The argument to keep Avi Garcia

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Threatening him to force him to sign an sub-arbitration contract seems like it would be a violation here.  They can negotiate whatever they want, but I think the threat to release him if he doesn't sign is past that line.

No it's not. Guys sign contracts while arb eligible all the time. If anything you may be doing him a favor by giving him an option to stay. If he doesn't like the offer, he's non tendered, like if they didn't offer him arb or anything.  For all he would know, no other team may offer him what the White Sox offered him. Moustakis got $6.5 million last year. Who is more valuable? 

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

No it's not. Guys sign contracts while arb eligible all the time. If anything you may be doing him a favor by giving him an option to stay. If he doesn't like the offer, he's non tendered, like if they didn't offer him arb or anything.  For all he would know, no other team may offer him what the White Sox offered him. Moustakis got $6.5 million last year. Who is more valuable? 

Do you have any examples of guys who got offered sub-arbitration contracts during this process?  Moose was a free agent, so he was past that point and isn't applicable here. Also he was offered arbitration and turned it down.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Do you have any examples of guys who got offered sub-arbitration contracts during this process?  Moose was a free agent, so he was past that point and isn't applicable here. Also he was offered arbitration and turned it down.

EDIT:  Take that back, in his final year it was actually a qualifying offer, again, he turned down.

[Dick Allen]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

EDIT:  Take that back, in his final year it was actually a qualifying offer, again, he turned down.

You can google avoid arbitration and you will find hundreds. Here is one on the White Sox guys last year. Notice this line:

 

The White Sox haven’t gone to arbitration with a player since 2001, when they did so with relieve Keith Foulke. Garcia and Sanchez can continue negotiating a deal with the team in the coming weeks.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/12/white-sox-avoid-arbitration-with-4-players-still-have-2-unsigned/

 

The fact of the matter is, an arbitration contract is not guaranteed. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

You can google avoid arbitration and you will find hundreds. Here is one on the White Sox guys last year. Notice this line:

 

The White Sox haven’t gone to arbitration with a player since 2001, when they did so with relieve Keith Foulke. Garcia and Sanchez can continue negotiating a deal with the team in the coming weeks.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/12/white-sox-avoid-arbitration-with-4-players-still-have-2-unsigned/

Sub-arbitration numbers though?  Any below that 20% threshold that arb protects the players at?

[Dick Allen]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Sub-arbitration numbers though?  Any below that 20% threshold that arb protects the players at?

So you think it's anti player to negotiate a contract below the 20% if the end result if he didn't agree to it was exactly the same?  Here's a couple of Brewers from last year. Look where it said Vogt most likely avoided a non tender. Where's the grievance?

 

Stephen Vogt had trouble sleeping Thursday night, but it was the good kind of insomnia. 

The kind that comes with agreeing to a new contract.

The veteran catcher agreed to a $3.065 million deal with the Milwaukee Brewers for 2018, avoiding salary arbitration. And, in all likelihood, avoiding being non-tendered a contract. 

The Brewers and reliever Jeremy Jeffress also avoided arbitration Friday by agreeing to a one-year deal with two club options that could keep him in Milwaukee for three more seasons. Jeffress received a $1.7 million salary for 2018 and a $50,000 signing bonus, with club options for $3.175 million in 2019 and $4.3 million in 2020. He can earn an additional $2.2 million in incentives each season for innings pitched and games finished.

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So you think it's anti player to negotiate a contract below the 20% if the end result if he didn't agree to it was exactly the same?  Here's a couple of Brewers from last year. Look where it said Vogt most likely avoided a non tender. Where's the grievance?

 

Stephen Vogt had trouble sleeping Thursday night, but it was the good kind of insomnia. 

The kind that comes with agreeing to a new contract.

The veteran catcher agreed to a $3.065 million deal with the Milwaukee Brewers for 2018, avoiding salary arbitration. And, in all likelihood, avoiding being non-tendered a contract. 

The Brewers and reliever Jeremy Jeffress also avoided arbitration Friday by agreeing to a one-year deal with two club options that could keep him in Milwaukee for three more seasons. Jeffress received a $1.7 million salary for 2018 and a $50,000 signing bonus, with club options for $3.175 million in 2019 and $4.3 million in 2020. He can earn an additional $2.2 million in incentives each season for innings pitched and games finished.

