Kerry Wood's 2011 option

Kerry Wood's 2011 option vests if he finishes 55 games in either 2009 or 2010. As Castrovince pointed out in his notes on Monday, he has finished 44 games so far with 26 games left to be played:

* Regarding a CastroTurf Commenter's question about Kerry Wood's vesting option status, Wood has finished 44 games this season, with 26 to play. He needs to reach 55 for his $11 million option for 2011 to vest. It's starting to get interesting.

While it still seems unlikely to me that Wood will reach 55 games finished this year, can anyone explain what recourse Wood would have if the Indians began to sit him in save situations? Is it merely to have the union and/or players association file a grievance with the owners, and if so, what exactly are their options once the grievance is filed?

over 2 years ago millionairesrow 19 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

There’s the tiniest possibility that a) not vesting that option this year is mutually beneficial, and b) Kerry would (heh) see it that way.

Not having $11 million dollars and an extra year added to his contract makes him that much more attractive to other teams. If the Indians are terrible next year his chances of moving to a contender and getting a shot at a ring become that much greater. If they’re good, and stay in contention, there’s reason to believe they gladly let the option vest (or at least put the playoff race at a higher priority).

Of course it’s hard to look at it this way with $11 million on the line for a pitcher who at one point probably wondered if he would be out of baseball early due to injuries.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Sep 8, 2009 2:54 PM EDT reply actions

I can’t imagine an organization that has trouble attracting FA’s would willingly sabotage a contract of a high profile player. It would seem that the long-term damages that could cause would be far costly than a mere 11 million dollars. But of course, the financials of baseball has drastically changed since that contract has been signed. Who knows?

I thought that clause was in there to protect the team in case of injuries. So, if Kerry is healthy, there is no reason not to pay him for 3 years.

by Toxicadam on Sep 8, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions

Yes there is. Chris Perez can do the same job for a fraction of the cost. the entire pen makes like 3 million this year while wood gets 10. we need to use that money elsewhere.

by johnf34 on Sep 8, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions

It makes little sense to compare free agent salaries directly to pre-arbitration players.

The fact that the rest of the bullpen makes $3 million doesn’t necessarily mean that Wood is overpaid.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think he was saying that; just that the money could be spent on different assets.

Having said that, I disagree. Two months of effective relief work hasn’t wiped away the memory of the last few years.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, either it can or it can’t. It doesn’t appear that it can be at the moment.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree with this. Every player in the game (with the exception of Manny Ramirez) will know that the Indians dinked around with Wood’s contract. It will be known high and low as a bush-league trick that screwed a player out of a fair and square deal. The repercussions for signing FAs would be serious. It’s worth it to pay him the contract. And he probably will be a lot better in 2010 anyway.

by odradek on Sep 9, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

It’s not going to matter anyway.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions

I presume you mean it’s not going to matter that Wood pitches well, which I agree with for the most part. Not that it won’t matter in terms of the team’s reputation with agents and free agents.

by odradek on Sep 9, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I actually mean that it won’t matter because Wood isn’t going to finish 55 games this year.

by Roger Dorn on Sep 9, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, that’s probably right. He needs to finish 11 of remaining 24 games? What are the chances of the team having a lead in the ninth inning of half its remaining games?

by odradek on Sep 9, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Unfortunately for us we don’t need to have the lead for Wood to get a Game Finished, but either way, it would take some sort of major turn of events for him to finish the game in 11 of the next 24,

by Roger Dorn on Sep 10, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions

In these situations, it always seems like the player has a case, because a club seems to be showing bad faith.

Thing is, though, it generally is the rule that the team’s have the latitude to use the players however they best see fit — and if you think about it, it really has to be that way. The team has dozens of considerations to weigh in playing time decisions. They may even feel that it’s in their best interest to shut Kerry Wood down for the rest of 2009 to protect their investment for 2010. That is a legitimate concern.

The point is simply that it would be impossible for a court to devise a clear legal standard for when it’s okay to second-guess a team’s playing time decisions. Playing time clearly is the club’s purview under any player contract.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 2:57 PM EDT reply actions

We could probably construct a scenario where it’s clear that a team is acting in bad faith, but those types of hypotheticals are one of the main reasons everyone hates law school.

Barring something pretty egregious, though, I think Jay is spot on. Certainly Wood wouldn’t seem to have any reason to complain this year, needing 11 more finishes out of 26 games (closer to 25, since today is a double header). I think that if a team had the reputation of cutting playing time based on bonus or performance clauses, it would make negotiations going forward pretty difficult, and a filing of a formal grievance by the player’s association isn’t going to be necessary if those types of rumors and beliefs are out there.

Il faut d'abord durer.

by CU Adam on Sep 8, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree, too. I think short of the team throwing Gimenez out there to close games, the decision maker would defer to the judgment of the team. “We wanted to see how some of our young relievers would hold up in save situations and the team was out of contention, so we threw them out there a few times when Wood could’ve been used.”

I thought the professors were why everyone hates law school.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

I thought it was the classmates.

The once and future

by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 8, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

The question was more to what a player can do in the case of a team not allowing him the opportunity to reach certain performance related bonuses if he is in fact able and willing to perform. I agree that it is: (a) unlikely that Wood gets a chance in the next 26 games to finish 11 of them, and (b) unlikely that the Indians would actually sit Wood if the situation were to present itself.

A second, somewhat related question, how much do you think the 2011 option will be a deterrent for other teams pursuing Wood in the off-season? (Obviously, if he were to go somewhere and not close, it wouldn’t be an issue at all).

by millionairesrow on Sep 8, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think he’s an offseason deal; I think he’s a mid-2010 deal.

by Jay on Sep 8, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

I think that for the rest of the season, you’ve got to let him into all Save Situations and let the cards fall where they may. Just seems like the right thing to do.

by gte619n on Sep 8, 2009 5:23 PM EDT reply actions