March 15th and the Conor Jackson Decision

Conor Jackson is now 1-for-23 in Cactus League play which gives him a pretty hollow .043/.120/.043 slash line. A few weeks ago I forecast that Conor Jackson‘s 2011 season would be good. I looked at his approach at the plate, saw that he hadn’t changed it but that it appeared that the Valley Fever he suffered through had sapped him of his strength. Following a 1-for-23 start, I think it is fair to question my assumption that he had regained his strength and perhaps need to acknowledge that he may never regain the form he had earlier in his career. While I am not yet at the point of advocating the A’s rid themselves of Conor Jackson, there is a growing drumbeat on Athletics Nation supporting such a move. I was just listening to the most recent Athletics After Dark podcast where Dale Tafoya asked a question regarding those guys who have some Major League experience but appear to be in limbo, specifically mentioning Matt Carson and Steve Tolleson. If you go to about 3:10 in the podcast you will hear Melissa Lockard mention this:

“Matt Carson – if there was an injury certainly he would be a strong candidate to make the team as a backup. But also I think if the A’s decide that Conor Jackson is not going to be worthwhile carrying as a fifth outfielder/backup first baseman, they may cut him and save a little bit of money on that contract and carry Carson instead.”

What she is referring to in terms of saving some money is that according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article X – Section B,

“A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club under paragraph 7(b)(2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability shall be entitled to receive termination pay from the Club in an amount equal to thirty (30) days’ payment at the rate stipulated in paragraph 2 of his Contract, if the termination occurs during spring training but on or before the 16th day prior to start of the championship season. If the termination occurs during spring training, but subsequent to the 16th day prior to the start of the championship season, the Player’s termination pay shall be in an amount equal to forty-five (45) days’ payment at the rate stipulated in paragraph 2 of his Contract.”

So that is why March 15th is a decision day where the A’s can save the most money, though they still achieve significant cost savings at any time in Spring Training if they choose to release him. There are those who are merely upset with the level of Jackson’s contract and suggest the A’s terminate the contract then attempt to re-sign him to a deal more reflective of his worth (presently he is set to receive $3.2M – to put that in perspective, that’d be over 50% what Manny Ramirez is due in 2011…) and possibly a minor-league one that permits his going straight to Sacramento to work out the kinks and also frees up a spot on the 40-man roster (for Andy LaRoche perhaps?). While I still think it is premature to make such a decision regarding Jackson’s future at least at the March 15th deadline, it does seem like if he shows no signs of improvement by the end of spring training the A’s should cut their losses and pay the 45-day termination pay as opposed to $3.2M for a season’s worth of potentially substandard baseball.

But I think we as an organization need to be careful and if we choose to cut Jackson loose, that we decide fully to cut Jackson loose. We did this with Jack Cust, didn’t offer him arbitration, then re-signed him at a lower rate.  Then furthermore designated him for assignment knowing that with such a depressed DH market no one would claim him. Watch his reaction in this video, you tell me if it appeared as if he would look forward to re-signing with the A’s one day.

Moves like the one made with Cust is certainly playing within the rules, it is using the market to your advantage – necessary things as a lower-revenue club – but also you become the team that will release you just to save money then offer you less when no one else wants you, you don’t become a particularly attractive destination for players with the ability to choose their own destiny. That isn’t exactly a way to build team morale as an organization and should players put it together it doesn’t seem to be a way to earn any loyalty and build a team that wants to stay in Oakland.

Jackson needs to put it together and he needs to put it together quickly. If he proves that he can hit, the A’s need to just deal with his $3.2M contract and realize they’re possibly overpaying – we can’t keep being “cute” with contracts. If the A’s feel that Jackson isn’t worth $3.2 and can’t play anymore at a level that contributes to the big league club, and feel that somehow Matt Carson is a better alternative, they need to cut Jackson loose period.

With this whole scenario though one thing did get me thinking. The A’s front office tends to be quite tight-lipped, but I often wonder how rumors get started. How sometimes you hear so much about a trade before hand that it almost seems as if it is willed into happening. I wonder if this is one of those scenarios. The drumbeat has gotten louder with every at-bat that went by – first when it without a hit and now with just the one. Is this a drumbeat that is getting louder in Billy Beane‘s office? Or is Lockard’s comment driven by the fans seeing that Jackson can be (and for some, they feel should be) let go? Do we the fans create player transactions – too philosophical for now…