Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 19, 2018

J.D. Martinez reportedly has deal with Red Sox

Reportedly front-loaded at $25 million each of the first two years. The free agent market was held up for this?

The prolonged courtship of slugger J.D. Martinez has paid off for the Red Sox, as MLB.com’s Jon Paul Morosi reported via sources that the sides have reached agreement on a five-year, $110 million contract that includes opt-outs after the second and third years of the deal.

Jim Furtado Posted: February 19, 2018 at 07:42 PM | 97 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: j.d. martinez, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. JRVJ Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:03 PM (#5627168)
So it's $25MM for each of the first 2 years and $20MM for each of the latter three? (if no opt out after year 2 or year 3).

Huh.

Interesting deal, in that Martínez has the chance to opt out and get more money if he is crushing pitching, but he's assured $60MM if he's just a normal hitter (or falls of a cliff).
   2. Ziggy's screen name Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:15 PM (#5627171)
Players seem to care about the big bold number, teams (hopefully) care about the NPV. There's got to be a better way to structure these deals than to frontload them. Something like, heavily backload them, but he gets a huge bonus if he opts out.

[Also, I wonder if the advent of opt-outs has something to do with the apparent decline in rate of salary inflation. Those things mean that teams take most of the risk but can reap little of the reward of a long-term contract. Surely teams demand a huge reduction in AAV in exchange for one.]
   3. Nasty Nate Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5627172)
There's got to be a better way to structure these deals than to frontload them.
Better for who?
   4. JRVJ Posted: February 19, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5627173)
[Also, I wonder if the advent of opt-outs has something to do with the apparent decline in rate of salary inflation. Those things mean that teams take most of the risk but can reap little of the reward of a long-term contract. Surely teams demand a huge reduction in AAV in exchange for one.]


Well, if you assume that a material number of long term deals don't work out, perhaps your statement could be rephrased as: "... teams take on most of the risk of a contract in exchange for the possibility that the contract will terminate early".
   5. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 19, 2018 at 09:03 PM (#5627195)
Looks like it's actually 25/25/22/18/18.
   6. Colin Posted: February 19, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5627208)
If you think there might be a strike in 2021 it makes sense to frontload a little to 2018-20. And, if the teams think the national TV money will dry up a little when those contracts expire in 2021, they might not want to commit to so much in the later years.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 19, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5627212)
If you think there might be a strike in 2021 it makes sense to frontload a little to 2018-20. And, if the teams think the national TV money will dry up a little when those contracts expire in 2021, they might not want to commit to so much in the later years.

I think it has more to do with optimizing the opt-out.
   8. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 19, 2018 at 10:30 PM (#5627214)
25/25/22/18/18.


Also known as the "well we think you will be pretty good for the next couple of years then you'll decline like most players except the all time greats of which you are not and we will pay you accordingly" contract.

What a lot of humming, hawing, guffawing, prancing and Borasisms...but a deal got done! Didn't Scott say he was chasing $200 mil for JD? In best Agent Smart voice "missed it by that much"(putting fingers farther apart then originally intended)
   9. Nasty Nate Posted: February 19, 2018 at 10:41 PM (#5627216)
25/25/22/18/18.
Also known as the "well we think you will be pretty good for the next couple of years then you'll decline like most players except the all time greats of which you are not and we will pay you accordingly" contract.
No, it would make sense for Martinez to prefer the front-loading, not the team. Especially with the 2 opt-outs.
   10. Tim M Posted: February 19, 2018 at 11:42 PM (#5627220)
I'm sure I'm not the first one to observe this, but look at these splits -

2017 Home 355/439/820
2017 Away 251/309/558

2016 Home 362/407/634
2016 Away 254/342/441

(2015 was basically even)

Hope Fenway plays more "home" than "away".. which for a big RH masher it very well may.
   11. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5627222)
No, it would make sense for Martinez to prefer the front-loading, not the team. Especially with the 2 opt-outs.


Mate, grow a sense of humor. Primer continues to be the nitpick capital of the internet!

Of course the man wants to be paid up front, who doesn't? Bobby Bonilla notwithstanding....
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:37 AM (#5627223)
Oops!
   13. Walt Davis Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:55 AM (#5627225)
Right, front-loading the opt-out is the player taking a small risk on himself -- he thinks he's worth 5/$125, the team doesn't. If he's worth the $50 M or more in his first 2 years, he opts out for a better deal than 3/$58 which won't be that hard to find if he's that good.

#2: There's no evidence that opt-outs are worth very much at all, on the order of maybe $5-10 M over the life of the contract.

Presumably if JDM could have gotten 5/$125 from somebody, he'd have taken it. If the Red Sox could have gotten him for 5/$110 without giving him the option, they'd have done that deal. Even more obviously, if they could have gotten him for 2/$50, they'd have taken that deal -- clearly that's not even close to what they could have gotten him for. So we pretty much already know the min and max value of the option. Given they settled kinda in-between those, the value likely isn't more than about $7.5 M.

Comp it to the Cespedes 4/$110 contract. Same total cash and nearly same NPV (diff about $2 M) but obviously potentially one year longer. But it probably only runs the full 5 years if he tanks badly enough in years 1-3 that he wouldn't be making much in year 5 anyway. The front-loaded $25 hurts relative to Cespedes -- it's unlikely he could opt-out and then get 2/$60 to pull even but 3/$75 is viable if he produces well enough to opt out. A guaranteed $110 with a chance at $125 (opt-out, get 3/$75) is the same as 5/$115 (on average) if the probability of a successful opt-out is 33%.

My WAG is JDM would be better off around 5/$118 with no option compared with this contract, break even around $115. But with $110 guaranteed but unable to get $125 guaranteed, taking even a sub-optimal shot at better than $118 starts to look attractive I guess.
   14. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:49 AM (#5627227)
Sorry Nate, I reread my post in 11 and it may have come across a little harsh. Been a long, long day at work.

