PDA

View Full Version : Bout To Get Stormy In Cincy Yet Again



RedLegSuperStar
11-25-2006, 12:21 PM
Reds are working to re-sign him. Phillies and Dodgers interested. He is seeking a 2-year deal. The Giants are in serious discussions with him....This rumor was last updated on 10:59 PM - Nov 24, 06. The source of this rumor was San Francisco Chronicle.

MLB4u.com

Redmachine2003
11-25-2006, 12:33 PM
Who???

Unassisted
11-25-2006, 12:34 PM
Who???
Stormy = Weathers

Ltlabner
11-25-2006, 12:38 PM
I guess I wouldn't be totally opposed to having him back IF (a VERY big IF) it's one year deal (or one year with a team option) and for a modest amount of money.

If he wants the moon I'd say adios, thanks for the efforts and enjoy hanging out with Richie A in San Fran.

missionhockey21
11-25-2006, 01:08 PM
I guess I wouldn't be totally opposed to having him back IF (a VERY big IF) it's one year deal (or one year with a team option) and for a modest amount of money.

If he wants the moon I'd say adios, thanks for the efforts and enjoy having our with Richie A in San Fran.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to lock all of our relievers up until they can gracefully go off in the sun to collect their social security checks.

RedLegSuperStar
11-25-2006, 02:00 PM
Who???

Take it your not a David Weathers fan?

Ga_Red
11-25-2006, 02:04 PM
02/08/07

Henry Clay
11-25-2006, 02:21 PM
For me it depends on the cost of Weathers and the opportunity cost of who the Reds won't sign if Weathers is brought on board. If there are few realistic options for the Reds, Weathers isn't a bad signing. The guy was one of the few bright spots in the bullpen, notwithstanding the fact that he was overused. At points, he was the one holding the bullpen together, albeit with denture cream borrowed from the lockers of Mercker and Guardado. If the choice is between Weathers or more of Ryan Franklin types, I'll even try not to wince when I hear the contract terms.

westofyou
11-25-2006, 02:23 PM
Take it your not a David Weathers fan?

Maybe he's a fan of this thread?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41753

OnBaseMachine
11-25-2006, 02:54 PM
I would rather have the draft picks.

Gallen5862
11-25-2006, 03:07 PM
I would like the Draft picks as well. That could be a smart way to spend money by loading up in the Draft to build up the Farm system.

Falls City Beer
11-25-2006, 03:08 PM
I'd like to get the draft picks AND spend money to fix the MLB team. Great teams (Cards, Red Sox) do both.

MartyFan
11-25-2006, 03:28 PM
Weathers= type A = 2 picks, right?

cya l8r, DW, imo

My thoughts exactly...isn't there already a thread about this someplace else?

Willy
11-25-2006, 03:48 PM
I heard he was about to sign a deal with SF, 2 years 6 Million.

Pass

paulrichjr
11-25-2006, 03:56 PM
I heard he was about to sign a deal with SF, 2 years 6 Million.

Pass


And if he does this we DO NOT get SF's first round pick. (I think)

Redny
11-25-2006, 04:04 PM
And if he does this we DO NOT get SF's first round pick. (I think)

Correct. It was covered in this thread earlier.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52754

RedLegSuperStar
11-25-2006, 04:23 PM
My thing is instead of getting Stanton and going after Weathers.. why not resign a younger Shoenewies and let one of the young guns earn a spot. it just seems like the money could of been used elsewhere

Reds Nd2
11-25-2006, 04:25 PM
Have the Reds offered arbitration to any of it's free agents?

LoganBuck
11-25-2006, 10:11 PM
They have until some date in December, no one seems to know if it is Dec 1, Dec 6, Dec 9, or Dec 21, to offer arbitration.

RedLegSuperStar
11-25-2006, 10:27 PM
Well rotoworld.com is reporting that San Fran is set to sign both Aurilia and Weathers. Aurilia looks to make 3 million a year on a 2 year deal and Weathers something similar to what Stanton recieved.

mth123
11-25-2006, 10:32 PM
They have until some date in December, no one seems to know if it is Dec 1, Dec 6, Dec 9, or Dec 21, to offer arbitration.

I've heard Dec 1.

Reds Nd2
11-25-2006, 11:42 PM
They have until some date in December, no one seems to know if it is Dec 1, Dec 6, Dec 9, or Dec 21, to offer arbitration.

The deadline, under the new CBA (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20061024&content_id=1722380&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb), for teams to offer arbitration is December the 1st. The date for acceptance is December the 7th. That's if the new CBA is signed. The old agreement expires on the 19th, but I haven't seen anything yet stating the players and owners have actually signed anything but a "memorandum of understanding". (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5680)

Regardless of the dates or even if the new agreement has been signed, I can't find any evidence that the Reds have offered arbitration to any of it's free agents. If they haven't, it tends to make getting free agent compensation a bit difficult.

Mario-Rijo
11-26-2006, 12:00 AM
Reds Nd2
Regardless of the dates or even if the new agreement has been signed, I can't find any evidence that the Reds have offered arbitration to any of it's free agents. If they haven't, it tends to make getting free agent compensation a bit difficult.

From what I understand (and it's mostly what I have read on message boards) you are correct about the dates, and that we DO NOT have to offer arbitration until the deadline on the 1st. Which means if any of our type A or B FA's are signed before then we can then offer arb. and thus receiving our pick(s). And of course if we offer arbitration, and they are signed by another team after that point we will also receive our pick(s).

As far as what picks we get, we will not get S.F.'s 1st rounder as someone already stated due to it being in the lower half of the 1st round (1-16th). We would likely get 1 sandwhich pick for RA and also the Giants 2nd round pick. If they also sign Weathers then we are getting into unchartered territory for my understanding, i'll have to go and check it out. If they also sign Loretta then I don't know what the heck is going to happen. But it would look to me like we should get a healthy amount of picks within that 1st 2 rounds of the draft.

So far with our picks we are likely going to get minimum 5 picks in the 1st couple rounds (assuming RA and Stormy sign elsewhere) and if we do not sign any Type A's then we should get 6 picks. If Schoeneweis is offered arb. and he goes elsewhere we could end up with as many as 8 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. That would go a long way in finding some real gems, and it would also cost us quite a bit. So keep that in mind as we are spending $$$ on FA's.

mth123
11-26-2006, 12:34 AM
The deadline, under the new CBA (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20061024&content_id=1722380&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb), for teams to offer arbitration is December the 1st. The date for acceptance is December the 7th. That's if the new CBA is signed. The old agreement expires on the 19th, but I haven't seen anything yet stating the players and owners have actually signed anything but a "memorandum of understanding". (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5680)

Regardless of the dates or even if the new agreement has been signed, I can't find any evidence that the Reds have offered arbitration to any of it's free agents. If they haven't, it tends to make getting free agent compensation a bit difficult.

Thanks Reds ND2. As Mario said, we don't need to offer arb if they sign before Dec 1, but you bring-up a good point about whether or not the CBA is official. Some other questions I have about this (for anyone who may know):

1. Some one suggested that there was a netting effect. For example if the Reds signed 2 type Bs and lost 2 type Bs that no draft picks would be awarded. Anyone know if this is true?

2. What happens if we lose a type A to a team that is protected from losing its first round pick? Do we get a sandwich pick? A 2nd rounder?

3. What if a team signs multiple type A players? They only have 1 first round pick to lose.

I'm sure some one on here knows. I've been searching and can't find these specifics.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 12:35 AM
From what I understand (and it's mostly what I have read on message boards) you are correct about the dates, and that we DO NOT have to offer arbitration until the deadline on the 1st. Which means if any of our type A or B FA's are signed before then we can then offer arb. and thus receiving our pick(s).

I'm fairly certain that I'm correct on the dates; but MLB has changed their articles and my first link isn't to the article I intended, so I could be wrong. Still, if a player elects free agency and then signs with another team, he's theirs unless the commissioner steps in and voids the contract. The Nationals can't suddenly offer arbitration to Soriano just to grab free agent compensation in other words. Teams only receive compensation, if and only if, (http://www.baseballamerica.com/help/faq.html#comp)they offer arbitration before the player signs with another team.

