all players on the 60-day IL have to be moved back onto the 40-man roster or be designated for assignment. Chris Sale was similarly activated.

I counted 34 players currently on the Sox 40-man roster, so Pedroia's presence on the roster is not causing any issues for them at the moment. He will be moved back to the 60-day IL when it opens up again at the start of Spring Training. The financial implications of these moves are zero.
What are the financial implications of a DFA? Does the cap hit get accelerated?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
What are the financial implications of a DFA? Does the cap hit get accelerated?
No. It’s treated as if he was still on the team.

EDIT: There is no mechanism by which the Sox can remove Pedroia's cap hit. Zip. None. Zero. He could voluntarily retire, but that is not happening, no matter how much people want him to.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
Although I'd argue for the former's more significant injury, Pedroia's twilight is eerily similar to the early to mid-30s end of Nomar's career. In fact there is an alternate universe where the Henry sale does not happen in EARLY 2002 along with Duquette's dismissal before the start of the season, Duquette sees Nomar's strong recovery from his wrist injury keeping him out in 2001 that season and extends a "mini-Manny" type of extension, then Nomar is sitting on the bench for a number of years to end his career with the Sox.
 

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
538
No. It’s treated as if he was still on the team.

EDIT: There is no mechanism by which the Sox can remove Pedroia's cap hit. Zip. None. Zero. He could voluntarily retire, but that is not happening, no matter how much people want him to.
They could buy him out, if he agrees. The precedent is 20%. That 20% would count towards the CBT.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
They could buy him out, if he agrees. The precedent is 20%. That 20% would count towards the CBT.
Could you cite a source on that because I don't believe a buy-out changes what is counted against the CBT one iota.

The Mets just did a buyout of David Wright last year. His full contract AAV is still counted against the Mets' payroll for luxury tax purposes through next season (when the original deal would have expired). Seems if the precedent is 20%, it would only be 20% of his AAV counting.
 

Xander Betts Jr.

New Member
Oct 17, 2018
27
They could buy him out, if he agrees. The precedent is 20%. That 20% would count towards the CBT.
Under what "precedent" would a player voluntarily take an 80% pay cut to a negotiated salary under no obligation to do so? I certainly would not- even if it would really help my employer's tax situation.

The Red Sox assumed risk of injury when they agreed to this contract with Dustin (which, btw, was a relatively team-friendly deal at the time). This risk has now been realized. So What? Why should they be let off the hook?

Any expectation, suggestion, and I'd argue even hope that Pedroia would voluntarily agree to less money is wildly disrespectful to a cornerstone franchise player who helped win 3 World Series titles with max effort on every play.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Pedroia is not taking less money than what is owed. He has zero incentive to do so, nor should he do it. It's just not going to happen.

The Sox have two options: (1) carry him on the roster, adding him to the 60-day IL at the start of Spring Training in 2020 and 2021; or (2) designate him for assignment while paying him the remaining owed on his contract. Neither option changes how his AAV is calculated for luxury tax purposes.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
David Wright’s contract situation was complicated because the Mets were recouping like 75% of it or something like that. The buyout was between the Mets and the insurance company I believe, not the Mets and Wright. I don’t know if Pedroia’a contract is insured but I don’t ever remember hearing any indication that it is.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
David Wright’s contract situation was complicated because the Mets were recouping like 75% of it or something like that. The buyout was between the Mets and the insurance company I believe, not the Mets and Wright. I don’t know if Pedroia’a contract is insured but I don’t ever remember hearing any indication that it is.
The Mets and Wright re-structured how HE would be paid his remaining salary upon his release...deferring a portion of it into payouts in 2021, 2022, and 2023...as well as carving out a special assistant role for him with the organization going forward. Yes, the insurance policy is going to pay most if not all of that salary (details weren't made public), but there was definitely a deal agreed to between team and player as well. Cot's has the breakdown.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The Mets and Wright re-structured how HE would be paid his remaining salary upon his release...deferring a portion of it into payouts in 2021, 2022, and 2023...as well as carving out a special assistant role for him with the organization going forward. Yes, the insurance policy is going to pay most if not all of that salary (details weren't made public), but there was definitely a deal agreed to between team and player as well. Cot's has the breakdown.
Yeah I think the insurance is the issue here. Sox could probably do the same thing with a special assistant role but I dont think it creates any cap relief
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
Pedroia is not taking less money than what is owed. He has zero incentive to do so, nor should he do it. It's just not going to happen.

