Dodgers outfielder AJ Pollock is in the midst of one of his best seasons, having posted an excellent .301/.360/.532 batting line with 19 home runs, 27 doubles, a triple and nine stolen bases. That production would position the 33-year-old as one of the best outfielders on the free-agent market this winter, but MLBTR has confirmed that Pollock will fall just a few plate appearances shy of the threshold necessary to trigger an opt-out clause in his deal.
Pollock’s contract, signed in Jan. 2019, was a four-year, $55MM deal that covered the 2019-22 seasons with a player option for a fifth year in 2023. However, the contract also allowed Pollock to opt out of the 2022 season and receive a $5MM buyout if he hit one of two plate appearance milestones: 1450 plate appearances combined from 2019-21 or 1000 combined from 2020-2021.
Last year’s pandemic-shortened season threw a wrench into vesting clauses such as this one, but the league and the players association agreed to prorate plate appearances and innings pitched for the purpose of calculations such as this one. Pollock’s 210 plate appearances last season are thus multiplied by 2.7, meaning they account for 567 plate appearances toward that threshold. (MLBTR’s Anthony Franco explored this possibility when Pollock returned from the IL last week.)
Pollock needed 433 plate appearances in 2021 to unlock that right to opt out, but he’s currently at 408 plate appearances with just four games to play. It’s nearly unfathomable that he’d manage to accumulate 25 trips to the plate in a span of four games. As such, it seems that a pair of hamstring strains for Pollock this season — one in his left leg in May and another in his right leg earlier this month — will cost him the opportunity to return to the open market in advance of his age-34 season.
Pollock will now be under contract for the 2022 season on a $10MM salary, after which he’ll have a $10MM player option or a $5MM buyout. To that extent, he’ll still control his own fate next offseason, but he’ll be doing so when he’s a year older and potentially coming off a weaker performance at the plate. Pollock’s contract does allow him to boost the value of that $10MM option as well; it’d increase by $1MM for reaching each of 400, 450, 500, 550 and 600 plate appearances next season.
Injury prone.
Tell that to the ‘21 Dodgers
They knew he had injury issues. The deal has worked out for them this season but it initially looked like it could turn out to be a bad contract. I’m sure they’re glad to keep him at that price next season withe year he’s just had. I don’t think the Dodgers or anyone would debate the fact that he’s had an injury prone career though.
Breaking both elbows and other bones isn’t injury-prone. It’s bad luck. So, yes, I debate it, along, along with the very notion of professional athletes being injury-prone. The worst, they are in far better shape than any of us.
Some players can arguably be called injury prone if they have a history of recurrent chronic injuries. Acute, in game, and common injuries don’t count as chronic, so as you say, they are mostly the result of bad luck. Pollock has had a lot more than his share of those. Pollock might have had more than his share of in-game injuries resulting from his aggressive playing style, but he’s hardly the only one to play hard, so that’s mostly bad luck too.
Bad luck or not, he’s been injured, hence injury prone. It’s that simple. I’ve been following him a bit because I went to the same high school. Wish all the best.
Honestly, this could be a good thong since the Dodgers are always winning and when he’s on the field, he’s good.
Fine, don’t compare them to, “any of us”, compare them to their peers. What do you get…oh, some players are more prone to injury than other ones? Almost like you could say, some players are injury prone.
AJP has reached 600 PA’s one time in a 9 year career and has dealt with multiple injuries. It’s not much of a stretch to call him injury prone. Very talented player that always winds up missing some time. Just a fact.
If you’re saying some players are prone to bad luck, then I can’t imagine what is left to discuss, because that is a pretty nutty concept.
Agreed. Some people argue to argue. AJP has been a good Dodger. Glad he’ll return for another season. All he does is rake in the clutch! Good time to be hot.
“All he does is rake in the clutch”
Dave Roberts doesn’t agree, he has sat Pollock healthy the last 2 years in the playoffs when healthy numerous times
What is it with Mets fans…definitely slow and rode the short bus…
That’s a win for the Dodgers, given how well he has played this year.
If I was him I’d have the Union investigate whether or not this was a planned scenario within the organization to not have him get to that milestone. But I guess having to “settle” for $10 million isn’t that big of an issue.
Riiiight… the Dodgers “planned” a couple hamstring strains just to keep AJ from opting out.
The Dodgers are two games back of the Giants in the NL West. When two games is the difference between a sudden-death, Wild Card playoff and a best-of-five series, they’re not going to hold one of their best hitters on the IL to keep him at a lower rate for next year.
Pollock would probably be the first to tell you, “I got hurt, it’s on me.” Part of the reason a vesting clause like this was baked into the deal in the first place was durability concerns, I’m sure. Pollock only played inn 62% of possible games with the D-backs in the six years leading up to his free agency.
If he triggered his opt-out, what would his value be on the open market? Its three years later after his initial 4/55 deal, and the only thing he’s shown consistently is an inability to stay on the field.
“If he did trigger” it should read…. yes, i read the article and know its not possible.
Pollock had a 106 wRC+ in the two years leading up to his first free-agent deal. He’s at 136 in 2020-21.
Besides, the 4/55 is irrelevant at this point. He’d be opting out of 2/20 and getting a $5MM buyout to do so. All he’d need to be assured of beating is two years and $15MM, which he’d do with ease. Michael Brantley just got 2/32 with no CF ability when he was a year older than Pollock will be this winter.
(Edit: I had Brantley’s age wrong. It’d be the same age. Point still stands — Pollock could’ve topped 2/15 with ease.)
33 year old injury prone corner Outfielder with decent pop when healthy? Probably not much more than the $10 million he’ll be paid next year anyway
Brantley is lefthanded and has hit over .300 in five of the past 6 seasons in which he was mostly healthy. I do agree that 2/15 is an easy get but can’t see anyone going much over that
Brantley is a much better hitter and while Pollock “can” play CF he’s pretty much a LF right now. Weak hamstrings too so you’re probably going to get a hamstring strain or two during the season. That said, he’s had a great year at the plate.
That would make Brantley more valuable compared to Pollock IF Pollock did NOT have solid numbers against both RHP and LHP.
A likely scenario would be AJ getting similar money to Brantley if he were able to opt out. As SFG won the series, I don’t think a one game playoff(to give Pollock extra PAs) is a possibility(unless I’m mixing up FLB and MLB tiebreaker rules).
The expiring CBA is a huge wild card into any possible offseason negotiation.
Pollock did not have solid numbers against both LHP and RHP? You’re right…he was much better vs RHP. His batting average was two points higher and he hit 12 HR against them instead of 7, but he did have 252 at bats vs RHP vs 120 against LPH.
Game 163 stats are regular season stats and count. Soooo, if they are lucky and get to a Monday game, he “could” make it?
You missed the IF in the sentence. Pollock has been been solid against pitchers from both sides for most of his career.
You’re mixing up your rules. Dodgers went 13-7 against the Rockies in 18, but played out the game 163.
Yes-I had forgotten the tiebreaker rules for actual MLB. 3 games to go, it would be fun to see game 163. Perhaps that gives Pollock an opt out chance and possibly a tad more flexibility on the LAD end.
Pollock will be on my All Silenced-the-Critics Team. The selections were largely influenced by comments made in this forum over the winter.
Will Justin Turner?
You championed not bringing him back dozens of times in here preseason?
No @paddy, it wouldn’t be fun to watch game 163!!!! Not at all (admittedly, I am biased).
I want to watch the WC game between the Dodgers and the Cards stress-free as that is not what watching games for the past two weeks has been for me. I need at least one stress-free games before the playoffs!!!
Totally not like he hasn’t had countless injuries in the past.
Countless? Maybe if you can’t count up to 5 or so?
That’s part of the deal, the team controls the batting order. Don’t sign a contract with a threshold and fall short and complain.
