PDA

View Full Version : Arbitration starts today!



Mario-Rijo
12-01-2006, 11:49 AM
Today is the day for those who don't know or somehow forgot for teams to offer arbitration to their eligible players. The players then have until Dec. 7th to decide whether they will accept the chance to go to arb. hearings with their perspective teams.

Our Arb eligible players are as follows:

Cin: Rich Aurilia (A), Eddie Guardado (A), *Kent Mercker (B), Scott Schoeneweis (B), David Weathers (A).



Also the new non-tender deadline is Dec. 12th. Here is an article which go's over both situations to some extent.


11/30/2006 9:25 AM ET
Salary arbitration decisions loom large
New CBA offers more flexibility for everyone in negotiations
By Jim Molony / MLB.com

For some free agents and teams, December can feel like it does for last-minute shoppers counting the number of days left until Christmas.
Is time running out to get what they want?

The calendar's 12th month usually means tough calls for both sides, and this December should be no different -- especially with tweaks in the labor agreement which could make for more aggressive shopping than baseball has seen in recent Decembers.

One change begins on Friday, which is the deadline for teams to offer salary arbitration to their players who became free agents. The players have until Dec. 7 to accept or decline. Previously, the deadline to offer was Dec. 7, and players had until Dec. 19 to accept or reject arbitration.

The process will have an impact on the Hot Stove landscape as some of the top names on the market like Tom Glavine, Barry Bonds, Barry Zito, Dave Roberts, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jason Schmidt, Gil Meche and Jeff Suppan will get a clearer picture of the 2007 landscape after the arbitration choices are known.

Unlike previous years, when free agents not offered arbitration couldn't sign with their previous teams before May 1, under the new rules the two sides can continue negotiations and, if a player is re-signed, he would be eligible to play for the team on Opening Day.

Free agents offered arbitration and then signed by another team could potentially cost the signing team a draft choice if the free agent is a Type A. But the Type A pool is smaller this year, as it has been reduced from the top 30 percent at each position (according to the Elias Sports Bureau rankings) to the top 20 percent. And unlike previous years, teams no longer lose a draft choice for signing a Type B (players ranked between 21-40 percent) free agent. Teams losing Type B free agents will receive an extra draft pick next June.

Of course, teams can offer arbitration to top free agents they believe will sign elsewhere to make sure they get that extra draft pick.

Oakland, for example, is expected to offer arbitration to Zito even though it is unlikely the Type A left-hander will return to the A's next season. Suppan, who is being targeted by a number of teams, could receive an arbitration offer from St. Louis. Similarly, free agents like Schmidt (San Francisco), Joe Borowski (Florida), Julio Lugo (Los Angeles) and Roberts (San Diego) are other candidates for arbitration.

In such situations, the risk making an offer, from a team standpoint, is the possibility that a player could accept arbitration, which would then lead to a financial obligation the team wasn't counting on. Since fewer players qualify for Type A and with fewer draft picks attached, it will likely mean fewer arbitration offerings.

The decision on whether to offer arbitration or not can be extremely difficult for general managers.

The Astros would love to have Clemens and Pettitte back for 2007, but Houston GM Tim Purpura hasn't decided whether the club will offer arbitration to either player.

The Astros did not offer arbitration to Clemens last year, opting instead to negotiate a deal that returned the right-hander to the team in June. This time the Astros won't have to wait until May 1 for either player, should they decide not to offer arbitration and then re-sign them.

"We've been up against those dates a couple of times the last few years," Purpura said. "With Carlos and with Roger. We'll have a little more flexibility [with the new CBA rules] than we've had, but it's basically the same with regards to arbitration. You still have to look at it essentially as, 'How much do you want a guy back?'"

The Mets want Glavine back, but so does Atlanta.

Glavine, another Type A free agent, will find out whether the Mets will offer arbitration and the other team pursuing the veteran lefty, the Braves, will know whether bringing Glavine back to Atlanta will cost the club a draft choice next summer. If the Mets offer salary arbitration and Glavine accepts, it means the pitcher will return to New York for 2007 and the Braves will have to look elsewhere for that starter they are seeking.

Braves general manager John Schuerholz still isn't making any public comments about Glavine. During a late Tuesday afternoon phone conversation with MLB.com, he said, "I will not talk about it."