Just glad these shenanigans have concluded and hopefully JD will not be compelled to alter his swing for Fenway. Unless I'm misremembering, didn't he hit a lot of homers over right-center when he's dialed in? Almost Manny like. You've really got to able to mash from the right side to consistently hit them into the bullpen though so we'll see how that goes.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:59 AM (#5627231)
Another comp is Upton who signed this offseason for 5/$110 rather than opt-out. 5/$110 with an option is better than 5/$110 without. So JDM is somewhere between Upton and Cespedes. It is left as an exercise for the reader why the best of these players has the worst contract while the oldest (at signing) has the best.

And the new trend of cutting players off before age 36 continues.
   16. Leroy Kincaid Posted: February 20, 2018 at 06:09 AM (#5627234)
The prolonged courtship of slugger J.D. Martinez has paid off for the Red Sox


I think the most you can say at the moment is that it's paid off for Martinez.
   17. shoewizard Posted: February 20, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5627239)
in reaction to first news that Boras was seeking 200M

shoewizard Posted: November 09, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5573383)


It's not out the realm of possibility that some team ponies up 6/180 for JD, although it doesn't seem likely.

Because of health and defense concerns, hard to see him getting a 6th year.

If 5 years, could the avg annual be as high as 30 and he gets 5/150 ? Possible, but I think if you look at Upton for 5/106, the highest you can reasonably justify for JD is 5/125, in my opinion.

But the markets often surprise us, as you are alluding to, so we'll see.

The D Backs have ZERO chance to sign Martinez unless they trade away 85-90% of Greinke's contract.


thread link

So less than the "highest" I thought reasonable, even with the opt out value. But that was before we became aware of this repressed market. Yes, Hosmer got paid.....but a lot of mid tier guys are getting A LOT less than originally projected, and the ones unsigned are going to have to sign for A LOT less than they originally thought they would get. Did you guys see what the D Backs paid for Alex Avila (2 yrs 8.25M) and Jarrod Dyson (2 yrs 7.5M) ?

EDIT: BTW, the D Backs really surprised me by taking their payroll up to 125M for known signed and guaranteed contracts plus a few minimum wage roster slots. When you add in mid season callups/replacement players they will be around 130M if they don't sell or add any players at the trade deadline. Even with that though they couldn't afford JD without A.) Making it very short term, and B.) deferring a lot of the money.
   18. John DiFool2 Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:53 AM (#5627248)
Hope Fenway plays more "home" than "away".. which for a big RH masher it very well may.


My main worry is whether he can hit as well as a DH as he can as an OFer...
   19. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5627255)

#2: There's no evidence that opt-outs are worth very much at all, on the order of maybe $5-10 M over the life of the contract.


Has this been shown? Serious question. I wouldn't think there has been enough contracts with opt outs to determine.

I think it would mostly depend on the length of the contract. The Yankees got hosed by both the Arod and CC opt outs.
   20. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:12 AM (#5627256)
Sorry Nate, I reread my post in 11 and it may have come across a little harsh. Been a long, long day at work.
All good. It won't be the last time that I take something too literally at BBTF.
   21. Textbook Editor Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5627269)
My main worry is whether he can hit as well as a DH as he can as an OFer...


Yup.

If you give each OF a day off per week to keep them fresh, he'd get ~72 starts in the OF (presumably LF), leaving probably an equal # of starts at DH (I'm assuming when he's in the OF Hanley will DH). If he's really not a good DH, then they sort of have a problem, unless he picks up how to play 1B or something this spring...

What *is* sort of interesting is that the Red Sox have sort of set up a roster where the 13-14 position players could include a lot of interchangeable parts--not if there's lots of long-term injuries, but to give guys a day off a week all around the horn. I suspect this is by design; rotation of the position players will help keep them fresh and not wear down late in the season when (hopefully) there'd still be as many as 20 games still left to play. It wouldn't surprise me if they had data indicating the optimal # of games played is ~140 per season to avoid injuries while keeping performance level at optimum levels.

   22. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5627270)
Another comp is Upton who signed this offseason for 5/$110 rather than opt-out. 5/$110 with an option is better than 5/$110 without. So JDM is somewhere between Upton and Cespedes. It is left as an exercise for the reader why the best of these players has the worst contract while the oldest (at signing) has the best.
Boy, if you think Upton is the best of the 3 players, he really got hosed.

Cespedes opted out early, trading $1M in '17 ($23.75M to $22.5M) for $5.75M in '18 (raise to $29M) and 2 additional years at $29M.
Martinez is heavily front-loaded, with $25M/yr for the first 2 years then an opt-out.
Upton traded lots of money in the first 4 seasons ($6M in '18, $4M in '19, $1M in '20) for $1M in '21 and one additional year at $28M. IOW, he traded $10M over the first 2 seasons for one additional year.
   23. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5627274)
I want to add - I think this is a reasonable contract for Martinez. Paying him to be a 3-win player the next 2 seasons, then giving him the option of leaving if he thinks he'll still be that good seems about right.

   24. DCA Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM (#5627294)
The Yankees got hosed by both the Arod and CC opt outs.

Technically, the opt-outs were great for the Yankees. Resigning the players instead of letting them walk, not so much.
   25. jmurph Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5627298)
I want to add - I think this is a reasonable contract for Martinez. Paying him to be a 3-win player the next 2 seasons, then giving him the option of leaving if he thinks he'll still be that good seems about right.

Totally agree. I was lukewarm about the rumors previously, but I'm fine with this. Even if he falls off, or (remains?) injury-prone, this doesn't look like a giant albatross for the team. The risk, of course, is he opts out in two years, they give him a new, bigger, longer deal, and he immediately falls apart. But that's for another day.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5627312)
My main worry is whether he can hit as well as a DH as he can as an OFer...

Is there any evidence that healthy, non-fatigued, hitters actually hit worse as a DH? All the research I've seen is confounded by the inclusion of all the guys who are too hurt to play the field (but the team still wants them to bat) and guys getting the day off at DH.
   27. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5627327)
Technically, the opt-outs were great for the Yankees. Resigning the players instead of letting them walk, not so much

Exactly. The ideal case for Boston is that Martinez wins two MVP awards, opts out, and the Red Sox congratulate him on his new nine-year, $269M contract with the Los Angeles Angels :)
   28. Textbook Editor Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5627328)
The risk, of course, is he opts out in two years, they give him a new, bigger, longer deal, and he immediately falls apart. But that's for another day.


In 2 years there will be a LOT of arb-eligible contracts (1 year or otherwise) being doled out for current younger players; it's easy to see a scenario where the Red Sox hands are (thankfully) tied and can't just give Martinez an 8 year deal coming off an opt-out... But in a larger sense, I suspect it's kind of a moot point: I think even if he does blow up and become Barry Bonds over the next 2 years that the Red Sox aren't then going to dole out an 8-year deal to him after he opts out... I think they'll thank him for giving them 2 years at an incredible value and let someone else pay for his decline years.

But I'll naturally chuckle a lot if I'm forced to revisit this comment in 2 years...
   29. Textbook Editor Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5627330)
Coke to BDC
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5627332)
Exactly. The ideal case for Boston is that Martinez wins two MVP awards, opts out, and the Red Sox congratulate him on his new nine-year, $269M contract with the Los Angeles Angels :)

No. The optimal outcome for the Red Sox is that he has two great seasons, and he loves Boston so much, he doesn't opt out.

Any time the player uses the opt out, the team wishes they hadn't given it to him. If Martinez wins 2 MVPs, the Red Sox will wish they gave him the straight 5/125, or 5/135.
   31. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:17 AM (#5627339)
Is there any evidence that healthy, non-fatigued, hitters actually hit worse as a DH?
If I remember The Book correctly, yes - DHing does hurt a hitter.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5627347)
If I remember The Book correctly, yes - DHing does hurt a hitter.

I know it does in general. But, how do they control for nagging injuries? If Stanton and Judge each DH twice a week this year, it's highly likely that they'll DH on the days they feel worst. Tweaked hammy. Recovering from a cold. Hungover.

Edit: I just skimmed "The Book" (YAY library with physical books!) and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the DH penalty, at least not in the index, or any of the 120+ charts. Must it have been a different work you're thinking of?
   33. villageidiom Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5627408)
Any time the player uses the opt out, the team wishes they hadn't given it to him. If Martinez wins 2 MVPs, the Red Sox will wish they gave him the straight 5/125, or 5/135.
If Martinez wins 2 MVPs, 29 other teams will wish they had given him the opt-outs and outbid Boston for those two years.
   34. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: February 20, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5627428)
I just skimmed "The Book" (YAY library with physical books!) and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the DH penalty, at least not in the index, or any of the 120+ charts. Must it have been a different work you're thinking of?
Here you go - an update on MGL's blog. He calculates the penalty at 14 points of wOBA.
   35. Jesse Barfield's Right Arm Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:00 PM (#5627432)
Thanks to #21 for getting in some discussion of what the Martinez signing would mean for, you know, the actual games!
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5627436)
Thanks to #21 for getting in some discussion of what the Martinez signing would mean for, you know, the actual games!
We can do more of that! How about a potential batting order:
Betts
Benintendi
Bogaerts
Martinez
Bradley
Nunez
Devers
Vasquez
Moreland
   37. Textbook Editor Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5627442)
Yeah, I want to go on record as saying I am 100% fine with Martinez winning 2 MVPs, opting out, and the Red Sox saying "Thanks for the memories!" Better a year too soon than a year too late, always and always.

I realize opt-outs haven't been around for a long time, but I seem to recall they've only NOT been used a handful of times--do I have this right?

Coming off 2 MVPs, will I wish we had Martinez for 1 more year at $25 million? Eh, I guess. But a 3/$75 with an opt-out after 2 years wasn't on the table, so it's kind of moot. I'm a firm believer that anytime you can escape from a long-term contract after only 2 or 3 years, that's a good thing. I understand that maybe in those cases you usually miss out on a year where a guy performs at a 4+ WAR level, but then you also usually avoid paying $20+ million a season for multiple seasons of 1 WAR (or worse!) production on the back end, the taken-up roster spot, etc.

What will be interesting to see is if Price opts out after this year. If he has a good season, could he get better than 4/$127 on the open market for his age 33-36 seasons? You would think no, but if someone tacked on a couple years and went 6/$160 or something, maybe that's enticing?

(FWIW, I think if Price opts out the Red Sox almost certainly would not bring him back, or make him an offer materially greater than the 4/$127 he'd be walking away from.)
   38. Textbook Editor Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5627446)
We can do more of that! How about a potential batting order:

Betts
Benintendi
Bogaerts
Martinez
Bradley
Nunez
Devers
Vasquez
Moreland


I see what you did there...

Sigh. It's actually making me sad that Pedroia's decline phase is commencing. I'm gonna miss the Laser Show.
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:26 PM (#5627449)
Here you go - an update on MGL's blog. He calculates the penalty at 14 points of wOBA.

Thanks. As I recalled, they say they can't account for the fact that regular players tend to be slightly injured or tired when they DH.

We found a similar situation with designated hitters. However, their penalty was around half that of a pinch hitter, or 17 points (5%) of wOBA. Similar to the pinch hitter, the most likely explanation for this is that the DH is not as physically (and perhaps mentally) prepared for each PA as a player who is constantly engaged in the game. As well, the DH may be slightly injured or tired, especially if he is normally a position player.


So, it almost certainly something less than .014 pts. for a fully healthy/rested guy DH-ing
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 01:36 PM (#5627463)
I realize opt-outs haven't been around for a long time, but I seem to recall they've only NOT been used a handful of times--do I have this right?
Vernon Wells and Tanaka are notable examples.
   41. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: February 20, 2018 at 02:33 PM (#5627536)
My main problem with the way the Red Sox are constructed is that 2018 is as good as it gets, on paper. They will lose Pomeranz and Kimbrel after the season, and some of the young guys are going to start making a *lot* of money soon. After 2019, several other players drop out or get big paydays.

So, in that sense, the two-year out clause is pretty good for the Red Sox - they may be in a rebuilding phase after 2019, anyway, and if Martinez opts out, that's a good chunk of change freed up for a team unlikely to compete in 2020, anyway.
   42. Walt Davis Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5627558)
DH penalty -- Snapper's mentioned banged up. I'll mention there's a massive difference between DH'ing now and then vs. being a full-time DH. We know there's a PH penalty (the differences are massive) so it makes sense that PH'ing 4 times in a game when you're not used to it would still carry some penalty (maybe all in the first PA?). But good hitters asked just to hit and given a few weeks to get used to it? It's silly to think a penalty exists.