Again, were they more than 20% below the previous contract?

[Chicago White Sox]

19 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Do you have any examples of guys who got offered sub-arbitration contracts during this process?  Moose was a free agent, so he was past that point and isn't applicable here. Also he was offered arbitration and turned it down.

What in the world is a “sub-arbitration” contract?

[Dick Allen]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Again, were they more than 20% below the previous contract?

I have no idea, but what does it matter?  Here's something about Rich Hill and the Red Sox from several years ago. If Avi got non tendered, would you be OK with the Sox re-signing him in February for scraps if he couldn't find a team? I don't see any argument here. If he doesn't like the Sox offer, he gets non tendered. Your way, he gets non tendered. The only difference is offering him a lesser contract gives him at least one more choice. 

 

Finally, the Sox did not tender reliever Rich Hill, who underwent Tommy John surgery last June and isn't expected to be ready until midseason.

The Sox are free to continue negotiating with Hill - and, according to a baseball source, are interested in doing so -- but he is now officially a free agent.

Had the Sox tendered him a deal, he would have been eligible for salary arbitration despite being unable to pitch for at least half the season.

Players who go through the arbitration process are virtually guaranteed to make at least what they made the previous year and the Sox didn't want to run that risk with Hill.

[Dick Allen]

By Tim Dierkes | November 13, 2018 at 3:08pm CDT

More than 200 players are eligible for salary arbitration this offseason, and the deadline to tender each of these players a contract for the 2019 season is November 30th. That also represents the deadline to inform arbitration eligible players whether they will receive a (non-guaranteed) contract, or else become free agents. The two parties will have another roughly two months to work out salaries before arbitration hearings (if necessary) kick off in February.

As we do each year at MLBTR, we’re providing a list of players whose teams could potentially elect not to tender them a contract, thus sending them into the free-agent pool earlier than expected. It should be emphasized that we’re not indicating that each of these players is likely to be non-tendered (though that’s certainly the case with some of them). Typically, we list any player for which we can envision at least atr ar 10-20 percent chance of a non-tender.

It should be noted that many of the borderline non-tender candidates below will be traded this month rather than simply cut loose. Other borderline candidates may be presented with an offer that is notably lower than their projections and could accept the “take it or leave it” ultimatum rather than being non-tendered.

For a full list of each team’s arb-eligible players, you can check out M

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

I have no idea, but what does it matter?  Here's something about Rich Hill and the Red Sox from several years ago. If Avi got non tendered, would you be OK with the Sox re-signing him in February for scraps if he couldn't find a team? I don't see any argument here. If he doesn't like the Sox offer, he gets non tendered. Your way, he gets non tendered. The only difference is offering him a lesser contract gives him at least one more choice. 

 

Finally, the Sox did not tender reliever Rich Hill, who underwent Tommy John surgery last June and isn't expected to be ready until midseason.

The Sox are free to continue negotiating with Hill - and, according to a baseball source, are interested in doing so -- but he is now officially a free agent.

Had the Sox tendered him a deal, he would have been eligible for salary arbitration despite being unable to pitch for at least half the season.

Players who go through the arbitration process are virtually guaranteed to make at least what they made the previous year and the Sox didn't want to run that risk with Hill.

That is actually the entire point.  You either get the arbitration process or a contract that respsects it, or he gets to be a free agent.

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is actually the entire point.  You either get the arbitration process or a contract that respsects it, or he gets to be a free agent.

See above. This argument is OVA!!!!

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[ChiSox59]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is actually the entire point.  You either get the arbitration process or a contract that respsects it, or he gets to be a free agent.

Or the Sox jusy say, "Hey Avi, look dude - your arbitration figure is just too high for us.  We'll offer you $5M for next year, or we're going to non-tender you.  With where the market is right now for a guy with your services, you're going to be hard pressed to exceed that, but we certainly understand if you feel exploring the market is the best opportunity for you." 

