Offer Arbitration?

[camisadelgolf]

Ramon Hernandez and Arthur Rhodes will be type A free agents this winter. Should the Reds offer them arbitration? If arbitration is accepted, both could be retained on one-year contracts with potentially considerable raises. If arbitration is declined, there's a decent chance the Reds could get draft pick compensation for each player. What would you do? Why?

[Jpup]

Ramon Hernandez and Arthur Rhodes will be type A free agents this winter. Should the Reds offer them arbitration? If arbitration is accepted, both could be retained on one-year contracts with potentially considerable raises. If arbitration is declined, there's a decent chance the Reds could get draft pick compensation for each player. What would you do? Why?

Probably not because they would accept.

[bucksfan2]

Doesn't Ramon have an option in his contract? If you pay the buyout fee I don't think you are allowed to offer arb then.

I want Ramon back. Let him hold down the fort while Mes gets ready in AAA. As for Rhodes I think his time has come. I don't think you can offer arb because it will likely be the best deal he will get.

[camisadelgolf]

Probably not because they would accept.

Would that be so bad? If they accept, each player would be had on one-year, non-guaranteed contracts, which is ideal considering their ages. It's also worth noting that 'non-guaranteed contract' means that either could be cut with the Reds owing them only 30 or 45 days' worth of termination pay, depending on how early they're cut next year.

[camisadelgolf]

Doesn't Ramon have an option in his contract? If you pay the buyout fee I don't think you are allowed to offer arb then.

I want Ramon back. Let him hold down the fort while Mes gets ready in AAA. As for Rhodes I think his time has come. I don't think you can offer arb because it will likely be the best deal he will get.

Hernandez had a vesting option. If he played 120+ games, his contract for 2011 would have been guaranteed. However, he won't reach enough playing time, so he's due to become a free agent.

[OesterPoster]

Just Ramon, IMHO. I think Rhodes can be replaced in-house with other lefties (Joseph/Bray) or signing a cheaper lefty from outside the organization. With the volatile nature of relievers, I just don't see how he can come close to replicating what he did this year.

Ramon, I think is important to have back as a Spanish speaking catcher for Chapman, if he's in the rotation. I'd like to have Mes start out the year in AAA anyway.

[fearofpopvol1]

I would like to keep Ramon...I don't anticipate that Mez will be ready to start at the show next April. So Hernandez is needed.

Rhodes...I'd be concerned he would accept arb at 40. Maybe not though?

[HeatherC1212]

Won't they both just be free agents? I think both of them have been around too long to still be dealing with that arbitration stuff. They just sign new deals now or in Ramon's case, he'll have his option accepted or declined by the Reds or by his PAs. What am I missing here?!

[backbencher]

Hernandez had a vesting option. If he played 120+ games, his contract for 2011 would have been guaranteed. However, he won't reach enough playing time, so he's due to become a free agent.

Is that right? I thought that it was a club option that vested at 120 games (that is, under 120 games, the club has an option; at 120 games, Hernandez's 2011 salary is guaranteed). I could be wrong, though.

I'm voting yes on both. Rhodes has been overused, but the relief market can get pricey. I'd rather the Reds take the risk on overpaying him than go without. If he declines, so be it -- but I think that it is very likely that he accepts.

With Ramon, I buy into the idea that the staff can use a Spanish-speaking catcher, there is no replacement in the organization, and I like the idea of a catching timeshare.

[RedsManRick]

I voted neither. Both are nice guys to have around, but both would likely be overpaid if brought back at an arb salary. Teams have been much more cautious in recent years signing Type A players, particularly those that aren't stars. I don't think the market would be great for either and them accepting arb is a strong likelihood.

[Sea Ray]

Hernandez had a vesting option. If he played 120+ games, his contract for 2011 would have been guaranteed. However, he won't reach enough playing time, so he's due to become a free agent.

I believe the 120 games just makes it mandatory for the Reds to pick it up. I'm sure they can still pick it up at their "option".

The decision on Hernandez pretty much comes down to this: do you want him back at $3.25mill? You sure don't turn that down and offer him arbitration.

To those 11 folks who want to offer him arbitration: why? Do you really think an arbitrator will give him less than $3.25 mill?

[Brutus]

Would that be so bad? If they accept, each player would be had on one-year, non-guaranteed contracts, which is ideal considering their ages. It's also worth noting that 'non-guaranteed contract' means that either could be cut with the Reds owing them only 30 or 45 days' worth of termination pay, depending on how early they're cut next year.

I'm nearly positive this is not accurate. Any contract--any--that is terminated during the season is due the entire amount for the rest of the season. The 30 or 45 days only applies to being cut during spring training. Once any arbitration eligible-player agrees to arbitration, he is considered signed at that point and all the same rights and obligations apply to his contract.

[Sea Ray]

I'm nearly positive this is not accurate. Any contract--any--that is terminated during the season is due the entire amount for the rest of the season. The 30 or 45 days only applies to being cut during spring training. Once any arbitration eligible-player agrees to arbitration, he is considered signed at that point and all the same rights and obligations apply to his contract.

I think you're correct. You have to cut them in Spring Training to get out from paying them for the whole year

[Brutus]

Is that right? I thought that it was a club option that vested at 120 games (that is, under 120 games, the club has an option; at 120 games, Hernandez's 2011 salary is guaranteed). I could be wrong, though.

I'm voting yes on both. Rhodes has been overused, but the relief market can get pricey. I'd rather the Reds take the risk on overpaying him than go without. If he declines, so be it -- but I think that it is very likely that he accepts.

With Ramon, I buy into the idea that the staff can use a Spanish-speaking catcher, there is no replacement in the organization, and I like the idea of a catching timeshare.

That was my understanding of his contract. Vesting options are considered club options by the CBA, so my belief is that when a vesting milestone is not met, the club still has an option to pick up or not pick up the option. I don't think arbitration is a possibility for Hernandez.

[medford]

Rhodes - yes. I think he'd be a type A if he declined and signed elsewhere. If he accepts, he's probably worth it another season. If Chapman goes back to starting, that leaves them w/ Bray and DRH from the left side. Donnie Joseph maybe at the end of the season, but who else from the left side out of the pen? Maloney, maybe, but he doesn't strike me as a loogy. I don't trust DRH a bit. I think Bray will bounce back and be strong as long as his arm allows is. So, yes, I'd like to have Rhodes back 1 more year. If nothing else, I've read a ton about his positive mentoring/example in the pen for all the young guys.

Ramon, yes as well. Mes should get a full (or near full season in AAA), it would only be for 1 more year. Unless the arb price was outragous (the 3.25 mil option, if viable sounds about right in terms of what I'd pay him) why mess w/ the Hernanigan combo that has worked so well.