The other factor affecting full-time DHs is age -- you usually don't get put into that slot until the mid-late 30s and you're already broken down. The list of guys like Matt Holliday who were HoVG, had a mediocre/bad year at 35 or 36 then were given a shot to see if a move to DH could push them back up to a 125 OPS+ ... only to fail and never play again is quite long. It's a bit like the myth that moving a 32-year-old formerly good-hitting C out from behind the plate will revive his bat because Joe Torre had that amazing season once.

The DH has been around for 45 years now. The number of seasons with qualified PAs and spending 90% of time at DH is just 91. The median age is 34, only 16 seasons under age 30. It's impossible to separate age-related decline from any DH penalty ... and most of the players are too old, fragile to go back in the field to test it. You could say "they hit worse than projected" to which one could easily respond "yeah, don't you think their team thinking they needed to move to DH is an indicator they were declining faster than normal?" and "20/20 hindsight but the fact their career lasted just that one more year is an indicator they were declining faster than normal."

You get 133 seasons if you expand to 80% but it doesn't really change the age distribution and you're now including guys who are putting in about 20 games a year in the field so probably less decrepit.

Anyway, it is pointless to include part-time DH results in an analysis trying to determine what happens if JDM is made a full-time DH. And you can put me down for hitters hit ... and hitters age ... and probably the sooner you move that poor-fielding hitter to DH, the better, especially if he's fragile. No doubt there are some players who do hate it or are otherwise put off by it -- fine but good luck knowing whether JDM is one of those.
   43. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5627559)
My main problem with the way the Red Sox are constructed is that 2018 is as good as it gets, on paper. They will lose Pomeranz and Kimbrel after the season, and some of the young guys are going to start making a *lot* of money soon. After 2019, several other players drop out or get big paydays.

So, in that sense, the two-year out clause is pretty good for the Red Sox - they may be in a rebuilding phase after 2019, anyway, and if Martinez opts out, that's a good chunk of change freed up for a team unlikely to compete in 2020, anyway.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the 2020 Sox will have a big payroll again and will be hoping to win.
   44. jmurph Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5627564)
I think it's pretty safe to say that the 2020 Sox will have a big payroll again and will be hoping to win.

Seriously. When was the last time they entered a year intentionally aiming to rebuild (meaning not the recent years they finished last accidentally)? The 90s?
   45. Rally Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5627576)
We know there's a PH penalty (the differences are massive) so it makes sense that PH'ing 4 times in a game when you're not used to it would still carry some penalty (maybe all in the first PA?).


It doesn't make sense for it to happen in the first PA. If it did, especially on the road, shouldn't every batter in the first inning face some kind of penalty? At that point every batter is in the same preparedness state as the DH.
   46. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5627577)
The ideal case for Boston is that Martinez wins two MVP awards, opts out, and the Red Sox congratulate him on his new nine-year, $269M contract with the Los Angeles Angels :)

Well, they'd still have to replace their departed MVP. Might not be so easy.
   47. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5627587)
Well, they'd still have to replace their departed MVP. Might not be so easy

True, but MVPs age and decline all the time, and continually have to be replaced. You can't make Martinez's prime last longer just by throwing more money/years at him :)
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: February 20, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5627598)
No doubt there are some players who do hate it or are otherwise put off by it -- fine but good luck knowing whether JDM is one of those.


I hope they asked JDM whether he was one of those guys who hates it or is put off by it. This isn't a "Hey, Bonilla, how you about you take a few hacks at DH today?" situation.

   49. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5627617)
If you give each OF a day off per week to keep them fresh, he'd get ~72 starts in the OF . . .

That's a bit beyond normal rest. What's optimum playing time for young outfielders considerably better than their replacement? 150 games? 145? Not much need for rest during early season weeks with built-in off-days. If the Red Sox want to give Maritnez ~ 50% of his starts in the outfield, presumably because he'll hit better there, there'd be some cost.
   50. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5627618)
I hope they asked JDM whether he was one of those guys who hates it or is put off by it. This isn't a "Hey, Bonilla, how you about you take a few hacks at DH today?" situation.


If the Sox failed to mention to JDM he was going to be their primary DH, then this signing is going to make Hanley Ramirez's contract look great. I assume, aside from it not being $200M, that the reason it took JDM so long to sign is because it's a DH role. If any NL team offered up $110/5 I'd bet he would have gone elsewhere.
   51. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5627624)

That's a bit beyond normal rest. What's optimum playing time for young outfielders considerably better than their replacement? 150 games? 145? Not much need for rest during early season weeks with built-in off-days. If the Red Sox want to give Maritnez ~ 50% of his starts in the outfield, presumably because he'll hit better there, there'd be some cost.
I agree. If everyone is healthy, I think the plan is for substantially less than 50% of Martinez' starts to be in the OF. I'd guess 25-33%. Of course, injuries happen so plans like that rarely work out as expected.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5627631)
That's a bit beyond normal rest. What's optimum playing time for young outfielders considerably better than their replacement? 150 games? 145? Not much need for rest during early season weeks with built-in off-days. If the Red Sox want to give Maritnez ~ 50% of his starts in the outfield, presumably because he'll hit better there, there'd be some cost.

But less than you'd think. You've got two LHB in the OF. If you put JD in the OF mostly vs. LHP, getting an extra good RHB in at DH would offset a lot of that defensive penalty.
   53. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5627639)
But less than you'd think. You've got two LHB in the OF. If you put JD in the OF mostly vs. LHP, getting an extra good RHB in at DH would offset a lot of that defensive penalty.


Early in the season that may not be an option but when Pedroia returns the Sox could put Nunez or Hanley at 1st with the other one at DH and JDM in left to rest Benintendi or JBJ. Until Pedroia comes back Hanley would be spelling Moreland at first base.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5627645)
Early in the season that may not be an option but when Pedroia returns the Sox could put Nunez or Hanley at 1st with the other one at DH and JDM in left to rest Benintendi or JBJ. Until Pedroia comes back Hanley would be spelling Moreland at first base.

