Skip to content

Red Sox could non-tender Andrew Bailey

Nov 30, 2013, 11:00 PM EDT

Andrew Bailey AP

Reliever Andrew Bailey‘s days with the Red Sox could be numbered. After moving to Boston in the Josh Reddick deal with the Athletics prior to the 2012 season, Bailey has made just 49 appearances in his two seasons with the Sox. He missed most of the 2012 season with a thumb injury, then had his 2013 season end abruptly to undergo surgery to repair labrum and capsule damage in his right shoulder.

Bailey is now eligible for arbitration for his third and final year, projected to take home a salary north of $4 million. As a result, the team could opt not to tender him a contract for the upcoming season, suggests Brian MacPherson of the Providence Journal. Bailey would enjoy continuing his career with the Red Sox, though he realizes that may not be possible:

“I’ll just wait and see,” he said. “Hopefully something will get worked out. If they take me through arbitration or not, I love the city, love the area, love the guys, and it’d be great to get the opportunity to play there again.

“I’d love to be back with Boston. I don’t really know what’s out there for me. In my mind, we’re going through arbitration until I’m notified otherwise. If that scenario happens, I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m a Red Sox. I haven’t even though about those scenarios yet. Until something is on the table, you try not to think about it.”

Bailey is expected to miss the first half of the season. Meanwhile, the Red Sox were happily surprised from a number of their bullpen pieces throughout the 2013 season, namely Koji Uehara, Junichi Tazawa, Craig Breslow, and Andrew Miller. While a healthy and productive Bailey would be an asset, the Red Sox have enough talent in their bullpen to move on and not have to make a $4 million gamble on a reliever heading into his 30’s.

  1. tfbuckfutter - Dec 1, 2013 at 12:51 AM

    First….the headline contains a massive typo. Someone hit the “c” key when they meant to hit the “s” and “h” key.

    Second, I have asked this before and no one has given me a satisfactory response…..I understand the arbitration system when a player outperforms his value and deserves a raise….but someone PLEASE explain to me how a combination of being awful, ineffective and/or injured someone equates to earning MORE MONEY via the arbitration system?

    How can arbitration only work entirely in one direction?

    • tuberippin - Dec 1, 2013 at 2:19 AM

      They should just call it the “scheduled raise system” because that’s essentially what it is.

      • mariagjones - Dec 1, 2013 at 2:44 PM

        my best friend’s aunt makes $78 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her check was $15766 just working on the laptop for a few hours. look at here…..

        =======>>,,,,, ℭort.as/6lNW

    • quintjs - Dec 1, 2013 at 2:45 AM

      Its the stupid baseball rules of 40/60/80% of market value for the final years of team control. Its the same old baseball pay system designed to pay players the least when they are the most productive (and vise versa). He basically gets a payraise because he was that underpaid when he was healthy and productive.

      The best way to end big free agent deals on declining players is to end or at least modify this system to pay players more when they are under control, thus leaving less money to waste on ineffective free agents. (I am sure the Yankees would have been more comfortable paying Cano 160m for the last 7 years than the next 7).

      • dan1111 - Dec 1, 2013 at 3:16 AM

        Teams invest large amounts of money in prospects, in terms of signing bonuses and paying for their minor league development. There is quite a lot of risk in this, with many players never working out. That is one reason why they get team control at a reduced price.

        Even if the draft did not exist, you would likely see young players signed to similar value contracts, where the team pays a fairly low salary through the player’s development and early MLB years. The top prospects would get much higher salaries, but I don’t think it would change things as much as you think for most players. Indeed, some players would make significantly less without the current system.

      • quintjs - Dec 1, 2013 at 6:07 AM

        dan, I know i said ‘end’ the system in the above post but that was me probably just getting excited. Probably not end, but I believe modify would be better. Teams get 6 years of player control, that is a good reason to invest in younger talent. Players become free agents as they start to decline, that is a good reason to invest in younger players. Younger players are probably more marketable as new and different attracts attention, that is a reason to invest in younger players. Teams do not need them to be as cheap as they are to invest in younger players. How about instead of 3 years minimum and 3 years at 40/60/80% of market, you have 2 years min, and a 40/60/80/100 system for the remaining four years (kinda like making every player a Super Two)

        It would reward more players with more dollars, reduce huge free agent deals (less money available) and move money from under-performing veterans to young, productive players. I also don’t believe it would create any incentive not to draft well and sign young talent.

  2. xpensivewinos - Dec 1, 2013 at 1:56 AM

    The answer is quite simple.

    Break out your abacus and I’ll walk you through it.

    Baseball’s salary structure is COMPLETELY F***ED UP! It’s a pathetic joke and until a salary cap is implemented, worthless stiffs are going to make way too much money just cuz they can. They don’t deserve the money, they’re certainly not worth the money, but they’re simply within a system that allows it.

    If all the die-hard fans who refuse to believe their sacred game is thoroughly damaged, just think about the fact that Tim Lincecum was just signed to a 2-year/35 million dollar contract. For the past two years he couldn’t get little leaguers out and was actually removed from their rotation when a guy making that much money probably should be an ace, right?

    Insane……

    • dan1111 - Dec 1, 2013 at 3:08 AM

      The Lincecum deal is rather insane, but it says more about the Giants than it does about baseball.

      Players make so much money because so many fans pay to see baseball, and they are willing to pay more to see a team that is better. This creates a huge demand for the services of the best players.

      Salary caps are great if you: 1) think redirecting that money to the owners makes sense, because they are so much more deserving; and 2) want to see a strike or lockout threatened every time the agreement comes up for renewal. Personally, I think MLB really dodged a bullet in not implementing a cap. Athletes in all of the other sports still make loads of money anyway.

      • sfbookreviews - Dec 1, 2013 at 5:45 AM

        “Salary caps are great if you: 2) want to see a strike or lockout threatened every time the agreement comes up for renewal.”

        Not to be a jackass, but without a salary cap MLB (since 1968) has seen 5 player strikes and 3 lockouts (not to mention numerous threats of more of each). And we lost a World Series.

        So, you may have a point with number 1, but number 2 is pure bunk. You need to rethink that and come up with a better second point.

  3. pastabelly - Dec 1, 2013 at 6:37 AM

    What’s the big deal? His contract is up and he’s a free agent. It’s up to the Red Sox whether they tender him. They should pass and see how he’s doing next summer when he’s recovered before giving him a dime.

    • bunkerhillbob - Dec 1, 2013 at 11:57 AM

      Not really, PB; he won’t be a free agent until 2015 and he is eligible for arbitration in 2014. I don’t really understand the term non-tender, though, or how he becomes eligible for arbitration. Maybe someone can explain non-tender to me.

  4. bunkerhillbob - Dec 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM

    I stand corrected, Bailey was only on a 1-yr contract and could become a non-tendered FA if the Sox don’t offer him a contract. Why he is arbitration eligible is something I don’t understand.

    • mikhelb - Dec 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM

      Arbitrarion depends on playing time

      • mikhelb - Dec 1, 2013 at 2:47 PM

        *arbitration… mind you i’m a bit groggy due to this flu medication xD

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches