PDA

View Full Version : McCoy: Arroyo can be a FA after 2006?



Doc. Scott
05-01-2006, 11:21 AM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/0430askhalweb.html?cxntnid=red-050106

---
Q: Shouldn't the Reds be trying to sign Bronson Arroyo to a long-term deal right now? Of course, that's assuming he wants to come back. — Michael, Wilmington, N.C.

A: And that's the big assumption one shouldn't make. Arroyo left Boston kicking and screaming. Because he was traded in the midst of a long-term contract, he has the option of becoming a free agent after the season. If he continues to have a monster year the Red Sox might offer him millions and the deed to The Old Church and Kenmore Square. He hasn't sold his new house in Boston, either.
---

This can't be right, can it?

Chip R
05-01-2006, 11:22 AM
Yeah, we were talking about it over on Reds Live.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45565

Moosie52
05-02-2006, 08:20 AM
Marty says a player had to have 5 (maybe 5.5) years major league service when traded to qualify for free agency in this manner. Arroyo had less than 4 years, so he doesn't qualify.

RBA
05-02-2006, 08:39 AM
Marty says a player had to have 5 (maybe 5.5) years major league service when traded to qualify for free agency in this manner. Arroyo had less than 4 years, so he doesn't qualify.


Marty must be reading Reds Live. :beerme:

GAC
05-02-2006, 09:02 AM
Marty must be reading Reds Live. :beerme:

Impossible! Someone has to read Reds Live TO him. :lol:

KronoRed
05-02-2006, 03:08 PM
Marty must be reading Reds Live. :beerme:
Can we neg him? :D

Chip R
05-02-2006, 03:21 PM
Can we neg him? :D

Marty or Hal or both? ;)

Patrick Bateman
05-02-2006, 10:51 PM
Marty says a player had to have 5 (maybe 5.5) years major league service when traded to qualify for free agency in this manner. Arroyo had less than 4 years, so he doesn't qualify.

And he doesn't have the right to become a FA even if he has the required service time. He has the right to demand a trade. He only becomes a FA if he isn't traded. Big difference

toledodan
05-02-2006, 10:57 PM
i know i would feel better if the club came out and cleared all this up. i'm not saying anyone is wrong but how do we know bronson didn't have something put into his contract that would allow him to leave?

KronoRed
05-02-2006, 11:01 PM
Doesn't matter what's in his contract, the Collective Bargaining agreement would trump it.

redsmetz
05-03-2006, 09:03 AM
Okay, here's some things to chew on here:

From the MLB Basic Agreement:


C. Right to Require Assignment of Contract

(1) Eligibility

Any Player who has 5 or more years of Major League service at
the time of the assignment of his contract and whose contract covers
the next succeeding season, may elect, at the conclusion of the
season following the assignment, to require that his contract be
assigned to another Club. If the Player, however, subsequently signs
a contract with the assignee Club, the Player shall not be eligible to
require that Club to assign his contract if the contract executed with
the assignee Club covers the next succeeding season. A Player who
requires the assignment of his contract pursuant to this Section C
shall not be entitled to receive a Moving Allowance.

(2) Procedure

(a) Notice. A Player may exercise his right to require the
assignment of his contract by giving notice as hereinafter provided
within the 15 day period beginning on October 15 (or the day
following the last game of the World Series, whichever is later).
Election to require the assignment of his contract shall be communicated
by telephone or any other method of communication
by the Player to the Association. Written notice thereof shall then
be given within the specified time limits by the Association, on
behalf of the Player, to a designated representative of the LRD,
and shall become effective upon receipt.

(b) Player Veto Rights. At the time notice is given as provided
in subparagraph (a) above, the Player may also designate not
more than 6 Clubs which he will not accept as assignee of his
contract, and the Player’s Club shall be bound to assign his contract
thereafter to a Club not on such list.

(c) Free Agency if Assignment Not Made. If the Player’s
Club fails to assign his contract, as set forth in this Section C, on
or before March 15, the Player shall become a free agent immediately
eligible to negotiate a contract with any Club without any
restrictions or qualifications. The Player shall not be deemed to
have exercised his right to demand a trade, for purposes of paragraph
(5) below, and the Club signing such a free agent shall do
so without regard to the compensation and quota provisions of
Section B. A Player who becomes a free agent pursuant to this
subparagraph shall not be entitled to receive termination pay.
Such a free agent shall receive transportation and travel expenses
in the same manner as he would have if he had been unconditionally
released except he shall be limited to receiving travel
expenses to his new Club if he reports to it directly, provided such
expenses are less than to his home city.

From Cot's Baseball Contracts (see http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/cincinnati-reds_24.html):


Bronson Arroyo p
3 years/$11.25M (2006-08)

acquired in trade 3/06, with Boston also paying $1.5M to Cincinnati

avoided arbitration 1/06 ($4.2M-$2.95M)
$0.75M signing bonus
06:$2.75M, 07:$3.8M, 08:$3.95M

1 year/$1.85M (2005), re-signed 1/05, avoided arbitration
1 year/$0.3325M (2004)
agent: Gregg Clifton, Terry Bross, Gaylord Sports Management

ML service: 3.150

Arroyo has less than five years service, therefore he cannot invoke this clause. It is also why his agent recommended that he not sign such a deal without a no trade clause and it is why Arroyo was such a steal for the Reds.