Mario-Rijo
11-26-2006, 12:50 AM
I'm fairly certain that I'm correct on the dates; but MLB has changed their articles and my first link isn't to the article I intended, so I could be wrong. Still, if a player elects free agency and then signs with another team, he's theirs unless the commissioner steps in and voids the contract. The Nationals can't suddenly offer arbitration to Soriano just to grab free agent compensation in other words. Teams only receive compensation, if and only if, they offer arbitration before the player signs with another team.


I'm not necc. disagreeing with you, however another posted posted a week or 2 ago that he remembered an occasion where this indeed happened. And if that a player is signed prior to that date you can actually still offer arbitration. Again I am not saying he was right but the link you provide doesn't completely spell it out, and it leaves doubt as to this particular occurence. Not only that but I know for a fact I read last week that the Nationals would be getting a sandwhich pick and Chicago's 2nd rd pick for that signing. Now the Nationals likely offered arb. to Soriano but I don't recall seeing anywhere that they did it prior to the signing.



If a team doesn't offer arbitration to their free agent, they get nothing when he signs with another team. This brings up the next question of why don't the teams always offer arbitration? The answer is, they might simply be afraid he'll accept it. It's a gamble some teams aren't willing to take, even if it seems likely the player is heading out of town.



Basically this isn't specific enough to answer this question fully. It doesn't state whether or not this is before or after the date, it leaves me with the impression that it could easily be after that particular date and not necc. before.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 11:52 AM
1. Some one suggested that there was a netting effect. For example if the Reds signed 2 type Bs and lost 2 type Bs that no draft picks would be awarded. Anyone know if this is true?

I don't know if that's true.


2. What happens if we lose a type A to a team that is protected from losing its first round pick? Do we get a sandwich pick? A 2nd rounder?

Under the old agreement, the team would gain a sandwich pick and the signing teams second round pick. I don't know know if this changes under the new agreement.


3. What if a team signs multiple type A players? They only have 1 first round pick to lose.

Under the old agreement there was a limit to how many Type A players a single team could sign, but they would lose picks from consecutive rounds. For example, a team signing two A players would lose either it's 1st and 2nd round or it's 2nd and 3rd round picks depending on how whether or not they were in the top half of teams. Again, I don't know if this changes with the new agreement.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 12:26 PM
I'm not necc. disagreeing with you, however another posted posted a week or 2 ago that he remembered an occasion where this indeed happened. And if that a player is signed prior to that date you can actually still offer arbitration. Again I am not saying he was right but the link you provide doesn't completely spell it out, and it leaves doubt as to this particular occurence. Not only that but I know for a fact I read last week that the Nationals would be getting a sandwhich pick and Chicago's 2nd rd pick for that signing. Now the Nationals likely offered arb. to Soriano but I don't recall seeing anywhere that they did it prior to the signing.

The link I used was from Baseball America and it says:

When a team loses a free agent who is ranked in one of the three categories, they receive compensation as follows (if and only if they offered that player arbitration before he signed with his new team):

Unfortunantly, that not entirely true and I appologize for the confusion. Below is the section from the old bargaining agreement that covers free agent compensation. Remember, the dates and the rules have changed, but hopefully it sheds some light on the subject. It's part (ii) that seems to be causing the most problems. If a Type A or B free agent signs a contract with another team prior to the deadline for offering arbitration (Now December 1st) the team that loses said player gets compensation regardless of whether or not arbitration was offered.

EDIT: I'm assuming the rule for compensation is still in place for the new CBA and only that only the dates have changed. I haven't seen the new agreement yet.

WARNING: PDF File http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf


Article XX Reserve System
B. Free Agency
(4) Compensation
(c) A Type A, B, or C Player shall be subject to compensation only if (i) he is offered salary arbitration by his former Club on or before December 7th pursuant to section B(3) of this Article XX and signs a contract with another Club; or (ii) or he signs a contract with another Club prior to December 7th.

redsmetz
11-26-2006, 12:36 PM
Article XX Reserve System
B. Free Agency
(4) Compensation
(c) A Type A, B, or C Player shall be subject to compensation only if (i) he is offered salary arbitration by his former Club on or before December 7th pursuant to section B(3) of this Article XX and signs a contract with another Club; or (ii) or he signs a contract with another Club prior to December 7th.