Other free agents of note whose market value could be impacted by whether an arbitration offer is attached include Eric Gagne, Mark Loretta, Cliff Floyd, Mike Lieberthal, Jay Payton, Kenny Lofton, Ted Lilly, Aaron Fultz, Vicente Padilla and Bengie Molina.

Over the next seven days, the offers and answers will help shape the market further and trigger either more deals or a change in direction by teams looking to fill their roster needs. The full free-agent picture will be known when another key date -- Dec. 12, the deadline to offer contracts -- rolls around. Last year the non-tender date was Dec. 20.

[B]By then, the GMs will know exactly who is on the market and who isn't, and just in time for some holiday shopping.

"There's more [flexibility] than we had under the old rules, but the [free agent] also has more time to negotiate with another team," Mets GM Omar Minaya said. "It's better for everybody."

Mario-Rijo
12-01-2006, 11:58 AM
Sorry Gallen I hadn't noticed your thread!

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52897

Mario-Rijo
12-01-2006, 12:01 PM
This is semi-interesting. A Blurb about Aurilia near the bottom, interesting to note that it seems the Giants have already semi-finalized the his signing.




11/30/2006 6:10 PM ET
Arbitration offer unlikely for Bonds
Deadline less restricting for Giants, free-agent slugger
By Barry M. Bloom / MLB.com

The San Francisco Giants aren't expected to offer arbitration to free-agent left fielder Barry Bonds, the second-leading home run hitter in Major League history, sources with knowledge of the negotiations said Thursday.
Under the rules of a new Basic Agreement that has yet to be ratified by the Players Association, the Giants can continue to negotiate with Bonds up to and into the regular season. Bonds filed for free agency immediately after the end of the World Series, and negotiations with the club he has played with for the last 14 seasons have been slow, although Larry Baer, the team's vice president and chief operating officer, has had at least one face-to-face meeting with Jeff Borris, Bonds' agent, in Los Angeles.

All Major League Baseball free-agent arbitration decisions must be determined by 9 p.m. PT Friday. A Giants spokesman declined to confirm or deny the club's position regarding Bonds when reached in San Francisco on Thursday. And Borris said that he would have a comment about the situation once he's officially informed whether his client has been offered arbitration.

Borris continued to say that there has been a lot of discussion about Bonds, who would go into the 2007 season with 734 homers, 21 behind Hank Aaron's Major League-record 755.

"I continue to have dialogue with the Giants, as well as other clubs, on a daily basis," Borris said.

Two weeks ago, Bonds had interest from the Oakland A's and the San Diego Padres, but those negotiations have gone into a holding pattern as free-agent outfielders such as Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee and Juan Pierre have signed with the Cubs, Astros and Dodgers, respectively. Outfielder J.D. Drew, who opted out of his Dodgers contract, is reportedly on the cusp of signing with the Red Sox, while Dave Roberts seems to be destined for the Giants.

Including Bonds, the Giants still have nine unsigned free agents pending from last season's club. They had 11 at the end of the season, but outfielder Moises Alou has already gone to the New York Mets and reliever Mike Stanton to the Cincinnati Reds.

Under the old rules of the Basic Agreement, a team had until Dec. 7 to determine whether to offer a free agent arbitration, and if it didn't, it could no longer negotiate with him. If it did, and the player declined to accept, negotiations could continue until Jan. 8. But once that date passed, the team couldn't negotiate again until May 1 if the player was still on the market.

Under the new rules, the date of offering arbitration has been moved up a week and players have until Dec. 7 to accept. By offering arbitration, a team reserves its right to draft-pick compensation if the player signs elsewhere. The other dates and restrictions have been eliminated.

The Giants are awaiting the arbitration deadline before announcing the free-agent signings of Roberts and Reds infielder Rich Aurilia. Roberts played for new Giants manager Bruce Bochy in San Diego the last two seasons, while Aurilia played shortstop in San Francisco from 1995 to 2003.

Other clubs seem to be waiting for the same deadline before making a serious attempt at signing Bonds, who used the old rules to his advantage in 2001, the last time he was on the market. At the time, the Giants offered arbitration and Bonds accepted. The two sides never went to arbitration, ultimately agreeing on a five-year, $90 million deal, which just ended.