The Sox have two options: (1) carry him on the roster, adding him to the 60-day IL at the start of Spring Training in 2020 and 2021; or (2) designate him for assignment while paying him the remaining owed on his contract. Neither option changes how his AAV is calculated for luxury tax purposes.
Is there not a third option of signing Pedroia to an extension? For example, a five-year extension that adds, say, $3 million to his current contract, but brings the AAV down. Right now, he's owed $25 million in 2020-21, with $13.75 million AAV counting toward the cap from his 8/$110M total contract. In the example, the new contract is $28M for 7 years, for an AAV of $4M.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
The MLBPA and the Commissioner would both have to approve that $3m contract. Do you think you’d get two thumbs up for a deal that’s trying to bring down the tax for a player physically unable to get on the field?
I can’t see the MLBPA having a problem. More money for a member of the Union, plus more salary room for other members of the Union. Win-win.
The Red Sox and Pedroia should take offense at your characterization of the deal. This is a reward to a beloved Red Sox icon, and a way to give him more time to get healthy to get back on the field. In a world where Brett Kavanaugh can tantrum himself onto the Supreme Court, surely Chaim can muster some righteous indignation to give a potential HOFer a chance to get back on the field.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
I can’t see the MLBPA having a problem. More money for a member of the Union, plus more salary room for other members of the Union. Win-win.
The Red Sox and Pedroia should take offense at your characterization of the deal. This is a reward to a beloved Red Sox icon, and a way to give him more time to get healthy to get back on the field. In a world where Brett Kavanaugh can tantrum himself onto the Supreme Court, surely Chaim can muster some righteous indignation to give a potential HOFer a chance to get back on the field.
Also the small and surely unimportant fact that it would be attempting to circumvent the CBT tax which is never going to happen.
 

alamat86

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
14
What about reworking Pedey's deal and then including an opt out clause after one year? And then Pedey helps the Sox by opting out. Just an idea.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
What about reworking Pedey's deal and then including an opt out clause after one year? And then Pedey helps the Sox by opting out. Just an idea.
Any restructuring, reworking, modification, extension, or what have you would still require approval of the player, the MLBPA, and the Commissioner. Given that it's known he's injured and highly unlikely to ever play again, any restructuring will be seen by Manfred as a way to circumvent the CBA and will be DOA before it even arrives at his admin's desk.

Reducing the AAV on a MLB contract is really, really difficult if not impossible. This is not the NFL.

I can’t see the MLBPA having a problem. More money for a member of the Union, plus more salary room for other members of the Union. Win-win.
The Red Sox and Pedroia should take offense at your characterization of the deal. This is a reward to a beloved Red Sox icon, and a way to give him more time to get healthy to get back on the field. In a world where Brett Kavanaugh can tantrum himself onto the Supreme Court, surely Chaim can muster some righteous indignation to give a potential HOFer a chance to get back on the field.
Good luck with that. Beyond the fact that "more time" is not going to allow Pedroia to get back on the field, his being a beloved icon is not Manfred's problem. As far as he's concerned, if Pedroia gets healthy in 2022, he can get another contract then. It's professional sports, and lots of great players have had their careers cut short by injury. And if Chaim wastes "righteous indignation" at this issue, he would probably get fired for GM malpractice.
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
This thread should really just be shut down until there’s new information on Pedroia because it’s way past the point of insanity.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
You guys think we've exhausted this topic, but no one has yet asked about the possibility of transplanting Rusney's legs onto Pedroia's body.
 

doc

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,475
You guys think we've exhausted this topic, but no one has yet asked about the possibility of transplanting Rusney's legs onto Pedroia's body.
It would probably make him taller and screw up his batting mechanics

Although it would make medical history by being a double cadaver transplant since both of their careers are dead
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,343
After they get Pedroia’s extension done they can work on Mookie. He seems to want to test FA and see what’s he’s worth but if they offer him $500 million but spread it over 30 years they get to keep him as an assistant after he can’t play and his AAV would only be $16.67m which helps with the CBT problem. Who says no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.