This place is a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists nowadays
Well, it is a comment section on the interwebs.
You’re just saying that because the Rothschilds are using the 5G microchip in your vaccine to control your brain.
He’s made of glass. Even if the Dodgers had not conspired against him he was going to miss time anyways since he’s made of cottage cheese.
I thought he was made of glass…
Seriously? Lol ⚾️
These boards need both an upvote and an eye-roll button.
Lmao. The only thing that prevented him from getting the option was him being stupid on the bases
Dumb. He came back 2 games early from the hamstring injury.
Here is a shot in the dark. Extend him three years at 17 million per, if he will agree to opt out after next season. The only reason I wouldn’t say 20 million is due to recurrent hamstring injuries. This season might be a unicorn.
So he opts out before he gets to the 3 years at 17 per…. What’s the point?
I don’t get it either, do they mean for him to agree to opt out and then sign him at 17M a year
No, please NO
Would a potential Game 163 impact this?
A game 163 would be considered part of the season.
Yes
Yep. It would give him 5 games to gather the last plate appearances he would need. 5 per game average is better than closer to 6.
There won’t be a game 163!!!!! (Pleeeease)
We should all be dealt such devastating news.
Huge break for the Dodgers. Pollock has been fantastic for them despite many not liking the signing
Solid article and a lucky break for LAD
He gets those abs his agent has a great deal of leverage- I don’t think he deserves an extension but his agent would have used that leverage-
He’s been great this season but he’s still hasn’t done a thing for us in the postseason over the duration of the contract or stay healthy enough to want to extend him past 35
Camp, if he is healthy next year and plays reasonably well, he will not exercise his player option and he become a free agent at the end of 2022. But in closely reviewing his stats he is beyond accident prone. His first year with the Dodgers (2019) he played in less than 90 games. Last year he played almost the entire season and hit 16 fingers. Very good year. This year he will play in less than 120 games but he is having a very very good year. In AZ he missed a lot of games.
I would still gamble though.
2019 he missed because of an infection in his elbow from his old D’back elbow injury, it was a freak injury that occured when he got a scratch on his elbow where he had a plate put into his elbow. Who gets a massive infection inside their elbow? That’s a freak injury that cost him 74 games. His 146 games he missed with the D’backs with the broken elbow was another freak injury, a previous surgery in his elbow had installed a plate, a screw in the plate had broken causing the bone to actually never fuse, he broke the elbow in a dive into home plate. Those are freak injuries not indications of being injury prone, the only other long duration injury is a broken thumb that he broke diving for a ball, his glove got caught in the grass causing it to bend back and break. Other than that he has had three trips to the IL in 10 MLB seasons, two this year for his hamstring, and one for a groin injury 5 years ago.
Neither has Bellinger nor, until last year, Seager. In 2019, neither of those golden boys droved in a run in the playoff series against the Nats. They were historically bad in the post-season. Meanwhile, Kershaw…well, you know. Yet for some reason, fans made Pollock the scapegoat. It’s one of the worst aspects of sports fans. Blaming one player for losing a game or series. It’s bullying, actually. A bunch of knuckleheads getting together on chat boards and deciding which player to pick on. Have these people learned anything from Bill Buckner?
He rode the pine for half of his LAD playoff starts thus far even when healthy
I wouldn’t call it bullying, more just observation and frustration Id assume
Nee the who Im very Happy his agent is left dry w no leverage today – AJ has back taxes still to pay before we think about extending him out further on goodwill
Needs 25 PA’s in 4 games. Either needs a lot of extra innings or the Cubs to come to town.
Dodgers and Pollock have plenty of money, so I doubt either outcome would be particularly devastating to either party. This is just a quirky stat.
Exactly! He’d surely do better on the market but he hasn’t done awful. At 33, my guess is he’d take less to go to a contender. I doubt either side is particularly broke up over this.
