Justin Masterson negotiations with Indians reportedly end for spring

Justin Masterson

mastersonredsThe Indians and Justin Masterson have stopped conversations about a long-term deal until after the season, per multiple reports on Thursday night.

The two sides narrowly avoided arbitration last month. That one-year deal worth $9.7625 million will take the soon-to-be 29-year-old into free agency this winter.

For weeks, we have seen rumors of Masterson’s eager willingness to sign a purported short-term, team-friendly deal to stay in Cleveland. Terms were reportedly in three-year $52 million range, as Rosenthal reported.

Masterson was 14-10 with a 3.45 ERA in 32 games (29 starts) last season for the 92-win Indians. We’ll certainly have more on this story on Friday. Stay tuned for our thoughts.

  • http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/ Charles Luzar
  • Jim

    According to Jon Heyman, not only was Masterson willing to take less money to stay in Cleveland, but he also was willing to defer some of that money to allow the Indians to deal with other upcoming financial obligations. Despite that, the Indians countered at 2 years $28 million.

  • Brian Konrad

    They’re really set on keeping that ballpark empty.

  • Wow

    Unbelievable.

  • boomhauertjs

    Shapanetti better do some damage control very soon. They’re letting Masterson’s agent control this story and it’s making the Tribe look bad to their fans.

  • markn95

    PD article said the Indians turned down the offer partly because of “uncertain revenues” in 2014. So, it’s the same old story–if fans show up to the games, THEN we’ll spend the money. How’s that worked for the Dolans in the last 12 years? At some point, they have to realize that the customer is always right. Sure, it’s fun to blame the fans for those April games with 9,000 seats sold but when you keep trying the same thing over and over and expect the same results, well…

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Of course it’s the same old story the only reason they went on a proverbial spending spree a year ago was because they sold their television network. Had they not they wouldn’t have signed Bourn and Swisher.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Why?

  • mgbode

    they have the same payroll this year as they did last year. it’s over there in Jacob’s article and everything. and, both payrolls are in line with past payrolls of contention years.

    the big question to me is if it shouldn’t be higher. MLB shared revenues should be increasing, but they play those closer to the vest than any of the major sporting leagues (also how they share revenues is hard to gather).

  • Steve

    Congratulations for figuring out how it works for 29 teams, and maybe finally in the case of the Tigers (trading away Fister, not signing Drew) all 30. You can only spend “certain” revenues.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Yes it should be higher that’s how you put your $$ where your mouth is and quiet the people like me. I said a year ago I wanted to see what the Indians did in their next off-season before I went completely giddy over what they had done. Don’t get me wrong I loved seeing them go out and get players even if the only guy they really went after was an aging diminishing Swisher. Bourn was happenstance and even though he had a down year last year I still like his acquisition. But this off-season the Indians returned to their usual MO now the question becomes will Terry Francona be able to manage at a level high enough to make up for the front office. Will he be able to push all the buttons at the right time for this team to overachieve much like last season? I am predicting he won’t because there are entirely to many working parts on this team that need to be massaged and lubricated to keep the train on track.

    i share a similar view with the Cavaliers. A bunch of mismatched parts except unlike the Indians they don’t have a manager/coach who is up to the task. It’s why in his previous tenure Brown couldn’t get it done but that’s a conversation for another topic.

  • Wow

    With the bargain he offered them I thought it would be a no brainer.

  • mgbode

    why are the Indians mismatched parts? our platoon splits are actually nicely matched. I would argue they are anti-Cavs in their arrangement there.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    If you read the various stories and corresponding comments here you wouldn’t. I’m amazed, not shocked, at how many dissenters there appear to be to paying Masterson. When I was saying he wasn’t a true #1 or close to an ace I was alone but now when it comes time for him to be paid as the Indians best starter all of a sudden my viewpoint has a lot of company. Funny how that works huh?

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Badly phrased I meant multiple parts not mismatched. I was thinking of the Cavaliers days when they had a defender/rebounder like Ben Wallace a three point shooter like Donyell Marshall or Wally S. a this or a that and it reminded me of the Indians OF or C or 3B or 1B. Unlike the NBA it’s easier to have specialists in baseball.

  • Wow

    That is true, I wouldn’t consider him an ace. It’s just another player they’ll have to replace though.

  • The_Real_Shamrock

    Yes but more importantly it’s a player who helped them who when it came time to pay they were unwilling to pay.