None of these things are legal.

Neither is the reserve clause. That is the whole point.


It is illegal to force the terms of the reserve clause on a player. If the player had legal options and chose the contract offered (and, importantly, there was no collusion with other teams) then it's simply the player's choice. Any player who reaches the conclusion that he'll only play for one team essentially does enter into conditions similar to the reserve clause. However, he does so freely without coercion. At that point, the team certainly need not bend over in their offer sheet.

The idea that this contract is like the reserve clause is completely wrong. Aside from player choice and the option of playing elsewhere, the Sox can't give Wakefield a pay cut for a bad year. If they don't want to pay him $4 million, they have to decline their option at which point, he's again a free agent.


Wakefield won't make the Hall, which is a shame.

Damn that bourgeoisie, inculcating Tim Wakefield with a false consciousness. He needs to read some Karl Marx, then he'll realize how unhappy he is and throw off those shackles.

This is why Crispix is one of my favorite Phillies fans here; along woith HCO and Edmundo.

the Sox can't give Wakefield a pay cut for a bad year. If they don't want to pay him $4 million, they have to decline their option at which point, he's again a free agent.

Sure they can. They decline the perpetual option and then offer Wakefield whatever they think he is worth, be it the minimum or $1M or $3M or whatever. The only difference from the reserve clause is that Wakefield is also free to negotiate with other teams.

And Wakefield does have some negotiating leverage, should he choose to use it, in the same way as players did with the reserve clause. He can threaten to retire unless the Red Sox decline the perpetual option. Once they decline, he can negotiate with Boston or anyone as a FA.

@ 96: Actually there would be nothing illegal about the old-style reserve clause provided it were explicitly part of the contract.

@ 96: Actually there would be nothing illegal about the old-style reserve clause provided it were explicitly part of the contract.

I thought the reserve clause was explicitly part of every contract back in the day.

Doesn't the reserve clause still exist? I thought it was just ruled that it couldn't apply past the initial six-year period.

He can threaten to retire unless the Red Sox decline the perpetual option

Actually threatening to retire won't really do a thing if the Red Sox choose not to care. If the Red Sox think Wakefield is worth around 4 million but Wakefield for whatever reason wants more or wants to play for somebody else the Red Sox can simply pick up the option. If Wakefield threatens to retire the Sox can simply say go ahead at which point Wakefield can either play for the Sox or retire. If he retires the Sox can put him on the reserve list which means they control his baseball future without having to pay him anything. In terms of his baseball career Wakefield right now only controls when he wishes to voluntarily end it. Other than that the Sox control every other aspect of his employment.

They decline the perpetual option and then offer Wakefield whatever they think he is worth, be it the minimum or $1M or $3M or whatever. The only difference from the reserve clause is that Wakefield is also free to negotiate with other teams.

Isn't that difference kind of the key to the whole reserve clause?

next stop is the dome for Timmy, right?

In terms of his baseball career Wakefield right now only controls when he wishes to voluntarily end it. Other than that the Sox control every other aspect of his employment.

Right, McCoy. I'm pointing out that the Sox only have that control as long as they pick up the perpetual option. If Wakefield can somehow get them not to do so, then Wake's situation reverts to normal. Threatening to retire is one way Wakefield might accomplish that. Of course if the Sox call his bluff (if it's a bluff), Wake's got nothing.

In economic terms, if Wake would rather retire than play for $4M (or can make the Sox think so), but the Sox think that he still provides value at a higher salary (say $7M), and Wakefield would rather play for $7M than retire, then this scenario happens.

If Wakefield can somehow get them not to do so, then Wake's situation reverts to normal

Yes, if Wakefield basically makes his value to a ballclub be worth zero dollars or around those parts the Red Sox won't pick up the option and neither will probably anyone else.

If Wakefield puts up 110 to 120 ERA+ at around 180 innings pitched a year the Red Sox are not going to let him out of his contract (well they might if they are a stand up operation). The only way Wakefield gets out of the contract is if he stinks. So basically Wakefield is giving the Red Sox a virtually risk free contract while he the player is assuming all the risks, for while the Red Sox may love him they are certainly not going to pick up his option and have him be the 25th man on the roster if he can't be a decent starter.