What about their 4th OF? I assume he'll be RH.
   55. Nasty Nate Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5627649)
Early in the season that may not be an option
I think Snapper means Hanley in the lineup instead of Bradley or Benintendi against lefties.
   56. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 20, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5627651)
You can't make Martinez's prime last longer just by throwing more money/years at him :)

That's not what Boras's binder says.
   57. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 20, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5627683)
But less than you'd think. You've got two LHB in the OF. If you put JD in the OF mostly vs. LHP, getting an extra good RHB in at DH would offset a lot of that defensive penalty.

The platoon advantage is a factor. But the better the B-Team outfielders play, the more reluctant the Red Sox may be to sit them. Then there's the interleague games without the DH. Do you put Martinez in the outfield for all of them? Most of them? Or just one game a series like Ortiz at 1st base? Do you rotate who sits for Martinez, or is there a weak link, or someone playing very well, that's treated differently? Some decisions to be made, but the performance by the various moving parts may make the best approach obvious. Or not!
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2018 at 05:50 PM (#5627694)
The platoon advantage is a factor. But the better the B-Team outfielders play, the more reluctant the Red Sox may be to sit them. Then there's the interleague games without the DH. Do you put Martinez in the outfield for all of them? Most of them? Or just one game a series like Ortiz at 1st base? Do you rotate who sits for Martinez, or is there a weak link, or someone playing very well, that's treated differently? Some decisions to be made, but the performance by the various moving parts may make the best approach obvious. Or not!

These problems have a way of working themselves out. Very few teams ever suffer from having too many quality players.

Odds are either Benintendi or Bradley struggles against LHP (Benintendi was bad last year) and the problem solves itself.

Modern teams platoon far too little. I hope the Yankees can be smart and keep Gardner out of the lineup vs LHP.
   59. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 20, 2018 at 08:16 PM (#5627757)
Modern teams platoon far too little. I hope the Yankees can be smart and keep Gardner out of the lineup vs LHP.

I heard something about them picking up another righthanded hitting outfielder in the offseason.
   60. Walt Davis Posted: February 20, 2018 at 09:03 PM (#5627771)
It doesn't make sense for it to happen in the first PA.

It makes sense, as a starting theory, that whatever it is that causes PHs to suck in their one PA might cause a non-regular DH to suck in his first PA (and maybe not in subsequent PAs or at least substantially less so). Whether that's not warming up in the usual way, thinking of the day as a half-day off, whatever. A 14 point drop in wOBA isn't exactly dramatic and one significantly sub-par PA (that is most similar to a PH appearance) would be enough to explain that compared with 4 mysteriously not very sub-par PAs.

If you can explain to me why PH hit so much worse than they usually do then I'll offer a more informed opinion as to whether that would apply to a one-day DH. I'm not aware that anybody has come up with an explanation for that. But, sure, I'll take "he's DHing today cuz he's a bit worn down or slightly hurt" as the more likely explanation -- it's simply one that the DH penalty crowd has ignored every time before so I'm not expecting any change in behavior this time. Might as well give them a new theory to ignore.
   61. BDC Posted: February 20, 2018 at 10:36 PM (#5627796)
why PH hit so much worse than they usually do

I’d assume it was better pitching - closers, top firemen in years before that, stronger late-inning starters in years before that (on the whole, naturally). Which would have zero to do with DHs.
   62. Walt Davis Posted: February 21, 2018 at 01:39 AM (#5627824)
I’d assume it was better pitching - closers, top firemen in years before that, stronger late-inning starters in years before that

PHing has been around for a long time. It's my understanding the effects go back a long way. It did not use to be that a reliever was better than the starter ... and plenty of PH opportunities come against the back end of the pens too. And the effect is rather massive, much more than the ability of relievers to shut down lineups I believe.

I realize opt-outs haven't been around for a long time, but I seem to recall they've only NOT been used a handful of times--do I have this right?

Yes and no. For example, I don't think CC ever actually opted out, Upton didn't opt out. The player is probably more likely to use the opt-out as leverage to get an extra year or a salary boost than to actually declare FA and take their chances on the open market. I do believe it has been rare for the guy to neither extend nor opt-out (e.g. Tanaka).

That's where back-loading vs front-loading plays a big part. JDM will be walking out on 3/$60 or 2/$36, neither of which is particularly tempting if he's been playing well. It's designed for it to be easy for him to walk away and is basically injury/collapse insurance. The question is more whether after two good seasons, the Red Sox would rather extend at 4/$100 (or similar) or let him walk.

Stanton's deal was heavily back-loaded and he's already been underpaid by probably $25-40 M in the early years that in some sense is lost unless he stays. When his option comes up, he'll be walking away from 7/$218 M ... still three years away so we'll have to see what happens with Harper but it's the same FA offseason as Trout and he'll be entering his age 31 season -- 7/$218 might be too much to walk away from. I think he'd have to be very confident that he'd get at least 7/$240 or 8/$250 or something to take that gamble.

There's also the double opt-out which JDM has and Heyward has and I'm not sure anybody else does. This presumably is extra injury/bad year insurance. If JDM struggles or gets hurt in 2019 then he doesn't opt out and hopes to bounce back in 2020 then opt out. It's probably too late for Heyward to re-establish himself but he gets an option after this season and next (with 550 PA but if he doesn't have those, he's going nowhere) so maybe after two years he'll be back to his old self and walking away from "just" 4/$86 and still just turning 30 so it's not impossible.

   63. Walt Davis Posted: February 21, 2018 at 01:57 AM (#5627825)
Has this been shown? Serious question. I wouldn't think there has been enough contracts with opt outs to determine.

Well "shown" in what sense? In the end it's the result of a negotiation. The Red Sox would have preferred 5/$110 with no option so pretty obviously they couldn't get that. They presumably would have been willing to 5/($110 + X) with no option but we're not sure what $X is and obviously that still wasn't acceptable to JDM. We have less idea of what $X JDM would have accepted but it's not that hard to guess -- for him to decline a guaranteed 5/$125, he (or his agent) has to think that the probability of doing better than 3/$75 after opting out (call this $Y total) is sufficiently high that p($50 + Y) + (1-p)($110) >> $125. If Y is $100 (say 3/$100 or 4/$100) then p has to be 0.7 even to get it up to about $138 total and that just doesn't seem feasible enough to be worth turning down $125 guaranteed. (If Y<100 then p goes up).