This time, the Giants are not enamored with the prospect of losing a large arbitration award to the 42-year-old Bonds, who earned $18 million last season. In 2006, Bonds shared the team lead with 26 homers, added 77 runs batted in and 74 runs scored and led Major League Baseball with a .454 on-base percentage.

Kc61
12-01-2006, 12:16 PM
I surely hope the Reds offer RA arbitration. He is all but signed with SF and presumably there is a draft choice to be gained.

NJReds
12-01-2006, 12:20 PM
The Phillies, who want Weathers, presumably won't sign him if the Reds offer arbitration...from the Philly Inquirer.


The Phillies haven't made a proposal to righthander David Weathers, but that's expected if Borowski goes elsewhere and Cincinnati doesn't offer Weathers salary arbitration by today's deadline. If the Reds offer Weathers salary arbitration, the Phillies are unlikely to surrender a first-round pick to sign him.

Kc61
12-01-2006, 12:27 PM
The Phillies, who want Weathers, presumably won't sign him if the Reds offer arbitration...from the Philly Inquirer.

I'm a big Weathers fan, but I wouldn't offer him arbitration. I would either sign him today or I would replace him. But he has to be replaced, not just let go. The Reds need another good righty reliever.

For arbitration purposes, I think Aurilia is the big issue. I'll be disappointed if the Reds just let him go. I know he can get a sizeable award after his strong 2006, but I don't think it would ever come to that. He is in demand and somebody will either sign him or give the Reds something for him in a trade.

Heath
12-01-2006, 12:30 PM
I'm a big Weathers fan, but I wouldn't offer him arbitration. I would either sign him today or I would replace him. But he has to be replaced, not just let go. The Reds need another good righty reliever.

For arbitration purposes, I think Aurilia is the big issue. I'll be disappointed if the Reds just let him go. I know he can get a sizeable award after his strong 2006, but I don't think it would ever come to that. He is in demand and somebody will either sign him or give the Reds something for him in a trade.

I think the Giants and the Phillies are in the same boat with Aurilia & Weathers respectively. I'm afraid that if RA gets Arb'd that he's back. And I don't think that's good.

NJReds
12-01-2006, 12:31 PM
More arbitration news...Trot Nixon, who many on RZ likes as a possible option for the Reds, might be offered arbitration by the Red Sox.


Sox: Nixon in '07?
Team may offer him arbitration
By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff | December 1, 2006

In a decision that would lend further credence to the possibility of Manny Ramírez being traded, the Sox are likely to offer salary arbitration to free agent outfielder Trot Nixon by today's deadline, according to a source with ties to the team.

Nixon has fielded feelers from other teams, he has maintained that his first choice was to prolong his career in Boston, one that began when he was drafted in the first round in 1993. If the Sox offer arbitration today -- and one club source cautioned it wasn't definite -- and Nixon accepts by the Dec. 7 deadline, that would make him the equivalent of a signed player for 2007, and probably place him squarely in the team's plans.

Nixon was paid $6.5 million last season and could expect to win a raise in arbitration, which would place him at a salary level unusually high for a spare outfielder. That points to the strong possibility the Sox have other plans for Nixon. A possible scenario: Nixon will share time with Wily Mo Peña in a newly realigned outfield that manager Terry Francona could play in a variety of permutations: The soon-to-be-added J.D. Drew could play right field or center, if Francona chooses to move Coco Crisp to left, which is what Cleveland did in 2005, or Crisp could remain in center with Drew and Nixon/Peña flanking him.

Kc61
12-01-2006, 12:39 PM
I think the Giants and the Phillies are in the same boat with Aurilia & Weathers respectively. I'm afraid that if RA gets Arb'd that he's back. And I don't think that's good.

The FO has to have some backbone here. Just letting RA go for nothing, when you have arbitration rights to him, is a mistake. When a player-in-demand is your property, you use that leverage to get a return. The Reds need to benefit from this situation, not just let this guy go for nothing.

If the Reds offer RA arbitration, it is most likely that he will sign with SF or be traded to some team for a decent player or prospect. And if he actually goes to arbitration, the Reds will pay him and have his bat. It sounds like they will need a bat or two anyway.

