Last winter, right-handed reliever Chad Green signed one of the more convoluted free agent contracts in recent memory. The deal looked simple on the surface – an $8.5MM guarantee over two years – but it came with several options that could pay him as much as $32.25MM through 2026. Green earned $2.25MM during the 2023 campaign, while he spent most of the year on the injured list rehabbing from Tommy John surgery. The Blue Jays always knew he’d miss the first several months of the season, hence his relatively low salary. This upcoming offseason, however, is when things get complicated.
Toronto has a club option for three more years and $27MM (plus up to $1MM in incentives each season). If the Blue Jays do not exercise their first option, Green will have the chance to accept an option of his own, a one-year player option worth $6.25MM (with as much as $2MM in additional incentives). Then, if Green also declines his option, the Blue Jays have a second, less expensive team option for two years and $21MM (again with up to $1MM in incentives each year). Finally, if both sides decline every option, Green will become an unrestricted free agent.
Given how little Green pitched in 2023, it’s hard to imagine the Blue Jays would pick him up for $9MM a year through his age-35 campaign. Then again, the veteran reliever returned from Tommy John on a perfectly normal timeline and looked healthy in September. In other words, he gave the Blue Jays everything they could have expected in 2023, and the team wouldn’t have signed this deal in the first place if they weren’t going to consider the option.
While Green gave up ten runs (seven earned) in only 12 innings of work this season, his underlying numbers were much more impressive. He struck out 16 of the 52 batters he faced and only issued three unintentional walks. His 3.11 SIERA and 2.84 xERA are also promising signs. What’s more, Green was a dominant and durable reliever for several years before he tore his UCL. From 2016-22, he posted a 2.79 ERA and 2.93 FIP in 326 innings of relief. Since his debut season, he ranks 11th among all relievers in FanGraphs WAR. If he returns to form in 2024, a three-year, $27MM deal would seem more than fair. A few comparable relievers signed for more than $30MM last winter, including Kenley Jansen (two years, $32MM) and Taylor Rogers (three years, $33MM).
For those precise reasons, Green is unlikely to accept his $6.25MM player option. If he does hit free agency, all his suitors will have the knowledge that Toronto turned down his services at both three years/$27MM and two years/$21MM. That being said, the market for right-handed relievers isn’t particularly deep, nor is it replete with high-end talent. He’s younger than other guys with a long track record, like Craig Kimbrel and David Robertson, and he’s more experienced out of the bullpen than other high-upside arms, like Jordan Hicks and Reynaldo López. Even if he struggles to find a multi-year offer, Green should be able to beat $6.25MM on a one-year pact. However, if he is worried about his health, it’s possible he could opt for another year of job security with the Blue Jays. Yet, considering his performance in September and October, that doesn’t seem to be a likely concern.
Toronto’s two-year, $21MM club option looks the most likely to be exercised, but at the same time, if the club has enough concerns to turn down the three-year option, perhaps they’re ready to move on from Green entirely. On top of that, while the two-year option is less expensive overall, it comes with a higher annual salary. The Blue Jays ran a payroll relatively close to the first luxury tax threshold in 2023, and they already have several payroll commitments for next season. If they’re looking to make some upgrades this winter without paying the tax, they might actually prefer the longer option with a lower AAV.
So, what do the MLBTR readers think? Will either side pick up an option, or will Green return to the open market? Have your say in the poll below!
(poll link for app users)
I think a 2 year 15-17 million with incentives would be the most prudent. The 1 year deal is a little too low to offset the risk. I believe he will hit free agency.
Or the two sides will find an agreeable midpoint. The “less expensive” team option is still quite pricey.
Yes. That 2 year 15-17 and incentives might even come from the BJ before any option is even opted in/out. For the purpose of the survey. I’d still classify it as “reaching FA”.
I think the two-year, $21MM team option seems like the most likely outcome here. While the three-year option might be a bit too expensive for the Blue Jays, the one-year player option seems low for Chad Green considering his potential. It offers a balance between cost and commitment, and if he performs well in 2024, it’s a win-win for both sides. Plus, the Blue Jays can keep their payroll in check and potentially strengthen their roster without going over the luxury tax threshold. Let’s see how it plays out, but I’m leaning towards the two-year team option.
It’s a higher AAV. I don’t see how 6 million would be a deal-breaker, when the first 2 years aren’t already.
@In Seager/Bauer We Trust
While a higher annual average value (AAV) can be a consideration, it’s also about the total financial commitment and flexibility. The two-year, $21MM team option does come with a higher AAV, but the total commitment is less than the three-year option. For the player, it might mean a potentially higher payday in the following years if he continues to perform well. As for the team, it provides a bit more financial flexibility in the short term. It’ll be interesting to see how the Blue Jays and Chad Green weigh these factors in their decision-making.
It gives them less financial flexibility in the short term as the cost is higher for 2 years, meaning less to spend elsewhere for those 2 seasons.
@Mystery13
While the AAV may be higher for the two-year deal compared to a one-year contract, the benefits of an extended commitment, team control, and continuity with the player can outweigh the marginal difference in AAV. The intent is to secure Green’s services for an extended period while ensuring that the team has a reliable and consistent presence in the bullpen.
I agree, which is why the 3 year deal is the best option for the team and player.