So either JDM and his agent are really unrealistic and wouldn't have taken a no-option deal until it got up to $135-140 ... or guess he probably would have taken 5/$125-130, they probably wouldn't go above 5/$115-120, this is where they ended up.

Anyway the point is, I don't know how that can be shown since we weren't in on the negotiations.

While there haven't been a lot of guys who've not used the option at all (even if just as leverage), I'm not sure anybody but ARod (and JD Drew?) got a huge benefit out of it either. Upton got an extra year at a lower AAV. CC got an extra year. An extra $18 M for Upton is a nice return but that only happened because he just had a nearly 6 WAR season, 2nd best of his career. That wasn't a very likely outcome when he signed the contract (although neither was his sub-par 2016) and all he could get was an extra year at what is basically the current QO price (and by 2022 might be the Jay Bruce price). If that was a 1/3 outcome then the expected value of the option was about $6 M (without making things too complicated).
   64. BDC Posted: February 21, 2018 at 09:14 AM (#5627886)
PHing has been around for a long time. It's my understanding the effects go back a long way. It did not use to be that a reliever was better than the starter ... and plenty of PH opportunities come against the back end of the pens too. And the effect is rather massive, much more than the ability of relievers to shut down lineups I believe

I was a little cryptic. My hypothesis would be, way BITD when starters were expected to finish, that teams would pinch-hit for the weaker starter in a game (the one who was losing) and so the PH would face the stronger starter (the one who was winning). To the extent that you PH when you're behind, you're typically facing pitchers who are getting your guys out anyway, so there could be a strength-of-pitching factor in almost any era of baseball.

But who knows. It's more a WAG about a possible factor than an assertion of a single cause.
   65. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 23, 2018 at 03:22 AM (#5629353)
J. D. Martinez physical examination now on its second day. Seems a little curious, what's the record for a Spring Training physical?
   66. shoewizard Posted: February 24, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5630000)
The Red Sox and slugger J.D. Martinez recently agreed to terms on a five-year, $110MM pact, but an official announcement has yet to come from the team, even though a press conference was expected as far back as Thursday. Evan Drellich of NBC Sports Boston shed some light on the situation today, reporting that the two sides are sorting through a “medical matter” following Martinez’ physical.


MLB Trade Rumors
   67. Sunday silence Posted: February 24, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5630040)
From the article:

"There are apparently some additional medical experts involved, including a few consultants referred by agent Scott Boras."
   68. Sunday silence Posted: February 24, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5630043)
More seriously, one of the articles linked (not sure the same story is linked above) says that the deal is in no danger of not getting done (hmm) but that the two sides are trying to fine tune language concerning the physical issue.


"Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports reassures. He adds that the delay mainly stems from “a desire to make sure the exact language of the contract is right in light of these potential red flags.”

What can you possible put in a contract re: a pre existing injury? Ok you can put in the contract that he cant play off season baketball, or go snowboarding or trampoline etc. But that stuff is pretty standard anyhow in this day and age so presumably its already covered.

You could put in there that the player warrants that he's disclosed all his medical issues to them, that he knows about. OK, no big deal that doesnt sound like it would take 3 days...

There could be incentive clauses if he plays X games...

Not sure what to make of all this.
   69. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 24, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5630045)
So, what's the problem? Chowder allergy? STD? Something that matters?
   70. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 24, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5630047)
Actually the Sox have done this in the past with Lackey and Napoli. Basically you get some kind of protection if a particular injury causes missed time of an agreed upon amount. Lackey is the easy example, his tommy John surgery caused a missed season so his contract kicked in an extra year at league minimum (which he pitched for St. Louis after a trade).

So let’s assume it’s JDM’s knee, if he missed 80 games in either of the first two seasons then he loses one of the two opt outs. Something like that could work.
   71. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 24, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5630051)
Basically you get some kind of protection if a particular injury causes missed time of an agreed upon amount.


Yes, since insurers are likely to exclude pre-existing conditions from their coverage, or at least charge cost-prohibitive premiums to include them.
   72. Sunday silence Posted: February 24, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5630057)
if a particular injury causes missed time of an agreed upon amount.



but doesnt this just open a giant can of worms? For instance you say he missed time because of the knee. He says its his quadriceps. Different doctors say different things. One would think this would just be a giant loophole, but if you think so...
   73. Sunday silence Posted: February 24, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5630058)
My hypothesis would be, way BITD when starters were expected to finish, that teams would pinch-hit for the weaker starter in a game (the one who was losing) and so the PH would face the stronger starter (the one who was winning)


HOnestly this just sounds completely primitive and not well thought out.

Someone could be winning a game for any number of reasons. Some could have hit 3 HRs in the first inn. It doesnt mean the winning pitcher is dealing all that well. Or someone could have already come on in relief, for both teams. There's just a lot of variables here to consider.

You could start with league average overall .260 or whatever it is. THen make an adjustment for the particular pitcher for whatever time period is reiiable, maybe he's 1.2 WHIP in the last two seasons.

And sure just like you say, he might be having a bad day, so you might factor that somehow but it cant be a huge portion.

Really Walt's off the cuff theory about first time PH is plausible and pretty good stab at the problem for just making a guess. There's some theories to support this. The most recent work on home field advantage seems to suggest that the advantage only exists early in the game. And this goes for many sports not just baseball. WIth the idea being that unfamiliarity with your surroundings has something to do with this.

THe 0.14 pts of penalty for the DH sounds like the effect is continuing throughout the game though. if it was only a one time effect and the avg DH bats I dunno 3.5 times a game, then under Walts theory it might 0.5 pts for his first time AB and that sounds too high.


Also the one thing that strikes me, is that BITD before utility players became extinct PH were used when the manager had a platoon advantage And sure the other manager could counter that, but assuming the PH batted with the platoon advantage, well historically they still didnt perform up to average at least thats what I recall. So you have to factor that as well.

I really dont knwo, its a pretty vexing problem. Back in the day Manny Mota and Smokey Burgess where the two great historical PH. And possibly Dusty Baker IIRC. Gates Brown had that one great season but I think that was it. Maybe there is something in common with those guys. I realy dont know.