I hope he comes to love it here and stays with us for a long long time.

Chip R
05-03-2006, 09:24 AM
Arroyo has less than five years service, therefore he cannot invoke this clause. It is also why his agent recommended that he not sign such a deal without a no trade clause and it is why Arroyo was such a steal for the Reds.

I hope he comes to love it here and stays with us for a long long time.

But can we renegotiate his contract so we can send him to AAA? ;)

Spitball
05-03-2006, 12:12 PM
At the time of the trade there were some things going on that made me suspicious.

1) Arroyo had just signed the three year deal.
(Was he given any reason by Epstein to believe he had security in Boston?)

2) The Red Sox had no room in their rotation for Arroyo.
(How were they going to keep him ready to step into the rotation when needed without demoting him to AAA?)

3) The Reds figured to be a horrible team and out of contention at some point early in the season.
(How soon would they start unloading players in an effort to acquire promising prospects?)

I believed at the time, and still do, that Epstein figured he could "loan" Arroyo out to Cincinnati, keep him rotation ready, and then reacquire him for prospects when the Reds fell out of contention in mid-June.

Coming out of spring training the five starters ahead of him were all healthy but Schilling, Wells, and Beckett all were very old and/or had histories of breaking down. I suspect Epstein felt he had plotted a very wise plan to keep Arroyo sharp and ready. He just never envisioned the Reds getting off to such a good start.

Now I believe Epstein is in a tough spot if/when the Reds do fall out of contention. Can you imagine the Yankee-Red Sox bidding for Arroyo's services? The Sox would have to ante up a package that started with Jon Lester because they would want a Doug Mirabelli type story much more than a Johnny Damon-like fiasco.

Either way, the Reds are sitting in the catbird's seat with Arroyo.

redsmetz
05-03-2006, 12:36 PM
Now I believe Epstein is in a tough spot if/when the Reds do fall out of contention. Can you imagine the Yankee-Red Sox bidding for Arroyo's services? The Sox would have to ante up a package that started with Bobby Lester because they would want a Doug Mirabelli type story much more than a Johnny Damon-like fiasco.

Either way, the Reds are sitting in the catbird's seat with Arroyo.

Ah, yes, but I still hope he falls in love with us all and wants to stay!

Benihana
05-03-2006, 01:08 PM
At the time of the trade there were some things going on that made me suspicious.

1) Arroyo had just signed the three year deal.
(Was he given any reason by Epstein to believe he had security in Boston?)

2) The Red Sox had no room in their rotation for Arroyo.
(How were they going to keep him ready to step into the rotation when needed without demoting him to AAA?)

3) The Reds figured to be a horrible team and out of contention at some point early in the season.
(How soon would they start unloading players in an effort to acquire promising prospects?)

I believed at the time, and still do, that Epstein figured he could "loan" Arroyo out to Cincinnati, keep him rotation ready, and then reacquire him for prospects when the Reds fell out of contention in mid-June.

Coming out of spring training the five starters ahead of him were all healthy but Schilling, Wells, and Beckett all were very old and/or had histories of breaking down. I suspect Epstein felt he had plotted a very wise plan to keep Arroyo sharp and ready. He just never envisioned the Reds getting off to such a good start.

Now I believe Epstein is in a tough spot if/when the Reds do fall out of contention. Can you imagine the Yankee-Red Sox bidding for Arroyo's services? The Sox would have to ante up a package that started with Bobby Lester because they would want a Doug Mirabelli type story much more than a Johnny Damon-like fiasco.

Either way, the Reds are sitting in the catbird's seat with Arroyo.

Sorry but the Reds do not trade Arroyo no matter how far out of contention they fall this year. He is signed relatively cheap for three years. If the Sox really want to get him back that badly, and we are truly out of contention, I tell them I don't even start listening until they START with a package of the Jonathan's (Lester and Papelbon). Otherwise, fugghetaboutit.

Spitball
05-03-2006, 03:48 PM
Sorry but the Reds do not trade Arroyo no matter how far out of contention they fall this year. He is signed relatively cheap for three years. If the Sox really want to get him back that badly, and we are truly out of contention, I tell them I don't even start listening until they START with a package of the Jonathan's (Lester and Papelbon). Otherwise, fugghetaboutit.

Don't get me wrong, I love having Arroyo in Cincinnati. I love the way he pitches. However, if the Reds suffer a terrible stretch that sees them fall hopelessly out of contention and Arroyo's ERA starts to rise with the early summer humidity, I can see them extorting Jon Lester and possibly Craig Hansen from the Red Sox. Especially if the Sox are running tight with the Yankees and Krivsky can play them off each other in a bidding war.

There isn't a chance the Sox would trade Papelbon. If they become desperate enough for a starter, Foulke would be moved to closer and Papelbon would be moved into the rotation. Getting Lester from Boston would require a ton of desperation on their part. The inclusion of Hansen would mean they were shaky with more than one rotation spot and looking up at the Yanks.

registerthis
05-03-2006, 05:52 PM
very few Reds--and no pitchers--should be considered 'untouchable' on this team. If the right deal comes along that would clearly benefit the franchise, Krivsky would be a fool not to consider it.