Aramis Ramirez’s 2012 Option Does NOT Vest if He’s Traded

[haubrich91]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/07/17/report-aramis-ramirezs-2012-option-does-not-vest-if-hes-traded/

 

But now Bruce Levine is stating unequivocally something he’s been suggesting for a while: “Contrary to what has been widely reported about Ramirez’s contract, there is not an option year that kicks in if he’s traded. Here’s the thumbnail sketch of Ramirez’s contract. He has roughly $7 million left in salary for 2011. He, as well as the Cubs, hold an option for 2012 at $16 million dollars. If the team doesn’t exercise its option, Ramirez is owed $2 million as a buyout. If he’s traded to another team, Ramirez receives a $1 million relocation bonus.”

[Guest]

He still has 10 and 5 rights. I hope if they do trade him they get a really good package back, he's been the best player on the Cubs for a long time.

[Derwood]

his options NOT vesting leads me to believe that it would be harder to convince him to give up his NTC

[Bote McBoteface]

He can always say he won't accept a trade unless it is picked up.

[Clem Fandango]

I trust Cot's more than I trust Bruce Levine, and Cot's says:

 

2012 option becomes guaranteed if Ramirez:

 

- wins one MVP in 2007-11, or

- places 2nd or 3rd in MVP vote twice in 2007-11, or

- wins LCS MVP once in 2007-11, or

- is an All Star 3 times in 2007-11, or

- is traded at any time & Ramirez exercises 2011 option

 

Ramirez exercised 2011 player option 11/10

 

It also says he gets a $1M relocation bonus, so he's not wrong about that, but this part of his contract seems pretty blatantly obvious, I'm not sure how he's missing that unless it's been falsely reported since the day he signed his contract years ago

[Guest]

I trust Cot's more than I trust Bruce Levine

 

Where do you think Cot's gets their information from? If Levine specifically sought out this information to get clarity, he's probably more right than Cot's, which is a conglomeration of all the news reports that people like Levine put out at the time of the signing.

[Clem Fandango]

I trust Cot's more than I trust Bruce Levine

 

Where do you think Cot's gets their information from? If Levine specifically sought out this information to get clarity, he's probably more right than Cot's, which is a conglomeration of all the news reports that people like Levine put out at the time of the signing.

 

That statement was somewhat tongue in cheek.

 

That being said, who is right? If Cot's got their information from people like Levine, why is Levine now just saying that this clause doesn't exist a few weeks before the trade deadline. This seems like a pretty important contract clause to be falsely reported on and never clarified over the last several years

[Tryptamine]

Levine has been saying this for a while.

[Clem Fandango]

Levine has been saying this for a while.

 

I'm not completely saying Levine is wrong, but if he's been saying it for a while has anyone official confirmed it?

[questionmarkgrace]

Levine has been saying this for a while.

 

I'm not completely saying Levine is wrong, but if he's been saying it for a while has anyone official confirmed it?

 

I thought it was a club option for next year with a buy out, not a mutual option? That's what Heyman reported a couple weeks ago. I've heard a couple people say that his option was not guaranteed for next year if traded. But that he would want it to be picked up if he was traded.

[ChiCubsFan]

I don't get how this can't be clarified.

[JimSorgi]

I don't get how this can't be clarified.

Maybe the Cubs don't know either and are too embarrassed to admit it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So from what I can gather from this thread, if Aramis is traded, either his 2012 option will vest or it wont.

[dew1679666265]

So from what I can gather from this thread, if Aramis is traded, either his 2012 option will vest or it wont.

 

There's also the third option where nobody - including the Cubs, the new team and Aramis - don't know whether his 2012 option has vested or not.

[Brett]

I doubt Levine would be this explicit - especially after being a bit obtuse about the issue over the past couple months - unless he'd received crystal clear confirmation about Ramirez's 2012 option.

 

That said, the possibility of a vested 2012 option is only one of the two primary hurdles to a deal. As stated earlier in the thread, his no-trade rights remain an issue. And, because that 2012 option still exists, Ramirez could leverage his no-trade rights to make this vesting/not vesting discussion wholly academic - in other words, he could say, "I won't accept a trade unless the receiving team picks up my option."

[9YRPLAN]

maybe it becomes a player option if traded?

[utkcub]

can someone explain to me why we want to trade arguably the best player on this shitty team?

[Old Style]

Bruce Miles seems to disagree

 

BruceMiles2112

On #Cubs Ramirez, language states that 2012 option kicks in if he exercises 2011 option (he did) and is traded at any time of the contract

2 hours ago

[KingCubsFan]

can someone explain to me why we want to trade arguably the best player on this [expletive] team?

We're terrible, he may be gone at the end of the season, and he's the only real trade piece on the team that could possibly bring back something of value? I also see point of keeping him in order to bring him back next year, though.

[Clem Fandango]

We're probably not gonna be very competitive next year, why bring back someone at $16 million a year to help us obtain a losing record when he'll be one year older and more susceptible to declining and losing value?

 

If there was a time and person to trade on this team, it's right now and it's Aramis Ramirez. 3B production across the league is weak, he would could bring in the best package of anyone else on the team that is expendable.

[TruffleShuffle]

We're probably not gonna be very competitive next year

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2000.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2001.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2002.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2003.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2006.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2007.shtml

[Clem Fandango]

We're probably not gonna be very competitive next year

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2000.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2001.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2002.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2003.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2006.shtml -> http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2007.shtml

 

Cool story, bro. We're still not gonna be very competitive next year.

 

EDIT: amending to say "Unless we get Pujols or Fielder". Glaring oversight. but if we don't get either of them, we still won't be very competitive

Edited July 18, 2011 by The Logan

[TruffleShuffle]

3 times in the last decade the cubs have gone from being truly terrible to contending for the division, but yeah let's just write off next year.

[Guest]

You make a compelling argument.

 

 

What happened to Inge this year? His old self is a decent 3B placeholder if we're trading Ramirez, but he fell off the cliff this year.

[Clem Fandango]

3 times in the last decade the cubs have gone from being truly terrible to contending for the division, but yeah let's just write off next year.

 

I gave up on hope a long time ago. Unless we get Fielder or Pujols there will be no reason to be excited about next year's team. They'll likely bring back a lot of the same cogs from this year but they'll be a year older. Whooptie doo.

 

Also, if we don't get one of those two guys we won't have a guy capable of carrying an offense like Sammy did in 2001. And we won't have another Mark Prior to mow down batters at the front of our rotation. And we won't have....... an.... Alfonso Soriano? I don't know why 2007 was such a success. Point is, those teams had players on them that gave the Cubs clout and a reason for the fans to be hopeful. Without Pujols or Fielder what is there to look forward to except maybe the premiere of guys like Brett Jackson?