The Dodgers are often considered to be a contender…
Yeah, I meant that to include them. I was saying it from the angle of if he could have opted out and been a FA he probably wouldn’t be hunting for max dollars in say Pittsburgh over staying in LA or going to another contender
Bargain at that price!
Not sure I would want to be on the hook for another $10 million for him.
I bet the Dodgers front office will be happy to welcome him back on that.
They’ve given Cuban guys 8 digit contracts, who never make the majors.
Chris Taylor potentially leaving, makes AJ’s right handed bat even more valuable to LA.
Especially in the outfield.
The guy has been 30% better than league average, according to OPS+.
Wtf does 7 year old contracts for people who never played in the majors have anything to do with how the dodgers will spend pre 2022??
Previous history can be indicative of current sentiment.
A child should be able to understand why spending more money on riskier players would make them more comfortable to spend less on a safer bet.
It being long ago makes it even more likely, the way salaries and payroll increases.
You’re smarter than that b4McCourt.
Again, You’re taking spending from 7 years ago when new owners 1. Had just taken over and were trying to rebuild the pipeline with money and 2. Rules were about to change. Those factors led them to spend big, as much as who they were signing. They signed the best available at that moment, essentially. They spent because they could. IFA spending to beat a rule change nearly a decade ago has no bearing on AJ Pollock’s contract situation. Cmon
You trying to make this an intelligence attack is honestly laughable. You’re trying to mix two very distant parts of the budget and then you basically call me a fool. Yeah, I’m the fool for thinking Erisbel Arruebarrena‘s career’s failure does not impact AJ Pollock. Sure man
The 2/20 left is more than fine…the leverage his agent would have been granted {could} have been a potential problem – Im glad we will never know
Dudes locked right now tho no doubt-
Quiet feet and keeping that front shoulder engaged like prime Miggy or Edgar Martinez from the right hand side – His front shoulder is so powerful when he’s in balance; very similar to current Mike Trout in those regards
Cap it is not truly 2/20. The last year is a player option. If he performs next year like he has the last two, he will get a lot more than 10 Million in 2023.
The way the options works ($10M player option and $5M buyout), he likely opts out if he’s still worth $5M on the player market in 2023. This is why it might be wise for the Dodgers to buy out his options now and extend his contract for another year, say 3/25.
Aware of the contract remaining 1958
Blue Skies – Yes something in that range would be ok…but if the agent had leverage I highly doubt we would get something that friendly…that’s my point
Id 100% rather Pollock opt out in 23 than throw a barrel of money at him in his age 35, 36, 37 years
We gave him a huge contract…we are allowed to enjoy a little surplus value in yr 3 of 5 without being put back over the ringer …lord knows year 1 and 2 weren’t so kind
My point being, at age 37 he’s unlikely to command as much as he is being paid now, and if he is able to play beyond that point it probably won’t be on a multiyear contract. The Dodgers have a pretty strong incentive to buy him out of that opt-out if they can, with the difference between him being paid to play and paid to go away being only $5M.
That’s a modest sum for a large market team like LA. It’s hardly something to stress over. If he gives you 1 WAR (and he will), he’s basically worth the contract. I don’t understand all the trepidation and handwringing in this comment section over this.
.301/.360/.532 batting line with 19 home runs, 27 doubles, a triple and nine stolen bases.
Yeah what a bum! DFA HIM NOW AND BRING BACK RALEY! /s
Cry me a river.
If he were upset about this, he can blame his agent for not negotiating a more attainable goal for him.
As luck would have it, he has never had 1000 plate appearances over any two seasons, not 1450 over three seasons. He’s never cleared 950/2 or 1350/3.
I doubt he’s upset over it. His original contract was right in line with general expectations and gave him some additional leverage in the event that he enjoyed a nice (albeit unprecedented) run of health. He fell a little shy of the opt-out, and he’ll play next season on a nice salary with a contender before having a player option for 2023. Not a whole lo to gripe about for him.
Very well said Mr. Adams
Think that’s the best way to sum this contract up
You know sports salaries are ridiculously out of control if $10 million for one season of baseball isn’t considered much. (Yes, it’s even worse in the NBA, where you can get $10 million just for not tripping over the painted lines on the floor.)
They generate billions. They get paid.
Sports salaries are out of control, but sports profits are not?
Only in NY and LA could you say that profits are out of line. But there are ways to remedy that!
Introduce an expansion team in those markets OR increase the luxury tax! Somehow, I’d guess most Dodger fans would NOT be in favor of doing either of these!
The sport is profitable (with the possible exception of last season). The problem is the distribution of the profits is lopsided, mostly due to the outsized value of media rights in the big markets. The CBT keeps getting raised and that doesn’t seem to have much impact. The rich teams just pay it, and the disadvantaged teams on the receiving end don’t have to spend it.
A lot of things could be done to fix this, if MLB had the will, but I’ve never seen any collective will on the part of ownership except to keep player salaries from eating up more of their profits. I also don’t know about “most Dodger fans” nor do I see why it matters if fans are in favor of anything, but this Dodger fan has always said the revenue distribution system needs to be fixed. I realize this would not be to the advantage of the Dodgers and the other large-market teams, but the way it works now is bad for the game, and the game is what I care about first and foremost.
Milla only LA and NY? Explain to me how a team like the Marlins,reportedly purchased in 2002 for less than 160 million, were sold for 1.2 Billion.
Im 100% with ya Blueskies even tho it would effect our team the most
Who knows what the next CBA will hold tho
**The Rays are actually bad for baseball IMO despite have some golden gooses in the front offices. They are just as big of a problem as teams like the Yankess and Dodgers, hell id say even worse
I 100% agree with Blue Skies as well. It’s also definitely refreshing to hear that from a Dodger fan who knows it would lower his teams payroll in the immediate future. The only thing I’m wondering though is if he realizes it’s the players that are adamantly against profit distribution. I happen to think it works really well for the NFL. The players association refuses to accept any deal that offers that because they view it as a form of salary cap. Regardless of the size of the slice of the pie the players get they always turn it down because they want to be able to have some of there top players take in those $40 million AAV and/or $400+ million contracts all fully guaranteed all at the same time. If the players offered distribution owners would jump at it. In the NBA players can make much higher AAV’s. I think Stephan Curry just got a 4 or 5 year deal which pays him over $54 million a year. They have max length contracts to go along with that though. No NBA player has ever received a single contract which guaranteed them even $260 million. The top players actually do better that way because they pull off about 2 or 3 of those contracts in their careers. In the NFL they get huge contracts at the top. Patrick Maholmes has a contract for over half a billion dollars. In the NFL though if you fall apart as a player and become terrible your team can cut you and only pay the guaranteed portion of your contract instead of all of it. It’s still a lot but it helps out enough so that if a player like Maholmes suffers a career ending injury this Sunday it won’t ruin the entire Kansas City Chiefs franchise for an entire decade. It will hurt them but there is still at least a visible light at the end of the tunnel. MLB players want it both ways and every which way. Super high AAV contracts like Bauer. Super long massive contracts like Trout, Betts, Lindor, etc. On top of that they want it all guaranteed. They want more money per year than football players. They want way more total money than basketball players and they want it all fully guaranteed with no safety net for the team that signs them. They also want to refuse any type of profit sharing or hard salary cap both of those leagues have. It’s just a mathematical fact of life that they are going to have to force some of their younger or weaker players to sacrifice a lot more than the other leagues if they want their top players to get all that unprecedented leverage. Profit distribution is the absolute best plan. The owners offered the players that. Right now owners make about 52% of the profit while players make about 48%. The owners offered to profit distribute and give the players a raise to make it 50/50. The players turned that offer down immediately because it’s “too much like a salary cap.” If they are that stubborn about all those things no other athletes get they are going to have to give things up in other areas those other athletes don’t. It’s just the nature of business. I have no problem with great players making tons of money. I do feel bad for fans when they are stuck with bad players eating a ton of their teams payroll percentage though. People also love to point how much the owners have to spend by looking at their net worth. They don’t always realize most of that net worth is frequently tied up in the estimated value of the franchise which they can’t sell and keep at the same time. That would literally be an owner leveraging his own team just to make the cost of running that team more expensive. That is a terrible business decision. Never leverage the team if what you want to do is help it. A lot of these guys bought their teams for a couple hundred million dollars and don’t have anywhere near the kind of liquid cash laying around to raise the payroll people think they do. It’s all tied up in the value of the team. They won’t get all that money until they sell the team and at that point they are out and the next owner has the same problem. That’s not the case for all owners of course but just looking at what Forbes says an owner is worth and demanding they use that money to raise payroll makes no sense because the money is already tied up in the value of owning the team as an asset. As soon as they lose the asset it won’t matter if they have the money because they won’t own the team to be the guy that raises payroll anymore anyway. I do like the profit distribution like the NFL does but it’s the players who are against it. The owners love it.