It is no disaster to wind up with RA on the team. The disaster is to let him go for nothing.

I feel differently about David Weathers because I don't think he is as "in demand" as RA. So it is more likely he will just wind up in arbitration. And at this point the Reds should get a better reliever if they are to pay major dollars.

flyer85
12-01-2006, 12:45 PM
I surely hope the Reds offer RA arbitration.
it would be sheer stupidity not to. If I was the Reds I'd be more than willing to take him back on a 1 year deal.

BRM
12-01-2006, 12:49 PM
it would be sheer stupidity not to. If I was the Reds I'd be more than willing to take him back on a 1 year deal.

He'd make a fine platoon partner with Hatteberg at 1B.

flyer85
12-01-2006, 12:50 PM
He'd make a fine platoon partner with Hatteberg at 1B.honestly I would expect RA to refuse arbitration if the Reds offer.

BRM
12-01-2006, 12:53 PM
honestly I would expect RA to refuse arbitration if the Reds offer.

Same here.

dunner13
12-01-2006, 12:53 PM
We have to offer both aurilla and weathers arbitration. Aurilla will not accept arbitration anyway because he wants to start and there are at least a couple teams that will make him a starter. In cincy hes nothing more than a part time player with hatteberg, of course that would be great for us but aurilla doesnt want to do that.

Heath
12-01-2006, 01:13 PM
We have to offer both aurilla and weathers arbitration. Aurilla will not accept arbitration anyway because he wants to start and there are at least a couple teams that will make him a starter. In cincy hes nothing more than a part time player with hatteberg, of course that would be great for us but aurilla doesnt want to do that.

And that's exactly why I think RA back in Cincinnati is a bad move and the Giants will ponder if RA's worth the first round pick.

blumj
12-01-2006, 01:24 PM
And that's exactly why I think RA back in Cincinnati is a bad move and the Giants will ponder if RA's worth the first round pick.
Their 1st round pick is protected, isn't it? It would be a 2nd at best, maybe lower if they sign another, higher rated free agent.

Gallen5862
12-01-2006, 01:35 PM
I would definately offer arbitration to Rich Aurilia (A), Scott Schoeneweis (B), David Weathers (A). I would consider offering arbitration to Eddie Guardado and (A), *Kent Mercker (B). Mercker might get interest and at worst we could keep him in the Bullpen. Every day Eddie would probably sign a decent contract.

flyer85
12-01-2006, 01:37 PM
And that's exactly why I think RA back in Cincinnati is a bad move and the Giants will ponder if RA's worth the first round pick.it would be their 2nd round pick, the Reds would also get a comp pick(not from the Gnats)

pedro
12-01-2006, 01:38 PM
The Giants have a history of "punting" 1st round draft picks so I supect that they may be waiting for the deadline for a different reason than hoping the Reds decline arb to Aurilia.

NJReds
12-01-2006, 02:11 PM
The Giants have a history of "punting" 1st round draft picks so I supect that they may be waiting for the deadline for a different reason than hoping the Reds decline arb to Aurilia.

If there are teams interested in bidding for Aurilia that don't want to punt their first rounder, it would make sense for the Giants to wait. Fewer teams interested means a less bargaining leverage for RA.

dfs
12-01-2006, 02:19 PM
One year deal for ....what would Rich get in arbitration?

He'd make some money. That sounds like some serious leverage for him. He may not want to come back here, but if the rumoured 2 year 6 million dollar deal is really all that's on the table for him, he would a fool to turn down arbitration. He had some innings at shortstop and played some secondbasemen. He can claim to the arbitrators to be a middle infielder and nobody can really laugh about it. Then he points to what he did at the plate and the arbitrator will grant him 6 million this year alone. The reds can protest that he did what he did at the plate because the spotted him to minimize exposure to his flaws and the arbitrator will say..."yeah, but this is what he actually did."

I'll be a platoon firstbaseman and be spotted around the infield for an extra 3 million this year sure. By all accounts he and Narron get along. They had a shouting match at the end of the season, but both sides played it down.

