TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

Well, the arby system is set up to pay players based in large part on service time, which is how he'll land the raise. That, and he'll argue based on the 07-08 numbers too, though that isn't going to carry as much weight as the simple fact he's a year deeper into arby.

I don't have the Insider, so I wasn't able to read the whole article, but isn't this the whole point of the article?  That players can get more money with arby because they can suck it up one year (like Hardy did) and still get a raise?

The point about hearing the argument for a raise meant I just wanted to hear the agent completely dismiss the horrid season, which is rather ludicrous.

Baseball's next great economic disparity

Sunday, November 1, 2009 | Feedback | Print Entry

Baseball's financial structure appears to have reached a tipping point that can be defined simply. "The arbitration process is now outdated," said a highly ranked executive, "because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

So now teams are about to adjust to this reality, and this is why multiple general managers expect that dozens of young players with three, four and five years of major league experience will be cut loose rather than offered arbitration in the next 41 days. Not a handful, but dozens.

During the past 48 hours, I went through the rosters with some executives and counted 93 solid non-tender candidates -- players whose current teams simply won't offer them contracts for 2010. If the final numbers come close to that figure, close to 300 veteran players will be looking for jobs in the winter, a staggering number that will inevitably depress the asking prices for free agents.

Here are a couple of players whose contractual situations might warrant consideration for a non-tender:

J.J. Hardy, Milwaukee Brewers shortstop: He is 27 years old and theoretically entering the prime of his career, having hit 26 and 24 homers in 2007 and 2008. But Hardy hit .229 with 11 homers in 2009 while earning $4.65 million. He has five years of service time and is, of course, eligible for arbitration. Through that process, he could earn a salary close to $7 million.

Now, if Hardy were a free agent, it would seem unlikely he would land a multiyear deal for anything close to $7 million, given his history of injury and inconsistency. This past winter, veteran shortstop Orlando Cabrera signed for $4 million. Cesar Izturis got a two-year deal for $5 million.

Before the trade deadline, the Brewers asked the Red Sox for what Boston considered to be excellent prospects in return for Hardy, and part of the reason the Red Sox rejected the overture was their sense that Hardy was about to become vastly overpriced in the market. With Alcides Escobar expected to take over at shortstop, the Brewers are said to be very willing to move Hardy. But what could they get for him? And is there necessarily a market for him, when the team acquiring him knows he probably would be paid more than what a player with his track record would be paid later in the winter?

The next-best option for the Brewers, perhaps, would be simply not to tender him a contract.

Einsteinhood:

"because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

Oh, and in case you're thinking about complaining about this system,

Wasn't Olney doing this?  Oh, and I haven't mentioned the system. 

I know you haven't mentioned the sytem specifically, but you were implying that it was wrong by saying there is a difference between deserving a raise and him getting one, right?

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

"because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

Isn't that what I was alluding to?

He may now get more in arby than he would on the FA market. My point was simply that he was getting MUCH less than he could get on the open market before, so I have a hard time saying he doesn't "deserve" the money he's going to get now.

Einsteinhood:

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

"because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

Isn't that what I was alluding to?

Right.

He may now get more in arby than he would on the FA market. My point was simply that he was getting MUCH less than he could get on the open market before, so I have a hard time saying he doesn't "deserve" the money he's going to get now.

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

"because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

Isn't that what I was alluding to?

Right.

He may now get more in arby than he would on the FA market. My point was simply that he was getting MUCH less than he could get on the open market before, so I have a hard time saying he doesn't "deserve" the money he's going to get now.

Well, the point of the article, I think, is that arbitration adds some leverage to the teams' arguments.  They could say, take this smaller raise or risk getting much less in FA, right?

Teams have to decide whether or not to tender players by mid December, and once they do then they either have to come to a settlement or accept the decision of the arbitator, so I don't think this gives extra incentive for the player to settle. As soon as they're tendered, the team has to play by the arby rules and those rules (Olney contends) now figure to pay some players more than what they would get in FA.

So if a player wants to make the most money possible and they figure they can get more in arby than in FA, they would WANT the team to tender them, because that is the means to the most money, if you believe Olney's contention here.

 You know, I hadn't read the rest of the article beyond Hardy, but this is pretty friggin bad....

Bobby Jenks, Chicago White Sox closer: At age 28, Jenks had a mediocre season, converting 29 of 35 save chances in 52 games while making $5.6 million. Through arbitration, he probably could get $7.5 million for 2010.

Similarly, all-time saves leader Trevor Hoffman signed for $6 million when he joined Milwaukee, coming off a season in which his performance was almost perfect. And in the winter, literally more than a dozen closers will be available. If you are the White Sox, you probably won't find takers for Jenks because other teams will be leery of his arbitration eligibility. Would you want to pay Jenks top-of-the-market price for 2010, coming off a less-than-inspiring season, or would you rather just throw him back into the pool of non-tenders and identify a cheaper closer?

That bolded part was meant to make the point that they could probably get a guy coming off a better season than Jenks for less, the only problem is that it's COMPLETELY wrong and he seems to be mixing Hoffman's 2008 and 2009 up.

