Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: This Week In GIFs

SB Nation Neyer's Wire

Ex-Closer Francisco Rodriguez Looking For Relief From Ex-Agents

Did Francisco Rodriguez's ex-agents cost him a great deal of money last year? His current legal representation is doing his best to make that case.

Feb 20, 2012 - Do you remember last season when Francisco Rodriguez got traded to the Milwaukee Brewers, and seemed to think the Brewers were going to give him a chance to earn at least a few saves? You know, just to give John Axford an occasional night off?

Rodriguez, it turned out, didn't earn a single save.

Shortly before getting traded, Rodriguez fired his agents and hired Scott Boras. Now we have a better idea why. According to Rodriguez's counsel, his then-agents told him earlier there was a no-trade clause when there wasn't. USA Today's Bob Nightengale:

Attorney Richard Johnson said Rodriguez was pondering a malpractice or fraud suit after a 10-hour mediation hearing last week with his former agents, Paul Kinzer and Arn Tellem of the Wasserman Media Group, did not produce a settlement. He could file a grievance with the MLB Players Association.

"They did something atrocious," Johnson said. "Their arrogance makes this so evil. It's like rear-ending somebody but instead of stopping your car and trading insurance information they blew up the car and ran away. They committed negligence and turned it into a fraud case."

Rodriguez made $12 million last season in the last year of a three-year contract. But in the absence of any big offers, he accepted arbitration from the Brewers and wound up settling for $8 million this season. So despite pitching well last season, he's taking a serious pay cut. Which can't be a great deal of fun, even when $8 million still buys a fair number of Hummers (and if K-Rod's more of a Prius/Leaf sorta guy, my profoundest apologies).

I'm not saying Rodriguez doesn't have a case; I don't have any idea. But this next bit seems a bit far-fetched, don't you think?

"He's going to lose a lot of money; the question is whether it's seven figures or eight figures," said Johnson, who accused the Wasserman Group of reneging after promising at least $1 million in damages before the mediation hearing. "There's long-term damage to his career. He wasn't even in position to be marketed as a closer last winter. They really (messed) with his career in a monumental way."

What does that even mean, that he "wasn't even in a position to be marketed as a closer"?

The guy's got 291 career saves, and he's only 30. He pitched perfectly well as the Mets' closer for three months, then even better as the Brewers' primary set-up man. There is simply no reason to think he can't still be an effective closer in the major leagues, and it's hard to figure how any front-office executive would think differently.

Rodriguez didn't get any big offers because there were too many relief pitchers on the market this winter; aside from Jonathan Papelbon, there just wasn't a great deal of money out there for closers.

Ryan Madson doesn't have Rodriguez's track record, but he was the better pitcher in 2011 and wound up signing a one-year contract for $8.5 million (with much of that deferred). Heath Bell got three years and $27 million, but that's only because the Marlins are silly. Francisco Cordero was a closer in 2011, and now he's a $4.5 million set-up man.

Which isn't to suggest that Rodriguez might not be making more money in 2012 if he had been a closer throughout the 2011 season. He might be.

But I doubt he'd be making a lot more, considering his baggage and how much the other guys got. And there's no reason to believe that if he pitches well this season, he can't reestablish himself as a closer with another club down the line. Perhaps even this summer, as the Brewers might find their $8 million set-up man a luxury if they're six or eight games off the pace in late July.

Do you like this post?

Head_medium

Rob Neyer

National Baseball Editor

Rob Neyer began his career with legendary baseball author Bill James, and later worked for STATS, Inc. and ESPN.com, writing more words for that website than anyone else. Rob has written or... Read full bio


Comments

Display:

I assume you could make a case

that a no-trade clause in a contract carries an inherent monetary value, i.e. FRod could have sacrificed dollars in the deal assuming he was getting a clause. But as stated in the article I’m not sure that the market supports the claim of lost value with a new contract.

by gator32301 on Feb 20, 2012 12:36 PM EST reply actions  

Seems to me that this is a fairly simple accusation to resolve.

Either Rodriguez has written evidence that he was promised a no-trade clause, or he doesn’t. End of debate.

This part, though,

Boras negotiated a $500,000 payout to eliminate a $17.5 million vesting option in hopes Rodriguez would still be used as a part-time closer

is only true by the barest technicality. Boras’s main incentive to negotiate the buyout was that he didn’t stand to earn any commission on the option, as he hadn’t negotiated it.

Obviously he also hoped that Rodriguez would get some free publicity on SportsCenter in the inevitable last-strike/fist-pumping shot of the highlights package. But Milwaukee wasn’t going to allow the option to vest no matter what. It depended on the number of games Rodriguez finished (not saved; he just needed to be his team’s last pitcher). If Boras didn’t negotiate a buyout, Rodriguez would’ve been nailed to the bench in the ninth no matter the score.

So the Brewers had incentive to ditch the vesting option, too, just in case Axford went down and they had to use Rodriguez to close. Everyone involved was aware at the time of the trade that Rodriguez was there to be a setup man and nothing else. The idea that a team in a pennant race would sit a healthy closer to help Scott Boras make more money in the offseason is beyond silly.

If Rodriguez (and/or Boras) wants to blame someone for costing him “seven or (LOL) eight figures,” he should look at the hothead who broke his pitching hand on a family member’s face.

This quote, I think, comes closest to the truth of the matter:

Bert Deixler, an attorney representing the Wasserman Group, disputed Johnson’s characterization of the events.

“This is a fee dispute,” Deixler said. “The no-trade-list issue is a red herring.”

11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi

by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Feb 20, 2012 2:06 PM EST reply actions  

If

he has a no-trade clause, does he veto the trade from the Mets? And if so do the Mets keep using him as a closer and cause that option to vest?

by Vidor1 on Feb 20, 2012 7:51 PM EST reply actions  

Recalling his pouty comments at the time,

Yes to your first question. As for the second… you’ve seen the headlines; are the Mess in position to spend $17M they don’t have to?

11 01 10
Veni Vidi Vixi

by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Feb 21, 2012 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Yahoo_full_count Yahoo_fantasy_baseball

PHILADELPHIA, PA - Cliff Lee of the Philadelphia Phillies throws a pitch against the Boston Red Sox during the first inning of a MLB interleague baseball game. Lee took the loss as the Red Sox defeated the Phillies 5-1. (Photo by Rich Schultz/Getty Images)

The Good And Winless

Third baseman Chone Figgins of the Seattle Mariners misplays this grounder by Jeff Mathis of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim at Safeco Field on in Seattle, Washington. Figgins was charged with an error on the play. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)

Chone Figgins: M's Won't Play Him, Won't Dump Him

Clearwater FL, USA; Pittsburgh Pirates center fielder Nate McLouth (2) before the game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Bright House Field. Mandatory Credit: Daniel Shirey-US PRESSWIRE

Pirates DFA One-Season Wonder Nate McLouth