PDA

View Full Version : How did the Reds not get a compensatory pick for losing Arthur Rhodes?



Blitz Dorsey
06-07-2011, 12:37 AM
What gives there? Just not a big enough contract? (2-years/$8 million.)

If we didn't even get a draft pick for losing him, not re-signing him was an even bigger mistake than I thought. Then again, he's not having a great year with the Rangers, but I would still love him in the Reds' pen right now. We already have a good pen ... Rhodes would make it great. Bray is really the only reliable lefty. Hopefully Chapman will be. And hopefully Horst will be. But as it stands, we have one reliable lefty in the bullpen. And no one considered Bill Bray "reliable" until this season.

I'm just surprised at seeing who all these teams got compensatory picks for. Some are obvious (like losing Carl Crawford) but there are some very mediocre players that teams lost via free agency and they are being rewarded for not signing said mediocre players by getting very-valuable draft picks. We lose a legit good player who signed a very lucrative deal for a setup man and get jack squat in return? What a joke. MLB should take into account the position the player plays. Losing Rhodes was a big blow and we should have been given some type of compensatory pick. It's ridiculous that there were tons of compensatory picks and the Reds got exactly zero. More genius from Bud and his crew.

And not only do we not get any compensatory picks, it makes the pool of players smaller to pick from once we FINALLY get to pick in the second round. Baseball has made a joke out of this compensatory pick thing.

Griffey012
06-07-2011, 12:41 AM
IIRC we did not offer Rhodes arbitration which is why we did not get a comp pick.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Blitz Dorsey
06-07-2011, 12:47 AM
IIRC we did not offer Rhodes arbitration which is why we did not get a comp pick.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

That must be it. And does that make it a big mistake on the Reds' part in anyone's opinion? I sure would like to either A. Have Rhodes on the roster or B. Have received a compensatory pick tonight for losing him ... a lot more than I like C. Losing him and getting nothing for it.

kg112686
06-07-2011, 12:50 AM
You're right. Walt didn't feel comfortable offering him arbitration and I don't blame him at all for not offering it.

kg112686
06-07-2011, 12:54 AM
That must be it. And does that make it a big mistake on the Reds' part in anyone's opinion? I sure would like to either A. Have Rhodes on the roster or B. Have received a compensatory pick tonight for losing him ... a lot more than I like C. Losing him and getting nothing for it.

Rhodes probably would have accepted the arbitration offer and would have made a lot more than the 2 million he made last year. I would have liked to have him back, but not at that price personally

davereds24
06-07-2011, 12:58 AM
If they resigned Rhodes, Bray wouldn't have been around until Chapman's stuggles and may not have even been kept around in Louisville at all. I'd say everything worked out well other than Chapman not throwing strikes.

WebScorpion
06-07-2011, 01:57 AM
Not to mention Arthur has been pretty bad this season...he started the year with tendinitis in his pitching wrist and it's probably still bothering him: 13 IP, 11 Ks, 7 BBs, 13 Hits, 7 ER, 1 Save, 2 Blown Saves, ERA 4.85, WHIP 1.46. :( He wouldn't have been worth his old salary much less what he would have gotten in arbitration.

PuffyPig
06-07-2011, 12:44 PM
THis was discussed at the time. A lot.

Offering Rhodes arbitration was a huge risk.

He was type A, which means if he was offrered arbitration, the signing team would have to surrender it's first round pick to us.

Which meant his chances of getting $5M+ from us was very good.

Smart move by Walt not to get stuck with that type of contract when the chances of getting a compensation pick was very slim.

Blitz Dorsey
06-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Meh, it just would have been a one-year deal. No risk at all there. It's not like we would've had to match the Rangers' two-year deal.

I like Jocketty, but he messed up there. I would rather have either Rhodes at $4 million for one year or a first-round compensatory draft pick ... instead of getting jack squat for losing him. Bad decision there by Walt. And just because Rhodes is putting up those numbers with the Rangers doesn't mean he would be putting up the same numbers with the Reds. Also, if Rhodes accepted arbitration, we could have traded him. Obviously there was a market for him (hence the contract he signed with the Rangers). Letting him go for nothing was the wrong move. If the Reds would have offered him arbitration, the worst thing that would have happened is the Reds would have been "stuck" with Rhodes for ONE YEAR at $4 million. That wouldn't have hurt the franchise at all. And if Rhodes didn't accept arbitration (in hopes of landing a two-year deal like he did) then we would have gotten a nice draft pick in return. Epic fail.

edabbs44
06-07-2011, 02:56 PM
Epic fail.

Not even close.

Blitz Dorsey
06-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Not even close.

At least you put some solid reasoning behind your opinion. Yeah, getting a good draft pick or being "stuck" with Rhodes for one year would have been awful. Good thing we let him go for nothing.

dougdirt
06-07-2011, 03:04 PM
At least you put some solid reasoning behind your opinion. Yeah, getting a good draft pick or being "stuck" with Rhodes for one year would have been awful. Good thing we let him go for nothing.

Except given his numbers, he might have gotten $5 or $6M.

edabbs44
06-07-2011, 03:08 PM
At least you put some solid reasoning behind your opinion. Yeah, getting a good draft pick or being "stuck" with Rhodes for one year would have been awful. Good thing we let him go for nothing.

Obviously the Reds didn't want to run the risk of paying a 41 year old somewhere btw $3 and $4MM this season. It isn't epic fail, it is called business. And it looks like a fairly good decision.

Here's an article from today:


He started in the big leagues in 1991. That's right, 1991. But now, the 41-year-old lefty who the Rangers brought in this season is starting to show his age and could be reaching an end to a respectable MLB career.



He'll get a few more chances but the Rangers are to the point now where they have to start doubting their trust in Rhodes, and if he doesn't turn it around soon he might be out the door.


http://www.nbcdfw.com/blogs/red-fever/Arthur-Rhodes-May-Be-Nearing-End-123357173.html

PuffyPig
06-07-2011, 03:26 PM
. If the Reds would have offered him arbitration, the worst thing that would have happened is the Reds would have been "stuck" with Rhodes for ONE YEAR at $4 million. That wouldn't have hurt the franchise at all. And if Rhodes didn't accept arbitration (in hopes of landing a two-year deal like he did) then we would have gotten a nice draft pick in return. Epic fail.

Firstly, there is no guarantee he would have gotten $4M, it might have been $6M. Or whatever.

Secondly, the chances of anyone forgoing a first round pick to sign a 41 year old reliever was probably slim, fat and none. Which pretty much guranteed he would accept arbitration.

Good luck trying to move that contract.

Good solid move IMO.

camisadelgolf
06-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Sometimes players aren't offered arbitration out of respect or as a favor. When a type-A or -B free agent declines arbitration, it decreases his value as a free agent.

PuffyPig
06-07-2011, 04:53 PM
Sometimes players aren't offered arbitration out of respect or as a favor. When a type-A or -B free agent declines arbitration, it decreases his value as a free agent.


A yes, B doesn't affect the signing team.

And you are correct, the Reds may have promised Rhodes that they wouldn't offer arbitration as part of the deal when they signed him.

Or they may have simply wanted to thank him for the great years he gave them, and to give him a chance to get a multi-year deal from someone else.

Consdiering we went into the season with Chapman and Bray, there was really zero chance we had any interest in bringing him back. More important places to spend our money.