He and his agent negotiate the terms of his contracts, so there should be little sympathy for him falling short of the threshold for an opt out… MLB regularly hands out ridiculous money to players that never earn what they are actually paid
Who’s asking for sympathy? Pollock certainly isn’t, and I didn’t frame things as such. No one’s seeking sympathy for Pollock — but it’s still newsworthy that he’s all but assured to remain locked into this contract when he could have easily secured more in free agency had he been able to opt out.
Good article, Steve. You gave us a straight forward article and it is appreciated. I’m not sure where people get the idea that controversy is brewing. Fans often read unwritten words when it becomes convenient for needless debate.
Tough break for Pollack, but that happens. There was a time when a club would give in to a borderline contract situation, but that seldom happens anymore. If Pollack was complaining, I am sure he would have contacted both his union and agent to get something done.
The other possibility is with the Dodgers having some contract leverage they could find a way to extend him.
Sorry Steve, I am not attacking you or the worthiness of the article… My criticism is for the absurdity of the contract and the thresholds for an opt out…. My frustration is for the business of the sport and the power granted to the players
Let him opt out anyway. I think the Dodgers can find a younger and better player for the coming years
Garry, no need to let him opt out. They have him locked up no matter what and it is a team friendly contract for the Dodgers, makes sense to keep him another year. It will give the Dodgers one more season to find a younger replacement. It will give Pollack a chance to prove he is worthy of a new contract. For us, $10M is a ton of money. For MLB teams, it is more like chump change.
The reverse of car warranties…a few hundred miles over and “suddenly” the car has issues. In this case the Dodgers were smart enough to calculate his potential availability due to his injury history.
Well that’s not a bad consolation prize, $10M guaranteed to return to arguably the best team in the whole league.
Andriese landed a major league contract with Seattle not long after but was let go after just eight outings as a Mariner…..
Yeah. Some people like to have the “what specifically qualifies as injury prone” debate. I guess it could be a matter of opinion but also not really at the same time. If someone spends more time than the average MLB player on the injured list they could be called injury prone. The Dodgers specifically made Pollock’s contract the way it is because they believe he is injury prone. I could maybe see a guy whose only spent multiple stints on the IL due to a hit by pitch as more bad luck than anything but technically even that could be considered injury prone. Pollock’s definitely had soft tissue injuries though. He had multiple hamstring injuries this season alone and those are frequently nagging. I think trying to debate whether or not Pollock is injury prone is pretty futile. The vast majority of people in MLB would very likely say he has spent way more than his share of time on the injured list and that by definition can be considered injury prone. Even Steve Adams pointed out that Pollock himself would probably say it. I’m not sure where all this denial about him being injury prone is coming from.
Sucks but baseball contracts are not football contracts so no renegotiation. Guess he will have watch his money in retirement. Maybe drive the Corvette instead of the Bentley.
Poor guy has to get by on 10 mil next year.