Hoffman certainly wasn't "coming off of a season where his performance was almost perfect" when he first signed for 6 million with the Brewers for 6 million last season. He had a 3.77 ERA in 2008 and gave up 8 friggin home runs in under 50 innings. I'm assuming he meant that Hoffman has a nearly perfect 2009, but he neither "joined" the team nor got 6 million after this last season, he got 8.

So either Olney thinks his mediocre 2008 was "almost perfect" or he doesn't know that Hoffman got 8 million, not 6 million this offseason. Either way, he's a complete hack.

There is NO WAY that the Brewers are going to non-tender Hardy.

Dipsh*t Olney just needed to come up with some drivel to fill the interwaves he gets paid to fill.

Einsteinhood:

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

"because the players can get more money in arbitration than they would through free agency."

Isn't that what I was alluding to?

Right.

He may now get more in arby than he would on the FA market. My point was simply that he was getting MUCH less than he could get on the open market before, so I have a hard time saying he doesn't "deserve" the money he's going to get now.

Well, the point of the article, I think, is that arbitration adds some leverage to the teams' arguments.  They could say, take this smaller raise or risk getting much less in FA, right?

I don't know about that.

Teams have to decide whether or not to tender players by mid December, and once they do then they either have to come to a settlement or accept the decision of the arbitator, so I don't think this gives extra incentive for the player to settle. As soon as they're tendered, the team has to play by the arby rules and those rules (Olney contends) now figure to pay some players more than what they would get in FA.

So if a player wants to make the most money possible and they figure they can get more in arby than in FA, they would WANT the team to tender them, because that is the means to the most money, if you believe Olney's contention here.

There is some merit to the argument.

Take Jason Varitek, for example. I know he was FA eligible and not arbitration, but Scott Boras really screwed him.

The Red Sox offered him arbitration, which he refused. He was coming off an awful season and was an old catcher, so he didn't have that big of a market. Thru arbitration, he could have made $10 million or so. When free market forces took effect on him, he had to settle for a one-year $5 million deal with an option.

SeattlePilot:

The Brewers go into next year not knowing for sure if Weeks will bounce back from his injury, nor do they know if McGehee or Gamel will do a good job at 3rd base.  Or if Escobar will hit a wall next year.  It would not be the worst decision in the world if the Brewers decided to keep Hardy to start the season out and then trade him later on if SS, 2nd and 3rd base are being adequately covered with Escobar, McGehee/Gamel and Weeks.  It would be a good insurance policy unless another team really wanted JJ and were willing to give up some pitching for him.   While JJ has stated he only wants to play SS, when push comes to shove he would rather being playing 2nd or 3rd base than sitting on the bench.  

He generates so much bat speed and contorts and snaps that wrist so violently I want them to show him through an x ray if they can how he puts a lot of pressure on his wrists.

But Rickie will come back and be Rickie...the impact player. We are set at second base, that is for sure.  

TheWiscSportsNut2:

SeattlePilot:

The Brewers go into next year not knowing for sure if Weeks will bounce back from his injury, nor do they know if McGehee or Gamel will do a good job at 3rd base.  Or if Escobar will hit a wall next year.  It would not be the worst decision in the world if the Brewers decided to keep Hardy to start the season out and then trade him later on if SS, 2nd and 3rd base are being adequately covered with Escobar, McGehee/Gamel and Weeks.  It would be a good insurance policy unless another team really wanted JJ and were willing to give up some pitching for him.   While JJ has stated he only wants to play SS, when push comes to shove he would rather being playing 2nd or 3rd base than sitting on the bench.  

Weeks will come back and be the best player on this team. Bank on it. The only thing I worry about is the mental aspect of having to get over the idea that the next swing could be your last if you do not control that bat waggle.

He generates so much bat speed and contorts and snaps that wrist so violently I want them to show him through an x ray if they can how he puts a lot of pressure on his wrists.

But Rickie will come back and be Rickie...the impact player. We are set at second base, that is for sure.  

The "best player on the team"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

SportsNut gives Rickie Weeks fans a bad name.

TheWiscSportsNut2:

SeattlePilot:

The Brewers go into next year not knowing for sure if Weeks will bounce back from his injury, nor do they know if McGehee or Gamel will do a good job at 3rd base.  Or if Escobar will hit a wall next year.  It would not be the worst decision in the world if the Brewers decided to keep Hardy to start the season out and then trade him later on if SS, 2nd and 3rd base are being adequately covered with Escobar, McGehee/Gamel and Weeks.  It would be a good insurance policy unless another team really wanted JJ and were willing to give up some pitching for him.   While JJ has stated he only wants to play SS, when push comes to shove he would rather being playing 2nd or 3rd base than sitting on the bench.  

Weeks will come back and be the best player on this team. Bank on it. The only thing I worry about is the mental aspect of having to get over the idea that the next swing could be your last if you do not control that bat waggle.

He generates so much bat speed and contorts and snaps that wrist so violently I want them to show him through an x ray if they can how he puts a lot of pressure on his wrists.

But Rickie will come back and be Rickie...the impact player. We are set at second base, that is for sure.  

Remember you said that

 Wow, I REALLY hope this didn't have anything to do with why Melvin felt he had to move Hardy fast for whatever he could get.