Major League Baseball and the MLBPA have finally come to a deal for 2020 centering on key contract issues such as vesting options and roster bonuses, Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic tweets.
As MLBTR’s Steve Adams recently explored, this agreement will impact several notable veterans, including pitchers Jon Lester, J.A. Happ, Andrew Miller, Charlie Morton, Kelvin Herrera, Wade Davis, Bryan Shaw, Jake McGee, catcher Stephen Vogt and infielder/outfielder Dee Gordon. All of those players have vesting options based on certain 162-game milestones baked into their contracts (for instance, Happ’s $17MM option for 2021 would have become guaranteed had he thrown 165 innings).
It had been unclear how the league was going to handle those options, but we now have the answer. According to Rosenthal, all 2021 vesting options will be worth their full amounts. The counting numbers that would’ve triggered those options in a 162-game season will now be prorated. As Rosenthal points out, that means Miller – who would have needed 37 appearances for his $12MM option to vest – will only need 14 this year.
Roster bonuses, meanwhile, will be prorated, whereas playoff bonuses will be paid out in full. Rosenthal uses the example of a $200K bonus for 200 innings over a 162-game regular schedule, noting it’ll now require 74 1/3 innings and will earn a player just under $75K in 60 games. In the event a player spends time on the COVID-19 injured list, those days will still count as roster days for bonus purposes.
They actually made a deal, praise be to the baseball gods!
I can’t see an outcome here that will please everybody, but it’s still good to see some form of compromise and agreement. I’m absolutely fascinated as to what the arrangements/response will be.
D’accord @srecher.
Any form of compromise & understanding is welcome in 2020. We all could certainly use more of this.
Any word on whether players who were going to be Rule 5 eligible after the 2020 season will still be Rule 5 eligible? And if those who were were added to the 40-man roster last offseason and don’t make their debuts in 2020 still lose an option year?
I don’t really understand your questions. I hope someone can give you an educated answer. Should rule five players want option years at a minor rate or want a contract for millions possibly?!
No agreement announced to date alters anything, so, it’s all business as usual. Rule 5 eligibility will be same as always based on age and years since signing. Options would also be used as normal, no extras added just because of the shortened season.
Um, hasn’t losing an option year always required a Major League call-up? I’m pretty sure it’s never been the case for even 40-man roster players to lose an option year if they spend the entire year in the minors (or not playing competitive games at all this season).
Nope. If a player is on the 40-man roster and spends the entire season in the minors, he still loses an option year. This is why Jorge Mateo is out of options despite having not made his major league debut yet, for instance.
@jimthegoat Those players will now be Rule 1.85 eligible.
Not sure why this would have been anything difficult. If a vesting option was based on X-number of whatever (IP or PA usually) for a 162 game season shouldn’t that number be multipled by 0.37 (60/162) to come up with the new vesting number?
Can’t remember where I read it. Owners were trying to make the dollars owed to .37 of the agreement.
You’d think so, but it’s more complicated than that. I’d have to look at the numbers again, but I remember seeing the trend being that there are less injured days the earlier in the season you are. It’s easier to reach milestones in a shorter season since as the season goes on there’s a higher risk of injury, plus you also have playing time reduced due to both vesting option reasons and playoff pushes reducing some players’ innings partially due to roster expansion in Sept.
But wouldn’t the “being easier to achieve in a shorter season because of less chance at injury” and “having playing time reduced from roster expansion” essentially cancel each other out? One works in the player’s favor and one against.
They both contribute in the same direction.
Less risk of injury earlier in year so more innings played/pitched vs end of year.
Possible elimination of end of season loss of innings due to various factors. This doesn’t apply to every player, but is typical to get slightly more PAs or IP earlier in season. For example Dee Gordon got 44% of his PAs in the first 1/3rd of the season in 2019.
Later start/longer offseason has also helped some guys get healthy VS the original opening day. I.e. Vogt in 2019 didn’t play until May 3.
Also taking examples from the article, Lester and Happ threw slightly more innings in first half of the season.
If I’m MLBPA, I would say that most hurdles are set to be achievable even if the player has a 15-day IL stint, so it should be pro rated based on 147 games…
Because from the owner’s point of view, a vesting option is not about current value but future value. A starter who reaches 180 ip has proven a good bet for the following season. But if he only pitches a prorated portion, he hasn’t proven he’s worth hiring for the next season at the salary agreed upon.
Not really. If a SP’s deal only vested if he started, say, 27-plus games, by pitching that much he would have shown significant durability. Starting 10-plus games (in a 60 game season) hardly gives the team even remotely the same guarantee of durability for a 162 game season in 2021.
I don’t expect any player will vest an option for 2021.
based on?
First, I have little faith in the players association’s negotiating abilities. Second, whatever incentive levels are established, owners and management will make sure those levels are not reached.
Maybe for some lesser players or those on bad teams, but if a player is good enough, a manager for a competitive team isn’t going to purposely hurt his team’s chances at a playoff run by not playing his guys as often as he could. In many cases, this would also hurt their chances at competing next year if the option doesn’t vest and the player then goes elsewhere in free agency.
It’s good they reached a deal. I think it’s unlikely that many of these will vest. It won’t take many missed games or early hooks that might have been smoothed out over a longer season.
@mike156 Why isn’t the reverse true? It doesn’t take more than one stretch of durability or good performance to lock in a vesting option in a short season.
The good news is…..
Jordan Zimmermann does not have a vesting option!
Rockies are really going to need to manage bullpen usage to keep their 3 bad options from vesting. Maybe DFA Davis, Shaw, and McGee after 40 games if they stay healthy — especially if they are out of contention by then which seems likely. And/or use them very sparingly early in the season when the roster is at 30.
If those 3 are still wasting precious payroll space next season, Bridich should be fired.
@ahh You can’t do that, in most cases. You’re not allowed, contractually, to DFA healthy guys to keep their options from vesting.
Thanks, I didn’t know that. Guess if they perform badly they can be DFAd for performance and to give younger guys a look. They did that with Mike Dunn last year, although I don’t know if he had a vesting option.
So will clauses for time spent on an injured list also be prorated? Like in Charlie Morton’s case, if he spends one trip on the IL his option will void I guess
This is exactly the solution just about everyone would have suggested but I guess we can give the league and the union a little credit for negotiating.