Reds' FA Elias Rankings

[RedsManRick]

I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of whether we can offer arbitration to a player's who option we declined, but anyways... per MLBTradeRumors:

Type A (Compensation: The 1st round pick of team who signs the player (2nd round if in top 1/2 of round 1), Supplemental pick after round 1)
Ramon Hernandez
Arthur Rhodes
Bronson Arroyo

Type B (Compensation: Supplemental pick after round 1)
Orlando Cabrera

None (Compensation: None)
Jim Edmonds
Aaron Harang
Mike Lincoln

I very much doubt a team is going to give up it's pick to sign Rhodes or Hernandez, which makes me suspect we'll bring them back.

[Brutus]

I cannot find a definitive answer to the question of whether we can offer arbitration to a player's who option we declined, but anyways... per MLBTradeRumors:

Type A (Compensation: The 1st round pick of team who signs the player (2nd round if in top 1/2 of round 1), Supplemental pick after round 1)
Ramon Hernandez
Arthur Rhodes
Bronson Arroyo

Type B (Compensation: Supplemental pick after round 1)
Orlando Cabrera

None (Compensation: None)
Jim Edmonds
Aaron Harang
Mike Lincoln

I very much doubt a team is going to give up it's pick to sign Rhodes or Hernandez, which makes me suspect we'll bring them back.

I'm 99% sure you can't offer arbitration to players with a declined option, at least from the club's end. I'm not certain if it's a declined player option.

At least intuitively, it wouldn't seem like they would allow a club to circumvent the option only to turn around and offer arbitration to a player in hopes they'll decline and get a pick.

[RedsManRick]

I'm 99% sure you can't offer arbitration to players with a declined option, at least from the club's end. I'm not certain if it's a declined player option.

At least intuitively, it wouldn't seem like they would allow a club to circumvent the option only to turn around and offer arbitration to a player in hopes they'll decline and get a pick.

I agree that's the common sense assumption. I just can't find it in writing anywhere...

[Brutus]

I agree that's the common sense assumption. I just can't find it in writing anywhere...

I looked at the CBA, and near as I can tell, while it's definitely not as obvious as I wish, I think our hunch is correct.

The draft pick compensation is located under free agency and reservation rights of a club. It spells out the pick compensation, based on players becoming a free agency who:

(1) Eligibility
Following the completion of the term of his Uniform Player’s
Contract, any Player with 6 or more years of Major League service
who has not executed a contract for the next succeeding season shall
be eligible to become a free agent, subject to and in accordance with
the provisions of this Section B.

Now a minor part of the wording for "club option," for instance, spells out that technically those season(s) are covered by the contract:

A “Club Option Year” shall mean a championship season
covered by a Uniform Player’s Contract in which the amount
payable pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Contract becomes due or
guaranteed at the election of the Club or by reason of specified
performance by a Player. Club Option Years shall not be considered
“Guaranteed Years.” In addition, any other championship
season included in a Multi-Year Contract that is not a Guaranteed
Year shall be treated as a Club Option Year.

Because draft pick compensation is listed pursuant to the aforementioned free agent eligibility, it seems this is indicating that because any option is under contract, thereby they wouldn't meet the criteria.

It's not very clear, but it seems this is the case.

[PuffyPig]

I'm pretty sure I have seen teams decline options and offer arbitration.

it's seldolm done, as the person receiving arbitration rights can't have their salary go down more than 20%, and when you factor in the buyout, the player may get more in arbitration than the option price.

I've also seen contracts state that if a team declines an option they can't offer arbitration. That clause would not be required if a team could not do such a thing.

[Brutus]

I'm pretty sure I have seen teams decline options and offer arbitration.

it's seldolm done, as the person receiving arbitration rights can't have their salary go down more than 20%, and when you factor in the buyout, the player may get more in arbitration than the option price.

I've also seen contracts state that if a team declines an option they can't offer arbitration. That clause would not be required if a team could not do such a thing.

It's not that they can't offer arbitration, it's just whether or not a club can receive draft pick compensation for such a player.

[Scrap Irony]

Type A (Compensation: The 1st round pick of team who signs the player (2nd round if in top 1/2 of round 1), Supplemental pick after round 1)
Ramon Hernandez
Arthur Rhodes
Bronson Arroyo

Type B (Compensation: Supplemental pick after round 1)
Orlando Cabrera

I wouldn't mind if the Reds got rid of all four guys, assuming they get the picks. The key, of course, is if they get the picks.

[PuffyPig]

It's not that they can't offer arbitration, it's just whether or not a club can receive draft pick compensation for such a player.

If players have terms written into their contract that the team can't offer arbitration if they decline the option, it follows that the team would be aable to get draft compensation.

