PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Madson has declined option



RANDY IN INDY
10-31-2012, 10:52 PM
Jon Heyman reporting, but I don't have the link.

Degenerate39
10-31-2012, 10:54 PM
Is he looking for more money after the stellar season he had?

Plus Plus
10-31-2012, 10:56 PM
Heyman says that he wants a job where he's guaranteed to close.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20768529/madson-declines-reds-option-and-will-seek-a-closing-job-elsewhere

Patrick Bateman
10-31-2012, 10:59 PM
Reds held the option.

We were never bringing him back for the incremental 8.5M required to keep a guy coming off TJ surgery. He'd be cray to turn that down. I also doubt someone is going to give him a guaranteed closing position. He's going to have to compete.

Patrick Bateman
10-31-2012, 11:02 PM
IIRC correctly I think it was actually a mutual option. Either way, I would assume the Reds declined, not the other way around.

vic715
10-31-2012, 11:16 PM
IIRC correctly I think it was actually a mutual option. Either way, I would assume the Reds declined, not the other way around.

Quite sure of that,No way he turns down 8.5 mill

mth123
11-01-2012, 03:30 AM
So, if it was a mutual option (it was per Cots), why would the Reds have to "buy out" an option that the player declined? It seems like the Reds would only be on the hook for $2.5 Million if the team was the declining party.

camisadelgolf
11-01-2012, 04:50 AM
So, if it was a mutual option (it was per Cots), why would the Reds have to "buy out" an option that the player declined? It seems like the Reds would only be on the hook for $2.5 Million if the team was the declining party.
Simply put, those are the terms of the contract. Had Madson been eligible for arbitration, the Reds could've offered. There's also the likely possibility that the Reds were planning on turning down the option but let Madson save face by turning it down first. And although Madson might face competition for the closer role elsewhere, his odds are much better if Aroldis Chapman isn't his competition.

jojo
11-01-2012, 05:23 AM
Heyman says that he wants a job where he's guaranteed to close.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20768529/madson-declines-reds-option-and-will-seek-a-closing-job-elsewhere

Does that signal our hopes of Chapman to the rotation are likely to be dashed?

Madson was a great decision that failed miserably. It's big disappointment through really no one's fault. Life happens sometimes.

mth123
11-01-2012, 05:25 AM
Simply put, those are the terms of the contract. Had Madson been eligible for arbitration, the Reds could've offered. There's also the likely possibility that the Reds were planning on turning down the option but let Madson save face by turning it down first. And although Madson might face competition for the closer role elsewhere, his odds are much better if Aroldis Chapman isn't his competition.

Makes sense. I'm not seeing Madson being a big factor in 2013 though. His surgery was in April. Will he even be ready by opening day? Tommy John usually takes 12 to 18 months to get back into pitching in the big leagues and another season or so to get back effectiveness. Some guys have gone faster than that, but if I was given the job of handing out the cash, I woudn't give much guaranteed to a guy coming off Tommy John until the surgery was 24 months or so in the past. I'm glad that the Reds seem to be allowing somebody else to pay for Madson's rehab season. I'd be happy to have him back on a minor league deal that guarantees $1 Million or so with some incentives, but if he's looking for a big league deal for multi-millions guaranteed, I'd just as soon spend that money on somebody who isn't coming off of Tommy John.

Plus Plus
11-01-2012, 09:49 AM
Does that signal our hopes of Chapman to the rotation are likely to be dashed?

Madson was a great decision that failed miserably. It's big disappointment through really no one's fault. Life happens sometimes.

Ahh... that's the real mystery, isn't it? I was wondering the same thing...

However, as camisadelgolf said, it could be a generic excuse and a future plan and nothing more.

klw
11-01-2012, 03:46 PM
Is he looking for more money after the stellar season he had?

Hey he didn't blow a save all year.

Vottomatic
11-01-2012, 10:58 PM
How do guys like Wainwright and Carpenter come back so fast, but it's going to take Madson an entire year?

Brutus
11-01-2012, 11:09 PM
So, if it was a mutual option (it was per Cots), why would the Reds have to "buy out" an option that the player declined? It seems like the Reds would only be on the hook for $2.5 Million if the team was the declining party.

