Can K-Rod Keep It Under 55?

19 Comments + Add Comment

• Bayonne Mets Fan January 30, 2011 at 10:03 pm

  Here’s what I would do,

  In my heart of hearts i want to win. I also don’t believe K-Rod’s “I need the work” baloney. It seems he does well after a period of rest but when used a lot, he starts to get whacked and that’s how I really feel so the PA don’t bother me there.

  If the Mets are out of it early and I TRULY believe I want to see Parnell throw in big spots I will put him in because I think it’s in the best interests of the teams future to see what this young man has.

  Lastly, I will use K-Rod normally. If the games mean something and there’s a lot of close games and I’m using him and he’s doing the job then he’s in if i think we have a chance at WC. But if I’m not happy about the job he’s doing than I’m gonna use Parnell or someone else.

  To summarize – My HONEST approach is to win games first but I’m also not going to use pitchers unnecessarily either. And if he feels HE needs the work and I feel he doesn’t then we’re going to butt heads. As long as I’m honest in my approach to managing the game, then there’s probably a good chance the Vesting Option doesn’t kick in. Too bad for him. Good for him though if the team is playing good, we’re winning close games and he’s shutting the door…then I use him because, at the same time, i’m not gonna sacrifice games either if he’s the best man for the job.
  But if he cries “I need the work” he’s not getting it because fundamentally the extra work I think is his big problem.

  Behind closed doors I’d be saying “Who the hell is he kidding – he wants the extra work because he want that cash” I’ll use him as I see fit. He may get the money, he may not.
  • stick January 30, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    I agree with this. Save situation, use him, unless he has pitched too many games in a row say and needs a day off (team decision on that). But, no non save finishes. If he feels rusty, pitch in the pen, and if he wants work in a real game, do it in the 7th inning.

    I would prefer he did not vest, being better for the team, but not at the expense of wins in 2011 (although if they end up 20 games out on 9/1, all bets are off!)

    The team game him the contract, and if he does the job and the team needs him, and it vests, then that’s life, and the Mets have a good, if expensive, closer for 1 more year.
    • MetsFan4Decades January 31, 2011 at 12:16 am

      My opinion as well. Use him as if there is no vesting option. In other words, when it makes sense to use your effective closer.

      Any hint of purposely trying to avoid that vesting option not only brings down the PA but sends the wrong message to any other FA the Mets might try and sign in the near future. As in the contracts the Mets give out and player signs in good faith aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
    • Harry C January 31, 2011 at 7:34 am

      So most of you seem to want the manager to spend his hours, instead of preparing his team for games, with the goal of winning every game possible, you want him to review the status of incentives and vesting options and work that angle instead of doing his job, which is to win the freakin game. So what are you all fans of?? Are you Met fans or Wilpon fans? Reading these theories on how to save 17 million bucks, seems you all care about the Wilpons.
      • alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 12:55 pm

        Ah, no. Met fans.

        We were not saying that terry shold manage to avoid the option, as in not using him for save situations when he is fresh. That would be stupid.

        but, having a plan going into the season on how to use his pen IS the managers job (you would not have known this though from watching Jerry). Same as annointing a closer and set up man, decide that the closer only pitches in save situations, no one pitches more than X days in a row, stuff like that. Hell, post it on the wall so there is no confusion.

        do that, and the option becomes irrelevant, and I agree with you that the manager should try to win, not work around contract stipulations.

        and the idea of avoiding the vesting option has nothing to do with the wilpons. It is based on the idea that the FO can spend that money on other players to make the team, overall, better, leading to more wins.
  • STRAWBERRY PIAZZA WRIGHT January 31, 2011 at 9:45 am