I think that is what the point was that if they sign before that date and before the current club offers arbitration, it's a moot point. They're gone and the club will be compensated. I think it just removes the formality of "offering" arbitration.

mth123
11-26-2006, 01:19 PM
I think that is what the point was that if they sign before that date and before the current club offers arbitration, it's a moot point. They're gone and the club will be compensated. I think it just removes the formality of "offering" arbitration.

And to this point exactly Rotoworld is now saying that the Giants will wait until after Dec 1 to make anything official with Aurilia. Reds need to offer Arb I guess.

Mario-Rijo
11-26-2006, 01:44 PM
And to this point exactly Rotoworld is now saying that the Giants will wait until after Dec 1 to make anything official with Aurilia. Reds need to offer Arb I guess.

Yeah I was thinking this last night, I figured that it was a strong possibility. But I thought since it was S.F. we might have a shot at them going ahead. This is also why I expect a slow week all over MLB. People gotta hold on to their wallets until perhaps at least the 1st.

Mario-Rijo
11-26-2006, 01:57 PM
Some more insight into the new rules and some news and notes!



11/26/2006 10:00 AM ET
Hot Stove: Free agency with a twist
Elimination of deadlines gives teams, players more options
By Jim Molony / MLB.com

With a week to go before the Winter Meetings begin at Disney World, it is important to note that there are changes in the new collective bargaining agreement that could impact the market as well as activity at the meetings.
The previous free agency dates of Dec. 7, Dec. 19, Jan. 8 and May 1 have been eliminated, which means teams can continue negotiating with their free agents into January and have them for Opening Day if they can sign them. That wasn't the case in recent years, and it impacted at least one major free agency decision, in case you've forgotten Roger Clemens.

Last year, the Astros did not offer arbitration to Clemens by Dec. 7, the deadline for clubs to offer arbitration to players on their roster who declared free agency, which meant Clemens could not re-sign with Houston until May 1. Had Houston offered Clemens arbitration, he could have accepted or rejected. In the former case, he would have been considered signed, and in the latter, the Astros would have only been able to negotiate with him until Jan. 8.

Those dates have been eliminated in the new agreement, which means Clemens can continue to negotiate with Houston or any other team he chooses without a deadline. The same is true for all free agents with regard to their 2006 teams, which means players like Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Barry Bonds, Gil Meche, Jeff Suppan and Ted Lilly can still talk about returning to their 2006 teams without fear of missing Opening Day. It's more time for their 2006 teams to work something out should they be so inclined, and one more team to use as leverage by the free agents as they seek to land the best deal.

The other noteworthy change is the non-tender date, which has been moved from Dec. 20 to Dec. 12. That is the day teams must offer contracts to arbitration-eligible players. If a team does not formally tender -- that is, offer -- a contract by Dec. 12, the player is granted free agency. Players not offered are called non-tenders.

General managers will have four days from the time the Winter Meetings end until the non-tender date rolls around. These decisions can be difficult, and in many cases may hinge on what does or does not happen at Disney World. This year, with a pricey free-agent market, teams will be looking even harder at the non-tender lists to find the next David Ortiz (non-tendered by Minnesota in December 2002 and signed by Boston) or David Eckstein (non-tendered by the Angels in 2004 and signed by St. Louis).

These factors will have a bearing on the free-agent market, which has seen several eye-popping deals already, and that's still with marquee free agents like Barry Zito unsigned. Huge amounts of money have been spent already, and it's not just because the game is in excellent financial health. The other cost of signing a free agent has changed, thanks to the new agreement with the union.

This year, Type C free agents were eliminated and teams that sign a Type B free agent won't lose their next first-round draft pick to that player's previous team. A team that loses a Type B free agent will receive a "sandwich pick" (between the first and second rounds) in the First-Year Player Draft. Signing a Type A free agent will still cost a team its first-round pick, so the Cubs, for example, will lose their first-round pick to the Nationals for signing Alfonso Soriano.

The pools are more shallow than they have been. The A pool is now the top 20 percent of the Elias Sports Bureau's season-ending rankings at each position, down 10 percent from the previous level, while the Type B pool has been reduced to the top 21-40 percent from 31-50 percent.

All of these factors could trigger more transactions than we've seen in recent Decembers, and perhaps make an already surprising Hot Stove season even hotter in the coming weeks.