You make a valid point. The three-year deal offers a balance of security for the player and some financial flexibility for the team. It’s a win-win scenario if both sides can agree on the terms. Add in some incentives for the team and it could be beneficial for both sides on the 3-year term.
The contract terms are worked out already. There is no adding incentives now, unless they are completely renegotiating terms
They better exercise the 3 year deal or at the very least renegotiate a contract that works for both sides. His 12 k/9 prove he is still very much a high end reliable relief pitcher. It would make zero sense to pick up the 2 year option at a higher yearly salary. If he continues pitching well and the jays fall out of contention in any of the next 3 seasons, he becomes a good trade candidate
That 12 k/9 came off a very small sample size(12 innings). It’s also highest its been since 2019. He also had highest WHIP of his career, but again a small sample size.
I agree they are better off going with the 3 years lower AAV if they exercise an option, I just don’t put much stock in his #s from last season seeing as it was such a small sample size.
Thats almost as bad as Michael Wacha’s deal with the Padres or Yusei Kikuchi’s original deal with the Mariners
I doubt it’s the 2-year one. Hard to see Green pass up a good payout on a one-year prove-it deal.
All options declined. Welcome back to the Yankees.
Why would anyone willingly move to NYC?
I picked the free agent option, although I don’t believe he’ll be a free agent. The two sides will announce a new deal, but technically he’ll have to trigger the opt out, but it will be announced as a new deal and he’ll never really hit free agency.
If it was you, and the team declines the options, making you a free agent, would you only listen to offers from the team that just cut you? Another team may value you more, or just have more payroll available.
> would you only listen to offers from
> the team that just cut you?
It depends. He has a 1-year $6.25MM option with $2MM in incentives.
If all of the options get declined and TOR offers something like 2/$16MM, he would at least listen. That’s more guaranteed money than 1/$6.25MM to $8.25MM.
That depends on what the Jays’ deadline is to accept their standing offer. They can stipulate that if Green decides to elect for FA, they will pull the contract offer. Just bc you can 5 days after the WS ends doesn’t mean you have to.
This contract is essentially an overly-complicated mutual option, and those very rarely get picked up. So…
No, it’s not at all like that. Mutual options have to be approved by both sides. This is the exact opposite, either side can pick it up without the approval of the other.
And since Green seemed just like his old self in September, there’s absolutely zero chance of the Blue Jays not picking it up at one of the two levels — because they still have the same GM who wrote that contract, and why would he have written those numbers if he thought they were unfair? Most likely Atkins takes the 3 year deal, because after all he did propose it and Green did show that he’s he’s old self (ignore the ERA inflated by his first game back at Coors because you’re paying for future performance not past).
I think its either they pick up the 3 years or he walks.
The Jays should try to re-sign Hicks before they need to decide on Green’s option. If they have Hicks, there is less desperation to keep Green — he is a backup option.
Chad Green is the Yankees equivalent of Drew Smith except a bit better. Both blow almost every close game
When I was reading the article and looking up his stats, etc. I thought that, all the options and variables on this contract aside, a 2 year/$15.5M guarantee w/ $750k a year in incentives and a vesting option at $9M would make the most sense, all things considered. So that’d potentially be 3 years/$26M from 2024-2026; or the equivalent of 28.25M from 2023-2026. That’s not too far off from the total value of the potential 4 year deal they already have in place with Green if they were to pick up that 3 year club option.
Seems to me that this would indicate the Blue Jays might as well activate their 3 year/$27M club option, because since they might be forced to pay him $6.25M now that he’s healthy and his old self or getting very close to his old self, they might wind up wanting to re-sign him to 2 years/$20+M or 3 years/$27+M anyway, so just jump to that conclusion and pick up the 3 year/$27M option and be done with it, have that element of the payroll locked in for calculations for the next 3 years.
4 years/$29.25M to 4 years/$32.25M for an average year of Green’s typical performance is at worst a very fair deal and at best a serious bargain in today’s market.
ALL THAT SAID:
I think they go with both sides declining all the options and wind up re-signing him for 2 years/$18.75M to make it essentially a 3 year/$21M deal.
Why the writer’s claim that the deal was “convoluted”?
It’s a very simple If-Then, If-Then ladder with exactly four main outcomes.
The 2 CLOWNS at the TOP will somehow screw this up….FIRE shapiro AND his carry on baggage atkins…
None. Toronto needs the financial flexibility badly and Green likely believes he can beat 1/$6.5M.
This was a pretty bad deal for Toronto to give out. You knew he was going to barely pitch in 2023 and neither of the team options are particularly cheap.
Today’s market?
You mean spiraling inflation where irresponsible sports writers push the idea of $500,000,000.00 contracts for baseball players?
Irresponsible.
You.mean the new America where a haircut at Supercuts is $23.00?
Greedy people shooting themselves in the foot, thinking they have to be overnight millionaires and have multiple houses, nice vacations each and every year?
Oh……
23,000,000,000.00 in debt but.other countries CAN’T PUBLISH THEIR OWN BONDS TO BORROW MONEY LIKE THEY PRESSURE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO?
Hey, Getting reelected is more important.
Actually I can’t count the zeros…that was only $23 Billion. $23 Trillion is:
$23,000,000,000,000.00
Your great grand children will realize what happened even if we don’t.