Even if they come to loggerheads the Sox still own the upper hand in that they get to decide for whom he plays for and for how much. If Wakefield wants 7 million he has to convince the Red Sox to say yes and if they don't his only recourse is to not play ever again or to convince the Red Sox to trade him. The company has the upper hand because 3 million dollars is basically a drop in the bucket for them but 4 million or nothing means a lot more than 3 million extra dollars for a player. How many of us would say "to hell with it" and walk away from 4 million a year because your employer said no to 7 million and on top of that you will never ever make that kind of money or close to it ever again?

If Wakefield puts up 110 to 120 ERA+ at around 180 innings pitched a year the Red Sox are not going to let him out of his contract (well they might if they are a stand up operation).


So is a player - let's say Andruw Jones - not letting a team out of a contract when he underperforms not a "standup guy"? Two parties voluntarily entered into a contract. If you think one party got the better end of the deal, that's cool (I do too) but it doesn't make either party either stupid or a bad guy. The Sox got a good deal because the deal gave Wakefield something he thinks he wants. If it turns out to be a bad deal down the road for Wakefield, the decision is on him and he'll have to live with it. There is a huge gulf between making a bad deal and being legally forced to accept terms you don't want.

I'm not against the idea of the contract I just think there were better ways to accomplish his goals than that contract.

I think a more fair contract would have been a base pay with a better bonus system than the rather simple GS (and meager payout) that Wakefield currently has. I don't know exactly what the rules are on bonuses and I know the union is against pay for play type contracts so I don't know if my idea is totally allowable under the CBA or if it is up to the individual on the bonus structure. But anyway I wouldn't even mind a lower base pay of say 1 million dollars with a bonus system that allows me to get say 5 or 6 million if I turn in a typical AL starter performance for the season and possibly double that if I give all-star or better performance. That way the club's risk is always minimized and I am getting paid a "fair" wage, in that the better I perform the better I get paid at an agreed upon price. Whereas Tim if has two or three above average seasons still gets paid 4 mil a year while he is giving the Red Sox 30 mil of value. If I turn in a bad year I get 1 mil and I don't create ill will by siphoning money out of the Red Sox coffers and they are more likely to take a chance on me again the next year with such a low minimum.

I'm not against the idea of the contract I just think there were better ways to accomplish his goals than that contract.

Fair enough. I agree your contract is in many ways "better" for Wakefield, although there is probably a lot of benefit in knowing what your paycheck will be.


I think players can't be paid bonuses for actual stats. Games, games started, IP targets, etc. can be used but not ERA, wins, K/BB, WHIP, etc. You can also get bonuses for MVP and Cy Young voting as well as LCS and WS MVP awards.

Damn that bourgeoisie, inculcating Tim Wakefield with a false consciousness. He needs to read some Karl Marx, then he'll realize how unhappy he is and throw off those shackles.

All people are rational maximizers, both fully informed about all situations and optimally skilled in leveraging this information for marginal gain. The difference in resources between a ballplayer and his club by definition cannot affect the outcome of the negotiations, and any other interpretation is Marxist claptrap.

I mean, I get that Wakefield hasn't complained about his contract, and he's a pretty special case - hard to extrapolate from a 40-y.o. knuckleballer to the rest of MLB, for the purposes of forcing his contract structure on them. It seems to me that what Wakefield gains from this contract is that he never has to negotiate another contract - he pitches until the Red Sox say "no mas" and then he retires. He leaves, of course, the timing of this retirement entirely out of his hands, from a legal perspective. (And given the history of contracts between MLB players and teams, it's best to look at these things from a legal perspective, because the evidence shows that ballclubs basically always do so.)

But it's hardly crazy to suggest that a ballclub and a ballplayer agreed to a contract which clearly serves the interests of the club more than those of the player. And it's hardly Marxism to suggest that people can enter into agreements which may not turn out to be in their best interests, without realizing their predicament until situations change.

I'm hopeful that Wakefield will be ready to retire either before the Red Sox decide he's ceased to be worth $4M a year, or at the same time as that happens. It's in no way a guarantee that will happen, and if Wake still wants to pitch but the Red Sox don't want to keep him, he'll have no contractual options beside beginning wholly new negotiations. And maybe he'll still be happy and just trot off to old-timers day, but I don't think we can just baldly presume that would happen.

So is a player - let's say Andruw Jones - not letting a team out of a contract when he underperforms not a "standup guy"?

Yes, that is why Ryne Sandberg is a standup guy.

But obviously there are mitigating circumstances.