I think if the reds offer arbitration, they are in serious danger of having him back.

pedro
12-01-2006, 02:23 PM
If there are teams interested in bidding for Aurilia that don't want to punt their first rounder, it would make sense for the Giants to wait. Fewer teams interested means a less bargaining leverage for RA.

good point.

redsmetz
12-01-2006, 02:24 PM
One year deal for ....what would Rich get in arbitration?

He'd make some money. That sounds like some serious leverage for him. He may not want to come back here, but if the rumoured 2 year 6 million dollar deal is really all that's on the table for him, he would a fool to turn down arbitration. He had some innings at shortstop and played some secondbasemen. He can claim to the arbitrators to be a middle infielder and nobody can really laugh about it. Then he points to what he did at the plate and the arbitrator will grant him 6 million this year alone.

I'll be a platoon firstbaseman and be spotted around the infield for an extra 3 million this year sure. By all accounts he and Narron get along. They had a shouting match at the end of the season, but both sides played it down.

I think if the reds offer arbitration, they are in serious danger of having him back.

I'll respectfully disagree. I think Rich has reached the point in his career where he doesn't have to have top dollar. He wants playing time and he knows he will not get that there. We need to take this bet and if we lose it, it's not disasterous, but I doubt Aurelia is going to accept the arbitration.

(That said, if arbitration is offered, club and player can still negotiate and avoid arbitration, I believe).

Kc61
12-01-2006, 02:27 PM
I'll respectfully disagree. I think Rich has reached the point in his career where he doesn't have to have top dollar. He wants playing time and he knows he will not get that there. We need to take this bet and if we lose it, it's not disasterous, but I doubt Aurelia is going to accept the arbitration.

(That said, if arbitration is offered, club and player can still negotiate and avoid arbitration, I believe).

I don't know what he would get, but the Reds will oppose $6 million and RA risks losing a hearing if he asks for too much. But the point is well taken that the Reds could wind up with a big contract if RA goes to arb.

I just think that RA is on his way to San Francisco and the Reds will be compensated (via draft choice or via trade) if they stick to their guns and make the arbitration offer.

dfs
12-01-2006, 02:49 PM
I'll respectfully disagree. I think Rich has reached the point in his career where he doesn't have to have top dollar. He wants playing time and he knows he will not get that there. We need to take this bet and if we lose it, it's not disasterous, but I doubt Aurelia is going to accept the arbitration.

(That said, if arbitration is offered, club and player can still negotiate and avoid arbitration, I believe).

I don't know what is in Rich A's heart. I agree on the one hand that it isn't like he's gonna be missin meals anytime soon. On the other hand....

Yes if arbitration is offered by both sides they can continue to negotiate, but the player can no longer negotiate with other teams. I believe the choices are...

1 Reds refuse arbitration....Rich A comes back because best deal is here.
2 Reds refuse arbitration....Rich A goes elsewhere. No draft pick.
3 Reds offer arbitration....Rich refuses. Rich A goes elsewhere. Draft pick.
4 Reds offer arbitration....Rich accepts. He is ours for arbitrated price.
5 Reds offer arbitration....Rich accepts. They negotiate a deal without arbitration.

I think 1 or 5 is highly unlikely.
The danger of going for 3 is you end up at 4.


I don't know what he would get, but the Reds will oppose $6 million and RA risks losing a hearing if he asks for too much.
Look at the contracts that have been handed out. Rich A has the ability to go in front of an arbitrator and claim to be a middle infielder that outslugs Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Junior. There is no way an arbitrator will grant him anything less than 6 million. I mean ...Ok he could lose by asking for 23 million, but he'll get at least 6.

TOBTTReds
12-01-2006, 02:59 PM
1 Reds refuse arbitration....Rich A comes back because best deal is here.
2 Reds refuse arbitration....Rich A goes elsewhere. No draft pick.
3 Reds offer arbitration....Rich refuses. Rich A goes elsewhere. Draft pick.
4 Reds offer arbitration....Rich accepts. He is ours for arbitrated price.
5 Reds offer arbitration....Rich accepts. They negotiate a deal without arbitration.

I think 1 or 5 is highly unlikely.
The danger of going for 3 is you end up at 4.


