Francisco Rodriguez 2012 option questions

[Southcoast]

After the season, Rodriguez agreed not to challenge the team's decision to withhold his salary for the remainder of the 2010 season. In return, the Mets agreed not to seek to convert Rodriguez's contract to a non-guaranteed contract and removed him from the Disqualified List. It’s unlikely the Mets want to allow the 2012 $14 million option to vest. The 2012 option becomes guaranteed with:
 55 games finished in 2011, and
 100 games finished in 2010-11, and
 doctors declare Rodriguez healthy after 2011.
So, what can the Mets really do to limit the amount of games Rodriguez finishes in 2011? He pitched in 53 games in 2010 but I don’t know how many finishes he had. Anyone know?

Will the players union allow the Mets to limit his innings? Can the Mets trade him with this looming 2012 option? (Texas may be in need of a closer.) If the Mets manage to trade him, who takes over? Parnell?
TIA

PS: I am really glad this forum continues on! It's been an awesome information source over the years.

[umjewman]

It's going to be a sticky situation and awfully tough to get around the player's union. My guess is that they start using him in "important situations" which are not necessarily when the closer would typically come in, but probably should. For example, 1st and 2nd, nobody out in the 8th, clean-up hitter coming up - rather than bring in a worse middle reliever, we'll bring in K-Rod to come get out of the jam. Then, Parnell can close out in the 9th against the 7, 8, and 9 hitters.

Either that, or the Mets will just stink so bad that there won't be 55 opportunities for K-Rod to finish out a game.

[Blue&White]

Either that, or the Mets will just stink so bad that there won't be 55 opportunities for K-Rod to finish out a game.

That's where I'd put my money. I also think they are going to actively work to prevent him from getting those 55 finish opportunities. If he goes a few days without a save opportunity, I doubt they will put him to finish a game just to get work like they normally would. His best chance to hit that 55 number is with a trade, which I think is possible. If the Mets really do hold him back, I'm curious as to what the union can really do about it.

As for who gets the job if he goes, tough to say for certain but I'd guess Parnell right now.

[joncarlos]

Yeah, remember that the non-save games that a closer finishes are at the manager's discretion. The players union might throw a fit but it's really hard to believe they can micromanage how a manager uses his closer in non-save situations.

[BuckyBuckner]

So, what can the Mets really do to limit the amount of games Rodriguez finishes in 2011? He pitched in 53 games in 2010 but I don’t know how many finishes he had. Anyone know?

He finished 46 games last year. So he'll need to finish 54 games in 2011, basically the 55 benchmark. If he's his usual self won't be a problem, in the previous 5 years he averaged 61 games finished. But we know he's not really his usual self and the Mets aren't that great of a team.

[Blue&White]

The Mets most surely are good enough to present K-Rod with 55 save opps, imo.

There is no way the Mets are going to have 55 save opps this year. No way, no how, no chance. Unless they come screaming out of the gate and surprise everyone they are going to be in full fire-sale mode by June. Their finances are so messed up that they are going to look to dump Beltran and, if he comes out strong, Reyes before something goes wrong with him. Santana won't be back until the AS break, at the earliest and Pelfrey is simply not a staff ace. They have one lefty arm in the pen (excluding Ollie "uh oh" Perez) who has just been moved to the Pen as a prelude to his being cut from the team. The over/under on this team is 75 wins and I'd take the under.

On your point about bad faith - that's what I'm wondering about. I agree that the union will go bonkers if they feel the Mets just keep him on the bench to avoid paying him but how do you prove it? I bet he comes up short just a few games.

[Erik]

Will there be 55 chances to finish games? Yes. Will there be 55 save opportunities? No. They are not the same thing.

[umjewman]

In my defense, I was joking when I put my alternative that they would suck so bad. But I forgot the wink.

That's not to say I'm knowledgeable or anything. Most would agree, I'm pretty much a moron

[Blue&White]

Only 7 teams did not have 55 save opportunities or more in 2010. The Mets were actually one, with 53. Once again, there is almost NO correlation whatsoever between how good a team is and how many save opportunities that team gets. St. Louis had the least save opportunities in the league by a pretty decent margin. The Royals had the 5th most.

That myth needs to die. At least it should die here, where we have a more knowledgeable fan base than the average place.

We have access to the data. We don't need to throw out baseless opinions when there are facts available.

That is an excellent point and one I had not considered. The Mets offense may be weak enough this year that there are actually plenty of save opportunities. I can easily see them in a lot of close games.

[the heat]

Not all save opportunities are equal.
Save opps after 8 innings or going into the last inning are most likely save opps for the actual closer.
I think save opps for the closer is what Erik was referring to.

[Erik]

Yes, it was. Plenty of scenarios are counted as "save ops" when they have nothing to do with the closer.

ElD is correct, however, in that a defining characteristic of bad teams is that they rarely win blowouts, so most of their wins are in close games that result in save ops.

[Judge Jude]

Dennis Lamp is the only one to have this sort of thing go to arbitration - and he lost:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/the_closing_bell_tkMea1d8xTmpNgYrru467M

"Dennis Lamp had a $600,000 1987 option with Toronto that triggered if he reached a point total based on appearances during the 1985-86 seasons. In 1986, Toronto essentially benched Lamp -- he went 25 days between appearances, for example, in September. He finished just shy of the point total to vest the option.

Nevertheless, arbitrator George Nicolau ruled in favor of the Blue Jays, deeming that Toronto manager Jimy Williams stopped using Lamp based on ability (5.05 ERA in 1986) not contractual considerations."

........

There is a potential problem here - but it isn't the Mets losing a grievance. They won't. K-Rod will just do less "tuneup" duty during a usage lull, which is perfectly justifiable because he sucked in those spots last year anyway iirc. Or the Mets could go to a lefty for the last out vs a lefty who has hit K-Rod well. And so on.

BUT that still may rankle Mets players as well as agents, and the Mets could risk getting on the bad side of both. So if K-Rod stays healthy, this could become a headache - just not a $14 million one.