Andy MacPhail Going to Phix the Phillies (Team President After the Season)

[weams]

Andy would be a good choice for the Phillies, who need a decisive sell-off. I can't believe they've waited this long to get someone in there. Still, if you look at the Phillies' roster, their days of huge payroll commitments are almost over. The only players who are locked in for next year are Hamels (through 2018 with an option for 2019), Howard (through 2016 with an option for 2017), and Ruiz (through 2016 with an option for 2017). Lee ($25 mm), Utley ($15 mm), Papelbon ($13 mm) and a few lesser contracts are coming off the books this winter. No reason the Phils couldn't make a fairly quick turn around.

Utley has two options.

[crowmst3k!]

He is going to try to get a Bedard-like haul for Hamels.

That's really the only step to take for them right now. The Phillies are beyond needing a fire sale.

[weams]

Papelbon has a vesting option that is vesting I think.

2016 option guaranteed with 55 games finished in 2015 or 100 games finished in 2014-15

[Redskins Rick]

Papelbon has a vesting option that is vesting I think.

Toronto was rumored to be in the Papelbon market.

Jason Stalk thinks it might be the A's or the Reds.

[Frobby]

2016 option guaranteed with 55 games finished in 2015 or 100 games finished in 2014-15

But can the player opt out of a vesting option? Papelbon doesn't want to be there and my guess is he'd reject the vesting option if he can. As to Utley, it looks like his 2016 option will vest (500 PA needed, and he has 228 already).

[weams]

Ruiz is through 2016.

[weams]

But can the player opt out of a vesting option? Papelbon doesn't want to be there and my guess is he'd reject the vesting option if he can. As to Utley, it looks like his 2016 option will vest (500 PA needed, and he has 228 already).

I do not think so.

And Yes, Utley is year by year at 500. For a while.

[weams]

From MLBTR

Vesting/Club Options

A common variation on the club option contains vesting provisions that allow the option year to become guaranteed upon the fulfillment of certain milestones. Given the MLB’s constraints on permissible metrics for conditioning contracts, vesting provisions (like incentive clauses) generally rely upon accumulation of innings, games finished, or plate appearances rather than tying directly to performance.

Risks And Benefits

Adding a vesting provision to a club option obviously tilts things back in the direction of the player. Though teams still have control over playing time, and thus have the ability to prevent an option from vesting, the team also has countervailing incentives to allow the player to achieve the vesting clause.

Among them, of course, is that the team wants to benefit from the player’s performance — so long as it is beneficial. And teams must be careful to avoid overt measures designed to avoid triggering a vesting clause, as they could hypothetically run the risk of a grievance action.

From a player’s perspective, a vesting clause may provide some protection against being overused and then left to navigate a skeptical open market. It also can pass some upside to the player that rewards for past performance, rather than paying for anticipated future performance. In short, a vesting clause can open up an avenue to a sizeable, one-year payday that might not have been available through free agency. (For instance, Bobby Abreu played every day in 2011 at replacement level, leaving the Angels on the hook for $9MM when his option vested. He had 27 plate appearances for the Halos in 2012.)

Age is a notable factor of vesting/club options. Though several players have agreed to extensions that include vesting/club options, only two – Madison Bumgarner and Elvis Andrus – have done so with less than five years of service time.

Recent Usage

Clearly, the dataset is fairly sparse, especially with respect to extension situations. (Remember, of course, that there are additional vesting/club option scenarios from the 2007-08 through 2012-13 period that have yet to reach fruition.)

FA Vest options

Ext vest options

All said, vesting/club options look roughly as likely to be triggered as are club options, albeit by vesting rather than club choice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when players fail to play enough (and/or well enough) to cause the option to vest, teams have been uninterested in nevertheless taking on the obligation. This confirms the findings of MLBTR's Zach Links, who broke down recent vesting provisions using a slightly different dataset.

Of course, every vesting situation is different, making it difficult to draw conclusions about general expectations for how likely a given clause is to vest. Some — like Justin Verlander’s 2020 option (vests at $22MM with top-5 Cy Young vote from prior season) — are tied expressly to outstanding performance. Then, there are option provisions that are heavily tied to opportunity and are readily susceptible to control by the team, as in the example of games finished, a common vesting provision for relievers. Though not a vesting situation, Jose Veras's 2014 club option increased in value – and, somewhat surprisingly, was ultimately not exercised — when the Tigers let him finish a meaningless game in a non-save situation late in the year.

Still other vesting/club options are tied mostly to the ability to stay on the field. In some cases — such as the 2014 option of Roy Halladay, which did not vest when he failed to throw 415 innings across 2012-13 — the contract sets aggressive bars that require health and excellence to be reached. Alternatively, playing-time goalposts can be designed primarily to protect the team against major injury or performance issues. For instance, the Phillies' Jimmy Rollins has a 2015 option that vests with 1,100 plate appearances over 2013-14, and turns into competing club and player options — you might label it a "cross option" — if it does not vest. Likewise, teammate Chase Utley's deal includes a series of three vesting/club options that spring to life with 500 plate appearances; if those options do not vest, they become club options with values that vary based on how much time Utley spent on the DL in the prior year.

Nevertheless, the numbers confirm what is generally understood: in exchange for allowing players the ability to play their way into additional guaranteed money, teams generally set demanding vesting levels that are infrequently met. It is somewhat curious, however, that the option values are generally not also dropped to a level that would leave them still attractive to teams in the event that the option does not vest. Viewed this way, while vesting/club options theoretically carry countervailing benefits and risks, it appears that they have been implemented mostly as a hard-to-reach, pure player benefit over recent years.

The Rollins and (especially) Utley contracts, however, look to be instances where an alternative purpose was being served by a vesting/club option. In both cases, it is not difficult to imagine a reasonable scenario where the Phillies exercise the option even if it does not vest. This is particularly so with regard to Utley, since the value of the club option floats downward based on time spent on the DL and because the club would lose its future option rights by declining. It will be interesting to see whether those models are emulated in the future, especially for excellent-but-aging veterans in the clone of the Philly middle infield duo.

[Art Wing]

Where does "Dukie" want to go? Because the Toronto option is closed. Possibly from both sides.

Why is that? I haven't been following the situation that closely since the season started. I just assumed Duq was as good as gone after this season. Please fill me in compadre.

[ShaneDawg85]

He is going to try to get a Bedard-like haul for Hamels.

That's really the only step to take for them right now. The Phillies are beyond needing a fire sale.

They needed a 2000 Orioles fire sale 2-3 years ago, but just like that Orioles team, they waited 2-3 years too late. Fortunately for them, if it is MacPhail, there's no humanly way possible he'd Sid Thrift the rebuild.

[Redskins Rick]

They needed a 2000 Orioles fire sale 2-3 years ago, but just like that Orioles team, they waited 2-3 years too late. Fortunately for them, if it is MacPhail, there's no humanly way possible he'd Sid Thrift the rebuild.

What the sam heck are you talking about?

Post season visits in 2012 and 2014, and dang close in 2013.

[hoosiers]

Amaro just wrecked that franchise. Unbelievable. If AM gets hired, it would be interesting to see how closely he sticks to the blueprint with the Os or if he makes a better effort with better free agents.

Separately, but speaking of wrecked franchises, I am still trying to figure out why Cleveland has Shapiro around.

[DrungoHazewood]

What the sam heck are you talking about?

Post season visits in 2012 and 2014, and dang close in 2013.

What are you talking about? He said the Phils needed to firesale/rebuild in the mold of the 2000 Orioles, but three years ago.

[Redskins Rick]

What are you talking about? He said the Phils needed to firesale/rebuild in the mold of the 2000 Orioles, but three years ago.

My apologies to the OP, and agree.

For some reason, I thought it was a reference to here.

[Crazysilver03]

Andy would be a good choice for the Phillies, who need a decisive sell-off. I can't believe they've waited this long to get someone in there. Still, if you look at the Phillies' roster, their days of huge payroll commitments are almost over. The only players who are locked in for next year are Hamels (through 2018 with an option for 2019), Howard (through 2016 with an option for 2017), and Ruiz (through 2016 with an option for 2017). Lee ($25 mm), Utley ($15 mm), Papelbon ($13 mm) and a few lesser contracts are coming off the books this winter. No reason the Phils couldn't make a fairly quick turn around.

I think there is a chance Utleys contract vests for next year. They aren't benching him enough to avoid it yet.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk