At 52-67, the Athletics are a team looking towards the future at the moment. They've done what any team in their position would do: they're giving young players a look down the stretch. That means cutting back on the playing time of veterans.
One veteran losing playing time is Coco Crisp, who has been unable to crack the lineup regularly even with Josh Reddick and Billy Burns traded away. The 36-year-old veteran has started only 19 of the team's last 29 games and only 87 of their 119 total games.
No player likes to have their playing time reduced, especially a veteran like Crisp, who's played at a high level in the league for a long time. The decision to bench Crisp may be financially motivated, however. His contract includes a $13 million option that will vest with 130 games played. He's on pace to play 126.
Needless to say, Crisp and his agent believe the A's are intentionally scaling back his playing time to prevent the option from vesting. Here's what they told Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I'm extremely hurt, the way things are being handled," said Crisp, who did not play in Monday's 5-2 loss at Texas. "I'm not calling anyone names, but this is really frustrating and disappointing. This has been my favorite organization going back to when I was a kid, because of Rickey Henderson, and I've enjoyed playing here so much, and I've put it all out there. ... Up until recently, it's been tremendously enjoyable."
...
"But this team has never been motivated to give up a dollar," Crisp's agent, Steve Comte said. "I know Billy Beane has always been fond of Coco, but what they're doing now is really a joke. I've advised Coco to take the high road, but the way things are going is a disservice to him."
The A's have always been a small payroll team, and paying Crisp a whopping $13 million next season is not appealing to them. It's not appealing to any team, really. That's a lot of money for a player who probably isn't anything more than a fourth outfielder going forward. There are a few things to keep in mind here.
1. Crisp isn't performing all that well
Overall, Crisp is hitting .239/.307/.410 (97 OPS+) with 10 homers in 396 plate appearances this season, which is okay but not great. It's certainly not "oh man we need to get this guy in the lineup every day" production.
On top of that, Crisp is a poor defensive outfielder these days. Years of wear-and-tear and injuries have sapped his mobility. As a result, Crisp has been worth only +0.4 WAR this season despite an average-ish batting line. Last season he was worth -0.7 WAR. Benching him for poor performance is not unreasonable.
2. Sitting Crisp for young players is not unreasonable either
The A's have been playing 27-year-olds Jake Smolinski and Brett Eibner regularly the last week or so, and while those two guys aren't super young, they have a chance to help the team going forward in some capacity. Oakland is playing them so they can see exactly what they have here. It could be something, it could be nothing. There's only one way to find out.
Teams out of contention are doing themselves a disservice if they don't take a look at young players down the stretch. The A's are not going against the grain here and doing something no other team does. Every rebuilding team -- every smart rebuilding team, I should say -- is using these final few weeks of the season to evaluate young players, not give veterans more playing time.
3. The A's don't owe Crisp anything (and vice versa)
This sounds cold-hearted but this is a business. At the end of the day, the A's don't owe Crisp anything beyond what is in his contract (salary, perks, etc.). They're under no obligation to play him just because he's the longest-tenured player on the team or anything like that. The A's have to do what's best for the A's, and that's sitting Crisp.
At the same time, Crisp has to do what's best for himself, though his options are limited. That's why he's speaking out about his lack of playing time. The only way he's making $13 million next season is if that option vests. If it doesn't, he'll become a free agent and have to settle for far less, if he even gets a contract offer at all. Teams are shying away from players over 35 more and more these days,
This is not the first time a team has cut a player's playing time to prevent an option from vesting and it won't be the last. The Nationals did not allow Rafael Soriano to finish enough games in 2014 to vest his 2015 option. Chase Utley didn't get enough plate appearances last year to vest is 2016 option. This happens every year around the league.
I get why Crisp is upset. I'd be upset too. The fact of the matter is his production doesn't warrant everyday playing time, and the A's are well within their rights to sit him in favor of young players as they look to build their next contending roster. It's going to cost Crisp $13 million, though he signed the contract in good faith, and there was no guarantee of playing time.