Otherwise, why would the player care? Offering arbitration can only hurt a player if the draft comensation decreases his chances of getting signed.

[Brutus]

If players have terms written into their contract that the team can't offer arbitration if they decline the option, it follows that the team would be aable to get draft compensation.

Otherwise, why would the player care? Offering arbitration can only hurt a player if the draft comensation decreases his chances of getting signed.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the player cares. It's about the club.

The purpose of the rule is to compensate for teams that try to re-sign their best players but are unsuccessful. It's supposed to be another way to keep the wealthiest teams from signing all the best players without at least some kind of recourse for doing so.

If you have a player locked into a contract, with the chance to keep them for another season, and decline the option, why should you get compensated a draft pick if they sign elsewhere? That's the entire point of the rule. It has nothing to do with whether the players would gladly accept arbitration, etc.

[mth123]

The Reds can't really afford to decline and offer arb. In the cases of Ramon and Arroyo the likelihood is they would accept for a much larger salary than the option or the open market and the Reds would have to pay the buy out to boot. In Ramon's case it would probably cost $6 Million or so and in Arroyo's somewhere north of $15 Million including the $2 Million buy-out. Rhodes may be an arb offer candidate, but if he accepts expect a salary of over $4 Million. Cabrera would get a buy-out and probably about his salary from 2010. If the Reds want to part ways with these guys, they probably need to decline and forget about arb or compensation.

[PuffyPig]

It has nothing to do with whether or not the player cares. It's about the club.

The purpose of the rule is to compensate for teams that try to re-sign their best players but are unsuccessful. It's supposed to be another way to keep the wealthiest teams from signing all the best players without at least some kind of recourse for doing so.

If you have a player locked into a contract, with the chance to keep them for another season, and decline the option, why should you get compensated a draft pick if they sign elsewhere? That's the entire point of the rule. It has nothing to do with whether the players would gladly accept arbitration, etc.

You miss my point.

I believe that players often put a clause into their contracts that says if the team does not exercise its option, it cannot offer arbitration to the player.

Why would a player put that clause into his contract if it was already a rule that said that a team can't get compensation if it declines an option?

And the only reason why a player would care if a team can offer them arbitraion is that the compensation may scare off teams from giving them an offer. Because being offered arbitration has no other downside to a player.

[Brutus]

You miss my point.

I believe that players often put a clause into their contracts that says if the team does not exercise its option, it cannot offer arbitration to the player.

Why would a player put that clause into his contract if it was already a rule that said that a team can't get compensation if it declines an option?

And the only reason why a player would care if a team can offer them arbitraion is that the compensation may scare off teams from giving them an offer. Because being offered arbitration has no other downside to a player.

OK I see what you're saying. That makes sense.

I was able to find this... perhaps it's allowed after all. From Fangraphs on David Dejesus:

But if DeJesus ends up a Type A free agent, that potentially adds an interesting wrinkle. In a Kansas City Star article from last month discussing DeJesus, several possible courses of action are mentioned, including trading DeJesus, picking up the 2011 option and keeping him, picking up the 2011 option and trading him in the offseason, and declining the option and then offering him arbitration in hopes he would turn it down and sign with another team, thus netting the Royals draft compensation. This last possibility is what interests me here.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...type-a-status/

So perhaps if you've seen it reported being in contracts before, maybe it is in fact allowed.

[camisadelgolf]

It's true that declining an option doesn't prevent you from offering arbitration.

[Brutus]

It's true that declining an option doesn't prevent you from offering arbitration.

Yeah, as I said, that was not the issue. We knew you could still offer arbitration. The only question was whether or not teams could still receive draft compensation if they offered arbitration to a player that they declined an option on.

[REDREAD]

The Reds can't really afford to decline and offer arb. In the cases of Ramon and Arroyo the likelihood is they would accept for a much larger salary than the option or the open market and the Reds would have to pay the buy out to boot. In Ramon's case it would probably cost $6 Million or so and in Arroyo's somewhere north of $15 Million including the $2 Million buy-out. Rhodes may be an arb offer candidate, but if he accepts expect a salary of over $4 Million. Cabrera would get a buy-out and probably about his salary from 2010. If the Reds want to part ways with these guys, they probably need to decline and forget about arb or compensation.

I agree 100%.. The Reds need to decide whether they want Arroyo and Hernadez or not. Going to arb is like playing with fire.

I think compensation draft picks are WAY overrated. It's been proven on a yearly basis that if a smart club wants to spend more money on player development, they can spend it in Latin America or on late round "reach picks" and get 1st round talent.

A club should only offer arbitration to a FA if they want him to accept it in the current market. That's been a correction over the last couple of years. Even the Diamondbacks were too scared to offer Dunn arbitration. After Maddux accepted it from the Braves (when they assumed he would decline), players and the clubs took notice.