I also feel he won't accept. I think 3, 5, and 2 are most likely. I pray for 3. That would be great. It would also be a steal if we could get the same with Weathers or Eddie (EG aint happening though).

dfs
12-01-2006, 03:04 PM
Nomar 303/367/505
Big Hurt 270/381/545
Rich A 300/349/518

Sure there would be a park adjustment to the raw numbers, but Rich is playing other positions besides first base.

Nomar 9 million a year for two years.
Big Hurt 9 million a year for two years.
Rich A ??? for a year?

No way Rich doesn't get 6 million from an arbitrator.
He could claim Aramis Ramirez or Carlos Lee as comparables. Dudes with 15 million a year multiyear contracts. Moises Alou .....Heck Frank Catalanotto got a 3 year deal worth a total of 14 million for 300/376/439.
That's a terrible comparable with much worse numbers than RichA and he's getting nearly 5 million a year on the open market.

Will M
12-01-2006, 03:17 PM
If the Reds let RA go without getting draft picks I will be annoyed.

If he accpets arbitration the we have our RH 1B partner for Hat.
So what if it is more money than he made last year.
I thought Bobby C was going to spend more. If we can't attract free agents then we can certainly keep our own for a one year deal.

reds44
12-01-2006, 03:20 PM
I'd offer both Weathers and RA arbitration. Both were good for us last year, and as much as i loathe Rich, he kills LHP. RA would decline it I bet, but I am not sure about Weathers.

Danny Serafini
12-01-2006, 03:34 PM
Aurilia is about as safe a bet to decline arbitration as there is. He wants to start, and not have competition for his job. The Reds infield already has four entrenched starters. If the Giants are giving him a starting spot he'll take it over having to fight for at bats here.

mth123
12-01-2006, 08:34 PM
Wonder if Durham signing changes Aurilia situation? Probably not but Giants are also rumored to be trying to sign Feliz and Hillenbrand. Richie could lose out if they all re-sign.

I still think arb could get Richie back, but it would be ok. If it happened, I'd skip the platoon and give Rich most of the ABs at 1B.

BEETTLEBUG
12-01-2006, 09:23 PM
I WOULD ALSO mth123 . HATTY WOULD BE OK OF BENCH OR SEE IF YOU COULD GET SECOND LINE STARTER FOR HIM.

NJReds
12-02-2006, 09:34 AM
More arb news...Nixon was not offered arbitration, contrary to what was reported in Boston yesterday. Foulke was offered arbitration.


No arbitration for Nixon
Red Sox decline, instead offering it only to reliever Foulke
By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff | December 2, 2006

After signaling contrary intentions the day before, the Red Sox last night elected not to offer salary arbitration to outfielder Trot Nixon, who under the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement could still return to the club, but almost certainly at a much reduced price than the $6.5 million he was paid last season.

Of the others, the Sox offered arbitration only to reliever Keith Foulke, who elected free agency after the Sox declined to exercise the option they held on his contract, choosing to pay him a $1.5 million buyout instead. Foulke could have remained with the Sox by exercising a $3.75 million player option, but declined, his agent saying Foulke was hoping to find a team closer to his Arizona home. Foulke has until Thursday to accept the offer of arbitration, which in essence would make him a signed player.

But the Sox don't expect Foulke to accept arbitration after already turning down the option on his contract. By offering arbitration, though, the team can receive a supplemental draft pick after another club signs Foulke, who, like Gonzalez, is a Type B free agent.

The Sox declined arbitration to Nixon (a Type B), catcher Doug Mirabelli, second baseman Mark Loretta, and outfielder Gabe Kapler. Of that group, only Loretta was classified as a Type A free agent, meaning the signing club would have had to surrender their first-round pick to the Sox, who also would have received a supplemental pick sandwiched between the first and second rounds. With Loretta not being offered arbitration, those teams interested in signing him no longer are in jeopardy of losing draft picks, which should accelerate the process of Loretta signing elsewhere.

Among the players offered arbitration by other clubs was the Dodgers' Julio Lugo, in whom the Sox have expressed interest. If Boston signs the free agent shortstop, it would relinquish its first-round draft pick next June to Los Angeles. The Dodgers were prohibited from offering arbitration to outfielder J.D. Drew, whom the Sox are expected to sign, as part of the clause in his contract that allowed him to opt out with three years and $33 million remaining.