Frankly, I don't think the Sox want him at any price.  They're trying to get something for him, and if (when) they fail, he's just going to get non-tendered tomorrow.  

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

See above.

Like who?  It is one thing for MLBtraderumors to write it, but has it been done in practice and vetted?  If it hasn't, that there is probably a pretty good reason for it. 

When you involve labor unions in these types of things, how you negotiate is incredibly important.  If they find you weren't negotiating within the bounds of your contracts, that can cause all kinds of problems for management.   Grievances are filed for exactly these types of negotiations if they feel the integrity of the deals is being violated. 

[Dick Allen]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Like who?  It is one thing for MLBtraderumors to write it, but has it been done in practice and vetted?  If it hasn't, that there is probably a pretty good reason for it. 

When you involve labor unions in these types of things, how you negotiate is incredibly important.  If they find you weren't negotiating within the bounds of your contracts, that can cause all kinds of problems for management.   Grievances are filed for exactly these types of negotiations if they feel the integrity of the deals is being violated. 

Since you wanted examples, can you show me some of these?

Give it a rest. if no one wants to pay a guy his arb figure but he wants to stay with the team. why couldn't he agree to something less? The union would rather have him unemployed? Avi can say no and he is just non tendered which is what would happen if the Sox couldn't negotiate with him. So what exactly is the harm to the player? 

Your argument makes no sense.

[turnin' two]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is it right here.  He has never been healthy.  He has managed to play in 140 games once in his career, while being a year away from free agency.  2012, 2014, and 2018 he was under 100 games played.  With Avi Garcia the one thing he has proven is that he can't be counted on to be healthy.  In my eyes, the ability to used injuries as a crutch is gone, as injuries have proven to be the norm, and NOT the exception.

I think everything else has been well outlined here, but again

-2018 his batting average fell almost 100 points. 

-His OBP fell 99 points. 

-His OPS fell 166 points. 

-His OPS+ fell from 138 to 96, or below major league average.

-While his power went up in 2018 in terms of HRs, his slugging percentage actually fell 68 points.  Matt Davidson and Daniel Palka both put up much better seasons at much lower prices. 

-Even Avi's defense which had actually gotten to nuetral to slightly positive regressed back to negative last year.

Is all of the above worth about $8-10 million?

Even if ALL of this changes, and Avi goes out and plays the best 155 games of his life in 2019, he will be a free agent after the season anyway.  If we decided at that point that we messed up and wanted him back, we could go out and sign him again anyway, just like we would have to if we had signed him to a deal this year.

Yeah.  Without a doubt.  It is one year.  Virtually no risk.  He isn't blocking anyone significant.  If your last scenario plays out, then if Sox are in contention, well great.  If not then they have a valuable trade piece.  The narrative that he has no trade value should have been exorcised by the Martes.  If Avi can preform, even at last years level and be healthy then great they can trade him and get something.  If he isn't healthy or he doesn't preform, it is one year.  The risk is pretty minimal.  Especially if they don't sign the whale free agent.  If they do, well they can always just cut him after and not be on the hook for the entire salary.  

Guys like Juan Lagares, Yonder Alonso , Stephen Piscotty and Jason Castro will be making about 8 million next season.  Avi certainly seems to be a on par with or a better risk to me than guys like those.

[Chicago White Sox]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Like who?  It is one thing for MLBtraderumors to write it, but has it been done in practice and vetted?  If it hasn't, that there is probably a pretty good reason for it. 

When you involve labor unions in these types of things, how you negotiate is incredibly important.  If they find you weren't negotiating within the bounds of your contracts, that can cause all kinds of problems for management.   Grievances are filed for exactly these types of negotiations if they feel the integrity of the deals is being violated. 

How is the Sox offering a take it or leave it offer not player friendly?  Would the player be better off never getting an offer to consider?  Where is a grievance coming from exactly?

At a bare minimum, I’m sure there are examples of injured arb-eligible players who took more than a 20% reduction to stick with their organization.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Since you wanted examples, can you show me some of these?

Give it a rest. if no one wants to pay a guy his arb figure but he wants to stay with the team. why couldn't he agree to something less? The union would rather have him unemployed? Avi can say no and he is just non tendered which is what would happen if the Sox couldn't negotiate with him. So what exactly is the harm to the player? 

