Freel signed to a two year extension

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

If Freel has 2 more years like his last one, he might have gotten close to $7M in his last arbitration year alone, when you consider what those type of guys are getting now adays.

Why take the risk though.. Now the Reds have an almost 3 year commitment to him (this year + extension). Now we have to worry if he gets injuried. That's a huge risk for him.

If we aren't buying out free agent years and we're not likely to save money, why do it?

This doesn't make him any more attractive on the trade market, because it doesn't buy out any free agency years. It makes him less attractive, because of the guaranteed money and injury/performance risk.

I don't mind taking good risks or overpaying to lock up key players, but Freel is not a key player. As I said, he may not even be a starter by the end of the year.

The Reds complain about not having money to get impact players, but tie up a lot of money in bench players and mediocre relievers.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by mth123

Not a big Freel fan, but this is a good deal. As some one said, he's a better player than Juan Pierre and he's making a ton more.

The difference is that Freel was not going to have FA leverage in the next 2 years like Pierre did. It's a different set of rules. It's the same reason that Zito makes more than Harang.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

If we aren't buying out free agent years and we're not likely to save money, why do it?

Beyond the traditional cost-certainty argument (which has validity, given the ever-increasing salaries of major league ballplayers), there's a decent argument to be made that this is an internal PR move from the front office to Freel.

Extending his contract keeps him happy and ready to soldier forward in a less prominant role than he'd otherwise have liked. If the team is set on playing more Hamilton then it will take ABs away from Ryan Freel. Now Freel doesn't have to worry that reduced PT will mean reduced money later when he is entering free agency as a bench player as opposed to a starter.

Plus all that other stuff -- plays 5 positions, gets on base at a .360 clip, brings speed to the lineup, yadda yadda...

[roby]

Originally Posted by redssouth

At least we know where you stand.

My answer is...absolutely, positively, perhaps.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

The difference is that Freel was not going to have FA leverage in the next 2 years like Pierre did. It's a different set of rules. It's the same reason that Zito makes more than Harang.

Yeah but now Contracts like Pierre's and Matthews raise the bar in Arbitration. I think Freel gets more than this in Arbitration even if he loses.