Elsewhere on the Sunday Hot Stove:


Astros: General manager Tim Purpura said the Astros aren't finished after signing outfielder Carlos Lee and right-hander Woody Williams for a combined $112.5 million on Friday. Purpura would love to re-sign Clemens and Pettitte, but isn't putting the rest of his hunt for talent on hold while he awaits a decision from the two star pitchers.

"They obviously know we'd love to have both of them back," Purpura said. "But it's up to them, and I'm sure they'll let us know if and when they make their decisions. But we're going to pursue other targets in the meantime to try and get better."

Purpura has talked to the representative for pitcher Kip Wells, and would like to add another veteran reliever.

"We're considering some of the guys out there, we'll look at [non-tenders] of course, but we're also considering potential trades," Purpura said. "I really don't think we're finished [making moves]."


Giants: The Giants outbid Houston by $12 million ($112 million to $100 million) for Carlos Lee, but the free-agent slugger signed with the Astros. That has left the Giants looking elsewhere for outfield help, and they are very interested in Dave Roberts.


Phillies, Orioles: Officials from both teams were mulling their options this weekend now that both Soriano and Lee are off the market. Philadelphia and Baltimore are among the teams looking for a middle-of-the-order slugger, although neither team is believed to be interested in free-agent outfielder J.D. Drew and may decide to look for help via trade.


Red Sox: The Boston Globe reported the Red Sox are aggressively trying to close a deal with Drew, who opted out of the final three years and $33 million of his contract with the Dodgers.

mth123
11-26-2006, 01:57 PM
Yeah I was thinking this last night, I figured that it was a strong possibility. But I thought since it was S.F. we might have a shot at them going ahead. This is also why I expect a slow week all over MLB. People gotta hold on to their wallets until perhaps at least the 1st.

Offer Arb and if he accepts, then trade him to SF.

Aronchis
11-26-2006, 04:20 PM
The Reds need extra picks from these guys. Help speed up the Farm's rebuilding.

Jpup
11-26-2006, 06:23 PM
I'd like to get the draft picks AND spend money to fix the MLB team. Great teams (Cards, Red Sox) do both.

Red Sox were not so great last year. They went home, just like the Reds.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 06:40 PM
And to this point exactly Rotoworld is now saying that the Giants will wait until after Dec 1 to make anything official with Aurilia. Reds need to offer Arb I guess.

Most definantly. You don't want to lose a Type A free agent without getting anything in return and if he accepts, there are worse players to have on your bench than Aurillia.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 06:51 PM
Signing a Type A free agent will still cost a team its first-round pick, so the Cubs, for example, will lose their first-round pick to the Nationals for signing Alfonso Soriano.

I don't believe this is true. Can anyone confirm this? If it is true, it means that free agent compensation under the new collective bargaining agreement not only changed for Type B and C players but Type A free agents as well.

Redsland
11-26-2006, 07:32 PM
Keep in mind that the new CBA does not taken effect until next year.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 09:39 PM
Keep in mind that the new CBA does not taken effect until next year.

The old CBA expires on the 19th of December, 2006. The new one will not take effect untill it's ratified by the owners and players. It's just a formality though, (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061024&content_id=1722211&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb) but Free Agent Compensation will occur next season during the Rule IV Draft. We just don't know the new rules yet.

Redsland
11-26-2006, 10:07 PM
Perhaps you mean the Rule 5 draft?

mth123
11-26-2006, 10:37 PM
Perhaps you mean the Rule 5 draft?

Rule IV is correct. Rule IV is the draft of high school and college players that happens in June and is the basis of free agent compensation.

Rule 5 is the draft of unprotected minor leaguers that takes place in December.

I think what the poster was saying is that since the thing will be ratified long before the actual draft that the new rules can be used this year. If he wasn't then I guess I'll suggest that.

Reds Nd2
11-26-2006, 10:59 PM
Perhaps you mean the Rule 5 draft?

The Rule V draft doesn't have anything to do with Free Agent Compensation in the Rule IV draft. The rules for both have changed though.

Redsland
11-27-2006, 09:58 AM
I stand corrected. I was confused because the article you linked to mentioned the Rule 5 draft several times, but did not mention the Rule IV draft.

Reds Nd2
11-27-2006, 07:38 PM
Sorry Redsland. I confuse myself alot of times. I linked to the article because it made mention that the new CBA hadn't been ratified yet.