Larry Stone: Bearer Of Light
Stone gets almost official confirmation of what I was told during the spring: Vidro’s option isn’t going to vest:
Speaking of which, for those who are concerned with Jose Vidro’s contract vesting for next year: according to a source with knowledge of Vidro’s contract, his 2009 option (for $6 million) kicks in at 625 plate appearances in 2008, or 1,150 plate appearances in 2007-08, of which 600 of those plate appearances are in 2008.
Vidro had exactly 625 plate appearances last year (leaving him 525 short of 1,150), which means he needs 600 plate appearances this year for his 2009 option to vest (and if it doesn’t, the Mariners can buy him out for $500,000). Vidro has 159 plate appearances so far this year, on pace for 477, well short of 600, especially with Clement getting DH at-bats.
I was told point blank in March that it would take some kind of miracle for that option to vest, and Stone puts the numbers to the speculation. Turbo’s unlikely to last on the roster all season, and there’s basically no chance he’s back next year.
Comments
21 Responses to “Larry Stone: Bearer Of Light”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
hooray
Thanks for the heads-up, Dave. YAY!
Jimmie
yee-hah.
I am enjoying the flurry of ‘whatthehell happened!?’ stories, of late.
Glad to hear that the number is significantly higher than the speculation I’d been hearing that put the AB threshold at 400 or so.
That’s really interesting considering the M’s as a franchise almost always put the threshold there — we know that’s where Everett’s option was, for instance.
Would this likely mean another shot at DH for Clement next year, or are there any good DHs that might show themselves as options?
@DMZ
That was my impression as well. Thank the baseball overlords for small favors I guess.
Would this likely mean another shot at DH for Clement next year, or are there any good DHs that might show themselves as options?
I expect Clement back this year as a DH and possibly part time catcher (depending on the vagaries of the starting pitchers — is the sentiment specifically pro-Burke, or anything-but-Joh?) and Stone suggests as much.
But here’s the thing: you don’t have to have a DH. I know the Mariners, obsessed with roles, always do, and I know M’s fans, conditioned by all those years of Edgar, always expect it. But it’s not like there’s a base or a part of the field going undefended if you don’t have a guy who is your officially designated starting DH. Other teams get by fine without one, rotating guys through that position — look at the Angels for example (but hey, why should we try to learn from them, it’s not like they’re leading the division or anything).
Hey, you know they don’t believe in DIPS or anything new-fangled like that. And just because the folks behind DIPS and champions of DIPS went on to help Boston win a couple Worlds Series doesn’t mean we have anything to learn from them…
covering their backsides while still giving him a requested option?
So, now all we have to worry about is them buying him out, and then inviting him back to spring training when no one else offers him squat?
And then him proving what a professional hitter he is in spring training?
And then maybe making a fraction of his current salary, but still hoovering a roster spot away from someone more capable?
*head explodes*
That’s really interesting considering the M’s as a franchise almost always put the threshold there
I don’t think it’s just the Mariners, it seems to be a pretty general practice, because 400-450 is a good way of saying the guy plays regularly while allowing for some slack to not punish him if he gets a mild injury. Those are the options that get created in normal contract negotiations, like signing Everett as a free agent.
Vidro’s was created as part of a trade, which is different. Because Vidro had a no-trade clause, the union basically requires that he receive some kind of contractual benefit for giving that up. So they negotiate a nominal option that fills this requirement, but still is not terribly likely at the time, because Vidro wants the trade and this is just a hoop they have to jump through. (Also, as we know, the contract was bad enough already as is.) Instead, what we have is an option where Vidro would really have to play all the time – hit well and be healthy throughout – or his contract just has its normal run. No wonder he was quoted recently as saying he didn’t even remember the details of the option.
I don’t believe that that’s the case, though I can’t go searching for cases where players have waived no-trade clauses to let trades through right now, but I do believe this has occurred.
I don’t remember anything about the converse.
Now, what does frequently happen is that the player demands things to waive the clause, but it’s often to demand additional money if they’re going to a state with a higher tax burden, and I don’t recall that the union requires anything in exchange for a no-trade waive.
I’m pretty sure Mike’s right. Giving up a no trade provision is defined by the union as a forfeiture of contract value, and according to the CBA, players can not make their contracts unilaterally less valuable. This was pretty central in the A-Rod to the Red Sox trade discussions, and eventually led to the deal falling apart.
The M’s were required by the CBA to give Vidro something since he waived his no trade clause, and a mostly meaningless ’09 option/buyout fit the bill.
Derek may also be right that it’s not an absolute requirement just to waive a no-trade clause, although I’m pretty sure the union does have to sign off when these things happen. And they do definitely operate on the principle that modifications to contracts have to provide a benefit to the player. Anyway, my point is mostly that an option created in connection with a trade is a bit different (usually you pick up an existing option, not create a new one), so I’m not sure that the usual paradigms apply. With that, the union explanation made more sense to me.
Thank god for small favors.
I love good news on a Friday.
Woooooo!!!
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, cleansing.
The question is though who can the Mariners get to hit 3rd and 4th next year that would be effective?
Or, if Ibanez doesn’t end up producing great numbers at the end of the season and the Mariners don’t re-sign him, who will hit 3rd, 4th, and 5th for this team?
Larry Stone, a prince who was born a slave, is revealed as the one to lead us out of Vidro bondage. YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
RE: 19 Well, any number of people could produce as well or better in those 3-5 spots as some of the current fill-ins.