It's a term of the CBA that all options, player, club or mutual, must have a buyout provision.

Brutus
11-01-2012, 11:10 PM
This is absolutely meaningless as to the Reds' intentions. This might be like a Jonny Gomes situation where they feel they can decline the option and bring back the player for less money.

I don't think this gives us any indication as to whether they intend to bring Madson back.

Superdude
11-01-2012, 11:22 PM
This is absolutely meaningless as to the Reds' intentions. This might be like a Jonny Gomes situation where they feel they can decline the option and bring back the player for less money.

I don't think this gives us any indication as to whether they intend to bring Madson back.

That's what I was thinking. It's been obvious that the option wasn't getting picked up for about eight months now. I don't know what remotely contending team is gonna hand him a guaranteed closer spot either, so I'd say there's plenty of room for negotiation here. Typical Boras posturing I think.

mth123
11-02-2012, 04:34 AM
How do guys like Wainwright and Carpenter come back so fast, but it's going to take Madson an entire year?

Wainwright had surgery on February 28, 2011, came back on April 7, 2012 and wasn't really very good until July. If Madson (surgery date 4/11/2012) follows a similar timeline, he'd come back in Mid to late May and spend June, July and into August not being very good. The Reds are in uncharted waters, as far as the payroll goes, with a couple of holes that still need to be filled. They can't really afford to invest in such a questionable proposition, IMO, unless it comes at a really cheap price.

Carpenter's recent injury wasn't Tommy John. Not sure about his missed 2003 season or what the exact dates were.

GAC
11-02-2012, 05:36 AM
We did alright without Madson didn't we? How can a guy, who missed all of 2012 with an elbow injury that required Tommy John surgery, decline $11M for free agency? I guess if he can get more, then more power to him. But let someone else sign him if that is his intention. I think we still have the makings of a solid bullpen. Spend the money elsewhere, where it's needed, and more wisely.

redsmetz
11-02-2012, 08:50 AM
We did alright without Madson didn't we? How can a guy, who missed all of 2012 with an elbow injury that required Tommy John surgery, decline $11M for free agency? I guess if he can get more, then more power to him. But let someone else sign him if that is his intention. I think we still have the makings of a solid bullpen. Spend the money elsewhere, where it's needed, and more wisely.

Keep in mind, the Reds were never going to pick up that option either, so it's not really Madson walking away from that kind of dough. It's really just a formality. I doubt that Madson thinks he'll get that much money, but it's clear he'd like a shot at closing. It's not a given that he would get that here; not just with Chapman's slot unknown, but with the Reds likely to also talk to Broxton more. I also wouldn't rule out that Madson could end up back here on a reduced contract to rebuild his value, especially if he likes the coaching staff, but I would bet on that either.

Plus Plus
11-02-2012, 10:22 AM
Keep in mind, the Reds were never going to pick up that option either, so it's not really Madson walking away from that kind of dough. It's really just a formality. I doubt that Madson thinks he'll get that much money, but it's clear he'd like a shot at closing. It's not a given that he would get that here; not just with Chapman's slot unknown, but with the Reds likely to also talk to Broxton more. I also wouldn't rule out that Madson could end up back here on a reduced contract to rebuild his value, especially if he likes the coaching staff, but I would bet on that either.

Exactly. If it were a player option, you could bet your bottom dollar that we would see Madson back in red in February.

GAC
11-03-2012, 05:49 AM
I'd love to see Chapman given the opportunity to start. He did well in ST, though I don't know, overall, if that's where his talents would be best served (utilized). But I'd like to see.

Vottomatic
11-05-2012, 09:06 AM
If that article by mlb.com is true about Jocketty trying to re-organize the roster to put Chapman in the rotation, then I think re-signing Madson has to be considered. Same with Broxton.

AmarilloRed
11-05-2012, 12:16 PM
I'd say the circumstances that led a Boras client to give a very favorable deal to the Reds won't come around again in FA, but there's no way to know how much the injury will impact Madsen's FA market.