Its interesting.
   74. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 24, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5630060)
but doesnt this just open a giant can of worms? For instance you say he missed time because of the knee. He says its his quadriceps. Different doctors say different things. One would think this would just be a giant loophole, but if you think so...

There's certainly room for some tension between a player wanting to define a pre-existing medical condition as narrowly as possible, with the penalty for a reoccurrence as small as possible, and a team seeking to broadly define the medical condition and impose a steeper penalty for any loss of services. Between the different approaches, and attempting to find language that doesn't guarantee a further dispute if an issue arises, this could be pretty tricky. We're on Day 4 of the Martinez Physical Examination saga - if it doesn't wrap up fairly quickly, the details will probably be leaked, likely by the side that thinks they will benefit.
   75. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 24, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5630070)
but doesnt this just open a giant can of worms? For instance you say he missed time because of the knee. He says its his quadriceps. Different doctors say different things. One would think this would just be a giant loophole, but if you think so...


Yup. I imagine that’s why it’s dragging a bit. I suspect there is very specific language about what doctors get used or the right to get second opinions etc...Like I said, the Sox did this with Lackey and Napoli (and I think Drew also) so it’s not insurmountable. Obviously there are quite a few potential land mines here but Boras and Sox ownership aren’t neophytes at this and seem to have had a pretty good relationship with Boras over the years.

Could it blow up? Of course. But there is no indication that is likely. My big question is what is the timetable where JDM wouldn’t be ready for the season? I suspect we are a couple of weeks away from that being an issue.
   76. Nasty Nate Posted: February 24, 2018 at 07:31 PM (#5630082)
Napoli's 3-year unofficial agreement turned into a 1-year contract after a hip condition was discovered. But it worked out for everyone: the Sox won the WS, his hip condition wasn't a big deal, and he ended up making more money over those 3 years than his initial deal called for.
   77. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 24, 2018 at 07:50 PM (#5630086)
I doubt this will go that way simply because of the timing. If this was January then they could work through it. Given the urgency now I suspect the deal is going to look pretty similar to what it looked like when it was announced. I think it’ll be more like Lackey’s than Napoli’s.
   78. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5630265)
Today's report doesn't shed much light on the situation:
J.D. Martinez does not have an injury that would keep him from playing for the Red Sox this season or beyond, two major league sources said on Saturday. The delay in his joining the team is related to the team taking extra measures with the contract to ensure they are protected financially in the event of injury. Every indication is that Martinez will join the Sox at some point soon.

I didn't think teams could just transfer the risk of injury to the players - MLB contracts are guaranteed - but could take steps to protect themselves against the risk of a known pre-existing medical condition ("that ligament is hanging by a thread"). Perhaps the reporting is somewhat imprecise, but even if a player has a degenerative condition, say a knee with excessive wear & tear, I wouldn't think a team should get out of paying, or more accurately getting something back from the player, if there was a traumatic injury to that knee, say an Aroldis Chapman 105 MPH HBP that might break a perfectly healthy knee. The only injury mentioned is last season's sprained Lisfranc ligament, but Martinez hit .303 & 45 HRs after recovering. Not sure if a prior sprain puts you at greater risk going forward, but I would think that Martinez's camp might contend that a similar post-recovery performance shouldn't cost him anything. Still need more info here.
   79. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5630271)
YC - Hence the delay. The lack of information is frustrating but I suspect there are both CBA related and HIPPA related issues that make any comments on specifics impossible. There really isn’t any benefit to JDM/Boras making things public and the Sox are motivated to get this done so pissing him off by leaking details isn’t useful.
   80. Sunday silence Posted: February 25, 2018 at 04:44 PM (#5630283)
...MLB contracts are guaranteed - but could take steps to protect themselves against the risk of a known pre-existing medical condition


BUt what do you mean exactly? How would you take steps to protect yourself without getting out of paying ?
   81. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 25, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5630312)
Sunday Sileince - What the Sox did with Lackey is kept the existing deal in place with the caveat that they would get an option at the end to add a year at league minimum so his year with St. Louis was actually played at that rate.

Ian Browne says the conversations this weekend were productive and Peter Abraham reporting that there are signs that tomorrow is announcement day.
   82. cardsfanboy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 09:01 PM (#5630411)
Sunday Sileince - What the Sox did with Lackey is kept the existing deal in place with the caveat that they would get an option at the end to add a year at league minimum so his year with St. Louis was actually played at that rate.


And that was a great move by the Red Sox.... If I'm a gm and I'm signing any pitcher for 4 or more years, I am automatically going to assume that one year is a lost year no matter what, that option plays into my assumption. I don't really know if I would make that assumption with a "position player" (in quotes because I'm not really sure Martinez is a position player :) ) but if I'm worried about a potential issue, then I do like the plan that he loses one of his options if he's injured for a significant amount of time, or the Lackey clause (which I would try to put in every contract I ever sign if I'm a gm----maybe for some free agents it might be a guaranteed minimum league salary even if they are dropped off the 40 man roster, but a mil or two if they are kept on the roster--or incentive type of contract----I thought Lackey got ripped off a bit by that contract even though my team benefited from it and Lackey's attitude was very professional about it.)

Of course one of my favorite things about the Red Sox front office is that they create "cool" contracts... my favorite contract of all time was Tim Wakefield's contract, but again that Lackey contract was extremely smart(although again my sense of fairness would have made that extra year a bit more financially beneficial for Lackey)
   83. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 25, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5630417)
Lackey's attitude was very professional about it.)
Wait, didn't he stomp his hooves and threaten to retire or hold out or hold his breath until they renegotiated his contract, and only got dragged kicking and screaming into honoring it? Or am I misremembering?
   84. cardsfanboy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 09:21 PM (#5630421)
Wait, didn't he stomp his hooves and threaten to retire or hold out or hold his breath until they renegotiated his contract, and only got dragged kicking and screaming into honoring it? Or am I misremembering?


Not that I recall, at least not in St Louis. I know that people speculated he might retire, but just doing a cursory google on it, and I can't find anything from Lackey saying anything like that. (I did find one quote where he said that his consideration of retirement hinged on where he landed at the trade deadline....)


