The length of the season, prorated salaries and protocols for health and safety are finally all set in place, but Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association are still negotiating the manner in which contractual options, performance incentives/bonuses and escalator clauses will be handled, per Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required).
Fortunately, an agreement is believed to be “within reach,” per Rosenthal. The league had initially sought to prorate the value of 2021 options using the same formula as 2020 salaries, although the MLBPA obviously pushed back against that notion. There’s still some debate over the handling of vesting options — particularly those that are triggered by reaching a set number of games pitched or plate appearances over the life of multiple seasons. The two sides also must determine how those options would be treated in the event that the season is canceled at any point due to health concerns.
There aren’t too many vesting options in MLB this year, although some of the notable ones include:
- Jon Lester, LHP, Cubs: Lester’s $25MM mutual option ($10MM buyout) for the 2021 season would become guaranteed with 200 innings pitched in a normal season.
- J.A. Happ, LHP, Yankees: Happ’s $17MM club option for the 2021 season would’ve become guaranteed upon making 27 starts or totaling 165 innings in 2020.
- Andrew Miller, LHP, Cardinals: Miller’s $12MM club option for 2021 would have been guaranteed if he totaled 110 games between 2019-20. As Rosenthal explores, there are various ways to interpret how many more games he’d need to pitch to trigger that option — some more beneficial to Miller and others to the Cardinals.
- Charlie Morton, RHP, Rays: Morton’s option is another that comes with a multi-year criteria. His contract calls for a $15MM club option in 2021 if he spends fewer than 30 days on the injured list between 2019-20. The option value decreases if he spends additional time on the injured list. Morton avoided the IL entirely last year. Unlike Miller, who surely hopes the number of appearances he needs to make in 2020 can be prorated, it’d be beneficial to Morton for that number (30) to remain as is. That seems unlikely, but the disparity between the clauses of Miller and Morton illustrates that this isn’t exactly straightforward for the player side. The value of his option
- Kelvin Herrera, RHP, White Sox: Herrera, too, needed 110 games between 2019-20 for his $10MM club option to become guaranteed. He pitched in 57 games last year, leaving him 53 shy of his target.
- Wade Davis, RHP, Rockies: Davis’ $15MM mutual option would’ve converted to a $15MM player option in the event that he finished 30 games. He’d only need to finish out 11-12 games in the shortened 2020 season if the two sides go with a strictly prorated interpretation of the qualifiers.
- Bryan Shaw, RHP, Rockies: Shaw has the same 110-game target for 2019-20 that Miller and Herrera have. He pitched 70 times in 2019 and needed just 40 appearances in 2020 to lock in a $9MM salary for the 2021 campaign.
- Jake McGee, LHP, Rockies: With 60 games pitched or 40 games finished in 2020, McGee would’ve locked in a $9MM salary for the 2021 season. His contract also allowed the option to vest with a with 110 games between 2019-20, but he only pitched in 45 contests last year.
- Stephen Vogt, C, Diamondbacks: Vogt’s contract included a $3MM club option that not only vests but increases to a $3.5MM base upon starting 45 games and appearing n a total of 75 games overall.
- Dee Gordon, 2B/SS/OF, Mariners: Gordon would’ve been guaranteed a $14MM salary for the 2021 season with 600 plate appearances this year. That, of course, was extremely unlikely in the first place, though.
Beyond those options, there are myriad escalator clauses throughout baseball that could be impacted by the shortened schedule. It’s fairly common for club options and/or future salaries to be boosted by steady performance — particularly among players returning from injury. Take Dellin Betances, for instance. His contract with the Mets calls for the value of next year’s $6MM player option to increase by $800K upon pitching in 40 games. He’d receive additional $1MM boosts to that figure for appearing in 50, 60 and 70 games apiece.
The league and the union are also still discussing potential retention bonuses for six-year veterans on non-guaranteed deals. In a typical year, any player with six-plus years of service who finished the preceding season on a 40-man roster qualifies as an Article XX(B) free agent. Such players must either be added to the 40-man roster, released five days prior to Opening Day or paid a $100K retention bonus to remain with the club in the minor leagues. Many players in that situation are released and quickly re-signed to a new minor league deal, but that won’t be possible in 2020 due to the fact that players who are removed from a team’s 60-man pool become ineligible to return to that team this season.
i mean what better way is there then to prorate? 60 is x% of 162, make the vesting options at x%. surely it hurts pitchers given they may not be used the same this year, but what better choice is there?
injury ones have to be changed though i guess. that percentage of y number of IL games would be fairly easy to hit or even manipulate.
Why does the MLBPA object to everything? What is wrong with prorating they incentives clauses?
It says the MLB wanted to prorate the value of the 2021 options lol, not just the criteria to reach them. No reason the MLBPA would agree to that.
and no reason they should to be honest. if the 2021 season is wonky, that can be handled when its apparent, but that’s far from clear right now.
Why not? If COVID spikes in 2021 and closes part(s) of the season, it is logical to continue the same type of calculation. A straight pro-rate seems logical but what do i know?
You have to see the team’s position as well. The value of the 2021 options and incentives was tied to the players performance for the full 2020 season. If the team can’t see their performance for the full season why would they agree to take on the full option without any pushback. If you were the cubs would you be perfectly content and comfortable with giving Lester $25mil next season based on what you saw over 12 starts this year (assuming it even reaches that many)?
If a Union doesn’t object then management will take all that they can. It is the nature of the relationship
Exactly right. It didn’t matter that the owners offered a fair deal, it had to be adversarial and the players left money on the table.
I don’t blame them, it was a smart negotiation tactic, and honestly, the game is slightly better off because of it.
I get the adversarial nature of labor-management relations, but why do you think “the game is slightly better off because of it?” The players have the right to advocate for themselves, as do the owners. But does an adversarial relationship make the game better? Are we better off that the start of the 2020 season was delayed this long, with less money in the kitty for players and owners and less baseball for we fans? I don’t feel “better off.”
Is MLB sticking with its 3 division plan?
@sherlock
Why wouldn’t they?
I think @sherlock meant the idea of 3 10-team divisions.
In which case the answer is “no”.
It makes no sense for the Union to agree that the salary these players have for 2021 (2021) should be reduced commensurate with the games played in 2020. If the teams don’t think they have seen enough of the player’s performance in 2020, don’t exercise the option. But, if you have what’s now a $15M option for 2021, it shouldn’t be a $6M one.
One possible way to do things would be calculate a “goal” for each incentive based on last year’s statistics. So, where does 200 innings stand in relationship to starting pitchers? How many starters pitched over 200 innings last year? Say it’s 40 for discussion sake. At the end of this year, take the pitcher with the 40th most innings and make that the threshold. Just a thought.
Ha ha not 40! More like 10. I’m so old school.
@whyhayzee
Me too. I miss the days when stud SP’s were expected to throw CG’s.
I bet guys like Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Koufax, etc. laugh when a SP who barely reaches 200 IP in a season is labeled a workhorse.
Beer and tacos today, lads
Is there something missing at the end of the Charlie Morton section?
I think Andrew Miller needs only 37 games to trigger his clause. He may get that without prorating if he stays healthy and effective.
Rockies need to make sure Davis and Shaw options don’t vest. Even if they have to DFA them. Way too much money tied up in bad bullpen contracts by that team the past few years.
27-33
@brucenewton
I don’t know what’s more hilarious, that you’re actually taking this season seriously or that you care what their record will end up.
I don’t care if they go 1-59 this year, I want them to play so guys like Robert, Madrigal, Kopech, Cease, etc. get more experience for next year and beyond, when the games will actually matter again.