Magglio Ordonez situation

[TruffleShuffle]

The Tigers have announced that Magglio Ordonez is being benched indefinitely. 2007 was obviously a fluke (.381 BABIP), 2008 he came back to around his "usual" level, and then this year his numbers are way down - .273/.347/.344/.690. probably the most alarming part is that he's not being hurt by bad luck with balls in play (.313 BABIP), but rather that his power has completely evaporated - only 9 doubles and 2 home runs.

 

the complicating factor is ordonez' contract:

 

# 2010 option guaranteed at $18M if Ordonez has:

 

* 135 starts or 540 PAs in 2009, or

* 270 starts or 1,080 PAs in 2008-09

 

so far, ordonez has 242 PAs in 2009 and 865 PAs in 2008-09, meaning that he only needs 215 more PAs for his $18M option to kick in for next season. if ordonez has started to decline, clearly that contract would be a disaster. plus the tigers' attendance is way down since the michigan economy is in the toilet.

 

the questions:

 

1. What should the tigers do here? Should they bench Ordonez now and hope that he picks it up when they start playing him again? Should they just release him outright, so that there's no chance that option vests? Should they continue playing him without thinking about that option?

2. Are they justified in reducing his playing time based on his performance this season?

3. If he gets little playing time and his option doesn't vest, does he have a grievance?

4. Are playing time options a good idea? What about performance-based options - I don't think these are approved by the MLBPA, but should they be? Should MLB teams be allowed to reduce playing time because they don't feel that the player will not perform up to the value of their future options?

[E.J.]

I'm guessing the Cubs will face a similar situation with Soriano pretty soon.

[imb]

I'm guessing the Cubs will face a similar situation with Soriano pretty soon.

 

does soriano have clauses based on PAs? If not, then this has nothing to do with what truffle was talking about

 

it makes perfect sense to keep ordonez on the bench in order to save yourself 18 MILLION DOLLARS. You can find 700 OPS guys in AAA for 50 bucks

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm guessing the Cubs will face a similar situation with Soriano pretty soon.

 

does soriano have clauses based on PAs? If not, then this has nothing to do with what truffle was talking about

 

it makes perfect sense to keep ordonez on the bench in order to save yourself 18 MILLION DOLLARS. You can find 700 OPS guys in AAA for 50 bucks

 

oh i agree, but i think that MLB can file a grievance on behalf of the player if he is being benched to prevent an option from vesting. the fact that he's hit so badly would probably make it tough for him to win that grievance, as it appears that his benching is justified from a pure performance standpoint.

[treebird]

I'm guessing the Cubs will face a similar situation with Soriano pretty soon.

 

does soriano have clauses based on PAs? If not, then this has nothing to do with what truffle was talking about

 

it makes perfect sense to keep ordonez on the bench in order to save yourself 18 MILLION DOLLARS. You can find 700 OPS guys in AAA for 50 bucks

 

isn't this pretty similar to the the thing glavine was complaining about though? it's in everyone's contract that you can't release players for financial reasons. i wonder if it says anything anywhere about refusing to play guys for financial reasons.

[SouthSideRyan]

Frank Thomas was released last year 16 games into his season solely because of his contract. I don't know how you go about proving that you were released solely for financial reasons, cause if Thomas couldn't then Ordonez certainly can't.

[Tracer Bullet]

If a guy is OPS'ing 1.000 and the vesting clause would pay him something insane for the next year or two, so his team benched him - he'd file a grievance and win. If an OF sucks both in the field and the plate, the team is perfectly within its rights to bench him. It's not just financial, it's b/c he sucks. Sure, if his production dropped to say .800 OPS (I'm using OPS b/c it's easy, you get the drift, I hope) and they bench him for a .750 guy b/c that's all they have and they want to save some money, then maybe there's an argument. But I still think/hope the team wins there.

 

To me, clauses like this are protection from injury/decline. If you suck this bad and the team benches you, tough luck.

 

BTW - mlbtraderumors actually posted an interesting question. If every MLB team could rid itself on 1 contract and the player became a FA, who would each team cut. I was trying to think of the teams with the toughest decisions. Then a Tiger fan posted this:

 

Can any club beat this for bad deals:

Sheffield: 14 mil in 2009 to play for the Mets (and they can have him)

Ordonez, just release him so his 33 million in options for the next two years doesn't vest

Guillen, $ 13 million a year for 2010 and 2011, 10 mil for 09

Robertson, 17 mil for 09 and 2010

Willis, $ 22 mil for '09 and 2010

Bonderman, $ 25 mil for 09 and 2010

71.1 mil for '09, 65.5 mil for 2010

 

I used to think DD was a good GM. But holy crap. Some of those are just indefensible.

[jersey cubs fan]

They are obviously justified in benching the guy. Nobody is guaranteed playing time, nor should they be. I think playing time options are a good idea. It's up to the player to negotiate reachable clauses, and perform well enough to make it difficult for the team to justify benching him. Teams have to be able to adjust to changing situations. If they sign a 7-year guaranteed contract they are on the hook for 7 years, but if they negotiate options it is in their best interest to make sure that option is "achieved" properly. If a guy isn't likely to make that same money on the free agent market if the option is not picked up due to a reduced level of performance, it's hard to criticize them for acting responsibly by making it less likely that it is picked up.

[illiniguy]

If the guy they are replacing him with has a better OPS, if that's what we want to use, I see no way that he can cry about it. However, if the guy replacing him is worse then I hope he files a grievance and wins. No one had a gun to Detroit's head and made them sign Mags.

[Tracer Bullet]

If the guy they are replacing him with has a better OPS, if that's what we want to use, I see no way that he can cry about it. However, if the guy replacing him is worse then I hope he files a grievance and wins. No one had a gun to Detroit's head and made them sign Mags.

 

I realize I used OPS (though I did put a little disclaimer in there) but having a bright line rule there would be dumb. You can't play a younger player over a veteran b/c the veteran's crappy OPS is better than the young guy's crappy OPS? You can't play a guy with a slightly worse OPS but is a better overall offensive player or much better defender? Even if we don't use OPS, how can you clearly know that one player will be better than the other? How do you know one decision is better, overall, for the team?

 

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

[illiniguy]

If the guy they are replacing him with has a better OPS, if that's what we want to use, I see no way that he can cry about it. However, if the guy replacing him is worse then I hope he files a grievance and wins. No one had a gun to Detroit's head and made them sign Mags.

 

I realize I used OPS (though I did put a little disclaimer in there) but having a bright line rule there would be dumb. You can't play a younger player over a veteran b/c the veteran's crappy OPS is better than the young guy's crappy OPS? You can't play a guy with a slightly worse OPS but is a better overall offensive player or much better defender? Even if we don't use OPS, how can you clearly know that one player will be better than the other? How do you know one decision is better, overall, for the team?

 

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

This is also true. I just always tend to side with the player if he is trying to play and there is really no better option in house.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the guy they are replacing him with has a better OPS, if that's what we want to use, I see no way that he can cry about it. However, if the guy replacing him is worse then I hope he files a grievance and wins. No one had a gun to Detroit's head and made them sign Mags.

 

I realize I used OPS (though I did put a little disclaimer in there) but having a bright line rule there would be dumb. You can't play a younger player over a veteran b/c the veteran's crappy OPS is better than the young guy's crappy OPS? You can't play a guy with a slightly worse OPS but is a better overall offensive player or much better defender? Even if we don't use OPS, how can you clearly know that one player will be better than the other? How do you know one decision is better, overall, for the team?

 

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

This is also true. I just always tend to side with the player if he is trying to play and there is really no better option in house.

 

If the player sucks why punish a team for trying to get better? There's already way too much of a reliance on the "proven veteran" in baseball. Teams are almost always too slow to get rid of a guy. If a proven well compensated veteran isn't helping the team there's no reason why a team can't bench him even if it means taking a short-term hit in production while building to the future.

[sneakypower]

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

this. the blame lies sorely on Boras' shoulders, and Magglio's own greed that he's not playing baseball right now. take a longer contract for lesser annual money guaranteed and you're not in this situation.

[Guest]

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

this. the blame lies sorely on Boras' shoulders, and Magglio's own greed that he's not playing baseball right now. take a longer contract for lesser annual money guaranteed and you're not in this situation.

I don't honestly think they've benched him b/c of his contract. I don't think Leyland cares about who's making what. I think he's old school and wants to win and thinks that Ordonez doesn't give him the best chance.

 

Maybe I'm being naive, but that's what I think.

[Tracer Bullet]

No one had a gun to Magglio's head and made him sign a deal that included those vesting clauses. He took a risk that he'd keep playing well enough to reach them.

this. the blame lies sorely on Boras' shoulders, and Magglio's own greed that he's not playing baseball right now. take a longer contract for lesser annual money guaranteed and you're not in this situation.

I don't honestly think they've benched him b/c of his contract. I don't think Leyland cares about who's making what. I think he's old school and wants to win and thinks that Ordonez doesn't give him the best chance.

 

Maybe I'm being naive, but that's what I think.

 

Might be true. But if so, I'd hope that DD would tell Leyland to sit Ordonez in favor of almost any other OF to save the team $18m next year.

[Schwarber Fan]

Over/Under: 2 homeruns for Maggs tonight?