Jenifer Langosch

@LangoschMLB
Lackey reaffirms that he will honor contract and pitch next season for ML minimum. Said his decision partially hinged on where he landed.

4:15 PM - Aug 1, 2014


So I'm guessing prior to the trade he might have debated it, but the second he arrived in St Louis, he never said a word about the contract.
   85. McCoy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 09:24 PM (#5630424)
BUt what do you mean exactly? How would you take steps to protect yourself without getting out of paying ?

I believe there have been some contracts where the salary would be reduced if the player got injured in X area with X being a known area of his body that is vulnerable.
   86. cardsfanboy Posted: February 25, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5630427)

I believe there have been some contracts where the salary would be reduced if the player got injured in X area with X being a known area of his body that is vulnerable.


I'm not sure those contracts are "legal" in baseball anymore. I thought that was part of the reason the Red Sox created the Lackey contract. MLBPA likes guaranteed contracts, and that type of clause looks like something that mlbpa would have tried to excise long ago. But yes I seem to remember some contracts in the past that had similar clauses, but two(or three) CBA's ago they streamlined acceptable clauses for contracts and that seems to be one of those that would have gone away.
   87. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: February 25, 2018 at 10:49 PM (#5630451)
I predicted many times that Lackey would never pitch under that deal but from everything I read he was completely professional about it.
   88. Nasty Nate Posted: February 26, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5630493)
Deal is now official.
   89. villageidiom Posted: February 26, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5630505)
And that was a great move by the Red Sox.... If I'm a gm and I'm signing any pitcher for 4 or more years, I am automatically going to assume that one year is a lost year no matter what, that option plays into my assumption.

They effectively lost two years. Lackey pitched hurt all 2011 hiding his injury in order to keep the option year from triggering, and was horrible. And then he finally had to have the surgery, which blew away 2012. Then he threatened to retire instead of pitching for the minimum, which both made it necessary to trade him and killed the trade value of that option, what with his not indicating he'd honor the contract before the trade. There is almost no part of that clause that was great for the Red Sox.
   90. Nasty Nate Posted: February 26, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5630507)
At least publicly, he didn't directly threaten to retire. He made vague comments. The chances of him retiring were really slim at the time for multiple reasons, including him potentially missing out on, say, 30+ million dollars and winning the world series.
   91. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 26, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5630523)
Still seems a bit murky:
… the protection would kick in if Martinez spends 60 consecutive days or 120 cumulative days on the disabled list in the fourth or fifth year of the deal. The DL stint would have to be due to a specific ligament/joint in order to qualify.

So, nothing that would apply right away, only in the 4th & 5th years, and no word yet on exactly what that protection is. Seems like that's not much help against any potential worst case scenarios. But plenty of opt outs:
Agent Scott Boras tells reporters that Martinez’s contract actually contains three opt-out provisions: one after each of the second, third and fourth years of the deal.

So Martinez playing all 5 years under the contract may be bad news? Heh.

   92. jmurph Posted: February 26, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5630528)
Clapper, your ongoing and deeply held concern for all things Red Sox is noted and appreciated.
   93. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: February 26, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5630533)
I seem to remember it being very clear he didn't want to pitch that last year in Boston, though. Is that right?
   94. PreservedFish Posted: February 26, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5630560)
They effectively lost two years. Lackey pitched hurt all 2011 hiding his injury in order to keep the option year from triggering, and was horrible. And then he finally had to have the surgery, which blew away 2012.


Do you have a cite that this was his explicit motivation?
   95. Nasty Nate Posted: February 26, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5630695)
I seem to remember it being very clear he didn't want to pitch that last year in Boston, though. Is that right?
It seems plausible he wanted to be traded, but there was only rumor and speculation.
---
Back to Martinez, this article has more details. It's confusing but I think the Sox can opt out after year 3 and year 4 if he misses a certain amount of time due to his specific foot ligament injury.
   96. jmurph Posted: February 26, 2018 at 03:41 PM (#5630708)
Back to Martinez, this article has more details. It's confusing but I think the Sox can opt out after year 3 and year 4 if he misses a certain amount of time due to his specific foot ligament injury.

There's a new summary up at MLB Trade Rumors. Key thing I took away:
In essence, then, the Sox have negotiated their own means of walking away from the final two years of the contract in the event that Martinez’s foot proves to be a chronic condition

More specifics follow that quote at the link.

So you can breathe easy, Clapper!
   97. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 26, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5630764)
In essence, then, the Sox have negotiated their own means of walking away from the final two years of the contract in the event that Martinez’s foot proves to be a chronic condition

Doesn't he timing have to be "right", too? As I understand it, Martinez could be plagued with Lisfranc problems his first two years, but Boston wouldn't have any remedy if he's sufficiently healthy in year 3 (less than 60 consecutive days on the DL). Maybe there's never an issue, but all the contract language, and panels of three doctors, may not make the situation any better if there were to be problems. Sometimes I get the feeling these things get negotiated to death just so some folks can show how smart they are.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1752 - 2:03pm, Sep 21)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(481 - 2:03pm, Sep 21)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(4 - 2:01pm, Sep 21)
Last: Zonk is a Doppleclapper

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(49 - 1:53pm, Sep 21)
Last: The Run Fairy

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(143 - 1:44pm, Sep 21)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogRed Sox division title banner falls off truck; its return may cost them - The Boston Globe
(33 - 1:40pm, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogMarlins CEO Derek Jeter: Don Mattingly 'under contract' for 2019
(9 - 1:38pm, Sep 21)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(3 - 1:36pm, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(819 - 1:30pm, Sep 21)
Last: Sean Forman

NewsblogShohei Ohtani may prove to be baseball’s future, and what a future it could be
(1 - 1:22pm, Sep 21)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-21-2018
(19 - 1:17pm, Sep 21)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(2 - 1:06pm, Sep 21)
Last: Rally

NewsblogDodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig burglarized for the fourth time
(4 - 1:01pm, Sep 21)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(29 - 11:57am, Sep 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(382 - 11:52am, Sep 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.7182 seconds
46 querie(s) executed