Skip to content

Luke Scott’s deal with Rays worth $6 million, with team option for 2013

Jan 12, 2012, 1:14 PM EDT

Luke Scott AP

Luke Scott and the Rays have finalized their one-year deal.

He’ll get $5 million in 2012 and the contract also includes a $6 million team option or $1 million buyout for 2013, which officially makes it a one-year, $6 million deal. There are also some undisclosed incentives built in that could raise the maximum value to $13 million for two years.

Shoulder problems that eventually required surgery limited him to just 64 ineffective games last season, but Scott hit .284 with 27 homers and a .902 OPS in 2010 and carries a very solid .843 career OPS.

He’s a good bounce-back candidate and if healthy would provide a much-needed boost to the middle of the Rays’ lineup, but $6 million in guaranteed money isn’t a particularly huge bargain for a 33-year-old first baseman/designated hitter who won’t be cleared to play the outfield until at least May or June.

  1. franklapidus316 - Jan 12, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    Just my opinion, but you all waste a lot of words on a dying breed of Luddite baseball writers. The greater baseball public is kind of over the whole Roids issue. It was a convenient excuse to hate Bonds…a guy many non Giants fans hated anyway. Is there one *known* roid user since Bonds that’s gotten any excess attention? I strongly doubt we’re going to see many Ryan Braun inspired protests this season. Few fans actually care.

    While we’re on the subject, Will Carroll raises a good point. http://willcarroll.tumblr.com/post/15722338346/the-inside-value

    Why don’t you….and the many others who share your opinions on this work your way into the BBWAA? Its an issue you clearly hold dearly, why not try to affect change from within? I

    • crashdog - Jan 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM

      I will file this under misplaced idiocy

      • Old Gator - Jan 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

        It kinda takes an idiot to misplace idiocy, don’tcha think?

  2. chadh88 - Jan 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM

    And this is relevant to this post how?

    • Old Gator - Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM

      Relevance is the hobgoblin of small minds.
      …Emerson, redacted.

  3. crashdog - Jan 12, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    On a more relevant note. As a Rays fan, I was pleased to hear about this signing this morning. However, this just seems a tad high for this guy. Hope he works out.

    • dan1111 - Jan 13, 2012 at 6:23 AM

      I don’t know why Aaron insisted on repeatedly calling this a “one-year” deal. The option means that the Rays have control of him for two years, while only bearing the risk of paying for one year. The contract makes sense when that is taken into account. It will be a steal of a two-year deal for the Rays if he returns to health.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

When home-field advantage isn't so
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Lincecum (3077)
  2. M. Morse (2557)
  3. M. Bumgarner (2502)
  4. J. Shields (2005)
  5. Y. Cespedes (1661)
  1. H. Pence (1544)
  2. A. Wainwright (1530)
  3. L. Cain (1527)
  4. A. Escobar (1521)
  5. B. Butler (1521)