Your argument makes no sense.

Kris Bryant and Bryce Harper for two.  Obviously not the same thing related to the process, but the intentional manipulation of the process is exactly what is being talked about here, and it is what they fought.

[turnin' two]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Kris Bryant and Bryce Harper for two.  Obviously not the same thing related to the process, but the intentional manipulation of the process is exactly what is being talked about here, and it is what they fought.

Aren't those things completely different.  Like not even comparable different.  It wouldn't be service time manipulation.  It would be the player agreeing to a contract.  And didn't their "fights" result in nothing?

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Kris Bryant and Bryce Harper for two.  Obviously not the same thing related to the process, but the intentional manipulation of the process is exactly what is being talked about here, and it is what they fought.

They weren't non tender guy. Here's one about a Braves pitcher last year. Notice what his arb was projected at, and what he signed for.  And Bryant's grievance went nowhere fast. 

 

 

 

 

Braves catcher Anthony Recker (left) chats with pitcher Mike Foltynewicz. Recker signed a one-year, $800,000 contract Friday, avoiding arbitration. (Curtis Compton /[email protected])

Braves sign Recker and Rodriguez, make Withrow non-tendered free agent

Dec 02, 2016

By 

• David O'Brien, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• ...
  More

The Braves signed catcher Anthony Recker and left-handed reliever Paco Rodriguez to one-year contracts Friday, avoiding arbitration with each, while reliever Chris Withrow became a non-tendered free agent when he wasn’t offered arbitration.

Recker got an $800,000 contract, and Rodriguez signed for $637,500, each taking less than their projected arbitration salaries.

 

ADVERTISING

n the case of Rodriguez, who missed the 2016 season recovering from elbow surgery, he was projected to get $900,000 through arbitration, and it seemed likely the Braves would’ve non-tendered him rather than go through the arbitration process and potentially pay that much.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

They weren't non tender guy. Here's one about a Braves pitcher last year. Notice what his arb was projected at, and what he signed for. 

 

 

 

 

Braves catcher Anthony Recker (left) chats with pitcher Mike Foltynewicz. Recker signed a one-year, $800,000 contract Friday, avoiding arbitration. (Curtis Compton /[email protected])

Braves sign Recker and Rodriguez, make Withrow non-tendered free agent

Dec 02, 2016

By 

• David O'Brien, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• ...
  More

The Braves signed catcher Anthony Recker and left-handed reliever Paco Rodriguez to one-year contracts Friday, avoiding arbitration with each, while reliever Chris Withrow became a non-tendered free agent when he wasn’t offered arbitration.

Recker got an $800,000 contract, and Rodriguez signed for $637,500, each taking less than their projected arbitration salaries.

 

ADVERTISING

n the case of Rodriguez, who missed the 2016 season recovering from elbow surgery, he was projected to get $900,000 through arbitration, and it seemed likely the Braves would’ve non-tendered him rather than go through the arbitration process and potentially pay that much.

Again, unless it was 20% less than their previous year salary (not the projection), it isn't the same.   

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Again, unless it was 20% less than their previous year salary (not the projection), it isn't the same.   

Your argument makes no sense.  But you can say you won if it makes you feel better. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

Aren't those things completely different.  Like not even comparable different.  It wouldn't be service time manipulation.  It would be the player agreeing to a contract.  And didn't their "fights" result in nothing?

I spelled out the reason.  Manipulation of the process is the issue.  Trying to force someone to take less than what they are technically owed, without allowing them to become a free agent isn't in the spirit of the agreement, just like intentionally keeping someone down ONE more day than the service time allows for to get another year of control is violating the spirit of service time.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

Your argument makes no sense. 

I get that you don't understand as I have explained it multiple times and you still keep coming up with examples that aren't applicable.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

I get that you don't understand as I have explained it multiple times and you still keep coming up with examples that aren't applicable.

Here, straight from MLB.

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/salary-arbitration

 

A player's salary can indeed be reduced in arbitration -- with 20 percent being the maximum amount by which a salary can be cut -- although such instances are rare.