    I agree with using him as you see fit,but in the big scheme of thigs, you want to win, and you wan to have the best players available. With that said, K- Rod is one of the best closers in baseball (he has that 62 saves in a season record, and has had success in the post seson as well), and we need to remember it is about baseball, not about what the payroll will look like. Forget about how much money K-Rod (or Mariano) is making, in the big scheme of things, we are talking about adding 6 millions on payroll next season (which is not really that much for a team with the resources they have). But if you still worry about the money, there is a bit of it coming off the books next year (Ollie’s 12 million, Beltran’s 17, Castillo’s 6), so that more than offsets the 6 millon extra that you are paying K-Rod.
    Of course, you still want to sign Reyes, you would think, and they probably will, so that will leave about 14 million to play with next year?? My point is,don’t read too much into payroll, the Mets will be fine, we forget the fact that we have a good, young team, with many good (and still young pieces like K Rod, who, if my memory serves me well just turned 29 years of age about 3 weeks ago) and, as I said earlier,is(still) one of the best closers in baseball (and we have him). Who would you rather have, Franco? Benitez, Looper?, Luis Ayala?, Dan Wheeler? Gillermo Mota? We have not had may bright closers through the years, so lets just hold on to this one and enjoy him while he is still here.
• Matt January 30, 2011 at 10:25 pm

  KRod had a great season last season, until it ended abruptly. He is still a top 5 closer in the NL and he is without question worth $17.5 million when he is healthy. Therefore, any “fan” of the Mets that hopes he does not reach 55 games finished this season is not rooting for the Mets to be as successful as possible and they just have some type of personal issue with KRod.
• MetsMan86 January 30, 2011 at 10:25 pm

  If K-Rod does his job, does as well as his resume says he should, why wouldn’t you want him back next year. Bobby Parnell doesn’t have to close right away to be successful, 8th inning setup man is the perfect proving ground so if/when he actually does close, he could hit the ground running
• mattstedjan January 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm

  I took what Alderson said as meaning, “The only way he finishes 55 games is if he has 55 saves.” While that may not be guaranteeable, if they only let him finish the game in a save situation, and he is not blowing saves, that would happen. If he is blowing saves, you can definitely sit him, and the MLBPA can’t say anything about it. If he says he needs work, put him in in a high leverage situation earlier in the game. If the option does end up vesting, even though those principles were followed, then he probably deserves the option, and I have no problem giving it to him.
• TruFan January 31, 2011 at 3:52 am

  Use him in non-9th high leverage situations like basesloaded with no outs in the 7th or 8th so he cannot pitch on days where the team has an easy 3 or run lead in the 9th. This way the Mets get the most value out of him and prevents that vesting option.
• JerryG15 January 31, 2011 at 7:54 am

  I don’t think we should even give this a thought. SO much going on, the last thing we need to think about is KROD and his contract and counting games whether to vest him or not.

  JUST PLAY THE GAME. Don’t make any adjustments to save a buck.

  If we are lucky enough to be in it to some degree, don’t change the formula and the manager should not have to have this as a variable as managing his game.
• Metsie January 31, 2011 at 10:38 am

  If we start managing games based on budget instead of managing games based on what is best to get wins then saving the 17+Mil is not going to help in the end! It will be inconsequential.

  How much K-Rod gets paid is Sandy Alderson’s problem not Terry Collins’!

  If there is a save situation then he should get the ball. If he has not pitched in a few days then put him in for the 8th inning to get his inning of work if you really want to avoid the option and let Parnell close out that game unless the team manages to get the lead and make a save opportunity.

  I fail to see why after all the complaints about not spending money everyone is now worried about how much K-Rod might get!

  Bottomline is that if we are winning a lot of games and there are a lot of games to be saved then no one is going to care how much K-Rod makes.

  And if there are not a lot of wins and saves to be had K-Rod will be as gone before the option invests as Perez probably will be because Sandy will trade him when he trades Beltran and Reyes!
  • t agee January 31, 2011 at 11:12 am

    If he is on pace for that option to vest he is untradeable. That is why a balancing act must be done by Collins. Get the saves, don’t finish games that are not save situations. That’s the only solution.

    If UFC-Rods option does not appear likely to vest he will almost certainly become a type A free agent meaning we will balance what he would bring in a trade vs. the two draft choices we could get for offering and being turned down for arbitration (and how likely it is that he might accept)

    Paying so much and also surrendering your #1 pick (like we did) for a closer is a real jackass move and few teams would be willing to do that so that increases the likelihood that he would accept arb and we’d be paying him 14 million to close in 2012 after paying the 3M buyout. Same 17M dollar investment.

    Boston and the NYY are set at closer and there probably aren’t too many other teams looking to pay 10, 12, 14 million to K-Rod.

    Two things are clear, #1) Vesting options are not the way to do business. They by rule cannot be about quality, just quantity and regardless of how good he has been 36 million over 3 is an over pay for what he does and to surrender yet another #1 pick just makes it that much more likely we’ll have to overpay somewhere else in the future too. #2) 14M can be so much better utilized in the starting rotation where a starter can easily pitch 180 innings vs. a closer’s 50.
    • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 11:17 am

      I have to agree with Harry C on one thing though and that is imo you just cant have Collins thinking about anything but how best to win games as a manager. If KRod ask for work Collins has to decide if he should get him work cause he really feels its best for him and therefore the team. Nothing else should play a part in that scenario.

      If Alderson sees that KRod is indeed likely to have his option vest then he better be right now preparing for how he will handle that if and when it happens and deal with it accordingly.

      - My 1 Cents worth
      • alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 12:59 pm

        yes, the manager needs to manage to win games.
    • alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      vesting options have a place. What is a really bad idea is this type of super back loaded “jackpot” option.

      where they make sense to me is when you have a guy that is an injury concern, especially a pitcher, and you want basica assurance that he he sound before the last year of the deal kicks in.
      • t agee January 31, 2011 at 1:22 pm

        I can see the logic in that ANY but here’s the problem. Pitcher proves to be healthy but pitches like crap. Due to OTHER pitchers health winds up making 20 starts or pitching 100 innings or whatever. Club is now on the hook for bigger money next year and THEIR options are now less than what they would have been.

        Sometimes these vesting options are simply related to days on the active roster. If Ollie had a vesting option it would have kicked in.

        In the case of Cora, Omar gave him 2M with a 2M vesting contract for 2011 based on games played. Considering he was backing up TWO players with recent injury histories it is a pretty fair guess that he would have made it. Even putting him in as a pinch runner is inching him closer to closing options for a better solution next year.

        If a player does perform well enough to reach vesting option hurdles on his own merit there is no reason why he won’t be in demand the following year. It is only when because of other events he clears those hurdles that the vesting option kicks in that helps him. He basically is not “betting” on himself, he’s covering himself in the event that he does not play well and yet through other circumstances attains his option anyway.

        It should always be the Clubs option with a reasonable guaranteed buyout that produces the best value AND keeps an owner, GM or manager from managing more than just the game and keeps the player focused on team, not individual goals.
        • alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm

          generally the vesting option is a compromise when the team wants to guarantee X years, and the player won’t sign for less than X+1.

          Cora was a reasonable time to do it (though the money was too high).

          basically he signed a 1 year deal to be a seldom used BU for Jose, and general good guy clubhouse presence.

          He also signed a parallel deal for 2 years to be a semi-regular getting a lot of game action.
          • t agee January 31, 2011 at 2:53 pm

            ANY, the only way he was going to be a semi regular was due to injury to Reyes or Castillo. Alex is a real professional guy but neither defensively nor offensively is he better than either of those two players and the chances of his “taking” someone’s job at 35 was non existent and yet if it did happen could easily be addressed by the market as a free agent the following year.

            The only possible benefit of the vesting option was for Alex if he played poorly but it still vested because of injury to someone else or the Mets if he took someone’s job which, at 35 wasn’t very likely. That possibility would be better preserved by a Club option.

            As it turned out he did get his full 2010 salary but got DFA’d in order to prevent his option from vesting which no doubt hurt his ability to get a contract for 2011. He also did not receive any kind of a buyout that would have been part of that Club option.

            The reality is the club option would have benefitted both Cora and the Mets and the vesting option hurt both.