Printable View
According to reports carried by MLB Trade Rumors -
Shin-Soo Choo filed for $8 MM, Reds countered with $6.75 MM.
Homer Bailey filed for $5.8 MM, Reds countered with $4.75 MM.
Mat Latos filed for $4.7 MM, Reds countered with $4.15 MM.
Mike Leake filed for $3.5 MM, Reds countered with $2.65 MM.
Hearings (not necessarily Reds hearings) scheduled from today through 2/21. Should be interesting to see if the Reds sign any long term, and how they resolve the big gulf with Choo.
Choo = gets a 1 year deal for $7.375M within 2-3 days of his hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kc61
Bailey = 1 year $5.25M
Latos = 1 year $4.4M
Leake = 1 year $3.25M
All these guys gewt a 1 year deal, possibly Latos gets locked up long term but I figured that Walt would've already done that if he could have. JMHO
Choo is a wait and see approach but gets a 1 year deal.
Bailey and Latos will and should get locked up on multi year deals (this is a personal preference as well as something that will get done, mark my word).
Leake will get a one year deal but will not get close to what he wants, more closer to the Reds number.
Quite a few big name arms will be due for an extension or free agency in a couple of years (Verlander, King Felix, Kershaw, Shields). With the TV money going through the roof, those guys are going to sign deals that raise the market for all starting pitchers. I can't see any decent starter who doesn't have to sign sooner signing for anything that looks remotely like a bargain.
When is the last time the Reds went to arbitration with a player instead of settling or working out a deal?
Chris Reitsma in 2004 (the Reds won)
Agree. I see no reason, in particular, that Bailey would sign long term, given his problems in GABP. A move to a more friendly ballpark would significantly upgrade the value of his career/earning potential. Hate to say this b/c there has been/is no bigger Bailey fan in RZ than I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by mth123
The reason I could see is that having a long term deal seals in definite money for Bailey (or any pitcher really) and it's going to be a good amount of money, perhaps not the maximum he might see elsewhere, but it's still significant. Even at something like $30M to $35M over a handful of years. Pitchers arms are known to be potentially fragile - banking that money on an initial multi-year contract is, in fact, "money in the bank." That's not a small consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieRed
Now Bailey wouldn't be the first to gamble he could do better elsewhere over the long term. And he could be right, but all one need do is look at a Brandon Webb who signed a four year deal for $19M plus a team option which they picked up, for a total of $27.5M. He added another $3M from the Rangers and never pitched for them. That's $30M and, hopefully, he invested it well and is set for life. There's the reason someone may choose to lock in "the bird in hand."
Now, I'm not saying he will or he should. Obviously there is risk for the club, again as the Diamondbacks (and other clubs) have learned. Then again, Arizona got a pitcher who won at nearly a .600 clip during that contract and the Cy Young Award winner in one year and one year to the post-season.
Not surprisingly, MLBTraderumor is reporting that the Reds and Leake have settled with a one year deal for $3.06MM.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/0...bitration.html
The threat of arbitration helped Leake enormously. Very nice contract for a ground ball pitcher who allowed 26 homers and had a 4.58 ERA, didn't make the playoff roster, and who allowed five runs in 4.1 innings when called upon in an emergency to pitch Game 4.
I haven't studied the typical contracts for pitchers with Leake's seniority, but he owes the Reds and Reds fans a good season in 2013 if you ask me.