For instance I can certainly understand Albert Belle's decision to not retire and get paid in full since he injured himself performing his duty. He was sacrificing his health and body for the team and he should get paid. Should there be a better system to handle this? Yes but the two sides will never agree to it. Secondly almost all of the big contracts are overpriced in years and dollars because the true price of acquiring that talent would seem so high that it would be hard to justify signing those players. The Cubs didn't really sign Alfonso to an 8 year 136 million dollar contract. What they really did was buy him for 5 or 6 years at 136 million but simply spread the payments out to 8 years.

Basically my view is if the player is simply phoning it in and isn't attempting to do what is necessary to play big league ball then he isn't being a standup guy when he simply puts out half energy and collects paychecks. If on the other hand he tries to do everything he is supposed to do but it just doesn't happen for whatever reasons: injuries, age, new environment, whatever. Then taking the paycheck isn't wrong. So Andruw is kind of a grey area in that I don't really know how much he actually put into being a ballplayer and then how much effort he actually put into playing at the big league level.

As for the Red Sox and Wakefield, it is different than an Andruw Jones type contract in that in all probability the two sides came together and said let us make a contract that makes both parties happy in ways that doesn't simply include financial payouts. A lot of the supposed value in the Wakefield contract has to do with goodwill and loyalty to each other. I think if Wakefield put 2 or 3 or more years of 120 ERA+ or around there and he said to the Red Sox that he would like to get paid a little more then the Red Sox should find a way to make that happen if they wish to honor the spirit of the contract. They don't have to but if they were being completely honest with themselves, their company values, morals, and in their dealings with Wakefield they would do something.

Now then if Tim after last year went up to the Red SOx and said he wanted a raise I would say that is pretty shady since his performance had been declining since he signed the contract and 2008 was his first bounce back year. I would say to him that you signed this contract, we paid you when you were declining, you weren't saying anything to us then, now you had one good season, let us wait to see if this is a new trend or not. Now after two or three years of this and Wakefield comes up I would probably alter the contract in some way to reward his performance and to ensure he doesn't feel like he is getting ripped off.

But I care a lot more about appreciating Tim Wakefield than about debating his contract, and that's my last word on the contract.

On Wakefield: I enjoy his #1 comp: Rick Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe pitched in a much easier context for pitchers, though Wakefield's huge UER numbers make up some of that difference. (30 UER in 1996 alone!) Wakefield's peak is certainly comparable, given strike credit for 1995, and his career value is clearly superior. Not exactly a HoFer, but a very successful MLB pitcher who deserves to be remembered as such.

And it's hardly Marxism to suggest that people can enter into agreements which may not turn out to be in their best interests, without realizing their predicament until situations change.

Such as the $250 million contract Arod signed with Texas? It seems Arod was far more eager to undo that contract than Timmy is his.

I think it's ridiculously obvious that the contract is hugely beneficial to the Red Sox. I also think that Wakefield, who gives no signs of being a total lunkhead other than this deal, is aware of this. But so long as the contract provides Wake what he thinks he needs or wants, then it's kind of presumptuous of us to argue otherwise.

It may be hard to believe, but there are still people in this world who, if they have what they want most in life, really don't care about money.

Tim Wakefield may be one of those guys.

then it's kind of presumptuous of us to argue otherwise.

Geez, we are not going up to Tim Wakefield and telling him what to do. This is a blog site, the whole point of a blog site is to comment and give one's opinion on those things posted. If we all waited until we knew absolutely everything on a certain subject before commenting this site wouldn't even exist.

Geez, we are not going up to Tim Wakefield and telling him what to do. This is a blog site, the whole point of a blog site is to comment and give one's opinion on those things posted. If we all waited until we knew absolutely everything on a certain subject before commenting this site wouldn't even exist.

Then what exactly are you arguing? That Timmy's contract is loaded in favor of the team, from the way we traditional view these things, seems patently obvious.

Yes it would, so why is there an argument?

Yes it would, so why is there an argument?

I asked you first. :)

Nevertheless, if he calculated his performance variability and the market variability correctly, and priced his contract right, there are circumstances in which a Wakefield-type contract would maximize the long term expected discounted present value of Wakefield's earnings, because the embedded options would cause it to be extended in circumstances where a regular contract wouldn't be.

The thing that's missing from Wakefield's contract (from his perspective) is a generous buyout if the team declines the option.

Wakefield is number 100 on the WAR list of pitchers since 1953 on baseball projection, I think he's in the Sox top 10.